Is the USA uncivilised?

[JimC]

Let's look at a possible breakdown of people getting benefits of some kind:

1. Physically or psychologically disabled people, who are utterly incapable of holding down a job.

2. People who genuinely want a job, and are actively searching, but need benefits in the interim.

3. People who, in BG's sense, would be capable of working, try it from time to time, but are simply marching to the beat of a different drummer.

4. People who are capable of work, and may earn some money in the black economy, but who cynically and with malice aforethought want to bludge on society, and get benefits while they surf or take drugs most of the time.

Categories 1 and 2 should not be an issue for anybody with a shred of empathy or ethics.

Categories 3 and 4 probably blend into each other. I would like government agencies to make a reasonable effort to stamp on category 4 - BG, I don't think we should simply put them in the "too hard basket", and pay them anyway... However, people of right wing persuasions demonise the last two groups, inflate their numbers, and regard them as the scourge which will white-ant society from within...

The reality is that the majority of the unemployed would love to be employed, and that category 3 and 4 represent a minority which has little real economic impact on society.

[rainbow]

I favour eating the unemployed.

Is that a modest proposal?

But yes.

[Hermit]

Let's look at a possible breakdown of people getting benefits of some kind:

1. Physically or psychologically disabled people, who are utterly incapable of holding down a job.

2. People who genuinely want a job, and are actively searching, but need benefits in the interim.

3. People who, in BG's sense, would be capable of working, try it from time to time, but are simply marching to the beat of a different drummer.

4. People who are capable of work, and may earn some money in the black economy, but who cynically and with malice aforethought want to bludge on society, and get benefits while they surf or take drugs most of the time.

Categories 1 and 2 should not be an issue for anybody with a shred of empathy or ethics.

Categories 3 and 4 probably blend into each other. I would like government agencies to make a reasonable effort to stamp on category 4 - BG, I don't think we should simply put them in the "too hard basket", and pay them anyway... However, people of right wing persuasions demonise the last two groups, inflate their numbers, and regard them as the scourge which will white-ant society from within...

The reality is that the majority of the unemployed would love to be employed, and that category 3 and 4 represent a minority which has little real economic impact on society.

So true.

It's also worth keeping in mind that the dollar amount spent on the unemployed is only a fraction of that going to corporate welfare. I know that libertarians oppose both, but why, oh why are their fulminations almost exclusively focussed on the former?

[Audley Strange]

Let's look at a possible breakdown of people getting benefits of some kind:

1. Physically or psychologically disabled people, who are utterly incapable of holding down a job.

2. People who genuinely want a job, and are actively searching, but need benefits in the interim.

3. People who, in BG's sense, would be capable of working, try it from time to time, but are simply marching to the beat of a different drummer.

4. People who are capable of work, and may earn some money in the black economy, but who cynically and with malice aforethought want to bludge on society, and get benefits while they surf or take drugs most of the time.

Categories 1 and 2 should not be an issue for anybody with a shred of empathy or ethics.

Categories 3 and 4 probably blend into each other. I would like government agencies to make a reasonable effort to stamp on category 4 - BG, I don't think we should simply put them in the "too hard basket", and pay them anyway... However, people of right wing persuasions demonise the last two groups, inflate their numbers, and regard them as the scourge which will white-ant society from within...

The reality is that the majority of the unemployed would love to be employed, and that category 3 and 4 represent a minority which has little real economic impact on society.

I agree with everything but your very last point and thanks for making much clearer what I was trying to explain. Frankly, the last two groups often have a negative impact on the economy and are of a social group that tends to clog up the courts, the health service and every other public service, they don't just bleed us for unemployment benefits, but in fact much of the taxation goes towards their wilful and deliberate self and social neglect. However I would not categorise such people as anything but a criminal class anyway. When they rob the state they rob from us and if they don't rob from the state they rob from us. A small minority sure, but one with an outrageously large economic impact. That's not a condition of them being unemployed or poor its a condition of them being scum in exactly the same way as being a thieving plutocratic banker is not a condition of being a banker.

[Blind groper]

As I pointed out earlier, Jim's category 3 is a very small minority. They have a problem with keeping a job which often has nothing to do with being bludgers or lazy. We know from bitter experience that this group exists and will always exist. I am saying that giving them welfare is cheap. Not doing so is inhumane and foolish, bearing in mind their only alternative.

[JimC]

Let's look at a possible breakdown of people getting benefits of some kind:

1. Physically or psychologically disabled people, who are utterly incapable of holding down a job.

2. People who genuinely want a job, and are actively searching, but need benefits in the interim.

3. People who, in BG's sense, would be capable of working, try it from time to time, but are simply marching to the beat of a different drummer.

4. People who are capable of work, and may earn some money in the black economy, but who cynically and with malice aforethought want to bludge on society, and get benefits while they surf or take drugs most of the time.

Categories 1 and 2 should not be an issue for anybody with a shred of empathy or ethics.

Categories 3 and 4 probably blend into each other. I would like government agencies to make a reasonable effort to stamp on category 4 - BG, I don't think we should simply put them in the "too hard basket", and pay them anyway... However, people of right wing persuasions demonise the last two groups, inflate their numbers, and regard them as the scourge which will white-ant society from within...

The reality is that the majority of the unemployed would love to be employed, and that category 3 and 4 represent a minority which has little real economic impact on society.

I agree with everything but your very last point and thanks for making much clearer what I was trying to explain. Frankly, the last two groups often have a negative impact on the economy and are of a social group that tends to clog up the courts, the health service and every other public service, they don't just bleed us for unemployment benefits, but in fact much of the taxation goes towards their wilful and deliberate self and social neglect. However I would not categorise such people as anything but a criminal class anyway. When they rob the state they rob from us and if they don't rob from the state they rob from us. A small minority sure, but one with an outrageously large economic impact. That's not a condition of them being unemployed or poor its a condition of them being scum in exactly the same way as being a thieving plutocratic banker is not a condition of being a banker.

I agree that my category 4 would often overlap with a criminal under-class, and I did emphasise that governments should actively work to minimise their parasitism on society. However, my main point is that the size and influence of this group on the economy is wildly exaggerated by conservatives, for fairly obvious reasons of political spin...

[Clinton Huxley]

Agree with Jim, above. Surveys routinely find that people, at least in the UK, wildly overestimate a) how many "benefits scroungers" there are and b) how much they cost.

[Audley Strange]

I agree that my category 4 would often overlap with a criminal under-class, and I did emphasise that governments should actively work to minimise their parasitism on society. However, my main point is that the size and influence of this group on the economy is wildly exaggerated by conservatives, for fairly obvious reasons of political spin...

Granted, but I think conversely it is downplayed by liberals too, I know of hundreds of cases of people ripping the piss right out of the system while causing chaos in schools, their neighbourhoods, for the police and for the health services, all of that is excessively costly and it mounts up. The only saving grace is that at least their low level criminal activity does not actively remove currency from the economy, just redirects it back in, unlike another tiny minority of criminals (often the most vocal against benefit scroungers) who siphon millions out of it.

[JimC]

I agree that my category 4 would often overlap with a criminal under-class, and I did emphasise that governments should actively work to minimise their parasitism on society. However, my main point is that the size and influence of this group on the economy is wildly exaggerated by conservatives, for fairly obvious reasons of political spin...

Granted, but I think conversely it is downplayed by liberals too, I know of hundreds of cases of people ripping the piss right out of the system while causing chaos in schools, their neighbourhoods, for the police and for the health services, all of that is excessively costly and it mounts up. The only saving grace is that at least their low level criminal activity does not actively remove currency from the economy, just redirects it back in, unlike another tiny minority of criminals (often the most vocal against benefit scroungers) who siphon millions out of it.

Fair points...

[Seth]

It's also worth keeping in mind that the dollar amount spent on the unemployed is only a fraction of that going to corporate welfare. I know that libertarians oppose both, but why, oh why are their fulminations almost exclusively focussed on the former?

Assuming arguendo that you're correct (which you're not), the case for "corporate welfare" is absolutely clear and compelling. Corporations are wealth-creators and are the lifeblood of any economy. Without corporations there would be no jobs for those who do want to work, there would be no taxes paid, without which there would be nothing available to fund government giveaways to welfare leeches . Therefore it is in the best interests of any government to support and advance commerce, and therefore the economy, by assisting businesses to flourish and expand, thereby expanding the opportunities for citizens to be employed and profit therefrom. Indeed, second to securing the liberty of its citizens, the most important function, and one of the few authorized functions of government, is to facilitate trade and commerce and assist business in creating wealth.

Welfare leeches produce nothing. Like government, they only consume resources and are of negative value to the society. We tolerate the drain of government because its a necessary evil. There's no reason to tolerate welfare leeches whatsoever.

[Blind groper]

Interesting, Seth, that you support subsidies for corporations, since that is a Marxist approach. The proper right wing, free enterprise approach is to accept that inefficient companies and corporations will go bust, and not support inefficiency with subsidies.

We went through the big change in NZ in 1984. Before that time, farmers were subsidised. But the subsidies were removed totally, and a lot of inefficient farmers went bust. They were replaced by efficient farmers, and without subsidies, our farming sector has become so efficient that the idiot politicians in the USA use tarriffs and subsidies against us, knowing that American farmers could not compete. Much better to cooperate with NZ and share expertise (we are very willing to help, in order to share the very large American market), and remove subsidies, and become truly efficient.

Then the USA can become a true capitalist society, based on the best of free enterprise.

[Seth]

Interesting, Seth, that you support subsidies for corporations, since that is a Marxist approach.

What complete nonsense and utter ignorance you display. I didn't say I supported subsidies, I merely pointed out how they are distinctly different from welfare checks.

The proper right wing, free enterprise approach is to accept that inefficient companies and corporations will go bust, and not support inefficiency with subsidies.

Actually, that's more the Libertarian position.

We went through the big change in NZ in 1984. Before that time, farmers were subsidised. But the subsidies were removed totally, and a lot of inefficient farmers went bust. They were replaced by efficient farmers, and without subsidies, our farming sector has become so efficient that the idiot politicians in the USA use tarriffs and subsidies against us, knowing that American farmers could not compete. Much better to cooperate with NZ and share expertise (we are very willing to help, in order to share the very large American market), and remove subsidies, and become truly efficient.

I'm all for that. But that doesn't change the fact that the term "corporate welfare" is just so much bilge concocted by idiots who don't understand basic economics and are too stupid to figure it out. At least when you subsidize a corporation you get jobs, products and economic growth. When you pay welfare leeches to do nothing, you just pour the wealth of the nation down an endless rat-hole to no good end.

[Hermit]

...when you subsidize a corporation you get jobs, products and economic growth.

Dream on. In the 2002 fiscal year the Australian government poured ten billion dollars of tax payers' money into the corporate trough (compared to 5.8 billion for unemployment and sickness benefits). Traditionally, most of the corporate dole went into the manufacturing industry. (The second biggest benefactor is agriculture.) Holden Australia announced in April 2013 that it alone has received $2.17 billion since 2000. Just one week after that, Holden (owned by General motors) announced 500 job cuts. At the end of the year it announced that it will be closing all of its manufacturing plants down by 2017. Similar story with Ford.

Australia is awash with corporations successfully holding their hands out for big dollops of no strings attached, tax payer funded money while simultaneously shedding huge swathes of their respective workforce.

[piscator]

When you pay welfare leeches to do nothing, you just pour the wealth of the nation down an endless rat-hole to no good end.

And they spend it in the private sector yo. It's not lost to the market or the tax system. It trickles back up.

[Audley Strange]

It's also worth keeping in mind that the dollar amount spent on the unemployed is only a fraction of that going to corporate welfare. I know that libertarians oppose both, but why, oh why are their fulminations almost exclusively focussed on the former?

Assuming arguendo that you're correct (which you're not), the case for "corporate welfare" is absolutely clear and compelling. Corporations are wealth-creators and are the lifeblood of any economy. Without corporations there would be no jobs for those who do want to work, there would be no taxes paid, without which there would be nothing available to fund government giveaways to welfare leeches . Therefore it is in the best interests of any government to support and advance commerce, and therefore the economy, by assisting businesses to flourish and expand, thereby expanding the opportunities for citizens to be employed and profit therefrom. Indeed, second to securing the liberty of its citizens, the most important function, and one of the few authorized functions of government, is to facilitate trade and commerce and assist business in creating wealth.

Yes but this then leads to a state of "give us subsidies or we'll take our jobs elsewhere." Which along with the extraction of wealth from the state from international concerns while they are being subsidised is also a rolling extortion con. Again you folk can tart up the behaviour with any sympathies you like. The fact is the behaviour is no different. Give us free money or else suffer. It's another form of financial terrorism by often non-state actors.