Hasufun wrote:
Firstly, I object to the claim that welfare is simply to keep people from starving. Rather, its goal could more broadly be stated as being to make certain that all members of our society have their basic needs met. There is assuredly some argument regarding what those needs are - medical care and education being notable examples. However, I will explicitly include housing in addition to food as being a necessity. This is rather significant. The poverty line is based on the cost of food. Those prices have not changed significantly for several decades, and thus our definition of poverty has remained reasonably steady. However, the cost of housing has skyrocketed during that same time. This is a significant factor in considering poverty rates and one that, to the best of my knowledge, is ignored in most if not all statistical analyses.
later, you say
Hasufin wrote:
As Disraeli said, there are lies, damned lies, and statistics. This entire paragraph utterly fails to relate to the stated goal of welfare. Ask, instead, how many people starved to death, or died of exposure. Ask how many people died because they couldn't get the medical care they needed. I don't have those numbers, but those would be the relevant thigns to know. Notwithstanding, as I mentioned before, that the poverty line has scarce little to do with the actual rate of poverty. Bear in mind that the time periods mentioned also saw a massive boom in property values.
Okay, way to
contradict yourself in your own fucking post. And poverty thresholds are still a useful measuring stick (see below.)
Go get those numbers: I refuse to do your work for you. I'll give you a hint: they're too small to keep statistics on. People don't starve unless they're invalids left in the streets in this country; even bums can subsist off of panhandling and dumpster diving. I've even seen a family who's parents dumpster-dived for 2 months while looking for some extra work. Sure, its plenty hard work, and its humiliating, but it kept them alive.
Erm, thusly I say in order to starve to death you need to be physically incapable of panhandling or dumpster diving, how many people are actually homeless that are that disables, not many.
As to died of explosure: again, too small a statistic to keep.
Died because they can't get proper medical care: What the FUCK? That is the most vague statistic I have EVER heard, and I could slice it a million different ways. Define more clearly, then
get it yourself or don't mention it. I know you're confident a statistic like that would back you up, but until you actually
come up with something then I'm afraid I'm going to dismiss your
entire arguement as a pile of opinions backed up by jack shit.
I also like how you advocate looking at statistics right after the quote where someone says that statistics are all evil.
Dirty. Communist. Fucking. Lies.How the Census Beuro Determines Poverty.
It is meant as a statistical yardstick more than a complete and accurate reflection of how much money people need - if anything, given the
numbers (in 2003 USDs) it is a bit high. The poverty threshhold is based mostly upon the amount of income people spent on food, leaving enough for housing, etc.; I calculated it myself, and I could theoretically live a little below the poverty threshhold for my category. This in Califonia, where the CoL is rather high.
But yeah, not meant as some exact measure of CoL (in my case a bit high, but maybe I'm just somehow better than everyone) but as an easy measure of how many low-income people.
As a side note, CoL increases would be accounted for; as you get lower-income, less of your income is put into food and more into housing, etc, and as I said I can live off of a little less than the poverty threshhold (this includes yearly rent in a cheap apartment, car payments, food, utilities, 2 college night classes every semester except during the summer and insurance.)
So, please bring up real statistics on how people can't live on at/above the poverty threshhold instead of telling me how they can't when I obviously can.
Hasufin wrote:
Second, I object to the characterization of the welfare system as a method of theft. This is a fallacy - it ignores the basic concept of taxation. Instead, I assert that taxes are the price one pays for the benefits of living within this society and under the aegis of our government.
Okay, simple for you now: what compels you to pay your taxes if you refuse.
In a simple exchange, what you lose is a value you're paying for; if I don't pay my jigabillion dollars in taxes, then the roads I use are obviously not getting that jigabillion to drive on.
However...what actually compels people to pay taxes? It is not that. If I don't pay taxes, I go to jail. Thus, its extorted payment, under threat. If you wish to dress it up as a "price" for being a society (since when did I have to pay admission to a free democracy?) fine, but at its heart it is taking someone's income under threat of sanction. If you wish to pretty it up and put a nice little label and justification over it, thats your business. But taxes are at heart taking of income under duress.
Hasufin wrote:
They maintain the infrastructure, such as roads, that allows us to perform commerce. They maintain the military that defends our country. THey maintain the police force that protects our citizens and enforces our laws. They maintain the schools that educate our children.... and they maintain the social programs that keep angry mobs from tearing apart mansions. No two people receive the same short-term direct benefits, but we would all suffer from societal collapse.
A govt's job is to keep the peace, as it were. (Most notable NOT making sure you live comfortably.) People would volenteer money for these kinds of endeavors; thats what I would prefer, rather than say taking my own involentarily.
But hey, crazy me, wanting to do with my money what I want and such.
Cenwood wrote:
It is partially because of the capitalistic system we have in place that there is an "underclass" at all. If everyone was born completely equally (in a social and financial sense) I might agree with you, but we arnt. Someone who is born in a poor neighbourhood has to go to a crappy school, and either get the cash together to move out or get a decent job in the place that they come from. The class division means that not everyone gets the same chance at life as everyone else. Its worse in america then it is here: we have rough housing estates and stuff in England, but nothing like the entire "bad neighbourhoods" or "ghettos" you guys have got. I also dont get what your trying to say, here. We should stop welfare because some people on welfare are layabouts and leeches? And then they will just roll over, die, and stop being a drain on society? Bullshit. They'll become criminals and steal their food.
Er, if you can't figure out the easily labeled points in my essay,
let me do it for you:
1. Welfare perpetuates the underclass, and doesn't reduce it (as it is designed to do.)
2. It discourages the concept of working for one's own bread, in a capitalist society this is an antithetical concept to the basis of how our economy works.
3. Welfare punishes those who succeed
4. Welfare does not do its states goal of helping people to get into higher income brackets
Therefore, since it is a
completely useless drain on taxdollars, I say abolish it.
But see, Cen, to get my points you have to
pay attention. Since each of these points was basically the first sentence in a paragraph, I guess you've got some kind of disability, which I will call
being a goddamn idiot, where you can't get the basic thrust of an article.
Also, its worse in Britain overall, SoL is lower there, people make less money, etc, the choice is do you have a big huge bed of safety so that the poor people don't have motivation to move on up, or you let them see that being poor is
bad and let them come to the conclusion whether or not they want to stay there themselves.
So yeah, again ignoring my goddamn article, the point is what motivates the poor people to move up from the underclass isn't welfare, its the fact that they can't afford to have a halfway decent lifestyle, as shown by the statistics I carted out. Pure raw things by the US Census Beuro etc.
Lastly, I'm contending that communism and socialism are the largest perpetuator of the underclass: in Europe, highly socialists states consistantly have double-digit enemployment, and in communist countries you're just all equally poor, rather than having rewards based on merit.
Cenwood wrote:
How is it "discouraging" rich people to be rich? Rich people still keep a large portion of their earnings, this isnt communism. Of course people with more money should contribute more money. Its common sense. Even the smartest entrepreneurs build on the backs of the little people. Ok, so I concede you shouldnt hike too much tax on them or they'll just move to Spain or somewhere and avoid paying taxes entirely.
So...they should pay more out of proportion to their income?
Actually the hardest hit by the income brackets is the upper-middle class, whereas the upper-upper class has tax shelters galore, at least on average more than any other class (there will always be exceptions), the upper-middle class doesn't, and ends up paying the most in proportion to their wealth.
It is discouraging
success, not richness. I know several small business owners. One in particular comes to mind: he spent years building up his business, hired 20 people, and finally was making 100,000+ a year. After all the taxes...he asked me "Why did I just succeed if they're gonna take so much of it away?"
He was left with a little under half of his income...he figured if he had stayed in the next lower bracket, he would have made just about the same amount of money after taxes.
So...thats like saying "good job, you succeeded, here's your monetary reward...now...YOINK."
Cenwood wrote:
The problem with the proverbial "hand" is that it doesnt feed everyone equally, and those who are lucky enough to be born into a place where they get the biggest portions, object to sharing. I agree the current welfare system is far from perfect, and having the hand feed everyone equally (communism) wouldnt work because of the capitalistic nature of most human beings. But dropping it entirely is rediculous
Okay, there is no response to this, because its merely a statement, and you give no proof why discontinuing welfare would bad. However, I have given plenty of data (see my essay, just in case you didn't read it: I'm suspecting you didn't) which shows the harm of welfare and its inability to meet its stated goal in even the most basic sense, ie it hurts what it was meant to help.
And how is not feeding everyone equally
bad now? Hey, you worked 2.5 hours on the farm, I worked 400, we get the same amount of food?
So why do I work on the farm again, when your ideal system rewards incompetance and punishes success? In fact, what kind of moral system is that, to do that? The entire basis of your system is depending on the successful to succeed because of their drive only; rather than rewarding them for their efforts, you
exploit them for the benefit of your own constituency, the poor.
Who's exploiting who, again?
Cenwood wrote:
Out of curiosity, MIB, where were you born? Im guessing you didnt claw your way out of the ghetto and scrimp and save for a computer to post on these boards.
Downey, California. I live in Norwalk and have all my life; the reason I was born in Downey is because that was the closest hospital. West of me (about 4 blocks) is a bunch of cheap rental houses, several of which are drug houses. My high school used to have enough gang violence that my sister refused to go to school often (it was improved by shipping anyone who makes trouble off to El Camino; basically a prison-school). To my east, about 6 blocks, there are 1-room apartments and 1-way streets, the local ghetto. My house is in a little area just away from the drug houses and ghetto, but I walk past both of them often. I graduated from high school early, am attending community college for cheap certs/AA, have a job, and am moving out to be with my fiance soon.
Where were
you born, Cen?
Cenwood wrote:
The sad thing is, a perfect welfare sytem (one that catches everyone in the net, educates them, and throws them back into middle class jobs) would not work. A lower class is necessary. Who else is going to sweep the floors and get paid in peanuts. Without a lower class there can be no upper class. Without either of these, we cant all be middle class. I dont like it to the extent Im almost a communist, but I recognise that humans being what they are, capitalism is always going to be The Way (tm).
The problem is it requires people who want to move out of welfare for it to work: if everyone actually was a good citizen and only used welfare for real needs while looking for work, charities could handle most of it, like they did before the great depression.
Welfare was actually introducing during the GD as the charities were overwhelmed with poverty-stricken people.
So in conclusion, give me something solid or don't post again please. I know all your feelings and intuitions for how welfare being removed would be a disaster, but I'd like something showing how before welfare, when we were overall
poorer, on the average, that people were all rowdy and evil and such, asy ou seem to imply.
-MiB