Welfare isn't all rainbows and butterflies, I think we can all agree upon that one. By now you would have probably heard me endorsing the Universal Basic Income as a fairer, less corruptable and more libertarian alternative, as seen in many of my posts and threads, but that's another topic of debate. Let's debate everything wrong with the welfare state. I'll tell you one thing though, this is just a theory of mine, but I'm sure many will agree - I think that the welfare system may very well be the reason cannabis is taking so long to legalize in New Zealand. I mean, we don't even have medicinal marijuana. People aren't even debating the damn subject, and yet - we have one of the highest rates of cannabis usage in the world (which is now being slowly taken over by Synthetic cannabis, due to a decrease in normal cannabis supply - mainly brought upon by a surge in house raids. ) Quite frankly, the cops are winning the war on weed. The welfare state may indeed have a kind of 'pacifying' effect on the population, almost a form of political bribing .. as long as the citizens don't revolt and have opinions that go against the mainstream. Note also that welfare here in country is nowhere near as stigmatized as it is in the United States - people go on and off .. walking into the welfare office is as commonplace as going to the doctor. I posted about this somewhere before, but I'll share the link again.. it's an interesting story I read in the news: Police investigate Anti-TPPA activists, just days before the official signing of the TPPA (trans-pacific partnership agreement): TPPA activist visited by Dunedin police That's right. If you are a political activist, get ready to be interrogated by police now and then! It's no wonder we barely see any protests on the streets, apart from the rare old Johnny standing on his own with a cardboard sign next to the entrance of a mall. Don't get me wrong - New Zealand is by far one of the most advanced world economies, and one of the best places to live in when it comes to quality of life. Crime rates are significantly lower compared to the rest of the english-speaking world. Mass-shootings are literally unheard of. However, this may well come at a price here and then - and that price is Freedom, as well as a complacent and apathetic population that is more than happy to turn a blind eye to injustice. (Probably because our prisons also come with LCD-TVs, insulation .. air conditioning ... etc.) Us kiwi's just don't have anywhere near the same amount of 'burning, ballsy rebelliousness' as Americans, or even the British.. but we live pretty well.
You need to define "welfare state". The phrase has become kind of a dog whistle when arguing politics. Welfare state can mean many things.
In this case I would define it as the 'European-style' social safety net that provides financial assistance to the unemployed, disabled, retired .. studying .. etc. Also - something important I forgot to add.. Note that I'm not against the welfare state .. that is, if I had to choose between our current system, and the system of the United States. I could very confidently say that we have a better quality of life than the US. However, we need to be careful about the way politicians use welfare to win votes and pacify the masses in order to get it 'their way'. Let's just say you're disabled, and you 'depend on the government' for your weekly payments for rent and food. Then one day you discover marijuana, and find that it is beneficial to your life. However, marijuana is illegal. ..But surely, you'd never dare to rebel against the government - ...after all, the government feeds you, right? This is the trap we need to avoid falling in. It isn't really the government that 'feeds' you - it is the taxpayer, the community who looks after you. Only if you decide to stay closed minded, only if you refuse to protest .. only then, would you be considered a pet, slave to its master, and the bullshit that you're being fed.
I guess the moral of the story is .. don't just settle for the lesser of the two evils, don't be complacent .. don't stop fighting for a better world just because you think it could be worse, or because you think it's 'good enough as it is'.. The sky is the limit. Progress doesn't stop. Until we create heaven on Earth - there is no reason to stop fighting for a better society. Don't vote for the government who will grow pears, but not apples. Don't vote for governments who will release the birds from their cages, only to fill the cages with lizards. Demand the whole package, demand the BEST - demand what YOU believe in.
I had this revelation a while back and actually posted about it. Federal welfare is not out of charity, concern or sympathy, it is rather a sleight of hand to placate those who are most affected by the economic pillaging of the people. But that costs money, so they engineer it so YOU pay for it and they can dangle the carrot and act as if they are heros. Its Robin Hood except its the rich stealing from everyone and giving SOME to the poorest, with stipulation of course. Ultimately it is to keep the poor from rising up, nothing will compel people to take action like seeing their children starve.
Anytime the government subsidizes anything, you get more of that anything. So when the government subsidizes corn growers, we produce more corn. Sadly, when the government subsidized poor people, we produce more poor people.
Help me out. So if we stop subsidizing poor people they will starve and die, then they can't produce more poor people?
The English tried that in Ireland in the 1840's. A conservative estimate puts it at a million dying from a famine. The English continued to ship grain, meat, etc to England throughout the famine. You can try starving people but it won't work. They will spend 150 yrs+ bombing themselves to freedom. Tiocfaidh ár lá
can't speak for new zealand but in america, the modern welfare system subsidized the breakup of the family unit, which in turn saw single-parent households and births out of wedlock skyrocket. which the research has found that children born into single-parent households have their chances of being in poverty increased by 82%.just look at the statistics pre- and post- great society. kweisi mfume (former president of the NAACP) said the absence of the father was the single greatest threat to the black community barack obama has said "children who grow up without a father are five times more likely to live in poverty and commit crime; nine times more likely to drop out of schools and 20 times more likely to end up in prison." now i'm not against helping people in the slightest, but if people can't see what clearly happened here, realize that the great society was championed by a racist southerner, and draw the conclusions, then i'm afraid nothing is going to improve. the welfare system in america is one of these "issues" that they've conjured up purposefully to keep people divided among party lines, same with the healthcare issue, gun issues, etc. all by design.. (IMO)
And those statistics related to black families can probably be strongly correlated with the war on drugs locking up so many black males. Its a self-perpetuating cycle of subjugation and enslavement IMO.
It certainly affects minorities the most, according to the statistics. Terribly disproportionate use/conviction correlation. Both of these things are about control under the guise of helping people. It's all it has ever been about and all it will ever be about.
The English Empire didn't come about by them being nice guys. With the elections over, the triumphant party does seem keen on dismantling the "welfare state" that has developed over the last century. They must have the same mind set that the poor don't matter as our earlier British cousins had.
Jane, I'm gonna swim across the Pacific ocean and marry you. Lol I'm kidding. I would never do that. I'll fly.
How do you know if the government stops subsidizing they will all starve and die? Subsidizing poor people creates more poor people because of the incentives offered when giving away other peoples money.
I actually think welfare as a system fails from over regulation. My mom for example recently had to sign up my aunt who had a stroke for social security which was a nightmare. Took weeks of interviews and answering dozens of 20-30 page forms to sign up for it. Was very clear they were trying to deter people who were imposters or givinvg benefits to the wrong person. At a certain point though the overregulatkon doesn't actually stop that many people but creates a shitload of beuracracy and hassle for the average person. My mom was able to go the SS administration several times on a weekday cause she works as a tutor and has a flexible schedule. But if you're an everyday working person and you needed to help someone with a disbabilith register for SSI you would never be able to do it. You wouldn't be able to spend 4-6 hours at a SS office 3 different weekdays because you would be working. The system actually should be much more trusting in my opinion. Don't get rid of all regulation but decrease a lot of the regulation and red tape.
It is funny, considering we produce more food than we consume. We "crop dump" to appease pricing of global markets. The government backs corporate farms, and smaller scale farmers are left to fend for themselves. The Midwest is the bread basket of the U.S., and we could produce enough food to supply the hungry of the nation. Yet, you need permits, government permissions, and have regulations for a community grow which feeds the poor of the community. Weird right? It is almost as if the government does not want anyone to feed the poor, other than them...hmm We, also, have more land than we use, with some of the most fertile soil. Yet, China owns more land than Native Americans. But, the government is helping them, right? Just like they are helping Flint, Michigan?
The real damage is done by those millions who want to 'survive.' The honest men who just want to be left in peace. Those who don’t want their little lives disturbed by anything bigger than themselves. Those with no sides and no causes. Those who won’t take measure of their own strength, for fear of antagonizing their own weakness. Those who don’t like to make waves—or enemies. Those for whom freedom, honour, truth, and principles are only literature. Those who live small, mate small, die small. It’s the reductionist approach to life: if you keep it small, you’ll keep it under control. If you don’t make any noise, the bogeyman won’t find you. But it’s all an illusion, because they die too, those people who roll up their spirits into tiny little balls so as to be safe. Safe?! From what? Life is always on the edge of death; narrow streets lead to the same place as wide avenues, and a little candle burns itself out just like a flaming torch does. I choose my own way to burn. Sophie Scholl Jane I think you might like her, the nazi's gillateened her for her openness, she opposed their oppression but her spirit lived
Welfare and other social programs are just yet another way to gain control over the population. If you control the population, healthcare and education, you've got yourself a socialist nation...BAM. AND NO SOCIALIST EXPERIMENT HAS EVER PROVEN TO BE A WINNER. Just look at Venezuela. Falling apart at the seams, money but no merchandise to buy, black market purchases are the only way to get anything and you pay a mark up of hundreds of percent. The answer to this is a healthy economy with high employment and putting people back to work and getting them off the social programs holding them down. Not against helping someone when they're down, but the "gimme" societies of today just breed generations of people who want more and want it free. Nothing...absolutely nothing is free, and must be paid for by someone...namely, the taxpayer. Hoping to see some common sensical changes begin to occur in the US in 2017. We need them in a SUPER BAD WAY!! TWW