Why don't conservatives see that welfare programs are good for society as a whole?

[rhonin85]

It seems I can't turn on the tv or get on the internet without hearing conservatives decrying the amount of money that is "lavished" on the poor. I have even heard one say that the poor should not be allowed to vote.

What do they think would happen if these programs would cease to be? People would not have enough money to fill their basic needs and would become increasingly desperate. These people with nothing would eventually turn violent in order to get what they need. So wouldn't it be better if they receive assistance from the government and have their basic needs met than have millions of starving people going after everyone just to get something to eat?

A historical example would be the Revolution Era in France, which was partly caused by high grain prices and the lavishness of aristocrat's lives.

So even if you don't understand that you should help the less fortunate there is a more cold and practical reason for social welfare.

[paintpooper]

At the root of the issue, you shouldn't need such wide spread social welfare. In our current situation these people would likely die without social welfare though, so it is very important at this point in history.
So while extending social welfare programs, they need to simultaneously figure out a way so people don't NEED social welfare. Wouldn't it be nice if we could all work for a living wage, and only one job! All these people working 2-3 jobs just to survive all while eating McMeals, American Exceptionalism!
The government is in debt, but its not the poor people that made it that way(you must look at who benefits the most, obviously not the poor).... when you look at that in perspective, the balls of some of these politicians to blame poor people for the countries economic problems is crazy, hence why a good portion are sociopaths.
How much does a bomb cost? How much does it cost to drop it on another country?
Well US's contribution to the preposterously named Operation Unified Protector(Libya Offensive) is costing: as of 3 June, Washington had spent $398.3m on bombs and missiles alone. Estimated total for all Libya intervention about a billion dollars(30 Sept 2011). 400 Million to blow stuff up.... but these damn poor people in the US who want to eat food and have a place to live drain the economy hahahahhahahahahahahhahahahahahaha

[Anomalocaris]

It seems I can't turn on the tv or get on the internet without hearing conservatives decrying the amount of money that is "lavished" on the poor. I have even heard one say that the poor should not be allowed to vote.

What do they think would happen if these programs would cease to be? People would not have enough money to fill their basic needs and would become increasingly desperate. These people with nothing would eventually turn violent in order to get what they need. So wouldn't it be better if they receive assistance from the government and have their basic needs met than have millions of starving people going after everyone just to get something to eat?

A historical example would be the Revolution Era in France, which was partly caused by high grain prices and the lavishness of aristocrat's lives.

So even if you don't understand that you should help the less fortunate there is a more cold and practical reason for social welfare.

The conservatives are arrogant and thinks they can cut it very close, that they can squeeze every drop out of the rest of society right up to, but not quite cross the line, where revolts of unsuppressible scale begins.

[Minimalist]

Because they are greedy fucks.

[Erinome]

In many states, including mine, we have "welfare to work". A lot of people don't know about it, but basically, these people on welfare have to work a certain number of hours a week. The welfare check they get is to supplement their income, because even by working a full time job, many of them can't afford to pay their rent, electricity, etc. The people who are unable to work, obviously don't have to, and need the money. The welfare to work causes other problems, such as latch key kids. Many of these children have no one to watch them while their parent/guardian is out working for their "free money". These kids are the first to enter gangs, some joining by age 10 or younger.

Then there are people who can't work due to a disability, age, health problems, or inability to find work, etc. I often wonder who they expect to provide a standard of living for these people. They say that private charity should help, but lets be honest, there would be starving people everywhere if it were up to the private sector to insure that everyone is cared for. It would be madness, and they're either too short-sighted to see it, or too greedy to give a fuck.

The people who can work, need welfare because the greedy fucks for whom they work pay them so shitty, they qualify for supplementation, and then the greedy fucks complain about their tax dollars going to support their employees. It's absolute greed, and ugliness. I can't wrap my mind around it, no matter how hard I try.

[rhonin85]

What gets me is that want to cut welfare spending but I know some big corporations (mcdonalds, walmart) that purposefully count on their employees receiving welfare so they dont have to pay livable wages or provide decent health insurance. So basically we are subsidizing cheap labor for these corporations. aleia you said it!!!

paintpooper you have it right, if these conservatives really wanted to cut welfare they try to promotes companies to pay livable wages, oh but thats "communism".

Military spending is out of control when I was in the army they used contractors for everything which would charge outrageous rates, offices had plasma tvs but interestingly enough our weapons and equipment were all subpar and barely holding together, granted i wasn't frontline infantry but still a faulty weapon does nobody any good. Im all for having a strong military but we spend our money more efficiently rather than these politicians handing out kickbacks to their supporters.

[Tiberius]

My beef isn't with the welfare system per se, but with its execution. There are too many stories of corruption, or welfare cheats and "queens" who live off this money for many years without trying to find work. Welfare should be a system to help out the less fortunate, not the bone idle. Nor should it be a system where people see being poor as a good thing, since they can milk the system for more money by changing their circumstances.

The problem as I see it is that the government isn't properly accountable. It spends and spends and spends, wasting money and not caring about where it goes, because at the end of the day, it's going to be someone else's problem in a few years. This is why I advocate shifting the system over to private charity, funded by donations (and possibly also government grants) but handled by people who are actually accountable to someone (their supporters).

[Erinome]

Adrain, does the U.K. have some sort of program for child care? Daycare here costs more than most people make in a week, and it's a huge problem.

---

My daughter goes to the cheapest one I could find and it costs $255 a week.

[Rev. Rye]

It seems I can't turn on the tv or get on the internet without hearing conservatives decrying the amount of money that is "lavished" on the poor. I have even heard one say that the poor should not be allowed to vote.

What do they think would happen if these programs would cease to be? People would not have enough money to fill their basic needs and would become increasingly desperate. These people with nothing would eventually turn violent in order to get what they need. So wouldn't it be better if they receive assistance from the government and have their basic needs met than have millions of starving people going after everyone just to get something to eat?

A historical example would be the Revolution Era in France, which was partly caused by high grain prices and the lavishness of aristocrat's lives.

So even if you don't understand that you should help the less fortunate there is a more cold and practical reason for social welfare.

Because they don't give a damn about what is good for society as a whole. They only care about what's good for businessmen, the churches, and themselves.

[kılıç_mehmet]

Depends on what you describe as social welfare.
How can you look after them? Do you give them money? Or food? Or what?
How do you check on them to see if they are really in need, or if they can find a job or not?
Who do we define as the "less fortunate"?