Society & Lifestyle >
Economic Values
Get a Widget for this title
RSS FeedWelfare: Help or hindrance?
Results so far:
| Help | 63% | 5 votes | Total: 8 votes | |
| Hindrance | 37% | 3 votes |
Help
Write now
Print
Invite a writer™
Add to FavoritesThe two definitions for welfare in the Webster Merriam dictionary are: 1. aid in the form of money or necessities for those in need, and 2. the agency or program through which such aid is distributed.
If we are participating in a true debate about welfare which is free from social, historical, or regional constraints then allow me to start with an international example.
The single largest recipient of US welfare is the nation of Israel. Relatively free from all mainstream forms of the welfare stigma, Israel enjoys enormous political and social support from the mainstream American public as well as the American political establishment. To continue providing the country with a steady flow of welfare, derived from the US taxpayer, is practically an article of faith. According to a congressional services research report (Jeremy, 2009) in the fiscal year of 2009 Israel has received $2.55 billion dollars in welfare from the U.S. American taxpayers unquestionably give seven million dollars per day to the citizens of a nation whose size is no larger than the state of New Jersey.
In the American political arena Calling for the withdrawal of such welfare is synonymous with calling for the destruction of the Jewish state, and all charges of antisemitism that accompany such a stigma.
Interestingly not only is this form of welfare attacked it is in fact celebrated. Newspaper editors, history textbooks, and documentary producers, both Israeli and American, boast about the material accomplishments Israel has made with American handouts. Just as we are raised on the false idea of Israeli pioneers who single-handedly made the 'desert bloom' through their hard work and self sufficiency, alone we are also raised on the myth that the American west was founded by self sufficient pioneers who went west to raise himself up by their boot straps.
The reality is, that from the settlement of the west to the development of the Suburbia, American welfare has produced the most heavily subsidized lifestyles in history.
Welfare is so much a part of American life that it has never been much of an argument in the American forum, what has been an argument is who should be allowed to receive welfare. In America, unfortunately, the perception of welfare depends on the attitude that one has toward the race of the beneficiary. In this case white's opposition to welfare is rooted in their attitudes toward blacks (Gilens 1996). This is why the international welfare provided to Israeli citizen is seldom challenged, the welfare that was given to settlers of the western frontier is seldom investigated and the welfare provided to subsidize the lifestyles of the denizens of suburbia is never evoked in the welfare debate.
The idea of helping those in need has never been a controversial issue in the history of any civilized people. If we are to have a true debate about welfare we must not limit the idea to the context of American popular perceptions which are marred with myths and racial stereotypes. Once we accomplish this goal most people will agree that the concept welfare can only be both harmful or beneficial depending on what purpose the beneficiary has intended for it.
Gilens, M. (1996). `Race coding' and white opposition to welfare. American Political Science Review, 90(3), 593. http://search.ebscoh ost.com.proxy.usf.ed u
Sharp, Jeremy. (2009). U.S. Foreign Aid to Israel. Congressional Research Review,
Learn more about this author, Raphael Jackson.
Click here to send this author comments or questions.
Hindrance
Welfare is a system of collecting taxes from individuals in order to later redistribute them as checks or services. This does not only apply to the poor classes, though it is a common occurrence. Welfare is the basis for which a government runs. That economic procedure is this: people will pay money to the Internal Revenue Service on April 15th. If somebody does not pay, they will get a notice from the IRS that they owe the government money. After they write the notice and funds are still not paid, they will send police to the individual's house and arrest them for not paying. If the individual resists arrest, the police may use deadly force on that individual who is defending the right to own his own money.
If this sounds morally wrong, to coerce somebody to pay their own money for things they don't consent to, government itself cannot exist. So in defense, government (and its supporters) will rationalize or hide the fact that they are indeed stealing. The common good, the social contract, taxes are voluntary, they provide us x (x being roads, schools, sewage systems, social security, defense or any number of other goods governments provide) are simply rationalizations for theft.
Welfare, then is the table scraps left over for the people after bureaucrats have completed their main course. If anyone agrees to welfare in principle, they could at least be honest enough to allow poor people to rob non-poor people at gunpoint. The obvious problem here is that someone must classify who is poor and who is not. This decision is made on a subjective basis-that basis would turn a poor person (who could steal) into a non-poor (who could not steal). Once that poor person steals enough wealth to become non-poor, another poor person could then steal from him, making him poor again. The problem here is that we rely on living in a world where consistency thrives for the goal of order.
The hindrance here is the philosophy that what is not mine can become mine by illegitimate means (the government). For all the hard work that goes into acquiring material wealth, the easy and immoral way to acquire it is through gunpoint. This is the basis for welfare, that because it is not direct theft has the illusion of being helpful to those in need. A poor person can rob a bank and become rich instantly. However, it is rarely accomplished because of the risk involved. Petitioning a congressman to ask a policeman to rob others is a less risky alternative.
Welfare will take productive people's money and give it to the underclass as a means of support. Robin Hood mentality does not actually aid those in need, because illegitimate methods give poor people the aid they need to live. If welfare stopped, then the poor people would have to take more responsibility with their money and build better skills to support themselves. The productive people who pay the most taxes would take the money they will have saved (by not paying taxes) and invest their money. In order for money to grow (and not shrink), the producer class would have options. One would be to reinvest in their capital and potentially create jobs as their businesses grow. Another would be to give it to charity, which in some cases is needed (such as Hurricane Katrina). Another would be to keep their money in the bank where the money would get reinvested by the bank to help out other sectors of the economy.
The free market solves the problems of poverty indirectly, and because it's indirect the gains go unnoticed. Welfare can help some people, but because it's an illegitimate gain, it hurts the productive and poor classes in different ways. The producers are stolen from, and the poor are given an immediate fix that does nothing to help them long term. A easy way to think of this would be the free market as giving opportunities and the government giving heroin. Heroin can help take pain away in the immediate sense, but it creates more problems than it solves.
Learn more about this author, A.T. Meininger.
Click here to send this author comments or questions.
- 1
- 2
- 3
- 4
- 5
- 6
- 7
- 8
- 9
- 10
Difference of opinion? Debate now.
