Originally Posted By: Stubs
It is a good inclusion because it's still people getting money they didn't earn handed to them.


Yes, but do you think 1% bankers and single moms getting social checks have much in common? You were specifically talking about how social programs contribute to running this country into the ground. "Social programs" have very specific meaning, when you include other things just to artificially inflate numbers in order to claim "social programs cost us tons of money, lets cut them!" you are not talking about cutting bailouts, you are talking about cutting welfare. Again, your problem definition and your proposed solution do not align.

I very much agree with you that 2b2f is a perversion of the free market process and has to be stopped. I also disagree with you that social programs are significant contributor to our fiscal predicament, nor that throwing more people under the bus will save us any money.

In ideal society everyone will have opportunity and ability to be self-sufficient, but we don't live in the ideal society. We have a social problem, and it has to be solved in some way and question you should be asking is not "how we can kick people off welfare", but "given that some people will be drain on society, how do we minimize costs of taking care of them". You will also quickly realize that "kick off welfare, Darwian style" option cost a lot more than other alternatives.

In closing, believe it or not, I am not some bleeding-heart liberal hippie that just want to give out money to crackheads. I too find it upsetting that welfare could be abused in many ways, but unlike you I realize that existing system is much more optimal in cost/effect than alternatives and can resist feel-good "throw the bums out!" urges knowing it will cost me, the taxpayer, more at the end of the day.

Last edited by sinij; 10/20/12 06:50 AM.
[Linked Image]