Scrapping Welfare

[QContinuum]

Before we end welfare for the poor, can we please end corporate welfare?

I gotta bone to pick with the local NFL franchise and their $1.5 B stadium that our local city and state paid for.

 

[ProdglArchitect]

Yes and we also need to find a way to inspire people to work. Poverty and unemployment is a cultural disease that reflects the lack of a sense of meaning and purpose in our culture. The Catholic answer, of course, is spiritual. This is why the monastery model worked so well throughout the medieval period. If a person was willing to work, they could live at a monastery and be clothed, fed, and spiritually supported.

I believe the greatest inspiration is necessity. If there is no longer a safety net, people will work harder not to fall in the first place…

I do agree with what you’ve written though.

 

[ProdglArchitect]

Before we end welfare for the poor, can we please end corporate welfare?

I gotta bone to pick with the local NFL franchise and their $1.5 B stadium that our local city and state paid for.

Depends. I’m no big sports fan, but how many jobs does that stadium provide yearly? How much revenue does it generate each year? How likely is it to spur on further development in the surrounding areas? Does it provide a service to the community when not being used as a stadium? What other events can they hold there to bring in tourists? What sort of tax revenue can we expect to see from it’s use?

All of these factors are considered in depth before going to the city to get permission to build something like a stadium, or really any other public facility. I’ve been involved in those discussions before. Unless the politico’s are just completely corrupt, they’re not going to undertake a project like that unless there is substantial evidence that it will benefit the community.

 

[Ann_Stanton]

I wish that I could work. My rent goes up 10% every year or more to support a company. I am all for doing away with help to companies and corporations that get “help” from tax payers.

 

[goout]

Before we end welfare for the poor, can we please end corporate welfare?

I gotta bone to pick with the local NFL franchise and their $1.5 B stadium that our local city and state paid for.

Makes the point that God has provided an abundance for us. All we have to do is prioritize the abundance and direct it according to our deepest desires. When you think about that, we should all be very afraid for the choices we have made with our resources. We truly do put sandwiches and beer ahead of people.

 

[guanophore]

I believe the greatest inspiration is necessity. If there is no longer a safety net, people will work harder not to fall in the first place…

That may be, but it will spawn all sorts of further social problems, most of it criminal and encroaching upon the rights and property of those who are hard working. Poverty can make people desperate. This, combined with a sense of entitlement is socially dangerous.

Before we end welfare for the poor, can we please end corporate welfare?

I gotta bone to pick with the local NFL franchise and their $1.5 B stadium that our local city and state paid for.

Definitely! Government bailouts in a supposedly capitalistic system is absurd. I didn’t even know until last year that the govt. gave $ to the NFL!! Doesn’t the NFL make enough $ so that it does not need our tax dollars?

 

[Pup7]

Here’s what I don’t understand.

So many say “states should do it”.

Believe it or not, I’m not a supporter of big government, either, but everything can’t ride on the backs of state taxpayers.

Part of the reason the Feds oversee a lot of these programs and funnel money is because if they didn’t, the inequities across the country would be enormous.

I don’t know where folks think states with lower average incomes, like MS or LA, could compete with states like NY and WA and HI, where the average income - and hence the tax base and the cost of living - is much higher.

How much public assistance is available shouldn’t ride on your state’s tax revenue. The poverty line is Federally drawn for a reason (yes, it varies by state, but it’s Federally drawn to ensure there’s equity in benefits).

 

[Cruciferi]

Hey, I put myself through grad school as a janitor. Sometimes I miss it.

Well, at $15/hour and Cadillac healthcare, it could always be worse :man_shrugging:t2:

 

[ProdglArchitect]

That may be, but it will spawn all sorts of further social problems, most of it criminal and encroaching upon the rights and property of those who are hard working. Poverty can make people desperate. This, combined with a sense of entitlement is socially dangerous.

All of these problems exist even with the welfare state. Giving people money doesn’t deter criminal activity, and not providing welfare does not necessarily increase the likelihood that a person will resort to criminal activity.

 

[IWantGod]

I think if welfare was removed entirely, crime rates would sore, small business’s would suffer as a result, and homelessness would increase and the general safety of everyone would be at risk. In fact there would be rioting all over the place. You can’t just take away what people rely upon for survival just because you disapprove of lazy people and dependency on the system. If there was easily accessible jobs for every poor person in America, then changing .the system would be more practical, but i doubt very much that’s the case. In fact some people really are not suitable for the work that is available even if they don’t have a disability. Some jobs require you to work fast or lift heavy objects, and if you are slow or weak, no-matter how hard you try you’re fired. Sometimes the nature of the market place really does have some people at a disadvantage.

Because the Market place cannot possibly provide for everyone’s needs there has to be a safety net.

 

[Augustinian]

I think if welfare was removed entirely, crime rates would sore, small business’s would suffer as a result, and homelessness would increase and the general safety of everyone would be at risk. In fact there would be rioting all over the place.

That’s quite a prediction, but I don’t see it coming true.

In the 1990’s, there was massive welfare reform pushed through during the Clinton Administration by Newt Gingrich. There were similar thoughts then that cutting back and establishing time limited benefits would be a catastrophe. Really didn’t happen.

 

[ProdglArchitect]

Well, you’re welcome to your opinion on the subject, and I’m sure there’s some validity to it. I am merely reacting to my observations of the society which “thrives” on welfare. I believe that there would be rioting initially, but I also believe that once the welfare checks stop coming people will get in gear and start looking for / creating jobs. I also think it would force the communities to come together to support each other; a phenomenon which welfare seems to actively suppress.

I could be completely wrong, who knows. I know this will never happen, at least not now, so I don’t really think it’s fruitful discussion.

What is fruitful is discussing how to improve the current system and place limitations that prevent people from simply relying on welfare as a crutch; as well as discussing how to revitalize a culture that is stagnating under the weight of its reliance on government handouts. How do we fix a society that is so fundamentally broken that it believes it is entitled to what other people have earned? I understand the willingness to accept assistance, and even that sometime assistance is genuinely necessary. What I take issue with is this attitude I’ve observed where people believe that it is their right to take money from other people to support themselves.

 

[QContinuum]

I’m no big sports fan, but how many jobs does that stadium provide yearly? How much revenue does it generate each year? How likely is it to spur on further development in the surrounding areas? Does it provide a service to the community when not being used as a stadium? What other events can they hold there to bring in tourists? What sort of tax revenue can we expect to see from it’s use?

All these things were studied. What wasn’t studied were tons of costs not factored in - like the park in front of it that needed to be maintained by taxpayers even though it’s private.

There is the increased crime around the stadium. The streets, utilities, and the light rail station that had to be added and likewise maintained.

But regardless, the principle of the matter is that we taxpayers should not be on the hook to pay 1.5 B for a PRIVATE stadium, when our schools, roads, and bridges need more funding.

Finally, to answer your question, so far, no the costs not been outweighed by the return. We’re nowhere close to breaking even.

 

[joeybaggz]

Definitely! Government bailouts in a supposedly capitalistic system is absurd. I didn’t even know until last year that the govt. gave $ to the NFL!! Doesn’t the NFL make enough $ so that it does not need our tax dollars?

I live in the Pittsburgh, PA area. The Pittsburgh Steelers and the University of Pittsburgh play their games at Heinz field. The government contributed heavily to the cost of building that stadium. On Aug 7 of this year, Taylor Swift is having a concert at Heinz. It will sell out, about 70,000 tickets. All Steelers games are sell outs. (same 70,000) U of Pitt, not so much but probably about 25-30k. Add in all the concessions sold, food, t-shirts, and other items that are taxed at the same PA state sales tax rate - 6%. And every ticket realizes 6% sales tax. I would estimate that the city receives about $250,000 per Steelers game on tickets alone. Much more for the Taylor Swift concert. And there are many more events at the Stadium. Add that tax revenue up and add in all the jobs that are created by the event owners and the city will, over the life of the stadium, (25 years or more) will realize far more than it invested.

Emotions are fine, it doesn’t seem fair to some, but cities put up those stadiums because of the revenue it will receive from them. And when people come to such venues, especially from out of town, they will often stay in local hotels/motels, eat in local restaurants, and occasionally patronize other economic activities as well. When San Diego last year refused to fund a new stadium, they lost a big pot of cash in the long run.

Business is not always an evil, greedy, monster.

 

[mrsdizzyd]

As a Catholic do you support scrapping welfare in America? I mean completely removing it.

Not unless we came up with a better solution that still feeds and houses the poor. The new program would need to be fully developed and ready to implement BEFORE our current system was ended.

 

[IWantGod]

In the 1990’s, there was massive welfare reform pushed through during the Clinton Administration by Newt Gingrich. There were similar thoughts then that cutting back and establishing time limited benefits would be a catastrophe. Really didn’t happen.

Assuming they went with the time limit, i assume that after that time limit people with unemployment benefits got their welfare stopped permanently… If that’s not what you mean by time limited benefits then your argument is hardly relevant to what i said.

But lets say that is what you meant. The problem is there is no reports of millions of people starving to death or reports of there being no unemployment…So there must have been a safety net for them.

Lets look at this in logical terms. Lets say for example in 1990 there was ten million people unemployed and on benefits. Lets say the reason that the vast majority of them were unemployed was due to lack of direction, poor education and a lack of self confidence. There are only 4 million jobs available. The government decides to train the unemployed in the areas in which they lack employability. Then after a successful run they manage to get four million people in to work. After doing so, they decide to stop everyone’s employment benefits permanently. So that’s six million people with no means of survival.

What do you think is going to happen in that scenario? Do you think that 6 million people are just going to quietly starve to death? Do you think that the Catholic Church is going to be able to keep a roof over their heads, pay their gas and electric, feed their families, and pay for their kids education and medical bills? Or shall we go with the more likely scenario of Civil Unrest.

Can you see how i might find your comment unreasonable if not a bit frustrating?

There is a logical reason why the welfare system exists. It’s partly to prevent Civil Unrest especially when it involves large numbers of the population, and it was also because most of us don’t want to watch 6 million people slowly die. I think most of us would rather that the government took the responsibility of providing a safety net rather than leave it to the whim of the individual.

 

[Vonsalza]

As a Catholic do you support scrapping welfare in America? I mean completely removing it.

Not on your life.

In terms of efficiency, virtually all private orgs don’t even touch the federal government as measured by benefits paid out divided by budget. It’s not even close…
Internalize that. As far as efficiency goes, the feds not only beat the vast majority of private orgs. They beat the hell out of 'em.

Next point - the feds try to solve the entire problem, not just “those the Lord puts in our path, lol ” It’s an institutional solution to a societal problem that has some measure of tracking, coverage and accountability.

Next point - a lot of the money you spent on defunct social programs would have to be redirected to creating more of a police state. Crime and vice would explode because most of these people would still need to make livings despite unskilled jobs that make a decent living being mostly exported at this point in American history. Folks that are just a liiiittle higher up on the income curve would have to hire private security like they did in 1930s America and still do in most of Latin America. Walled wealthy communities and ghettos would return in a way that living Americans probably haven’t seen unless they’ve been abroad.

There are others but I’ll stop here for now

 

[TheLittleLady]

Anyone who has dealt with SSDI knows that, regardless of what the Dems may say, laziness and illegitimacy do not qualify as eligible conditions.

Dems? It is usually the Red dudes I see hollering about SSDI going to lazy folks

 

[lordie]

thanks Augustinian

 

[meltzerboy2]

If this is the case, doesn’t it contradict the notion of the Protestant work ethic?