1. “Don’t shove your morals down my throat!”
If you know anyone who is liberal or ever watch the news, then you have heard the “don’t shove morals down our throat” argument. For those of you who don’t know, I debunked this years ago in what is now known as the moral values fallacy. Yes – I am proud to say that if you Google “moral values fallacy” the first page that comes up is my article on the subject.
Back to the point. Liberals say they believe in the “don’t shove your morals down my throat” doctrine, so let’s hold them to it. Why are they forcing their moral value of helping the poor on everyone else? Everyone has their opinion on how best to help the poor, so why should a government monopoly (welfare) exist?
It seems logical that people should be able to choose who they give money to. I already know what the liberals reading this are thinking:
If we don’t force our morals on people, then nobody will help anyone!
You self-righteous sons of bitches. How dare you think that. Rather than argue that ludicrous point, I will point the readers of this article to a book called Who Really Cares by Arthur C. Brooks. Long story short, conservatives give more money to charity than liberals. Read ‘em and weep. Liberals shouldn't worry about conservatives not giving enough money to the poor. However, I (and I'm sure many conservatives would agree with me) would be willing to trust the libs will give a fair share to charity if it meant ending the government mandated welfare state.
2. “Freedom of choice!”
One liberal argument goes like this:
I don’t believe in abortion, but I believe it that it is a choice that an individual needs to make for themselves and that others and government should stay out of such decisions.
Personally, I couldn’t disagree more because that decision ends a human life – which is murder. However the argument does work for welfare. Personally, I believe it is a good human's responsibility to give resources – not just money necessarily, but time and used items – to those who are less fortunate.
I don’t think, however, that Big Brother should decide who gives, how much they give, and to whom they give. That is micromanaging someone’s finances. If your mother had as much say over your finances as Big Brother, you would think she was very overbearing. Yet we accept the fact that the government somehow knows best.
Article comments
— go to most recent comments1 - Clavos
Heh. Gonna get me a beer and pull up a chair. This is gonna be fun to watch.
They'll be coming out from under their rocks any minute now...
2 - STM
Yeah, me too ... a couple of coldies and a front-row seat. Watch out for the blood spatter
3 - Anthony Grande
People who support welfare aren't true liberals...they are power hungry hogs who think they can gain personally by exploiting the poor.
AG
4 - Mark Edward Manning
Reminds me of a hilarious bumper-sticker I once saw: "Work harder! Thousands on welfare depend on you!"
Is it any wonder that liberals champion the layabout lifestyle? After all, lazy in body, lazy in mind, lazy in soul. After years of just sitting around, your average welfare recepient will believe anyone spewing any old crap about helping the poor and waging a "war on poverty." This is because his brain has been addled by too much drink and McDonald's food, and too much lying around slack-jawed in front of the TV. So now the unfortunate individual in question no longer has the ability to think for himself, due to the brain-wasting disease called government dependency, and he seriously believes that the government is on his side as he keeps collecting check after check after check. Nice "work" if you can get it. And, if you don't try hard enough, you can! All are welcome to feed at this trough.
And, isn't it funny how all the concerns that liberals have about overpopulation suddenly go completely ignored when it comes to women breeding on welfare like rabbits on speed? Extra cash for extra brats? You betcha! That's a whole new generation that will grow up imprisoned by the liberal ideology! And that, my man, is the reason why liberals will never oppose welfare. It is simply too tempting a form of entrapment.
5 - dirk
welfare leads to war that a new one,boy what a genius you are...
the facts are its the corporations and the elites who profit the most from government
corporation are attached to the public tet like parisites
free trade is an illusion for fools,propagated by big business
you got it backwards my dear fellow.If you read Karl Marx you will notice big government grew with capitalism,the society Marx envisioned is about associations of free producers,the anti-thesis of big government
even many socialist have a warped idea about what Marx was really talking about
6 - Maurice
If someone you loved was in dire need, you wouldn’t send them to the welfare office.
Amen. As someone that has lived on welfare and still has many family members on welfare, I repeat, Amen.
7 - Media Tycoon
lol...I guess the libs know they have lost.
8 - zingzing
lost? welfare is nearly intractable. let's see the republicans get rid of it. (that means social security, medicaid and medicare as well, mind you.)
it can't be done without losing shitloads--i mean SHITLOADS--of votes. the party that actually kills it off, instead of just throwing up a few words on a website or giving lip service to the idea in congress, will lose power for years to come.
try it out. think about it. welfare (shit, it's basically all the government can afford to do these days) is what the gov't has become.
it's a shitty situation. i've never used welfare
(nor social security, which i doubt i'll ever get to use, nor medicare or medicaid, as i really don't qualify), but i've known people on it, and it's no fun. you basically get enough for rent, and can't have no goddamn fun.
what's more anti-liberal than no goddamn fun, them fuckin' decadent bastards?
9 - Media Tycoon
Lost the argument, not an election (obviously). Your post proves my point I suppose because you haven't argued against what I have said, but rather what would happen if someone tried to take away welfare.
I think if responsible reforms were put in place, no one would lose power, and in fact, the party that did so would be rewarded with more elections. This happened during the last reform the Republicans did in the 90's. They should have done more when they had the chance.
Anyone who opposes the privitization of Social Security is either an imbicile or hates freedom. There is no other reason to be against it. My dad, who doesn't have a college education, knows nothing about the stock market, and is in fact a little skeptical of the stock mareket (or at least WAS) made 17% last year with his 401k. Social Security is a nationwide piramid scheme that is waiting to colapse. Privitization would change that and make it legit once again.
10 - Liberal Straw Man
Help! I've been knocked down!
11 - Media Tycoon
#10 lol
12 - Nancy
Actually, the biggest 'welfare' going in the US today is corporate welfare. Arch, MT et al, 90% of your tax dollars are expended on supporting & handing out bales of money to megacorporations (which DON'T need it) via special subsidies, tax breaks, etc., thanks to your buddies & Fearless Leaders, Dubya Bush & Dirty Dick Cheney, the ultimate corporate welfare pimps.
I don't hold much with unlimited welfare; and not at all with women who breed while on welfare. IMO such persons should be forcibly sterilized, along with mental defectives, all neocons, the religious right, the Bush twins, Cheney's daughter, & Ted Kennedy. I think the revised "workfare" program is much better, & I'm glad to see it growing among various states. However, I'm also not stupid enough to think that cutting off Mama doesn't effect the kids, who are after all innocent. What are you gonna do - let them starve & die? Here on the streets of the US? Have them live in cardboard boxes in alleyways like strays? First off, that's not going to produce useful, working, productive citizens. All it's going to produce is pimps, drug addicts/dealers, and other such dregs. I sometimes think it might be better to take such kids & give them the best possible free education via boarding schools to get them away from the culture of criminality & failure. I think about some cousins of mine & figure they can't possibly have had a worse life at a boarding school than they had with their 'natural' parents. But then we're getting into socially mandated government interference with The Family, I suppose.
BTW the only straw man that got knocked down was your own; you're just too dumb to realize it. Hoist with your own petard, & in ignorant bliss about it.
13 - Clavos
Arch, MT et al, 90% of your tax dollars are expended on supporting & handing out bales of money to megacorporations (which DON'T need it) via special subsidies, tax breaks, etc.
Oh please, Nancy. Not even you believe that. 90%? What about all that money being spent on Social Security? Medicare? Medicaid? Veterans healthcare and benefits? Federal employee benefits and retirement? etc., etc?
I don't hold much with unlimited welfare; and not at all with women who breed while on welfare. IMO such persons should be forcibly sterilized, along with mental defectives, all neocons, the religious right, the Bush twins, Cheney's daughter, & Ted Kennedy. (emphasis mine)
"Forcibly sterilized, eh? So you must think Hitler was a pretty good guy, huh?
14 - Dave Nalle
In Nancy's mind when a government office contracts with Dell to buy new computers that's 'corporate welfare'.
Dave
15 - methuselah
As of 3-4 years ago the Senate/House Joint Tax Committee reported annual people welfare at about $30billion/year and corporate welfare at $170billion/year. More recent numbers are about the same for people with corporate going to $320b.
This administration has increased government size about 40%.
Social Security is not welfare, but rather a pre-paid insurance system which actually produces a surplus every year. Indeed, this administration 'borrows' about $53b each year to spend on it's excesses. The SSA gets 'special' T-bills that only the government can redeem. Privatization schemes have failed to address the problem of redemption, leading many to believe that redemption will be simply forfeited, which many regard as simply theft.
The preponderance of welfare is taken by large corporations, not welfare queens. Besides the cost to taxpayers, handouts to companies defeat the competitive benefits of free markets by favoring one competitor over another. Fixed price and no-bid contracts are especially negative since the overhead of private operation is about 30% vs. 3% for federal government administration (cf. SSA vs. private health plans).
All enemies of welfare should turn their attention to the excesses of federal handouts to major US companies. The bloat is there, not some bum who's on Workers Comp.
16 - zingzing
mt: "Your post proves my point I suppose because you haven't argued against what I have said, but rather what would happen if someone tried to take away welfare."
so reform it, then. it hasn't fucking changed. why is it still such a large part of the budget? got any ideas on how to really get rid of it?
methuselah, you are a saint. there you go conservative strawmen, suck on that.
17 - Nancy
Thank you, Methuselah, ol' bean. I appreciate the stat support. I just know what I read in the WP, NYT, & WSJ. Dave - it's amazing you KNOW what's in MY MIND????!!!!! Shit - next time I can't figure out where I left something, I'll email you so you can read my mind & tell me where it is. No, I DON'T consider that corporate welfare. You know damned good & well what is corporate welfare & what is normal corporate business. I shouldn't have to define it for you - or anybody else with enough burnt-out braincells to frequent this site.
Clavos - I wuz being facetious, sorta. I still advocate forcible sterilization of BushCo & neocons, tho. Maybe I should have specified "moral defectives" instead of "Mental Defectives".
18 - methuselah
Corporate welfare SHOULD be reformed, lest we become paralyzed by the heavy burden it places on all our citizens and all our markets.
Usually the federal government does not eliminate a superfluous or expensive benefit to business, but rather it creates compensating handouts.
For example, when interstate trucking started to become a significant business in the early 20th century, the truckers complained that they were at a competitive disadvantage WRT the railroads, who had been substantially subsidized by the feds, whether in outright land grants for right-of-ways or ongoing subsidies in the form of federal shipping contracts and special tax breaks. Rather than simply eliminate the ongoing rail subsidies, the feds chose to create favorable rules and taxes for the truckers AS WELL, imagining that this would level the field. That's why diesel fuel taxes were unreasonably low and roadways were built to carry heavy axle loads and overpasses to clear big trucks. All of which were unnecessary for the passenger cars of the motorist/taxpayers who were paying for it with high gas taxes and personal income taxes.
Imagine the consternation of airlines which came along to discover that railroads and trucks had huge subsidies that put shipping airlines at a ruinous disadvantage. Again, the feds, afraid to upset their patrons in rail and trucking, chose not to revoke those favorable subsidies, but rather to create new favorable subsidies for airlines, e.g., subsidized airports and airmail.
The net effect of these subsidy/welfare schemes has been to shift cost burdens to under-represented individual taxpayers and at the same time to shift government outgo to corporations. Indeed, for many corps their principle customer is some government and most large corps look first to government for rescue instead of markets.
19 - JustOneMan
Nancy,
You have the balls er...ovaries to make claims about corporate welfare...you the "hard working" government employee = WHO WASTES OUR TAX DOLLARS BLOGGING ALL DAY LONG!
Your a disgrace... you make the case for privatization of all governement jobs!!
NOW GET BACK TO WORK...
JOM
PS Dave, she has a mind???
20 - Media Tycoon
Social security ($544.82 billion)
General Family Support ($25.62 billion)
Aid to Low-Income Families ($206.78 billion)
Medicare ($345.76 billion)
Non-Medicare Health Spending ($253.32 billion)
Unemployment compensation ($39.33 billion)
Education ($64.07 billion)
We may or may not spend $170 billion in corporate welfare, but I still consider all this other crap welfare too. I don't know why people always bring up corporate welfare when someone argues against social welfare. As if I would be for corporate welfare. LMAO. MORON. Of course I am against corporate welfare. Get rid of it all. Problem is, most of you bring up corporate welfare as a desperate attempt to keep your Nanny State in place. Fact is, if you like any type of welfare, then like to control the lives of others and hate freedom. Pure and simple.
As for how to solve SS...its simple. Bush already came up with the best plan to do the job. Everyone who wants to op-out...let them. They then get to take that 6% they would normally pay in SS tax and use it for their own personal retirement account. The matching funds their company pays continues to pay to the SS slush fund/black hole and pays for all those who are already collecting SS or still want to collect. Will we come up short on the amount of money we need to collect...probably, but we have no other choice if we value freedom of choice and the freedom not to be tied to pyramid/retard scheme.
21 - Media Tycoon
I still like that no one has actually addressed any of my points. It was pretty slick of methusela to bring up corporate welfare...even though that’s not what this article is about. You may as well bring up Iraq. Here I'll do it for you...
“If you REALLY cared about cutting spending, then you would be against the war in Iraq because Bush sucks and I hate him.”
Yes my liberal know-nothing friends...I know you like the back of my hand. I know what you are thinking before you think it. Give up now and submit to my way of thinking. It is superior and I smell better than you.
22 - Clavos
MT,
Don't you read your own threads?
The first to bring up "corporate welfare" was Nancy (in #12).
23 - Dave Nalle
Methuselah, your figures in #15 make no sense at all. Perhaps you could lay out for us just what you think corporate welfare is, since to get the number you've reached you'd have to be including a great deal of normal government spending.
True corporate welfare - bailouts and subsidies - is actually a fairly small amount and is even shrinking a bit.
Dave
24 - Media Tycoon
Yea I saw the #12 post, but I have to WORK during the day and was unable to respond until after I got home.
And just to clarify here. I am talking about federal spending. I am sure theres tons of corporate welfare at the state and city level. The federal level just doesn't see that much CW. The biggest examples of CW in the federal government are probably the farming subsidies. Other than that, I wouldnt consider paying a contractor lots of money to build a federal building corporate welfare. You might, but I dont see any other way you could reach $170 billion in CW spending.
Not saying it doesn't exist, just that I don't know about it. If you break down the numbers for the federal budget, there isn't a lot of room for CW.
25 - Media Tycoon
LOL...well that was a good argument.