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

Welcome, Guest. Please login or register.
Did you miss your activation email?
March 29, 2024, 09:56:36 AM
News: Election Simulator 2.0 Released. Senate/Gubernatorial maps, proportional electoral votes, and more - Read more

  Talk Elections
  General Politics
  U.S. General Discussion (Moderators: The Dowager Mod, Chancellor Tanterterg)
  Is it wrong for taxpayers to fund welfare of any kind.
« previous next »
Pages: 1 [2]
Author Topic: Is it wrong for taxpayers to fund welfare of any kind.  (Read 1696 times)
MaxQue
Atlas Icon
*****
Posts: 12,602
Canada


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #25 on: March 14, 2014, 02:28:31 PM »

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.

Well, if you want someone sweeping the street, hire him to do that, instead of keeping him on welfare.
Logged
SUSAN CRUSHBONE
a Person
Junior Chimp
*****
Posts: 9,735
Antarctica


WWW Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #26 on: March 14, 2014, 03:16:10 PM »

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.

Well, if you want someone sweeping the street, hire him to do that, instead of keeping him on welfare.

but we can't have the free market running things, that's unconservative and unamerican (see bans on tesla sales and the vw/uaw fiasco)
Logged
MasterJedi
Atlas Star
*****
Posts: 23,554
United States


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #27 on: March 14, 2014, 03:33:37 PM »

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.

Well, if you want someone sweeping the street, hire him to do that, instead of keeping him on welfare.

but we can't have the free market running things, that's unconservative and unamerican (see bans on tesla sales and the vw/uaw fiasco)

These are the people who will never be off welfare anyways, so why not make them work for it instead of doing nothing.
Logged
BaconBacon96
Sr. Member
****
Posts: 2,678
Ireland, Republic of


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #28 on: March 14, 2014, 03:43:57 PM »

No. Of course not.
Logged
MaxQue
Atlas Icon
*****
Posts: 12,602
Canada


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #29 on: March 14, 2014, 03:49:36 PM »

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.

Well, if you want someone sweeping the street, hire him to do that, instead of keeping him on welfare.

but we can't have the free market running things, that's unconservative and unamerican (see bans on tesla sales and the vw/uaw fiasco)

These are the people who will never be off welfare anyways, so why not make them work for it instead of doing nothing.

Because there is too much people and not enough work? Either we accept than some people won't work, or we reduce the lenght of the work week to allow more people to work. Sure, we could create useless street sweepers jobs like someone wanted, but, it's like the USSR. Creating useless jobs to have full employment.
Logged
MasterJedi
Atlas Star
*****
Posts: 23,554
United States


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #30 on: March 14, 2014, 04:13:24 PM »

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.

Well, if you want someone sweeping the street, hire him to do that, instead of keeping him on welfare.

but we can't have the free market running things, that's unconservative and unamerican (see bans on tesla sales and the vw/uaw fiasco)

These are the people who will never be off welfare anyways, so why not make them work for it instead of doing nothing.

Because there is too much people and not enough work? Either we accept than some people won't work, or we reduce the lenght of the work week to allow more people to work. Sure, we could create useless street sweepers jobs like someone wanted, but, it's like the USSR. Creating useless jobs to have full employment.

So you're suggesting something that would never happen without reducing everyone's pay instead of something like bridge/road repair which would benefit the whole country? Most people will obviously only be on welfare a short time and that's what it should be there for. For the people who will never be productive I'd rather make them work for a living while still getting that welfare.
Logged
King
intermoderate
Atlas Star
*****
Posts: 29,357
United States


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #31 on: March 14, 2014, 04:26:36 PM »

The streets seem pretty clean around here already.

Personally,  I'd rather have a single mom stay at home and make sure her son doesn't get into trouble instead of sweeping streets unnecessarily.  Or at least go to school while he's at school.
Logged
Small Business Owner of Any Repute
Mr. Moderate
Atlas Icon
*****
Posts: 13,431
United States


WWW Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #32 on: March 14, 2014, 04:30:12 PM »

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?

Some people, especially those males in our inner cities, simply need to be forced to work.
Logged
MaxQue
Atlas Icon
*****
Posts: 12,602
Canada


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #33 on: March 14, 2014, 04:56:29 PM »

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.

Well, if you want someone sweeping the street, hire him to do that, instead of keeping him on welfare.

but we can't have the free market running things, that's unconservative and unamerican (see bans on tesla sales and the vw/uaw fiasco)

These are the people who will never be off welfare anyways, so why not make them work for it instead of doing nothing.

Because there is too much people and not enough work? Either we accept than some people won't work, or we reduce the lenght of the work week to allow more people to work. Sure, we could create useless street sweepers jobs like someone wanted, but, it's like the USSR. Creating useless jobs to have full employment.

So you're suggesting something that would never happen without reducing everyone's pay instead of something like bridge/road repair which would benefit the whole country? Most people will obviously only be on welfare a short time and that's what it should be there for. For the people who will never be productive I'd rather make them work for a living while still getting that welfare.

Well, if we need people to repair bridges and roads, we should hire them, instead!  What you propose just sounds like a way to employ people for very cheap.
Logged
AggregateDemand
Jr. Member
***
Posts: 1,873
United States


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #34 on: March 14, 2014, 05:15:31 PM »

"Recycled corporate argument"?

That person "sweeping the streets" is not the only input. Are you advocating hiring people to do work with no tools, supervision, coordination, or regulatory compliance?

Fair point, but now we're talking about inefficient allocation of capital. If the public sector weren't so horribly under-invested, I'd be inclined to agree with you.
Logged
Dave from Michigan
9iron768
Sr. Member
****
Posts: 3,298
United States


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #35 on: March 15, 2014, 12:35:01 AM »

Pretending to care about "fraud" by the Republicans so they can gut food stamps and welfare is the worst it's sad so many people fall for it.
Logged
Mordecai
Jr. Member
***
Posts: 1,465
Australia


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #36 on: March 15, 2014, 12:58:30 AM »

Pretending to care about "fraud" by the Republicans so they can gut food stamps and welfare is the worst it's sad so many people fall for it.

Just like them worrying about non-existent voter fraud so they can impose poll taxes on people.
Logged
Indy Texas
independentTX
Atlas Icon
*****
Posts: 12,258
United States


Political Matrix
E: 0.52, S: -3.48

Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #37 on: March 15, 2014, 02:36:05 AM »

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.

Well, if you want someone sweeping the street, hire him to do that, instead of keeping him on welfare.

but we can't have the free market running things, that's unconservative and unamerican (see bans on tesla sales and the vw/uaw fiasco)

These are the people who will never be off welfare anyways, so why not make them work for it instead of doing nothing.

Because there is too much people and not enough work? Either we accept than some people won't work, or we reduce the lenght of the work week to allow more people to work. Sure, we could create useless street sweepers jobs like someone wanted, but, it's like the USSR. Creating useless jobs to have full employment.

So you're suggesting something that would never happen without reducing everyone's pay instead of something like bridge/road repair which would benefit the whole country? Most people will obviously only be on welfare a short time and that's what it should be there for. For the people who will never be productive I'd rather make them work for a living while still getting that welfare.

I think what you're forgetting is that, to the extent that government can directly create jobs, it's generally not jobs that someone who is chronically on the dole and unemployable can do.

You want more roads and bridges to be fixed. That work will be done by people who already do construction and repair-related jobs. It's not something that the Republican stereotype of a weed-smoking high school diploma holder who has never held a legitimate job before can just waltz in to.

If you want the government to hire people who are so badly qualified or shiftless that they cannot or will not find a job elsewhere, then no wonder your party thinks government can't do anything right. In your world, it's being staffed by a bunch of semi-literate druggies.

If you took a run-of-the-mill member of the "permanent underclass" and plopped them down in the middle of my workplace, I and everyone else would probably be less productive than if they weren't there. They'd just be getting in the way. Please just keep them at home and let me pay my taxes. I guarantee you every gainfully employed person from a janitor to a construction worker to a physicist to an investment banker would tell you the same thing.
Logged
MaxQue
Atlas Icon
*****
Posts: 12,602
Canada


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #38 on: March 15, 2014, 02:38:40 AM »

I don't remember where, but some party suggested forcing umemployed people to work for charities. Charities weren't interested at all. Too much trouble for so little gain.
Logged
Hatman 🍁
EarlAW
Atlas Star
*****
Posts: 25,978
Canada


WWW Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #39 on: March 16, 2014, 12:45:29 AM »

There's plenty of work to do in the world, Max. As long as there's problems in the world, there are people needed to fix them.
Logged
MaxQue
Atlas Icon
*****
Posts: 12,602
Canada


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #40 on: March 16, 2014, 12:50:38 AM »

There's plenty of work to do in the world, Max. As long as there's problems in the world, there are people needed to fix them.

No. It's not a lack of workers, it's a lack of abilities. You can't take an unemployed school drop-out and ask him to find a cure for cancer!

We don't need people to fix people, we need qualified people to fix issues. It's a very different thing.
Logged
fartboy
Rookie
**
Posts: 76
United States


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #41 on: March 16, 2014, 03:50:04 AM »

No it's good for the economy and helps our nation in times of need. Welfare and bailouts are necessary at times.
Logged
Pages: 1 [2]  
« previous next »
Jump to:  


Login with username, password and session length

Terms of Service - DMCA Agent and Policy - Privacy Policy and Cookies

Powered by SMF 1.1.21 | SMF © 2015, Simple Machines

Page created in 0.046 seconds with 12 queries.