What is the primary purpose of social welfare policy?

[cpwill]

Regardless of whether you think that said policy should be designed with some or all of these in mind - which one takes precedence. If given a choice between one thing and any other, which one wins?

 

[TurtleDude]

most voters will say one. Those who created it-if properly "persuaded" would admit three.

 

[cpwill]

:lol: i put that third option in there just for you, turtle



But no, I don't think most folks see themselves as the bad guys. I would suspect that the lefts' view on the dependency class is very similar to the Right's view on Voter ID. The left does not intend to make a large number of Americans dependent upon the government, but is willing to accept that quietly as a cherry on top; just as the Right does not intend to reduce democrat electoral strength by insisting that voters prove who they say they are, but is willing to accept that as a secondary-effect.

 

[StillBallin75]

To make sure nobody gets screwed if they suddenly get laid off, or if they suffer from a chronic illness for which they can't pay the bills by themselves, or to prevent any of a dozen other scenarios in which people's lives are completely turned upside down due to events that are out of their own control. In a phrase, to promote social stability and predictability.

 

[samsmart]

Regardless of whether you think that said policy should be designed with some or all of these in mind - which one takes precedence. If given a choice between one thing and any other, which one wins?

None of those.

The primary purpose of social welfare is to create a social floor by which no person may fall beneath that all people may have access to and that all people contribute to in the form of taxes when they are able. This social floor includes providing for children, as they cannot provide for themselves, for the mentally ill, as people who suffer mental illness suffer it by no fault of their own, for the physically disabled, who may still contribute to society after some initial support, and to the elderly, who get so old that they can no longer support themselves.

And it is up to the government to provide this social floor as private charities may be too selective in who they determine are worthy support.

 

[TurtleDude]

:lol: i put that third option in there just for you, turtle



But no, I don't think most folks see themselves as the bad guys. I would suspect that the lefts' view on the dependency class is very similar to the Right's view on Voter ID. The left does not intend to make a large number of Americans dependent upon the government, but is willing to accept that quietly as a cherry on top; just as the Right does not intend to reduce democrat electoral strength by insisting that voters prove who they say they are, but is willing to accept that as a secondary-effect.

that is reasonable but I think those at the top of the party who design that stuff wanted to create dependent voters. I believe that was FDR's intent and LBJs. as to many congressmen on the left, I suspect you are right.

 

[MaggieD]

Regardless of whether you think that said policy should be designed with some or all of these in mind - which one takes precedence. If given a choice between one thing and any other, which one wins?

There is no doubt in my mind that welfare began as an altruistic program to help people in need. Unfortunately, it's morphed into #'s 2 and 3 as well. NOW, welfare is, in effect, putting people in those chains Joe Biden talked about.

 

[samsmart]

that is reasonable but I think those at the top of the party who design that stuff wanted to create dependent voters. I believe that was FDR's intent and LBJs. as to many congressmen on the left, I suspect you are right.

Don't forget the dependent contributors Congressmen and Senators want in order to get kickbacks in the form of campaign contributions in exchange for doling out government contracts, bailouts, and tax exemptions.

A lot more corporate welfare is going on rather than social welfare, since politicians get a lot more bribes from corporate parasites than they do from poor people who need government help to get housing and food.

 

[Ikari]

Regardless of whether you think that said policy should be designed with some or all of these in mind - which one takes precedence. If given a choice between one thing and any other, which one wins?

To continually float enough people such that we can easily swap out labor components.

 

[Boo Radley]

Regardless of whether you think that said policy should be designed with some or all of these in mind - which one takes precedence. If given a choice between one thing and any other, which one wins?

None of the above.

 

[TurtleDude]

Don't forget the dependent contributors Congressmen and Senators want in order to get kickbacks in the form of campaign contributions in exchange for doling out government contracts, bailouts, and tax exemptions.

A lot more corporate welfare is going on rather than social welfare, since politicians get a lot more bribes from corporate parasites than they do from poor people who need government help to get housing and food.

much corporate "welfare" is quid pro quo stuff where the politicians are expecting a legitimate return

such as we will give ACME corporation tax breaks if they locate a plant in our city so we get more jobs, more employment taxes etc

subsidizing corporations increases corporations-which often is good

subsidizing those on welfare creates more welfare recipients which in turn creates voters dependent on those who give them handouts. No one else benefits from that

 

[samsmart]

much corporate "welfare" is quid pro quo stuff where the politicians are expecting a legitimate return

such as we will give ACME corporation tax breaks if they locate a plant in our city so we get more jobs, more employment taxes etc

subsidizing corporations increases corporations-which often is good

subsidizing those on welfare creates more welfare recipients which in turn creates voters dependent on those who give them handouts. No one else benefits from that

Except subsidizing corporations is corporate welfare. And tax exemptions given to one company is unfair because other companies, mostly small businesses, don't get the same tax breaks. Because they can't afford the lobbyists needed to get them. And lobbyists get them because they give campaign contributions to legislators to get them to vote their way for government contracts. Which is a handout to corporations. And costs the U.S. more in tax money paid and tax money uncollected than what social welfare programs cost.

 

[Boo Radley]

To make sure nobody gets screwed if they suddenly get laid off, or if they suffer from a chronic illness for which they can't pay the bills by themselves, or to prevent any of another dozen scenarios in which people's lives are completely turned upside down due to events that are out of their own control. In a phrase, to promote social stability and predictability.

Wasn't one of the choices. I wonder why?

 

[Μολὼν λαβέ]

much corporate "welfare" is quid pro quo stuff where the politicians are expecting a legitimate return

such as we will give ACME corporation tax breaks if they locate a plant in our city so we get more jobs, more employment taxes etc

subsidizing corporations increases corporations-which often is good

subsidizing those on welfare creates more welfare recipients which in turn creates voters dependent on those who give them handouts. No one else benefits from that

That reminds me of a joke I heard recently.

What is the difference between a Romney supporter and an Obama supporter?

Romney supporters sign their checks on the front; Obama supporters sign their checks on the back. :wink2:

 

[TurtleDude]

Except subsidizing corporations is corporate welfare. And tax exemptions given to one company is unfair because other companies, mostly small businesses, don't get the same tax breaks. Because they can't afford the lobbyists needed to get them. And lobbyists get them because they give campaign contributions to legislators to get them to vote their way for government contracts. Which is a handout to corporations. And costs the U.S. more in tax money paid and tax money uncollected than what social welfare programs cost.

Lots of speculation on your part

and you are just making unproven generalities.

I remember when several midwest cities "bid" to have Toyota build a factory within their jurisdiction. Indiana won. Tell me-does the city that got the factory Lose tax money by not taxing Toyota for say it property taxes-land that was barren unproductive farm land?

is the tax base INCREASED by that factory going there?

creating more people sucking on the public tit only benefits one group of people-the politicians and bureaucrats who derive power by pandering to and serving those teat suckers.

us taxpayers are not benefited by people we have to fund

but a corporation moving to town and creating lots of jobs which in turn helps other businesses


I think you are not right

 

[haymarket]

Lots of speculation on your part

and you are just making unproven generalities.

I remember when several midwest cities "bid" to have Toyota build a factory within their jurisdiction. Indiana won. Tell me-does the city that got the factory Lose tax money by not taxing Toyota for say it property taxes-land that was barren unproductive farm land?

is the tax base INCREASED by that factory going there?

Do your 'memories' of history ever come with verifiable evidence in links?

 

[samsmart]

Lots of speculation on your part

and you are just making unproven generalities.

I remember when several midwest cities "bid" to have Toyota build a factory within their jurisdiction. Indiana won. Tell me-does the city that got the factory Lose tax money by not taxing Toyota for say it property taxes-land that was barren unproductive farm land?

is the tax base INCREASED by that factory going there?

creating more people sucking on the public tit only benefits one group of people-the politicians and bureaucrats who derive power by pandering to and serving those teat suckers.

us taxpayers are not benefited by people we have to fund

but a corporation moving to town and creating lots of jobs which in turn helps other businesses


I think you are not right

And yet you do not address the issue that Toyota suffers from an unfair business advantage over the other businesses in that area because the Toyota plant gets tax exemptions that all those other businesses who cannot afford lobbyists cannot get for themselves.

And it may be the case that that area is benefiting from the corporate welfare provided to Toyota. Even so, it's still corporate welfare being doled out.

 

[TurtleDude]

And yet you do not address the issue that Toyota suffers from an unfair business advantage over the other businesses in that area because the Toyota plant gets tax exemptions that all those other businesses who cannot afford lobbyists cannot get for themselves.

And it may be the case that that area is benefiting from the corporate welfare provided to Toyota. Even so, it's still corporate welfare being doled out.

I don't consider it UNFAIR to be in a position to bargain effectively

If Coke goes to walmart and says IF YOU PROMOTE coke products we will cut your wholesale price by 10C a can that is not wrong. That COKE might not do the same thing for Joe's Diner is based on business reality.

YOu seem to be hung up on "corporate welfare" probably in an attempt to justify "create a dem voter" welfare. YOU seem to have an unrealistic understanding of economic reality and that if a mutually beneficially relationship is just that and to whine that someone else cannot get it really has ZERO relevance

 

[samsmart]

I don't consider it UNFAIR to be in a position to bargain effectively

If Coke goes to walmart and says IF YOU PROMOTE coke products we will cut your wholesale price by 10C a can that is not wrong. That COKE might not do the same thing for Joe's Diner is based on business reality.

YOu seem to be hung up on "corporate welfare" probably in an attempt to justify "create a dem voter" welfare. YOU seem to have an unrealistic understanding of economic reality and that if a mutually beneficially relationship is just that and to whine that someone else cannot get it really has ZERO relevance

Except what Coke and Walmart do are determined by two private corporations, and if they wish to bargain in that way that is their right as private corporations.

But when Walmart or any other large corporation is able to lobby governments for tax exemptions it is an unfair business practice to those small businesses that cannot afford the lobbying needed to get them despite small businesses a much larger part of the economy than large corporations are.

And you can make whatever personal attacks against me you want to, but that does not stop you from being an advocate for corporate parasites who must resort to bribery in order to stay in business rather than pursue fair business practices.

 

[TurtleDude]

Except what Coke and Walmart do are determined by two private corporations, and if they wish to bargain in that way that is their right as private corporations.

But when Walmart or any other large corporation is able to lobby governments for tax exemptions it is an unfair business practice to those small businesses that cannot afford the lobbying needed to get them despite small businesses a much larger part of the economy than large corporations are.

And you can make whatever personal attacks against me you want to, but that does not stop you from being an advocate for corporate parasites who must resort to bribery in order to stay in business rather than pursue fair business practices.

how is it unfair for a city to bargain for a factory? who is hurt by this?

and its not bribery. Of course if one hates corporations, the concept of contract and profit, I can see why you are upset

 

[samsmart]

how is it unfair for a city to bargain for a factory? who is hurt by this?

Who is hurt by this are the small businesses who do not benefit from the tax exemptions that the big corporation is able to bribe the government to get. Which puts more of the tax burden on them and hurts those businesses.

and its not bribery. Of course if one hates corporations, the concept of contract and profit, I can see why you are upset

And I can't see why someone such as yourself would be so upset for me calling corporate welfare for what it is unless you hate the idea of fair competition in the market place and small businesses earning profit.

 

[TurtleDude]

Who is hurt by this are the small businesses who do not benefit from the tax exemptions that the big corporation is able to bribe the government to get. Which puts more of the tax burden on them and hurts those businesses.



And I can't see why someone such as yourself would be so upset for me calling corporate welfare for what it is unless you hate the idea of fair competition in the market place and small businesses earning profit.

That is idiotic

small businesses by definition are not going to be able to provide a large number of jobs individually.

its like whining that a custom gun maker won't get the contract to provide the standard infantry weapon to a million soldiers

I reject your claim that a quid pro quo agreement is "corporate welfare"

 

[samsmart]

That is idiotic

small businesses by definition are not going to be able to provide a large number of jobs individually.

its like whining that a custom gun maker won't get the contract to provide the standard infantry weapon to a million soldiers

I reject your claim that a quid pro quo agreement is "corporate welfare"

For one, you are assuming that the agenda is to provide people with jobs. But if that's the case, there are other ways we can do that besides provide tax exemptions to corporations that provide the most jobs.

For another, it's an unfair business advantage that favors one business over another. Large corporations get these tax exemptions but small businesses don't. For example, Amazon is exempt to certain taxes but storefronts are not. Which means that those storefronts bear more of the tax burden. Despite being smaller and taking less profits and being less able to bear that tax burden.

And, again, the "quid pro quo" here is between the corporations, the lobbyists, and the politicians. Which small businesses can't afford to do. Which means politicians don't listen to them. Which means corporations get unfair business advantages over them. Which hurts the profits of those small business and inhibits fair competition in the marketplace.

So you can't really reject that this isn't corporate welfare. Because it is.

What it really means, however, is that you are fine with corporations being welfare parasites. Because that's what they are with every tax exemption, bailout, and government contract they get.

 

[TurtleDude]

Having been a solicitor for a couple of cities I know what the purpose is for cutting tax breaks to encourage a company to come to our jurisdiction-it was to create jobs for our citizens. However, the corporation's goal is not to provide jobs. So your first error is confusing the intentions of different actors

UNFAIR is a moronic term. is it unfair for a huge retailer to get better wholesale pricing from a maker? no-its called business reality. Better customers get better terms.

when you use the term "unfair" it demonstrates to me you have a rather agenda laden attitude towards capitalism

welfare means to me something other than a contract. and in those cases, the city leaders are bargaining for the good of the city while the corporation is bargaining for the good of the company

handouts to the poor is bargaining not for the good of the political division but for the politicians themselves who use our tax dollars to buy the votes that they enrich themselves with

I am curious-what sort of employment do you have?

 

[samsmart]

Having been a solicitor for a couple of cities I know what the purpose is for cutting tax breaks to encourage a company to come to our jurisdiction-it was to create jobs for our citizens. However, the corporation's goal is not to provide jobs. So your first error is confusing the intentions of different actors

UNFAIR is a moronic term. is it unfair for a huge retailer to get better wholesale pricing from a maker? no-its called business reality. Better customers get better terms.

when you use the term "unfair" it demonstrates to me you have a rather agenda laden attitude towards capitalism

Nope. It is the agenda of capitalism that fair competition between businesses is what allows the best products to get to customers, which is what allows the best companies to thrive.

But when the government mandates that business pay taxes, but then some businesses are able to pay lobbyists to bribe politicians for tax exemptions or government contracts, that is not allowing fair competition to determine the marketplace, nor is it allowing the best products to get to customers.

What it is is businesses using the government to gain advantage over other businesses. Which is not the purpose of the government.

welfare means to me something other than a contract. and in those cases, the city leaders are bargaining for the good of the city while the corporation is bargaining for the good of the company

Or those city leaders are bargaining for their own good in order to get more contributions from those corporations, and those corporations are using government influence to decrease fair competition, which is bad for consumers.

handouts to the poor is bargaining not for the good of the political division but for the politicians themselves who use our tax dollars to buy the votes that they enrich themselves with

Except politicians get elected only with campaign contributions, and they get much more contributions from corporate executives than they do from unemployed people.