Forum adverts like this one are shown to any user who is not logged in. Join us by filling out a tiny 3 field form and you will get your own, free, dakka user account which gives a good range of benefits to you: No adverts like this in the forums anymore. Times and dates in your local timezone. Full tracking of what you have read so you can skip to your first unread post, easily see what has changed since you last logged in, and easily see what is new at a glance. Email notifications for threads you want to watch closely. Being a part of the oldest wargaming community on the net. If you are already a member then feel free to login now.

Connor McKane wrote:

remilia_scarlet wrote:I agree, last thing I want to do is pay for someone else's habits. These days, more and more people are getting on government assistance that don't even need it, so, it's becoming a burden on the government. I have this neighbor, who's 23, perfecly capable of working, but is on disability for ADD. He does nothing but play second life all day, and spends money on that game, so, in short, we're paying for his habits.

This!!!! I have always been a big fan of this option as well:

If you are on welfare or have lost your job, you have 3 choices.

1) If you are physically or mentally unable to care for yourself you MUST become a ward of the state. You will report for medical treatment as necessary for your condition and be subject to a panel of doctors that will review your condition twice a year and determine your level of disability. You must also submit for monthly drug testing, mandatory birth control and quarterly visits by social services, in your home. In return you will receive your welfare disbursements.

2) Look for a job and receive no unemployment or welfare payments whilst you do so. You are free to enjoy your life without the intrusion of the government.

3) Report to the local Workforce commission local office at 8 am. From 8 am to 12 pm you will utilize the WFC computers, hard copy and counselors to find a job, or receive job training on selected fields. (i.e. Computer Usage, Filing, Plumbing, Construction, interviewing skills... etc.) - at 12 pm you will be allowed 30 minutes for lunch onsite provided by the state. From 12:30 till 5 PM you will be required to preform services in your area. Painting over graffiti, planting trees, picking up garbage from the roadside, building playgrounds, digging ditches, clearing abandoned lots of debris...etc. For this you will receive a livable wage based upon the median income in your area.

Your points:

1. MUST be a ward of the state and mandatory birth control? Please. You going to make them wear yellow stars or some other symbol too?
2. So what is the incentive to look for a job instead of stay on welfare?
3. Kind of contradicts 2, but you will be providing them a livable wage and a meal a day for a half day of work, plus paying other folks for a half day of providing classes and resume writing help and so on. That does not sound like an efficient use of my tax dollars. Who provides day care for them as they spemd form 0800-1700 in this program?

Any plan that requires MORE gov't and more control is not a good one in my opinion. Besides the cost of the above programs I would seriously doubt they could be implemented and make it through the obvious court cases that would come up.

CptJake wrote:Your points:

1. MUST be a ward of the state and mandatory birth control? Please. You going to make them wear yellow stars or some other symbol too?
2. So what is the incentive to look for a job instead of stay on welfare?
3. Kind of contradicts 2, but you will be providing them a livable wage and a meal a day for a half day of work, plus paying other folks for a half day of providing classes and resume writing help and so on. That does not sound like an efficient use of my tax dollars. Who provides day care for them as they spemd form 0800-1700 in this program?

Any plan that requires MORE gov't and more control is not a good one in my opinion. Besides the cost of the above programs I would seriously doubt they could be implemented and make it through the obvious court cases that would come up.

You should read the post: # 2 reads..."You will receive NO welfare or unemployment."

As far as you counterpoint on #1. Your knee jerk reaction and your whip-like travel to Nazi-ism is just a cop out. If you can't care for yourself, how can you care for a child? Think realistically, not rhetorically.

As far a child care goes... how about those receiving welfare / child support? Those unfit for physical labor could care for the children of those who are. "State funded Child care," kinda like the schools as they are now, no? How much do you think the average city employee who picks up garbage, cleans toilets and clear refuse from abandoned lots receives? We could re-task those city employees to other areas vital to infrastructure... I.e. if you lived near Houston, how about that 8 year long construction job on the 3 mile stretch between HWY 290 and I-45. Lets finish that.

As it goes right now. Your tax dollars spent on welfare and unemployment do not better the community in any way. I would rather pay for a garbage/grafitti/eyesore free city than pay the same amount and receive nothing.

Connor McKane wrote:
As far as you counterpoint on #1. Your knee jerk reaction and your whip-like travel to Nazi-ism is just a cop out. If you can't care for yourself, how can you care for a child? Think realistically, not rhetorically.

Considering that vaccination is controversial in certain groups I doubt you'll get many people to sign on to mandatory birth control.

Connor McKane wrote:
As it goes right now. Your tax dollars spent on welfare and unemployment do not better the community in any way. I would rather pay for a garbage/grafitti/eyesore free city than pay the same amount and receive nothing.

One could argue that the social safety net intrinsically betters the community, particularly as regards unemployment benefits.

I have had this discussion many other times on other sites and forums....here are my opinions.

Should you drug test people on welfare? My answer is no. This is why:

If you look at welfare statistics, from the actual government, not from some political pundit, you will see that any numbers you get from politics are used simply as scare tactics. Also, looking at the length of welfare recipients, how long do they suck on the government teet? Last I read, over 75% or 3/4 of welfare recipients are off welfare and back on their feet with in the first two years. It then breaks down from there. If you look at the ones that are on it for life, it is way down there. Drug testing costs money, lots of money. Who is going to pay for these drug tests? The tax payer is. Considering the low amount of people that use welfare as a crutch versus the multiple millions of dollars, hell 100s of millions it would cost to drug test these people is absurd.

Yes, some people will abuse it, yes some people will be on drugs while on welfare. I don't even see what being on drugs even freaking means. What does it mean? I know people that are doped up on adoral, xanex, they smoke pot, they take anti-depressants, sleeping pills, pain killers, and so forth. Everyone these days is on drugs, and doctors prescribe them like they are candy. There is clearly a fine line between substance use and substance abuse, heck I'd even argue there is a fat line (pun intended? not sure) between the two.

I've dabbled in drugs, and done pretty much everything in my life time. I am over that now, but the whole time I held a steady job, a career you could say, never got fired, never messed up at work, and kept all my partying as a social thing. Never once did it control my life.

However, I am digressing, the main reason I am against it is because it would cost a butt-ton of money and maybe stop less than 1% of people from getting welfare, or getting caught and there are like tons of ways to beat a drug test anyway.

just my 2 cents

@ dogma: "One could argue that the social safety net intrinsically betters the community, particularly as regards unemployment benefits."

While it might seem so, I would disagree.

The social safety net is a good idea for those that utilize it, but as long as you receive something for nothing, there is no benefit to the tax payer.

There is also no incentive for self sufficiency. If there is no consequences for failure, then why save and be smart with your money? Why try to excell, just do as little as you can and dont worry about being fired, Joe Taxpayer will cover my cell phone bill?

While Mandatory Birth Control seems on the surface to be Nazi-like, think to yourself these points:

We will all agree that human beings are the only animal in nature that allows its misfits to reproduce on a large scale.

Any idiot with genetailia can reproduce. But should they? Absolutely, if you can care for your own children.

Ask yourself: Would you like to have social services show up on your doorstep with a child and say "You are now legally this child's guardian. You will care for it and pay for all its expenses till it dies."

Because every time some nimrod unable to care for himself, let alone a child, knocks up some Jerry Springer trailer queen... that is EXACTLY what happens.

Oh is it constitutional or unconstitutional?

Hmm, I would say if the government did actually enforce this, I don't see how it would violate any rights. You aren't guaranteed access to all government and social services, that is not one of your inherit rights in the constitution or the bill of rights.

Now that you bring up the legality side of this, what happens when someone is denied welfare from a paper work snafu, or just plain idiocy. I mean this is the government we are talking about here. I just bought a new car and it took me 1 full day to get the tags and plates for it. I had to go to 4 different buildings downtown to fill out paperwork. It was completely 100% inefficient, and costing tax payer dollars to basically have people have pointless jobs created by government red tape. So, they get denied and then they sue the government. Then more tax dollars, time and resources are being wasted on a case which could have been avoided in the first place if the government didn't make crap so complicated.

Now, before you all go and start thinking, man this dude sounds like a libertarian, well you are wrong. My answer to libertarians is shut the hell up and pay your taxes just like everyone else, same goes for corporations. I am in fact, completely independent, but take the salad bar approach (or buffet approach) to my political views. I like some aspects of parties, and some parties more than others, but I will never claim to be one since I hate several things (some more) in every political party there is.

Connor McKane wrote:
The social safety net is a good idea for those that utilize it, but as long as you receive something for nothing, there is no benefit to the tax payer.

There are several key benefits, one of which is the peace of mind that comes from knowing you have something to fall back on if that risk you took doesn't pay off; be it going to school, or moving to find a new job. Then there's the negative pressure that a social safety net places on crime, and the positive effect welfare has on aggregate demand for many different goods (which is economically beneficial).

Connor McKane wrote:
There is also no incentive for self sufficiency. If there is no consequences for failure, then why save and be smart with your money? Why try to excell, just do as little as you can and dont worry about being fired, Joe Taxpayer will cover my cell phone bill?

And yet most people aren't on welfare, which should say something about the quality of life associated with it.

Connor McKane wrote:
While Mandatory Birth Control seems on the surface to be Nazi-like, think to yourself these points:

I didn't say it was Nazi-like, I said it would probably be unpopular because other, less controversial, government mandated medical procedures are not universally accepted.

Connor McKane wrote:
We will all agree that human beings are the only animal in nature that allows its misfits to reproduce on a large scale.

Actually, I don't agree with that at all, because the term "misfit" is extremely vague and the people that we might actually call "misfit" generally don't reproduce. It isn't as though other species only reproduce with the fittest members of their kind, there is a wide range of variance.

Connor McKane wrote:
Ask yourself: Would you like to have social services show up on your doorstep with a child and say "You are now legally this child's guardian. You will care for it and pay for all its expenses till it dies."

Because every time some nimrod unable to care for himself, let alone a child, knocks up some Jerry Springer trailer queen... that is EXACTLY what happens.

Well, no, it isn't what happens. While tax dollars will support the child, to some extent, no one is making you do anything except pay taxes and the tax payer is not legally responsible for the child's welfare. You're equivocating.

As much as you want to make this about you vs. me, Dogma. I refuse to participate.

In fact I have noticed something about you, my friend. You are incapable of ever finding any value in something someone else said.

It is as if your only contribution here is to be argumentative and contrary. You are right and everyone else is wrong.

I stand by my statement and luckily I don't have to defend my opinion. Not to you, or to anyone.

P.S. I broke up the post so you can more easily multi-quote it and post your individual rebuttals...as you love to do.

Have a super day.

Conner, you really are wrong. Your arguments were terrible and indefensible.

Mannahnin wrote:Conner, you really are wrong. Your arguments were terrible and indefensible.

I disagree. So you are wrong... because being a MOD doesn't make you right on any particular issue. You are entitled to your opinion as am I.

Excellent, we're at the "no u" segment.

Connor McKane wrote:

CptJake wrote:Your points:

2. So what is the incentive to look for a job instead of stay on welfare?

You should read the post: # 2 reads..."You will receive NO welfare or unemployment."

Exactly, under your plan, I can get paid a living wage (replacing unemployment and welfare in your scheme) to take training half a day and work half a day, or I can get NOTHING to go out and try to find a job. So I'll ask again, what is my incentive to get off the dole and find a job?

Connor McKane wrote:
In fact I have noticed something about you, my friend. You are incapable of ever finding any value in something someone else said.

It is as if your only contribution here is to be argumentative and contrary. You are right and everyone else is wrong.

Do you want a pat on the back? That's a strange thing to request given the following.

Connor McKane wrote:
I stand by my statement and luckily I don't have to defend my opinion. Not to you, or to anyone.

You don't have to, but if you can't then maybe the issue is with your opinion and not any particularly contrary interlocutor.

dogma wrote:

Connor McKane wrote:
As far as you counterpoint on #1. Your knee jerk reaction and your whip-like travel to Nazi-ism is just a cop out. If you can't care for yourself, how can you care for a child? Think realistically, not rhetorically.

Considering that vaccination is controversial in certain groups I doubt you'll get many people to sign on to mandatory birth control.

Not to mention, enforcing it would be EXTREMELY intrusive, and would never pass the constitutionality test.

And what do you do to folks who become disabled after they have a kid?

I am thinking realistically. Your plan could not work in the US. Thankfully.

Connor McKane wrote:

Mannahnin wrote:Conner, you really are wrong. Your arguments were terrible and indefensible.

I disagree. So you are wrong... because being a MOD doesn't make you right on any particular issue. You are entitled to your opinion as am I.

Dogma already explained to you why your arguments are incorrect or insensible. I'm not relying on my moderator status for any authority when I tell you that your opinions on this matter are misguided and not based on reality.

CptJake wrote:

Connor McKane wrote:

CptJake wrote:Your points:

2. So what is the incentive to look for a job instead of stay on welfare?

You should read the post: # 2 reads..."You will receive NO welfare or unemployment."

Exactly, under your plan, I can get paid a living wage (replacing unemployment and welfare in your scheme) to take training half a day and work half a day, or I can get NOTHING to go out and try to find a job. So I'll ask again, what is my incentive to get off the dole and find a job?

Better than paying people to sit around and watch daytime TV. They get training they need to find a job or simply to better themselves. They serve their community for 1/2 a day. But as anything goes in life, if your performance is unsatisfactory on plan #3 then you would be placed on plan #2.

The incentive is most people don't want to pick up trash, or work in the sun, or dig ditches. They should want to better themselves.

And people do want to better themselves. Virtually no one likes being on welfare, and the vast majority of people get off it within a fairly short period of time.

Given that a tiny percentage of people actually stay on it for long periods, and given that it would cost enormous amounts of taxpayer money and be a huge invasion of people's privacy (this in the USA, where we're supposed to love freedom and people's rights, and be the defenders of them), the idea of drug testing all of these people is silly and dumb.

Connor McKane wrote:
The incentive is most people don't want to pick up trash, or work in the sun, or dig ditches.

Most people don't appear to want to be on welfare either.

Connor McKane wrote:
They should want to better themselves.

Is that why you don't want to defend your opinions?

Mannahnin wrote:

Connor McKane wrote:

Mannahnin wrote:Conner, you really are wrong. Your arguments were terrible and indefensible.

I disagree. So you are wrong... because being a MOD doesn't make you right on any particular issue. You are entitled to your opinion as am I.

Dogma already explained to you why your arguments are incorrect or insensible. I'm not relying on my moderator status for any authority when I tell you that your opinions on this matter are misguided and not based on reality.

And again thanks for your opinion, because you really aren't saying anything other than "You're Wrong." Which you are absolutely entitled to do, but again it doesn't make you right.

And yes Dogma I would like a pat on the back.

Connor McKane wrote:if your performance is unsatisfactory on plan #3 then you would be placed on plan #2.

The incentive is most people don't want to pick up trash, or work in the sun, or dig ditches. They should want to better themselves.

To me, the incentive in your plan seems more to be "Succeed or starve".

dogma wrote:

Connor McKane wrote:
The incentive is most people don't want to pick up trash, or work in the sun, or dig ditches.

Most people don't appear to want to be on welfare either.

Connor McKane wrote:
They should want to better themselves.

Is that why you don't want to defend your opinions?

Oh no, don't get me wrong, it isn't that I don't want to defend my opinions, I simply don't have to. See, explaining my opinions to you is a waste of time, since you wont be able to do anything but disagree, it's your nature, I don't fault you for that. If I wanted to argue like that I would go argue with the stump in my front yard.

You can't change the minds of people like you. You are 100% correct and everyone else is wrong, there is no argument you are capable of having... I don't care how many syllables you use.

**********************************************************

But this is waaaaaaay off topic now. Back on topic: It isn't unconstitutional, and should be mandatory.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

MrDwhitey wrote:

Connor McKane wrote:if your performance is unsatisfactory on plan #3 then you would be placed on plan #2.

The incentive is most people don't want to pick up trash, or work in the sun, or dig ditches. They should want to better themselves.

To me, the incentive in your plan seems more to be "Succeed or starve".

Hmm... as harsh as it seems... actually, that is exactly what I am saying.

Oddly, I thought part of the whole social welfare thing was to prevent starving people, even the undesirables.

Connor, dogma does like to argue. No doubt about that. You can choose not to argue with him, or you can choose to debate him on the facts. Sometimes I see him making sophist arguments just for the sake of arguing, and the way to deal with that is to stick to the topic at hand and be clear about what you're talking about. But this isn't one of those times.

This is an occasion on which the arguments you're putting forward are not good ones, and he's enjoying himself by knocking them down, but that's because they don't stand up to reasonable scrutiny. It's not sophistry he's engaging in here. He's pointing out real flaws in your reasoning.

Connor McKane wrote:
Oh no, don't get me wrong, it isn't that I don't want to defend my opinions, I simply don't have to. See, explaining my opinions to you is a waste of time, since you wont be able to do anything but disagree, it's your nature, I don't fault you for that. If I wanted to argue like that I would go argue with the stump in my front yard.

You can't change the minds of people like you. You are 100% correct and everyone else is wrong, there is no argument you are capable of having... I don't care how many syllables you use.

My mind has been changed before, by people on this forum. It doesn't happen often because, as Mannahnin (I always forget that second N) has noted, I like to argue and I'm pretty good at it (he didn't say that second part). I mean, I basically get paid to do it. I also engage in sophistry from time to time, because its fun, and basically the world's first form of trolling (funnily enough, I am a sophist by profession using the original definition).

MrDwhitey wrote:Oddly, I thought part of the whole social welfare thing was to prevent starving people, even the undesirables.

I believe that there is a fundamentally tilted argument here that we have entered into. Because we aren't discussing the constitutionality of anything at this point.

I think the real disagreement is over "rights."

Some believe that the "undesirables" as they have now been called have a right to have everything the "desirables" have.

Don't have a job? No problem you don't have to work for the things in your life. Here is some money.

Didn't get an education? No problem you don't have to work for the things in your life. Here is some money.

On Drugs? No problem you don't have to work for the things in your life. Here is some money.

You feel these people deserve the things in life for free, that people like me have to work for. So you want to reward failure. Because if we dissolved the whole "Social Security" net, you would have to suffer from the fall, and you want that safety net there because you might be feeling like you are going to fail at some point in your life, and you want that to be there.

Don't be afraid of failing, plan for your success, if you fail, plan for that too... but don't make ME your safety net.

Life isn't fair guys, it is hard, and takes work courage and drive.

You want people to say I am saying "Kill Disabled Babies." Which is a tried and true way of arguing for the Left. I am saying, "Poop or get off the pot."

And I know you are just wringing your hands in anticipatory, salivating glee waiting for this post so you can post your rebuttal. I'll save you the effort and just ignore you, since I too now feel you have nothing of value to contribute.

Feel free to go ahead and ram it in me in your subsequent posts and claim "COWARD" for not wanting to continue the less than pointless discussion which you will feel you have won.

Congratulations. :HIGHFIVE!:

Funnily enough, I didn't mention giving them everything "desireables" have.

I just find it odd that starving them seems fine to you. And your post was a massive strawman if mainly directed at me, by the way.

I can see trying to discuss anything with you will be futile unless I fully agree with you. Good day.

Having lived on both sides of the poverty line. My honest advice would be to leave poor people alone. The US government wastes around 1 trillion dollars in tax payers money every year. If you want to know where its being wasted, don't look at poor people. They don't have it, they are poor. To find your money follow the trail... Money always travels upwards.

Any money poor people receive gets sucked away instantly paying for things like rent, medical bills (particularly for the elderly) and loans. This means that the money inevitably ends up with Pharmaceutical companies, housing corporations and banks, and lining the pockets of CEOs.

Often this money is just wasted. Private companies will usually bleed the government for everything they can get, they overcharge, offer poor value, and don't care about waste because the tax payer fits the bill. These companies don't always put back in either.

Multinational corporations with offshore headquarters and high-powered tax attorneys, hedge fund managers, oil companies, all cost the IRS hundreds of billions every year by under-reporting employment tax. Getting special tax breaks and even subsidies for stuff they do anyway. Or just exploit loopholes to not pay tax.

The U.S. farm subsidy program, cost taxpayers nearly $20 billion in 2007. A Cato Institute study found that, two-thirds of the subsidies went to the richest 10 percent of recipients. Recipients include Ted Turner, and former Enron CEO Kenneth Lay. A later study found that around 93 billion was wasted on corporate subsidies.

Then there is military spending where due to the low transparency and secrecy money often just "goes missing". The Pentagon estimates that there is about a trillion dollars that they can't account for. The military also invests a lot of money in expensive projects and then cancels them. In fact this happens across all government agencies. They build bridges to nowhere, pay millions to store satellites they never intend to launch. Consider the FBI’s infamous Trilogy computer upgrade... Its final stage was scrapped after a $170 million investment.

Then lets not forget the hundreds upon hundreds of billions, that the federal government has to pay each year in interest on the national debt. That's interest on money that they could have saved ten times over by being less wasteful, instead of borrowing.

Now going back to benefits. One of the biggest problems with the benefit system is that it is often very difficult and confusing for people who really need welfare to actually claim what they are entitled to. There is a lot of bureaucracy and hoops to jump through, before you even get to the stage where you can try to claim anything.

For example my father should have been entitled to a full disability allowance here in the UK, when he was dying of cancer. This allowance is intended to help someone, who is too ill to work, pay for their rent, food, heating and so on. We probably wouldn't even have known about the allowance if not for a charity appointed accountant advising us of it. It was a great comfort to my father to know that his affairs were being taken care of and that he was not running up a huge debt while in hospital.

However after his death we found out that we could not claim anything. The reason for this is because an assessment had not been done. The reason the assessment had not been done was because my father had been admitted to hospital the day before people called to do the assessment. He was never discharged, that's where he died. However dying before the assessment can take place, apparently does not indicate that you might have really been sick for the purposes of the assessment. My farther paid national insurance his whole life and was 12 years in the armed forces. The allowance was applied for by a professional (charity appointed) accountant, who specialised in getting these exact benefits for people in exactly the same situation as my father. Still the benefit was denied to us. Not because he wasn't entitled. Simply because he was unable to jump though all the hoops in time.

This is not an isolated incident. Every day there are people who are sick, old, out of work. People unable to feed their children, people about to lose their homes, people requiring medicine, people freezing in their own homes. People who genuinely need help, but never receive it because they are unable to navigate the increasingly complicated and bureaucratic benefits system.

Now you want to throw in compulsory drug testing for applicants? Please! Without meaning to be offensives (this is purely for emphasis) but would you please F**K OFF!!!. Aside from all the extra millions that would inevitably be wasted, by subcontracting a private company to manage all the drug testing... If you really want grab your pitchfork, and join the angry mob on their crusade against burdens on the disgruntled tax payer. Why not turn your attention first to fat-cat CEOs, and the politicians who do their bidding... Those are the real burdens on the tax payer, those are the real leeches on society.

No one likes benefit fraud, it's wrong. But you need to have your priorities in order. The guy who makes a few extra dollars each month by pretending to have a limp, is just a diversion. You need to get angry at the CEO syphoning millions into an offshore account. You need to do something about systematic waste of billions of tax payer dollars each year, by incompetent government agencies and self-serving private enterprises. Maybe when that is all done you can start worrying about a few poor people selling their food stamps.

Connor McKane wrote:
Some believe that the "undesirables" as they have now been called have a right to have everything the "desirables" have.

The issue isn't so much that people believe the "undersireables" deserve everything the "desireables" do, to the extent that deserving something matters at all. Indeed, its pretty hard to argue that people on welfare get everything that people not on welfare get.

Connor McKane wrote:
So you want to reward failure.

I don't think anyone considers welfare a reward.

Connor McKane wrote:
Because if we dissolved the whole "Social Security" net, you would have to suffer from the fall, and you want that safety net there because you might be feeling like you are going to fail at some point in your life, and you want that to be there.

Don't be afraid of failing, plan for your success, if you fail, plan for that too... but don't make ME your safety net.

You realize that planning for failure is one of the best arguments for the social safety net, right?

And, let's be honest here, you don't really have a choice regarding whether or not you're a social safety net. It might not be a state program that supplies aid, but desperate people most definitely can extract it from you.

@ smacks

Having lived on both sides of the poverty line. My honest advice would be to leave poor people alone. The US government wastes around 1 trillion dollars in tax payers money every year. If you want to know where its being wasted, don't look at poor people. They don't have it, they are poor. To find your money follow the trail... Money always travels upwards.

Any money poor people receive gets sucked away instantly paying for things like rent, medical bills (particularly for the elderly) and loans. This means that the money inevitably ends up with Pharmaceutical companies, housing corporations and banks, and lining the pockets of CEOs.

Often this money is just wasted. Private companies will usually bleed the government for everything they can get, they overcharge, offer poor value, and don't care about waste because the tax payer fits the bill. These companies don't always put back in either.

Multinational corporations with offshore headquarters and high-powered tax attorneys, hedge fund managers, oil companies, all cost the IRS hundreds of billions every year by under-reporting employment tax. Getting special tax breaks and even subsidies for stuff they do anyway. Or just exploit loopholes to not pay tax.

The U.S. farm subsidy program, cost taxpayers nearly $20 billion in 2007. A Cato Institute study found that, two-thirds of the subsidies went to the richest 10 percent of recipients. Recipients include Ted Turner, and former Enron CEO Kenneth Lay. A later study found that around 93 billion was wasted on corporate subsidies.

Well said, and I cannot agree more. When politicians in America make deal of things like planned parent hood, religion, gay marriage, pro life/choice, gun control, health care, taxes, and other things you could maybe call social ideas where people draw lines in the sand and say you are either for us or against us. If you are against us I will NEVER vote for you ever, even if I agree with the other 95% of your policies. This creates a political elitism and divides us.

People then get caught in these pillars of politics and they think they are fighting for these social changes, when in fact it is all sort of a ruse. Both parties in the US are pro mega corporations, pro rich, pro authoritarian, pro screwing over the middle class and poor, and everything else they divide on are social issues. I am not saying social issues aren't important, but when you draw the line and I think the pro life/choice people are the worst, you are limiting yourself from a larger scope of things. The pro life/choice people literally campaign for just those policies and nothing else. The extreme ones I mean. They ignore every other important thing.


Like right now there is this debate about taxes here. Whether or not to give tax breaks to the wealthy and corporations to create jobs. Everyone is trying to get behind this create jobs thing....Hmm, apparently all of the politicians and people arguing their sides failed, didn't show up, or slept through their economics classes. We live in a supply and demand economy. If something is in high constant demand, then it drives the economy, but the middle class are the ones spending their disposable income on these consumer goods driving economy. If they don't have money to spend, there is no economy. 1% of Americans are millionaires or richer. 66% of Congress are millionaires.

Now, lets look at the hard data. Has taxes ever affected job creation? No, it hasn't. Not a single time in this country's history has taxes every affected job creation. In fact, job creation was at an all time high when taxes were also, at an all time high. Right now corporate america is sitting on over 2 trillion dollars in profits, the lowest taxes and interest rates of the past decade, maybe even longer and they aren't going to create any jobs. This is because the demand for jobs is going down, in almost every field. Companies now expect you to do the work of two or three people, or have a team of people split a whole department's responsibilities. Also, technology is making it easier. Trust me on this I work in IT as a sys admin. I am doing the job of about 3 full time people (sever admin, client management, LDAP directory admiin, Casper admin, end user support, package creation/deployment, internal co-worker support, technical writer, programmer, and all around tech support dude), and to be honest the only reason I can do all these jobs is because I have automated a lot of them with scripts and programs that get the job done. So, no one is going to just create jobs because they have money, they are going to only create jobs when they actually need workers. This is a huge misconception people have on taxes and job creation.

Now, this all ties in together here, so let me draw a conclusion. Also, before I finish, I'd like to say thanks for your post as it brought up some really good points. In conclusion, and overall reality, welfare on a political level is a social tool that conservatives love to spin about how it is wasting tax dollars. How it is costing hard working Americans their tax money by supporting cheap, lazy, drug addicted, uneducated people that are in some cases not even human. I mean they dehumanize poor people by doing this crap, it is quite sad and sickening. I know this because at one point my family received government assistance after my parents got divorced and my mother went back to school and got her masters degree so she could provide for us. After she got her degree, and she got a job, she didn't need government assistance. We didn't have food stamps but lived in section 8 housing. All the while, the rich are ripping you off exponentially compared to all of our social services. Every social service your tax dollars go to, police, firemen, roads, water, education, health care, welfare, etc. is all a drop in the ocean to what the government gives corporations in kick backs, tax credits, and of course the power to lobby in DC.

If you really want to be fiscally conservative, you need to follow the money, and the poor people ain't getting it. The rich people are, and they are creating larger and larger gaps of wealth in this country. I am not against corporations, or free markets or capitalism. I do believe in regulations, to force everyone to play nice. However, these rich mega corporations and the elite rich people of this country just need to shut up and pay their taxes.

+1 to Smacks and Crom....