Tea Party topples its first incumbent.

[KrazyHorse]

Could you two please stop the sibling lovefest?

HC, stop making unfounded assertions in your posts. You're displaying a terrible lack of intellectual honesty.

Kuci, be a better role model and post interesting things. Your parents love you more. You don't have to prove your superiority online as well.

[bc1871]

The welfare state, simply creates a population of underachievers who eventually become wholly dependent on the government for their existence. A good example of an out of control welfare state is Greece!

Also, for those liberals out there that will argue that without the welfare state in place, the poor will starve, this is a fallacy. There will always be citizens/churches/community organizations etc. who will come to the aid of the poor.

[Kuciwalker]

The welfare state, simply creates a population of underachievers who eventually become wholly dependent on the government for their existence. A good example of an out of control welfare state is Greece!

The very notion of an out-of-control welfare state implies that there are welfare states that aren't out-of-control and are just fine.

Also, for those liberals out there that will argue that without the welfare state in place, the poor will starve, this is a fallacy. There will always be citizens/churches/community organizations etc. who will come to the aid of the poor.

Why does this charity not create dependencies as well?

[bc1871]

The welfare state, simply creates a population of underachievers who eventually become wholly dependent on the government for their existence. A good example of an out of control welfare state is Greece!

The very notion of an out-of-control welfare state implies that there are welfare states that aren't out-of-control and are just fine.

Also, for those liberals out there that will argue that without the welfare state in place, the poor will starve, this is a fallacy. There will always be citizens/churches/community organizations etc. who will come to the aid of the poor.

Why does this charity not create dependencies as well?

About the only functional "Welfare States" that come to mind are the Israeli Kibbutz and the Amish Communities.

Also, though dependence is not the answer, outside of bringing back debtors prisons, expanding the perview of sanitariums and asylums to once more handle the poor, or use capital punishment as a deterrent, I just don't see a feasible way to completely get rid of the culture of dependence.

[KrazyHorse]

Capital punishment for debtors

[Kuciwalker]

About the only functional "Welfare States" that come to mind are the Israeli Kibbutz and the Amish Communities.

I didn't realize that every single developed country was dysfunctional. Man, it sure sucks to be part of the first world!

Also, though dependence is not the answer, outside of bringing back debtors prisons, expanding the perview of sanitariums and asylums to once more handle the poor, or use capital punishment as a deterrent, I just don't see a feasible way to completely get rid of the culture of dependence.

What does this have to do with my question?

You claim that it's okay if we get rid of the welfare state, because private charity will just step in and... re-establish the welfare state. How is that any better than having the government do it?

[DinoDoc]

There's absolutely nothing wrong with that.

In this case there is something wrong with that because the pizza server was only arguably accurate with one of his charges. That they maybe undignified is at least arguable. I don't see how the stupid and arrogant charges can be justified though.

[MikeH]

The welfare state, simply creates a population of underachievers who eventually become wholly dependent on the government for their existence. A good example of an out of control welfare state is Greece!

Also, for those liberals out there that will argue that without the welfare state in place, the poor will starve, this is a fallacy. There will always be citizens/churches/community organizations etc. who will come to the aid of the poor.

**** it, just let them starve. They aren't productive anyway.

So we should make our sick/old/disabled beg for handouts from charities and deny them any form of self respect?

The welfare state is a triumph. It's fantastic that we live in societies rich enough to be able to care for the less fortunate members, and can provide them with some standard of quality of life. Turning our backs on them so people can spunk more money on luxuries is just selfish.

[DinoDoc]

So we should make our sick/old/disabled beg for handouts from charities and deny them any form of self respect?

What's the meaningful difference between begging from a charity and begging from the government when it comes to fostering self respect and avoiding a culture of dependency?

[Dinner]

The tea bagger record is horrible. They've lost every election they've taken part in. They've tried to topple several incumbants most of whom just became independents or worse (in special elections) resulted in Democrats winning as tea baggers split the vote with Republicans. Personally, I laugh at tea bagger stupidity.

[Kuciwalker]

What's the meaningful difference between begging from a charity and begging from the government when it comes to fostering self respect and avoiding a culture of dependency?

None at all. The difference is that having the support come from the government lets us eliminate as many loose ends as we can and provide people with a sense of security.

[MikeH]

What's the meaningful difference between begging from a charity and begging from the government when it comes to fostering self respect and avoiding a culture of dependency?

Meaningful difference is that you don't beg the government. And theoretically they put in a system where everyone is treated equally, rather than getting lucky living somewhere with rich and generous neighbours.

I would also say that the assumption that charities alone would be able to provide enough care and support is a pretty bold one. Love to see some evidence backing that up. I don't see a lot of historical basis for that assumption, and am not aware of any first world countries that have a workable system of ignoring the poor and allowing charities to pick up the slack that anyone could use as examples. Anyone got a good example?

I'm not sure about this culture of dependency thing. Having a welfare state doesn't mean you just give money to anyone who can't be bothered to work.

It's can also be about putting resources in place to assist people with special requirements to find work.

[MikeH]

None at all. The difference is that having the support come from the government lets us eliminate as many loose ends as we can and provide people with a sense of security.

Charities also often have their own agendas. Especially religious ones.

[Sir Og]

What's the meaningful difference between begging from a charity and begging from the government when it comes to fostering self respect and avoiding a culture of dependency?

With the welfare state you don't have to beg. There are clear well known rules which specify if you qualify to receive aid or not.

The cultural bit is not quite clear. It takes a lot of time for such effects to show and to be able to measure them.
I don't know of any studies showing that people in first world welfare states are lazier and more relient on the state than people from US for example.

[Elok]

In this case there is something wrong with that because the pizza server was only arguably accurate with one of his charges. That they maybe undignified is at least arguable. I don't see how the stupid and arrogant charges can be justified though.

No, stupid is the only debatable one.

They're undignified, certainly, though that's the least damning since no modern protesters know how to behave like they should be taken seriously. Their opposites in Code Pink are even worse with their damned street theater.

As for arrogant, they're comparing themselves to the bloody founding fathers for getting an e-mail, assembling in place in a park or plaza like it tells them to, and yelling slogans. How pompous can you get?

Albeit the founding father thing also provides at least some justification for a "stupid" label as well. There's no taxation without representation going on here, for one thing. For another, only about half of the FFs were "small-government" as they assert. John Adams was most definitely NOT a small-government advocate, nor Washington, Hamilton or Jay. Thomas Jefferson was, but he probably wouldn't want anything to do with the TPs anyway since they let the theocrats sneak into their ranks.

Really, though, I call them stupid because their list of demands is a bunch of old Ronald Reagan talking points. People have been pushing those ideas for years and never got them, because most people, and I dare say even most TPs, don't actually want smaller government; they want lots of government programs without the trouble of paying for them. Right now the biggest part of our government is probably the military, which the TP don't oppose because they're the Gipper's devoted leftovers and they all have faithful boners for the military-industrial complex. They don't go after entitlements either, since those are untouchable. Instead they holler for less government regulation, which is odd since the economic crisis that got them off their armchairs in the first place might have been averted by better regulations.