user ballots
Login
Register
Add One
FAQ/Contact
Popular Ballots
Recent Popular
Recent Votes
Best
Worst
Yes or No
Choices
What If
Prediction
Advice
Would You
Crime
Recommend
Quiz
TV & Movie
Music & Radio
Political
Science
Sports
Relationship
Techonology
Culture
Philosophy
Religion
Ethics
History
Food & Health
Fashion & Beauty
Crime
FanBase
Discussion
Bug Report
|
COMMENTS:
Actually, it's "No, but they just haven't pulled their heads from their a$$es to notice." Wasn't sure if the choice line would take that many chars.
As long as it still exists there's a problem.
$500 billion/year.
Who won?
Wow, that's the broadest definition of welfare I've ever heard! So, according to your site, everything that is means tested is "welfare" - notice what your "source" is doing here - now welfare has absolutely nothing to do with poverty OR work. Federal student loans and scholarships, Social Security and Medicaid, Veterans' benefits, Pell grants, Head Start, nutrition programs for the elderly, family planning clinics etc are all Welfare? The benefits are all means tested, but they certainly aren't handouts to the poor.
If that's so, why do opponents of welfare always talk about welfare as though it is some kind of payment for not working? The beneficiaries of these programs are mostly working families, people trying to put themselves through college, and children. Why don't they complain about the money we spend putting kids in foster homes when they could just as easily live on the street? Why not complain about nutrition programs in schools when kids can just as well eat grade D meat? Those are the programs you're attacking. Those lazy kids, why they chose to grow up parentless or poor is beyond me. Bad decision making.
But your source is pretty choosy. Home property taxes are also means tested - you have to be able to afford a house to get that benefit. And the bigger the house, the bigger the government benefit. So that is a welfare program, too. Funny they don't mention that.
In fact, by your organization's definition it's the conservative states that are the biggest welfare hogs of all - they get more in federal benefits than they pay in. All those subsidies to farmers (often payments for NOT growing a crop or import restrictions that raise prices) are certainly means tested. I don't have the means to get them, do you? And all the defense contracts in conservative states didn't get there because those states worked harder - they needed the public works project and it was great pork! Talk about welfare! Your site just baldly picked programs that it didn't like and called them "welfare" whether they were or not. Great way to inflate numbers and make it look like we spend more on direct assistance to the poor than we actually do.
It's a definition alright, but it's an ideological one and nothing more.
It's an accurate definition. ALL of those programs are government subsidies for private citizens. Subsidies that should not exist.
btw, I am a student and I don't believe the government (you) should be subsidizing my education.
It's not accurate, it's arbitrary. There are huge differences between direct cash assistance to the poor and benefits for veterans who fought for their country. There are huge differences between programs like those that increase employment such as job-training and programs like food stamps that just put bread on the table. Really the only thing the programs on that list have in common are that the NCPA doesn't like them.
Otherwise, why not include price supports for farmers? In order to reduce supply, many are paid not to produce, or their products are bought by the government and disposed of. And while price supports for industries like steel may not be targeted at "private citizens", it is only those who work in those industries that get direct benefit - the rest of us get higher costs.
So, if you want to lump all programs that you don't like together and call them "welfare", you are free to do so - but it doesn't make it accurate.
And while it is kind of noble of you not to want support for your schooling, it is in the interest of the country to have an educated workforce - it's one of the major things that divides rich countries from poor. So while you may look at things like Pell grants as subsidies to private citizens, others see it as part of a broad education and economic policy to keep the country competitive.
The same might be said of Medicare. Even big corporations like GM are now pushing for more government-sponsored health care because not only do employers bear a heavy burden paying for health insurance, but uninsured people drive up healthcare costs for the rest of us. Why? Because they tend to wait until a problem is advanced to seek help, when they do they often can't pay, and hospitals and insurance companies pass on the costs to consumers.
This is particularly so for Medicare recipients, who tend to be old or disabled and thus have the biggest healthcare bills. If they were forced onto the private insurance market, insurance companies would have to jack up premiums and deductibles for everyone to make up the cost.
Community health programs that provide vaccinations prevent higher healthcare costs by avoiding the spread of infectious disease.
Looking at some programs strictly as "subsidies to private citizens" may make sense, but for other programs it doesn't because it completely ignores the reality of positive externalities. Stop letting NCPA think for you and dig a bit deeper yourself.
|
|
