How Welfare should be according to Anti-Welfareists

Post Reply New Topic

This is why a donor should want to investigate how they give money.

It's common in any church that if you don't specify what a donation is for, it goes into the general fund. I've known churches that have an "open book" policy on their ledger. Any church member can inspect how they use the money they receive.

An organization that hides how they spend money usually isn't one you should be supporting.

I don't see a point to comparing studies when we can't even agree on how to define the economy. Measuring the circulation of money is useless as far as I'm concerned. The health of an economy is based on the value improvement gained by each party in an exchange. Money is nothing more than a tool to facilitate exchange.

The government is only a contributor to the GDP if you define GDP as including government spending. It's like me saying that I'm going to add my spending to my income and claiming that higher numbers means I'm doing better financially.

The money doesn't come from the administration. It comes from citizens who pay taxes.

I make a fuss about welfare because that's the topic of the thread. If you want to fuss about the stupid amounts we spend on spy programs and wars in a thread about spy programs and wars, I'll be happy to fuss right along with you.

So true. All welfare programs combined (as of current FY 2014 projections) make up around 11% of the federal budget (this includes SNAP, HUD, welfare, unemployment, all subsidies, etc). Defense spending makes up 22%, even after drastic spending cuts (and Defense Secretary Chuck Hagel's proposed trimming of the military to discontinue production of obsolete equipment and a reduction in force).

Education spending is a pitiful 4%.

Federal pensions and benefits (including pensions for military veterans and Social Security payments for retirees) makes up 24%.

And just for the record, the recent Farm Bill actually increased total spending. SNAP benefits were slashed, but benefits for large land owners increased by more.

Personally, I think the easiest, quickest, and most efficient way to reduce short term government spending would be the establishment of a task force to review all government spending (by line item), and cease all spending on all obsolete technology as well as payments to government contractors who do not fulfill the terms of their contracts.

Taxes that are federally controlled and mandated, aka federal money. That tax money is technically never ours because we have no choice but to pay it.
You missed the point I was making about fussing about welfare. The point I was making is that there are government programs that use so much money, it makes welfare expenses look like chump change, those programs are what need to be changed and/or cut out completely to bring the economy to a better place than it is, not welfare. Welfare barely supports people as it is, cut it further and people who need it can't survive, take it from someone who has to think about it every time food assistance goes down.
You can complain about little old welfare all you want, but when looking at the bigger picture, it's not hard to see that it's not even close to the main problem, especially when taking into consideration how those hundreds of billions lost by the government's wasted endeavors could've been used to correct the economic problem that we currently face.

Sorry, I can't agree with that. If I earned it, it's my money. Just because I'm threatened with violence if I don't pay does not mean the money was never mine.


http://www.cbpp.org/cms/?fa=view&id=1258

It's not chump change.


Whether welfare helps people or not isn't the issue. The issue is that it also hurts people. Some central planner is deciding who needs help and who doesn't. I oppose welfare because of this. I think people should be able to decide for themselves if they are able and willing to contribute to social programs.


See the link above. Social safety net programs are very much part of the problem.

Money not spent does nothing. The value improvement is exactly zero when it goes into a wealthy person's already fat accounts; the money is simply removed from circulation. Less money in circulation means less cash for entrepreneurs to start their businesses and less cash for people to spend at those new businesses. This is why the circulation of wealth is a decent (although still not ideal) gage of future economic performance.



So the government produces nothing with its money? I have difficulty seeing how you can exclude it, unless you also exclude all expenses from every business in the country as well.

Another thing to consider concerning welfare programs:
The more people you lift out of poverty, the lower government spending on these programs will be, even if there are NO reductions in the benefits to the individual. If you want to reduce welfare spending, start looking for ways to reduce poverty rates.

when exactly would this violence occur?

1. You're not "threatened with violence" for not paying taxes, you go to prison. Plain and simple, don't over-exaggerate, it weakens your perceived validity in the matter.

2. Whether or not it helps people is precisely what matters here. In all of your arguments, you haven't stopped for one second to think about what would happen to all the people that can't otherwise support themselves if welfare was cut or taken completely out, the only thing you've talked about is the expense that the program has on the rest of society, which individually is no more than your average tax. The issue doesn't just encompass money, it encompasses what the money is serving as well, and what problems will arise if that money is cut. People's lives depend on that income, but you obviously don't care about who needs the program, as long as it doesn't drain your money supply.
Also, the program is federal governed for a reason, people are not going to hand out money to help someone out of the kindness of their heart, if people were truly that kind-hearted, then there would be no such thing as anti-welfare points of view because money wouldn't even be an issue. In fact, if the program were socially governed, people would have to pay out more than they are now, just to keep the status quo because then it starts coming out of privately owned pockets, who are still paying those same federal taxes. And when people stop paying money to do so, the system would collapse and people would suffer for it.

Last edited by Jaden on 27 Feb 2014, 11:59 am, edited 1 time in total.

This is the question people of this viewpoint seldom answer but I will ask it anyways. What happens when the social programs funded by people who donate don't meet the needs of the disabled and poor who need the welfare programs? Should they just be left on the streets to die with no assistence from the government which is supposed to serve the people by the way(which as much as some might hate this includes the poor and disabled). It is somewhat the governments responsibility to build/maintain infrastructure and make sure there is some kind of social safety net.

I don't think you understand how wealthy people operate. People with wealth don't let their money sit around in bank accounts. They invest it. That investment results in growth, otherwise they wouldn't invest.


What little government production exists is grossly inefficient since there are no consequences for reckless spending. Politicians have no motivation to change. It would be an order of magnitude more productive if that money was left in the hands of the people who have consequences.

Being thrown in prison is violence. I'm not sure why you have difficulty with that concept.


Government welfare programs are not the only way to survive in the world.


My problem with it is that I don't have a choice in the matter. I feel the same way about most military spending as well. I don't oppose helping people in need. I don't oppose military programs. What I oppose is being forced to participate in funding them.


Private charity in the US was $316.23 billion in 2012. I don't think there's anything else I need to say to debunk your claim that people aren't going to hand out money to help people.

I answer this question every time it's asked.

They will need to turn to private charity, such as relying on family members or churches.


This is only because a majority of the people in this country are eager to hand that power to the ruling class. I really don't get why people whine about the super-rich while voting to give them all that power.

1. You mean avoid the question... You just reapeated the same thing I questioned in less words...how is that an answer?, anyways let me specify, what happens when the private charity and family members cant provide the needed help? For instance I don't see family and private charity being a viable replacement for Medicaid for instance.

2. .....uhh ok so the government is not supposed to do anything concerning society? There are problems with corruption, which involve the government not living up to their responsibility to serve the people. Also I don't think most people vote to give the rich all the power...that would be another example of government corruption where they allow for the rich to get out of things and such because they get money from corporate intrests and such.

But lumping conservatives in with liberals is insane.

What problem? Government spending? Problems with government spending that I feel would have a much smaller impact on economy stability than simply reducing (or eliminating) welfare benefits:

1. The governmental "use it or lose it" policy that sets off the wasteful spending frenzy in throughout the entire federal government.

2. Continued spending on failed initiatives and obsolete technology.

3. Paying contractors whether they deliver or not.

4. Corporate welfare. In all of its ridiculous forms (The latest move by Republicans on their proposed tax reform bill is to cut anti-poverty spending while also reducing corporate tax rates, resulting in higher budget deficits; The Farm Bill reduced SNAP benefits while increasing subsidies to farmers and large land owners (many of them are those who voted for this bill), also resulting in an increased federal deficit; supporting corporations' rights to force its full time employees to rely on government assistance).

5. Bending over backwards to appease lobbying groups and drafting legislation in order to help out those who donate the most to their campaigns.

6. Allowing corporations that defraud the government to pay a settlement that is significantly less than the amount they have effectively.

7. Redundant functions across agencies and departments.

8. Media spending (in 2013 The FBI spent $1.5 million for Hollywood to accurately depict the agency; The State Department spent $630,000 to get Facebook “likes;” promoting “Obamacare” nationally will cost a projected $684 million).

9. Spending on non-essentials (landscaping, gardening (over $700,000 was spent on gardening and landscaping services for the personal home of the U.S. ambassador to NATO), cosmetic renovations, artwork, expensive state function catering, the most expensive travel for the legislative and executive branch, etc).

10. The pet projects of individual legislators that accomplish nothing more than slicing out a bigger piece of the pie for their own state, usually at the expense of all others, for the sole purpose of having more ammunition for their next campaign.

11. Foreign assistance programs that unconditionally support military based, religious based, or dictatatorial governments.

12. The ridiculous amount of cash spent on policing the world, including the financing of rebel groups that are likely to be a big problem for the next generation to deal with (not to mention the fact that 13 countries outside the United States and its possessions that have more than 1,000 personnel: Belgium, Japan, Germany, Kuwait, Italy, Spain, Turkey, the United Kingdom, Bahrain, Djibouti, South Korea, Iraq, Afghanistan).

13. Bonuses provided to federal employees (especially upper executive management) that is based on their position and not their performance.

14. Allowing corporations to receive more in tax refunds than the amount of taxes they paid.

15. Allowing American corporations to exploit loopholes to pay zero federal taxes (like Apple).

16. Paying elected officials salaries and expenses for essentially running an election campaign when they should be doing their d*mn jobs.

17. Massive amounts of federally owned land which produce little or no revenue (around $640 million acres), as well as another $19 million acres in military bases and training facilities owned the Department of Defense.

18. Duplicate committees, task forces, and votes in the House and Senate.

19. The amount of money spent on hard currency (especially when compared to the actual face value of the money).

20. Financing almost 29% of UN operations (this figure excludes independently financed UN initiatives that are supported entirely by private donations like UNICEF). The next highest contributor is Japan at less than 11%.

If you are against wasteful spending, here is a good website for you:
Citizens Against Government Waste
http://cagw.org/

While government spending helps the economy, the spending should not be for anything that does not impact the safety, health, and security of its citizens.

Last edited by sonofghandi on 27 Feb 2014, 1:21 pm, edited 1 time in total.