Welfare

Originally posted by kmax87
Its actually my fifth. Most people compliment me on showing an unusually high degree of articulateness whenever on occasion we may happen to enjoy the mutual pleasure of social intercourse.

You must be joking!

Originally posted by Philodor
You must be joking!

Kid you not!

Originally posted by slappy115
All you did was show that Congress has the right to tax the citizens. I knew that.

Evidently not:

Originally posted by slappy115
Okay I want you to show me exactly where in Article 1 of the US Constituion where it states that the Legislative Branch of the United States of America has the authority given to them by the Constitution to take money from one person and give it to another.

If you cannot grasp that taxes are taking from one person and redistributing those takings to others, how will you grasp the broad powers granted to Congress in promoting the general welfare (or why protecting the children of the poor benefts the rich)?


This is not a debate, as your views remain impervious to information and logical reasoning. I don't have the time to tutor one clinging to fundamental ignorance with such stubborn pride. Ciao.

Originally posted by Amaurote
I don't know why people are so quick to assume that welfare is a problem: the unemployed are actually helping the state fight inflation by lowering aggregate demand, and let's be honest, a lot of jobs out there aren't adding to total output in any meaningful way - most so-called productive jobs are actually harmful to society at worst, or at best involve me ...[text shortened]... nemployed people or any alternative to tackle demand is generally a high-inflation society.

Well said. Thanks for the most intelligent response in seven pages of posts.

Originally posted by Wulebgr
Well said. Thanks for the most intelligent response in seven pages of posts.

Anything that gets a rec. from you must be discounted on sight. You, the self-advertised 'literary scholar' who has yet to prove his claim to such a title.

Originally posted by Philodor
Anything that gets a rec. from you must be discounted on sight. You, the self-advertised 'literary scholar' who has yet to prove his claim to such a title.

Get lost Philidor. No one cares what you think.

Originally posted by Wulebgr
Well said. Thanks for the most intelligent response in seven pages of posts.

Is this sarcasm?

Originally posted by Varg
Is this sarcasm?

no

Originally posted by Wulebgr
no

In that case, perhaps we should cease to call them unemployed if they are so useful to society.

They are gainfully employed economy stabilising operatives.
Great job - work at home, no boss, lots of free time, can drink or take drugs all day if you like.
In fact, they should get a raise for their selfless devotion to society.

Originally posted by Varg
In that case, perhaps we should cease to call them unemployed if they are so useful to society.

They are gainfully employed economy stabilising operatives.
Great job - work at home, no boss, lots of free time, can drink or take drugs all day if you like.

Or educate themselves to a more highly-skilled level which would genuinely benefit the economy, or work voluntarily for charities or schools, or concentrate on parenting the next generation, which benefits us all.

I'd personally pay housewives a state subsidy - in narrow productive terms (which is to say, the terms nearly all proponents of liberal capitalism speak in) mothers, husbands and housewives are non-producers, but in societal terms they're infinitely more valuable than the gainfully employed inserter of Kinder Surprise capsules. More to the point, they don't generate inflation in the way that these superficially productive members of society do. As for the sarcastic hyperbole in the middle of your post, no-one is suggesting that unemployment should be radically advanced (except your average liberal capitalist), but what is clear is that some unemployment is not only good macro-economically, but that managed unemployment is a better alternative than worshipping productivity to the point where we think any job is better than no job, even if most of the jobs we're talking about are a huge waste of social resources.

Originally posted by XanthosNZ
Get lost Philidor. No one cares what you think.

You stinking coward from down there. I intend to take you to the cleaners for your slanderous accusation against me on another thread.

Originally posted by Amaurote
Or educate themselves to a more highly-skilled level which would genuinely benefit the economy, or work voluntarily for charities or schools, or concentrate on parenting the next generation, which benefits us all.

I'd personally pay housewives a state subsidy - in narrow productive terms (which is to say, the terms nearly all proponents of liberal capit ...[text shortened]... n no job, even if most of the jobs we're talking about are a huge waste of social resources.

The impact on inflation is small since salaries don't fall from the sky.

The only difference is that high-revenue people save more percentually than low revenue people, but then again they can increase liquidity in the financial markets which can lead to consumption loans, and so on.

Inflation has more impact on unemployment than the reverse, but this has nothing to do with what you describe. The historical relation known as the Phillips curve has been debunked for some time now as it describes a short-term relation.

Originally posted by mokko
Welfare is an insult to humanity. It should be scrapped completely and people should be forced into reality and reconnect with the true meaning and value of family.

Thank you. I'm glad to see that there is someone who thinks that people should be forced into reality. It should be family and not society that takes the brunt of misfortune.

Originally posted by Amaurote
I don't know why people are so quick to assume that welfare is a problem: the unemployed are actually helping the state fight inflation by lowering aggregate demand, and let's be honest, a lot of jobs out there aren't adding to total output in any meaningful way - most so-called productive jobs are actually harmful to society at worst, or at best involve me ...[text shortened]... nemployed people or any alternative to tackle demand is generally a high-inflation society.

You are under the assumption that all unemployed people are on welfare, which isn't the case. If you save wisely, you shouldn't have to rely on welfare.

FYI, I do understand that with a roughly 5% unemployment rate, our economy runs smoother since you have a large group of workers to pool talent from.

Originally posted by Wulebgr
Evidently not:

Originally posted by slappy115
[b]Okay I want you to show me exactly where in Article 1 of the US Constituion where it states that the Legislative Branch of the United States of America has the authority given to them by the Constitution to take money from one person and give it to another.

If you cannot grasp that t ...[text shortened]... 't have the time to tutor one clinging to fundamental ignorance with such stubborn pride. Ciao.[/b]

I have no problem with being taxed and it being used to develop infrastructure and what not that EVERYONE uses or has the potential to use.

I do have a problem with my money being given to someone else because they "need it" more than me. And really what you are describing is socalism. Our government was not set up so as the federal government had the power to redistrubute wealth as seen fit. In fact, the federal government was set up to have as little influence on the citizens as possible although I could be wrong...