BF2S Forums Open Question To Anti-Social Welfare Types

CameronPoe wrote:

iamangry wrote:

Sure.  Allow me to submit a link to it for you...

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Techno-utopia

At least that's it for me.  I actually think you would rather like it CPoe.

Sounds reeeaaall practical. And people call communists delusional.... *places head in hands*

lol, I actually am agreeing with Cameron Poe on this one. Of course, I understand the poster of the techno Utopia's point as well.
I think there are lots of theories on welfare.
Some of the theories I think of most are:
Welfare for a definite amount of time: You get say 2 years on welfare, get a job, money to help support you, and then after 2 years, you're done. You should be moved up if you're working hard enough etc
Negative Income Tax: The idea behind this one is to encourage people to get a job. Instead of just shelling out money and giving people the finger and encouraging them to be bums, you encourage people to be industrious. The more income you make, the money from the government incentive'ing you to work. The problem is that economists have generally agreed the model did not work out, and I doubt this would become reality anyway.

What I'd aim at is minimal income tax. People working will not be taxed so heavily on their wages, and thus, they'll be able to make more money, keep more money, and not depend on welfare.

Note how all these ideas depend on a person working, and being industrious.

DBBrinson1 wrote:

CameronPoe wrote:

[rant]

I've read an awful lot of pathetic dribble that has oozed its way out of a lot of cretinous idiots keyboards over the past while that I would like to ask an open question about.

Would idiots who say things like 'I don't agree with social welfare, I won't see a penny back, I don't like paying taxes', etc., please tell me what they expect would happen if there was no such thing as social welfare or tax. Please enlighten me. I'd like to have the paradise they envisage described to me in detail.

The last moronic post I read started with a comment not too dissimilar to the made-up quote of mine and then paradoxically complained about poor people and crime and why the government couldn't prevent crime. Maybe giving them no tax money would help, eh?

Pathetic.

[/rant]

[intelligent answer]
Well, they might have to *shiver* get jobs... Then *shiver* be a productive member of society.  Why the fuck should I bust my ass at work, then nod my head when money I've earned is TAKEN from my check and given to people who contribute nothing to society?  Why the fuck should my hard working ass have to pay for/pay more for health care - than some dickhead who does nothing?  Enlighten me CAM... Why the hell should I give a penny to someone who is too pathetic to pull up their boots and help themselves?

Your last "point"... Let me see if I understand you correctly -you want to appease criminals by paying them off?

Pathetic.
[/intelligent answer]

Don't post in DST often but DBBrinson1  +1  for you.

Cameron I would probably find a real life conversation with you very interesting & invigorating.  Chances are we would disagree on everything, but it would be interesting.

Just so I understand too, You support the idea of using social welfare as legalized extortion? 

"You pay me welfare so I won't have to commit as many crimes?"  - not a quote but what I HEAR you saying.   Sheesh.

Deadmonkiefart wrote:

I believe that without welfare, the charities and volunteer organizations would basically take over the job that welfare had.

Rant/
I stopped giving money to charity while taking a break from my cramped warm stressful office I flicked on the TV to see a major charity open its new 50million pound headquarters with massage rooms and masseuse's who come and rub your back while you 'work', free fruit and bicycles. Flex time. Large elaborate gardens and a canteen that would rival any top restaurant. Then interviewed some upper class twit who driveled on about the good work they are doing. The place looked like a holiday camp for fuckin toffs. Just like in every other facet of society their are people who want to turn a profit and make money........the charities are all the same.

With the taxes and VAT I have to pay, I have a charity.............me and my family are it!!! /rant

superfly_cox wrote:

CameronPoe wrote:

[rant]

I've read an awful lot of pathetic dribble that has oozed its way out of a lot of cretinous idiots keyboards over the past while that I would like to ask an open question about.

Would idiots who say things like 'I don't agree with social welfare, I won't see a penny back, I don't like paying taxes', etc., please tell me what they expect would happen if there was no such thing as social welfare or tax. Please enlighten me. I'd like to have the paradise they envisage described to me in detail.

The last moronic post I read started with a comment not too dissimilar to the made-up quote of mine and then paradoxically complained about poor people and crime and why the government couldn't prevent crime. Maybe giving them no tax money would help, eh?

Pathetic.

[/rant]

Some form of social welfare must always exist in a civilized society.  The question is how much social welfare.  Those against social welfare, such as myself, are actually in favor of a system that offers a more limited social welfare package that does not encourage people who don't need the assistance to benefit off of the system.  Also, such a system includes fewer taxes and greater incentive to save/invest for those who are working.  Its actually quite reasonable because you are leaving more money in the hands of the people, instead of the state, and this stimulates the economy because private investments (or even money in bank) is what drive economic innovation and development.  Money in the coffers of the state is stale and misspent.  Let's face it, a country's best and brightest don't wind up in public administration or as civil servants.  Not to mention that this gives greater incentives for people to work instead of living off the system.

I work hard and can accept paying a part of the money I earn to a social welfare system, but no more than the bare essentials to provide assistance --> not make it attractive to do so.  I don't need the state administering my pension cause quite frankly they suck at it. 

Again, its all quite reasonable and I don't think that those who say they are against social welfare believe that there should be none...just a smaller amount.

Like several of the others in answering Cam`s OP you answer the question in the light of your own experiences and that`s where you all makes the mistake, all members of society is not as lucky as you and the others Soup, many people have their different reasons and their different misfortune that makes them unavailable for the same personal welfare that the rest of us have.

Those are the ones that actually needs to be looked after by a social welfare system, most people dont cheat their way to social welfare, most people do genuially want to work for a living and thus contributing to society.

Of course some will exploit it like in every other situation in society but the majority of those on social welfare actually needs it.

Hope for your own sake you will never need social welfare yourself but most likely you will touch it one way or the other during your life, we all will at one point need it.

DBBrinson1 wrote:

[intelligent answer]
Well, they might have to *shiver* get jobs... Then *shiver* be a productive member of society.  Why the fuck should I bust my ass at work, then nod my head when money I've earned is TAKEN from my check and given to people who contribute nothing to society?  Why the fuck should my hard working ass have to pay for/pay more for health care - than some dickhead who does nothing?  Enlighten me CAM... Why the hell should I give a penny to someone who is too pathetic to pull up their boots and help themselves?

Your last "point"... Let me see if I understand you correctly -you want to appease criminals by paying them off?

Pathetic.
[/intelligent answer]

I can see why you misinterpreted part of my post, it was written ambigously. When I spoke of 'giving them tax money' in my OP I was referring to the government. It was a rail against what appeared to me to be several people who think that an ordered society can be maintained by reducing or abolishing tax.

Why the hell should you pay a penny?

- Because most people on welfare are temporary cases. Economically viable and useful people who may have suffered a misfortune, much as you might at some point in the future. The welfare benefits enables them to bounce back and strengthen the economy once again, rather than sinking into oblivion. What do you suggest? That they be exterminated? Placed in a big tent city in the middle of the Nevada desert? What do you propose doing with people who have been disabled in an unexpected car crash or who develop MS or something? Incinerate them?

- You live in a SOCIETY. You don't live in 'DBBrinson's World'. Capitalism is not 100% efficient because humankind and animalkind in general is not 100% efficient. There will be periods of recession where unemployment rises due to a genuine absence or lack of jobs. Are you suggesting that people who lose their jobs in a recession and who have difficulty finding another job be left on the street? If so then you make me sick - you would be just another 'Mé Féin'er: in it only for yourself and you'll reap what you sow when you fall on bad times.

Varegg wrote:

Please excuse them Cam for being short sighted and wrapped up in their own ego, they lack compassion for other human beings and society in general, almost hopeless to argue against such people

Whatever.

http://www.amazon.com/Who-Really-Cares- … 0465008216

Read that book.  Or the Summary by
Christopher Barat (Owings Mills, MD USA) - See all my reviews
     

In this book, sociologist Arthur Brooks surveys a wide variety of studies of charitable giving patterns in America. To his stated "surprise", he finds that the behaviors that foster charitable giving (as well as the transmission of values encouraging such behaviors in future generations) are more in line with modern conservatism than with modern liberalism. Note: I did NOT say that Brooks found that "conservatives are more charitable than liberals". He takes pains to indicate that factors OTHER than political affiliation -- religious belief above all -- are of primary importance in predicting how much and how often one gives, and that, at the present time, such factors are present in conservatives to a larger degree than liberals. Far from inducing conservatives to a sense of smug, Pharisaical superiority, Brooks' main goal is to help liberals (to which tribe he once belonged) to confront the often huge gap between their professed values of "compassion and caring" and the practical outcomes the mere avowal of such values does, or doesn't, yield. Since facing up to a flawed image of oneself is not easy for most people to do, it's no surprise that most of the self-proclaimed liberals who have reviewed the book have resorted to attacks on Brooks' hidden motives. They should keep in mind that Brooks has THEIR best interests at heart.

In a sense, Brooks' most controversial point is contained in the chapter "Charity Makes You Healthy, Happy, and Rich." Here, he argues that encouraging charitable giving sets up a "virtuous circle" whereby all of society is enriched and made more prosperous, and that such activities are more effective than government intervention. He notes that the residents of secularist, socialist Western Europe consistently report lower levels of happiness and fulfillment than those in the United States. This reminds me of Dennis Prager's argument that one of the primary faults of socialism is that "socialism makes people worse." At the least, it does appear to suck some of the higher meaning out of life. The subjective argument is strong, but I'm sure that many who advocate a "social safety net" (perhaps interlaced with such new strands as a universal health care system) will see in this argument the advocacy of a return to soup kitchens and bread lines.

Brooks repeats himself in several places (e.g., in the use of matched-pairs descriptions), and the surfeit of statistical results makes for some fairly dry reading. (This despite the fact that the REALLY heavy statistical data is consigned to the appendix. I can see statistics professors using such data as the basis for some thought-provoking classroom discussions.) Even so, this is a hard book to put down, and Brooks deserves credit for making this subject palatable for a general audience. He also merits no small amount of admiration for his professional courage. The discipline of social science is not known for a high level of charitable behavior when it comes to those who question accepted notions.

Last edited by DBBrinson1 (2007-06-01 09:49:34)

how many people here actually give to charity and how much do you give?

GunSlinger OIF II wrote:

how many people here actually give to charity and how much do you give?

I monthly contribute to "Medecins Sans Frontieres" with about $25, and i am member of the Norwegian air ambulance witch i support with about the same amount.

So 1 local and 1 international on a regular basis.

topal63 wrote:

GunSlinger OIF II wrote:

how many people here actually give to charity and how much do you give?

Zero. Even though I am a money making machine. I am not affiliated with an charity organization (nor do I contribute).

But I do give money & goods away often. Sometimes to friends in need; sometimes to casual acquaintances I meet. For the past 11 years (being owner of my own business); I decided I would do what my employers did not; and that is share the wealth. I believe that I owe my success to everyone involved in my business enterprise. So I give two profit sharing bonuses per annum (once in the summer & once before Christmas); and it is not a token amount - it is about 1/3 of all the money made by the business. 1/3 to my family, 1/3 to the Government in taxes (as I am in the highest possible tax bracket) and 1/3 to the employees. It is not uncommon for an employee, working for me, to receive about 6-10% of his total annual-compensation package in this extra-shared profit. Is this charity? Probably not. But there are other ways to give - than by giving to an institution.

Can i work for you ?

GunSlinger OIF II wrote:

how many people here actually give to charity and how much do you give?

I donate to an abused women's shelter and a "parents of murdered children" charity through payroll deduction.

I don't want to say how much but it's what my employer suggests as a "Guideline giver" or something like that.

As appreciation work gives you a cheap plastic pen or a notepad.

The one charity I donate to sends me newsletters a couple times a year and I get invitations to charity ball type events - VERY expensive to actually go though.

BTW - was a volunteer fireman or EMT for over 20 years.  That's what I call giving something to your community.

Last edited by T.Pike (2007-06-01 21:42:11)

Hunter/Jumper wrote:

RantParaphrase wrote:

That's why we need governments to push policies that prevent chaos, anarchy, and lawlessness, irrespective of how inefficient they may.

Actually efficiency is very important and can not be dismissed in the interest or the effect of “ Caring more “ or “ Being more compassionate “.

Not only are words cheap, If we are talking about caring for, clothing and feeding people,

efficiency is paramount as waste equals hunger. Waste equals callousness.  Waste equals cruelty.

If people are perpetrating inefficiency in the quest for consolidating political power,

then Waste equals treason. Waste equals treachery and betrayal, and justice is due.

If you truly feel this way, then you should REALLY hate the War in Iraq.  The privatization of this war is about the most inefficient thing the government has engaged in since Public Works Projects.

It's funny how neocons are quick to defend spending ridiculously large amounts on nation-building, but they don't want to spend that kind of money on their own citizens.

Personally, I think if Americans are paying into the system, they should be the ones getting services from it, not a bunch of mostly ungrateful Iraqis.

DBBrinson1 wrote:

HunterOfSkulls wrote:

CameronPoe wrote:

Why the hell should you pay a penny?

- Because most people on welfare are temporary cases. Economically viable and useful people who may have suffered a misfortune, much as you might at some point in the future. The welfare benefits enables them to bounce back and strengthen the economy once again, rather than sinking into oblivion. What do you suggest? That they be exterminated? Placed in a big tent city in the middle of the Nevada desert? What do you propose doing with people who have been disabled in an unexpected car crash or who develop MS or something? Incinerate them?

- You live in a SOCIETY. You don't live in 'DBBrinson's World'. Capitalism is not 100% efficient because humankind and animalkind in general is not 100% efficient. There will be periods of recession where unemployment rises due to a genuine absence or lack of jobs. Are you suggesting that people who lose their jobs in a recession and who have difficulty finding another job be left on the street? If so then you make me sick - you would be just another 'Mé Féin'er: in it only for yourself and you'll reap what you sow when you fall on bad times.

QFT

Cam, you know damn well nobody advocating the punitive approach to social welfare would want to find themselves having to rely on such a system for help. In their special little world where they are the apex of human behavior, morality and ethics, they would demand better than that for themselves.

Bullshit.  You or Cam don't know me - yet another Nazi reference because I don't goose step to your drum...  Weak. 

As to your dull points -do you know my financial past/present situation?  Didn't think so.  You know where I've been and done, what type of neighborhoods I've lived in??  You assume because of my position on the issue that I'm the "evil, rich, spoiled, brat that doesn't really give a fuck about the little guy" (actually Kerry&Heinz).  What a narrow minded typical BIGOTED STEREOTYPE.
 
I'd haven't and never will rely on that system -as long as i breath I will continue to earn a living in any way possible.  People like you are financial leeches on society and enablers to those with no drive or ambition.  Furthermore, I would a wager (how about a nut punch *wink HOS) that your stereotypical "apex of human behavior, morality and ethics"  (religious/conservative people) donate more to charity than those liberal/democrats.  I posted a link to study above (a whole book published -that you obviously haven't read which addresses the topic.  You must have been too busy doing good in soup kitchens elsewhere to see it...  So then why if I'm all ready giving a portion of my money to Charity, why the fuck do you need to come along and robin hood me deciding who I to GIVE my money away to?

Speaking of stereotypes... here's a nice one here.

People like you are financial leeches on society and enablers to those with no drive or ambition.

Gee, not stereotyping at all! Only saying how all poor people, liberals and democrats are leeches to society.

Well sorry, sir. Don't let us get in the way of your unlimited drive and ambition. Don't let us get in the way. Just drive us out of the road, run us over. According to you, we shouldn't give a shit! Newsflash: people do.

So are you suggesting we should systematically exile all people who require welfare? You haven't answered his point. You haven't addressed the fact they are TEMPORARY CASES. You haven't addressed the fact that given a little help and support, most people can bounce back and become useful members of the economy. Now get off the high horse and address the issues.