you realize how small those government checks are, right?

What a lot of people don't realize is that welfare funding often remains below the poverty line. Historically, overall funding for welfare has been as low as 1% of federal spending.

The other thing is that welfare families, on average, have no more children than other families, and most of them want to work but have trouble finding it (and they also have recent work histories).... The welfare status of most of these families lasts around a year, with a clear majority of them being no longer on welfare within 2 to 4 years.

How easily we overlook typical cases.

then there's the whole thing of the "social parasite" that you see running through alot of these "libertarian" style posts (not all of them, i should say):
the "lazy" as over against the "hard-working"; the "degenerate" as over against the "moral"; the "members of society" and those who "are not" or "should not be members of society"; the "regular joe who struggles in his righteousness to get over" as over against these Others "who only know how to get a government check."

flip a libertarian over and too often you find yet another petit-bourgeois fascist. whether any given person who thinks in these terms would act on the above is another matter---you know, to purge Society of the Undesirables which Drag It Down, man---but structurally, the arguments are very familiar.
everything that's maybe uneven about the surfaces from which different class positions start is pegged on the Undesirable. without them, "society" would be singular, self-contained and limited--the reason that there is the evil state is because there are these parasites.

fascism straight up, in its oppositional form. alot of populist fascist movements start out being kinda anarchist regarding the state--but once in power, there's a reconsideration. it's hard to have a National Military Destiny without the state. and besides, there's a curious symmetry between a limited state and authoritarian rule. a single authoritarian ruler is pretty limited as a model of state--one guy.
and such systems are not necessarily experienced as authoritarian so long as you support them, so long as the parasites being eliminated are not you.

If there are so few of those who make a long-term lifestyle out of living off the government, i.e. my taxes, then you and they won't mind if we cut back on the enormous amount of money we're spending on them, will they?

Your premise is false, because enormous amounts of your taxes isn't being spent on long-term living off of the government lifestyles.

Unless you are talking about defense contractors and politicians.

I'd like to see your figures on the laziness index, and since you're making international comparisons, kindly provide figures from Canada. I will not accept anecdotes.

Sorry for the big words. If you find the vocabulary intimidating, that would suggest to me that you or your parents made poor investment decisions. Your local schools were crappy and you didn't have enough money to go to a better school? Tough shit. Deal with it. It's not our responsibility.

not only that, mcgeedo, but you miss the point i was making almost entirely.
the centrality of petit bourgeois resentment in all this "moral" talk about markets and capitalism is kinda creepy.
set outside your frame and look at it.

i don't have any of the affective investments that you seem to in that way of thinking, so i just read sentences and try to figure out what is happening in them.
this discouse of the "social parasite" leads to the "what the fuck" response.
then it goes past that.
so i stand by what i said concerning the resonances of it.

but it's strange nonetheless to read this stuff from people whom i do not imagine to be fascist, and who probably do not see the linkages unless they're pointed out (and who probably stop reading at the word "fascist" in any event--but there's nothing to be done about that, as it is what it is historically)

what i don't know about is the relation that holds between the "pure" market fantasy and the discourse of "social parasites" or its equivalent, if one needs the other.
that'd be a problem, if one needed the other to operate.

if you'd bother to look up some numbers, you'd see that there isn't an enormous amount of money being spent on anyone. also, the % of people abusing the system is extremely low as well.

Our polititians and those connected to them who benefit most are doing very well and are probably not inclined to cut back and they make the rules.

Am I selling out to engage in what already is. I think the trend is continually boucing further left each time. Although the healthcare issue doesnt seem to be as near as extreme as I thought it was going to be.

If the world was ready I would not be sad in this type of culture The Venus Project - The Redesign of a culture

it may have to happen at some point if humanity is to survive. Highly unlikely.

"flip a libertarian over and too often you find yet another petit-bourgeois fascist" wow

I see what you are doing here. You can take your little insult here and shove it straight up your ass.

I am college educated. My wife and I have over $150,000 in student loans to prove it. We did it ourselves and one day we hope that it will pay off big time. So we made sacrifices and worked hard to get an education (that was more than just English classes) so that we could put ourselves and our future family in a much better position in life.

Now you and your friends say that it is great that you worked hard, achieved the American dream. Now we are going to take even more of that money you worked so hard for and give it to people that "need" it more than you.

My wife is social services attorney for a smaller county in North Carolina. Do not tell us that there is a "small" amount of people suckling off of the governments tit.

Flatland, good to hear about how hard you worked to get your degree.

Thank god (or taxes) one can get loans for education, eh?

I think it's great that tax money (in Canada, at least) is set aside for loans for education.
A classic example of providing education, and at least a shot, at achieving wealth.
I think almost all would agree it's a moral way of spending our taxes.

As to those who suck off the "tit", well, I DO think there should be minimum requirements for receiving
aid. Like, if you are physically able to work, donate 15 hours a week to your local community.
Pick up trash, whatever.

Wow. I didn't see a terrible insult in Guyy's post. (Certainly less severe than your "shove it up your ass" comment). I saw a tongue-in-cheek response to your complaint about "obscure" words (and your complaints about "redistribution of wealth").
My thoughts exactly. Where do those low interest rate loans come from?

Do I get a win, Sapiens?

Often when I encounter those who have "pulled themselves up by their bootstraps" they often seem
to miss the infrastructure they used to do so.

Or State-run Universities, for that matter?

Glad to see I'm not the only one who sees the flaw in the 'pick yourself up by your bootstraps' argument.

Let's refrain from telling people to shove things up their ass. You may have a legitimate issue with the other poster insult, I'll read it next, but your response is not acceptable.
-----Added 22/10/2008 at 07 : 08 : 39-----
There's no need to engage in childish comments like this. You could have easily made you point with out insulting the other members intelligence. Just because you disagree with his position doesn't mean you have the right to insinuate he's an idiot and would only understand smaller words.

Let's keep it civil folks.

Can we at least stick to facts.

The welfare reform of the 90s requires:

that the "head" (father or single mother) of every family on welfare must work within two years, or the family will lose benefits.

within two months of receiving assistance, adults must begin performing community service work unless they have found regular jobs.

there is now a lifetime welfare benefits limitation of five cumulative years; states may reduce even more if they choose.

When you demagogue about "disease snowballing" or "getting money and have no need to work" or "no incentive to change because check arrives every month"...the only thing you accomplish is to demonstrate that you dont know the facts.

BTW, your wife should know all of this if she is a county social services attorney.

You can technically "be off the welfare rolls" and still qualify for section 8 housing, food stamps and medicare or medicaid or whatever it's being called today. So your not really off welfare but then you are. Typical government bullshit. They feel they have at least look like they are doing something about a perceived problem while insuring they don't piss off the people living off the government teat who's voting them into office. It's just another typical government circle jerk. Don't worry no matter who gets elected they have a plan and it will suddenly all be better.

Hell, I worked for HUD a short time and there was people living on disability, and qualified for all the above assistance btw, for being an alcoholic. Apparently the lack of self disclipine is some sort of mental illness and qualifies you for all sorts of government aid.

scout...you call it "government bullshit" and "living off the government" and I call it a "social safety net"....somethng common to most civilized societies.

I hope you or your family (or mine) never need it!
-----Added 22/10/2008 at 06 : 26 : 28-----

The bullshit is all this rhetoric by McCain/Palin and "wealth distribution" as socialism.

Its called a progressive income tax...or at least McCain thought so in 2000 when he was running against Bush.
So..in 2000, it sounds like he supports Obama's 2008 tax plan....and now its socialism...go figure!

I don't recall mentioning anything about McCain in my post. Since you brought it up neither candidate is worth voting for. I wouldn't vote for either of them for a county office period. It's a sad day in the United States if all we can muster up for president is the likes of Obama or McCain. We are collectively in deep shit and it isn't going to get much better for awhile. /end threadjack.

Call it a social safety net or whatever you want it doesn't change the fact there is consecutive generations living off our tax dollars. I have witnessed several instances of three generations living within a block of each other. Drop by for a beer sometime and I'll take you around my neighborhood and you can witness it too. Just a mere 300 yards or two doors down the mobile home has camaras all around so no one steals the pot/drugs etc they sell for cash while they suck all they can from the government teat. Dad works a part time job, has for years, and they qualify for section 8, food stamps and the mom/kids get free medical care courtesy of you and I. Grandma and Grandpa and Dads brother, wife and family live behind them in two other homes. All sucking what they can from you and I. Shit they got it made. Granted there may have been some reform in the nineties but more needs to be done. It's a helluva thing to have to pass a piss test to get a job so you can pay taxes to the government so they can give your money away to people that don't have to pass a piss test to qualify for the government teat.

To equate welfare programs with government backed student loans or state supported universities is a bit of a stretch to say the least.


I do agree there needs to be a safety net for everyone. It should be a safety net, not a lifestyle.

scout...your anecdotes just dont work for me.

By most measures, the vast majority of people on welfare, food stamps and other social service programs dont abuse the program and in fact, utilize such programs for a relatively short period of time.

Its what a government does for its citizens most in need....unless you know of a democratic government anywhere or anytime in recent history that did not provide such a social safety net.

Stop by anytime and see it for yourself, we'll throw a slab of meat on the grill and have a beer while we watch the customers visit the neighborhood nuisance.

the people in your neighborhood don't sound like they're living it up. First off, they live in a trailer park. Secondly, any "luxury" items they have were probably paid for by their drug money, not their government checks. let's not pretend they're getting $40k/year from the government. this is a joke.

Perhaps you could stop by my house. We used to be on food stamps because we didn't have enough money to buy formula for our daughter (breast feeding wasn't an option). Now we're not anymore, and I'm about 7 months away from having a BME with an honors-eligible GPA.

We didn't want to be on public assistance, but we ended up on it because we needed to be. We had the option of being on public assistance, so I didn't have to quit school to get a full time job. Theoretically, my future contributions to society will more than make up for the half a year where the government stole your hard-earned money and fed my baby with it. This is the social safety net working as it should.

Where is the money?

edit


The Tax Breakdown Project 2008

Your portion of the tax burden.
Your Tax Burden Calculator



BREAKDOWN OF INCOME AND TAXES PAID BY CATEGORY
Income Category 2004 AGI Percent of all income Percent of income taxes paid
Top 1% Over $328K 19% 37%
Top 5% Over $137.5K 33% 57%
Top 10% Over $99.1K 44% 68%
Top 25% Over $ 0K 66% 85%
Top 50% Over $30.1K 87% 97%
Bottom 50% under $30.1K 13% 3%
Source: IRS

Sorry it isn't a mobile home park, although there is a few scattered about. I live in a county where there isn't any zoning so you can pretty much do what you want with your property. And while some of their luxury items may come from drug money, why should I as a taxpayer be responsible for any of their upkeep?
-----Added 23/10/2008 at 06 : 19 : 50-----
And you know what I don't have a problem with that whatsoever. I absolutely don't begrudge or hold that against you at all. Not one single iota. If you need it for a short time to get out of a bind that's what it's there for and I'm more than happy to help or to contribute my fair share. That's why we pay taxes and it's nice to see it work the way it's supposed to. Your right that's exactly the way it's supposed to work. It's not supposed to be a lifestyle. Hell I've seen people that although they was living together and they had several kids between them wouldn't get married because they/she would lose their/her government assistance when his income got added to hers. What's up with that? And while I think most people receiving assistance truly needs it and isn't taking advantage of the situation there's enough fraud in the rural county I live in to really piss a person off.

I still haven't heard scout's solution to the "problem". We get it, you're unhappy that some people in your neighborhood are working the system....so what's the fix?

A resource based economy. As long as the current monetary system exsists in the world this debate will never end.

Here's the thing. Scout agrees that the is a good side to the social safety net when he sees filtherton's situation. However, he has a problem with those who fraudulently abuse the system.

It seems to me that we are talking about two different things here. On the one hand, using tax money to support those in our society who need a leg up or a hand out is OK. Those who break the law are not OK.

Why throw the baby with the bathwater? Deal with crime the way all crime is dealt with... via the criminal courts and or the law.


To those who don't like paying taxes... what exactly is the issue? How else are the roads going to get repaired. How else can you afford to pay for the wars so many of you support?

Government is supposed to be by the people, for the people. Think on that a bit before you go all selfish libertarian on us...

is there some sense of neighborhood pride or something that is keeping you from reporting your neighbors to the authorities, scout? why complain on a message board when you can go get them arrested for fraud?

OK, i was harsh, but what i was doing was turning the rhetoric of personal responsibility on someone who is more accustomed to voicing it than hearing it applied to himself. That my comment was perceived as a personal insult suggests to me that the rhetoric of personal responsibility would be taken that way by the people it's being used against elsewhere in the thread. Where are we on that?

the fact that his anecdote is BS comes to mind

Whatever.

i am not sure that it makes much sense to think about redistribution of wealth inductively, from particulars to the general. you have to go the other way around, from some conception of the social system, its economic components, the interactions between them and what distributions of wealth/allocations of resources best enable that system to be coherent, more or less just, more or less able to provide something beyond libertarian barbarism for its inhabitants.

Well said, rb.

What's distressingly absent from this thread are reasonable arguments for what I assume would be the abolishment of the redistribution of wealth, and also a description of what would be in its place.

Somehow all I can picture is social Darwinism redux and feudalism 2.0.

Someone please enlighten me.

roach, I think it's the definition of "just" that's at issue with a lot of people, myself included. Most people understand that capital projects like roads, military, etc. are a function of government and must be paid for with some sort of tax base (some previous posters notwithstanding). I think that the Libertarian ( and old school Conservative) train of thought is that what is "just" is based on personal effort, not need. You get what you earn, not what you lack. Marx told us to provide to each as his need, but it never worked out that way, did it?

I suppose the issue then is, what is just. Should we have a social safety net such as Universal Healthcare, Unemployment Insurance, Public Education, Welfare, etc. Or should we support a system that enriches the few at the expense of the many?

As always, the answer lies somewhere in the middle. It always does.

The balance between Freedom and Equality is only difficult to achieve when faced with human greed.

What you're going to hear about "just," from a Conservative, is that a safety net is obligatory from the government for those that cannot provide for themselves. Clearly this includes children that are brought into the world by those who can't or won't take care of themselves or their children. It also includes those who are victims of things like autism, Down's, etc. It also includes those who might be hurt on the job.

Where you get an argument is providing a "safety net" as a long term lifestyle for those who don't care to work.

I have no issue with paying taxes to provide for a strong military. I have no issue with paying for Interstate highways. I seriously begrudge every penny sent to the lower wards in New Orleans, or the inner city in Detroit.

I'm pleased to contribute to equal opportunity; free education for all. But ask to "distribute" some of my earned income to a freeloader, then you'll have a struggle on your hands. Is this Social Darwinism?

So your complaints come down to the old saw of "welfare cheats" or "welfare queens".

Again, this seems like a legal matter than a systemic one. Fraud is fraud.

the term just is one way to frame the matter. you could also say which system is most coherent from a business viewpoint--which is most stable (long term prospects), most inclusive (widest consumer base), most healthy (more likely to buy more commodities)...or you could argue from the viewpoint of which system operates at the greater distance from the social jungle, which enables capitalism to provide better lives for the greatest number-but you know, in reality, not in horatio alger land---or which system is the more just. but each of these categories will point you at different features.

one could say, for example, that a system that is highly stratified on class lines as is the us cannot possibly be a just society unless and until it makes its educational system into one that is not a direct mirror of the class order---rich towns, good schools; poor towns shittier schools---because this arrangement inflicts the consequences of class on children and in the process provides a radically "uneven playing field"---a metaphor i hate---from the outset.

if education and opportunity are unevenly or unequally distributed, then the "you earn what you should make" arguments head out the window because they presuppose equality of access to competences, to opportunities, etc. in the present american system, there is no such equality--nor is there much interest in bringing the educational system closer to it from the right. vouchers etc are far more about breaking unions that providing good education to all...but that's another matter,