A dem's view of the welfare system=rant.

[Hallen]

It's easy to get mad at the people who abuse the system but I wonder if anyone ever asks 2 important questions- #1. Who profits from welfare? #2. Who really funds it?

The rich profit from it (because they own the industries that the poor consume from) so it isn't too often that you hear a rich person complain about the system. Secondly, after reading that passage about the beer drinkers, I would have to say that the rich funds most of the system also.

Those of us in the working middle class have a smaller take-home percentage every year but I'm sure that the 10% to 16% that the rich pay would have to be significantly more than the 26% to 34% that the working middle class pays. Apparently the rich are paying their "fair share" and then some.. even if they are getting a break.

If they really wanted to fix the welfare system, they would have done it already.

Hmmm, my perspective is a bit different.

1) Who profits from Welfare?
Mostly... the politicians. There are a lot of people out there on the dole and they all vote. Therefore, politicians will keep the welfare rolls full because those are guaranteed votes. Secondly, it is the nature of government to want to grow and control. Some of this is intended in a good way, but unfortunately, it usually does not turn out that way. Government does not shrink. Once something is put into law, and society starts to depend on it, like welfare, then there is job security for the people who work for the government, and the government has more control over you. Simple.

Secondly, a lot of people benefit from it because it assuages their guilt for having money when others don't. I personally can't see how they could possibly feel like that, unless it is daddy's money and not money they have earned themselves. But still, there are a lot of people out there who think that it is good that they are punished for making money lest they forget the less fortunate. They of course don't realize how the welfare system perpetuates the poor condition of a lot of people, but oh, well.

2) Everybody who pays taxes pays for it. Anybody who earns a buck here gets to pay their fair share of the welfare burden.

The poor consume very, very little. Why? Because they are poor. Nobody gets rich selling stuff to poor people (lets not get into illegal drug trafficking, that is a completely different argument). The rich don't complain about the system much because 1) They would be ridiculed and then made to pay more, and 2) Because it is not worth their time to worry about it because they can't change the system either. (see 1 above)

Think if you were allowed to keep all the tax money that goes to welfare type programs. Would you have more disposable money to spend? Would you buy more trick E30 parts for your car? Would that allow more people to earn money selling E30 parts? Would that drive the need for more people to make said parts? Would there then be fewer poor people? Well, in theory yes, there would be fewer poor people. However, unfortunately, a good number of poor people are poor because they are either lazy, stupid, or both. But the point is, you money is being taken from you and given to somebody who probably does not deserve to have it. My argument is that your money is better off with you and it would probably do more good that way too. More rich people means more money given to charities, more "foundations" left after they are dead, etc, etc. It's all good. Another way of looking at it is if you kept all that money and saved every dime of it, by the time you retire, do you really think you would need social security, medicare and medicaid or any money from the government? Probably not. That concept scares a lot of politicians and government workers.

And lastly, the rich don't get a break. They do have ways of "hiding" money and other trick things that do help to reduce their tax burdens, but one of the biggest things they do to reduce their tax burden is to give to charity. So in the end, maybe they are paying 16% of their earnings, but they have given more than that in charity and taxes. Just look at F1 drivers and other European sports starts, they all live in Monaco. Why? Because they can keep more of the money they have earned that way. If they keep living in Europe, they would lose a huge percentage of their income so they choose to move. Do you really want the "rich" here to do he same thing? And don't forget, Corporations are considered an "entity" like a person when it comes to taxes. Corporations make big money and they pay huge taxes and they pay we working guys a lot of money too. "The rich" in this country is really misunderstood by most of the "poor". They don't want the poor to stay poor. That's silly. Scarce resources are always a problem, but keeping poor people poor does not grant the rich more money. In fact, it probably gets them less money in the long run.

[Jand3rson]

I didn't really read this whole thread, but I can relate to DSP's initial post. My wife runs her own daycare business, and is part of a local network that gets her ALL KINDS of state grants and money for her business. This year, she got $1000 scott-free for purchasing anything she needs for her business, like yard toys, high chairs, dishes and utensils, anything that can be used for her business. And she gets another $1k this November. She also just recently enrolled her business in the USDA food program, which sends her a reimbursement check at the end of every month for all the food she feeds the 4 kids during the month, based on an average-scale of costs. It pays for all the food she uses during the month, and even more sometimes, it's great for her.

Now we're by no means hurting for money, certainly not for food. And while we don't "need" the money she's getting for the kid's food, it certainly helps in a big way with our budget. And the money she's getting isn't welfare, it's not like it's being wasted on us when it could be going to starving families, it's funded by the state through the USDA, specifically for childcare services. Even all the big super-expensive daycare places use it. If they're going to pay for such a major aspect of your business, why wouldn't you do it?

But I see the same thing, we sometimes go to Food-4-Less (regular grocery store, you just bag it yourself) or the Grocery Outlet, and I see these families with 4-5 kids, all in nice clothes as well as the parents, buying $300 worth of food that they actually only end up paying $25 out of pocket for, using Oregon Trail (foodstamp) cards, and loading it all into a brand-new Yukon or something, and it drives me up the fucking wall. I make good money, and make too WAY too much for that program (I didn't apply, just checked it out for facts for this reply), not to mention WAY too much for the Oregon Health Plan (state funded low-income insurance), yet these people are somehow finding ways to clearly exploit a system intended for families that actually need it.

[Raxe]

I don't have any problem with the idea of welfare, I have a problem with the way it is being managed by the government. If they would do a background check on the applicant and be more careful with who is getting the money, it would be a great thing. I have known single mothers too who are in their early twenties, ready to start a family and had a bright future and suddenly their fiance ditches them, pregnant, and leaves them to fend on their own. Those people do need assistance. It's the drug dealers and frauds that don't.

Heck, it might be better if they privatize welfare.. government contract kind of deal.. maybe?

[trashcop 80s 80s]

Taxes are still paying for the food reimbursement program for her day-care. It would be better if there were no reimbursements, and she charged more for her services to compensate, which would lead to the parents needing to work harder/smarter to make up the few extra dollars increase in day-care prices. It would work out better without relying on gov't aid, and increasing overall taxes. But once a program is put in place, it takes much more effort to remove it that it does to create it.
The more social programs we create and the more taxes we have to give up guarantees an increase in both. It never stops.

Notice a trend? The government has went from taxing and spending about 10% of our money to about 30% over the last 80 years. I personally believe every fucking social program should be abolished and let the private sector take care of itself. If you want a service, work to pay for it, or die bitches.

[h0lmes]

Oh man you sure know how to tell the old ladies off. What a serious badass.

[trashcop 80s 80s]

Oh man you sure know how to tell the old ladies off. What a serious badass.

Instead of forcing everyone to pay into social security for those old ladies, why don't we just force everyone to pay into their own privatized retirement fund? There would be a much higher rate of return and old grandma would be living it up instead of living near poverty off of an inefficient SS gov't handout. Private companies want to make money, so they try to be as efficient as possible which means your going to end up better overall, gov't programs could care less about efficiency because the money comes in regardless = failure.

[Vedubin01]

trashcop, Im with ya.


Heres another one for ya. My family gets a subsidy not to farm on our land. All we have to do is have a percentage of it bush hogged every year, and they wire money into the account. I meet with them tomorrow in regards to this very issue. Its a way to regulate the price of corn, beans, cotton, etc. If everyone did it the price would fall to peanuts (no pun intended) So they pay people not to farm to keep the big farmers alive.

[2Big4a3Series]

"The rich" in this country is really misunderstood by most of the "poor". They don't want the poor to stay poor. That's silly. Scarce resources are always a problem, but keeping poor people poor does not grant the rich more money.

I beg to differ. I think it would be advantagous to a rich person for someone poor to remain in their current state. I think about how if I owned Section 8 rental properties, I wouldn't want my tenants to become home owners. In fact it would be financially beneficial if the children of my tenants grew up to be Section 8 recipients also. That way it establishes a self-perpetuating way of life and it helps me build my wealth.

I'd rather own all of the Section 8 properties in my community than to compete with other landlords. If keeping the poor people comfortable and complacent is what it takes to keep them from competing with me in the open market, then I would have to say that they can have my tax money to buy whatever they want. I am going to get it back anyhow.

[delatlanta1281]

OP
I wonder if the people from the first post help the homless or run a govt funded day care.

[Ray McCooney]

Welfare generally breeds laziness, it needs to be abolished or severely re-written. Its a system thats way to easy to abuse. Luckily some of us still have that old school honor and would rather suffer a little in exchange for the right to say we made it 100% on our own with out the states handouts.

Could not have said it any better myself Rob. Kind of rekindles that conversation we were having the last time I was at the garage concerning personal responsibility/accountability with respect to the mortgage/housing crisis. Spot on man.

[Hallen]

I didn't really read this whole thread, but I can relate to DSP's initial post. My wife runs her own daycare business, and is part of a local network that gets her ALL KINDS of state grants and money for her business. This year, she got $1000 scott-free for purchasing anything she needs for her business, like yard toys, high chairs, dishes and utensils, anything that can be used for her business. And she gets another $1k this November. She also just recently enrolled her business in the USDA food program, which sends her a reimbursement check at the end of every month for all the food she feeds the 4 kids during the month, based on an average-scale of costs. It pays for all the food she uses during the month, and even more sometimes, it's great for her.

Now we're by no means hurting for money, certainly not for food. And while we don't "need" the money she's getting for the kid's food, it certainly helps in a big way with our budget. And the money she's getting isn't welfare, it's not like it's being wasted on us when it could be going to starving families, it's funded by the state through the USDA, specifically for childcare services. Even all the big super-expensive daycare places use it. If they're going to pay for such a major aspect of your business, why wouldn't you do it?

It is one of the programs that has a bit more of a purpose. It isn't in place to help you; it is in place to help working families afford care for their kids. Daycare costs can be a huge part of a young working family's budget. The food subsidies and other things you get is done so that you can keep the prices lower than you normally would have to charge for your service. That means more families can afford to do day care while they go to school or work... in other words so they can be productive. I don't have nearly as much of a problem with this kind of thing. It could be more tightly controlled for sure and I am sure there is waste, but the overall intent is better than most programs.

[Hallen]

I beg to differ. I think it would be advantagous to a rich person for someone poor to remain in their current state. I think about how if I owned Section 8 rental properties, I wouldn't want my tenants to become home owners. In fact it would be financially beneficial if the children of my tenants grew up to be Section 8 recipients also. That way it establishes a self-perpetuating way of life and it helps me build my wealth.

I'd rather own all of the Section 8 properties in my community than to compete with other landlords. If keeping the poor people comfortable and complacent is what it takes to keep them from competing with me in the open market, then I would have to say that they can have my tax money to buy whatever they want. I am going to get it back anyhow.

To a degree you are right. There are unscrupulous and unethical people out there who are perfectly happy keeping the poor that way because they do make money off of it. But I think that is mostly a function of the government programs that allow these people to make money off of the poor. They perpetuate the state of poor people through working to have the government continue these welfare programs. And honestly, if I had an apartment block, I would not ever accept section 8 tenants. I suspect that it is a lot more hassle for the money than a nice clean complex with respectable people would be. It is all in how much you can or are willing to invest.

There is also the scarcity of goods thing. If I am rich where most people are poor, then it is easy for me to get all that I want. However, if few people are poor, most are financially stable and more are rich, then it is harder for me to get everything that I want because there is more competition for scarce resources. This in turn drives up prices and all of a sudden, I am not really rich anymore. However, that is a market reaction thing and not something that most rich people are going to try to actively control.

[scabzzzz]

Cut off the welfare system and see how fucked up america gets. Hello Russia!

[Turf1600]

Cut off the welfare system and see how fucked up america gets. Hello Russia!

I'm willing to bet you people would find a way to work pretty quickly.

[DSP74]

To work? Work where? Where I'm from if you lose your job you collect unemployment until it runs out then your fucked. There are no jobs. And there sure as hell are no jobs that will maintain a decent living........I've been lucky so far. But I don't see how some others can/will make ends meet.