Is it wrong for taxpayers to fund welfare of any kind.

[FDRfan1985]

Does anyone think it's wrong for the Taxpayers to have to fund public assistance programs, bank bailouts etc...?

 

[Queen Mum Inks.LWC]

What does "wrong" mean?

[The world will shine with light in our nightmare]

No.  But it's awfully curious to see a guy with the username 'FDRfan1985' pose a question like this...

[Indy Texas]

What does "wrong" mean?

[nuclearneo577]

No.  But it's awfully curious to see a guy with the username 'FDRfan1985' pose a question like this...

[Deus Naturae]

No.  But it's awfully curious to see a guy with the username 'FDRfan1985' pose a question like this...

How is it curious? Just because he asks a question doesn't mean that he believes that the answer is yes...

[Cory]

I'm sorry and I know it's not "en Vogue" but the bank bailout had to happen to save the global economy and not doing so severely exacerbated the 1929 collapse.

So no.

[King]

What are tax dollars supposed to go to if not the public welfare?

[Small Business Owner of Any Repute]

What are tax dollars supposed to go to if not the public welfare?

I don't want my tax money paying for that! Government should be paying for it, instead!

[Starbucks Union Thug HokeyPuck]

Short answer?  No.

[AggregateDemand]

Pertinent question: Is it wrong for the federal government to create welfare entitlements that are antithetical to the common good?

[SUSAN CRUSHBONE]

Pertinent question: Is it wrong for the federal government to create welfare entitlements that are antithetical to the common good?

Which programs would you be referring to?

[AggregateDemand]

Which programs would you be referring to?

We've been deficit spending for over 30 years to prop up the entitlement state, and keep the middle class financially solvent. You still don't know where the problems are?

[SUSAN CRUSHBONE]

Pertinent question: Is it wrong for the federal government to create welfare entitlements that are antithetical to the common good?

Which programs would you be referring to?

We've been deficit spending for over 30 years to prop up the entitlement state, and keep the middle class financially solvent. You still don't know where the problems are?

I would like to know which specific programs you believe are "antithetical to the common good".

[AggregateDemand]

Pertinent question: Is it wrong for the federal government to create welfare entitlements that are antithetical to the common good?

Which programs would you be referring to?

We've been deficit spending for over 30 years to prop up the entitlement state, and keep the middle class financially solvent. You still don't know where the problems are?

I would like to know which specific programs you believe are "antithetical to the common good".

Let's say the mortgage deduction, for a start.

Yes. Dangerous form of corporate welfare. Creates an unjust economic rift between homeowners and renters. No limited government advocate would allow the federal government to have such a powerful social engineering tool.

[Supersonic]

Of any kind? No. I'm not a complete Randian.

[AggregateDemand]

I would like to know which specific programs you believe are "antithetical to the common good".

Let's start with the twin pillars of Medicare/Medicaid. They cost $3500 per capita. In UK, AUS, ITA, SPA, and JPN, that's enough to create universal care. In the US, Medicare and Medicaid cover senior citizens, with a few alms left for the poor. Medicare/Medicaid have the distinction of delivering lower overall health and shorter lifespan, as well.

The poverty entitlement complex, anchored around Welfare, is equally bad. It boasts marginal tax rates in excess of 100% for some taxpayers. In other words, the government takes away more benefits than some people can earn with part time labor. Same is true of unemployment for some workers. The rate of poverty reduction slowed after Welfare was created. Not hard to determine why. SNAP should be cash, as well, not backdoor corporate ag handouts.

Social Security is less problematic, though defined benefit pits seniors against their own progeny. In a defined benefit programs, there are no consequences for raising taxes on younger generations. In fact, all of the costs of tax increases are shifted onto the generation being taxed. Laughable in a "free" society, but let's not move to defined contribution or another system :/

The debate in the US is not really whether or not we should have entitlements. It's whether or not the least effective entitlement state in the history of democratic civilization can be reformed before the US causes another global economic collapse.

[H. Ross Peron]

lolno

[Reaganfan]

Yes because it then goes from welfare to state-mandated charity.

[Хahar 🤔]

Yes because it then goes from welfare to state-mandated charity.

What do you believe that welfare is, then, Naso?

[MasterJedi]

There's nothing inherently wrong for it but you have to have limits and cutoffs and the same types of restrictions as say working a job. Like drug tests, things like that. If people can't pass it then there should be some type of public works process where they have to work say fixing roads or stuff like that that's not really skilled and can be trained. You work, you get fed, if you want to get out of it work your ass off and you can but no long stays on welfare.

[Хahar 🤔]

There's nothing inherently wrong for it but you have to have limits and cutoffs and the same types of restrictions as say working a job. Like drug tests, things like that. If people can't pass it then there should be some type of public works process where they have to work say fixing roads or stuff like that that's not really skilled and can be trained. You work, you get fed, if you want to get out of it work your ass off and you can but no long stays on welfare.

So workhouses, basically?

[MasterJedi]

There's nothing inherently wrong for it but you have to have limits and cutoffs and the same types of restrictions as say working a job. Like drug tests, things like that. If people can't pass it then there should be some type of public works process where they have to work say fixing roads or stuff like that that's not really skilled and can be trained. You work, you get fed, if you want to get out of it work your ass off and you can but no long stays on welfare.

So workhouses, basically?

With obviously humane conditions, etc etc. If someone is just going to be living off of welfare, has no way to possibly get ahead and doesn't really care then why not get some actual work out of them instead of just constantly giving them everything. Obviously this would be a last step after everything else has failed.

[AggregateDemand]

There is literally not enough work that is of any value to any person to keep every low-skilled worker occupied. The term "zero marginal product worker" has been popping up for good reason. What you're advocating would both cost more than "welfare" and add to the sum total of human misery. But you probably already knew that.

That's a recycled corporate argument, which supposes an economic utopia without welfare. In the real world, a welfare recipient who sweeps streets is often more economically useful to the public than someone who sits on their duff. The exception is welfare mothers with children.

[All Along The Watchtower]

What are tax dollars supposed to go to if not the public welfare?

The private welfare.