Why do we need these programs ...

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

nageov3t

Lifer
Feb 18, 2004
42,808
83
91
Originally posted by: NanoStuff
Originally posted by: loki8481
people with full stomachs and a section-B roof over their head are less likely to rebel.

You mean prison? I agree.

prison is probably more expensive than some food vouchers.
 

torpid

Lifer
Sep 14, 2003
11,631
11
76
Originally posted by: SampSon
(yes I understand everyone on thie forum has done everything for themselves, even breast fed themselves)

Don't be silly. That is only the female ATOTers. The male ATOTers all had jobs in IT while still in the womb.

 

Throckmorton

Lifer
Aug 23, 2007
16,829
3
0
Originally posted by: TheVrolok
I'd like to know how old the OP is - outta curiosity. Also, I'd like to know

I've been to 3rd world countries where they don't have social programs.....people are not dying of starvation ......

which country ^^ is. Considering to many third world implies things such as poverty and starving.

This is one of those situations in which we pay money in order to help out those that are less fortunate and this most often comes down to children. It's not a child's fault that he or she was born into poverty. Yes, these systems can be abused but I would much prefer to have some abusers covered than remove the help from those who really need it.

Oh, did the OP get a public education? Watch any public TV? Benefit from the other vast social benefits afforded us by the governments social programs?

The OP was born rich, and then retroactively earned his silver spoon after somehow not gaining any benefits from it, because such benefits would undermine his arguments.
 

NL5

Diamond Member
Apr 28, 2003
3,286
12
81
Did anybody point out that unemployment is not the same as welfare and stamps?

 

Eeezee

Diamond Member
Jul 23, 2005
9,922
0
76
Originally posted by: IcebergSlim
Originally posted by: rh71
Hmm I wonder if the rich ever ask about paying much more taxes than the middle/lower classes... I wonder if it's voluntary...

All the time. I don't blame them. Consumption tax would be much more appropriate than income. Income is something that should be encouraged not punished in a capitalist country.

It is encouraged... there are countless ways that higher incomes are encouraged. The only discouragement I can imagine is hitting a higher tax bracket, but once you're in the highest tax bracket (ie the rich) all further income is taxed the same, so who cares?

It's a simple matter of scale. What's the difference between $50,000,000 after taxes and $45,000,000 after taxes? The correct answer is "Who gives a damn, I'm filthy rich!" The problem is that the current tax system unfairly punishes the middle class by taxing them as much as the upper class.

A consumption tax replacing income tax punishes the poor more than anything, and it discourages spending. If you knew anything about economics you'd know why this is a bad idea.
 

Eeezee

Diamond Member
Jul 23, 2005
9,922
0
76
Originally posted by: IcebergSlim
Originally posted by: Baked
Yes, because everybody never gets sick, has a life time guaranteed job and a million dollars in the bank for retirement...

Again I fail to see why that should become involuntarily my problem? Plenty of people in the world come up by working for what they want. I don't see the need to make so many exceptions.

It's a sort of "do unto others" philosophy. Consider a single mom who gets cancer and is unable to pay for her medical kids AND for food for her kid(s). It's not technically your responsibility to take care of them, but your representatives decided that it was a good idea for everyone to shoulder a tiny bit of the responsibility. That's what you get in a democratic republic like ours.

If you don't like it, you're free to write a letter to your Congressman. If you get enough people writing enough letters, you'll be sure to get noticed and maybe things will change. That's how the system works.

I like having the safety net there. It's EXACTLY like having insurance. The insurance premiums on your car pay for damage to anyone else's car being covered by your insurance company (plus a good chunk of overhead costs and corporate profit). If you never get into an accident, you could view that as wasted money, or more wisely you could view it as a safety net just in case you do get into an accident. If you get into a car accident tomorrow, the rest of us will be helping to pay for your repairs. Everyone has insurance, and some people will never benefit from it.

It's just a safety net. If you're ever unemployed and in dire need some day, you'll be glad that the safety net was there.

Besides, the amount you pay to welfare and unemployment is miniscule. It's a tiny fraction of the budget. I'd be more pissed off about ridiculous military spending. Millions of dollars in defense money basically go unaccounted for, yet Republicans insist that it's the welfare system that bankrupts us...

Here are some numbers for you

AFDC spending (welfare and food stamps) in 1993 was $12 billion, Defense spending was $281 billion. In 1997 federal subsidies to private business (ie corporate welfare) was $87 billion. Perhaps it would be wiser for you to ask why you have to pay off businesses that should be making money on their own?
 

Eeezee

Diamond Member
Jul 23, 2005
9,922
0
76
Originally posted by: NanoStuff
Originally posted by: loki8481
Originally posted by: NanoStuff
Originally posted by: loki8481
people with full stomachs and a section-B roof over their head are less likely to rebel.

You mean prison? I agree.

prison is probably more expensive than some food vouchers.

Ok, execution.

I read somewhere that execution costs more than lifetime imprisonment. The justification was something along the lines of ridiculous amounts of red tape and additional spending for executions. I don't know if it's true or not (it sounds ridiculous), but I am hoping that someone more knowledgeable on the topic could at least weigh in.
 

Eeezee

Diamond Member
Jul 23, 2005
9,922
0
76
Originally posted by: Svnla
I think we all agree that no one is against the "purpose" of these social programs, which is to help those downed on their luck TEMPORARY!!!!!, not a way of life for generations after generations.

Agreed; the OP seems to be of the opinion that these social programs are of no use and should be scrapped completely
 

natto fire

Diamond Member
Jan 4, 2000
7,117
10
76
You keep throwing out the the word involuntary, but it really isn't. You could move to a place that does not have those programs, kill yourself, or simply stop paying taxes. Yeah, those alternate decisions might be so out there that it may seem involuntary for you to pay for these programs, but that is not correct.

The rest of the discussion is flamebait city and I don't really care enough to discuss it over the internet. Not that doing that has a horrible track record of getting things done...
 

Eeezee

Diamond Member
Jul 23, 2005
9,922
0
76
Originally posted by: Blueychan
Originally posted by: IcebergSlim
Convince me why I should be involuntarily paying someone else's way?

Ask the liberals.

And then ask the conservatives why I should be involuntarily paying for wars I don't support.
 

DrPizza

Administrator Elite Member Goat Whisperer
Mar 5, 2001
49,601
167
111
www.slatebrookfarm.com
Originally posted by: loki8481
Originally posted by: NanoStuff
Originally posted by: loki8481
Originally posted by: NanoStuff
Originally posted by: loki8481
people with full stomachs and a section-B roof over their head are less likely to rebel.

You mean prison? I agree.

prison is probably more expensive than some food vouchers.

Ok, execution.

easy there Hitler.

Godwin's Law! You lose. /end thread.
And really, this thread is pretty borderline P&N; maybe I really should lock it or move it.
 

Genx87

Lifer
Apr 8, 2002
41,091
513
126
Originally posted by: Eeezee
Originally posted by: Blueychan
Originally posted by: IcebergSlim
Convince me why I should be involuntarily paying someone else's way?

Ask the liberals.

And then ask the conservatives why I should be involuntarily paying for wars I don't support.

Dumb response. Liberal Democrats keep funding the war. The war isnt a liberal\conservative issue.
 

heyheybooboo

Diamond Member
Jun 29, 2007
6,278
0
0
Originally posted by: Genx87
Originally posted by: Eeezee
Originally posted by: Blueychan
Originally posted by: IcebergSlim
Convince me why I should be involuntarily paying someone else's way?

Ask the liberals.

And then ask the conservatives why I should be involuntarily paying for wars I don't support.

Dumb response. Liberal Democrats keep funding the war. The war isnt a liberal\conservative issue.


Don't you wish ...

The nation-building police action of an occupation, it's continued funding and loss of life and limb has got ""G-O-P"" written all over it ...
 

piasabird

Lifer
Feb 6, 2002
17,168
60
91
People might have to actually depend on their family relationships instead of the government. I would settle for a happy medium. Having a safety net is adventageous.
 

theeedude

Lifer
Feb 5, 2006
35,787
6,197
126
Originally posted by: IcebergSlim
Convince me why I should be involuntarily paying someone else's way?

Because if you fell on hard times, someone would "involuntarily" be paying your way.
Also, while you claim it's involuntarily, these laws were passed by people's elected representatives, so indirectly, the majority of the people volunteered to do so by supporting candidates who passed these benefit programs.
 

piasabird

Lifer
Feb 6, 2002
17,168
60
91
Just think if everyone through their employer was not paying unemployment, we would acutally be paid more, or the employer could afford to hire more workers.
 

theeedude

Lifer
Feb 5, 2006
35,787
6,197
126
Originally posted by: piasabird
Just think if everyone through their employer was not paying unemployment, we would acutally be paid more, or the employer could afford to hire more workers.

Or we simply would have inflation to offset the added pay.
 

Jaskalas

Lifer
Jun 23, 2004
35,745
10,045
136
Originally posted by: Chryso
Because humans no longer believe in survival of the fittest when it applies to humans.

Indeed sir.

Being a conservative myself I believe government should lift people up when they fall down on hard times. However, I do not believe it should support them indefinitely. The goodwill and charity of others can be abused and we must look to avoiding that abuse whenever possible. It would not be humane for our limited resources to be squandered and left unavailable to those who truly struggle and try to succeed if those who want to mooch off us take everything we have.

So there must be a balance, certain requirements such as getting back on your feet.

This has become more difficult to balance lately because even with 2 parents working full time jobs American families continue to make lower wages compared to the rise in the cost of living. So for each and every person on services, more people are being added every day and those on the program continue to require more and more indefinitely until our economic piggy bank breaks.

Very inhumane times are ahead of us as we realize we cannot afford all that is promised. Yet every day I hear politicians electing themselves with more promises even though we cannot sustain current levels. It would be a hilarious joke that people were so stupid to believe them if not for the very real crisis our bankruptcy will bring.

Originally posted by: piasabird
People might have to actually depend on their family relationships instead of the government. I would settle for a happy medium. Having a safety net is adventageous.

Safety net is exactly what it should be.