Welfare-State Mindset Challenge

[RP08]

What do you all think of the huge percentage of our population who live in the mindset "I expect the Fed government to take care of me."?

I suppose this could include anyone from those who feel sorry for illegal aliens and want to give them amnesty, to those who expect/demand social security and some form of health, food, and housing "assistance" from the Fed.

Tough crowd for the RP message? What do we tell someone who is currently actually on welfare or receiving social security or housing assistance or wants the government to bail them out of a natural disaster that messed up their uninsured home?

Obviously programs take a long time to change in government and we probably wouldn't see huge change even through a full 2 terms of Ron Paul in office, but hypothetically, in a Ron Paul administration, what about the welfare state addicts?

 

[micahnelson]

Tell them the government is going bankrupt and will not be there to support them much longer if we don't make changes.

 

[RP08]

Tell them the government is going bankrupt and will not be there to support them much longer if we don't make changes.

We know that to be the case because we've used some common sense and paid attention to what's going on, and perhaps actually researched it.

Most of those, however, don't know, don't care, and will continue to assume that the government "will figure something out".

 

[nullvalu]

Tell them the government is going bankrupt and will not be there to support them much longer if we don't make changes.

unfortunately telling them this would not likely change their mindset. they'd rather run the government into the ground, and then worry about what to do when that happens.. but in the meantime they'll continue to collect checks and spend on their EBT card.

 

[nullvalu]

lol...like minds

 

[nullvalu]

i know it's completely unrealistic, but i like michael savage's approach..

kick out all the illegal aliens, this will open up jobs for those on welfare.. then end welfare.. they'll either be forced to work or starve to death.

 

[micahnelson]

I don't think professional welfare recipients are going to be converted. If they had any decency they wouldn't choose the current life they are living. I don't want to sound harsh, but I can't stand people addicted to the system.

Actual poverty is one thing, but people who just expect the government to provide for them is enraging. Especially being 23 and hearing "These kids today just don't work hard like we used to" from People living on welfare and social security... grrrrr.

 

[nullvalu]

that may be exactly the reason why michael savage's approach would be the only one that could work. they cannot be "reasoned" off the system.

 

[RP08]

Many of these folks vote. That's my concern.

 

[freelance]

to those who expect/demand social security and some form of health, food, and housing "assistance" from the Fed.

I'm not sure that Social Security belongs in that list. We've paid into Social Security. And, those of us who are self-employed pay twice as much as employees into Social Security, so YES, I want it!

That said, if I were starting over today, well, that's another story.

 

[nullvalu]

Many of these folks vote. That's my concern.

Yep...and they vote themselves raises whenever they get the chance....that's another thing michael savage calls for, is if you're receiving any gov't supplied benefits you should not be allowed to vote....makes sense.

 

[RP08]

I'm not sure that Social Security belongs in that list. We've paid into Social Security. And, those of us who are self-employed pay twice as much as employees into Social Security, so YES, I want it!

That said, if I were starting over today, well, that's another story.

Yep. I sure wouldn't mind getting my lifetime of paying into SS back, all the while watching people who've hardly worked a legitimate job receive SS benefits.

 

[ronpaulitician]

My signature has been a very effective tool in discussions about welfare.

If a charitable organization like the Red Cross dips below 80% effectiveness (less than $0.80 out of every dollar donated reaches the welfare recipient) people are outraged. I've heard it said that the federal government's effectiveness rate in regard to welfare is anywhere between 30-40% (between $0.30 and $0.40 out of every tax dollar earmarked for welfare reaches the welfare recipient). If that's true, then were the federal government to no longer take money out of the paychecks of working Americans, it would take only 1 out of 2 of those working Americans to contribute the additional money they are allowed to keep to a charitable cause that can compete with the Red Cross in effectiveness.

I happen to have faith in my fellow Americans.

I believe enough of us would contribute to more than offset the ones that won't contribute.

I put it this way:

You either believe that within your society more individuals are good than evil, and that by protecting the freedom of individuals within that society you will end up with a society that is as fair as possible, or you believe that within your society more individuals are evil than good, and that by limiting the freedom of individuals within that society you will end up with a society that is as fair as possible.

Those that want the federal government to provide welfare must admit that they do not have faith in their fellow man, and that in their opinion government needs to use force to create a "fair" society.

I've posted this line of thinking on several forums now, and have yet to see an effective counter to it. Many proponents of welfare on those forums have admitted that they do not have faith in their fellow man, that they believe Americans are too uncaring to help those in need.

 

[ThePieSwindler]

Fantastic sig and quote there, ronpaulitician! I have far more faith in my fellow man than in men with power who care for nothing but the expansion of that power i.e the state.


As far as social security goes - forcing people to pay into it is ultimately wrong, as i believe i can save for my retirement much more effectively than government can through withholding. That is why it should be privatized eventually - making it OPTIONAL. Phase the system out so that people who have paid their dues with receive the social security they deserve - it is a far greater wrong to take a man's wealth for a delayed purpose, yet never give it back to him - but as Ron Paul says, allow people who do not want to enter the system to opt out. I disagree with the whole government-enforced system, but at least pay those who have "done their time" in the system.

Welfare should be privatized as well, but in the form of church/charity.

Ron is brilliant when discussing these matters, because he is not idealistic - he realizes the challenges faced, and the addiction to the system that exists, and that it must be phased out in an appropriate manner. The best way to do this is to let the generation that has grown up on the system keep it, but ultimately halt its propogation by giving freedom to the younger generation to choose what course they take.

 

[dagnytaggart]

I contribute to a message board called "Political Progressive Moms" Apparently, the definition of progressive HAS to be socialist. I'm a cold hearted capitalist pig in their eyes. It is excruciating, but I'm hoping that perhaps a lurker might hear the free market message.
As with your experience, all of these women claim to advocate for cooperation and love for their fellow man until it's time to open the checkbook! Then they insist that people suck and the only way to help society is through force.
They also love to talk about the latest gov't scandal, but attribute it to the evils of capitalism!!
And yes, they ALL VOTE.
It's really hard not to openly call them jackasses.
Shannon

 

[ronpaulitician]

I'm a cold hearted capitalist pig in their eyes. It is excruciating, but I'm hoping that perhaps a lurker might hear the free market message.

Just make sure to always make it clear that it is your belief that a free market would take better care of those in need than a system run by government.

"Are you willing to let people die in the street?" is a pretty standard question posed to free-market proponents.

"No, I'm not. Are you? Will Bill Gates be willing to let people die in the street? Will the average American be willing to let people die in the street? That's exactly why we do not need government to handle this. Unless, of course, you believe most Americans don't care about their fellow man..."