Americans don't support strong programs to help the needy because they believe they help "Ratchet People"

[IM2]

Sure, some whites are, but that doesn't mean all are, just like it doesn't mean all blacks are either.

I'm all for ending welfare of both types, with a few exceptions involving people who truly can't support themselves (like with orphanages and such).

I was a social worker for 30 years. Stop believing the evil rhetoric from Republicans who want to cut things for people who are poor while giving tax breaks to the very rich. 99 percent of the people who are on welfare need it, nd the average stay is less than 2 years. There is no dependency on welfare for the poor. But the rich depend on corporate welfare and pay lobbyists to make certain they get their handouts.

 

[Midnight FM]

I'm concerned about both. This thread is specifically about welfare, which is why my posts were about that. I respond to threads about war and banks as well.

I do lean anarcho-capitalist to an extent, so I don't particularly care for taxation in general, but I'd just like to limit taxes and spending overall. The more the government spends, the less value my money has. Inflation itself drives a lot of poverty as well.

The reality is that, even in an anarchy, a de facto "government" exists. Even if there are no formal written laws, there will be individuals and groups forcing their will on others (and likely in a far-more totalitarian way than would exist under our contemporary rights and laws), and there will be distribution of resources.

And even if laws exist which protect property rights, those laws require government (and therefore taxation) in order to be enforced. Simply yelling or typing "taxation is theft" is an example of using force to attempt to assert one's rights, and a person in a North Korean gulag could attempt to enforce their rights all they want by yelling that what the state is doing is wrong. And, even if it objectively was, yelling would do little to prevent the state from doing what it will.

 

[Monoculturalist]

I was a social worker for 30 years. Stop believing the evil rhetoric from Republicans who want to cut things for people who are poor while giving tax breaks to the very rich. 99 percent of the people who are on welfare need it, nd the average stay is less than 2 years. There is no dependency on welfare for the poor. But the rich depend on corporate welfare and pay lobbyists to make certain they get their handouts.

Tax breaks for the very rich are pretty much a given when the very rich are the ones writing the laws. A lot of Republican tax policy is about giving breaks to small business owners and the middle class. Both parties engage in breaks for the elite.

99%? Yeah, you and I have a different definition of "needing". No dependency? What a joke...

I'll agree with you on the lobbyists and corporate welfare though.

 

[Monoculturalist]

The reality is that, even in an anarchy, a de facto "government" exists. Even if there are no formal written laws, there will be individuals and groups forcing their will on others (and likely in a far-more totalitarian way than would exist under our contemporary rights and laws), and there will be distribution of resources.

And even if laws exist which protect property rights, those laws require government (and therefore taxation) in order to be enforced. Simply yelling or typing "taxation is theft" is an example of using force to attempt to assert one's rights, and a person in a North Korean gulag could attempt to enforce their rights all they want by yelling that what the state is doing is wrong. And, even if it objectively was, yelling would do little to prevent the state from doing what it will.

Minarchism is probably the smallest state that's feasible in most cultures, so I'm not saying that anarcho-capitalism is viable overall. I see it more as an ideal.

What we currently have is a vastly bloated government that is unsustainable.

 

[The Sage of Main Street]

The mindset you're referring to is stupid. Helping the needy should take priority over worrying whether or not someone will take advantage of the system. Just as how the law should prioritize preventing innocent people from being wrongfully convicted over worrying about whether a guilty person will occasionally escape legal justice (and the idea that merely escaping legal justice, means that a person won't have to worry about society's wrath isn't true to begin with, such as in the case of Casey Anthony).

What Is Turned Loose Goosesteps

Do the math. For every guilty person acquitted, dozens of innocent people become victims of his next crimes.

 

[The Sage of Main Street]

The Constitution protects such coercion. You're going to be coerced into funding something whether you like it or not. Whether it be billion dollar corporate subsidies and military expenditures, or the well-being of poor people. So prioritizing the well-being of the poor should take priority over the former.


Society as a whole isn't affected by whether or not a minority of people become "dependent", something which is rather subjective to begin with. They should be more concerned about banks becoming "dependent" on taxpayer subsidies.

Society already "depends" on many subsidized institutions, such as fire and police departments. I rarely see anyone object to such things, but when poor people are on the line, I tend to hear a lot of griping and whining by people who favor emotion over reason.


Right, and if you want a war to be fought, no one is forcing you not to higher your own private military contractors. Or if you need police protection, no one is stopping you from hiring your own security guards.

Holding up a Light for the Loafers

Do-gooders' love for irresponsible people shows their contempt for responsible doers.

 

[Midnight FM]

What Is Turned Loose Goosesteps

Do the math. For every guilty person acquitted, dozens of innocent people become victims of his next crimes.

Statistically, that isn't true. And in this particular case, "innocent people" do not become victims of individuals who game the system. They become victims of themselves, if anything.

Holding up a Light for the Loafers

Do-gooders' love for irresponsible people shows their contempt for responsible doers.

Assuming "responsible people" even exist, the reality is that everyone makes some use of taxpayer-funded services, and whether or not the services in question aid a modicum of "irresponsible people" has no bearing on whether or not they aid people who are in need.