lewrockwell.com— Why govt welfare cannot succeed. Gary North, who works with welfare recipients each month, tells why govt welfare will only fail.
Oct 24, 2006View in Crawl 4
Gary North hit the nail squarely. The trough-sucking socialist, and the gimme-gimme group aren't going to like this truth that Dr. North spouts. TOUGH!Use the government "gun" and VOTE! (Plunder through taxes, then redistribute the government pelf to the very people Dr. North points out in his article.) Yeah!! Rise up voters! Teach the productive classes a lesson they'll never forget! Your wallet of your life!Two kinds of truth: Truth that hurts like hell and truth that set you free. Most want neither.Ck 6******
Welfare should be designed as a safety net, not a replacementfor work. And this safety net, if used for a certain length oftime should morph into a trampoline, to push people back towork. One of the questions on an unemployment form iswhether or not the applicant is going to school. If he or sheis taking a class to make them more hire-able, even a nightclass, they are disqualified from receiving unemployment.That's not helping them get off welfare. In many trades, further education makes a worker moredesirable. For example, in the automobile trades, one cantake courses to enlarge their skills, as is the case in the buildingtrades, metal trades, medical trades, etc.. But, even for the unskilled worker, furthering their education can provide them useful skills to get past the hurdle of filling out a job application form and job interview. Teaching an uneducated, unskilled person to get a job is not enough.That's like trying to set up a business without bringing anything to the table.
James Madison, considered by his peers to be the Father of the Constitution, said that the supreme object of constitutional government was the "real welfare" of the people. It was considered one of Constitution's bedrock principles.Now, if you can't take the word of one of the framers of the document, who are you going to listen to? Rush Limbaugh?
@ajifans"I'm not wrong though am I?I agree with your points. I was trying to prove that blanket statements that socialism are inherently wrong are incorrect, as it works well in certain countries."The old "what is seen and what is not seen" problem: you see that Norway is highly socialist and "works well", but you don't see what Norway would have been without the socialism. Yes, correct (praxeological) economic theory says you are wrong: socialism is inherently bad (for humans; I guess it would be good if we were ants or something), and Norway is where it is /despite/ socialism, not because of it; it would doubtless be much better off if it had been less socialist.
"As a libertarian, I know I should be repulsed by the idea of welfare"As a libertarian, there's no reason whatsoever why you should be repulsed by the idea of welfare. There's nothing wrong with welfare. What's wrong is forcing other people to pay for it - that is, /government/ welfare.
By using Asian Americans as an example, your comment seems to assume that minorities and/or immigrants are the majority of welfare recipients. Sorry, but most people on welfare in this country were born here and are white. Any government study on the program will tell you this.
captaOct 25, 2006
Gary North hit the nail squarely. The trough-sucking socialist, and the gimme-gimme group aren't going to like this truth that Dr. North spouts. TOUGH!Use the government "gun" and VOTE! (Plunder through taxes, then redistribute the government pelf to the very people Dr. North points out in his article.) Yeah!! Rise up voters! Teach the productive classes a lesson they'll never forget! Your wallet of your life!Two kinds of truth: Truth that hurts like hell and truth that set you free. Most want neither.Ck 6******
mu99insOct 26, 2006
Welfare should be designed as a safety net, not a replacementfor work. And this safety net, if used for a certain length oftime should morph into a trampoline, to push people back towork. One of the questions on an unemployment form iswhether or not the applicant is going to school. If he or sheis taking a class to make them more hire-able, even a nightclass, they are disqualified from receiving unemployment.That's not helping them get off welfare. In many trades, further education makes a worker moredesirable. For example, in the automobile trades, one cantake courses to enlarge their skills, as is the case in the buildingtrades, metal trades, medical trades, etc.. But, even for the unskilled worker, furthering their education can provide them useful skills to get past the hurdle of filling out a job application form and job interview. Teaching an uneducated, unskilled person to get a job is not enough.That's like trying to set up a business without bringing anything to the table.
burritovisionOct 26, 2006
is this why free energy technology is being withheld from us?you're why.
writemanOct 26, 2006
James Madison, considered by his peers to be the Father of the Constitution, said that the supreme object of constitutional government was the "real welfare" of the people. It was considered one of Constitution's bedrock principles.Now, if you can't take the word of one of the framers of the document, who are you going to listen to? Rush Limbaugh?
spankaccountOct 27, 2006
This may be the one lewrockwell.com post nobody wants to Digg...
miseseanOct 27, 2006
@ajifans"I'm not wrong though am I?I agree with your points. I was trying to prove that blanket statements that socialism are inherently wrong are incorrect, as it works well in certain countries."The old "what is seen and what is not seen" problem: you see that Norway is highly socialist and "works well", but you don't see what Norway would have been without the socialism. Yes, correct (praxeological) economic theory says you are wrong: socialism is inherently bad (for humans; I guess it would be good if we were ants or something), and Norway is where it is /despite/ socialism, not because of it; it would doubtless be much better off if it had been less socialist.
miseseanOct 27, 2006
"As a libertarian, I know I should be repulsed by the idea of welfare"As a libertarian, there's no reason whatsoever why you should be repulsed by the idea of welfare. There's nothing wrong with welfare. What's wrong is forcing other people to pay for it - that is, /government/ welfare.
writemanOct 27, 2006
By using Asian Americans as an example, your comment seems to assume that minorities and/or immigrants are the majority of welfare recipients. Sorry, but most people on welfare in this country were born here and are white. Any government study on the program will tell you this.