Smasharoo wrote:
As opposed to the philosophy that assumes that poor people are stupid and can't succeed if given the chance, so we should just subsidize their poverty to make them more comfortable?
That is a philosophy. Luckily for us we have math. Math says that if we provide a more robust safety net, more people take risk and as more people take risk, they succeed at a higher rate.
No. The math says that if you provide a safety net, people will engage in the activity you've shielded them from the consequences of more often. In the case of government welfare programs the activity you're protecting is them choosing to *not* pursue a career and not to advance economically. The consequences of that normally are that you don't earn enough to support yourself and a family. By shielding people from those consequences, they increase the likelihood of people making that choice.
And that's a bad thing.
Quote:
It's just like having wealthy parents allows your to be an "entrepreneur" because mommy and daddy won't let your kids be homeless if your oil business goes tits up and you decide you want to own a baseball team. For instance. Or if you don't have much income while going to school and have to tap into your inherited wealth that mommy and daddy created for you. For instance. Or if you crash 100 jets because you are a terrible pilot before your Senator daddy insists that you are a 'hero' and not just a mess who should have been flying desk. For instance.
Except that in all of those cases, there is presumed pressure from the parents for their child to be successful in some way and always the innate concern by the recipient that mommy and daddy might cut them off at some point. So they'll give them lots of chances, as long as they're trying to succeed at something. But the government doesn't place such restrictions on welfare (well, not if the left has its way). The government is like the worse case wealthy parents who just give their kids trust funds and let them live off that money for their entire lives without expecting anything of them. That's not a safety net that encourages risk at all. It's just one that creates laziness.
Those are the rich kids we dislike, right? Yet, that's exactly what you think the government should do for everyone. That's insane.
Edited, Apr 17th 2015 2:35pm by gbaji