Quote: (11-29-2016 12:46 AM)John_Galt Wrote:  

Welfare is welfare.

"If you don't work, you don't eat."

It's that simple.

It's not that simple, because we live in a system where work is scarce, due to the rich fucking up the economy, and costs are high, due to the rich fucking up the economy.

In a pure capitalist system working for eating makes sense, but we don't enjoy even anything close to such a system.

We have socialism for the rich in today's world, which means the poor get nothing at all. Without welfare they would be dead and have no chance to provide for themselves.

Quote:Quote:

Another good idea:

If you don't pay taxes, you don't vote.

Not only taxes, but long military service, dutiful marriage to a man for 10+ years with 2 or more children... basically anything that shows commitment to the state and Neighbor.

Quote:Quote:

What's with the pro-socialist attitudes here? (Welfare is a soft form of socialism, for the record)

BTW federal spending on welfare programs eclipses everything else.

http://www.politifact.com/truth-o-meter/...ternet-mi/

That link proves what I just said. Welfare for food and shelter = practically nothing, welfare for healthcare = ultra expensive.

If welfare was just food and cheap ass rent in low-income areas, it wouldn't be much of a problem to support people at all. But throw in million dollar life-saving procedures, and holy christ we are going bankrupt so fast it's not even funny.

Idealistic and thin skinned as hell. Bye.

Not thin-skinned. I'm not offended by your insults. I just don't find them productive.

I enjoy the intellectual discourse. I'm not trying to save the world, just enjoying the intellectual stimulation provided by the ideas of others.

I'm not trying to put forth a policy to get elected, only discussing my views on welfare.

As for the point on Social Security, Medicare and Medicade, I agree, they are the most expensive. "Waste, fraud and abuse" are a major part of this, as Trump has said many times. The problem is the government is allowed to run on debt they can't realistically repay. I get what you're trying to point out---that these problems won't be fixed overnight. Sure. What are the solutions? You really think UBI is a better idea? I just don't see the "elite" implementing that. Zuckerberg, Gates, Bezos....these guys are just supposed to start giving everybody free stuff because their robots produce for them? I don't see the benefit to them. The only reason they give to charity of for tax purposes......is that the proposal? No taxes, just directly provide welfare to an entire country?

How are my ideas less realistic than these?

You're thin skinned because we didn't insult you, yet you claim we did. Also known as being oversensitive or touchy. No ad hominems have been launched by anyone in this discussion so far.

I am trying to save the world, or at least America. I care about actual solutions that we can implement in the real world, not some "spherical chicken in a vacuum" style intellectual discussion. I already told you what we could do right now, and where we should be focusing our efforts. I outlined several key points and you ignored them.

Your ideas will not work because welfare, medicare/medicaid, social security, etc are all established parts of our lives. Many people benefit from them and many people count on them or at least expect to get them, especially medicaid and social security. Social security is about the biggest third rail issue in politics because old farts are a huge voting block. As I said several posts ago, it's going to take time, literally more than a generation to ease our way back out of these commitments.

You're as likely to cure the scourge of welfare and other entitlement spending with a single stroke as you are to cure a terminal cancer patient by telling them to "get better" in a stern tone of voice. It's completely useless to even think about and it's just going to piss everyone off if you try. The fact that you could even think it was feasible simply says you don't understand American politics or human nature, and that's not an insult, it's a fact.

You can learn from us, or you can keep playing the "I just read Atlas Shrugged and now I know everything about politics/economics" libertarian game that will get you nowhere, except maybe to a political sideshow with a fat guy stripping on stage.

At this point, I think we're just going to have to agree to disagree.

I appreciate the ideas you've brought up, and I understand that you don't think my own suggestions are realistic. I respect your opinion, and since it seems unlikely either of us is going to convince the other he is correct, I'm going to thank you for the discussion and move on.

Fact is the truth lies somewhere in between of all 3 of you.

When you have a lobbyist - politician - corporate-elite class which is enriching themselves and not giving a shit about the lower classes other than lying, bamboozling, distracting and tricking them in ways consistent with maintaining that enrichment, the capitalist/free-market line is moot anyway.

And weambulance is right in that libertarian platitudes simply cannot prevail in the face of crowds of angry men with things in their hands who believe the system is rigged against them.

At the same time welfare is a trap; whether its moral against those its taken from or not (it's not), those who receive it are sapped of their very adulthood.

So the solution would require a multi-facet push. Simultaneously preaching the co-equal immorality of stealing from people, using political power to enrich yourself with existing money instead of earning it, and living off welfare. Not easy when everyone just wants to blame and get one over the 'other guy'.

I assume we're not advocating pushing people in wheelchairs off a cliff too.

Quote: (11-29-2016 11:47 AM)DJ-Matt Wrote:  

I assume we're not advocating pushing people in wheelchairs off a cliff too.

Not for free, obviously.

John_Galt the problem people are having with your intellectual theories is that for all Ayn Rand's verbose arguments in literature in favour of "If you don't work, you don't eat" the evidence of the last 150 odd years of political history completely contradicts this. Welfare can and does have many, many problems that most posters on this forum could discuss at length - it can create disincentives to work, systemic abuses by welfare queens, the cost to the state etc. But it succeeds in it's core function, largely: guaranteeing a secure very low base of existence for the poorest people in a society. This prevents them from turning to extremism (communism/revolution) or violent crime. This is why the arch-conservative Bismarck introduced it in the 19th century, and why conservative societies maintain it to this day.

Without a minimum level of welfare, the poorest in society do not let themselves and their families starve as Ayn Rand would suggest. They instead turn to violent crime or revolution to take what they need to survive, from those who have it. If you doubt this, just look to societies with no functioning social welfare net: large parts of Central America, South America or Africa etc. A society with no welfare net whatsoever generally results in a high inequality, high crime, low security society along the lines of South Africa. Or in the long-term results in a revolution to redistribute wealth, as in Tsarist Russia. Not some permanent Randian paradise with 0% unemployment.

Even aside from leftist intellectual arguments in favour of moral obligations to help your fellow man and all that claptrap that sway a substantial part of the population, you'll find most people will happily pay a small amount of additional income tax as a "security tax" to prevent the US ending up a disturbingly dangerous society in the style of South Africa.

zatara:

Have you READ Atlas Shrugged? The story doesn't end with Utopia and "0% unemployment". I suggest actually reading the material you assume I get my ideas from before making arguments against it.

I err... don't quite know how to respond to that non-sequitur. If you think my post was discussing the surface story-level-plot of Atlas Shrugged then it may have gone slightly over your head, I fear.

No, I think you simply haven't read the book and made an argument using it's plot and then got called out.

Get back to me once you've read the book, then we can have an intelligent discussion regarding Ayn Rands philosophy.

Re: John_Galt - I was annoyed by your inability to provide any sort of concrete/actionable plan to get rid of welfare entirely. Even if it were something as heavy handed as "take away all welfare and use the money for additional police and guns (law enforcement and defense industry jobs) at least we could have a concrete discussion on a plan like that. Instead it's quotes from House of Cards and general statements that welfare is ridiculous and subtle jabs to detractors that only socialists would support it.

Once a person is given something, it's very hard to take that thing away. That thing then becomes the new normal and a scaled up baseline from which to grasp for bigger and better things. If you take away the welfare benefits that these people view as "the only money I got" or their free dialysis treatments, their high blood pressure medication, etc... you're going to be creating a large group of people who suddenly have a nothing-to-lose mentality. How're you going to justify the "get rid of welfare entirely" stance when tens of thousands of working taxpayers are murdered, raped and brutalized by a now much more cohesive group of people who already have a predilection for violence and destructive behavior? Not to mention a large percentage of millions of former welfare recipients who will likely die with no education, skills or help from equally desperate family members also clawing for survival. This trend will only be exacerbated as time goes on as tech replaces more and more menial low-skilled jobs with robots. In my opinion it's indefensible.

Even in my scenario where we suddenly had a 1,000,000 new cops on the streets armed to the teeth, protecting working folks from rampaging welfare junkies (AKA justifiably killing them in self defense) the optics on something like that would be irreparable. The US would be natio non grata on the world stage, every country would sanction us and the economic fallout would invariably be much worse than any potential savings that we had getting rid of welfare. And if you think this is a straw man argument, I welcome a concrete scenario that makes sense to you... I sincerely can't think up a better argument in the "get rid of welfare entirely" camp. However, I think the gradual plans that other posters have put forth are much more realistic and actually have some merit.

I am not a particularly compassionate person. I'm more a proponent of the "step over a bum while thinking 'get it together, grouch' " school. However, like most people, I am innately concerned about my safety and self interest. So as much as it pains me, I think UBI is an unavoidable reality. Given the unattractive choices of giving lazy, entitled people free money while scheming to gradually cull their ranks vs. greatly increasing the chances of a violent death at their hands, I'm going to pick door #1 every time.

I actually did provide a solution, or rather, the writers of House of Cards did. If you watched the clip I posted, you'd already see that the suggestion was to take Welfare costs and use them to create jobs. Very simple, really.

And what I've suggested is nothing revolutionary----it's the way nature, Darwin, God, or whatever you want to call the powers above us----has always intended things to operate.

Sure, things would be difficult for a period. But eventually the dregs of society would die. And then we would move on.

^

If you were Lord Vetinari it could work. It would not work in the US. The next election cycle your party would be slaughtered and it would be back to the same old same old.

Quote: (12-01-2016 10:39 PM)John_Galt Wrote:  

I actually did provide a solution, or rather, the writers of House of Cards did. If you watched the clip I posted, you'd already see that the suggestion was to take Welfare costs and use them to create jobs. Very simple, really.

And what I've suggested is nothing revolutionary----it's the way nature, Darwin, God, or whatever you want to call the powers above us----has always intended things to operate.

Sure, things would be difficult for a period. But eventually the dregs of society would die. And then we would move on.

OK, at least we are starting somewhere with the House of Cards vid. It was unclear that that was your suggestion to me. What jobs are there to create that uneducated and unskilled people could likely do? I guess demolition crews and trash pick up and shit, but that's just an invitation to say that slavery is alive and well again. Those pesky optics...

And even if some viable jobs were created, what incentive would people who formerly received benefits for free have for giving that up in exchange for work? A dramatic reaction to entitlements being taken away is all but certain, especially from a demographic much more familiar with violence than rhetoric.

As a believer in God, don't you feel a sense of guilt at the many thousands of people who would most likely die because of an abrupt stop to welfare? I'm an agnostic but I'd like to think most people would think that sloth is preferable to unnecessary death.

Perhaps I'm reading too much into it, but you seem young and resolute in your ideology. The fact that your stance is largely based on a 4:00 clip Netflix clip and a hack author that preached strict self-reliance but also took social security payments in her old age is also somewhat telling. Yeah, she says it was unjust that she got taxed for it therefore it wasn't hypocritical to get some of it back as restitution, but I'd like to think that she'd hold herself to a higher standard instead of using solipsistic arguments to grab free cash.

I'm sorry if I'm being condescending but I see much of my 2007 self in your arguments, so it's hard not to respond as if I would to someone younger. If possible, try and contemplate the merits of the opposing view and I'll do my best to put myself in your shoes. Shiet, I actively wish death upon the bums that shit in my dumpster, or panhandle my customers all the time.

Do I feel guilty? No.

Have you read the Bible?

2 Thessalonians 3:10-15:

Quote:Quote:

6 In the name of the Lord Jesus Christ, we command you, brothers and sisters, to keep away from every believer who is idle and disruptive and does not live according to the teaching[a] you received from us. 7 For you yourselves know how you ought to follow our example. We were not idle when we were with you, 8 nor did we eat anyone’s food without paying for it. On the contrary, we worked night and day, laboring and toiling so that we would not be a burden to any of you. 9 We did this, not because we do not have the right to such help, but in order to offer ourselves as a model for you to imitate. 10 For even when we were with you, we gave you this rule: “The one who is unwilling to work shall not eat.”

11 We hear that some among you are idle and disruptive. They are not busy; they are busybodies. 12 Such people we command and urge in the Lord Jesus Christ to settle down and earn the food they eat. 13 And as for you, brothers and sisters, never tire of doing what is good.

14 Take special note of anyone who does not obey our instruction in this letter. Do not associate with them, in order that they may feel ashamed. 15 Yet do not regard them as an enemy, but warn them as you would a fellow believer.

Quote:Quote:

Perhaps I'm reading too much into it, but you seem young and resolute in your ideology. The fact that your stance is largely based on a 4:00 clip Netflix clip and a hack author that preached strict self-reliance but also took social security payments in her old age is also somewhat telling. Yeah, she says it was unjust that she got taxed for it therefore it wasn't hypocritical to get some of it back as restitution, but I'd like to think that she'd hold herself to a higher standard instead of using solipsistic arguments to grab free cash.

I can't believe I'm typing this, but I have news for you: This philosophy was not invented by House of Cards or Ayn Rand.....the Bible is over 2000 years old. And it existed before that.

There's this thing called nature.....before Darwin ever had a theory, life worked in the way it always has----he who is weak, dies.

UBI, welfare----all of it is playing God. Nature always finds a way to correct the wrong-doings of humanity. Instead of talking about how "immoral" it is, just accept its the way reality has always worked and always will work.

These are not "young" philosophies. They are not "immature". The immature attitude is assuming you can control human nature, and that you can somehow "correct" nature. Those on welfare today should not be alive. Period. They are not fit to survive and reproduce.

I'm not talking about people on Social Security. I'm talking about people who don't work at all, and never had for any signifigant period of time. The leeches. The parasites.

This argument that "eventually you have to provide income to everybody or they will die" is also illogical and incorrect. People survived for millieums by being hunter/gatherers/farmers. It does not take a high IQ to do. Anyone can do it. If eventually there are no "jobs" those who have the will to survive will find a way to do it. Those who do not, will die.

This is not my theory. I didn't invent it. Ayn Rand didn't invent it. Darwin didn't invent it. It's simply the way life works.

Also, if you read your history, you would know that ALL great nations eventually collapse. America WILL collapse one day. It's not a matter of if---but when. Perhaps we'll all be dead from climate change or nuclear war by then, but it will occur eventually.

Our policies are NOT sustainable, period. We will eventually collapse. It may be an economic collapse, or a military invasion, or a nuclear bomb---but it will occur one day.

This is just reality.

Probably shouldn't have asked about guilt vs religion because it just muddles the conversation. Though I was curious how you resolved that bit about welfare recipients dying... The Bible has convenient quotes for just about any situation/scenario. I'm sure there's all sorts of snippets about compassion for the poor and love for the downtrodden etc, but I'd feel disingenuous employing them cuz I couldn't care less.

I don't disagree with your assertion that we should get rid of welfare completely. What I'm arguing is that that's not realistic at all. You'd never be able to rouse up enough support even with Trump in the White House (poor white people get welfare too). Also, federal assistance is one of the few tethers to civil society for these people. If that's taken away from them, their nature is going to be to revolt violently and brutally and the aftermath will forever end the US' image as the global leader in moral, political and likely economic power after all of the sanctions go through. If that's what you mean by "all empires come to an end", I can't really discourse with that level of nihilism.

Have you ever had to deal with welfare recipients? Literally clean up their shit when they defecate on your property? Call the police so frequently that you're on a first name basis with half the dispatch staff? Seen the levels of depravity that many of them can sink to with your own eyes and not just on some screen? Get constantly threatened by crackheads because you refuse to give them money or food but watch them shuffle down in front of the Social Security office or the check cashing spot around the block every two weeks? Cuz I do on a regular basis at my business, and I'd be surprised if you have as much cause to dislike these motherfuckers as I do.

Try dealing with these people for a month and then get back to me on how we are going to be able to stem the purge they'll bring once you take away their entitlements. Jobs? These people don't want to work, they want rightly or wrongly the free lunch that's been promised to them. You rescind that and it's kill squad time. You incentivize them slowly but surely to do what's ultimately best for society and you have a shot at it.

The Bible does talk a lot about helping the poor and needy. However, it speaks of those who are UNABLE to make an income, NOT unwilling. Also, the Bible says we should engage in CHARITY, i.e. voluntary contributions, usually from the local church. This is VASTLY different than the "Robin Hood" tactics used today by the Fed.

On Welfare recipients. No, I have not personally done business with welfare people, but I know enough about that class of people to be aware they do not act rationally. I understand what you're getting at, but I think you fail to see what I'm saying: Eventually, the unlimited free goodies is going to come to and end. Not if, when. We cannot sustain this debt forever. It simply cannot go on forever. Eventually the piper has to be paid. When that occurs, entitlements WILL be cut. Then the scenario will engage, one way or another. So really, all you're arguing for is delaying the inevitable. Socialism has never once been successful. Already we see other countries with similar systems in place going bankrupt.

Also, you act as if the dregs of society rebelling would be the worst possible scenario. What do you estimate the population dependent on welfare to be? 10%? 20%?

Even if they revolted, it would be meaningless. They have a low IQ and no resources. They would be crushed easily. And then the welfare problem would be resolved.

This doesn't even take into account that some of them wouldn't even react violently. Many are simply too lazy to even bother rebelling. The Bible mentions this lot as well:

Quote:Quote:

A sluggard buries his hand in the dish; he is too lazy to bring it back to his mouth.

Proverbs 26:15

Too lazy to bring their hand back to their mouths to feed themselves. Pathetic.

The difference between your thoughts and my own are only a matter of degrees. The victim must die. It is simply unavoidable. You prescribe cancer, I offer a bullet to the head. The end result is the same. The difference is one of time.

If you believe that we can continue to sustain massive amounts of debt without scaling back our expenditures, I would love to hear your thoughts on how it can be done. I'll admit, I'm not an economist, so perhaps I'm missing something.

And just so we're clear:

I am NOT against helping those in need. What I AM against is government mandated welfare. I'm against Robin Hood stealing from Joe to feed Paul.

Prior to FDR, Churches and other local charities took care of those unable to take care of themselves. In other words, the private sector did then what the government does now.

On the private charity stuff, I recommend reading the "Titan" biography of Rockefeller. Very interesting character. Devout Christian, ruthless businessman, and one of the biggest philanthropists that ever lived:
http://www.nytimes.com/books/98/05/17/sp...gifts.html

That's over a half billion dollars. "Government is necessary for welfare" my arse. Government assigns its "welfare" based on voting potential, not actual need.

Quote: (12-01-2016 08:23 PM)John_Galt Wrote:  

No, I think you simply haven't read the book and made an argument using it's plot and then got called out.

Get back to me once you've read the book, then we can have an intelligent discussion regarding Ayn Rands philosophy.

I've read both Atlas Shrugged and much more of Rand's work. The points I made are addressing your posts in this thread first and foremost, but given your intellectual anchorage on her work I felt it necessary to mention the wider Randian position.

You flat out refusing to address the fact-based arguments raised in my post by repeatedly saying "BUT THAT DOESN'T MATCH THE ATLAS SHRUGGED ENDING" is a somewhat obvious defensive cop-out. Let me quote them again for you:

Quote:Quote:

John_Galt the problem people are having with your intellectual theories is that for all Ayn Rand's verbose arguments in literature in favour of "If you don't work, you don't eat" the evidence of the last 150 odd years of political history completely contradicts this. Welfare can and does have many, many problems that most posters on this forum could discuss at length - it can create disincentives to work, systemic abuses by welfare queens, the cost to the state etc. But it succeeds in it's core function, largely: guaranteeing a secure very low base of existence for the poorest people in a society. This prevents them from turning to extremism (communism/revolution) or violent crime. This is why the arch-conservative Bismarck introduced it in the 19th century, and why conservative societies maintain it to this day.

Without a minimum level of welfare, the poorest in society do not let themselves and their families starve as Ayn Rand would suggest. They instead turn to violent crime or revolution to take what they need to survive, from those who have it. If you doubt this, just look to societies with no functioning social welfare net: large parts of Central America, South America or Africa etc. A society with no welfare net whatsoever generally results in a high inequality, high crime, low security society along the lines of South Africa. Or in the long-term results in a revolution to redistribute wealth, as in Tsarist Russia. Not some permanent Randian paradise with 0% unemployment.

Even aside from leftist intellectual arguments in favour of moral obligations to help your fellow man and all that claptrap that sway a substantial part of the population, you'll find most people will happily pay a small amount of additional income tax as a "security tax" to prevent the US ending up a disturbingly dangerous society in the style of South Africa.

If you've got a counter-argument in favour of completely abolishing welfare that overwhelms this empirical historical precedent I'm all ears to hear it.

It sounds like you're immovable in your stance. Still, no point in getting heated over some theoretical plan that will never happen, so I'll bow out.

I enjoy the discussion for the sake of discussion. I don't hold your opinions against you, I don't think less of you because you have a different philosophy than myself. Even if we don't persuade one another to change views, we still learn from the arguments the other presents.

At least, that's the way I see things.

zatara:

My point was that Atlas Shrugged ends exactly the way you say no welfare would end: People start destroying shit, and killing each other. Your argument thus didn't make sense, since you seem to think I base my views on Rand, which, as I've explained in great detail, Rand did not create this philosophy, it's simply the law of nature, the way the world has always worked. You mention 150 years of history....what about the previous 6000

People only die once, but they must be fed everyday. Do you not get that?