October 26, 2011
— Ace Good video.
I have a weird take on this. Or maybe it's not so weird.
To start, let me say that I'm not for income redistribution, period. I oppose taking undue amounts of taxes from the rich. Period.
But there are two parts to redistribution: Taking from one, and giving to another.
My take here is just about which part is worse.
So, to reiterate, I am against the whole transaction, period, and not in favor of taking from the rich.
But I think it's kind of interesting to ask which part of this exchange is worse.
I think, oddly enough, it's the "giving to another" part of it, not the "taking from one" part.
And the reason is simply that we do not want people to be indolent. You cannot guarantee a Minimum Standard of Living to all people, whether they work or not, with their basic necessities paid for, and expect a high fraction of them to actually work.
Because the sort of people drawing these benefits will not be, as a group, highly skilled. Their labor will not be worth terribly much to any employers. It will be worth something, of course.
But it will be worth some amount of pay which is just at the barely-getting-by level. Not much more.
Now, if you're guaranteeing the entire population Barely Getting By government wages, then what inducement do they have to work? You'd be a fool to work under those circumstances.
This country long ago provided what liberals call a "basic social safety net" for most people. This box was long ago checked.
The next item on the agenda is simply expanding this, giving people more free money.
At we're getting to the point where it becomes a good, defensible economic decision to just do nothing and take a check.
And at that point society collapses, because once you convince so many people that it's their right to just sit back and be taken care of, you run out of money in a hurry, because while the rich can be taxed at a high enough level to take care of a fairly small fraction of the idle, no one has enough money -- not even the rich, not even the more-wealthy-in-aggregate Middle Class -- to put half of the frigging country on a permanent dole.
There is a social penalty to not working, to living on the dole. Such permanent welfare types are considered lower-class. "Respectable" people avoid this status.
But when more and more people are doing this, the social stigma against it goes away.
That happened in the black community. That's happening in Europe.
It will happen everywhere this is tried. Because it's insane to expect people to work at a job -- which is frequently stressful, unpleasant, and difficult -- when they can get by okay enough doing nothing at all.
Posted by: Ace at
10:57 AM
| Comments (138)
Post contains 486 words, total size 3 kb.
Bastiat and The Law explained it very well.
Posted by: Vic at October 26, 2011 10:59 AM (YdQQY)
I have worked all my life but I would probably join the leisure poor if given the chance.
I'd rather have the time than the stuff anyway.
Posted by: toby928© at October 26, 2011 11:00 AM (GTbGH)
Posted by: pep at October 26, 2011 11:01 AM (YXmuI)
Posted by: Vic
///
Chuckle. Didn't realize the document written circa 1791 anticipated Karl Marx.
Posted by: SFGoth at October 26, 2011 11:01 AM (dZ756)
Posted by: negentropy at October 26, 2011 11:02 AM (27KAF)
Posted by: Mr_UNIVAC at October 26, 2011 11:02 AM (fN+Wl)
England just emailed to say True that.
Posted by: toby928© at October 26, 2011 11:02 AM (GTbGH)
We'll make it up on volume.
Posted by: Joe Biden at October 26, 2011 11:03 AM (7BU4a)
All you need to know is that we didn't have food stamps, social security, and unemployment benefits in the 1930's.
Somehow the nation survived and eventually thrived again.
Posted by: soothsayer at October 26, 2011 11:04 AM (sqkOB)
The black youth said to the shop foreman, “you’re firing me because I’m black!”
The boss said, “No, we hired you because you were black.
We’re firing you because you’re useless!”
I hope we remember this in November 2012.
Posted by: chain mail at October 26, 2011 11:04 AM (60+SO)
James Madison -1792
Posted by: shoey at October 26, 2011 11:04 AM (m6OUa)
Posted by: Joe Biden at October 26, 2011 03:03 PM (7BU4a)
The Southern Watermelon Stand Model never fails.
Posted by: Dan Rather at October 26, 2011 11:04 AM (8zofi)
Posted by: SFGoth at October 26, 2011 03:01 PM (dZ756)
The notion of the state plundering an unpolitically connected group to fund another connected one long predates Marx.
Posted by: 18-1 at October 26, 2011 11:05 AM (7BU4a)
Don't forget about how unemployemnt insurance distorts the labor market, and how many people find jobs shortly before it runs out.
Not *all* of them obviously-- and nowadays, long-term unemployment is a big problem, but every time Congress would pass an extension, I'd roll my eyes, because it clearly wasn't going to help.
Posted by: Lance McCormick at October 26, 2011 11:05 AM (zgHLA)
Now, if you're guaranteeing the entire population Barely Getting By government wages, then what inducement do they have to work? You'd be a fool to work under those circumstances.
Boy BFF has been intermittently unemployed over the last five years. When he is working, he makes a very nice wage. It made more economic sense for him to take unemployment than to take several jobs that he was offered since he would wind up making less than he got from unemployment. This drove me nuts, mainly because I could not fault him from doing so on a strictly economic basis.
Posted by: alexthechick at October 26, 2011 11:05 AM (VtjlW)
“ I think the best way of doing good to the poor, is not making them easy in poverty, but leading or driving them out of it. In my youth, I travelled much, and I observed in different countries, that the more public provisions were made for the poor, the less they provided for themselves, and of course became poorer. And, on the contrary, the less was done for them, the more they did for themselves, and became richer.”
- Benjamin Franklin
Posted by: shoey at October 26, 2011 11:05 AM (m6OUa)
Posted by: nerdygirl at October 26, 2011 11:06 AM (lUj0k)
"A government big enough to give you everything you need, is a government big enough to take away everything that you have...."
Gerald R. Ford (but often misattributed to Thomas Jefferson)
Posted by: RushBabe at October 26, 2011 11:06 AM (tQHzJ)
ý"We demand that the State shall make it its primary duty to provide a livelihood for its citizens."
- Adolf Hitler
Posted by: shoey at October 26, 2011 11:06 AM (m6OUa)
Because the sort of people drawing these benefits will not be, as a group, highly skilled. Their labor will not be worth terribly much to any employers. It will be worth something, of course.
The supply of beclowned ass-hats has far exceeded the demand. A few OWS circle-jerks provides plenty of entertainment "labor" for everyone.
Posted by: Roy at October 26, 2011 11:07 AM (VndSC)
What percentage of my money should I pay?
gleeep, Bush tax cuts.
I employ 150 people. How many do you employ?
erm, Bush tax cuts.
It's not fair!
You're right. I have 2 braincells to rub together, unlike the sum total of all of you. (I made up that last part).
Posted by: pep at October 26, 2011 11:07 AM (YXmuI)
And if people didn't have to work, there'd be no crime!
Oh, wait.
Posted by: Irony-deficient. at October 26, 2011 11:07 AM (JVEmw)
Between the Revolutionary War and the War of 1812, America was weak and suffered many deep recessions. Britain and France kept fuggin with our trade.
But somehow the country expanded and grew stronger. We did it without Barack Hussein Obama and Elizabeth Warren, too.
Posted by: soothsayer at October 26, 2011 11:07 AM (sqkOB)
There were shortages of everything. One reason of course is the USSR had first dibs, and took whatever was useful off the bat.
The other reason was there was no incentive to actually work much harder than way below average. The attitude was, sure I can make 15 widgets a day. But then the boss would expect me to make 15 widgets everyday, and my co-workers would be upset that I am making them work harder to keep up, so I'll just make the 2 widgets the first hour, and drink vodka the rest of the day. I make 2, I make 15, I still make the same money, and I still can't buy anything.
And of course you could not set up your own widget factory to make 15 a day cheaper than the state can. So, you're stuck.
Posted by: CUS at October 26, 2011 11:08 AM (84pE9)
Posted by: Slublog at October 26, 2011 11:08 AM (0nqdj)
Socialism SUCKS and fails every time because it's UN SUS TAIN ABLE.
Posted by: © Sponge at October 26, 2011 11:08 AM (UK9cE)
Posted by: dr kill at October 26, 2011 11:08 AM (le5qc)
No but they did anticipate other shit and they made sure that the federal government had no power to implement such schemes whether they were written by Marx or some other socialist type loon who preceded him.
Posted by: Vic at October 26, 2011 11:08 AM (YdQQY)
Posted by: toby928© at October 26, 2011 03:07 PM (GTbGH)
A couple days ago. Hey, anyone have an extra bayonet? I want to get the full Arab Spring flavor going.
Posted by: Some Occupier at October 26, 2011 11:09 AM (7BU4a)
Posted by: Vashta Nerada at October 26, 2011 11:09 AM (6d9Y3)
I wonder how much reducing the minimum wage and unemployment benefits would help the economy. Not by a lot, but by 10-20%. (I'd like more, but any reductions are a bloody pipe dream.) We clearly don't have the money anyway.
And if state governments wanted to pick up the slack-- some already *have* higher minimum wages anyway-- well, that's up to them.
Posted by: Lance McCormick at October 26, 2011 11:09 AM (zgHLA)
-David Crockett
Posted by: Mr. Dave at October 26, 2011 11:10 AM (OBDWE)
Posted by: laceyunderalls at October 26, 2011 11:11 AM (pLTLS)
It's funny that there's no way Obama is going to support any plan that would actually help. Cut taxes? Reduce spending? Trim back regulations? Encourage energy and other natural resource production?
Not gonna happen on his watch.
Posted by: Lance McCormick at October 26, 2011 11:12 AM (zgHLA)
Posted by: nerdygirl at October 26, 2011 11:12 AM (lUj0k)
I think we should get rid of the Bush tax cuts.
I think we should get rid of the Bush tax cuts.
I think we should get rid of the Bush tax cuts.
I think we should get rid of the Bush tax cuts.
I think we should get rid of the Bush tax cuts.
I think we should get rid of the Bush tax cuts.
I think we should get rid of the Bush tax cuts.
Posted by: Bitchy Hag Broad asking 'is this thing on?' at October 26, 2011 11:13 AM (pLTLS)
-David Crockett
Posted by: Mr. Dave at October 26, 2011 03:10 PM (OBDWE)
yes, Davey Crockett!
now there is a real american hero!
Posted by: shoey at October 26, 2011 11:13 AM (m6OUa)
I believe that Jefferson said it best:
When those who are without, through either the ill winds of bad fate or through their own sloth and indolence, are kept fed by the largesse of the State, it is incumbent upon the State to take all necessary steps to use the stompy boots of authority to kick them off the public teat.
Stuff Jefferson Said, Fifth Standard Revised Edition, Vol. I, p. 342.
Posted by: alexthechick at October 26, 2011 11:13 AM (VtjlW)
Posted by: AllenG (Dedicated Tenther) is tired beyond tired of the trolls at October 26, 2011 11:14 AM (8y9MW)
This doesn't begin to describe this piece of crap...
Posted by: The terrorist Hobbit formerly known as Donna at October 26, 2011 11:15 AM (5Wl/f)
Posted by: Joe Biden, Austin Powers Villain at October 26, 2011 11:15 AM (zgHLA)
Posted by: nerdygirl at October 26, 2011 11:15 AM (lUj0k)
He who does not work, neither shall he eat.
Derived from II Thessalonians 3:10, which became a slogan for new colonies and socialist societies. See, the Occubaggers will get to work one day...
Posted by: RushBabe at October 26, 2011 11:15 AM (tQHzJ)
Posted by: Dr Spank at October 26, 2011 11:17 AM (Sh42X)
Posted by: AllenG (Dedicated Tenther) is tired beyond tired of the trolls at October 26, 2011 03:14 PM (8y9MW)
Is steevy out sick today?
Posted by: RushBabe at October 26, 2011 11:17 AM (tQHzJ)
They. Don't. Care.
This is not about finding a sustainable system. It's not about fairness. It's about them getting theirs before it's all gone. It's about laziness and greed. Gimme gimme gimme.
If these people are stupid enough to imagine that Socialism is a viable, preferable system to Capitalism, then how can you give them credit for actually of considering anything beyond what they can get for nothing?
Posted by: wiserbud at October 26, 2011 11:18 AM (3Okgs)
Posted by: CAC at October 26, 2011 11:18 AM (JEVge)
Posted by: Actual conservative who knows Mitt sux at October 26, 2011 11:18 AM (OlN4e)
Posted by: Dr Spank at October 26, 2011 03:17 PM (Sh42X)
FIFY
Posted by: YIKES! at October 26, 2011 11:19 AM (70TBD)
Posted by: MDH3 at October 26, 2011 11:19 AM (GKyUC)
Posted by: TheQuietMan at October 26, 2011 11:20 AM (1Jaio)
Posted by: Dr Spank at October 26, 2011 11:20 AM (Sh42X)
Posted by: Alte Schule at October 26, 2011 11:20 AM (MLJu8)
Posted by: Peggy the Moocher at October 26, 2011 11:20 AM (u4a/I)
Posted by: Berserker at October 26, 2011 11:21 AM (FMbng)
Posted by: Bob Saget at October 26, 2011 11:21 AM (SDkq3)
Posted by: CUS at October 26, 2011 11:21 AM (84pE9)
It was mentioned above but worth reading the whole thing.
Posted by: Buzzsaw at October 26, 2011 11:22 AM (tf9Ne)
Insane to expect people to work at a job -- which is frequently stressful, unpleasant, and difficult -- when they can get by okay enough doing nothing at all.
And, this is kind of what I've been thinking about a lot today. Was I a fool for working through college, and taking a few years longer to finish just so I wouldn't have a lot of debt, compared to my friends who borrowed the max and used what they didn't need for car payments and fun? Was I stupid for not buying a house I couldn't afford a few years ago, while my friends did, got in trouble and are getting bailed out? It's as if it doesn't pay in this country to be responsible anymore, or to struggle and work hard for something.
Posted by: sydney jane at October 26, 2011 11:22 AM (zYWPO)
the Constitution gives the government the authority to take my money for the purpose of funding those duties and responsiblities laid out in Article 1, Section 8, and that's it.
no where in there does it give the government the authority to hand out my money to another private citizen for "charitable" purposes.
it's wrong, it's immoral and it's illegal... yet they do it anyway.
the tree of liberty is soooo thristy....
Posted by: shoey at October 26, 2011 11:22 AM (m6OUa)
ý"We demand that the State shall make it its primary duty to provide a livelihood for its citizens."
- Adolf Hitler
Posted by: shoey at October 26, 2011 03:06 PM (m6OUa)
And then cribbed by Valerie Jarrett.
Posted by: blindside at October 26, 2011 11:22 AM (3Uns6)
"And at that point society collapses, because once you convince so many people that it's their right to just sit back and be taken care of, you run out of money in a hurry, because while the rich can be taxed at a high enough level to take care of a fairly small fraction of the idle, no one has enough money -- not even the rich, not even the more-wealthy-in-aggregate Middle Class -- to put half of the frigging country on a permanent dole."
but I heard
"And at that point society collapses, because once you convince so many people that it's their right to just sit back and be taken care of, you run out of money in a hurry, because while the rich can be taxed at a high enough level to take care of a fairly small fraction of the idle, no one has enough money -- not even the rich, not even the more-wealthy-in-aggregate Middle Class -- to put half of the frigging country on a permanent dole, boy."
Posted by: The Mega Independent at October 26, 2011 11:22 AM (obq97)
When I went to the Tea Party rally on Boston Common in April 2009, some 50-ish pasty fucker was walking around the crowd calling us 'cheapskates.'
He had the look of a professor or a trust-fund perpetual student. You know the type. A man-child.
He walking quickly and nervously. "Cheapskates! Cheapskates!"
He was pathetic and people either took pity on him or laughed in his face.
Posted by: soothsayer at October 26, 2011 11:22 AM (sqkOB)
Quiet, I'm trying to sleep here.
Posted by: The 52% at October 26, 2011 11:22 AM (71LDo)
WTF does she think he's doing when he's employing everyone in his firm?! Jesus, Mary, and Joseph, do these people even listen to themselves?!
Posted by: MDH3 at October 26, 2011 03:19 PM (GKyUC)
He does shut her up momentarily with, I employ 150 people. How many do you employ?
Posted by: TheQuietMan at October 26, 2011 11:22 AM (1Jaio)
It's not surprising, given that Adam Smith wrote a pretty solid take-down of Socialism in Wealth of Nations in 1776, even though he didn't call it by name.
It is also worth mentioning that socialism started appearing around 1789, so anticipation of Marx is not that strange.
Posted by: Meiczyslaw at October 26, 2011 11:23 AM (bjRNS)
It will be very interesting to see how hard the commiecrats and press try to distance themselves from these retards when it all blows up.
The press is already trying to hide a lot of the crap going on but the word is getting out despite that.
This crap is going to bite the Demo-commie Party on the ass before it is over.
Posted by: Vic at October 26, 2011 11:23 AM (YdQQY)
Posted by: nerdygirl at October 26, 2011 11:24 AM (lUj0k)
Posted by: wiserbud at October 26, 2011 03:18 PM (3Okgs)
Let's not forget envy, jealously, bad choices and frustration.
Posted by: YIKES! at October 26, 2011 11:24 AM (70TBD)
Posted by: MDH3 at October 26, 2011 11:24 AM (GKyUC)
If it is made legal to take from a person, then that person doesn't own anything because it can be taken away with a simple vote. Without property rights, you don't even have the rights to yourself. The State can, and will, do with you as it pleases.
No, taking from people who are unwilling is much worse, because of what it means.
Posted by: blindside at October 26, 2011 11:25 AM (3Uns6)
"I'm employing 150 people. How many do you employ? [none] I'm doing my fair share, why aren't you?"
hahahaha
Posted by: Cherry pi at October 26, 2011 11:25 AM (OhYCU)
Posted by: nerdygirl at October 26, 2011 11:25 AM (lUj0k)
OWS Quiz: Who's more dangerous? Rush or al Qaeda?
When did we go into Iran and set up a democracy? I'm so confused...
Posted by: Kratos (Ghost of Sparta) at October 26, 2011 11:25 AM (9hSKh)
-We make less then 40k a year, they add up to about an extra few hundred a year returned in taxes we otherwise wouldn't get. To us that's a lot of money.
-Does she understand that that's money that we earned that was taken from us.. and all they did was steal a little less from us for a few years?
There will be no reeducating this lady or those like her. We must find a way to protect ourselves and what left of our republic from them.
Posted by: Shiggz-open - weighing -pros-cons-balls at October 26, 2011 11:25 AM (I9fXA)
You may all go to hell and I will go to Texas
-- attributed to Davy Crockett
Posted by: No Whining at October 26, 2011 03:19 PM (Wqfrr)
no - he wasn't telling everyone to go to hell, he was telling Andrew Jackson and his supporters to go to hell because of what they did to the Georgia Cherokee
Posted by: shoey at October 26, 2011 11:25 AM (m6OUa)
That said, where's the outrage against another federally fabricated case against a Border Patrol Agent Jesus Diaz who arrested an illegal alien in possession of 150 pounds of marijuana at 2 a.m.
DHS overturned the investigation that found Diaz did nothing wrong, and fabricated false evidence that at face value should never have been admitted in court.
Napolitano DHS internal affairs and Holder ordered the indictment/prosecution of Agent Jesus E. Diaz Jr., furthering the same abusive West Texas Federal Prosecutor who framed and convicted Agents Ramos and Compean, namely, U.S. Attorney Johnny Sutton. So another Border Patrol Agent is convicted, this time having done absolutely nothing wrong, all by the book.
Washington Times
"U.S. border agent jailed for improper arrest of suspected drug smuggler"
By Jerry Seper
A U.S. Border Patrol agent has been sentenced to two years in prison for improperly lifting the arms of a 15-year-old drug smuggling suspect while handcuffed — in what the Justice Department called a deprivation of the teenager’s constitutional right to be free from the use of unreasonable force.
...
Agents Ramos and Compean were convicted and sentenced to 11 and 12 years in prison, respectively. President George W. Bush commuted the sentences in 2009 after they had served two years (and been bankrupted with reputations impugned). The same prosecutors also charged Edwards County Deputy Sheriff Gilmer Hernandez in 2005 with violating the civil rights of a Mexican criminal alien after he shot out the tires of a van filled with illegals as it tried to run him over.
Posted by: didn't take long at October 26, 2011 11:26 AM (lpWVn)
By robbing selected Peter to pay for collective Paul;
But, though we had plenty of money, there was nothing our money could buy,
And the Gods of the Copybook Headings said: "If you don't work you die."
Posted by: MikeTheMoose Camellia Sinensis Operative at October 26, 2011 11:27 AM (0q2P7)
Posted by: RINO Vice President For Life AuthorLMendez, Formerly YRM, Who Supports The Ban Of Curious at October 26, 2011 11:28 AM (yAor6)
This unintended consequence is more likely to cause radical change than any pack of lies that TheWon can summon up.
Posted by: ontherocks at October 26, 2011 11:29 AM (HBqDo)
And the hearts of the meanest were humbled and began to believe it was true
That All is not Gold that Glitters, and Two and Two make Four
And the Gods of the Copybook Headings limped up to explain it once more.
As it will be in the future, it was at the birth of Man
There are only four things certain since Social Progress began.
That the Dog returns to his Vomit and the Sow returns to her Mire,
And the burnt Fool's bandaged finger goes wabbling back to the Fire;
And that after this is accomplished, and the brave new world begins
When all men are paid for existing and no man must pay for his sins,
As surely as Water will wet us, as surely as Fire will burn,
The Gods of the Copybook Headings with terror and slaughter return!
Posted by: MikeTheMoose Camellia Sinensis Operative at October 26, 2011 11:29 AM (0q2P7)
Socialism and communism do not work, we have ample examples in pretty modern history about this. So why the freak can't the liberals learn this lesson already?
Communism does not equal a paradise on earth, jeebus, why don't young stupid Americans, who are mostly white and fairly well off, get that.
Posted by: ParanoidStillAGirlInSeattle at October 26, 2011 11:29 AM (RZ8pf)
Posted by: RINO Vice President For Life AuthorLMendez, Formerly YRM, Who Supports The Ban Of Curious at October 26, 2011 11:30 AM (yAor6)
They are now truly entitlements. Forever and ever. Til the money runs out.
Posted by: GnuBreed at October 26, 2011 11:30 AM (ENKCw)
Posted by: Lawrence at October 26, 2011 11:30 AM (T5155)
Posted by: RINO Vice President For Life AuthorLMendez, Formerly YRM, Who Supports The Ban Of Curious at October 26, 2011 11:30 AM (yAor6)
I personally don't think we are close to that point, or even within a few centuries of that point, but it makes for interesting discussion/flaming.
So what happens when we are truly able to have food, utilities, information, entertainment, and waste handled by global army of AI robot slaves?
I can't help but imagine a soulless, stagnant, fat, and idle society, but I'm pessimistic that way.
Posted by: fb at October 26, 2011 11:37 AM (JVEmw)
They are now truly entitlements. Forever and ever. Til the money runs out.
Posted by: GnuBreed at October 26, 2011 03:30 PM (ENKCw)
true, not one of our current "viable" canidates will do anything about the Welfare State.
pitchforks and torches...
Posted by: shoey at October 26, 2011 11:39 AM (m6OUa)
Progressive wish banish any stigma connected to activities that are counter productive to the social fabric. It's what they do.
Posted by: Alamo at October 26, 2011 11:40 AM (rx9sq)
Posted by: nerdygirl at October 26, 2011 11:40 AM (lUj0k)
Socialism = shortages + torture + death;
E.V.E.R.Y.T.I.M.E.
Posted by: CUS at October 26, 2011 11:41 AM (84pE9)
Posted by: nerdygirl at October 26, 2011 11:43 AM (lUj0k)
They just want to see the evil rich punished. It wouldn't change their lives one iota. The government would waste every single dime of increased revenue. But they would all pack up their grungy tents and go back to their mom's basements if only the rich would pay more.
Posted by: Get Thee To A Mitt Romnery at October 26, 2011 11:43 AM (B0LGd)
The gubmint is giving out too many goodies, so staying on the dole is preferable to work.
Solution - lower the minimum wage.
Posted by: Chuckit at October 26, 2011 11:48 AM (n/xyZ)
... looking around the neighborhood.
Posted by: Cherry pi at October 26, 2011 11:48 AM (OhYCU)
Posted by: just me at October 26, 2011 11:55 AM (O/fK8)
Posted by: Peggy the Moocher at October 26, 2011 11:56 AM (u4a/I)
Posted by: Avi at October 26, 2011 12:02 PM (Gx3Fe)
Posted by: Johnny at October 26, 2011 12:09 PM (jTasq)
Posted by: Shrill, Repetitive Broad at October 26, 2011 12:12 PM (Vy1lZ)
Posted by: DarkLord© sez Obama is a stuttering clusterf--- of a miserable failure
Oh, and F--- Nevada! at October 26, 2011 12:13 PM (GBXon)
Well, it's not like they normally read conservative web sites.
They might get cooties.
Posted by: Y-not at October 26, 2011 12:16 PM (5H6zj)
Posted by: Don at October 26, 2011 12:21 PM (rnjU5)
Posted by: Michael Rittenhouse at October 26, 2011 12:28 PM (2Oas0)
There is a social penalty to not working, to living on the dole.
----
That used to be work Americans would not do
Posted by: Rep. B. Frank at October 26, 2011 12:33 PM (M3mVf)
I know several "welfare pros"--people who have no intention of ever working, because they've figured out how to game the system. Two families span 3 generations now. They live as well as we do , with none of the responsibilities.
Were it possible, I'd say to them "Here is a job-work at it and live within the means it provides. Choose not to do so, and you can go and die". There is no more compassion left in me regarding them.
Took years for that to happen, but there you are.
Posted by: irongrampa at October 26, 2011 12:44 PM (SAMxH)
Posted by: steevy at October 26, 2011 01:01 PM (fyOgS)
The thing is, once you take it from one, you are by definition giving it to another to do something, unless you're just going to let it sit there.
The other thing is, Watergate didn't have a body count.
Posted by: Ken at October 26, 2011 01:57 PM (ZnE3s)
Posted by: Johnny at October 26, 2011 03:13 PM (jTasq)
Many of my friends who graduated with me are on food stamps and section 8. They work marginal jobs and spent most of their time "chilling."
I really fear that this behavior is already socially accepted by the majority of our citizens.
My boss and I were talking about this today at work -- we don't pay anywhere near enough in taxes to even begin to cover the cost of our co-workers generous social programs. And no one does.
I don't see how this turns out any way other than a serious economical and cultural crisis
Posted by: TimtheLurker at October 26, 2011 03:34 PM (d1JmE)
Posted by: ARRRJAYYY at October 26, 2011 04:06 PM (QTVh2)
Posted by: Momofuku Milk Bar ePub at October 26, 2011 05:32 PM (q96T2)
Posted by: Halo: Glasslands epub at October 26, 2011 05:55 PM (HBD0q)
Posted by: Fear and Loathing at Rolling Stone AudioBook at October 26, 2011 06:07 PM (zn084)
Posted by: El Narco ePub at October 26, 2011 07:45 PM (76RWm)
I do believe you've just gone Galt.
Ayn Rand got this one right too.
A non-productive society, will die out.
A liberal/progressive run government/society, will produce nothing worth having, will remove all incentive from the equation.
Posted by: Trish at October 27, 2011 03:37 AM (MOgvJ)
Hide Comments | Add Comment | Refresh | Top
64 queries taking 0.193 seconds, 266 records returned.
Powered by Minx 1.1.6c-pink.
Posted by: Vic at October 26, 2011 10:58 AM (YdQQY)