Why is welfare for the poor wrong, but welfare or bailouts for corporations good?

Originally posted by bigfatfurrytexan
reply to post by mybigunit

 

It is welfare in the same way that each American getting the "stimulus" check is welfare. We all pay taxes, but we take some extra subsidies every now and then. "Tax free" school shopping weekends, Economic Stimulus checks, Earned Income Credits, Pell Grants. Each of these things is just about the same as what many companies get.

The "bailout" is less for the corporations benefit, and more for the nations benefit.

Why has no one addressed how the "bailout" is needed to ensure the overall health of the US economy in the long term by defending our Gross Domestic Product???

It does no good to complain about the companies. They are NEEDED by the US. The people we should complain about are the corporate raiders.

You guys DO realize that the CEO's can afford for lobbyists to write laws that benefit the CEO's, not the shareholders. That is criminal. As well, the trading practices of CEO's (and how they leverage their stock options) should be criminal (though it currently is not).

I just disagree on the bailouts. I have more faith in our country than you do. If a big bank fails I feel we will go on like we always do. Will it be painful? Sure it will but to keep printing money to bail these guys out is ludacris. If we had the money it would be a different story but we dont we are near 10 trillion in debt with 65 trillion in obligations. It will take our GDP 50 years to grow enough to pay off that kind of debt. One or two banks may fail but 5 bigger and better will replace them.

I agree with you on the CEOs for sure. But its not just them its the execs in general. They all pillage these companies for everything they can when the times are good and then when the times get rough either quit or go get uncle sam for help.

Originally posted by aboveandbeyond94
reply to post by LDragonFire

 

welfare for the the poor ? NOOoooo, god forbid that's socialism.

all jokes aside, the reason behind the double standards is mainly because america is owned by these corporations, they write the rule and advance their ideas thru the media.. lets just say a "welfare system" for the poor wont benefit them- they would much rather have salves.

Maybe, now will be a good time to remind these sheepheads that for all these years, whenever they went out to vote, they voted for what the TV boxman told them to vote for...so it may be also a good idea to bust that TV boxman for duping them , hahaHaah They expected Potatoes to grow by planting corn

as a working mother of four who at this moment is staring at a disconnect notice for my electricity, i can say that welfare is a screwed up institution that benefits only those who refuse to get out and bust their butts for what they need/want.

BUT as I have received help in the past i don't want to sound like a hypocrite. the idea of gov't help for companie is complete crap,but of course those said companies keep the flow of cash steadily moving upward so....

this country is in a sad state when the working poor cannot get the assisstance they may need because they make too much money for the outdated guidlines. with gas at over $4 a gallon and the average wage or people like me is $8.50/hr, it is getting increasingly difficult to make ends meet,but there is no help available for people like me.

now to avoid sounding like a whiner,and to stay on topic-welfare for big businees-bad. welfare for the poor-in the right circumstances and with limitations.

When people get off the merry-go-round of division and argument about the small stuff long enough to begin to educate themselves on our true history, then the answer is simple. America's history has been reported in "approved" history books by corporate America and trust foundations of the same ilk. They have never been interested in "the people." Their interests have been to themselves. The minority elite who consider themselves worthy of the lions' share. We are merely tools to do the dirty work they can't soil their hands with. Run the system and do what we say.

They don't want some of the pie, or most of the pie, they want all of the pie. Decade by decade those of us who have built America with the strength of our bodies and blood on bare minimum pay, have the noose tightened around our necks. Our homes are in jeopardy, our pensions, 401K's, and the taxes go higher and higher. The 700 Billion bail-out is nothing but what has occurred at least 4 different times in recent history. These wealthy men got too greedy and losing huge chunks of their "personal" wealth and that could not be allowed to happen. After all we are nothing more than a Corporatocracy. God help us little folks because their will be no help from those in control of America and the world. I expect there will be some pandemic or "natural" disaster next to cull the many mouths. After all, they only need enough of us to keep them comfortable and run things. We work, everyone in the family and still tread water just as they want. That keeps us from educating ourselves. They don't want any of us with that kind of leisure time on our hands. Seek and ye shall find. That biblical statement is wise and true. Get off their merry-go-round and think for yourself.

This is a difficult issue, to be sure. The points raised against laziness are well-made. But so are the points raised against corporate welfare.

In any economic system, there are winners and there are losers. The US Declaration of Independence states: "We believe these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal..." (emphasis mine). It does not go on to say that all men will remain equal. The reason it does not do that is because it cannot happen under any economic system (or, indeed, any system) we know of. Life is simply not about fairness and equity.

In nature, the strong do not always survive. It is a game of chance. The healthiest squirrel in the forest can run along a limb that has rotted at its core, unaware that it is in mortal danger of falling until that loud crack signals the coming end of its life. Lightning can strike the strongest buck in the region just as well as the weakest. The strongest have an advantage, true, but no guarantee of continued existence.

Just so, we as humans, have no reasonable expectation of fairness from unforeseen events (fate). We are all still at the mercy of random happenings which we have no way to foresee and therefore avoid. The best worker in a factory has no advantage over the laziest should that factory close. The most astute investor has no control over a sudden natural disaster that reduces his/her investment to ruin. I found out two days ago that a good friend of mine lost his wife, not to sickness, but to an automobile wreck. Where is the fairness in that? Yet, as part of a civilized society, we attempt to institute fairness and equity.

This is, for the most part, a good thing. But it is simply not something which is within our power. As such, we have to institute policies and systems which come as close as possible to the ideal of fairness we strive for. In the USA, we have a capitalistic system, where individuals own property and are free to use that property to profit. But we have also recently dabbled in socialism, where ownership of property is secondary to 'public good', as defined by the public itself with the aid of big government. This is what has led to our present dilemmas.

Capitalism works on the principle that people will work and innovate for profit. In the capitalistic ideal, every person works in some capacity for the things they need (food, water, shelter, clothing) and want (a car, recreation). Those who produce that which is more important to society in general will benefit from their attempts through greater reward than those who produce things which are not as important to society, and this will cause the poor to try harder to achieve more. It's a fine system which relies on human greed and desire to naturally inspire production and excellence. It has many inherentlyn self-correcting properties. Yet, it has drawbacks on both ends:

Those who produce so well and so much (and have good luck in the process) as to become 'wealthy' will become first exempt from the checks and balances inherent in capitalism. A 10% rise on the average grocery bill makes absolutely no difference to someone who can buy a house for cash on a whim. To the person who does not have that financial advantage, however, the rise in prices is devastating and widespread. The theory goes that there will be so many more of those people who are severely affected than there will be of the wealthy, the system will still operate to hold costs down. And this theory is sound, as long as the voice of society is equally shared by all. But it is not equally shared by all today, and this is the real problem.

Human greed is the heart of capitalism, but human laziness is the downfall. And when money can buy influence, as it can today, the system is thrown out of whack by this imbalance of control over prices. Now, should enough people be affected negatively enough, this imbalance would correct itself through action by those who are harmed by it. This has not happened, because most are not sufficiently affected. Enter socialism, wherein people are given a different power, the power of influence and handouts, in return for the power of control of their fortunes. By supplying those who are indigent or simply not affluent with the needs of life for absolutely nothing, those people now do not have the motivation to work harder to provide for themselves. Human greed has been removed from the system for the poor, thus keeping them poor.

On the other end of the spectrum, the indigent may well have become indigent through no fault of their own. Medical issues, random negative events, and simple bad luck all can cause someone on top to find themselves begging for food. At some point, one can find themselves without a way to shower, without transportation, or even without decent clothing, all of which can make profitable job-hunting impossible. Such a person is unable to participate in the system and unable to help themselves. It obviously behooves any civilized people to care for its poor, but we have made this care a institute rather than an unusual situation. Government is not well-known for its ability to handle the myriad of complexities associated with financial downfall if individuals, and thus we are helping far too many people who are in actuality able to provide for themselves but find it preferable to get onto the government doles. Charitable organizations have traditionally been much more able to handle this type of circumstance, but we have moved the responsibility form them to our government, supposedly in order to do 'more good'.

Instead of a self-correcting mechanism, we now have a destructive cycle. The less one works productively, the more they receive. As they receive more, and as more people decide that this is the better way, the less people are available to provide this support, and the greater the individual burden on them. This leads to less reward for productive labor and makes the path of welfare seem more and more tempting for more and more people. This spiral will ultimately end in a total collapse of the entire economy, which will ultimately lead to either anarchy, seizure of political power by a dictator, or communism. There is no other possible future for this course.

The best solution to this discrepancy is already in place: a progressive tax system. I used to be a big advocate for flat taxation schemes, until I saw these two drrawbacks to the capitalism system. Under such a taxation plan, those who encounter a severe enough setback as to become ultimately unable to participate are left alonje to use every dollar they have to try and improve themselves, at the same time that the wealthy, who are living lavishly no no further input, are required to give back into the system that allowed them to prosper to such an extent. Thus, some minor amount of socialism is needed to alleviate the suffering of those who find themselves in trouble. But when we begin overly instituting this combination of capitalism and socialism, two economic theories which are at odds with each other, we destroy both. They can no more co-exist than ice can co-exist with molten lava.

This is our problem today. Instead of trying to work within the capitalistic system of reward for labor/innovation/risk, we are instead creating new 'rights' to deliver free rewards to those who do nothing in return, despite their ability to do so. Any truly civilized society will care for its poor, yes, absolutely, and I harbor no ill will toward anyone who has a medical condition that prevents them form working or who has encountered a rotten run of luck that has left them indigent. These people need to be lifted gently out of their condition to allow them to become a productive member of society again, or in the case of severe medical disability, cared for unselfishly, outside the bounds of capitalism. But when we begin to allow public opinion to define individual desires for leisure and risk-free profit as 'rights' we have gone beyond caring for the indigent in society; we have begun to create indigent due to the rewards given them.

And this will extend (as it has) to 'corporate welfare' as well, because it places such a huge burden on the economy to provide the living for such a huge percentage of the population, any decline in GDP brings with it terrible financial consequences for the government itself, and therefore cannot be tolerated. Thus, GM cannot be allowed to fail, AIG cannot be allowed to fail, BoA cannot be allowed to fail. Any of these failures would bring pain to more people and accelerate the already imposing burden of caring for too many by too few. Those in power are not stupid; they realize this, and they also realize that a descent into any of the three options I outlined above as end results will harm them more than anyone. The problem is, it is simply too late to correct the system without instigating a massive public outcry and possibly revolution. That would harm those in power more than those in need.

So, what is my answer to the OP? The answer, the only real answer, is that both are necessary now. We have fired the bullet and it is too late to change its course. We mixed socialism with capitalism in the search for leisure and fun, and the result has been determined. Every person who has accepted a check from the government when they could really work, every person who has allowed social programs to be instituted left and right, every person who has begged the government for a raise in minimum wage, every person who has depended on Social Security for their retirement, every person who hass insisted that everyone else be insured, every person who has complained about a situation without working to correct that situation is guilty of helping to pull that trigger. And yes, that includes me.

So sit down, strap in, and hang on. We're going for a ride. We all helped buy the ticket. I simply pray that people survive.

TheRedneck