Jump to content

Welfare should be elmiinated


Argus

Recommended Posts

Pliny

I don't know... Somalia and Liberia... countries like that seemed to be pretty free of bureaucracy in the recent past...

Hardly. Libertarian means understanding that force is not initiated against another and the sanctity of person and property is paramount. Those are pirate nations with roving bands of guerillas and thugs.

Having said that. Should Somalia and Liberia be subject to western "nation building". I would say no. The people have to create the society they wish to live in. It is the way they currently live and it won't change until they realize themselves that they no longer wish to live that way. They are probably much too violent for western culture.

Libertarianism's entirety is not about the absence of bureaucracy. Bureaucracy is deemed to be, for the most part, unnecessary when criminality and justice prevail. I am not an anarchist and those mandates are perhaps legitimate ones of government.

Tying American prosperity to the social safety net, pro or can, probably requires its own thread.

The US has relatively lower taxes and less regulation than a lot of the G7 did in the last 1/2 of the 20th century, so....

They have always had lower taxes and less regulation than all other countries. The taxes and regulation have gotten, on average, continually higher over the last 1/2 century.

Crime rates have dropped, general prosperity has increased as has the general well being. Society has done quite well over the past 1/2 century.

So, no complaints?

I am of the opinion that we have gone downhill as a society over the past 1/2 century.

Literacy rates are down while education costs are up, waiting periods in health care mean skyrocketing costs there, and I would question whether crime rates are down. Violent crime is definitely up last time I looked, and I think people don't bother reporting petty crimes as much as they did due to a seeming lack of interest in getting a response from the police. The global economy has grown increasingly unstable.

Fantasy or reality? The fact is though that things can improve if we are a little lessreliant upon government,cut the cord and start looking after ourselves.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Replies 288
  • Created
  • Last Reply

Top Posters In This Topic

Pliny

Hardly. Libertarian means understanding that force is not initiated against another and the sanctity of person and property is paramount. Those are pirate nations with roving bands of guerillas and thugs.

Having said that. Should Somalia and Liberia be subject to western "nation building". I would say no. The people have to create the society they wish to live in. It is the way they currently live and it won't change until they realize themselves that they no longer wish to live that way. They are probably much too violent for western culture.

Libertarianism's entirety is not about the absence of bureaucracy. Bureaucracy is deemed to be, for the most part, unnecessary when criminality and justice prevail. I am not an anarchist and those mandates are perhaps legitimate ones of government.

Aha, so Libertarians use the same mantras as communists, then: it hasn't been tried

The US has relatively lower taxes and less regulation than a lot of the G7 did in the last 1/2 of the 20th century, so....

They have always had lower taxes and less regulation than all other countries. The taxes and regulation have gotten, on average, continually higher over the last 1/2 century.

Ok.

So, no complaints?

To the contrary, I have many complaints. To my mind, the success we've had depended on economic and technological improvements, that were rolled out into a society that was well informed and invested in the idea of a just society.

Things are actually better now, though people don't think so.

I am of the opinion that we have gone downhill as a society over the past 1/2 century.

Literacy rates are down while education costs are up, waiting periods in health care mean skyrocketing costs there, and I would question whether crime rates are down. Violent crime is definitely up last time I looked, and I think people don't bother reporting petty crimes as much as they did due to a seeming lack of interest in getting a response from the police. The global economy has grown increasingly unstable.

Fantasy or reality? The fact is though that things can improve if we are a little lessreliant upon government,cut the cord and start looking after ourselves.

Literacy rates are down ? Maybe but are they down or just fluctuating ? They're at 99 percent in Canada so is this a concern ?

Education and health costs are up for individuals, but are they higher for governments ? And what level of education are we speaking of.

Health costs are increasing, and wait times are increasing or decreasing depending on whom you speak to. I would say that the public needs to be engaged in managing the government, so as to ensure that performance tracking happens consistently.

Violent crime fluctuates as well. I don't think there's a general trend for the worse there.

Why have we been successful ? For many reasons, but let's look at our main competition over the last 50 years: the Soviet bloc. They failed because, in my opinion, they had a closed society that was monolithic and unable to adapt. Our society adopted the best parts of socialism while theirs stagnated.

What do you think ?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Pliny

Aha, so Libertarians use the same mantras as communists, then: it hasn't been tried

Except in the US which was successful at one time but grows increasingly statist.

You aren't entirely incorrect, as some Libertarians are anarchists, and that, to my knowledge, hasn't been tried. I am not an advocate of anarchy.

Anarchy would be a static unchanging ideal, the dichotomy of the totalitarian state, which would be similarly static. They are absolutes and undesirable conditions.

To the contrary, I have many complaints. To my mind, the success we've had depended on economic and technological improvements, that were rolled out into a society that was well informed and invested in the idea of a just society.

Things are actually better now, though people don't think so.

They seem rather unstable to me and this instability instills apprehension and fear in society.

In my opinion, one of the most important factors for the individual in his life is having the ability to feel confident in himself and his ability to overcome the adversities in his life and to create a future. A societal neurosis sets in when he loses, to a greater extent, his ability to predict his future. It is perhaps not great to entirely predict one's future as life would be quite boring but he must have a certainty that there will be a future and he has some control over his destiny. The ability of the individual is decreasing as the State takes more and more responsibility. A person can reason with other people in society but he cannot reason with the State. The State is not about reason it is about force - to paraphrase George Washington.

Literacy rates are down ? Maybe but are they down or just fluctuating ? They're at 99 percent in Canada so is this a concern ?

Recently, on the radio I heard that 50% of graduating students were functionally illiterate.

Whether these statistics,and your following statements are true or not, there is a concern in society about them. There is an increasing fear of inability to discern what is PR and propaganda and what is truth. Interests will always promote their view as valid and truthful.

Education and health costs are up for individuals, but are they higher for governments ? And what level of education are we speaking of.

Health costs are increasing, and wait times are increasing or decreasing depending on whom you speak to. I would say that the public needs to be engaged in managing the government, so as to ensure that performance tracking happens consistently.

Violent crime fluctuates as well. I don't think there's a general trend for the worse there.

Why have we been successful ? For many reasons, but let's look at our main competition over the last 50 years: the Soviet bloc. They failed because, in my opinion, they had a closed society that was monolithic and unable to adapt. Our society adopted the best parts of socialism while theirs stagnated.

What do you think ?

You have just said what I have stated. The Soviet bloc was a closed society that was monolithic and unable to adapt - I said it is an ideal and thus an absolute that is static, meaning unchanging.

My definition of socialism is that it is a progression towards increased statism. So there are no good and bad parts of socialism as it relates to government. If it is understood that socialism is a progression, especially in a democracy where the voter can vote himself privilege, statist totalitarianism is the inevitable end but then again that is the achievement of the ideal and is thus neither desirable nor stable. My entire point is that if socialism were understood to be a progression and a means and not an ideal or end, and thus an absolute such as totalitarianism or anarchy, we could then understand why limits must be placed upon government and we can avoid going through the yo-yo cycle that civilizations tend to experience and perhaps enjoy a stable civilization without political interests bending it to it's interests.

Socialism, as an end, in other words, a total state must entirely control it's inner workings and structure for continuity and strength in numbers to achieve its purpose and goals. If it is, as relates to government, to be stable and strong it must envelope all of society and the goals of government, that of control and regulation, must become the goals of society and I see this reflected in the individual today on both sides of the political spectrum.

I don't have more time this morning so have to be off. It's another glorious day!

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Pliny

They seem rather unstable to me and this instability instills apprehension and fear in society.

In my opinion, one of the most important factors for the individual in his life is having the ability to feel confident in himself and his ability to overcome the adversities in his life and to create a future. A societal neurosis sets in when he loses, to a greater extent, his ability to predict his future. It is perhaps not great to entirely predict one's future as life would be quite boring but he must have a certainty that there will be a future and he has some control over his destiny. The ability of the individual is decreasing as the State takes more and more responsibility. A person can reason with other people in society but he cannot reason with the State. The State is not about reason it is about force - to paraphrase George Washington.

He cannot reason with the State because the State isn't a person, neither are corporations or companies.

Unfortunately posters such as you and bjre have to - for the time being - accept that a 100% pure liberty model of society isn't going to happen anytime soon. If that's to be a basis for calling our society unjust or lacking, then you should direct your efforts at speaking to our philosophies rather than individual policies.

As it is, it seems that you would have a large problem with the way all states are being run so complaining about policies is tantamount to complaining about uncomfortable deck chairs on the Titanic.

Recently, on the radio I heard that 50% of graduating students were functionally illiterate.

Wikipedia disagrees, but these things are defined differently. Literacy is sometimes defined to include comprehension.

Whether these statistics,and your following statements are true or not, there is a concern in society about them. There is an increasing fear of inability to discern what is PR and propaganda and what is truth. Interests will always promote their view as valid and truthful.

QUOTE

Education and health costs are up for individuals, but are they higher for governments ? And what level of education are we speaking of.

Health costs are increasing, and wait times are increasing or decreasing depending on whom you speak to. I would say that the public needs to be engaged in managing the government, so as to ensure that performance tracking happens consistently.

Violent crime fluctuates as well. I don't think there's a general trend for the worse there.

Why have we been successful ? For many reasons, but let's look at our main competition over the last 50 years: the Soviet bloc. They failed because, in my opinion, they had a closed society that was monolithic and unable to adapt. Our society adopted the best parts of socialism while theirs stagnated.

What do you think ?

You have just said what I have stated. The Soviet bloc was a closed society that was monolithic and unable to adapt - I said it is an ideal and thus an absolute that is static, meaning unchanging.

My definition of socialism is that it is a progression towards increased statism. So there are no good and bad parts of socialism as it relates to government. If it is understood that socialism is a progression, especially in a democracy where the voter can vote himself privilege, statist totalitarianism is the inevitable end but then again that is the achievement of the ideal and is thus neither desirable nor stable. My entire point is that if socialism were understood to be a progression and a means and not an ideal or end, and thus an absolute such as totalitarianism or anarchy, we could then understand why limits must be placed upon government and we can avoid going through the yo-yo cycle that civilizations tend to experience and perhaps enjoy a stable civilization without political interests bending it to it's interests.

Socialism, as an end, in other words, a total state must entirely control it's inner workings and structure for continuity and strength in numbers to achieve its purpose and goals. If it is, as relates to government, to be stable and strong it must envelope all of society and the goals of government, that of control and regulation, must become the goals of society and I see this reflected in the individual today on both sides of the political spectrum.

I don't have more time this morning so have to be off. It's another glorious day!

That sounds interesting enough. As usually happens when I discuss these things with opponents who have a clear vision as yourself, it seems to come down to getting our society on the same page with regards to the sharing of information. Once that happens, your vision and my vision can compete and evolve.

This rejigging of our social information system appears to be the next big challenge, the meeting of which will take us to the next level of general well being, whatever that is. I believe that that event will answer (and dismiss) attendant questions about the role of government, how much/little involvement should there be etc.

For the time being, those of us - left and right - who still care about how government works can make use of the tiny tools they have provided us with in order to get answers. Currently - this seems to be the 'contact us' link on government websites. ( See the Health Forum for my email to the Public Health Chief on h1n1. )

Edited by Michael Hardner
Link to comment
Share on other sites

He cannot reason with the State because the State isn't a person, neither are corporations or companies.

http://www.ratical.org/corporations/SCvSPR1886.html

In 1886, . . . in the case of Santa Clara County v. Southern Pacific Railroad Company, the U.S. Supreme Court decided that a private corporation is a person and entitled to the legal rights and protections the Constitutions affords to any person. Because the Constitution makes no mention of corporations, it is a fairly clear case of the Court's taking it upon itself to rewrite the Constitution.
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Should society provide the social safety net charitably or should government take the responsibility?

Good question, and one I've pondered on occasion. My take is that a person who is willing to accept welfare should also be willing to stand and beg on the street. At least that way the money given to them is freely donated rather than taken from our pockets against our will.

However, we cannot always depend on the generosity of others. Economy, a poor paycheck due to illness, or even a bad hair day can all contribute to someone not feeling like handing over their loose change.

Therefore, if it's to be a safety net, it must be one that is dependable. Not to say that government is dependable, but I think neither of us wants to see people starving in the street.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Pliny

He cannot reason with the State because the State isn't a person, neither are corporations or companies.

Exactly, there is no one to reason with. There is only the law - force. The laws are to be followed and only those who enact them are responsible for them. In dealing with government employees they do not reason, they just follow the rules and expect everyone else to follow the rules. There is no individuality when government deals with the public. In justice, where they interpret law, it is the only appeal of individuals. You can appeal to your MP who votes to enact legislation and he can act on your behalf but if it is not a popular stance or costs him popularity, chances are he won't do much for you.

Unfortunately posters such as you and bjre have to - for the time being - accept that a 100% pure liberty model of society isn't going to happen anytime soon. If that's to be a basis for calling our society unjust or lacking, then you should direct your efforts at speaking to our philosophies rather than individual policies.

As it is, it seems that you would have a large problem with the way all states are being run so complaining about policies is tantamount to complaining about uncomfortable deck chairs on the Titanic.

Well, I find there is growing acceptance of the concepts of limited government, not so much in Canada, they are more followers than leaders but America - especially judging form the Gubernatorial races in VA and NJ tonight.

We are still in a a state of progression so things are changing. Politicians like Obama have a vision and a dream; a Utopia, and it is the purpose of the State to bring it about. but a dream, a Utopia, Heaven, a vision, anarchy, are all ends, finalities and to think they should exist as static states forever is to have a vision of society to become a rock. There has to be the ability to change, adapt, evolve, grow, shrink, progress, regress, and the State offers none of this.

Saying I am complaining about the uncomfortable deck chairs is a minimization of my efforts as an individual and what can I do as an individual. I suppose to get get more comfortable deck chairs I would have to form a "special interest group" and lobby for them.

Actually education is more important.

Wikipedia disagrees, but these things are defined differently. Literacy is sometimes defined to include comprehension.

I did say "Functional illiteracy" as opposed to just "literacy".

That sounds interesting enough. As usually happens when I discuss these things with opponents who have a clear vision as yourself, it seems to come down to getting our society on the same page with regards to the sharing of information. Once that happens, your vision and my vision can compete and evolve.

Yes. I agree. Education is important. And that means that people must be able to properly evaluate information.

This rejigging of our social information system appears to be the next big challenge, the meeting of which will take us to the next level of general well being, whatever that is. I believe that that event will answer (and dismiss) attendant questions about the role of government, how much/little involvement should there be etc.

For the time being, those of us - left and right - who still care about how government works can make use of the tiny tools they have provided us with in order to get answers. Currently - this seems to be the 'contact us' link on government websites. ( See the Health Forum for my email to the Public Health Chief on h1n1. )

"Contact us" seems to be merely a venting process where little, other than formulaic or empathetic and often condescending replies are iterated.

Anyway, I am for limited government, and for it to remain just it cannot punish Paul to reward Peter for that is the point justice removes it's blindfold.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Pliny,

Exactly, there is no one to reason with. There is only the law - force. The laws are to be followed and only those who enact them are responsible for them. In dealing with government employees they do not reason, they just follow the rules and expect everyone else to follow the rules. There is no individuality when government deals with the public. In justice, where they interpret law, it is the only appeal of individuals. You can appeal to your MP who votes to enact legislation and he can act on your behalf but if it is not a popular stance or costs him popularity, chances are he won't do much for you.

Interesting, but this seems to be more of a complaint with specialization isn't it ? Those who specialize in rules and law just follow the rules, as does every person in the specialized society pay attention to their area of responsibility.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Good question, and one I've pondered on occasion. My take is that a person who is willing to accept welfare should also be willing to stand and beg on the street. At least that way the money given to them is freely donated rather than taken from our pockets against our will.

However, we cannot always depend on the generosity of others. Economy, a poor paycheck due to illness, or even a bad hair day can all contribute to someone not feeling like handing over their loose change.

Therefore, if it's to be a safety net, it must be one that is dependable. Not to say that government is dependable, but I think neither of us wants to see people starving in the street.

The problem with the State taking on that responsibility is that it then has dependents and when an economy fails government revenues disappear. Now, if you know anything about economics you have to ask how an entire capitalist economy fails. You have to ask how every company in that failing economy could not interpret the market data and thus make provisions to take action and avoid the downturn. After all this is the job of the entrepreneur in a free market economy. And for the most part they are successful. What blinds them to all fail at the same time and create a depression? The answer, of course, is that there is no free market economy. Businesses fail all the time but not usually all at once. We have to look at what is common to all of them and perhaps it is the fiscal policy of government, who proudly proclaim, during periods of economic prosperity how their policies have created this prosperity and in times of economic turmoil the market is always to blame.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Of course it doesn't include me. Anyone that knows me, knows I hate taxation, but only in it's present form (I am a flat tax advocate). However taxes are necessary. Welfare is necessary. You state above that there is no free market economy, but failed to mention there is no capitalist economy either no matter how many people pin their hopes and dreams on believing there is. And of the recent billions of government bailouts to obviously greedy financial institutions didn't prove it, nothing will.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Of course it doesn't include me. Anyone that knows me, knows I hate taxation, but only in it's present form (I am a flat tax advocate). However taxes are necessary. Welfare is necessary. You state above that there is no free market economy, but failed to mention there is no capitalist economy either no matter how many people pin their hopes and dreams on believing there is. And of the recent billions of government bailouts to obviously greedy financial institutions didn't prove it, nothing will.

Does the government spend any of your taxes on things that you passionately disagree with?

If not then you can charitably contribute your taxes without reservation or even "hate". You should be proud to do your share. Unfortunately, for me I like to think I would like the ability to look after myself and suffer the consequences of my shortcomings or revel in the prosperity of my capabilities. I suppose I would wish that for everyone to not have to be subject to the instability that government imposes on the economy and to have the ability to rise above their individual challenges and experience the joy and happiness of overcoming those adversities on their own and/or with the co-operation and caring of their fellow citizens - which is what society and community is all about. All who contribute can also revel in the overcoming of those challenges but if government takes responsibility for those instead of the individuals in society there is no proper value attached to it's welfare - it initially springs from good intent and appears good but becomes perverse when it is considered an entitlement and a right and should be provided free of charge. It degrades those who receive it and burdens those who are taxed to pay for it.

I think everyone has a sense of fairness. If you are treated fairly you are expected to be fair. It is tit for tat. It is the very basis of trade and economy. No one would trade or have dealings with one who provided nothing in an exchange but demanded as a right the other persons property or wealth. Government does this for it's own self-aggrandizement and a justification to further tax the economy. In our society these social safety programs are provided "free". Nothing is expected except to fill out the forms correctly. This "free" concept only cultivates getting something for nothing, it makes it valueless, and promotes a neurotic uncertainty and need, the only way to escape it's degradation and rise above it is to consider it an entitlement, and then it becomes a life sentence. On the other side it suppresses the productivity out of which these "free" services are paid. It is the start of a self-perpetuating vortex sucking the life out of the society.

A flat tax? I presume you mean a flat rate of income tax as opposed to a graduated scale of taxation, the latter being a concept directly from Marx, of course - "from those according to their ability". A flat tax is, I agree, an improvement as it does not incorporate a disincentive to produce that Marx's formula does. However, a flat tax is still an infringement upon the sanctity of person and property, and if you allow that then you allow injustice from your government. Income tax is the worst form of taxation. I understand that government must tax in order to exist and keep order in society - not by engineering it but by minimizing criminality and fraud. It must live within it's means and I will say that if it's doing it's job of protecting the sanctity of person and property, then confidence and productivity will occur giving it all the revenues it needs, to do that job, out of the surplus of the created prosperity. It must however remain limited in it's mandate and live within it's means. The best form of taxation must be inthe individual's choice and that is only on the side of spending, not income.

When you look at how government has debased our money, creates inflation, thus destroying wealth and discouraging saving, and enacts preferential tariffs and taxation, actually resulting in an "un-level playing field" in both internal and external trade relations, the exact opposite of it's stated intent is what it achieves. Bailouts, your complaint about greedy financial institutions, are a form of this preferential and biased treatment. But it was the governments own regulations that resulted in the financial downturn in the first place.

An example of how they glowingly take the credit for a vibrant and prosperous economy, which they did until the crash, and then it was all the greedy corporations that caused the crash. Well, if they created the boom then they also created the bust. Booms are created by government and they like to gloat in that fact but the booms they create are unsustainable and corrections are necessary. The boom bust cycle is a total government creation.

A free market economy is a capitalist economy if one were using the terms correctly. The so-called Corporate capitalism or State capitalism of today is a misnomer and not about capitalism at all. We can categorize the different forms of capitalism if we are going to use the term but the categories should be realized as distinct from each other. Perhaps the term should be abandoned in favour of the more acute term "free economy".

Edited by Pliny
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Taxes are necessary. (If you don't believe me, don't pay any for 5 years and discover the outcome.) However, the present form of taxation - yes the sliding scale income tax, I do not like at all. I hate it. But because taxes are necesasry does not mean I must charitably contribute nor be proud of my contribution.

What I disagree with is a statement such as this: "Government does this for it's own self-aggrandizement and a justification to further tax the economy."

I hardly believe that looking after the welfare of its citizens is done for "self-aggrandizement" or is a "justification" to further tax the economy. And I am not sure what province you live in, but health care is not free for me. I pay the Ontario Health Premium as well as taxes.

And I am OK with the concept as I am with some of that tax money being spent on the unfortunate. Have we devised a perfect system to help the unfortunate that is immune to abuse? No. But what human system is immune from abuse? And like it or not the unfortunate are members of this system. However, complain as you may about the state or the economy or the economy of the state, you have not given any compelling reason why we should eliminate welfare.

Can you? Can you give a compelling, unassailable reason why welfare should be eliminated in Canada?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Guest American Woman
Taxes are necessary. (If you don't believe me, don't pay any for 5 years and discover the outcome.) However, the present form of taxation - yes the sliding scale income tax, I do not like at all. I hate it.

Why do you feel that way about the sliding income tax?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Guest American Woman
The middle class carry 90% of the tax burden.

Are you referring to Canada? If so, what percentage of Canadians are in the middle class? What percentage are in the higher income bracket, and what percentage of taxes do they pay? I've always heard that in the U.S., the top 5% of wealthiest Americans pay half of the income tax.

But income taxes are only one type of tax, and when it comes to every day taxes, the less wealthy are paying a higher percentage of their income to taxes. Even real estate taxes generally take a higher percentage of a less wealthy homeowner's money than the rich, so I think the idea of the graduated income tax is to help even things out a bit.

Edited by American Woman
Link to comment
Share on other sites

The topic post is so lacking in reality and devoid of any real knowledge of what many poor people and those that live on welfare go through, or have gone through in their pasts. Many people on welfare aren't on it because they are "lazy". Yes, some are just simply "lazy" no doubt, but there are many others who have mental health problems, addictions, abusive pasts etc.

This thread enrages me. Some good points have been brought up, however most of the people who have brought them up unfortunately are not worth the trouble responding to as it would just simply be a waste of my time. Yelling into the wind.

Bottom line: there are some problems with the welfare system, no doubt. Lazy people do exist who mooch off the system. But that is a problem with the system that needs to be fixed. Welfare is a necessary component to any rational society, not to mention a humane one. There are so many people out there that are just screwed up, been dealt a bad hand in life, and-or need a break.

Some of you people need to go spend some time with the types of people who are on welfare for some legit reasons. People who can`t involve themselves on these message boards on a regular basis since they can`t afford internet because they were molested as children, lived on the street for awhile as teenagers, became hooked on the drug scene, had themselves a baby or 2 at an early age, and are now trying to get by raising a couple kids alone while now doing their darnedest to get lives in order, some even trying to get their GED at the same time.

1-2-3 LAZY!

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Sure. Let's really get rid of welfare.

$5 billion to GM,

Subsidies and grants to farmers,

tax breaks to the rich etc

Once that is done, then we can look at those who live at or below the poverty level....

Yeah and all those rich welfare bums called the royals and the senators...multinationals and their tax-breaks...damn welfare bums

Link to comment
Share on other sites

The topic post is so lacking in reality and devoid of any real knowledge of what many poor people and those that live on welfare go through, or have gone through in their pasts. Many people on welfare aren't on it because they are "lazy". Yes, some are just simply "lazy" no doubt,

Amusing.

In any event, you miss the nature of the OP. It's not a complaint about welfare being misused. It's a complaint about how the existence of welfare/pogey (which is welfare in much of the country) distorts the natural inclination of people to work for a living. This produces the horrifying result of my having to rake up my own leaves. Yes, me. I had to do it MYSELF! Why is that? In a perfect society I'd be able to pay some poor person $5 or at most $10hr to do it for me and they'd be eager for the money to buy food, to support their family, etc. But noooo, because of welfare, the only guy I know who does stuff like raking lawns and cutting grass can charge $30hr. Since I don't want to get hosed I have to do it myself. Meanwhile, all those lazy people on welfare are just getting drunk, fornicating, and beating their children.

It's not so much I mind paying welfare. But those people ought to be available for taxpayers to whistle up and point at some manual labour thing and have them take care of it for us.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Amusing.

In any event, you miss the nature of the OP. It's not a complaint about welfare being misused. It's a complaint about how the existence of welfare/pogey (which is welfare in much of the country) distorts the natural inclination of people to work for a living. This produces the horrifying result of my having to rake up my own leaves. Yes, me. I had to do it MYSELF! Why is that? In a perfect society I'd be able to pay some poor person $5 or at most $10hr to do it for me and they'd be eager for the money to buy food, to support their family, etc. But noooo, because of welfare, the only guy I know who does stuff like raking lawns and cutting grass can charge $30hr. Since I don't want to get hosed I have to do it myself. Meanwhile, all those lazy people on welfare are just getting drunk, fornicating, and beating their children.

It's not so much I mind paying welfare. But those people ought to be available for taxpayers to whistle up and point at some manual labour thing and have them take care of it for us.

Argus, why don't you apply to be a workfare employer then ?

It's horrifying that you have to rake your own leaves, but you'd be more horrified I'm sure if you found your Afghani gardener had planted poppies in your front yard. (I'm trying to put my tongue into my cheek farther than you here.)

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.
Note: Your post will require moderator approval before it will be visible.

Guest
Unfortunately, your content contains terms that we do not allow. Please edit your content to remove the highlighted words below.
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.


  • Tell a friend

    Love Repolitics.com - Political Discussion Forums? Tell a friend!
  • Member Statistics

    • Total Members
      10,714
    • Most Online
      1,403

    Newest Member
    wopsas
    Joined
  • Recent Achievements

    • Venandi went up a rank
      Explorer
    • Jeary earned a badge
      One Month Later
    • Venandi went up a rank
      Apprentice
    • Gaétan earned a badge
      Very Popular
    • Dictatords earned a badge
      First Post
  • Recently Browsing

    • No registered users viewing this page.
×
×
  • Create New...