PDA

View Full Version : The Welfare System




VoteForRonPaul
02-29-2008, 04:58 PM
Quote from Ron Paul "It's a mistake to think that poor people get the benefit from the welfare system. It's a total fraud. Most welfare go to the rich of this country: the military-industrial complex, the bankers, the foreign dictators, it's totally out of control"

Hey guys, Could anybody explain to me how most welfare goes to the rich, bankers etc..... Any material to read would be nice!

swifty_s
02-29-2008, 07:48 PM
I think what he is trying to explain is that the welfare system is sold to you as an incentive to allow willing tax increases that you believe will be placed into a welfare trust fund for you or your countrymen should you become destitute or needy, but what actually happens is something quite different, the "trust fund" (which does not exist in any real terms) is then dipped into for political goals, those who also benefit are the professional lobbyists of the major medical, military and industrial complex thus placing you in debt and leaving nothing in the pot for the promised benefits.
This leaves you working harder to try to keep up payments of the pledged welfare!

If this is not true, how has the United States government accrued so much debt without dipping into the welfare trust fund?

But that’s just my take, here's Dr. Paul talking about it in 1987: -

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=oC_DnGp2Gy8

I think this link also contains further explanation: -

http://www.lewrockwell.com/paul/paul32.html

Hope it helps.

Zippyjuan
02-29-2008, 09:09 PM
There are two kinds of welfare- you are talking about what is considered corporate welfare where the government gives tax breaks to businesses to encourage them to invest more money and create jobs. That can include things from giving a company money to encourge them to hire people like the physically handicapped so that they can have jobs instead of living on direct full government support to low or interest free loans to say buy a new plant and hire people to the subsidies on production of ethanol from corn (a terriblely inefficient way to try to make a gasoline substitute and the reason your food prices are going up- ethanol presently consumes 15% of our corn crop). Small businesses can get loans from the government to try to get started. Farmers were gives supports to ensure a stable food supply and with excess production have products to sell overseas to other countries.

Some companies are barely able to survive via corporate welfare, others make loads of profit and still receive help. The intention for many such loans, tax breaks, and gifts was to help encourage businesses to grow and create jobs and eventually increase the overall tax base- returning that money to the government and beneifiting society via the jobs. But sometimes the programs continue after a business no longer really needs the support and that is where a lot of waste can occur. Many of our farms are now owned by big corporations. Some people are even paid NOT to grow certain foods out of fear of over production. According to the Cato Institution, the US government spent $92 billion on corporate welfare in 2006.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Corporate_welfare

For more information:
http://www.cato.org/pubs/handbook/hb105-9.html

Swifty_s is confusing a couple of things. The government is borrowing from the current surplus revenue coming in for Social Security to pay for other programs. I do not think the welfare produces excess income for the government- there is no specific tax for that execpt at the state level. Funds for welfare come out of the main budget just like the defense budget does. There is not a welfare trust fund but there is one for Social Security. He is trying to discuss the social version of welfare, not corporate welfare. Just trying to clarify on that.

VoteForRonPaul
03-01-2008, 06:37 PM
Thank you guys for all the information!

therealjjj77
03-01-2008, 07:38 PM
There are two kinds of welfare- you are talking about what is considered corporate welfare where the government gives tax breaks to businesses to encourage them to invest more money and create jobs. That can include things from giving a company money to encourge them to hire people like the physically handicapped so that they can have jobs instead of living on direct full government support to low or interest free loans to say buy a new plant and hire people to the subsidies on production of ethanol from corn (a terriblely inefficient way to try to make a gasoline substitute and the reason your food prices are going up- ethanol presently consumes 15% of our corn crop). Small businesses can get loans from the government to try to get started. Farmers were gives supports to ensure a stable food supply and with excess production have products to sell overseas to other countries.

Some companies are barely able to survive via corporate welfare, others make loads of profit and still receive help. The intention for many such loans, tax breaks, and gifts was to help encourage businesses to grow and create jobs and eventually increase the overall tax base- returning that money to the government and beneifiting society via the jobs. But sometimes the programs continue after a business no longer really needs the support and that is where a lot of waste can occur. Many of our farms are now owned by big corporations. Some people are even paid NOT to grow certain foods out of fear of over production. According to the Cato Institution, the US government spent $92 billion on corporate welfare in 2006.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Corporate_welfare

For more information:
http://www.cato.org/pubs/handbook/hb105-9.html

Swifty_s is confusing a couple of things. The government is borrowing from the current surplus revenue coming in for Social Security to pay for other programs. I do not think the welfare produces excess income for the government- there is no specific tax for that execpt at the state level. Funds for welfare come out of the main budget just like the defense budget does. There is not a welfare trust fund but there is one for Social Security. He is trying to discuss the social version of welfare, not corporate welfare. Just trying to clarify on that.

If a company can't survive without welfare then it needs to go out of business.

A lot of times things are done with said intentions but in reality the intentions have nothing to do with the outcome. Government welfare on all levels is an example of that. The problem is that even when it's seen that said welfare is not acheiving said intention, they continue doing it as though tweaking the program will change the results.

Take for example social welfare. The intention is to help poor people. However, in reality it has only created more poor people. Most people on welfare are dependent on it and refuse to do any work, and when required to they drag their feet because they would much rather stay at home getting welfare checks then contribute to society. At least that is my real world analysis as a business owner and employer.

In reality, social welfare should be left in the private sector. For instance, someone is in poverty, more often then not, due to bad choices. They come to a church to get help and that church requires that they change certain habits. That church encourages them to find productive means to contribute society. The people in that church teach that person the importance of a good work ethic and how they can receive satisfaction through accomplishing things. The people in that church can hold the person accountable to be contributing to society. Also, in a church you can more easily and readily hold accountable administration of charitable funds. The people who give see their contribution going to a good cause and are more then willing to continue giving due to the satisfaction it gives them.

In this scenario you have increased community bonding, much higher accountability of the recipient and the administrator, and more satisfying experiences for both recipients and the givers. This also results in more productive behaviour from the recipient as a certain expectation is required for them to receive help, and more productive behaviour from the giver as they wish to set a good example. The net result is more productive behaviour in society, less crime related activities, and more satisfaction in society.

However, this next scenario is the current scenario in the United States. Money is taken from those who are productive, sometimes by force, and then said to be given to poor and impoverished people. However, the giver has no influence in the outcome or increased productivity of the needy and community bonds are not created. The administrator(the government) has very little accountability and often funds are wasted or spent in unintended areas. Also, the administration costs much more as ever increasing paper work and regulations are created to assess and process the taking of the money and the redistribution of the money.

This leaves the givers questioning the administrator and resentful of the recipient. This also encourages the recipient to be less productive as their decreased productivity is rewarded. This creates recipients who view their welfare as a right instead of as something they are required to temporarily use as they should be moving toward productive behaviour. Because social bonding has not occurred, this creates dissatisfaction from both the recipient and the giver. The net result is less productivity is encouraged in society, crime related activities increase, and dissatisfaction increases.

I strongly believe in helping the poor. I just don't think the government is the best way to do it. In fact, I would not call what the government does "help".