3 ms·

Ah yes, the sweet liberty of being unable to provide for your children. Welfare is a pitifully small percent of the budget compared to military, health, and edu

Ah yes, the sweet liberty of being unable to provide for your children. Welfare is a pitifully small percent of the budget compared to military, health, and education not to mention the massive amounts of corporate welfare that happens ("I'll get those taxes down for you"). But you're right it's the left voting single moms that erode our liberty. What about the right-voting single moms? Are they "welfare queens" eroding our liberty too or are they just good people who had to make a tough choice?

Drumlin 10y ago
You aren't looking this from a bigger picture. The more infrastructure that is put in place to protect single parents, the more infrastructure that gets in the way for standard families. Basic building blocks for society like marriage become less appealing because the state is too involved in the process. It doesn't really matter how much welfare costs (obviously it should kept under control like military, health and education) and that's why I didn't mention that aspect. All I'm concerned about is the state becoming so involved in an individual's life, that it nannies them like a parent.
- Arizhel 10y ago
  >The more infrastructure that is put in place to protect single parents, the more infrastructure that gets in the way for standard families. Basic building blocks for society like marriage become less appealing because the state is too involved in the process. Huh? Marriage itself is a legal construct by the state, no different than a corporation. Is a corporation a "basic building block for society" too? Should it be? What makes you think marriage is such a great thing that society should be dependent upon it? Statistics show that it's a massive gamble, and you're more likely to lose with it than you are to benefit. On top of that, the risks are enormous: child support, alimony, and in many cases, bankruptcy. >All I'm concerned about is the state becoming so involved in an individual's life, that it nannies them like a parent. That's funny, coming from someone who obviously supports marriage, which is absolutely an example of the state nannying people and becoming involved in an individual's life. Try going through a contested divorce and tell me the state wasn't involved. The simple fact is that your "standard familes" are a complete and utter failure. Society needs an all-new paradigm, because clinging to this archaic institution clearly isn't working.
mvitorino 10y ago
That is a straw man argument. Saying that a lot more money is spent elsewhere does not refute the potential effects of welfare. Also claiming that tax reduction is a form of welfare if very disingenuous since basically that would mean the State would be entitled to take all of your profit by default... meaning any amount of profit allowed would be welfare.
- stephancoral 10y ago
  Where's the straw man I'm constructing? I'm just saying that no liberty is being eroded (in fact the opposite) and that any monetary objections to welfare are absurd in proportion to the frothiness spewed about in forums. I've been on welfare before. It quite literally saved my life and helped me out big time. Now I run a very profitable business and give back much to the society and community that helped me out. Anyone who rants and raves about welfare probably hasn't actually been on it - it's almost a starvation wage, but it can make a serious difference. The people who rant about 'freedom' and 'liberty' don't seem to mind when you give those up working for a private sector corp or the erosions caused by massive firms lobbying congress to write employment and tax laws in their favor. Also corporate welfare isn't the same thing as regular "welfare" - try looking up some terms before you post in here so you don't look like a dumbass. Because "corporate welfare" is quite literally defined as the subsidy of private business by government using incentives such as tax reductions / abatements.
  - mvitorino 10y ago
    Yup, I just looked up "dumbass" and it's not nice. Way to go in trying to keep the discussion civil. If you were paying attention, you would see I never said I was against welfare. Only that you can't have a decent debate on this subject and completely ignore it.
- deleted 10y ago
  [deleted]
- nikdaheratik 10y ago
  It's not a "straw man", it's more like reductio ad absurdum. And if you'll remember the 1990s, the entire plan to cut welfare benefits was premised on the Earned Income Tax Credit taking up the slack. Which actually worked in some ways though, if anything, it makes it easier for single mothers to provide for a family by working a low wage job. Which has distorted the "marriage market" though in different ways from the welfare benefit.
dominotw 10y ago
>Welfare is a pitifully small percent of the budget compared to military https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Whataboutism https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Whataboutism

Drumlin 10y ago

You aren't looking this from a bigger picture. The more infrastructure that is put in place to protect single parents, the more infrastructure that gets in the way for standard families. Basic building blocks for society like marriage become less appealing because the state is too involved in the process. It doesn't really matter how much welfare costs (obviously it should kept under control like military, health and education) and that's why I didn't mention that aspect. All I'm concerned about is the state becoming so involved in an individual's life, that it nannies them like a parent.

Arizhel 10y ago
>The more infrastructure that is put in place to protect single parents, the more infrastructure that gets in the way for standard families. Basic building blocks for society like marriage become less appealing because the state is too involved in the process. Huh? Marriage itself is a legal construct by the state, no different than a corporation. Is a corporation a "basic building block for society" too? Should it be? What makes you think marriage is such a great thing that society should be dependent upon it? Statistics show that it's a massive gamble, and you're more likely to lose with it than you are to benefit. On top of that, the risks are enormous: child support, alimony, and in many cases, bankruptcy. >All I'm concerned about is the state becoming so involved in an individual's life, that it nannies them like a parent. That's funny, coming from someone who obviously supports marriage, which is absolutely an example of the state nannying people and becoming involved in an individual's life. Try going through a contested divorce and tell me the state wasn't involved. The simple fact is that your "standard familes" are a complete and utter failure. Society needs an all-new paradigm, because clinging to this archaic institution clearly isn't working.

mvitorino 10y ago

That is a straw man argument. Saying that a lot more money is spent elsewhere does not refute the potential effects of welfare. Also claiming that tax reduction is a form of welfare if very disingenuous since basically that would mean the State would be entitled to take all of your profit by default... meaning any amount of profit allowed would be welfare.

stephancoral 10y ago
Where's the straw man I'm constructing? I'm just saying that no liberty is being eroded (in fact the opposite) and that any monetary objections to welfare are absurd in proportion to the frothiness spewed about in forums. I've been on welfare before. It quite literally saved my life and helped me out big time. Now I run a very profitable business and give back much to the society and community that helped me out. Anyone who rants and raves about welfare probably hasn't actually been on it - it's almost a starvation wage, but it can make a serious difference. The people who rant about 'freedom' and 'liberty' don't seem to mind when you give those up working for a private sector corp or the erosions caused by massive firms lobbying congress to write employment and tax laws in their favor. Also corporate welfare isn't the same thing as regular "welfare" - try looking up some terms before you post in here so you don't look like a dumbass. Because "corporate welfare" is quite literally defined as the subsidy of private business by government using incentives such as tax reductions / abatements.
- mvitorino 10y ago
  Yup, I just looked up "dumbass" and it's not nice. Way to go in trying to keep the discussion civil. If you were paying attention, you would see I never said I was against welfare. Only that you can't have a decent debate on this subject and completely ignore it.
deleted 10y ago
[deleted]
nikdaheratik 10y ago
It's not a "straw man", it's more like reductio ad absurdum. And if you'll remember the 1990s, the entire plan to cut welfare benefits was premised on the Earned Income Tax Credit taking up the slack. Which actually worked in some ways though, if anything, it makes it easier for single mothers to provide for a family by working a low wage job. Which has distorted the "marriage market" though in different ways from the welfare benefit.

dominotw 10y ago

>Welfare is a pitifully small percent of the budget compared to military https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Whataboutism https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Whataboutism