Welfare Parasites

[BridgeTroll]

actually bridge troll, military benefits and compensation is negotiated on an annual basis.  Surprised you didn't know that.

http://militarypay.defense.gov/About/mission.html

Lol... they are negotiated by the government, for the government.  There certainly is no "union".  There is however a very significant voting bloc of military, ex military and civilians who can and do have a good deal of influence because most of em vote regularly.  I dont recall the last strike by the military... do you?

hmm.  you don't remember the extraordinarily low recruitment numbers from the 90s?  When the armed services had to turn to privately employed mercs in order to get basic strategic goals accomplished and then dramatically raise the wages and benefits available?

And regardless of whether or not you suddenly see no difference in one kind of government function to another (which is the opposite of your argument, incidentally) military wage negotiators do negotiate on behalf of the employed men and women of the armed forces just as union representatives do for factory employees.

Yep... sure thing... same thing as a union rep... okey-dokey...lol...rofl...

[finehoe]

We define what some people do as social leaching and what others do as normal, even though the effect is the same: taking money from the government to subsidize their actions.

For instance, many people couldn't afford their homes if they didn't get the mortgage interest deduction. As such, their home ownership is directly subsidized by the government at taxpayers' expense. Now, there may be good reason to have such a program, but there is no denying what it is: a transfer of money from some people to other people.

How is this different than food stamps, which are often railed against as free money to undeserving folk. Money is money. Whether it is given out to help you pay for a home or a poor mom feed her kids, it is money being taken out of some people's pockets and put into another's. If it is objectively wrong in any case, as many would argue, than we must universally consider it wrong in all cases.

Obviously, there is room for a gray area. One must not either be in favor of all social programs or opposed to all social programs. One can reasonably argue that some are justified while others are not. But most of the argument against social programs is wrapped in a "No one deserves to live off the government dime!" Which, as this study shows, is most often spouted off by the very people who are living off the government dime.

[fsquid]

would certainly thin out them and the people on the other side of the spectrum that needs to Government to tell them what to do.  Probably be a more efficient country that way.

thinning out the people who deny that they are using a government program but they actually are would affect people who use and approve of government programs how?

huh?

Do you think that there are a lot of flaming liberals getting GI benefits and help from the VA?

Or were you just responding before you could think the comment out?

It was tongue in cheek as I don't advocate the killing of anyone no matter how out of touch with reality they may be.  I do find it funny that you actually have to go to a government office to apply for food stamps, but 25% still don't think they are on the company dole.

wow.  you really don't get the point of the article.

The people who are most likely to be 'against' 'welfare' programs are often times the people who are actually receiving them.  It speaks to the stupidity of the people who consistently vote against their own interests.

Like members of the military who claim to be against 'socialized' medicine.  Unless of course its the Veteran's Association.

I totally got the point of the article simply by who posted it.   My comment was simply astonishment that anyone could think Food Stamps is not a social program.  I could see how someone would think the GI Bill was a benefit of military service instead of a social program, the same with the VA.  I think the only ones that are obvious on the list the last 4 and the pell grants.

[fsquid]

We define what some people do as social leaching and what others do as normal, even though the effect is the same: taking money from the government to subsidize their actions.

For instance, many people couldn't afford their homes if they didn't get the mortgage interest deduction. As such, their home ownership is directly subsidized by the government at taxpayers' expense. Now, there may be good reason to have such a program, but there is no denying what it is: a transfer of money from some people to other people.

How is this different than food stamps, which are often railed against as free money to undeserving folk. Money is money. Whether it is given out to help you pay for a home or a poor mom feed her kids, it is money being taken out of some people's pockets and put into another's. If it is objectively wrong in any case, as many would argue, than we must universally consider it wrong in all cases.

Obviously, there is room for a gray area. One must not either be in favor of all social programs or opposed to all social programs. One can reasonably argue that some are justified while others are not. But most of the argument against social programs is wrapped in a "No one deserves to live off the government dime!" Which, as this study shows, is most often spouted off by the very people who are living off the government dime.

Hey, I'm a flat tax / consumption tax guy, I'd be fine with those deductions and credits disapearing.

[BridgeTroll]

actually bridge troll, military benefits and compensation is negotiated on an annual basis.  Surprised you didn't know that.

http://militarypay.defense.gov/About/mission.html

Lol... they are negotiated by the government, for the government.  There certainly is no "union".  There is however a very significant voting bloc of military, ex military and civilians who can and do have a good deal of influence because most of em vote regularly.  I dont recall the last strike by the military... do you?

hmm.  you don't remember the extraordinarily low recruitment numbers from the 90s?  When the armed services had to turn to privately employed mercs in order to get basic strategic goals accomplished and then dramatically raise the wages and benefits available?

And regardless of whether or not you suddenly see no difference in one kind of government function to another (which is the opposite of your argument, incidentally) military wage negotiators do negotiate on behalf of the employed men and women of the armed forces just as union representatives do for factory employees.

Yep... sure thing... same thing as a union rep... okey-dokey...lol...rofl...

You may have hit upon a great idea Steven!!  Why not let federal, state, and local governments negotiate ALL wages?  I mean... if its good enough for our boys in uniform... it should be good enough for everyone else.

[BridgeTroll]

We define what some people do as social leaching and what others do as normal, even though the effect is the same: taking money from the government to subsidize their actions.

For instance, many people couldn't afford their homes if they didn't get the mortgage interest deduction. As such, their home ownership is directly subsidized by the government at taxpayers' expense. Now, there may be good reason to have such a program, but there is no denying what it is: a transfer of money from some people to other people.

How is this different than food stamps, which are often railed against as free money to undeserving folk. Money is money. Whether it is given out to help you pay for a home or a poor mom feed her kids, it is money being taken out of some people's pockets and put into another's. If it is objectively wrong in any case, as many would argue, than we must universally consider it wrong in all cases.

Obviously, there is room for a gray area. One must not either be in favor of all social programs or opposed to all social programs. One can reasonably argue that some are justified while others are not. But most of the argument against social programs is wrapped in a "No one deserves to live off the government dime!" Which, as this study shows, is most often spouted off by the very people who are living off the government dime.

Hey, I'm a flat tax / consumption tax guy, I'd be fine with those deductions and credits disapearing.

Me too...  but the hidden part of the article... and a cast even it fails to make... is that living off the teat of the feds is so damn entrenched that those who think they are not... are.  Those who are... think they are not...

[finehoe]

When political scientist Harold Lasswell, writing in the mid-1930s, defined politics as the decisions society makes about "who gets what, when, and how," he might as well have been describing the debate over taxes and spending in the United States today. But what happens when the focus of the political debate changes from who gets what to who loses what? This concept is unfamiliar to Americans, who have enjoyed more than 100 years of (mostly) uninterrupted economic growth.

Interesting (if lengthy) article:  http://www.nationalaffairs.com/publications/detail/the-politics-of-loss

[SunKing]

If some on this list are truly considered government social programs then call me ignorant.  In my dimwitted view a credit is a credit and a program is a program.

[SunKing]

so next time I buy something on sale, I will call it a program and the next time I give to my church, I will call it a credit.
then I wont be so ignorant.

[NotNow]

Your definition of "welfare" is, of course, completely wrong.  "Welfare",  "insurance", and "benefits" are all listed.  All are completely different.  To simply claim that "all come from the same pot" is disingenuous, at best.  Of course, I have seem the same posters argue that salary itself is government largess.  Perhaps these differences actually escape some folks understanding.

[cityimrov]

The attitudes of people aren't new.  They are protecting what they consider theirs even when it's owned by other people. 

Take Florida for example.  Florida is a state that hates rail when compared to our northern neighbors.  Floridians love building large highways to drive their their big gas guzzling SUV's into their large gated community complex.  Green energy, electric cars?  Do you see any of those industries thriving here?  Do you see anyone here voting for candidates which support green technologies or transit systems?  Floridians loves gas and votes to keep it that way every time they can. 

So now, answer this question.  How much oil is pumped out of Florida's ground every day?  How much offshore drilling is done around Florida?  How many oil refineries are located in Florida? 

[Timkin]

Your definition of "welfare" is, of course, completely wrong.  "Welfare",  "insurance", and "benefits" are all listed.  All are completely different.  To simply claim that "all come from the same pot" is disingenuous, at best.  Of course, I have seem the same posters argue that salary itself is government largess.  Perhaps these differences actually escape some folks understanding.

I guess the military is paid for by bake sales?

[NotNow]

Your definition of "welfare" is, of course, completely wrong.  "Welfare",  "insurance", and "benefits" are all listed.  All are completely different.  To simply claim that "all come from the same pot" is disingenuous, at best.  Of course, I have seem the same posters argue that salary itself is government largess.  Perhaps these differences actually escape some folks understanding.

I guess the military is paid for by bake sales?

Defense of the nation is a clearly Constitutionally enumerated duty of government, but that goes without saying to most people.  There is a difference in the programs.  Most Americans were forced into the government "retirement insurance" program that we call Social Security.  Since the retirement portion of the "insurance" program requires contribution and a minimum length of participation, people feel some 'ownership" of their SS benefits, even though the USSC has ruled that the government can change or even eliminate the benefit at any time.  (As will happen sooner or later when the fund will no longer be capable of paying the current level of benefits.)  This is opposed to "welfare" such as food or housing assistance which simply require the need for such assistance.  The difference is apparent to most Americans.

By the way, Veterans programs are a benefit of service, since they require a minimum duration of service and most programs require a member participation or actual injury on duty for participation.  The VA website can provide more information if you would like to educate yourself on these programs.  As I have mentioned before, it is insulting to the men and women who have served this country and often risked their lives in that service to compare  that service to "welfare parasites".  You not only lack the honor and experience of such service, but also apparently the grace and courtesy to respect that others have done so.

[finehoe]

Defense of the nation is a clearly Constitutionally enumerated duty of government

So is welfare.

"We the People of the United States, in Order to form a more perfect Union, establish Justice, insure domestic Tranquility, provide for the common defense, promote the general Welfare, and secure the Blessings of Liberty to ourselves and our Posterity, do ordain and establish this Constitution for the United States of America.

By the way, Veterans programs are a benefit of service, since they require a minimum duration of service and most programs require a member participation or actual injury on duty for participation.

Similar to unemployment benefits, which also require a minimum duration of service and member participation.

it is insulting to the men and women who have served this country and often risked their lives in that service to compare  that service to "welfare parasites".

This is exactly the point of the article:  "My" government largess is okay; "yours" isn't.

[NotNow]

With all due respect Finehoe, you are quoting the preamble to the Constitution, which carries no force of law.  Th "general welfare" clause that you are referring to is in Section 8: Powers of Congress.  I'm not going to cover the entire Madisonion v. Hamiltonian debate here, but suffice it to say that the "interpretation" of the general welfare clause that allows such programs is a result of the FDR Supreme Court.  It has resulted in the massive national shame that we call a Federal government today.  The same USG that has indebted our great, great , great grandchildren for life, and it is still not through.  The founding Fathers wrote a simple and clear document.  They then discussed it over and over in letters and public print.  Their intent  and their description of "enumerated powers is well documented.  "Charity" is discussed at great length.  I urge you to study up on this.  The ignorance of the American people and their elected representatives has directly resulted in our current debacle.

Unemployment benefits are indeed "benefits" for just those reasons!  They should  be a function of State government though.

My "point", and the point that you are missing is that there is a difference in the listed programs and they should notall  be referred to as "welfare".  Government is a necessary function and there will always be some "largess".  We should just ensure that it is given with forethought for the country and our laws and that that same "largess" be kept within the limits of income.