People spending money drives economy. People with welfare have money to spend, however limited. Take that money out of the economy and the economy suffers. 

 

But they do not generate wealth.  Government workers spend money too, but they generate no wealth.  Like welfare recipients, they merely recycle the tax dollars generated by wealth producers.  If zero sum game actually existed, we could just infuse the economy with a set amount of money and let everyone push it around while no one went without.  

---

That money is still being spent just by different people. Government can not generate income, they make nothing, they sell nothing, they produce nothing, they can only take from one and give to another.

 

If I have $5 and you have $1 then mother takes $1 from me and I now have $4 and you have $2 no extra money has been generated, only redistributed.

 

An argument can be made for welfare as a safety net but not as an economic driving engine.

That would be true if there wasn't a baseline level of spending every person has to sustain his own life. Just because you make $300,000 instead of $30,000 doesn't mean you suddenly spent 10 times as much on basic living needs. That's why it's important to have a base level of welfare to satisfy the basic level of need every person has. 

---

The money won't be gone, it will remain in the economy, it will simply still be in the hands of those who worked for it.

Who won't spend as much of it since most their base level of need has been met. Like I said, just because your income has doubled doesn't mean your expenses double as well.

---

Who won't spend as much of it since most their base level of need has been met. Like I said, just because your income has doubled doesn't mean your expenses double as well.

 

But that's the beauty of capitalism, you devise a product or service to get people with disposable incomes to spend, thus providing more jobs and generating wealth.

---

That would be true if there wasn't a baseline level of spending every person has to sustain his own life. Just because you make $300,000 instead of $30,000 doesn't mean you suddenly spent 10 times as much on basic living needs. That's why it's important to have a base level of welfare to satisfy the basic level of need every person has. 

 

Modern welfare is a far stretch from that. The problem is when you allow government to do the smallest amount of redistribution which is what all forms of welfare are, it never stops at the basic levels of living needs.

 

Which is why I'm a proponent of either making States fund their own welfare (the more practical solution in the near future) or having private charities take it over ( a solution I never see taking place so I focus on the compromise of have it State Funded.)

---

30k or 300k, does not matter. Each will have contributed at the same tax rate for basics of life. The one making 300k will then go on to contribute much more as he or she purchase the luxury items and services that come with a higher rate of taxation. The one making 30k will receive exemptions up to the level of basic needs.

---

Looking to troll? Don't bother, we supply our own.

 

 

Just to take my own example: When I was a student my monthly budget was about €600 of which €550 went to satisfy my basic living needs (rent, food, health insurance, internet). Now I work full time and my net income is around €2.000/month, over three times as much. But I only spent €1.200/month on my basic living needs. Point is; A thousand people with $100 each will spend more than ten people with $10.000 each.

 

And don't get me wrong; the government's job here is not to take from those ten until all have $100. Its job is to create a stable, prosperous society where a base level of living is provided to say to all who excel that base level this is the price of living in a safe and organized society.

---

Just to take my own example: When I was a student my monthly budget was about €600 of which €550 went to satisfy my basic living needs (rent, food, health insurance, internet). Now I work full time and my net income is around €2.000/month, over three times as much. But I only spent €1.200/month on my basic living needs. Point is; A thousand people with $100 each will spend more than ten people with $10.000 each.

 

And don't get me wrong; the government's job here is not to take from those ten until all have $100. Its job is to create a stable, prosperous society where a base level of living is provided to say to all who excel that base level this is the price of living in a safe and organized society.

 

So that extra €800 you either spend or save. If you save it, that money is then used by banks to fund their loans to other individuals. Unless you hide that €800 under your mattress it's still serving a purpose.

---

Modern welfare is a far stretch from that. The problem is when you allow government to do the smallest amount of redistribution which is what all forms of welfare are, it never stops at the basic levels of living needs.

 

Which is why I'm a proponent of either making States fund their own welfare (the more practical solution in the near future) or having private charities take it over ( a solution I never see taking place so I focus on the compromise of have it State Funded.)

 

That is one problem I also see right now. In my ideal world there is a base level of welfare that is guaranteed which is the very bottom of the budget pyramid. The next step up would be minimum wage, which would be regulated in such a manner as to create a real financial incentive that encourages all but the most lazy of welfare recipients to seek employment. And as you get higher up this pyramid the amount of regulation decreases as market forces would hopefully create a natural equilibrium. 

---

That is one problem I also see right now. In my ideal world there is a base level of welfare that is guaranteed which is the very bottom of the budget pyramid. The next step up would be minimum wage, which would be regulated in such a manner as to create a real financial incentive that encourages all but the most lazy of welfare recipients to seek employment. And as you get higher up this pyramid the amount of regulation decreases as market forces would hopefully create a natural equilibrium. 

 

that might work in a small extremely limited eco system but not on a scale as large as the United States. That's the thing, what works other places won't always work in the larger economies, and what works here won't always work in the smaller economies. I'm a huge believer there is no one way a universal way if you'll have it to run an economy. Which is why the United States is in such a mess, we've tried to find that magic way of running the economy for 50 very different and diverse states.

---

You should get by on the 600 and give the 400 to someone else right?

---

You should get by on the 600 and give the 400 to someone else right?

No, because that would remove the incentive to work which is as destructive as removing welfare programs. 

---

Man, I'm learning a lot from you guys.

---

Man, I'm learning a lot from you guys.

And isn't that just a little sad. 

---

And isn't that just a little sad. 

 

why is that sad? discussion is the way we all learn.

---

why is that sad? discussion is the way we all learn.

 

It's a satirical hyperbole about the perceived intelligence of myself and the people on this board.

---

It's a satirical hyperbole about the perceived intelligence of myself and the people on this board.

 

ah I missed it, lol.

---

And isn't that just a little sad. 

 

Considering there are people who get the bulk of their news and information from Comedy Central shows, if they're learning something on a message board dedicated to an NFL franchise isn't really much of a stretch, is it? 

---

Never argue with idiots. They drag you down to their level and beat you with experience.

This just in. Gov. Scott says he's coming out of the closet. Wow. This governors race is getting interesting. After leaving Key West, he claims he was misunderstood...but hey...a vote is a vote.

Crist claimed he has a walk in closet so his coming out will bring more with him.



Ok. That being said...politics is the biggest shameless, two faced occupation there is. When Scott turned and supported a bill giving illegal .... Err.....undocumented residents in state tuition I hurled. Unbelievable.


But the comment stating party affiliations is what screws up the process was spot on. There too many with personal agendas...and not just the partyies, politicians,etc , but voters as well.

IMO.... The GOP has splintered. The Dems are slicker.

I'll take any bets now...if Hillary runs...she wins.

No dog in the hunt, just my thoughts.

Now to get the young voters out and put weed on the ballot. You think Morgan et al give a rats [BLEEP] about the health issue?

---

Blakes Life Matters

This just in. Gov. Scott says he's coming out of the closet. Wow. This governors race is getting interesting. After leaving Key West, he claims he was misunderstood...but hey...a vote is a vote.

Crist claimed he has a walk in closet so his coming out will bring more with him.



Ok. That being said...politics is the biggest shameless, two faced occupation there is. When Scott turned and supported a bill giving illegal .... Err.....undocumented residents in state tuition I hurled. Unbelievable.


But the comment stating party affiliations is what screws up the process was spot on. There too many with personal agendas...and not just the partyies, politicians,etc , but voters as well.

IMO.... The GOP has splintered. The Dems are slicker.

I'll take any bets now...if Hillary runs...she wins.

No dog in the hunt, just my thoughts.

Now to get the young voters out and put weed on the ballot. You think Morgan et al give a rats [BLEEP] about the health issue?

 

The Dems aren't slicker.  They have the media in their pocket.  

---