Social welfare programs

[Robocommie]

Recently I got into a bit of a debate with a relative over what they referred to as people's "sense of entitlement." Essentially, it was an attack on the very notion of social welfare programs, because she argued that there are and always will be people who are shiftless layabouts, completely content to take welfare checks without doing anything.

She used this argument to apply not just to the dole, but also as a reason why we should not have free education and free healthcare. She stated that people don't appreciate things unless they've worked for them, and that people who work hard for what they have should not be penalized to support those who don't.

Frankly, I understand that social welfare programs do not represent the essence of socialism. However, free education and free healthcare do, and I also think attacks on the concept of public assistance and especially attacks on the people who receive public assistance is contrary to the philosophy underpinning socialism.

My question is, just what the hell should be the response to this kind of argument?

[Demogorgon]

Ask her how she thinks children should work to earn their education. Really this stuff is generally spouted by people who don't know any history. If that rubbish was right then the Victorian poor laws would have worked out well.

Also point out that it is nigh on impossible for most people to work hard and achieve anything unless they have good education and usually a reasonable social safety net.

EDIT: Also places with higher social welfare, Universal Healthcare and so on tend to have higher levels of upward mobility and much smaller underclasses of permanently unemployed people.

[ContrarianLemming]

EDIT: Also places with higher social welfare, Universal Healthcare and so on tend to have higher levels of upward mobility and much smaller underclasses of permanently unemployed people.

Definitly true, sweden is the typical example, better then america in almost every way

I suggest you simply ask her if she got a job as a child to get into grade school, ask her if she would force her kid to work to, since free rides are awful. though i get the feeling this women isn't a mother

[Robocommie]

Definitly true, sweden is the typical example, better then america in almost every way

I suggest you simply ask her if she got a job as a child to get into grade school, ask her if she would force her kid to work to, since free rides are awful. though i get the feeling this women isn't a mother

Funnily enough, she's MY mother.

[Invincible Summer]

Funnily enough, she's MY mother.

:lol:


Anyways, I don't see how social welfare programs "create" lazy people. The number of people who fulfill the "welfare queen" stereotype are few and far between. It's mainly a (usually) racist stereotype that is used to demonize working class people who have so much shit going on in their lives that they can't hold down a proper job.

Why shouldn't people feel entitled to free education, healthcare, etc? If we had to work for everything that we had to "appreciate it," why not just cook your own food, hunt your own game, build your own house, etc?

[JacobVardy]

The number of people who fulfill the "welfare queen" stereotype are few and far between. It's mainly a (usually) racist stereotype that is used to demonize working class people who have so much shit going on in their lives that they can't hold down a proper job.

Not sure how it works elsewhere but Australia has a relatively strong welfare-state, and the vast majority of welfare cheats are middle class fraudsters, who actually work at defrauding the system. Most estimates i have read are for about 1-3% of claims are unjustified or not fully justified. That is, they could work but don't or could work more but don't.

[CartCollector]

She stated that people don't appreciate things unless they've worked for them, and that people who work hard for what they have should not be penalized to support those who don't.
Well did she ever work for her education or healthcare before she was 18? Something tells me this is not the case.

[Jimmie Higgins]

Recently I got into a bit of a debate with a relative over what they referred to as people's "sense of entitlement."For the most part these things were won directly or indirectly from people collectively fighting for them - so I don't see how "entitlement" comes into it.


Essentially, it was an attack on the very notion of social welfare programs, because she argued that there are and always will be people who are shiftless layabouts, completely content to take welfare checks without doing anything.Do people suddenly get more lazy during recessions - that's what causes unemployment? In the US welfare is very very restricted and practically useless as relief - yet unemployment goes up and down not based on the quality of benefits, but the ups and downs of the capitalist business cycle.


people who work hard for what they have should not be penalized to support those who don't.Tell her to tell this to American workers who worker longer hours than most western countries, make lower wages respective of the bosses than Europe, UK or Japan, and are having social programs cut to pay for banks and corporate losses... workers are always the main ones penalized for the mistakes (or even successes) of business. Talk about entitlement... the real "welfare queens" work on wall street or the banks.

[REVLEFT'S BIEGGST MATSER TROL]

Best thing to do about this "entitlement" argument is to cut it off at the source.

Ask her why she thinks working class people coming together, to create what is essentially insurance for themselves, and everyone else is an "entitlement programme" in that you get something for free.

If some working class person saved up, and bought himself some health insurance...she'd probably hold him up as an example of thrift and individual responsibility. But if 100,000 workers together decided to invest collectively in a health programme, or a school programme, to cover them and their children whenever they need it, that counts as some entitlement?! :blink:

What about the "entitlement" of the rich - to earn millions just for being born? To earn millions more because they happen to live in a system that entitles them to property?

Basically, the whole "entitlement" schlock is 99 percent the result of fetishing the relations of capitalist society. The "Entitlement" to inherit daddy's wealth is not really "entitlement", as "daddy worked for it". Daddy's entitlment to earn money by exploiting his workers is not really "entitlement" as he "owns" the buisness.

[¿Que?]

You should tell her that what she calls a "sense of entitlement" is simply part of the basic functioning of a capitalist system i.e. the contradiction between capital and labor. That is, capital will continue to demand lower wages and workers will continue to demand higher wages.

If wages are not high enough to provide health care, education, etc. then it is only natural that the workers demand those too.

That's capitalism. Love it or leave it. That's what I'd tell her.

[The Red Next Door]

Ask her, Does she think welfare for the wealthy is okay?

[Red Commissar]

This is a very common sentiment among people in the United States.

I suppose its due to the nature of the American "welfare" system, which people generally associate with food stamps, unemployment checks, medicaid etc...

American social programs tend to have a nature of carrot stick programs, to get people "working", rather than a guarantee of a living standard for everyone, as it is more the case elsewhere. Abuse of social programs is a problem everywhere though, it has resulted in much of those programs being worked away. The US devolved welfare responsibilities to the state, which essentially destroyed it in many southern states. In Europe, a reaction against taxes and immigration has resulted in these programs being caught in the crossfire as centre-right groups begin to dismantle them. The social-democrats selling out to third way policies didn't help either.

[Psy]

Funnily enough, she's MY mother.
Well in that cause you could point that with less welfare workers statically turn more to their parents for support as Generation X (and on) on average has much less saving to draw on when faced with unemployment and underemployment.

You could also point that baby boomers mostly simply walked into decent paying jobs with very little effort while Generation X busted their asses for a better education only to have the long boom end by the time they entered the job market. Thus the lack of welfare would just punish later generations just for being born in the wrong decade as the long term trend is for working conditions to degrade with each generation being worse off then the one before which is the real reason why social security is in danger as workers keep earning less and less.

[Wolf Larson]

Recently I got into a bit of a debate with a relative over what they referred to as people's "sense of entitlement." Essentially, it was an attack on the very notion of social welfare programs, because she argued that there are and always will be people who are shiftless layabouts, completely content to take welfare checks without doing anything.

She used this argument to apply not just to the dole, but also as a reason why we should not have free education and free healthcare. She stated that people don't appreciate things unless they've worked for them, and that people who work hard for what they have should not be penalized to support those who don't.

Frankly, I understand that social welfare programs do not represent the essence of socialism. However, free education and free healthcare do, and I also think attacks on the concept of public assistance and especially attacks on the people who receive public assistance is contrary to the philosophy underpinning socialism.

My question is, just what the hell should be the response to this kind of argument?

They intentionally create mass unemployment in order to drive wages down [make profits] by manipulating interest rates. They say it's to keep inflation low. No matter what at any given time there will NEVER be full employment in our current system- the last time the official numbers were below 2% was during Kennedy's administration- he got a bullet to the head and I've wondered if it was in part because he did push for full employment? Conspiracy theories aside... This is why we have such a booming prison industry and welfare program. Within capitalism there will always be intentionally facilitated unemployment. Just another reason to abolish capitalism. If these social programs didnt exist the revolutionary movement would be stronger as it was in the early 20'th century , so, as Keynes knew social programs would save capitalism. Capitalism is also prone to crisis due to the unplanned nature which adds to the destitute experienced by the working class. As you know the capitalist class is kept safe from feeling the effects of the crisis' which happen every 10 years. They are protected by the tax payers. The entire system is held up by workers- we are being exploited in every way imaginable- even when we aren't working. When we don't have work much of the time it's not our fault.



Read this:

http://www.alternet.org/story/9278/
(http://www.alternet.org/story/9278/)