No, of course not.
Young Doodlebug was grounded before the sentence was out of his mouth.
How do you measure corruption? Total number of cases of things like bribery aren't as good a measure because if the bribes are for like a million dollars for rich people would be measured as less corrupt than a then ten middle class citizens bribing a policeman for $20.
I'm a cop in a major Texas (that liberal bastion) city.
I don't have a problem with unemployment or welfare intended to be a temporary assistance to help someone return to a productive state. I don't have a problem with permanent assistance to those whose disabilities are so debilitating that they cannot be productive anymore.
I do have a problem with how laughably simple the system is to abuse.
Here's my anecdote - and it is one of many, as I deal with abusers of this system daily.
A few months ago, I filed an assault warrant and arrested the suspect. While filling out the booking blotter of this woman, whose faces was covered in tattoos, I asked her what her employment was. (It's a question on the blotter.) She told me, "I get checks." I'm a curious guy, so I asked what she meant by that. She told me, unabashedly and without shame, that the government gives her SSI money for her kids because they have ADHD. It was about $500 cash per kid monthly, and she had six kids. (She, a Louisiana transplant, had also been arrested close to fifteen times so far at 30 years old.) I asked what other programs she gets. She receives Section 8 cash for housing and EBT (a Lonestar card, our food stamp program) for food. She was also enrolled in a few other small programs (free school lunch and the like). With her help, I added it all up: a little more than $53,000 (tax-free) annually. It was actually about 160% of the poverty level for a family fo 7, yet her official income was well below because most of the assistance is considered "in-kind" and thus doesn't count as income.
With assistance like that, there's no incentive to get off welfare and get a job. Our generosity has disincentived working, and incentived having more children.
I can't tell you how many able-bodied adult males that I have dealt with who have been "diagnosed" with bipolar disorder and schizophrenia, thus receiving $700 a month from SSI. These males, to the man, are asymptomatic and do not take medication to control their "symptoms". They have no problem partying, dope-slinging, getting high, and impregnating women, yet they are too disabled to work.
As far as I understand, Lilith's Thrall, Food Stamps and Unemployment (the only two welfare services I've looked into qualifying for) are both managed by the state, at the state level.
So I do not agree with you that such would fix anything.
This is true. For example, TANF is mostly run by the states. The federal government does set up guidelines and base minimums, but the states are largely responsible for adjudicating eligibility. It came up in another thread that illegal aliens were drawing some large amount of TANF in Texas, and I had to point out that Texas rules already explicitly exclude them from receiving those funds. The federal rule, for aliens specifically, is that states get to decide. They get to make a lot of other decisions as well.
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
I'm a cop in a major Texas (that liberal bastion) city.
I don't have a problem with unemployment or welfare intended to be a temporary assistance to help someone return to a productive state. I don't have a problem with permanent assistance to those whose disabilities are so debilitating that they cannot be productive anymore.
I do have a problem with how laughably simple the system is to abuse.
Here's my anecdote - and it is one of many, as I deal with abusers of this system daily.
A few months ago, I filed an assault warrant and arrested the suspect. While filling out the booking blotter of this woman, whose faces was covered in tattoos, I asked her what her employment was. (It's a question on the blotter.) She told me, "I get checks." I'm a curious guy, so I asked what she meant by that. She told me, unabashedly and without shame, that the government gives her SSI money for her kids because they have ADHD. It was about $500 cash per kid monthly, and she had six kids. (She, a Louisiana transplant, had also been arrested close to fifteen times so far at 30 years old.) I asked what other programs she gets. She receives Section 8 cash for housing and EBT (a Lonestar card, our food stamp program) for food. She was also enrolled in a few other small programs (free school lunch and the like). With her help, I added it all up: a little more than $53,000 (tax-free) annually. It was actually about 160% of the poverty level for a family fo 7, yet her official income was well below because most of the assistance is considered "in-kind" and thus doesn't count as income.
With assistance like that, there's no incentive to get off welfare and get a job. Our generosity has disincentived working, and incentived having more children.
I can't tell you how many able-bodied adult males that I have dealt with who have been "diagnosed" with bipolar disorder and schizophrenia, thus receiving $700 a month from SSI. These males, to the man, are asymptomatic and do not take medication to control their "symptoms". They...
There is a controversial solution to this that would actually stop the cheating a lot. Government subsidized abortions. I do not think I would want to grow up with those cheaters as parents. OF course this policy will receive so much backlash.
I do have a problem with how laughably simple the system is to abuse.
I think everyone does -- but no one has proposed any workable solutions so far, other than, "if they buy anything other than food -- anything at all -- they should lose all assistance."
EDIT: Dr. Wu did propose a solution, but by his own admission it's not workable because no one would enact it. However, with that as a starting point, I admit I'd be very happy if the welfare system provided a strong disincentive to overbreed, rather than a strong incentive to do so.
I do have a problem with how laughably simple the system is to abuse.
I do and I don't.
To me it comes down to facts on the ground. It's incredibly easy for me to just off and murder someone. In fact, it would be incredibly easy for ANY of us to just off and go on a killing spree. I could just pop a curb and take out 5-10 pedestrians! Look how easy the system is to abuse. It doesn't matter how easy it is to do, it matters how often it actually happens, what percentage of the money is wasted on it, etc.I think even 95% of money going to people in genuine need is a pretty good success rate.
I'd also point out that, with 6 kids, 53k a year still isn't an awful lot of money. Granted she doesn't deserve a penny of it, and on that score I'm with you and any amount seems like a lot.
For the record, I support a system of sterilizations and government sponsored abortions.
I do have a problem with how laughably simple the system is to abuse.I think everyone does -- but no one has proposed any workable solutions so far, other than, "if they buy anything other than food -- anything at all -- they should lose all assistance."
EDIT: Dr. Wu did propose a solution, but by his own admission it's not workable because no one would enact it. However, with that as a starting point, I admit I'd be very happy if the welfare system provided a strong disincentive to overbreed, rather than a strong incentive to do so.
Can we also get rid of the tax breaks for breeding?
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
An important point. As a social worker, I run into the exact opposite. Knowing how hard it is to get by on the level, I have a hard time believing people would like to live that lifestyle as opposed to work. Still, there are.
...I'm a cop in a major Texas (that liberal bastion) city.
I don't have a problem with unemployment or welfare intended to be a temporary assistance to help someone return to a productive state. I don't have a problem with permanent assistance to those whose disabilities are so debilitating that they cannot be productive anymore.
I do have a problem with how laughably simple the system is to abuse.
Here's my anecdote - and it is one of many, as I deal with abusers of this system daily.
A few months ago, I filed an assault warrant and arrested the suspect. While filling out the booking blotter of this woman, whose faces was covered in tattoos, I asked her what her employment was. (It's a question on the blotter.) She told me, "I get checks." I'm a curious guy, so I asked what she meant by that. She told me, unabashedly and without shame, that the government gives her SSI money for her kids because they have ADHD. It was about $500 cash per kid monthly, and she had six kids. (She, a Louisiana transplant, had also been arrested close to fifteen times so far at 30 years old.) I asked what other programs she gets. She receives Section 8 cash for housing and EBT (a Lonestar card, our food stamp program) for food. She was also enrolled in a few other small programs (free school lunch and the like). With her help, I added it all up: a little more than $53,000 (tax-free) annually. It was actually about 160% of the poverty level for a family fo 7, yet her official income was well below because most of the assistance is considered "in-kind" and thus doesn't count as income.
With assistance like that, there's no incentive to get off welfare and get a job. Our generosity has disincentived working, and incentived having more children.
I can't tell you how many able-bodied adult males that I have dealt with who have been "diagnosed" with bipolar disorder and schizophrenia, thus receiving $700 a month from SSI. These males, to the man, are asymptomatic and do not take medication to control
I run into a wide cross-section of the poor population - suspects, witnesses, complainants, reportees... I get to be an on-the-ground social worker, dealing with all sorts of issues. Abuse of this system is widespread and completely legal.
I don't have a problem with unemployment or welfare intended to be a temporary assistance to help someone return to a productive state. I don't have a problem with permanent assistance to those whose disabilities are so debilitating that they cannot be productive anymore.
I do have a problem with how laughably simple the system is to abuse.
I think most of us are on the same page.
I'm not in law enforcement, but I I spent most of my childhood on public assistance of some kind, and I have seen it first hand -- many people on public assistance have no business there. They are certainly lazy (though I'd argue it goes beyond that -- as pointed out, working can actually make one's standard of living go down), and are often likely to continue making bad decisions. This needs to change, and part of that change is making sure we're providing the proper incentives. I'm simply wary about vilifying everyone on public assistance. They're a politically easy target, but many of them are there through no fault of their own.
So while I hope we can eliminate the fraud and abuse, I'm not willing to do so at the expense of those who need and deserve society's help. If that makes me a bleeding heart, so be it.
I think a large problem with public assistance is that its all or nothing. Get a slightly above minimum wage job and boom... you can't get medicaid. So you need to go directly from nothing to full coverage for pre existing conditions without somehow passing the space in between
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
Another foreign perspective.
There are many things I love about the U.S., many things I envy a lot of you. Two things, however, I do not.
Your health care system and your welfare system.
In my situation the two go hand in hand, seeing how I'm receiving SSI (I think that's the equivalent to what we have, basically "early retirement/pension") because of a mental health diagnosis (and no, it's not a bogus one and I don't go out drugging or knocking women up).
It's bad enough to be looked down on by most of society here (a lot of people seem to have problems accepting "invisible" ailments, why can't I just get a job? Get a grip and pull myself up by my bootstraps?), but some of the sentiments I've read in this thread seems to be even worse.
I also wonder if I would have gotten the help I (finally) got if I had lived in the U.S. - considering the fact that I first started my downward spiral at university (luckily "free" over here)? So I wouldn't have had any insurance.
It also seems like I would have to live on a very bare minimum, barely able to buy anything besides food (my RPG hobby? Foggetaboutit!).
So... what? I would be confined to my cheap housing apartment, no pastime activities (I'm not allowed to spend money on that, if I even had any), barely any contact with the outside world (something as fancy as a computer with a high speed internet connection? Ha!), just sitting there with my food (I'm allowed to buy that!) and slowly rotting away.
At least according to what it seems some people here think is reasonable when you're receiving government assistance (other people's hard earned money! And don't you forget that you ungrateful lout!).
No, regarding that part I'm glad I live here in Denmark where I get enough to live a sustainable life, while still having money to own a computer, a smartphone (seriously, they're not really THAT expensive) and a few subscriptions from Paizo. And that's while still paying 39% taxes.
What scares me, though, is the rhetoric that has been growing lately, where more people (mostly on the right side of the political spectrum, funnily enough, although some in our center-left government seem to take that stance too) are jumping on the "keep your hands off MY hard earned money, I got mine, so F&&! you!"
Of course, most of this rhetoric is coming from the people, like it was also mentioned above, who don't think they'll ever end up in a situation where they need government aid (whoops, is that a drunk driver heading in your direction? Better make sure he doesn't hit you).
Another point. If all of these "moochers" were to go out and look for a job... would they find one?
It's one thing to say that people shouldn't get benefits but should just find a job instead. That, however, also requires there actually being jobs for them to get.
Another foreign perspective.
There are many things I love about the U.S., many things I envy a lot of you. Two things, however, I do not.
Your health care system and your welfare system.
America is also a country where we idealize men who sell all their worldly possessions, wander off into the woods and die of starvation.
We even make movies about them.
I'm in a similar boat. I've been dealing with major mental illness for the past 6-7 years. If I wasn't a military veteran, I probably wouldn't have received much help.
SSI is actually not Social Security - it's "Supplemental Security Income". Unlike Social Security, it does not require you to pay into the system at all. It was intended to provide assistance for those in true, dire disability who have never been able to work. This is not how it's been used. There's a reason that the reason for children's claims being mental disabilities has gone from 10% to 50% in the last twelve years or so - and it's not a five-fold increase in childhood mental illness.
There actually is a halfway decent solution that could save quite a bit of money. You need to have a single point of entry into the system, rather than each separate program having its own rules and means testing. It's ridiculously duplicative. We can save a good 75 million, at least, just by consolidating the programs into a central "welfare" program.
Just a few numbers to illustrate. Imagine that you have 500 people on welfare, each in five programs. Each of these programs has 20 workers to investigate, means test, and implement their program. Essentially, you have 2500 cases investigated by 100 workers. Consolidate it into one program and you have 500 cases investigated by 100 workers. People can get a lot more one-on-one time with workers to ensure that they are the sort of people who need help and are not just being lazy.
SSI is actually not Social Security - it's "Supplemental Security Income". Unlike Social Security, it does not require you to pay into the system at all. It was intended to provide assistance for those in true, dire disability who have never been able to work. This is not how it's been used.
Pedantic point, but, that's not how it's been used by the people abusing it.
My mother's schizophrenic cousin mentioned above is a lifetime recipient of SSI. So is my player's mentally retarded brother. I'm sure there's more than just two honest recipients in the whole program.
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
I guess that in the end, while people taking illicit advantage of the system is indeed bad, letting honest people in need suffer because of it is even worse.
I guess that in the end, while people taking illicit advantage of the system is indeed bad, letting honest people in need suffer because of it is even worse.
Well, that's the issue with the example of the horrible grifters and their two carts in wal-mart. The only way that example becomes informative is if you know how many other quiet, polite decently up standing citizens in the same store are on welfare. Of course, you can't really just ask that at the door, and if you could people would probably lie about the answer. I am sure of this: the real answer is, more than you'd expect, and more than want to be.
As a separate issue, DM Barcas, could you explain what you're describing when you say "abuse is of the system is widespread and completely legal?" If you think the laws governing social programs should be changes that's your business, but if a person is in compliance with the regulations, how are they abusing, rather than simply using, the system?
Having seen it personally on many occasions, I can guarantee that it is true. I delve pretty deeply into people's lives, their finances included. It's not just me spouting off what I think.
I've also seen them get their kids with ODD. Oppositional Defiance Disorder - what was called "bad behavior" thirty years ago.
It's legal because they've relaxed the rules so much since ending AFDC and Clinton's reform of that system. There are fewer people on "welfare" because they redefined it and made it trivial to qualify. Maybe it's a big-city problem, but the eligibility requirements are basically a rubber stamp.
| 4 people marked this as a favorite. |
You know, to be honest, I don't know how anyone makes it in this country without government assistance.
Communist Rant
Granted, I know a lot of lazy weirdo bohemian slacker types who don't work much, but we exercized some self-restraint and didn't reproduce and hey!! presto, it's easy to make enough money to get by; but everyone else I know is working like a dog--either cubicled salaried professionals being forced in on the weekend or, for my more blue-collar friends, holding down 3-5 jobs between a married couple.
This one dude I know, oh, he's killer. He works UPS in the morning, collects scrap metal all day and bounces bars on the weekend. Still, it's only within the last three months that he saved up enough money to put down first and last on an apartment and move his family out of the projects. (Yes, there are projects in New Hampshire.) Before that, his wife and daughter lived with his mother-in-law and he slept at the scrapyard his father-in-law worked.
Myself, there was about a year there where I was sleeping at Logan International Airport. No, not like that Tom Hanks movie.
Yada, yada, yada. International proletarian socialist revolution is the only answer.
Vive le Galt!!
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
Having seen it personally on many occasions, I can guarantee that it is true. I delve pretty deeply into people's lives, their finances included. It's not just me spouting off what I think.
I've also seen them get their kids with ODD. Oppositional Defiance Disorder - what was called "bad behavior" thirty years ago.
It's legal because they've relaxed the rules so much since ending AFDC and Clinton's reform of that system. There are fewer people on "welfare" because they redefined it and made it trivial to qualify. Maybe it's a big-city problem, but the eligibility requirements are basically a rubber stamp.
I assume that's a typo and you mean there are more people on welfare.
My question wasn't about why it was legal. It was about someone who you consider to be abusing the system, but is in compliance with all the regulations. That strikes me as use of the system rather than abuse. There are a lot of (like, most) people in this world who's demeanor I really don't approve of. They're loud, they're tactless, and they raise their children to act exactly the same way. That doesn't mean they shouldn't have medical care, or money to put food on the table, or even to buy their kids christmas presents.
Also (honest question here) anyone who's life you'd have reason to delve pretty deeply into, finances included, would have to be the target of criminal investigation, right? If so, that must bias your sample.
Having seen it personally on many occasions, I can guarantee that it is true. I delve pretty deeply into people's lives, their finances included. It's not just me spouting off what I think.
I've also seen them get their kids with ODD. Oppositional Defiance Disorder - what was called "bad behavior" thirty years ago.
It's legal because they've relaxed the rules so much since ending AFDC and Clinton's reform of that system. There are fewer people on "welfare" because they redefined it and made it trivial to qualify. Maybe it's a big-city problem, but the eligibility requirements are basically a rubber stamp.
I think some of that is bad parenting.
| 6 people marked this as a favorite. |
I got no problem with welfare use. If we were truly worried about the misuse of our tax dollars, we would probably want to look first at our bloated, corrupt military-industrial complex.
Awesome. We should pay the people who do nothing for society instead of the people who lay down their lives for it. Great plan.
I think you have it all inside out. Just because military jobs are jobs doesn't mean we should start wars to stimulate the economy. In what universe is "let's not start wars" equivalent to "let's treat vets like crap"?
We should cut military funding in half for a start.
I think Charlie was commenting on the soldier's diffuculty in getting aid vs. the abusers.
|
I have some experience with things like this and it is possible.
I know a lady who has 9 kids and all the kids and her get the "crazy" check. At current rates that means $6980.00 dollars per month.
In addition the government pays out about $4,504,000,000.00 per year (edit seems that amount is supposed to be monthly) to people getting SSI (crazy) checks. These are children and adults who either have never worked enough for Social Security disability benefits or never worked at all.
http://www.ssa.gov/policy/docs/quickfacts/stat_snapshot/
My bad, carry on.
|
|
It's things like this that make me wonder, however, just how true that anecdote you posted before it (I'm not saying you were lying; I'm saying the woman you talked to may not have been totally honest).
The idea that these so-called "welfare queens" can earn a huge annual salary for sitting back and having kids tends to fall apart when you read about things like this. The idea that someone can just have all of their kids declared ADHD and start earning monthly checks is a fantasy that very rarely meshes with the reality.
See my post above. It may not be widespread but it does happen. Getting a free $6980.00 per month is crazy even with that amount of kids. Plus I know of a few others that get even more within their families.
No, I was responding to "bloated, corrupt military-industrial complex." Remind me when did I say we should start wars to create jobs?
What on earth WERE you saying?
If you were merely commenting that it's harder for veterans to get aid than it should be, that in NO WAY has a single thing to do with the state of the military-industrial complex.
RPG Superstar 2015 Top 16, RPG Superstar 2013 Top 16
|
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
How about that the military isn't anywhere near as corrupt and bloated as the welfare system? Or that funding to the military provides an actual benefit to the state and to those who put their lives on the line to protect the state. Welfare moochers (and I am not saying that everyone on welfare is a moocher) provide zero benefit to society and demand that the rest of us subsidize their laziness.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Two more comments:
Are people really envious of these people who apparently have "breeding farms" in order to get more benefits? People who live off food stamps with 6-9 kids. Is that an envious place to be in life? If so, I can't relate to what you seem to think is a good life.
Second:
I know a lady who has 9 kids and all the kids and her get the "crazy" check. At current rates that means $6980.00 dollars per month.
In addition the government pays out about $4,504,000,000.00 per year (edit seems that amount is supposed to be monthly) to people getting SSI (crazy) checks. These are children and adults who either have never worked enough for Social Security disability benefits or never worked at all.
"Crazy" checks? Seriously?
Let me see if I can put this mildly... F@** YOU!How the f&** dare you call people with mental illness for crazy people and deride the fact that they might be so debilitated by their illness that they can't hold down an ordinary job!
| 3 people marked this as a favorite. |
How about that the military isn't anywhere near as corrupt and bloated as the welfare system? Or that funding to the military provides an actual benefit to the state and to those who put their lives on the line to protect the state. Welfare moochers (and I am not saying that everyone on welfare is a moocher) provide zero benefit to society and demand that the rest of us subsidize their laziness.
Protect the state from what? How does the massive spending on the military in the US protect it? The only time soldiers put their lives on the line is through the military missions the US has been doing in other people's countries. How is that beneficial to the state?
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
How about that the military isn't anywhere near as corrupt and bloated as the welfare system?
Based on the level of spending, the amount of back tickling involved in getting no-bid defense contracts, and the level of military presence we have worldwide, I'm going to have to say this is prima faciae wrong.
"The military provides the service of defense for our country" DOES NOT logically lead to "the US only spends precisely as much money as it requires to defend itself."
I don't think the invasion of Iraq, for example, did anything demonstrably socially positive for me. And the money spent in Iraq could be spent to allow those "moochers", still unproven to be anything but a statistical minority of beneficiaries, to "mooch" virtually in perpetuity.
There are plenty of people who are not mentally ill, but whom simply claim to be,that receive SSI checks. It is trivially easy to qualify. They should be who you are insulted by. Their laziness diminishes the struggles of the actually mentally ill.
| 5 people marked this as a favorite. |
How about that the military isn't anywhere near as corrupt and bloated as the welfare system?Based on the level of spending, the amount of back tickling involved in getting no-bid defense contracts, and the level of military presence we have worldwide, I'm going to have to say this is prima faciae wrong.
"The military provides the service of defense for our country" DOES NOT logically lead to "the US only spends precisely as much money as it requires to defend itself."
I don't think the invasion of Iraq, for example, did anything demonstrably socially positive for me. And the money spent in Iraq could be spent to allow those "moochers", still unproven to be anything but a statistical minority of beneficiaries, to "mooch" virtually in perpetuity.
This.
Or as Dwight D Eisenhauer said (and I think he is quite qualified to speak on such things):
“Every gun that is made, every warship launched, every rocket fired signifies, in the final sense, a theft from those who hunger and are not fed, those who are cold and are not clothed. This world in arms is not spending money alone. It is spending the sweat of its laborers, the genius of its scientists, the hopes of its children. The cost of one modern heavy bomber is this: a modern brick school in more than 30 cities. It is two electric power plants, each serving a town of 60,000 population. It is two fine, fully equipped hospitals. It is some fifty miles of concrete pavement. We pay for a single fighter plane with a half million bushels of wheat. We pay for a single destroyer with new homes that could have housed more than 8,000 people. This is, I repeat, the best way of life to be found on the road the world has been taking. This is not a way of life at all, in any true sense. Under the cloud of threatening war, it is humanity hanging from a cross of iron.... Is there no other way the world may live?”
|
RPG Superstar 2015 Top 16, RPG Superstar 2013 Top 16
|
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
If you don't think the military is beneficial to the state as a guarantor of the freedoms you currently enjoy and a protection from the aggression of hostile powers, then I'm not sure this is a conversation we can have because we're going to disagree about fundamental assumptions.
| 4 people marked this as a favorite. |
I do think so. What I dont think is that going to countries that have done nothing to us, bombing their cities and killing their citizens makes us any safer. In fact I think it makes us less so. I know that if another country tried it with the US, it would be full-on Red Dawn here in PA.
I completely agree that a military is needed for defense. What I dont agree with is that we should be spending ourselves into oblivion (while people starve here at home) to fight wars that really have nothing at all to do with us.
I know that you are in (were in?) the armed forces. I truly thank you and am very appreciative of your service. I do NOT thank those who misled you into fighting for causes that are not our own.
Or as Smedley Butler (highest decorated marine, in his time, and my personal hero) said:
There are only two things we should fight for. One is the defense of our homes and the other is the Bill of Rights.
EDIT- to put it back on topic, this is what led me to Ron Paul (make fun if you wish)--his assertion back in 2008 that if we would just cut the offensive wars, we would have the money to fund whatever social programs that we wished.
|
Bella Sara Charter Superscriber
|
| 3 people marked this as a favorite. |
Typically, the concept of the industrial-military complex is a lot more about dollars spent on military hardware/weapons/etc and not the actual dollars spent on the salaries/benefits paid to soliders. I believe the infamous "$500 dollar toilet seat" that received a lot of attention a few decades back is an example of the potential wasteful spending. Another example could be the contractors involved in Iraq redevelopment, which included a number of well-documented incidents of fraud/waste. This isn't to say that all military spending is wasteful, or even that the majority of military spending is wasteful, but more that military spending has a similar proportion of corruption/waste/abuse.
(Some might even argue that social benefit spending is similar in that the majority of it isn't wasteful due to the secondary benefits, e.g., reductions in crime, addiction, malnourishment in children, etc. even though some corruption/waste does exist.)
It's a bit of an apples to oranges comparison though - for example, it's pretty hard to argue that eliminating all welfare spending would be anywhere near as damaging as eliminating all military spending. Plus, it's something of a rhetorical trick, effectively stating "well sure, there's corruption in x, but there's also corruption in y, so the corruption in x isn't so bad." The corruption in x and the corruption in y are each a problem, and complaining that one is worse than the other doesn't really address the fundamental issue of the corruption itself.
| 3 people marked this as a favorite. |
If you don't think the military is beneficial to the state as a guarantor of the freedoms you currently enjoy and a protection from the aggression of hostile powers, then I'm not sure this is a conversation we can have because we're going to disagree about fundamental assumptions.
The military, in its proper role as a guarantor of freedoms by protecting the U.S.? Absolutely essential.
The military, in its current role as a force for the unprovoked invasion of other nations in order to fuel profits for big-lobby contractors? Not so much. That hurts our freedoms by financially strangling the taxpayers, and it hurts our troops by putting them in danger when it's totally unnecessary and unjustified to do so. The military and the citizens at home ALL lose as a result of military adventurism. Only the big contractors and the banks benefit.
DISCLAIMER: I shipped off to the U.S. Army 3 days after I finished high school. I believed in the first Iraq war -- defending our ally Kuwait. But if I'd still been in for the second Iraq war, I'd've been forced to refuse orders to deploy there, and would have refused to deploy those under my command. Thankfully, I wasn't forced to make that decision.