A response to social welfare propaganda

[camero]

This is something to say to anyone who says we have spent X amount of dollars since X year on social welfare.

Well, we have spent trillions upon trillions of dollars on defense since that X year. Have we stopped war? Do we have peace?

Peace through strenght? Hell, we just seem to make more enemies and have to spend even more. Half a trillion per year now.

[Lefty48197]

1. FEED THE POOR

and anoint the wounds of the afflicted. I'm not sure who said that first, but I agree with it.

[camero]

2. Me too, I agree

I think maybe Jesus. Something else to tell the Bushistas.

[RICHBUM]

55. PROTECT the RICH /// SACRIFICE the POOR

ISN'T THE WORLD A BETTER PLACE WHEN WE DON'T EVEN OWN OURSELVES AND SOMEONE ELSE, THAT TURNS PINK IN THE SUN, WOULD RATHER MAKE US DO ALL THE WORK SO THAT HE CAN STAY INSIDE THE SHADE OF HIS MANSION AND GATHER A FORTUNE FROM OUR CONCENTRATED LABOR WITH A GUN POINTED TO OUR HEADS...???

WHATS WRONG WITH WANTING TO GO BACK TO 18TH CENTURY AMERICA ???

HUH?!? WHATS WRONG WITH IT!!! ARE YOU UNPATRIOTIC OR SOMETHING???

[LearnedHand]

3. Absolutely right on! But...

...no one cares about the inconsistency, anyway. Obviously, spending the entire resources of our economy on warmongering is MUCH more moral than spending it on the poor, lazy bastards who'll only shoot it up, drink it up, or have MORE poor, lazy bastards to continue the trend to the next generation. /sarcasm

[camero]

4. True unfortunately

But it would at least shut them up for awhile. And point out the "thou shalt not kill" commandment.

[LearnedHand]

5. We could only hope

But since right is left, and left is wrong, up is down, spending is saving, I'm sure the interpretation of "thou shalt not kill" will actually be, "unless the ones you're killing are hated by god" (and we KNOW god likes x-ians more than he likes muslims).

[camero]

6. Bush the terrorist

Why give them money when they will just use it to kill people?

[Kanary]

7. What about the comparison..

..with corporate welfare?

That is one thing that the DEMS seem to refuse to make an issue of.

Shout it from the rooftops!

Kanary

[camero]

8. That's true

We waste gobs and gobs of money on that. $338 billion a year now, I think? Also a good comparison. Do we have enough jobs now? No, not really.

[Kanary]

9. Imagine!

What $338 billion could do for Section 8 housing, for medical care for those without, for establishing a basic level of subsistance.

Imagine!

But, it's just not sexy enough.

We'd rather vote for taxes to build a sexy new football stadium.

PAH!!

"As you do unto the least of these...."

Kanary

[camero]

10. I agree

Good call. Another thing to bring up.

[HFishbine]

11. Yeah, but

social welfare doesn't make for exciting TV. If only there was some way we could incorporate blowing things up.

[camero]

12. No doubt

People are really stupid, I think sometimes.

[catmandu57]

47. Friday on the KC local news

on two of the networks there was coverage of a bust at an apartment complex that was was mostly section 8 housing. They made a big deal of saying how these poor women had committed housing and food stamp fraud and by god they were going to pay for it.

I thought to myself thats fucking sick, going after poor people who don't report a little extra income, when we're wasting billions of dollars on the b.f.e.e. and friends, billions wasted people dying daily in iraq, and instead of covering the dead and wounded coming home we get coverage of poor people being busted, and turned out.

When are we going to see pictures of kenny boy in cuffs? pictures of the pigboy in cuffs? Poverty has been criminalized.

[camero]

59. Conservatives

They just like to beat up on people who can't fight back. How brave of them. $566.5 Billion and all they can do is attack weak countries.
Alot of bang for the buck, huh?

[LoZoccolo]

13. If people don't like giving money away...

...then the Republicans should at least balance the budget. When we run at a deficit, we have to pay interest to bondholders on the debt, and that's really money spent on nothing productive at all. Remarkably, when I'm having the typical welfare argument with a Republican, they don't seem to come back and get very angry about this.

What's more, you could argue that even if everyone on welfare was totally abusing 100% of the money we put into it (which, from what I've heard, amounts to 1% of the federal budget and 2% average state budgets - tiny amount anyways), at least that money would circulate once we "gave it away". The bondholders are just socking away money anyways, that's why they're putting it in bonds.

Of course, these are logical arguments I'm giving, and I'm not sure they would be effective because putting down people on welfare has a psychic value to certain people; it makes them feel like they are part of an elite over people who are really really poor. And that's one way that Republicans get their segment of the working class to support the elitist policies that ultimately harm them - by convincing them that /they/ are an elite too.

[camero]

14. Yes, they are logical arguments

I always said we were talking about nickles and dimes for social welfare when we are throwing dollars away on destructive things in our budget. It even happens at the local level. I guess people will never wake up.

[Kanary]

16. "I guess people will never wake up."

No, not unless we take it upon ourselves to *Wake* them up!

So far, it hasn't been important enough to Dems.

Are we ready yet?

I'm encouraged that at least somebody posted about it.

Kanary

[Kanary]

15. LoZoccolo!

I like the way you think!

"What's more, you could argue that even if everyone on welfare was totally abusing 100% of the money we put into it (which, from what I've heard, amounts to 1% of the federal budget and 2% average state budgets - tiny amount anyways), at least that money would circulate once we "gave it away"."

Great! I never even thought of that angle. I just get *really* peeved at the constant accusation of "cheating".

"Of course, these are logical arguments I'm giving, and I'm not sure they would be effective because putting down people on welfare has a psychic value to certain people; it makes them feel like they are part of an elite over people who are really really poor."

Precisely! You are sooo on target. So, how do we change the dynamics of that? I mean, surely, if we can decide it's important to learn how to talk with confederate-flag waving southerners, surely we can figure out how to frame this particular item?

Personally, I think I rather like the "As you do unto the least of these".. hammered over and over and over. Turning the tables of the religious right back on themselves.

I'd like to hear other ideas.

Kanary

[camero]

17. As you do unto the least of these

I have used this verse to sway my Pro-Bush friends. It works.

[Kanary]

18. "I have used this verse to sway my Pro-Bush friends. It works."

Great news!

Knowing just how cheesy the right wing is, can we think of their possible comebacks?

Then, how to get this used at the National level... I wanna hear this as a campaign theme!

Kanary

[camero]

19. How about this

God loves the poor.

Or, "The first shall be last and the last shall be first."

Edit: they are ideas for bumper stickers.

[LoZoccolo]

20. There are statistics about how soon people get off welfare...

...that are usually kept by state welfare offices and such - they'll give you a lot of good information.

You'll find that people have a lot of anecdotal "evidence" that people abuse the system, but they have nothing on how big that problem is, how much is wasted on it, how much good the safety net does in comparison to how much is wasted, etcetera. I got in an argument with someone once, and I was telling her that there's a ton of people who get off of welfare within two years and she said that two tons don't - which, in essence, is fabricating a statistic to say that 66-67% of people don't get off of welfare within two years. If people do this kind of thing, you can always embarass them with a real number in comparison, and how they fabricated theirs - I think I eventually found that it was closer to 33%. There's the whole moral question of whether it's just to completely make up information about a segment of society that one has little contact with to begin with.

I get a lot of my ideas on economics from this site:

http://www.conceptualguerilla.com

[camero]

21. I still like the argument

That we are spending HALF A TRILLION DOLLARS A YEAR on killing people. Not meant to be a flame there. I think just the sticker shock should turn people around.

[camero]

24. also

Our soldiers do not have the right vests, veteran's benefits are being cut. Bush doesn't visit graves. What do you get for your $566 billion in taxes. Another argument.

[snippy]

39. We are spending 1/3 of a trillion dollars to borrow the $$ to kill people.

[camero]

43. Try like half a trillion

When you count the $166 billion appropriated for the Iraq War, the total comes to $566.5 billion just this year.

[snippy]

46. I was referring to the annual interest expense of the federal government.

[camero]

52. Oops

You're right. Another big expense. But must we spend $600 billion a year to kill people. That's the point. Not to mention that we are the world's biggest trader of arms. And we spend practically nothing to help others.

[Kanary]

37. If you've swayed people with facts

that's great, and I applaud you. Keep it up!

However, this has not worked at the national level. People don't hear the facts.

We've been discussing on other threads the need to meet the right wing on it's own turf with opposing "commercial messages". That's what I've been trying to get at.... what zinger soundbite puts the issue in a whole different perspective.

In other words, as others have said about other issues, put *THEM* on the defensive for a change. Continuuing to defend ourselves hasn't gotten us far on the national level.

However, as I said at the beginning, if that has been working for you on a one-to-one basis, that's good news, and keep it up!

Kanary

[LoZoccolo]

22. I forgot...

...as far as addressing people that support elitist policies when they're really not part of the elite, there's a lot on that site about how the Republican policies are there to drive down the cost of labor in general by making even working people more desperate for work, increasing unemployment, etcetera.

It's a hard thing for people to get over, I guess you'd have to point out how little power they really have when things come up - when they don't get even a cost-of-living raise this year, when they're afraid of getting laid off because they're making cuts, and the like. People like to think they're a lot "better off" than they are I guess, because they equate this with being accomplished, which may or may not be correlated. There's a statistic in Al Franken's new book about how 19% of people think they are in the top 1% of income earners!

[snippy]

38. The 'constant accusation of "cheating"' argument is more applicable

to the fraud by defense and Medicare contractors than it is to recipients of all types of welfare. Just the fraud which is discovered probably amounts to more than the total of welfare cheating. For example, Senator Frist's family business, HCA, Inc., just agreed to pay $1.7 billion in civil and criminal penalties for Medicare fraud.

[Kanary]

51. then people aren't very logical

If they don't like giving money away, then why is it so acceptable for all the billions going to Halliburton, et al?

They don't protest benefits being taken away from soldiers, though, all the while shouting "Support our troops".

Why do people keep voting for things such as new stadiums, etc? That's big money going for business.

It seems to me that people are fine with giving away money, unless it's for someone who is really hurting. The Dems are supposed to be different, but so far, I don't see much of that.

Kanary

[camero]

23. kick

n/t

[camero]

33. kick

kick

[Nikia]

25. I think that people take welfare personally

My husband was performing a quick service call and I went along with him since we needed to do a few things in that city anyway. One of the salesmen there was complaining about people on welfare. I didn't say much because that business is one of the few loyal, paying on time, customers and I didn't want anything bad to happen because of me. Anyway, he was complaining about people with food stamps having decent cars, buying expensive food, and buying alcohol or tobacco. He complained about people staying on welfare too long. He seemed to think that many people were cheating the government out of money. He then said how that was unfair because he has to work hard for what he has. I think that is how the average middle and working class person who opposes welfare sees the issue. They know that they could be the welfare person. They believe that the only thing separating them from the very poor is that they go to work. Since many of their jobs are demeaning and something they dread, this makes them upset. They don't look at the big picture of things. I guess that we do need to focus these people on the bigger picture so they stop looking at their personal picture. They need to realize that the poor person and them may have a common enemy.

[camero]

26. Most on welfare have worked at one point.

But they were denied Unemployment for one reason or another. The big difference is that middle class people have a job. Yes, we do have a common enemy. The CEO. The one who took thier job overseas and now they have to be on welfare.

[camero]

27. Which is also why

They may have expensive clothes or cars. Middle class to poor is not such a steep drop.

[Kanary]

34. "Middle class to poor is not such a steep drop."

I've known several people who have been volunteers with homeless organizations. Most of them get an "awakening", and start saying "I'm one paycheck away from being homeless."

Now, the challenge is how to get the average Joe SixPack see that reality.

Maybe the same thing as the military wife who needs to be assured that there is a good reason for the sacrifice... it's too scary to look at reality and just how close to sliding down that hill they may be...?

Kanary

[camero]

35. How about after we win, or even before.

Expanding AmeriCorps to include everyone without a job. You're right.
It will be a challenge.

[Kanary]

36. the others..?

"How about after we win, or even before expanding AmeriCorps to include everyone without a job.."

And those who can't work?

Kanary

[camero]

44. We make it easier to get SSDI

Instead of pushing the sick out the door we should be taking care of them. For the ones who can work, we are still in the middle of a new Industrial Revolution and they need to be re-trained for it.

A single-payer health system or making the government the insurer of last resort are the only two ways to solve the health care crisis.

I got your point, sorry. By omitting the sick, I omitted myself in the process.

[Kanary]

49. yes, the omissions..

Interesting that you left yourself out, also. Maybe that's what's happening in most people's minds, also? "Could never be me.."

I appreciate you bringing up this issue. I'm discouraged that there is so little response. This and other examples say to me that this just isn't something that Dems have much interest in at all.

I'm afraid it's one more example of taking for granted those "who have nowhere else to go".

Kanary

[camero]

53. No, I am really sick and uninsured

Don't get in a huff just because I didn't have the energy to save the whole world in one post. I was tired yesterday.

Single payer health, education for the out of work, and the rights of the disabled should be our platform.

So don't accuse me of not caring for my fellow man just because I had a bad day,k.

[Kanary]

57. whoa, camero!

If you're replying to me (I still find these threads confusing they way they come up!), there is no way I was "in a huff" and certainly not "accusing" you of anything.

I realize that this is one tough forum, but I don't come here to tear into anyone.

You are one of the few who has even been willing to speak of this subject, and you have kept on it... why in the world would I "accuse" you "of not caring for my fellow man"?

Once I hit reply, I can't get the words in my previous message, so I really don't know what you're replying to.

I am, however, very discouraged with the Dems in general, and this forum in particular for not showing much interest in the whole subject. More than discouraged.

Demoralized.

Kanary

[camero]

58. I am also getting demoralized

But my hopes come up somewhat when I am here. There are a few who really see the big picture.

When I said I omitted myself, I meant my present situation of deteriorating to a type 1 diabetic from a type 2 because I could not get the proper care.

There are people here who are just fine with the way things are economically but want thier way on social issues.

The way I see it, if we are not fed, clothed, and housed, then all the social issues in the world will not help us.

[Kanary]

61. A Few

That's the problem for me.... "A few". That's what I keep saying... Poverty, disability, etc used to be a big issue for the Dems. No longer. It isn't included in the "platform" issues for any of the candidates (except Dennis Kucinich), and I don't see it being important to the Dem voters. When I say that, I just get negative replies, then ignored.

Do you see any way this can be changed? Do you have any ideas for breaking through the apathy? Otherwise, it doesn't seem to me to make much difference who is elected.... those of us struggling on the bottom will lose anyway.

Kanary

[camero]

62. I have one idea

Targeted articles about poor and lower class people who are not on drugs or other vices struggling to makes ends meet in the Bush economy. I remember when the first Bush was in office, I was working for the Salvation Army after volunteering for a time.

The leader of the local gave my name to the local newspaper for an article they were doing about them. I explained my situation to them and the way the reporter wrote the article implied that yes, there were good people among the poor who were getting shafted by the repubs in a subtle way.

You would not believe how many people came up to me with compliments and discussions of our obligations to those who are in need. it changed alot of people's stereotypes for awhile. I think this is part of what needs to happen to turn things around. And Dean's comments point us in the right direction if we pick up the ball.

I wish Kucinich would get more airtime because he has alot to bring to the table.

[Kanary]

64. Good for you!

It takes courage to allow one's story to be made public.... kudos to you! Yes, it would be good if more would do that, but.... it's kinda like a woman going public with a rape.... It's hard, and leaves one open to so much more garbage. I'm glad that you got support for the article.

Many years ago, I wrote a book of stories of homeless people, for much the same reason. It was intended to be used in churches as a sort of study guide, and I do think it helped to open some hearts and minds. But, since then the conservative "let 'em eat cake" attitude has gained more ground, and the liberals have been following along. So, I don't know what it would take now.

It would also be good if poor and disabled people could band together, as there is definitely strength in numbers. But, I don't see that happening, either. It takes too much effort just to survive.

I think this is one issue that will take a national leader to do something about. I just don't see that coming from most of the Dem candidates. They don't show any interest.

Kanary

[camero]

65. It's a two-pronged approach

The crux of my story was that I would much rather be in a position to help instead of being in need. And that is the way most lower and middle class feel. I don't see the other candidates doing much on this either. Maybe a get out the vote, door to door drive in poor areas would also be a good idea.

[Kanary]

67. Better to give than receive?

Sure... it *feels* LOTS better to be on the giving end! Receiving takes humility, and that doesn't feel so great.

" Maybe a get out the vote, door to door drive in poor areas would also be a good idea."

But ---- that's just the point! What's the motivation? When you already know that neither of the candidates is going to help you, and most probably both are going to do you in, why would you bother? We can "get out the vote" when we are offering something to vote for!

Therein lies the dilemma....

....and why a lot of people just don't vote.


Kanary

[camero]

68. When candidates don't speak for us.

I agree, they don't. Which is probably why Kucinich is the only one talking about a single payer health system.

I think the answer is to stop electing wealthy candidates since they have no real desire or motivation to help those below them, but in our class based society, it may never happen.

[Lydia Leftcoast]

42. A friend in Portland

has been unemployed for two years after a lifetime of professional jobs.

Because of her "past life," she has a car and nice clothes, but she is on food stamps. I suppose that someone seeing this well-dressed woman in the supermarket line paying with the debit card that food stamp recipients in Oregon get would think,"Obvious welfare cheat."

[guitar man]

29. Moving from jobs to "McJobs"

I have seen so many people in my area lose good paying professional/trade jobs and have to take "McJobs" to survive it is pathetic. Families losing 60% or morre of their income and their health insurance benefits.Working families getting food stamps and other assistance where they were self sufficient before.All so some execs can get 1500% pay raises and 25 million severance packages if they screw up and get fired.

In the aftermath,when the workers and their families wind up in sub living-wage,service sector "employment" and what is left of the middle class being taxed to make up the rest of what these so-called "jobs" should be paying,who really benefits?

The neocons love to shout down the idea of living wages with one breath and public assistance with the next. They will never admit it,but it is actually the big corporate fat cats who are benifitting the most.

[camero]

30. Yes this is true

The real welfare people are the CEO's who do not earn thier outlandish pay.

[sandnsea]

60. I think they build their egos this way

It's obvious to me that people don't really care about how much money the government spends or where their tax dollars go, look at what we spend on defense. We're spending millions of dollars to destroy WMD's at the exact same time we're spending millions to create more. That's insane. Average Mr. & Mrs. America aren't complaining about that.

They point to somebody on welfare, not because they care about tax dollars, but to have somebody to put down as lower than they are. I've known people ON welfare say the exact same things. It's just people's way of building themselves up at someone else's expense.

Of course, you can't tell someone that, they wouldn't likely listen. I just say I've never known anybody on welfare that fit their description. Then give a couple of examples. And tie in the cheap labor conservative policies that hurt the people in the first place. We're going to be facing alot more of that with a Bush economy, just like we did with Reagan. Maybe we should be reminding people of that too.

[camero]

63. Yes, exactly

Do you notice that every time a repub is in office, we have a bad economy? There is a pattern here and people should pick up on it.

Also true is that hardly anyone even bothers to read the back of thier 1040 forms, where the budget and revenues are laid out.

[camero]

28. kick

I want to keep this up for the evening crowd.

[Davis_X_Machina]

31. This analysis...

...requires the elimination of fire departments.

I mean, we spend millions on them, and there are still fires....

[camero]

32. Or police

and we still have crime. Go figure. It just shows the falacy of the RW argument against helping the poor.

[BadFaith]

40. The Five Trillion Dollar Lie

A common statement of anti-welfare advocates is that the U.S. Government has spent, since the inception of President Johnson's Great Society programs in 1964, over five trillion dollars fighting poverty. In fact Harry Browne's anti-welfare platform as Presidential Candidate for the Libertarian Party included this figure.

However the simple fact is that the Federal government has only spent seven hundred billion on its two poverty-fighting measures, AFDC and Food Stamps, since 1964. In contrast, that's less than two years worth of defense spending. The only way to reach the 5.3 trillion mark that Robert Rector first pronounced in 1994 is to include student loans, job training, school lunches, etc - all largely middle-class entitlements, as well as Medicare. Medicare representing an anti-poverty measure is potentially the most absurd and egregious portion of this lie, as Medicare has generated enormous profits for private health care institutions as payments go directly to hospitals and doctors.

[Kanary]

41. *VERY* good point, Badfaith!

Thank you for that... copied and stored for future use.

Kanary

[Dogmudgeon]

50. Good point, but not so much about Browne

Browne is at least consistent. He does not dissemble and pronounce certain programs to be social welfare, and others to be sacred. They are all social welfare programs, and Browne opposes them.

The Conservatives (usually Republicans) are the ones that talk out of of both sides of their mouth. Certain entitlements are sacred, and certain other ones are bad. The distinction is usually made, as BadFaith wrote, along class lines.

I have a boatload of criticism for Libertarians, but not on the issue of intellectual dishonesty. Browne has a self-consistent (if flawed) ideology and a sanguine view of humanity. Most neo-Conservatives have a selective and patchwork ideology based on their prejudices, and a profoundly cynical view of humanity.

Aside from the finer details between the two big Rightist ideologies, BadFaith makes excellent points. Add to that the skirmish over Social Security for the elderly, and the whole tarball ought to be chucked right into the hands of the hypocrites of the Right.

They are birds of a different feather. The political aviary can survive the odd ideological ducks like Browne. It's the ruthless, calculating vultures that will bring disaster.

--bkl

[BadFaith]

66. Consistency is irrelevant in the Think-Tank World

The economic agendas of Libertarian "research" centers like the CATO Institute, the Reason Foundation, the Heartland Institute, etc, are constantly disseminated by Republican operatives in the media. That the Think-Tank phenomena is touted as equivalent to (or, in the minds of a few delusional or dubious personalities, surpassing) the methods and veracity of mainstream scientific research is certainly bad enough, but it is worth noting that such institutions have absolutely NO PROBLEM with their "findings" being reported in such a selective manner. That in itself constitutes a measure of intellectual dishonesty.

And while the Libertarian Party has about a snowball's chance in Hell of gaining a local dog-catcher's office, much less the Oval Office, the CATO Institite and the like are not "odd ducks", to use your words. These are large and very well funded organizations that have a significant impact on the policy coming out of Washington.

[camero]

69. I have always seen think-tanks

as junk science. You know the phrase, "Figures don't lie, but liars figure." That is basically what comes out of these groups.

[Isome]

56. Excellent information badfaith... thanks! n/t

[camero]

45. kick

kick

[catmandu57]

48. As you do

There are some people in this world who are incabable of ever taking care of themselves, the least of us, and it is these very people who are held up to attack.
Something to think about also, everyone, poor, middle class, affluent, are costantly being bombarded by advertising, buy this, buy this, buy this, if you buy this you'll be more, have more, more more more.
Educated people can handle advertising propaganda better, nowthink of a single person at the grocery store with a child, who pleads for a package of pudding or cookies, that really would put a strain on the budget. There are two choices, tell the child no, or give in to the pleading and have people stare at them in the check out line.

Also, we need to look at who really benefits from welfare, the people who grow and prepare the food, the people who sell the food, the people who own and rent out the property, etc... these are the true benificiaries of social programs.

[camero]

54. That is exactly right

Also docters and hospitals benefit from Medicare and Medicaid and the amount of fraud committed by doctors and hospitals is absolutely ludicrous.

They steal from the system and then say that the government should not take over the system. Sorry, I think these docters should be in jail.

[camero]

70. We should hammer the repubs with this

It is intellectual dishonesty on thier part.