Let me explain. Part 1: Establishing 2 forms of welfare There are 2 real types of welfare suckers in our society: 1. Poor welfare recipients - the traditional type 2. Those who are born into wealth - the ones you never hear about huh? The criticism of traditional welfare is that people are receiving money they do not deserve and did not make on their own. People who look forward to that first day of the month are what we are talking about here. I'll repeat: "People who are receiving money they do not deserve and did not make on their own" Do you see it? If I am fortunate to be born into a very wealthy family, is this not different? One entity (not me) is giving me $ I did not earn. My family likely gives me a trust fund, I eventually receive an enormous inheritance, and in general everything I obtain is not the result of my own work. Doesn't this sound like welfare to you? Part 2: The wealthy on welfare perpetuates welfare Given Part 1 above explains there are really 2 types of welfare recipients, lets move along. In some ways the "wealthy welfare recipients" are even worse. They have inherent advantages that allow them to sustain their wealth without earning it. They have access to an immense amount of money, most of which (believe it or not) is not actually spent. Instead, a higher proportion is invested. These investments sustain the lifestyle of this welfare recipient, so that they never have to do work. Let's do some math. Hypothetical Example: My dad is worth $50 million in terms of his assets. A. On my birthday he buys me a Lamborghini. He buys me other things; all in all my cost of living is $150,000 per year in college, not including tuition or the new car. Yet, that seemingly expensive Lamborghini costing $500,000 only reduces my family's wealth by 1.6%. Let's assume then that I buy a new Lamborghini every year. B. We add in the $150,000 I receive from my parents and the yearly $500,000 Lamborghini C. Let's say my dad lives on $1,000,000 per year $500,000 + $150,000 + $1,000,000 = $1.65 million So my family is spending $1.65 million per year. Now that we have the expenses, let us move to our income we receive to fund that $1.65 million A. Net worth of $50 million B. Let's say $15 million of the family's net worth is in assets that are not investments, a reasonable assumption for the rich (A $5m house, some nice cars, super cool furniture, etc.) C. That leaves $35m left to invest. Let's assume we can earn, on average, 6% annually on our investments. This is actually a low number considering the wealthy typically give their money to hedge funds and the best financial managers that others don't have access to. But hey, what the hell, let's keep it at a low 6% to show just how right I am. $35m X .06 = $2.1 million $2.1m-$1.65m = $.45 million aka $450,000 in excess Oh! Look at that! This wealthy family more than covers its expenses. Expenses which many would argue are extravagant. Part 3: Perpetuating individual wealth perpetuates welfare through multiple generations With that established, i.e. that the wealthy don't even have to work to live well, let's start getting to the moral aspect of this. Given this spread between expenses (despite being very large expenses) and the money coming in annually, it can safely be concluded that the "rich get richer." I would really love to see someone argue this with me here for entertainment purposes. This wealth thus doesn't just disappear. Instead, it dramatically slows down social mobility because of the ease of maintaining ones wealth when one has lots of money. As illustrated in Part 2 above, it's very easy for the "wealthy on welfare" to continue to receive this money perpetually. The wealth tends to pass down from generation to generation. This means the cycle of those who never earned their money perpetuates. Part 4: There are two classes of rich people, and I'm only criticizing one of them. Yes, that's right. This isn't another liberal "give your money to the poor they just can't get out of poverty" thread. The rich who earned it themselves deserve what they have. Absolutely. So here are the two types of rich people: 1. Those that made their money themselves 2. Those that simply leech off those who made the money themselves (typically family members), or those who leech off the original leechers who leeched off those who made the money themselves. (In other words, they didn't do anything for the money regardless of whether they are second or third generation aristocrats) Part 5: Your are not American if you support welfare, it goes against our cherished ideals, namely individualism and hard work America was built on capitalism, we all know this. But capitalism isn't the American ideal, it's just the guiding force behind enabling that said ideal. It allows us to protect and uphold that ideal. What is this American ideal? It is that if you work hard and accomplish things, you reap the rewards. You achieve the American Dream. We in America don't emphasize equality in terms of income distribution like the Euros do. We do, however, cherish the idea of a level playing field (found in the roots of capitalism) whereby those who accomplish the most and work the hardest reap the benefits. In that sense we believe in equality; equality of opportunity. To the liberals: Equality of opportunity DOES NOT MEAN EQUALITY OF LIVING STANDARDS. Part 6: This is not about the capitalist system being unfair. I'm a fanatical capitalist. I'm doing good. I love capitalism and I love the motivation it instills in me to work harder and accomplish things, free of burdens to others who would like to take my money in the guise of "equality" or "fairness." I invest, and I do well because I don't spend lavishly, and thus am compounding large amounts of savings. People who disagree with the basic tenants of capitalism (and I give people who believe in "Corporatism" on this forum a pass since they make good arguments relating to their beliefs) are not true Americans. They do not understand the values that made us the most powerful country in history: individualism, hard work, and the willingness to take risks. Those three factors are at the heart of achieving the American Dream. I also strongly believe in investing. But as shown above investing is a major aspect of the perpetuation of "the wealthy on welfare". Lots of money brings lots of advantages, and I challenge anyone to dispute this with me. This isn't about the system (which would take a very long and extended discussion to properly debate), it's much smaller in scope. This thread simply argues that many of the richest people in our society are the same as the poor welfare recipients they dismiss as "lazy." I am calling out you Trust Fund kids for what you are, with no apologies. Note: Investing money by the rich typically functions similarly to receiving money from your rich relatives. Follow along here: most rich people aren't devoting their time to buying stocks or other financial instruments. No no no no you have it all wrong: they simply pass their money along to hedge fund managers, who compound it and give it back to them. So before any of the more astute individuals on this forum try to take that route, I will say that there is no difference here. Ultimately, these "wealthy on welfare" individuals are just profiting from someone else's work, namely the hedge fund manager they give their funds to. Part 7: Some anecdotal background My parents are wealthy, and I am a hypocrite to an extent in making this argument. In some justification, they never spoiled me as a youth and compared to others of similar backgrounds I receive a fraction of this alternate form of welfare described above. I went to public school (fortunately a very good one apparently it's ranked in the top 10 in the nation LOL whatever that means in terms of our horrible public schools). However, it functioned much like a private school given the demographics of those who attended, i.e. there were some very wealthy kids at my graduating class. And I'm good friends with some of them. But you don't know how the wealthy function unless you've spent time in their environment. And let me tell you something: Some of these kids lived lavishly and are textbook examples of the "wealthy on welfare" I defined above. They will never likely have money issues, and I am sure many will even continue to accumulate wealth through investments. But they don't deserve that money. They don't make it themselves, as true capitalists do. One way or the other their sustained lifestyle is supported by others (hey, just like those poor people on welfare whadda you know?). Be it their parents or be it that they give their money to hedge fund managers who give them great returns, returns high enough to allow them to never work a day in their life if they so choose. Part 8: Summary Go back to part 1, re-read it, and I think you'll agree with me that the poor aren't the only ones receiving welfare. Regardless of your beliefs on said welfare, I think most will acknowledge this. And remember folks, both classes of welfare recipients are the anti-capitalist; they do not practice the values we in America hold so deeply.
I read and completely agree up to the part I quoted. some things to consider though, which is not to say I defend the wealthy. 1. investments are not a bad thing, some more wealthy simply save better, for example (I'm not wealthy) I may be more wealthy then a welfare recipient who has a monthly $50 bill for cable television which I choose not to have, or drink soda which I do not drink, or... you get the point. Also in the defense of some rich - I believe people on welfare who have kids are iresponsible, and I am taking precautions not to fall into that category myself, even at 38, because the way this nation is headed, any one of us could soon be on welfare or much worse. Failure to see the full problem leaves us as a part of the problem. historicaly, tax collection has mostly gone to the kings, and today it is no different - special interests steal most of nations wealth via taxation, they also create the welfare class as a disguise, so once again you are completely right, and I sincerely congratulate you on writing up the part I quoted, the rest is too confusing for me.
I read and completely agree up to the part I quoted. some things to consider though, which is not to say I defend the wealthy. 1. investments are not a bad thing, some more wealthy simply save better, for example (I'm not wealthy) I may be more wealthy then a welfare recipient who has a monthly $50 bill for cable television which I choose not to have, or drink soda which I do not drink, or... you get the point. Also in the defense of some rich - I believe people on welfare who have kids are iresponsible, and I am taking precautions not to fall into that category myself, even at 38, because the way this nation is headed, any one of us could soon be on welfare or much worse. Failure to see the full problem leaves us as a part of the problem. historicaly, tax collection has mostly gone to the kings, and today it is no different - special interests steal most of nations wealth via taxation, they also create the welfare class as a disguise, so once again you are completely right, and I sincerely congratulate you on writing up the part I quoted, the rest is too confusing for me.
I read and completely agree up to the part I quoted. some things to consider though, which is not to say I defend the wealthy. 1. investments are not a bad thing, some more wealthy simply save better, for example (I'm not wealthy) I may be more wealthy then a welfare recipient who has a monthly $50 bill for cable television which I choose not to have, or drink soda which I do not drink, or... you get the point. Also in the defense of some rich - I believe people on welfare who have kids are iresponsible, and I am taking precautions not to fall into that category myself, even at 38, because the way this nation is headed, any one of us could soon be on welfare or much worse. Failure to see the full problem leaves us as a part of the problem. historicaly, tax collection has mostly gone to the kings, and today it is no different - special interests steal most of nations wealth via taxation, they also create the welfare class as a disguise, so once again you are completely right, and I sincerely congratulate you on writing up the part I quoted, the rest is too confusing for me.
The poor on welfare are taking money from society, those that are born into money do not. Quite a big difference.
Should I dumb the thread down for you? Did you not understand the math part? Can you try to give more than a 2 sentence response?
That's not entirely true. While you're right that they are taking money that was derived from the taxes paid by others, the money they receive doesn't disappear down a hole. They spend it, and it goes right back into the economy, and the places they spend it at benefit from that spending.
That's fine but the source is entirely different. I do not subsidize Bill Gates or give money to any children he may have that inherit his wealth. My money does go to those who collect a welfare check. How this money is spent into the economy is irrelevant to this fact. If welfare is such a positive whey don't we just give everyone who qualifies for welfare 10 million dollars and really get this economy moving. This theory that it helps the economy is just a far left way of justifying it.
Sorry for the duplicate posts, something's wrong with the board, I think someone may not want us talking
And if the government/wealthy would not have set up a system where a lot of money goes to the poor collecting that welfare check, then the people would rise up against the government which collects the other kind of check from you - the one you send as your taxes. ever tried to send directly to the welfare recipient? it doesn't work that way, there always is the middleman with some kind of a scam. as a matter of fact my post deserves a thread of its' own as usual.
Before the welfare system was set up there were plenty of people who fell on hard times. Guess what, they never rose up against the government. They got off their asses and found jobs.
Or died from the many situations that arise when you can't meet the needs of your own body and your family and there is no support system. Jobs aren't just laying around to pick up. There aren't enough jobs to employ all the people in the country. Perhaps the amount of people who are on welfare could be slimmed down by stricter standards, but there will never be a situation where welfare isn't necessary because there will likely never be a situation where there are enough jobs to give everyone an income and put them in a place where they don't need welfare just to survive. The right almost always ignores that unquestionable reality, instead bringing out the tired and ignorant "Why should I have to pay" line of thinking.
And I would think the society in general was much more decent and respectfull of each other, then it is now.
Perhaps if people cannot afford to raise a family without relying on government assistance then maybe, just maybe, they shouldn't be starting families. If that's the choice they make then its up to them to figure out a way to make it work. During WWII and into the 50's there were more jobs available then we had people to fill them all. The 20's also experienced a massive shortage of workers up until 1929 so your example is incorrect.
Ah, the standard ConservatIF position. Just for clarification, I say Conservat-IF because most conservative positions tend to be based on "IF people would only...." or "IF the government would only..." thereby completely ignoring reality and human nature.
Yes it is the standard conservative position. People should be responsible for their actions. Your position is that, "well its human nature for them to have kids so since they can't control it, the government should pay for it." That is the standard liberal position. If an individual makes personal choices that make their life harder then that's their problem. I support a welfare system that would help those who have been stricken with disease or debilitating accidents but not for those that willfully make decisions that complicate their life.
But it's not just "their" life that gets complicated by it. That's what conservatives don't get. Your actions affect others, always, whether it's directly apparent or more subtle. Each person in our society is not an island, but rather our entire society is an inter-connected network, sort of like a living breathing entity. What affects one area can and very often will affect other areas that had nothing to do with it. People having children they can't support causes problems for everyone, not just those people. People losing their homes, living on the streets, and lacking medical care have consequences for everyone. People are not responsible all the time. That's just a cold hard fact of life. Expecting them to be is to create an impossible ideal.
I don't think this is true. The rich in society take quite a lot. They have the ability to reduce jobs and send them overseas to slave labor countries. They have the ability to buy up wooded land and turn it into golf courses. They have the ability to buy Congressmen and create laws in their favor. They are apex predators and we--including you--are zebra.
You did, actually. Bill Gates used government money in his business same as most people who own businesses of that size. And people with that much money use considerably more social infrastructure than any impoverished person on welfare possibly could. Truth is, you've subsidized Bill Gates and the other billionaires to a far greater degree than any poor welfare recipient.
There is a pretty basic distinction here which you are missing, and a very obvious contention which you don't just come out and say. The distinction is that inheritance is voluntary. You produced something? Then you gain a property right over it and get to determine what happens to it. You have a right to give your property away to whoever you see fit. To suggest otherwise is to suggest that you never owned the property in the first place. The contention you don't just come out and say is that you think private ownership itself is illegitimate. [Hr][/hr] Of course the poor aren't the only ones who receive welfare, but not in the way you mention. The rich collude with the government for the benefit of both. The rich get special privileges under the law: direct subsidies (eg: oil subsidies), onerous regulation to create artifical barriers to competition, limited liability, the benefit of having their industries turned into cartels which they control (eg: taxi industry), etc. The government gets votes. It's a classic tit-for-tat. Politicians working in the state have power which they are keen to siphon off to their benefit. The rich have money which they are keen to trade for power. Both sides mutually benefit from the collusion.
