« A Review of “The Richest Man in Babylon for Today” by Fred Siegel | Main | The Seven Laws of Money – Advice From “The Richest Man…” »
Welfare Definition
By JLP | January 3, 2008
Okay, I thought this was funny (you might not):
I saw that on the Neal Boortz website.
Topics: Miscellaneous | 31 Comments »
January 3rd, 2008 at 8:43 am
You were right, I don’t find it funny..oh well.
January 3rd, 2008 at 9:43 am
Hilarious! Why can’t those lazy 7 year-olds just pull themselves up by their bootstraps and get a job instead of living off food stamps???
January 3rd, 2008 at 10:18 am
I guess this is how conservatives see welfare. Kind of funny though
-Raymond
January 3rd, 2008 at 10:28 am
I understand the importance of taking care of the less fortunate. But, you can’t tell me that the welfare system isn’t a racket.
January 3rd, 2008 at 10:55 am
I find it highly funny.
Why? Because it is the truth, and the truth is very often sad and funny…
Government == Force
Charities are for giving money. Government is for stealing money. Honestly, if you are okay with the government stealing people’s money to do some “good” with it, would you have a problem with anyone robbing people because they have some perceived “need?” If you have no problem with either, then at least you are consistent. If you think it is fine for the government, but not others, then you are hypocritical.
January 3rd, 2008 at 11:09 am
Compounding,
I think the purpose of government should be to provide services like road and bridge building, protection, and things like that. I don’t think it should be the government’s role to take from here and give to there.
January 3rd, 2008 at 11:16 am
JLP, very NOT fair, realistic or compassionate of you. There’s nothing wrong with poking a little fun at some parts of the welfare system, but suggesting all welfare is robbery is um….bizarre. And I consider myself a fiscal conservative. Would you really prefer that those with lots of money kept that last extra dollar and the poor and underprivileged went without basic necessities?
Compounding: Govt = Force. No kidding? You mean those great streets you drive on, the police/fire depts you depend on, the schools you send your kids to, the sewers you use, etc., etc., etc. weren’t just happily and eagerly paid for by the people who came before you? Saying the govt = force is like saying the govt. exists and you’ve got to pay taxes. Uhuh, so what? That part of our taxes is used to help the underprivileged is no more “stealing money” than using it to build a highway is “stealing money”. And no, I wouldn’t want to be robbed whether the money went to help out the poor or being a local school, but I’m fine with my taxes being used for both purposes. There’s nothing hypocritical about that.
As an aside, I’ve always found it a little odd that christian conservatives are so pro-republican when republicans generally aren’t very charitable or compassionate towards the poor. Also odd that the term is a “bleeding heart liberal”. Shouldn’t all those Jesus-loving, bible thumping, G-d fearing folks be the “bleeding hearts” who care about others? Maybe not. I’m sure Jesus who’ve said “To hell with the poor little kids, just make sure the govt. doesn’t take away my right to shoot rabbits with a double-barrelled shot gun!”
January 3rd, 2008 at 11:27 am
Legal Therapy,
While I respect your opinion, I do not think it is fair for you to say that conservatives/Republicans are not very charitable or compassionate. That’s simply not the case. In fact, I would like to challenge you to read the book http://www.amazon.com/Who-Really-Cares-Compassionate-Conservatism/dp/B000WCTRPA/ref=pd_bbs_sr_1?ie=UTF8&s=books&qid=1199381079&sr=8-1 (Affiliate Link) by Arthur Brooks, which dispells many of the myths bestowed upon us by our lovely media. People like to think that Democrats and liberals are more “caring” than conservatives and Republicans. That’s simply not the truth. It’s much more about the role of government.
January 3rd, 2008 at 11:41 am
If I don’t have kids Why should I pay for schools? I have never had a fire so tax dollars for Fire Department is stealing my money too. I also have a gun so I don’t need to support the police department.In fact I support many programs that I will never use. I pay tax dollars to fight a war I don’t give a crap about too. I make a good living in this country so it only benefits me to make the country strong.
January 3rd, 2008 at 12:09 pm
Thanks for the reference. I’ll actually get & read this book. My earlier rant notwithstanding, I just don’t understand the big conservative uproar against helping others through the govt. Charities are great, but they can’t provide a failsafe, mandatory safety net for everyone who needs it. Anc couching this fight against welfare as just being libertarian and against govt. regulation / spending generally isn’t a fine grain enough argument in this case. I’d love to limit the govt.’s role in a host of areas, but not in its role as safety net for the poor. You can be against an expansionist govt. generally and still recognize it has a proper role to play in insuring that the underprivileged’s basic needs are met.
Again, I’ll read the book, but as a first impression, I don’t see many religious conservatives (of all denominations) preaching a message of universal caring for others. Religious conservatives tend to care first and foremost, for others of their religious group.
January 3rd, 2008 at 1:00 pm
This whole discussion boils my blood! I’m essentially an independent but have likened to the “true” Conservative and Libertarian values.
I am also of the mindset that the photo was very funny. The gov’t is not here to hand hold nor spoon feed.
I won’t even dive into our horrible welfare system that encourages those whom are unemployed or make minimum wage to continue doing so by providing “free-be’s”… or the social security tax to withhold money for “my own good” because I’m too inept to plan for my own retirement … or Hillary Clinton’s proposal to provide savings bonds to each child born so they can pay for college (or, but these young adults fresh from Highschool are restricted in no way how they choose to spend the money) … or GWB;s proposal to provide vouchers to those in need when Cable TV is no longer analog in 2009 … or the Gov’t outlawing regular incandescent bulbs and forcing consumers to buy “green” light bulbs … or the Gov’t of NJ raising the tolls on the turnpike to help those without healthcare and at the same time when the state is in dept they’re hiring the judges pay to a level only seen at Federal … or the Gov’ts plan to help those that got in too deep in the mortgage crsis.
I could go on all freaking day whether it’s Healthcare, SS, Roads, you name it. Our gov’t has become more and more Socialistic everyday and no one even notices. Even GWB is closer to an old school liberal than a true Republican.
The whole mess makes me mad. Sorry for the rant!
January 3rd, 2008 at 1:05 pm
Oh, and I almost forgot.
While I hate pissing matches this is a very interesting excerpt from an ABC News article.
“It turns out that this idea that liberals give more…is a myth. Of the top 25 states where people give an above average percent of their income, 24 were red states in the last presidential election.
Arthur Brooks, the author of “Who Really Cares,” says that “when you look at the data, it turns out the conservatives give about 30 percent more.” He adds, “And incidentally, conservative-headed families make slightly less money.”
And he says the differences in giving goes beyond money, pointing out that conservatives are 18 percent more likely to donate blood. He says this difference is not about politics, but about the different way conservatives and liberals view government.
“You find that people who believe it’s the government’s job to make incomes more equal, are far less likely to give their money away,” Brooks says. In fact, people who disagree with the statement, “The government has a basic responsibility to take care of the people who can’t take care of themselves,” are 27 percent more likely to give to charity.”
http://abcnews.go.com/2020/story?id=2682730&page=1
January 3rd, 2008 at 1:09 pm
Call it a hedge.
Why accept lower returns of bonds? To hedge against stock downturns.
Why accept more taxes to transfer to the poor? To hedge against the poor rising up and taking more money away from you by force.
If you accept bonds as having a place in a portfolio, then welfare in the society is just as acceptable as a hedge against social unrest. Don’t be naive and think it could not happen here. Many other democratic countries turned different directions (socialism, communism or fascism) during the Great Depression and those forces had a lot of support in the U.S. during that time.
January 3rd, 2008 at 1:18 pm
eRock,
I’m about to read that book. I bought it over a year ago but never got around to reading it. It should offer some great blogging material.
January 3rd, 2008 at 2:58 pm
I got a chuckle from the poster. It looks like the “motivational” posters they sell on Despair.com. It appears to me that the differences between commenter’s take on this poster boils down to how they like to do charity. People that like to do good with their own money, versus people that want to do good with other people’s money. I was listening to Milton Freidman’s discussion of this just yesterday (on YouTube). According to him the problem with trying to “do good with other people’s money” are first, you have to take it away from the other person, using the force and coercion of the government, and second people are never as careful spending other people’s money as they are spending their own.
January 3rd, 2008 at 3:12 pm
Sam,
Freidman’s point reminds me of the following experience I had back from during my grocery store days.
One day I had a headache and went to the courtesy booth to get some Ibuprofen. The ladies that run the booth always had a stash of various medicines that were purchased at the store’s expense. Looking through the box I noticed that everything was name brand products. I asked the booth manager about this and she said something like, “The store can afford to purchase the good stuff for their employees.”
It is indeed much easier to spend other people’s money than it is to spend your own.
January 3rd, 2008 at 3:56 pm
“Charities are great, but they can’t provide a failsafe, mandatory safety net for everyone who needs it…you can be against an expansionist govt. generally and still recognize it has a proper role to play in insuring that the underprivileged’s basic needs are met.”
OMG Legal Therapy I have to disagree, though I understand and support your sentiment. The fact is that the government simply can’t/doesn’t/won’t do a better job–or even a good job or much of a job at all–providing a safety net for the poor, regardless of how many taxes they collect for that purpose.
Furthermore, I challenge you to define “poor” and “safety net.” The average person living at “poverty level” in our country has A/C, color TV, cable, internet access, and have never gone hungry. The average poor HOUSEHOLD also clocks in less than 20 hours of work each week. The simple (wonderful) fact is that poverty, homelessness, and hunger are not widespread issues in this country. Yes, they are serious issues–but they simply do not necessitate the giant money-vaccuum of a system that we have created.
January 4th, 2008 at 12:45 pm
I have to reiterate what Meg brought to light and add that the government does not guarantee anything; politicians say that it is guaranteed, but it isn’t, nor could it be no matter how much anyone ever hoped. The government is simply an institution, like any other, and it does not have any magic fairy dust that it can spread to guarantee anything. There is a real possibility that our currency could be rendered worthless… how would the government guarantee anything then? It couldn’t, that is the simple answer.
It is not among the enumerated roles that our government is allowed to fill… so our government is not supposed to do any of this. If you don’t like that, get an amendment going, or move somewhere that it is okay. Regardless of how long it has been going on, it is unconstitutional. FDR used fear to force the SCOTUS to deem it constitutional, but it isn’t. The constitution is pretty cut and dry and one does not need a degree in jurisprudence to interpret it.
January 4th, 2008 at 1:01 pm
This is what Meg wrote in a later post…
“But as long as I continue to save (and especially if I continue to be blessed by the generosity of my parents and grandparents), then I should largely avoid all but the most unforseen financial struggles.”
It must be nice to be so blessed by the generosity of your parents and grandparents.
I better understand now why you are willing to dismantle the admittedly inefficient welfare system, and why you naively (or cycnically?)trust that charity will take care of all the (not-so-poor) people who are in (only relative) need, just as you have been cared for through the kindness of others.
Also, are your “statistics” about the living conditions of the poor based on anything remotely factual? Blog comments certainly don’t require footnotes, but if an argument is based on alleged factual support, a certain degree of credibility is necessary.
January 4th, 2008 at 1:06 pm
[...] Here’s Frank’s response to my welfare definition post from earlier this week. [...]
January 4th, 2008 at 6:45 pm
Once again I have to ask myself why I bother to read your site anymore JLP when you always push your narrow political
view on a blog that is suppossed to be about finance. I’ve had it with the apologies that you won’t polarize or alienate your readers and I for one don’t see the point of this other than an act of arrogance. If I wanted to be angered about social issues I can listen to some blowhard on AM.
January 4th, 2008 at 7:40 pm
Pat,
You’re entitled to your opinion. I do try to limit my narrow views but I have to wonder who’s the one with the narrow view if you are the one who was offended by my post.
And although this blog is about personal finance, there are a lot of personal finance issues that are political. Take the subprime crisis for instance. When I wrote about that, the conversation went all over the place in terms of placing the blame.
I’m sorry to lose you as a reader but if my posts anger you that much, then you should probably go elsewhere.
January 4th, 2008 at 9:17 pm
I find the image humorous. It isn’t because I’m not compassionate or don’t think the government should lend a hand to those less fortunate, but I find it humorous simply because our welfare system is broken. It is broken just like many of the other government programs–conservative, liberal, and bi-partisan alike.
It is just one of the many programs that has continued to run amok after beginning with good intentions. Name your federal social program of choice, and it probably isn’t efficiently doing what it was intended to do, and it is disproportionately taking money out of someone’s pocket to fund someone else’s pocket without addressing the real issue.
It isn’t a conservative or liberal issue, it is simply pointing out how disgustingly wasteful our government is. It just throws money at problems in hopes to win votes or make people feel good about where their tax dollars go.
January 5th, 2008 at 1:12 am
I like the picture. I could really care less if others don’t. Life’s not fair. That’s just how it is.
January 5th, 2008 at 10:21 am
I’ve *used* welfare recently and I find the picture to be funny.
Fact of the matter is: if we eliminated a lot of the wasteful social programs, then there would be more money left in people’s pockets… and there would be less need for welfare. I paid several thousand dollars in taxes this year, and I could have used those dollars to get myself over the hump when I was downsized rather than turn to the government. How about that!
January 5th, 2008 at 10:31 am
I don’t mind welfare as much as the total government waste. I don’t mind some of my taxes to go to less fortunate – kids, sick people, poor elderly, maybe even some younger people for a short period of time. I do mind it going to a healthy 20-year old who is fully capable of working. Illegal immigrants from Mexico manage to find employment, and lots of it – house improvement, house cleaning – pays a lot more than minimum wage. A foreign cleaning lady in my area wouldn’t work for less than $15 an hour in cash, and that’s a bargain.
At the same time, I don’t think welfare is such a huge part of government spending, but as most government programs it could’ve been run a whole lot more efficiently. What bugs me most is that there are doesn’t seem to be any oversight to make sure that nothing is wasted. Every year we hear about how some billions just “got lost” or how there was no competitive bidding for government contracts or how they hired a contractor to build something, paid exhorbitant price, and then the product was bad, or how they built airport in the middle of nowhere and nobody is using it, or build a 200K outhouse in a state park. If this happened in a company, we might’ve seen some convictions. They should have independent audits, also some of their employees who aren’t too busy should occupy themselves by figuring out how to save money – with incentive pay a percentage of money saved (a cousin of mine in Germany does this type of work for a company – she is excellent at it, maybe they should hire her).
So I mightn’t entirely agree with the picture, but it is funny.
January 16th, 2008 at 6:40 am
This thread makes me sad.
@Kitty – I appreciate your point. From my experience, I would say that there is far more oversight of welfare distributions than, say, farm subsidies or corporate tax subsidy programs (both of which account for far more government spending than welfare). This probably makes sense: in those cases, the recipients are rich, and thus have the resources to gradually twist government policy further and further towards what benefits them the most. Welfare recipients, on the other hand, have nothing like the farm or oil and gas lobby.
Growing up, more of my friends’ families were on welfare than not. I don’t know the statistics on how many color tv’s your average welfare recipient has etc, but I do remember pretty vividly how incredibly lucky and almost guilty I felt each fall at value village with my parents getting new (”new”) school cloths for the year – why did I get pants that fit (whether they came from the bargain bin at a second hand store or not) when so many of my friends didn’t have any cloths that fit, a warm enough coat, or even necessarily a meal besides lunch every day?
I sure didn’t see anyone living the high life on government dollars. I just saw my grade school aged friends making it by, marginally, rather than living in shelters. I don’t begrudge them that. I wish I had known how to do more.
Overall, this thread reminds me of what I worry about the most when I read these PF blogs: that spending so much time thinking about maximizing $ in the bank as an end goal will warp my thinking and I will forget the things I value most. For all the talk here of it being private charity that should play the role of welfare, I don’t see “charitable donation” very high on very many budgets on these blogrolls.
Tithing comes up occasionally, but the way I remember my own church’s finances running when I was growing up, very little of the money tithed goes to charity – most of it was always poured back into the church itself, and spent back on church members. Perhaps a great idea, but a form of collective saving and spending, not charity.
On this blog, going back as far as 2005, I can find a grand total of 3 posts on the topic of charitable giving – and none within the last year.
November 9th, 2008 at 1:21 am
For all of you who feel the need for Gov. to intervene when dealing with the poor, you miss the point most Libertarians are making. The issue we as libertarians are making with welfare is that there are millions, yes millions, of people who have sustained a life style off of gov. subsidies. It is not our responsibility to pay for the lazy or socially inept. It is not what America was founded on either, which is hardwork, living WITHIN your means, and working according to your potential. The fact of the matter is that some people are incapable of making the life choices to pull and keep them from poverty. It happens in every society. Its just not a fellow citizens responsibility to pay for them. As for those who have a rug pulled out from underneath them, that is perfectly fine that there be a system in place to help them to there feet. Not feed them and their children for years on end, while they do not attend school or work a min. wage job to get back on the right track. This is the country as it was founded, free from the socialist idealogues our founders ran from by declaring this a Republic! free from Britain.
January 19th, 2009 at 3:41 pm
I think that pretty much everyone can agree that welfare is not a terrible thing when used properly. It is only supposed to be a temporary program to help people get through rough times. (See Cinderella Man, great scene in there) The problem is that some people think that they are entitled to it and abuse the system which is what makes the rest of us hate the system.
January 19th, 2009 at 3:48 pm
I think that everyone on here can agree that welfare when it is used correctly is not a terrible thing. The problem is that some people get into a mindset that they are entitled to have the government do everything for them and then they start abusing the system rather than using it as a temporary program to help people back on to their feet. When this happens it causes people like me to become skeptical of the system and to call for reform. In response to Anon’s comment I agree that there should be more oversight of subsidies but at least oil companies and farms are providing something to the public instead of just being a parasite living off of the backs of the taxpayers. (I am not calling everyone who uses welfare a parasite, only people who abuse it)
November 10th, 2009 at 4:54 pm
In a simplified context: if you didn’t give money to beggars, the beggars would stop begging.