Post: #26

It works in small, homogeneous, high trust societies, such as Scandinavia and the Netherlands, for a while.

Then the majority of the men start to get so productive that they no longer need it to raise a family. They start to vote against it along with at least some of their wives who bore them sons, which is a problem to politicians and bureaucrats who depend on the welfare state to hand out bribes to voters in order to stay in power.

Those politicians and bureaucrats bend the system in order to import immigrant voters who will keep them in power. Then you get places like Malmo and South Central LA, where Mexicans have slowly ethnically cleansed Blacks for 25+ years - it's not just whitey who gets screwed.

So far we have not seen any modern civil wars because of this, but given that Germany now has a serious nationalist political party and has its Special Forces forming right wing death squads targeting leftist and migrant leaders, it would appear that the clock is ticking. You only need to have a mediocre grasp of history to know that when Germany has a civil war, it ends badly for everyone.

Post: #27

(01-03-2019 07:29 PM)TigerMandingo Wrote:  No, they can't be replaced by community initiatives. That's because most people don't give a shit about the poor and the sick. Not that they have to, but it's worth pointing out. Everybody's got their own shit going on to worry about others.

Sorry, but the government has to stay involved in this. There will be always be leeches but on the whole the system works.

It would need to be as localized as possible so as to maximize accountability. Because when it is done on a larger scale there is much higher chance for leeches.


Christian churches used to provide that localized role.


I think the Old Testament can also provide clues as to the best way to administer welfare.

Post: #28

It depends on a lot of things and what type of welfare we are talking about.

At the foundational level, all means tested welfare programs (medicaid, free/cheap housing/food stamps/etc) should have two basic rules:

1. Welfare goes to citizens only.

2. If you are on welfare, you are not permitted to breed until you are fiscally sustainable.

This protects limited resources and largely prevents whatever bad behaviors/traits/people from multiplying and becoming multi-generational problems for everyone.

In the US, there are many places that openly advertise that "undocumented immigrants" can access welfare benefits. This should amount to treason in my book. Why? You're using my money to enable and support foreign invaders.

As for controlling breeding, good luck forcing birth control and abortions on to the populace. But this is what needs to be done. Welfare leeches know that if they can just pump out one kid, they are a protected class for nearly two decades; they know how to hustle the system. Cheap/free housing, healthcare, food, money, etc. Pump out a few more kids? More money and longer protection; maybe even long enough to claim retirement benefits right after the last kid hits adulthood.

Right now, we incentivize deadbeats to have up to 40 years of taxpayer funded baby making all the while the hard working guy can't even contemplate having kids until maybe his 30's due to the financial burdens; especially if you want a woman to stay at home.

People easily forget that at some point in the recent past, you could live in a SAFE lower class neighborhood, support a family on one income, and your kids didn't have to worry about trash in their public school. Now, the lower income neighborhoods are hoods filled with illegal/ghetto trash. To do the single income family life and make sure the kid(s) have access to good schools/resources, you need A LOT of money. If you compromise, your kids may pay the price via shitty schooling, absent parents, or violence. Having kids/family, supporting them, and doing it right for the non-welfare seeking person requires enormous hard work, effort, and sacrifice. And there is no guarantee you will reach the minimal requirements in time (i.e your reproduction prime).

For the welfare seeking, just spread your legs in your teens, abandon your kids, and let everyone else clean up your mess for the next several decades.

Simply put, the game is rigged and everything is operating ass backwards. The people who work hard are being punished and the lazy are being rewarded immensely; including the privilege of being able to reproduce with security. Since we can't undo people having welfare babies, the next best alternative is to make them work for it. Make it so painful that they will want to get a real job. Obviously, have exceptions for the truly disabled and infirm but bring the pain to everyone else.

Switching gears to old people entitlements:

We are about to hit Peak Baby Boomer and Social Security/Medicare expenses are going to explode. Personally, I think old folks should fall on their swords for mismanaging things so bad and take a major hit in their entitlements. Fat chance that is gonna happen though.

For Medicare: the whole medical industry in the US needs to convert over to something like the Singaporean model along with higher costs for fat people and people who abuse their bodies repeatedly. That's a whole another thread but the US system from a cost/benefit perspective is dumb as hell.

As for Social Security, my main beef is how little of a return you get for how much you pay in. 12.4% (if self-employed; your employer just pays the 6.2% out of your salary) up to 130k a year (it's actually $132,900 for 2019) is absurd for what you get in return. 12.4% of 130k = $16,120/year.

So, ignore inflation to keep things simple and let's do that for 20 years.

$16,120 x 20 = $332,400

For 322k, I could buy in full a fucking property that generates more cash flow than any SS check AND have an asset in my name with no debt.

Corporate Welfare:

Completely against in the vast majority of cases. Farming, national security, a few other arenas are the exceptions.

When the 2008 crash went down for example, there should have been no bailouts. Bad behavior and people got rewarded and good people got punished (savers and future entrepreneurs). Total bullshit.

Bottom line: If you are in the middle/middle upper income bracket, you're getting fucked in the ass without the lube. All the pain, none of the benefit. Remember, tax fraud is illegal but tax avoidance should be your patriotic duty.

Post: #29

(01-04-2019 12:35 AM)The Black Knight Wrote:  It depends on a lot of things and what type of welfare we are talking about.

At the foundational level, all means tested welfare programs (medicaid, free/cheap housing/food stamps/etc) should have two basic rules:

1. Welfare goes to citizens only.

2. If you are on welfare, you are not permitted to breed until you are fiscally sustainable.

This protects limited resources and largely prevents whatever bad behaviors/traits/people from multiplying and becoming multi-generational problems for everyone.

In the US, there are many places that openly advertise that "undocumented immigrants" can access welfare benefits. This should amount to treason in my book. Why? You're using my money to enable and support foreign invaders.

As for controlling breeding, good luck forcing birth control and abortions on to the populace. But this is what needs to be done. Welfare leeches know that if they can just pump out one kid, they are a protected class for nearly two decades; they know how to hustle the system. Cheap/free housing, healthcare, food, money, etc. Pump out a few more kids? More money and longer protection; maybe even long enough to claim retirement benefits right after the last kid hits adulthood.

Right now, we incentivize deadbeats to have up to 40 years of taxpayer funded baby making all the while the hard working guy can't even contemplate having kids until maybe his 30's due to the financial burdens; especially if you want a woman to stay at home.

People easily forget that at some point in the recent past, you could live in a SAFE lower class neighborhood, support a family on one income, and your kids didn't have to worry about trash in their public school. Now, the lower income neighborhoods are hoods filled with illegal/ghetto trash. To do the single income family life and make sure the kid(s) have access to good schools/resources, you need A LOT of money. If you compromise, your kids may pay the price via shitty schooling, absent parents, or violence. Having kids/family, supporting them, and doing it right for the non-welfare seeking person requires enormous hard work, effort, and sacrifice. And there is no guarantee you will reach the minimal requirements in time (i.e your reproduction prime).

For the welfare seeking, just spread your legs in your teens, abandon your kids, and let everyone else clean up your mess for the next several decades.

Simply put, the game is rigged and everything is operating ass backwards. The people who work hard are being punished and the lazy are being rewarded immensely; including the privilege of being able to reproduce with security. Since we can't undo people having welfare babies, the next best alternative is to make them work for it. Make it so painful that they will want to get a real job. Obviously, have exceptions for the truly disabled and infirm but bring the pain to everyone else.

Switching gears to old people entitlements:

We are about to hit Peak Baby Boomer and Social Security/Medicare expenses are going to explode. Personally, I think old folks should fall on their swords for mismanaging things so bad and take a major hit in their entitlements. Fat chance that is gonna happen though.

For Medicare: the whole medical industry in the US needs to convert over to something like the Singaporean model along with higher costs for fat people and people who abuse their bodies repeatedly. That's a whole another thread but the US system from a cost/benefit perspective is dumb as hell.

As for Social Security, my main beef is how little of a return you get for how much you pay in. 12.4% (if self-employed; your employer just pays the 6.2% out of your salary) up to 130k a year (it's actually $132,900 for 2019) is absurd for what you get in return. 12.4% of 130k = $16,120/year.

So, ignore inflation to keep things simple and let's do that for 20 years.

$16,120 x 20 = $332,400

For 322k, I could buy in full a fucking property that generates more cash flow than any SS check AND have an asset in my name with no debt.

Corporate Welfare:

Completely against in the vast majority of cases. Farming, national security, a few other arenas are the exceptions.

When the 2008 crash went down for example, there should have been no bailouts. Bad behavior and people got rewarded and good people got punished (savers and future entrepreneurs). Total bullshit.

Bottom line: If you are in the middle/middle upper income bracket, you're getting fucked in the ass without the lube. All the pain, none of the benefit. Remember, tax fraud is illegal but tax avoidance should be your patriotic duty.

This guy gets it. I'm genuinely impressed with the forum's outlook and that the thread wasn't overrun with libertarian crazies.

Obviously I have a conditional answer answer as well. I've never seen a dime of welfare in my life, and I've been unemployed before for over a year, and lived on 2k take home a month from jobs. I have much higher income now but it would have been a huge help to get an extra $500-1000 monthly when I was starting out and finding my way. The feeling of homelessness is extremely stressful and very undeserved for a college educated, drug free professional. But when living costs are at least $2500/monthly for bare bones in the NYC area, it's hard to save up enough money on your first 40k-60k job out of college where you can lose your job without losing your home and food. It gives employers a ton of power over entry level professionals in a form of indentured slavery.

I digress but will admit that I harbor a lot of resentment as well towards my much older parents who were spending 20k+ monthly on their mortgages and lifestyle expenses for not helping me with finances or career guidance. They aren't super rich but an extra amount of money to keep me out of some desperate situations would not have affected them. They are too principled I guess. I had to learn how to make money from Internet forums, browsing career websites, shit like that while running up credit cards to live a bare bones life.

I mentioned the $500-1000 number because it would probably be a realistic benefit amount for universal basic income if social security, food stamps, welfare, subsidies for poor etc were all consolidated. Even if it was less, it would have been a huge boost to my life. Throughout my life, my taxes have paid for (mostly women's) lifetime of stupid decisions where I've been poor myself and didn't get shit. I am entirely against welfare in it's current form but I would support a equal payout for everyone. It would be understandable for everyone to get nothing as well if our government didn't have trillions of dollars to spend on military and foreign aid. We're too wealthy of a nation to not give small benefits to citizens like that.

When I lost my job I got generous unemployment benefits from the state for about $2500 a month, that's because I made over 60k a year and got the max benefit. That was a big help at the time, but I understand it was covered with insurance that my company had paid for. I had lost another job with a major company in a red state and was denied the small benefit because my female manager had written me up for some bullshit. Those kinds of plays are stupid as well, you should get only get unemployment denied for theft or not coming to work, not for sending the wrong email to a client.

Social Security needs to be abolished/privatized and we obviously need to change our healthcare to a more efficient model. The border needs to be closed so that UBI recipients don't multiply, our fertility rate is too low for it to be a concern among citizens.

Welfare is obviously a scam for your average white male but if it was more efficient and kept hard working folk out of really tough situations then it would be beneficial.

Post: #30

(01-04-2019 12:35 AM)The Black Knight Wrote:  It depends on a lot of things and what type of welfare we are talking about.

At the foundational level, all means tested welfare programs (medicaid, free/cheap housing/food stamps/etc) should have two basic rules:

1. Welfare goes to citizens only.

2. If you are on welfare, you are not permitted to breed until you are fiscally sustainable.

This protects limited resources and largely prevents whatever bad behaviors/traits/people from multiplying and becoming multi-generational problems for everyone.

In the US, there are many places that openly advertise that "undocumented immigrants" can access welfare benefits. This should amount to treason in my book. Why? You're using my money to enable and support foreign invaders.

As for controlling breeding, good luck forcing birth control and abortions on to the populace. But this is what needs to be done. Welfare leeches know that if they can just pump out one kid, they are a protected class for nearly two decades; they know how to hustle the system. Cheap/free housing, healthcare, food, money, etc. Pump out a few more kids? More money and longer protection; maybe even long enough to claim retirement benefits right after the last kid hits adulthood.

Right now, we incentivize deadbeats to have up to 40 years of taxpayer funded baby making all the while the hard working guy can't even contemplate having kids until maybe his 30's due to the financial burdens; especially if you want a woman to stay at home.

People easily forget that at some point in the recent past, you could live in a SAFE lower class neighborhood, support a family on one income, and your kids didn't have to worry about trash in their public school. Now, the lower income neighborhoods are hoods filled with illegal/ghetto trash. To do the single income family life and make sure the kid(s) have access to good schools/resources, you need A LOT of money. If you compromise, your kids may pay the price via shitty schooling, absent parents, or violence. Having kids/family, supporting them, and doing it right for the non-welfare seeking person requires enormous hard work, effort, and sacrifice. And there is no guarantee you will reach the minimal requirements in time (i.e your reproduction prime).

For the welfare seeking, just spread your legs in your teens, abandon your kids, and let everyone else clean up your mess for the next several decades.

Simply put, the game is rigged and everything is operating ass backwards. The people who work hard are being punished and the lazy are being rewarded immensely; including the privilege of being able to reproduce with security. Since we can't undo people having welfare babies, the next best alternative is to make them work for it. Make it so painful that they will want to get a real job. Obviously, have exceptions for the truly disabled and infirm but bring the pain to everyone else.

Switching gears to old people entitlements:

We are about to hit Peak Baby Boomer and Social Security/Medicare expenses are going to explode. Personally, I think old folks should fall on their swords for mismanaging things so bad and take a major hit in their entitlements. Fat chance that is gonna happen though.

For Medicare: the whole medical industry in the US needs to convert over to something like the Singaporean model along with higher costs for fat people and people who abuse their bodies repeatedly. That's a whole another thread but the US system from a cost/benefit perspective is dumb as hell.

As for Social Security, my main beef is how little of a return you get for how much you pay in. 12.4% (if self-employed; your employer just pays the 6.2% out of your salary) up to 130k a year (it's actually $132,900 for 2019) is absurd for what you get in return. 12.4% of 130k = $16,120/year.

So, ignore inflation to keep things simple and let's do that for 20 years.

$16,120 x 20 = $332,400

For 322k, I could buy in full a fucking property that generates more cash flow than any SS check AND have an asset in my name with no debt.

Corporate Welfare:

Completely against in the vast majority of cases. Farming, national security, a few other arenas are the exceptions.

When the 2008 crash went down for example, there should have been no bailouts. Bad behavior and people got rewarded and good people got punished (savers and future entrepreneurs). Total bullshit.

Bottom line: If you are in the middle/middle upper income bracket, you're getting fucked in the ass without the lube. All the pain, none of the benefit. Remember, tax fraud is illegal but tax avoidance should be your patriotic duty.

We can spend trillions on the 'war on terrorism', endlessly feeding the Military Industrial Complex and providing corporate welfare to the huge conglomerates and MNCs to rack up huge profits and avoid tax but the poor and middle earners continue to get shit upon.

Post: #31

How about we oppose all forms of parasitism?

I hope we get rid of corporate welfare, endless wars AND welfare for parasites.

People who can work but do not want to should not get a single dollar. The government should require abled citizens who are on welfare to do some kind of public service like collect garbage or clean the streets. If you do that, I bet many of them will look for a real job.

Post: #32

The system in the UK is a joke and, unfortunately for us, the whole world knows it.

Post: #33

(01-03-2019 05:53 PM)TigerMandingo Wrote:  Not sustainable? Lol please. If we can bail out the criminal banks for billions of dollars we can afford to give poor people some food stamps.

Y'all are focused on the wrong target.

https://www.cbo.gov/publication/53624

The 800 billion ONE TIME bailout pales in comparison to the TRILLIONS we spend every single year on welfare. Look at the Chart. Social Security, Medicare, Medicaid (I consider all of these to be glorified welfare programs) Take up the BULK of our spending. It's simply not sustainable. Most people don't pay ANY income taxes. Perhaps that's the first place to start. It will be the death of this country... Illegal Immigration only adds to this.

Post: #34

(01-04-2019 03:16 AM)Batka Wrote:  ...
We can spend trillions on the 'war on terrorism', endlessly feeding the Military Industrial Complex and providing corporate welfare to the huge conglomerates and MNCs to rack up huge profits and avoid tax but the poor and middle earners continue to get shit upon.

I think everyone here would agree wholeheartedly on the corporate welfare.

My initial reaction is that the war on terrorism is different because it's the nation protecting from outside threats. (States are to police within per the 10th amendment, the nation is to guard against outside threats)

Upon further research, the war on terrorism can be argued constitutional because of the same welfare clause...

From article 1 section 8:

Quote:The Congress shall have Power To lay and collect Taxes, Duties, Imposts and Excises, to pay the Debts and provide for the common Defence and general Welfare of the United States; but all Duties, Imposts and Excises shall be uniform throughout the United States;
...

So congratulations Batka, I have a new perspective thanks to your post. The founding fathers left open a couple doors there. Also note, that clause is different than the power to declare war.

That said, I would argue there's far more waste in the domestic redistribution of resources. I find it hard to believe redistributing resources to less productive members of society (including many illegal aliens in recent years) ever, even the most efficient government redistribution system (forgive my chuckle), builds a better nation.

Whereas spending on common Defence often times does build a better nation, even in times of waste, mis-management, and corruption.

It just seems we waste a lot more on welfare than defense.

Post: #35

Welfare for those that need it, yeah sure why not. Not everyone can have a productive life without problems and good circumstances.

I draw the line when able bodied people and single mothers abuse it to leech off the system and do nothing to produce anything except for generations of welfare kings and queens and increasing the crime rate.

The problem Western nations such as Germany, UK, and the USA have is an order of magnitude worse than anything else in human history when it comes to having a dependent class of people in a civilised society.

In the past you made do with what you had and knew your place. Welfare has made so many dependents that if it were to crash it would cause such a social and economic schism that the very internal security these nations take for granted will be up ended inside a matter of days.

I can only imagine how many US towns and cities will be turned into riot central where looting and crime is prevalent to the point only Martial Law could attempt to stop it.

The same goes for the UK and Germany. Too many people have made it too hard to reduce or change welfare.

Post: #36

Stefan Molyneux made a great point in a recent show.

Welfare to single moms has turned children from liabilities into assets.

Millions of years of social evolution turned upside down.

Post: #37

(01-04-2019 01:55 PM)Enoch Wrote:  Stefan Molyneux made a great point in a recent show.

Welfare to single moms has turned children from liabilities into assets.

Millions of years of social evolution turned upside down.

Its essentially one of the same points Thomas Sowell makes in my earlier post.

Post: #38

I think the government should just sell me stuff to bbq at half price instead of making me go to the bums with the ebt cards. Cut out the middleman.

So I voted yes.

Aloha!

Post: #39

delete

Post: #40

(01-04-2019 01:34 PM)Foolsgo1d Wrote:  Welfare for those that need it, yeah sure why not. Not everyone can have a productive life without problems and good circumstances.

I draw the line when able bodied people and single mothers abuse it to leech off the system and do nothing to produce anything except for generations of welfare kings and queens and increasing the crime rate.

The problem Western nations such as Germany, UK, and the USA have is an order of magnitude worse than anything else in human history when it comes to having a dependent class of people in a civilised society.

In the past you made do with what you had and knew your place. Welfare has made so many dependents that if it were to crash it would cause such a social and economic schism that the very internal security these nations take for granted will be up ended inside a matter of days.

I can only imagine how many US towns and cities will be turned into riot central where looting and crime is prevalent to the point only Martial Law could attempt to stop it.

The same goes for the UK and Germany. Too many people have made it too hard to reduce or change welfare.

Welfare needs to be localized to ensure accountability. And the federal government will have to cut it down piecemeal bit by bit.

A little at a time to avoid overwhelming social chaos. Whilst it will raise disruption to a certain level it will reduce the future disruption that would happen if it gets cut off entirely anyway.

People need to be weaned off dependency. And like exercising atrophied muscles will gradually build up strength to be independent on the whole.


This measure will soften the landing in the long term and make it less severe than it otherwise would be.

Post: #41

I am against welfare on principle, as it is compulsory and indiscriminate charity - the opposite of what charity should be. Plus, it is designed not to help people get back on their feet, but make people dependent.

However, I understand that in an industrial society based on technological progress, it is impossible to not have some form of it, because the system is predicated on optimization and automation, which will invariably leave lots of people without any marketable skill and not enough time/ability to be retrained. Therefore you will always have an underclass that cannot adapt to the ever-changing job market. In addition to this, the current system is also based on salaried jobs and makes it very difficult to be self-sufficient, and needs enough people to consume the products that are produced - so effectively giving another incentive to subsidize the lower class into parasitism.

The lower class will, therefore, always vote for more welfare. It is a self-perpetuating system that will eventually lead to the 'universal basic income' due to automation, and this will in turn result in complete control of the government over these people's lives.

In short, we cannot oppose welfare without opposing the current economic organization of society. I used to be much more contemptuous of welfare bums, but I've learned to direct my hatred towards the right target.

Post: #42

My biggest criticism is this:

Public policy is simply, what is the most efficient way of structuring society at the most benefit to most people (in the West, without taking away individual rights).

Welfare or not, it's not a statement of who is more or less selfish or giving.

I'm tired of the idea that this group cares and that group doesn't. It's public policy and it's redistributing resources for the betterment of society. Because someone is pro-welfare or thinks it's a good thing doesn't make them any more caring or understanding.

Even the nation as a whole is not more or less moral or ethical by having or not having welfare.

Emotions have no place in public policy. Politics are for nerds. The TV ruined that of course, but politics are statistical.

Post: #43

I think universal healthcare is a great thing for society.

The system they have in England and Australia where anyone who is sick gets treatment cost free, funded by taxpayers is the pinnacle of a modern humane society me thinks.

There is something nice about being able to call an ambulance for a old, poor person dying in the gutter in Australia, instead of stepping over them and letting them get on with dying in Thailand.

Of course the system only works if it run efficiently, corruption is resisted and mass immigration is held back.

Which is why these systems are failing, and its deliberate act of vandalism, as private health care is a cash cow.

Post: #44

(01-07-2019 10:47 AM)heavy Wrote:  I'm tired of the idea that this group cares and that group doesn't. It's public policy and it's redistributing resources for the betterment of society. Because someone is pro-welfare or thinks it's a good thing doesn't make them any more caring or understanding.

Abso-fucking-lutely

I love being berated by leftists about how uncaring and ungiving I am, when I am the one that wrote a fucking $40K tax check last quarter, while that hairy fucking armpitted womens study student is on a free tax payer funded university course.

Don't lecture me about letting migrants in, looking after disabled people and setting up more women's shelters - get a fucking job and pay some tax before you demand how it's spent!!!

Post: #45

I knew a man who was getting disability for "anxiety" which is arguably the most bullshit thing since all of us have varying amounts of anxiety. This guy was functioning well enough to attend a college and even drive a car. Guys like him were draining money that could had gone to actual disabled people such as amputees (and funny thing is there are many amputees who work full time and contribute to society).

Post: #46

IMO you have to have assistance for the less fortunate

Post: #47

(01-07-2019 08:14 PM)RatInTheWoods Wrote:  get a fucking job and pay some tax before you demand how it's spent!!!

how about not letting people on welfare vote, would it be too extreme ?

Post: #48

(01-18-2019 09:55 AM)Oberrheiner Wrote:  

(01-07-2019 08:14 PM)RatInTheWoods Wrote:  get a fucking job and pay some tax before you demand how it's spent!!!

how about not letting people on welfare vote, would it be too extreme ?

How about not letting people on welfare breed either? Would that be too extreme? For example, if you're on welfare for more than a year, either get sterilized for free or no more welfare for you.

Post: #49

Welfare is a kind of bribery, of course, so the rich should pay for it, and not taxes or bonds. The rich already pay bribes to government officials, so why shouldn't they pay to the poor? That at least would make Klassenkampf alive again.
The way it is made now pits everyone against everyone, since non-welfare taxpayers feel like being robbed by welfare recipients.

Welfare has nothing inherently wrong in itself, and seems to be around already a long time. What about potlatch? What about annona, free grain given to poor citizens of Rome and Constantinople by the emperor?

Post: #50

(01-18-2019 10:05 AM)Brodiaga Wrote:  How about not letting people on welfare breed either? Would that be too extreme? For example, if you're on welfare for more than a year, either get sterilized for free or no more welfare for you.

Yes, to me something not reversible would be too extreme.

But regarding voting it's just that there is an obvious conflict of interest here.
Same for state workers, they should not be allowed to vote IMHO, for the same reason.