Welfare should come from Generosity

[Oblivia]

It´s a proven fact that conservatives are the most generous people in America. The poorer states tend to be helpful to one another, as for the rich states like California and New York are the least generous. I believe that liberals want the government to give out welfare checks to the unfortunate is propbly because they´re too greedy to give away their money to someone whose life is downtroden and in need of help unless the have to pay it through tax money. There´s also the part where the government is too greedy and the possibility the government is being selective of who they consider is unfortunate, like special-interests groups or something that´s unneccesary. I think a good way to help the unfortunate is help them to find jobs so they could get a better living rather than bunch them all into a ghetto where the only kind of people to look up to are pimps theives, drug dealers, and other hardened criminals. By doing this would improve the economy, save us money, and in the long run America would earn a wonderful reputation.

[Der-Ubermensch]

One can only hope.. Best thing you can do is keep that selfless compassion in your heart and apply it when need be. Most humans are horribly self-centered. I'm pessimistic for the moment as to the extent of a current government's altruism.

[qygibo]

Actually, if I recall my econ classes well, it'd actually be a bad thing if every single person was employed; as then businesses would be forced to find new people by raising incomes, and then they'd be forced to pay for that by increasing their prices. And by increasing prices I mean jacking that shit up until we possibly hit a Black Friday.

Welfare the way you think of it actually doesn't take a huge chunk out of the budget. If you really wanted to cut down on welfare, my cruel and blunt suggestion is to start taking aim at the old people sucking up Social Security. Social Security is the number one welfare program that sucks up tax money, because it's a program that's being abused. It wasn't intended as a main retirement plan, but as a supplement; but there are too many baby boomers who see it the other way around.

[Der-Ubermensch]

Well so long as a sizable percentage of the money trickles back into the economy, there really isn't that much damage done.

[Elfer]

At 12/31/06 08:34 AM, Der-Ubermensch wrote: Well so long as a sizable percentage of the money trickles back into the economy, there really isn't that much damage done.

No, everyone knows that people on Welfare tend to hoard their money in off-shore accounts, whereas the real money trickling back into the economy comes from tax breaks to the rich, who need to spend that money just to get by.

[Begoner]

At 12/30/06 10:12 PM, Oblivia wrote: It´s a proven fact that conservatives are the most generous people in America.

I guess I can stop reading right there, seeing as what follows that outrageous statement can only be more preposterous.

[qygibo]

At 12/31/06 12:55 PM, Begoner wrote:

At 12/30/06 10:12 PM, Oblivia wrote: It´s a proven fact that conservatives are the most generous people in America.

I guess I can stop reading right there, seeing as what follows that outrageous statement can only be more preposterous.

It's not preposterous. There was a thread here a while ago about a book about this. A man (liberal, btw) had done a study, and noted that conservatives really were more generous than liberals. Here's the link to the thread: http://www.newgrounds.com/bbs/topic.php?id=61 4032

[Begoner]

It's not preposterous.

He did not conduct a scientific study which was peer-reviewed. He published a book. Nobody has been able to provide me with a methodology for that "study" and I doubt whether or not he has published one. Until the methodology is verified to be correct, the study holds no water whatsoever.

[qygibo]

That's probably because you sidetracked the thread into that stupid number of deaths in Iraq thing, and it never got back on track afterwards. I don't know the methodology myself, but from what I've heard on the book, it sounds fairly sound. Although it also seems that more people are slamming the book rather than reading it.

Also, studies don't have to be necessarily published in journals in order to be considered proper scientific studies. Indeed, there can be problems even with those published through the "proper" veins: http://www.newscientist.com/article.ns?id=dn7 915

[Begoner]

Also, studies don't have to be necessarily published in journals in order to be considered proper scientific studies.

They must provide a coherent and replicable methodology and be peer-reviewed before they can be accepted, however.

[qygibo]

I do believe that the article in question mentioned that it had been reviewed by his peers and it was they who recommended the book format.

[Madferit]

At 12/31/06 07:13 AM, qygibo wrote: Actually, if I recall my econ classes well, it'd actually be a bad thing if every single person was employed; as then businesses would be forced to find new people by raising incomes, and then they'd be forced to pay for that by increasing their prices. And by increasing prices I mean jacking that shit up until we possibly hit a Black Friday.

Yes but remember the Nazi's Fascist Regime? How there was such a low unemployment rate? Not everyone made much but almost noone made nothing. It made there economy GREAT and got them out of an economic depression very quickly. Which, however made the Nazi's a threat to the rest of the world. Hitler was a great leader by means of helping the country; undoubtley though a horrible man.

[Begoner]

At 12/31/06 07:13 AM, qygibo wrote: Actually, if I recall my econ classes well, it'd actually be a bad thing if every single person was employed; as then businesses would be forced to find new people by raising incomes, and then they'd be forced to pay for that by increasing their prices. And by increasing prices I mean jacking that shit up until we possibly hit a Black Friday.

If I recall my economics classes correctly, you are describing cost-push inflation. It all really depends on how you look at it. If you are a classical economist like MoralLibertarian, you would most likely believe that the rise in wages would correspond exactly to the rise in prices, and as such, there would be no shift in real wages. Others may view inflation as a real threat. I personally believe that capitalism is an extremely inefficient system when it comes to full employment, as companies will need to increase wages to attract scarce workers (a decrease in the supply of workers, given a constant demand for them, will necessarily increase their price, as you said). If there cooperation rather than competition, however, in a non-capitalist economy, it would be much easier to safely attain full employment.

[Der-Ubermensch]

At 12/31/06 12:33 PM, Elfer wrote:

At 12/31/06 08:34 AM, Der-Ubermensch wrote: Well so long as a sizable percentage of the money trickles back into the economy, there really isn't that much damage done.

No, everyone knows that people on Welfare tend to hoard their money in off-shore accounts, whereas the real money trickling back into the economy comes from tax breaks to the rich, who need to spend that money just to get by.

lol.. I honestly thought those welfare recipients were too caught up in currency exchange to simply go on hoarding. My mistake.

[Nitroglys]

At 12/30/06 10:12 PM, Oblivia wrote: It´s a proven fact that conservatives are the most generous people in America. The poorer states tend to be helpful to one another, as for the rich states like California and New York are the least generous. I believe that liberals want the government to give out welfare checks to the unfortunate is propbly because they´re too greedy to give away their money to someone whose life is downtroden and in need of help unless the have to pay it through tax money. There´s also the part where the government is too greedy and the possibility the government is being selective of who they consider is unfortunate, like special-interests groups or something that´s unneccesary. I think a good way to help the unfortunate is help them to find jobs so they could get a better living rather than bunch them all into a ghetto where the only kind of people to look up to are pimps theives, drug dealers, and other hardened criminals. By doing this would improve the economy, save us money, and in the long run America would earn a wonderful reputation.

I figured out your problem. all these conservitive states that are helping out have to. they have to hand out money beacuse red states have the highest rate of unemployment. all of the top 5 states with highest unemployement rate are red. And whats this liberals don't want to give "their" money. Its not like the Conservitives are pouring money out of their pockets. Now wether the red states are giving out more money per person or all together isn't made clear. The welfare system in itself isn't one of my favorites. it gets raped and abused to much, but it is needed. your rant is a dream and near impossible. You forget that these people on welfare might not want to help themselves(which is the reason i dont like the welfare system) and just are lookin forward to the 900 dollars a month. i dont think a simple change of system would help the economy or save us money.

[Sigma-Lambda]

At 12/31/06 01:01 PM, qygibo wrote:

At 12/31/06 12:55 PM, Begoner wrote:

At 12/30/06 10:12 PM, Oblivia wrote: It´s a proven fact that conservatives are the most generous people in America.

I guess I can stop reading right there, seeing as what follows that outrageous statement can only be more preposterous.

It's not preposterous. There was a thread here a while ago about a book about this. A man (liberal, btw) had done a study, and noted that conservatives really were more generous than liberals. Here's the link to the thread: http://www.newgrounds.com/bbs/topic.php?id=61 4032

That says that they donate more money, that does not say more conservatives donate. Plus, it only takes into account money. What about people who don't have much money, who actually do charity work? I'd call actually going out and working more charitable than just giving away money. Show me statistics that show that conservatives do more actual charitable work, and show me statistics that more conservatives donate money than liberals, don't show me that more money is given by conservatives. That research only takes in monetary amounts, for all we know, he could have studied 5 conservatives giving away a thousand dollars a piece, and 100 liberals giving away 20 dollars a piece.

[qygibo]

At 12/31/06 03:25 PM, Alacrity wrote: Yes but remember the Nazi's Fascist Regime? How there was such a low unemployment rate? Not everyone made much but almost noone made nothing. It made there economy GREAT and got them out of an economic depression very quickly. Which, however made the Nazi's a threat to the rest of the world. Hitler was a great leader by means of helping the country; undoubtley though a horrible man.

It also wasn't sustainable for a long period of time. A large part of what Hitler did was through scapegoating; and he artificially boosted production by focusing everything towards reinvigorating the military against what the Treaty of Versailles dictated. It was all directed towards a cause, and a cause that his people were not in support for.

Sigma: I'd imagine that more specific numbers are to be found in the guy's book. At the moment there's too much commenting on the end result instead of showing us some of the date (for free, even)

[Dr-Jonesie]

Nobody actually needs welfare! they need to stop being so lazy. I understand that there are some people who really DO need the extra boost, but 90% of people on wellfare are lazy summbitches (Made this data up myself, lol). My neighbors are on welfare, and they have a hummer, a lexus, and an accura, and they're all fattys.

[Sir-S-Of-TURBO]

I know how to solve the problem, test everyone in america for how selfish they are, everyone who are too selfish are forced to enter a gladiatorial deathmatch until theres 1 left.

The one who lives is put in jail for the murder of everyone selfish.

You create a scandinavian styled government.

Problem has been solved :D

PS: No, i do not have heart or soul.

[Sigma-Lambda]

At 1/1/07 08:55 AM, Dr-Jonesie wrote: Nobody actually needs welfare! they need to stop being so lazy. I understand that there are some people who really DO need the extra boost, but 90% of people on wellfare are lazy summbitches (Made this data up myself, lol). My neighbors are on welfare, and they have a hummer, a lexus, and an accura, and they're all fattys.

You can't make up statistics, it doesn't work like that, and you can't afford shit like that on welfare. It's not laziness, once you are behind in society, it is almost impossible to get back above water on your own. Don't try to oversimplify the issue. One third of the homeless in the U.S. have some sort of serious mental illness, what about that portion, are they just lazy?

[TwO-FaCeD-PaRaNoID]

The only real way to beat unemployment, is that the goverment will invest in like large scale projects. Socialists around here tend to ignore/forget that, and want to create what we 'round here call : Melkertbanen. Jobs that are created by the goverment but produce nothing, and are only there because of the pitty of others.
Justice in the west is always seen from the underdogposition.

[goozebump]

At 12/31/06 12:33 PM, Elfer wrote:
No, everyone knows that people on Welfare tend to hoard their money in off-shore accounts, whereas the real money trickling back into the economy comes from tax breaks to the rich, who need to spend that money just to get by.

Elfer for the WIN!

[qygibo]

At 1/1/07 08:55 AM, Dr-Jonesie wrote: Nobody actually needs welfare! they need to stop being so lazy. I understand that there are some people who really DO need the extra boost, but 90% of people on wellfare are lazy summbitches (Made this data up myself, lol). My neighbors are on welfare, and they have a hummer, a lexus, and an accura, and they're all fattys.

If that was truly the case, you could report them for fraud. But your mischaracterization of welfare recipients ignores that class of people called the working poor. There may be some people who scam the system, but their numbers are, indeed, small, especially given that you HAVE to work or be in school (if you're underage and receiving aid) in order to be eligible, and there is a time limit as to how long one is eligible to receive aid (right now it's mostly at 5 years).

[Begoner]

The only real way to beat unemployment, is that the goverment will invest in like large scale projects. Socialists around here tend to ignore/forget that, and want to create what we 'round here call : Melkertbanen. Jobs that are created by the goverment but produce nothing, and are only there because of the pitty of others.

Although hiring someone to look at the sky all day may not be a productive endeavor, it nonetheless will ease the burden of unemployment. I really don't see your point. In a capitalist economy, cyclical unemployment can always be erased as long as the government is willing to employ those who have lost their jobs, no matter what monetary loss it may incur as a result. Whether that be through large-scale projects or useless jobs is another matter, but they both achieve the same goal in terms of unemployment. The only way to really beat unemployment completely, as some capitalists tend to ignore or forget, is to slash both frictional and structural unemployment, which may necessitate employing people in an inefficient capacity.