what's the solution eliminate freeloaders of welfare?

Page 5 - Seeking answers? Join the AnandTech community: where nearly half-a-million members share solutions and discuss the latest tech.

Jhhnn

IN MEMORIAM
Nov 11, 1999
62,365
14,685
136
i'm pretty sure we are talking about those who abuse the system and finding ways to prevent abuse. not ending welfare entirely. The ones who do not have a job and do not look for a job..ever are not being "supplemented", they are being provided for period.

Moralistic jingoism on autopilot, huh?

The people at the top who profit from most the welfare state simply misdirect your sense of wrongness onto the minor players, divert it away from themselves.

Inheritors of vast wealth don't necessarily do any more to provide for their own lifestyles than welfare recipients, but they're adored rather than vilified.

Loafers & freeloaders exist at every level, always have, always will. It's just another form of exploitation, with the preachers often being the biggest perps.

Their goal, of course, is to prevent you from seeing past the identity politics they offer, to have you work against your own interests by attacking the weakest among us.

Why does the welfare state exist? Because it profits the financial elite more than providing jobs & wages. When it starts to get too big, to threaten that order, they don't look at the beam in their own eye but rather the mote in the eyes of others, and encourage you to do the same.

If they really wanted to reduce the need for the welfare state, they'd pay better wages & hire more people, accept less short term profit in exchange for more long term from a healthier economy.

If they were really ready to "Believe in America", they wouldn't offshore their money as fast as possible, wouldn't seek to increase already vast & un-spendable fortunes for the only purpose of doing so.

If it weren't for the welfare state, we'd have recognized trickledown economics as a sham long ago, and changed it.
 

Tom

Lifer
Oct 9, 1999
13,293
1
76
Baloney is right... Bush tried to regulate and was block by Barney Frank.

http://www.nytimes.com/2003/09/11/b...mac-and-fannie-mae.html?pagewanted=all&src=pm

Not true. In fact just the opposite occurred.

"(In 2005, when Frank helped sponsor a bipartisan House bill to create an independent regulator for Fannie and Freddie, it died in the Senate.)"

"What’s more, only one of the top 25 subprime lenders in 2006 was subject to affordable-housing laws. For the most part, private firms such as Countrywide Financial were issuing “nontraditional” mortgages in order to package them off to Wall Street and make money, not to please Barney Frank."

http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs...ousing-crisis/2011/11/28/gIQANqLH5N_blog.html

What really caused the problem was a lack of attention by everyone, but the responsibility to lead rests primarily with the President, so the onus is on Bush.