Walfare is good for the economy; well it should be.

So food stamps are good because they should filter back into the economy.

Welfare monies paid to people is good in theory; but it does not feed back into the US economy.

On and on but there is a problem here. Many of these people are so poor that they must buy the cheapest they can get which is imports. Well that leads to more welfare roles.

So the next time you consider criticizing a welfare recipient consider your own shopping habits over the past 30 years. Yup.

Discuss?

 

Theoretically, a Welfare system is there as a safety net, to ensure that individuals don't fall through the gaps, if they fall on hards times. Yes, of course it would be nice for that money to recycle within the economy, but this isn't the case. Increasingly in the West, Welfare systems are being used more and more as a lifestyle choice, not a safety net. Here is the greater issue. However, if your economy focuses of providing for the rich, then the poor will ultimately fall through increasingly large gaps.

Right wingers will say that these poor people should just work harder? But how when the rich have exported their "created jobs" abroad.

Left wingers will say that we must suppor these people regardless.

The reality is somewhere between. In order to lessen the need for social security, there must be and economic balance. There must be jobs and opportunity and the reality of the "American Dream". And, there must be no option of living off the state by choice. But if either of these two components is not there, it will fail.

 

People seriously overstate this blame on the rich. How exactly are they being treated so much better than the poor people? They may have a bit lower tax rate than in the past but its not like they are getting this wonderful free ride from the government everyone accuses them of.

 

I have stated this before as fact. As long as the money stays in the USA, creating currency (in this case food stamps) does not harm the economy.

 

I was not getting into the political side of it I was getting into the fact that welfare should theoretically not be a drain on the economy. It should only be short term.

This ain't about blame

But it leaves the US and that is why the current system is broken and hence the economic model being used is flawed.

Welfare today is bad for everyone but in the beginning it was good for everyone. At least the monies spent on imports.

 

....regardless if it stays in the economy......it doesnt stay in the Free Market or Private Sector (The Host Organism). Money is stolen from producers and given to parasites.....success is punished/failure is rewarded--Liberalism.

You cant remove fuel from the economic engine without creating economic harm .......
.
.
.

 

Now that is interesting. What is the fuel? Money? If this is the case then I 100% agree. If not then what is the fuel?

 

The fuel is everything and anything that entails the Free Market and the Private Sector (The Host Organism).....yes including money.

You cant steal money from producers and give it to non-producers without doing economic harm.......
.
.
.

 

Depending on the level yes you can as long as it is domestic.

You give a dollar to Fred and he spends that dollar. so it gets a sales tax.

Take it up to 1000 dollars and call it a 5% tax.

50 bucks to spend it but Fred needs gas so there are even more taxes paid. So we will say it costa fres 70 dollars to spend the 1000.

So Fred spent the money at retailers. They pay taxes and pay employees. So now those employees pay taxes...

So what now? As long as it is spent domestically and not abused it hurts nothing.

 

True. Abstractly, welfare harms no one. Especially in a system that is running on fiat dollars. The taxpayer will pay the same amount of taxes whether or not welfare is in play. Welfare, unemployment and social security dollars are returned directly into the economy. Unless, of course, wealthy folks receive either one or all of the a fore mentioned. The problem with any of them is that they are given out without any form of means testing.

 

But where did Fred get the dollar?

........The Private Sector. Its akin to you stealing $100 out of my wallet, and then walking into my business and spending the $100.......and claiming no economic harm was done.
.
.
.

 

Really? So I would be fine with a flat tax where everyone pays 10% of every dollar made. No credits or deductions. Can you live with that?

But honestly it is not stealing out of your pocket and evidently you do not know how things really work.

 

.....but all Duties, Imposts and Excises shall be uniform throughout the United States.

Me and The Founders are fine with that.......

.....and let us leave the Charity work to the Charities while were at it.

Here is how things really work.......

YOU PAY....or they send men with guns to your door and....YOU PAY
.
.
.

 

So you have missed the point here. Well that is fine.

If I pay 10% and you pay 10% one of us has paid more so the persons children who paid less should not be allowed to go to school?

What I was and am getting at is welfare is not bad if used as a helping hand if the monies are spent domestically. It can help the economy.

It can increase demand.

It can create jobs.

It can get them off of welfare.

Again the system is broken but in a non-broken model the money comes back to those who paid it.

 

Please pardon the interruption … but there are a few Myths and Facts regarding Welfare.

Although I’m actually Black and have never been on Welfare, I do know a few White people who have, and even they don’t fit many of the myths and stereotypes outlined in this thread.

Once again pardon the interruption

 

The point is everyone paid....everyone has skin in the game.....that is not the case today.

....akin to believing that if everyone was collecting unemployment checks and/or welfare checks......the economy would somehow improve.

....by stealing Demand from the Private Sector?

....by destroying Jobs in the Private Sector?

Who wants to get off "Free Money"?

Again.....you steal $100 from my pocket....you come into my business and spend the $100......

.......yes the money may have come back to me......but you walking out of my business with $100 of my merchandise. Who paid for that?
.
.
.

 

By your definitions, I would be "good for the economy" if I merely took your paycheck, kept a portion of it for myself, and gave you the rest.

Economically, Welfare is the exact same thing.

 

That is not the case. Even a parasite has to have some reciprocal benefit in order to prove its worth.

If a Welfare recipient is not providing some value, then they are not helping the economy; they are a drag on it.

If these Welfare recipients were doing city public works things for their welfare, your argument would be stronger - and it could still be assailed.

 

You really cant get to the forest because of all of those trees can you?

Look if there is a problem with it move to China. You seem to have an issue of hatred.

It creates jobs (theoretically) by increasing demand but again it creates more in China not here.

 

The system is broken I have said that much. I am speaking in principal and theory not application.

 

No that is not what I was saying. I was saying following the money and what it is supposed to do not what it actually does.

 

You're not answering my responses to your post.

You're not "following the money" at all: most of the money given to the Government for the purpose of "Welfare" doesn't actually end up in the hands of the needy - nor are the needy themselves actually providing work for the money they're provided.

If they are to be a boon to society; if the money is supposed to be helpful to society, then the money they receive has to be 100% given to them in proportion to the value of work they then provide. That is not even close to the case right now:

1) Only a fraction of every dollar collected in taxes for the purpose of Welfare actually ends up in the hands of a recipient (it is consumed in the wastefulness of bureaucracy itself);

2) The recipient isn't providing any kind of a service for their check.

These two facts refute the claims you made in your OP. That's what I'm saying.

 

I said it was broken.

 

No....its more a love of this country and The Constitution......

"If Congress can employ money indefinitely to the general welfare,
and are the sole and supreme judges of the general welfare,
they may take the care of religion into their own hands;
they may appoint teachers in every State, county and parish
and pay them out of their public treasury;
they may take into their own hands the education of children,
establishing in like manner schools throughout the Union;
they may assume the provision of the poor;
they may undertake the regulation of all roads other than post-roads;
in short, every thing, from the highest object of state legislation
down to the most minute object of police,
would be thrown under the power of Congress.... Were the power
of Congress to be established in the latitude contended for,
it would subvert the very foundations, and transmute the very nature
of the limited Government established by the people of America."
--James Madison--Father of the Constitution--Conservative--Hater of Liberals--Great American

Yes theoretically in Imaginationland........

Again....you steal $100 from me.......you come into my business and spend the $100.......

......where is the increased Demand?
.
.
.

 

It takes a lot of resources to protect their right to property. I don't know exactly how much money the government spends protecting my property, if any, but I'm pretty sure it's an eensy weensy fraction of the money that it spends protecting MicroSoft's property. And the oil industry? They'll wage wars and spend lives and kill people for the oil industry ... I don't think they'll do that for me.

The rich get a pretty good deal from the government -- a much better deal than anyone else gets.