This is a mighty thread, and I haven’t read all of it, but I don’t really need to. There’s the camp that thinks taxes are bad, especially if they go to feed the hungry poor, and the camp that thinks taxes going to the poor are a good thing.
Now I like hanging on to my hard-earned money as much as the next guy, but I’m also cognizant of side effects of welfare programs, because I live next to the country with the biggest economy in the world, and the western civilization that cares the least about its citizens.
All you right-wingers, it’s time to do some research. Take a look at crime rates in your city (or the closest city). Look at murders, car theft, break-ins, total number of convicts and parolees, and insurance rates.
Then compare those to any random city of comparable size in Canada or Europe. Then guess which city belongs to a nation with a more generous welfare state.
Wanna stop living in fear? Wanna get rid of all those ‘bad areas’ in your town? Then stop shitting on your neighbours. Get 'em an education, help them get work, help them get fed, and your economy will actually end up stronger.
That’s bullshit. Now you completely change the wording you originally used in an obvious attempt (albeit unsuccessful) to soften it. But your motives are clear – I fabricated nothing. It was YOU who characterized your tax contribution as enough to “support ten deadbeats doing nothing but watching TV all day.”
Not, 10 single mothers whose husbands abandoned them with 2-3 children to feed, clothe and educate and who isn’t paying court mandated child support.
Not 10 widows who are trying to work part time (based on mandatory work requirements since the 1996 welfare laws were passed) and finish their college degrees so they can afford to support their families without any assistance and without having to work 3 jobs the rest of their lives.
Not 10 disabled people who are physically unable to work.
Not 10 mentally ill people who aren’t able to work.
Not 10 teenage boys or girls who are in State custody because they were removed from physically abusive parents and without assistance they’d be living in the streets and not finishing high school or getting their GED.
No. You characterized your tax contribution as enough to “support ten deadbeats doing nothing but watching TV all day.”
Is it any wonder I can’t take a single thing you say seriously? Or any wonder why I’m eternally grateful that the welfare of our neediest citizens isn’t in the hands of someone who thinks like you do?
When I played Lazar Wolf in a production of Fiddler On The Roof at the Glendal Center Theatre about twenty years ago, I wanted to understand what the story was really about. A book was recommended to me (and the rest of the cast) by the director. As I remeber it was called Life Is With People, and it described in detail the life of people in the shtetls (Jewish villages) of Eastern Europe in the early part of the twentieth century. The book was in limited printing then. I had to go to the Fairfax district of Los Angeles to find a copy. It’s very likely out of print now and I lost my copy in one move or another.
I tried a Google search on the name, but came up with nothing. I may have misremembered the title.
Anyway, the book explained that, able-bodied or not, the schnorrer (beggar) was not an object of either pity or scorn, but a necessary member of the community, because he provided the rest of the community with a repository for its largess. The duty to give alms could only be fulfilled if there were someone to whom to give.
I guess I was suggesting that almsgiving is a duty, even if you are not of that particular community, and that we view the needy with scorn to our own detrement, morally and spiritually. I am neither a Christian nor a Jew, but a secular humanist who happens to think the, in this case, Jewish philosophy regarding charity is a good one.
“Able-bodied” does not necessarily translate to “able to get a job,” no matter what some of the more conservative among Dopers might think. As a society, and as people, I think we owe the weakest among us our support, no more for their sakes than for our own. Individually, we may not be able to do much. But the portion of our taxes that supports those less able I think is well spent. I’d rather support even a deliberate slacker than pay for a single bomb. As it is, our taxes do both. I can live with it.
So we must always assume the worst? That we’re all money-grubbing greedy bastards?
You mean no one paid taxes before the Johnson administration?
Look—I’ve never said I was against taxes totally. I’m not even against some taxes going to help the poor. (Let me repeat that: I’m not even against some taxes going to help the poor.)
But you must understand that for many people, they’re being taxed quite “enough”, and they don’t see a very good return on their forced investment. They probably don’t want to give much more to charity because they think they’ve been bled enough already by the government, and enough is enough. Who knows how their attitude would change if they were not being continually bled? And they see lazy people (yes, LAZY) scamming the system. Yeah, I have a friend that used to suck at the government titty for a while. Oh, she had contempt for the government, but it didn’t stop her from lying about the severity of her disability so she could get welfare for a few years. On the other hand, I have a close family member who is on disability, and in her case, it’s justified. But it’s also screwed up, how they impliment it.
The whole thing’s screwed up. And a lot of people see this, and are fed up.
Well, a stunning lack of cites was an indication.
Oh yes. People are greedy. There is no doubt of that. But did the 9/11 victims as a whole not “deserve” to get help? I don’t think you’re in a position to determine that.
9/11 was a unique, tragic case. And people are being taxed up the wazoo already. If they weren’t being taxed up the wazoo, and if the charities were proactive enough to start “awareness campaigns” to alert people of the need, I think that more donations would come in. Will I ever know that it’ll happen? No, no more than you know it won’t.
Why shouldn’t she live in the house where she and her kids used to live? It wasn’t her fault that her husband and the father of her kids was slaughtered. I think the motivation behind many donations (not yours, obviously) was to allow the victims and families of victims to continue life the way it had been before 9/11. Which means that the people get to keep their houses. Yeah, it does seem weird on one level to help someone live in a house that’s much nicer than the one most of us are currently living in, but on the other hand, the premise (as I understood it) was that the donations would allow people to not have to move, not have to completely turn over their lives. That’s not a terrible thing.
Exactly! Glad we’re finally on the same page.
And a lot of people are protesting the war for that exact reason. So what’s your point, exactly?
And a society where people take care of their citizens through charity is something Jesus would hate?
What? You mean we aren’t going to be paying any more taxes? When did this happen? News to me! (And, I thought the programs were being cut back, not eleminated. Are they being eleminated?)
I agree, a “let them eat cake” attitude is reprhensible. But I see some of the attitude as frustration at being forced to pay into a system that is flawed and lets too many scam artists through the cracks. (Or at least it seems to so many of us, as many of us know someone who has scammed the system.)
As for myself, I don’t mind my tax money going to pay for kid’s lunches. As I’ve stated before. But taxes are excesssive, and I don’t think the taxpayers are getting a good return on their investment.
A minor nitpick here: The New York Times may very well have a balanced slate of columnists. However, the columnists do not write the editorials. They write columns. The editorials are written by (surprisingly enough!) the editor of the paper, or someone he/she appoints. They are not by-lined. They are assumed to be the voice of the newspaper itself.
To put it in practical terms, if the New York Times employed seven clones of Rush Limbaugh to write columns, one would be correct in saying that the columns had a definite right-wing slant. However, if the paper was owned/edited by Michael Moore, it would be correct to say that the editorials purporting to speak with the voice of the paper would have a definite left-wing slant. Don’t confuse the editorial columns with the editorials themselves.
Now, back to the OP: Are there any usage statistics that would bear out the “reduction” (actually a smaller increase than originally planned) in services? For example, if the number of children taking advantage of the free-lunch program was diminishing each year, that would be a valid reason to lower the amount of money budgeted for future years.
I don’t know if this is actually what’s occurring, but it might make sense to get the facts before flying off the handle, on either side of this argument. So far, only zigaretten (I think) has posted actual financial data regarding the programs in question.
One other thing: It might be worth talking with an actual Congressman or Senator regarding how these things work. For instance, a Republican-controlled House might establish a budget showing an increase in the school lunch program of eight percent for 2004. Democrats, knowing that they won’t win the battle, create their own budget plan showing an increase in the school lunch program of 16 percent for 2004. This allows Democrats to go on the warpath during the next election cycle, claiming that the Republicans were slashing the proposed school lunch program funding by 50 percent. The Republicans would counter by saying they’re spending more money on school lunches than ever before. Such maneuverings are done on a regular basis, by both parties.
Both sides are right, after a fashion. It’s called politics.
But you do understand that the “scammers” are in the minority, don’t you? There may seem to be more of them because their stories stick in your mind, but I guarantee you that for every “Welfare queen” there are 1000 people quietly struggling to survive. They don’t draw attention to themselves, and thus, the image of the scammer takes precedence in the public mind. You saw the statistics I posted, didn’t you? You saw how most people use benefits only temporarily. Like most stereotypes, the “welfare queen” image doesn’t hold up under scrutiny.
Just because a minority abuses the system, does that mean the entire program must be scrapped? Why harm the majority who have done nothing wrong in order to punish the few? It’s much like saying because some people drive dangerously, everyone’s license should be revoked.
Honestly, I’d rather support a thousand sammers and prevent one child from going hungry than to cut off benefits to all.
If anything, I would suggest more efforts to find and punish the abusers, but, of course, that would take more money. Also, prosecutors who are swamped with assault, murder, rape and robbery cases would be reulctant to take up the court’s time with such cases. If anything, perhaps these people could be permenantly barred from receiveing any more benefits, except those which directly go to their children.
What do you want cites for? To show that humans will not give to charity in the way you seem to suggest they would in the absence of government programs? I’m sorry. You’re asking for something that simply does not exist.
I don’t see cites from you that back up your claim. But if you really do want to feast your mind, here you go.
I’m not misstating anything, I’m going on exactly what you said, which was: “What do you do? Apparently nothing, if you’re not forced to.” If this was in response to a specific statement, maybe you should have quoted some fucking context, because as it stands, in response to nothing in particular, it looks like you’re blasting him for paying what he’s forced to pay and nothing more. Hopefully you can see how a reasonable person might interpret things this way without actually being “dumber than a bag of rocks,” and maybe you’ll strive for clarity in the future. Given your clarification, we don’t disagree on this point, you festering bag of shit.
You’re a fucking moron. If I characterized my tax contribution as “enough to get 1/100000th of the way to the moon” would you jump up and down about how welfare doesn’t fund NASA? It’s a yardstick, nothing more, nothing less.
If I had happened to notice that I was paying $60k per year in welfare (no, I’m not claiming I do), and I said, “I think that enough money to rent a luxury penthouse for a whole year is a little excessive, don’t you?” I would not actually be implying that the welfare money is being used for luxury apartments.
Likewise, when I say, “enough money for a person to do absolutely nothing to make money and still survive”, all I’m trying to do is point out that that’s a lot of money for me to be giving away. Enough to support a whole person.
No I didn’t. I asked: if I contributed that amount of money, would that be enough? It was a hypothetical situation.
A piece of advice for you: don’t automatically attribute opposing viewpoints to malice. It really affects your judgement.
Just to follow up on this statement. As drpepper indicated earlier, this statement is not true. The amount of money available to a person isn’t really relevant to determining wealth or standard of living. Currencies can become wildly devalued (such as the German Mark after WWI) or inflation can drive prices up thus lowering purchasing power. Thus, availability of material objects and services is the true measure of wealth. Simple example:
John and Jane both know how to make widgets. Working separately they can each produce 10 widgets a day. Working together they are able to make 30 widgets a day due to the benefits of specialization. Their standard of living has improved due to their more efficient widget producing capabilities. Notice that the same effort is being expended to produce a greater yield. Wealth (in the form of a greater availability of widgets) has just been created. No one lost anything in that wealth generation. In essence, our economy isn’t a zero-sum game.
One last thing regarding this:
There isn’t really anything inherent to capitalism that requires some people to be “have-nots”. Certainly there are “have-nots” in every current economic system to some degree but that’s more due to scarcity then to inherent characteristics of the system. We could hypothesize a future world wherein nano-bots replicated basic material goods and food thus ensuring that everyone got nutritional, filling food (albeit with perhaps not quite as much variety as the regular “homegrown” sort of food) and durable, clean, functional clothing (again with perhaps a limited number of styles and colors) and stable, warm prefabricated housing. Such a world would still have “have-nots” but only in the sense that the people of such a future world would understand such things (“I don’t have new-fangled gadget x!”, “I don’t have a private replicator! I have to use a mass public replicator for my food/clothing needs!”, etc.). There is nothing in capitalism that requires “have-nots”.
I, obviously, can only speak for my own personal views, so here goes.
I believe that every hard earned dollar that I make is mine. I have contracted my services to an employer in return for this renumeration. That being said, I know and agree that the government we have consented to live under (albeit tacitly for most of us) does have the authority (under the Sixteenth Amendment) to tax my income for some purposes.
It is my belief that these purposes are listed in the Constitution, specifically under Article 1, Section 8. Further, it is my belief that the wording of this article, the remainder of the Constitution itself (especially Article VI), and The Tenth Amendment make this an exclusive list. That is, that no other powers (excepting those that may be added by a Constitutional Amendment) are held by the Legislature.
Examining this list, I see nothing that may be construed as authorizing social welfare programs (corporate welfare programs either, for those who are interested). Therefore, any such program created by Congressional act is an usurpation of power, and the taking (from me and other taxpayers) of moneis to pay for these programs constiute a theft.
On the personal side of the question, I feel that it is a moral duty to aid those less fortunate than I. However, this is a moral duty of the individual, not of the collective. I happily donate time, money, resources, and effort to various causes, not because I am forced to by the government (though I am through this extra-legal taxation), but because I feel it is my duty to do so. If I had more money (through the lowering of a tax burden) I would donate more to the needy, either more money, more time (as I would have to work less), or some combination of the two.
Another poster has noted the poverty that some experienced in the era preceeding the Johnson Adminstration’s expansion of the welfare state. This, of course, is historical fact, but it does not tell the whole story. This could well be viewed as a failure of the welfare state that FDR created in the wake of the Great Depression. Additionally, there are other times in our past when the less fortunate were cared for and supported adequately by the community. I don’t claim to have all the answers, I’m just presenting some issues to think about.
HTH in looking at the views of (at least this) opponent of the welfare state. Any other questions, just ask.
Let me say at the outset that I support school lunches because I consider them, along with some other benefit programs, a worthwhile investment in our society.
That aside, I have a question about your reasoning here. It seems contradictory to me, but I’m likely just not understanding your meaning. These are the two assertions I’m having difficulty with.
Assertion 1 - The government can not be judged as you would an individual. It is an expression of the collective will of the populace.
Admitedly paraphrased. This was an objection to the “If you support the govt doing X, you must be prepared to do X yourself” argument.
Assertion 2 - People (the populace) as a whole would give little to charity absent a compulsion from the government.
I’ll be honest and say I’m a little unsure of assertion 1. I may be confusing your reply with that of another poster. If I’ve misrepresented your position, you have my apologies.
So in two years the amount of corporate welfare more than doubled? I doubt it.
Anyway, you can feel safe in saying whatever you feel, it’s just there’s no real, conclusive evidence that corporate welfare “far exceeds” social welfare. At the most, it’s about the same. At the most.
This is an extremely complex issue which deserves a thread of its own, but I’ll try to be brief.
Productivity is not wealth creation. It is for * individuals, * but not on the macro level.
Let’s expand on your example. Demand does not necessarily go up because of increaded productivity. Mark, Beth, Kyle and Joe get into the game and are now producing 50 widgets per day. However, the demand for widgets is only 30 per day. That means there are more widgets than customers. Supply and demand dictates that the greater the supply, the lower the price will go. The more widgets, the lower the worth of the widgets. John and Jane are now out of a job.
Wealth has not been created in your example: it has been re-distributed. Consumers are buying the widgets, and thus supplying John and Jane with their income. The wealth has been re-distributed from the customer to John and Jane.
Again, no new wealth has been created, only a new product. But in this new source of wealth, there must be a correlating loss. For example, since everyone is now buying widgets, sales of gloobers have gone down. The GDP has not changed by the creation of this factory.
If I gain, someone must lose. This theory is based on the fact that the resources of the world are finite. The wealth is shifting around constantly, but no new resource is being created. There may be new outlets for exploiting the resources, but they are not creating wealth. They’re only shifting it away from others or the value has changed.
For example, let’s examine if the GDP increases. That means the next year there is more wealth in the country, but there are still the same number of Americans drawing from the pot. The money may have increased but the scramble for the resources is still the same. The nature of capitalism is to use your wealth to increase your wealth. Even if the GDP increases 3.5%, unless everyone’s income increases the same, the money has been inequally distributed. This is the very nature of capitalism.
The fact is, a person earning minimum wage has no ability to use that money to generate more wealth the way a millionaire can by dint of his investments. So, therefore, general increases in the economy are disproptionately given to those who are already wealthy. Hence the zero-sum game.
Is the basis of capitalism not to get more than someone else? How can I gain more without someone else having less as a result?
Think of the wealth of the world as a pie I’ve brought to your party. If I take three pieces, that leaves less for you and the other guests to share. If there are many guests, that means some will only get the crumbs and some will get no pie at all.
And then, finally, those who are in power will try to keep the wealth for themselves. If I am the dictator of the pie, I will take 99% of it, thus leaving very little for others. The more I take for myself, the more I take from others. Hence, the zero-sum game.
The zero sum game does not stipulate that some people must be suffering in poverty, but that there will always be those who have more than others. Poverty in America, for example, is much different than poverty in third-world nations where people are dropping dead in the streets. (Thank our welfare system for this.)
As I just explained, for me to make a lot of money means there must be a person out there who makes considerably less. Let’s say for the sake of simplicity, that the per-capita income is $20. If I make $40, I have just taken away one person’s income from the wealth of the world. If I make $200, I have just consumed the income of 10 people. This is irregardless of the living standard of those on the bottom.
There are not enough high-paying jobs for everyone. Someone must end up in a minimum wage job while others will make so much money they won’t know what to do with it. The rich have taken a bigger slice of the pie, leaving the poor to compete for the crumbs.
Well, enough to be a CPA, if that counts. Perhaps I wasn’t clear enough in my comment: our economy currently includes a number of individuals and entities worth, collectively, billions. A zero sum game implies that a gain by one corresponds to an equivalent loss by another. So, where did all those billions come from? Who’s losing on the other side? The poor? Nah. The answer is no one. My comment was simply meant to point out that the effect of net economic expansion is that, in general, standards of living rise, real incomes rise, and so on; in other words, society in general benefits. In practical terms, that of course won’t include every individual; however, it certainly is not a guarantee that some poor person will automatically lose out, as you seem to imply.
Your $200.00/year CEO postition does not take away 10 $20.00/year janitor positions. They are apples to oranges; Completely different sets of resources and requirements go into the creation and payscale of different jobs.
It is true that you would be making 10 times the per-capita average. It is not true that you have taken away any persons income. That simply isn’t how it works.
The figures may not be the same because different organizations count different programs such as tax breaks wheras others just count direct handouts, but the general consensus is that corporate welfare costs more than programs for the poor.
If the company payroll is only $1000 per year, and we have 50 employees, I have taken a very large chunk of the pie for myself with my $200. It only leaves $800 to be shared among the other 49 employees.
No, I haven’t gone up to the janitor and torn the money from his hands, but with my large salary I have ensured that the company must pay the janitors less, and employ fewer of them, if they want to remain profitable. If they want to hire another CEO, they will have to fire a few other employees in order to come up with their salary.
This is a difficult concept to boil down into simple examples. The complexities involved in a zero-sum game can fill an entire book. It is a mathematical certainty which cannot be argued. If there is a certain ammount of resources available and I take a large chunk, there is less to be shared among others.
Unfortunately, I believe people are basically selfish. For example, corporation heads, if given the choice between complying with environmental law or ignoring it, will ignore it if the cost of compliance is more than the cost of fines and lawsuits. Bad publicity? It’ll go away eventually, or else just paid out of existence (by counteradvertising; I don’t mean bribes) and the company comes out clean.
Another example: people will generally not give to charity if given the financial opportunity to do so; sometimes it’s selfishness, and sometimes laziness, and sometimes because it simply doesn’t occur to them to do so. If the government did absolutely nothing to help the needy, there would simply be more needy, and more death. No one, and I mean NO ONE, will pick up the slack. Me? Do something? Nah, not today, but I’m sure the next guy will. And so on and so forth.
And a society where people take care of their citizens through charity is something Jesus would hate?