Calling the Hogs:
I did not ignore the fact that an occasional Fredonian depends on welfare and other government services (such as Social Security). As I wrote:
Quote:So Fredonia is able to raise $590,000 annually to operate its society. Part of that includes helping out Persons A through E. They don't have much dough, and life is hard for them. Their thatch rooves are collapsing. Two just don't earn enough money to feed their kids. A couple are old and sickly and can't work. One is the village idiot.
I just didn't use the word welfare. It is implied, I think, that Persons A and B are receiving welfare.
Further, I would suggest that while we are both putting together profiles of the American public out of our asses (for the sake of simplicity) I would suggest that my scenario is closer to reality, at least so far as we talk about the five people at the bottom of the scale.
You are suggesting that for every elderly person on Social Security, there are three people who are not only on welfare -- but there because of simple laziness.
I think you have exaggerated twice here -- both about the ratio of Social Security-eligible elderly to welfare receipients and about the proportion of welfare recipients who are lazy.
Feel free to prove me wrong. I'd love to see some studies on the question you raise. Can you establish, precisely, how many welfare receipients are there due to laziness? Can you describe the typical churn of a welfare roll -- the proportion of welfare recipients who stay on for fewer than six months, for instance?
I'm pretty secure in the idea that you exaggerate the facts. And this leads you to a conclusion I also vehemently disagree with.
You seem primed to assume everyone on welfare is lazy, and that taking away benefits will force all to find jobs.
Obviously, an end to welfare benefits will prompt some to find work because they were previously lazy.
But to assert all will find jobs? That's horsepucky.
And I'm also offended by the fact that only the poor come undercriticism for laziness.
The Bush administration has long pushed for tax cuts on capital gains. Capital gains amount to income earned without working -- income that can be earned without ever getting out of bed in the morning.
Far too many people, it seems to me, want to punish laziness when it is a trait of poor people but reward it when it is a fact of life for the wealthy.
Back to welfare: The reality of life under President Bush is that America does not have enough jobs to go around. Unemployment is about 6.2 percent. Even the most optimistic economists will never assert full employment ranges above 5 percent -- and some argue the actual mark is lower than that.
Know, too, that the unemployment statistics fail to capture people who no longer even seek jobs because they have given up looking. The statistics do not include them. If they did, our unemployment rate would be higher.
The simple reality is this: America doesn't have enough jobs to go around. If everyone now on a welfare roll today were to find a job tommorrow, an entirely new set of people will find themselves without jobs. There just aren't enough to go around.
This scarcity of jobs is is practically hardwired into our economic system. The only time America has reached full employment since 1970 was for a few years under President Clinton.
And if we know there aren't enough jobs to go around, then isn't it our moral duty to ensure at least a meager standard of living for those who will inevitably become jobless and on the bottom of the heap?
I believe this is our moral duty -- in great part because children have no say in the matter of whether or not their parents work.
Children don't choose to be poor. Indeed, the welfare system is structured around this fact. That's why the program was called Aid to Families with Dependent Children and designed to benefit children. While some states offer a small stipend for so-called able bodied people without children, many do not. Offering welfare to people who do not have children is not federally-mandated.
Living on welfare isn't fun. It isn't lucrative. And if you believe it is an attractive option, then there are a ton of policy makers who would welcome suggestions on how to help people who happen to be lazy -- however many of them there might be, and we obviously disagree on that -- off these welfare rolls and into productive jobs.
But, keep in mind, America doesn't have enough jobs to go around. This is the usual state of the American economy.
I give you credit for acknowledging that one of your real goals is to cut government services.
But we disagree on that. I believe we need the services that you would cut. Rather than forcing all people to work, I believe eliminating welfare will simply make people on the bottom of the heap poorer, dooming many of our children to a frightful existence.
To do this -- and primarily so the wealthy can pay less money in taxes?
It is horrifyingly immoral. I'll go further. I believe it is unChristian.
I believe in a progressive income tax. Those who do best by America should shoulder a bit more of the responsibilty for paying for those things we've all decided -- through the wisdom of our elected officials -- that we need.
I agree that lawmakers can make blindingly stupid decisions on how to spend money. But the solution shouldn't involve shifting the burden of paying for America away from the rich and onto the middle class and the poor. That's what you propose, whether that payment comes in the form of bigger tax bills or cuts in services.
And I believe it is immoral and unChristian.
