This page has been archived and commenting is disabled.

When Work Is Punished: The Tragedy Of America's Welfare State

Tyler Durden's picture


Exactly two years ago, some of the more politically biased progressive media outlets (who are quite adept at creating and taking down their own strawmen arguments, if not quite as adept at using an abacus, let alone a calculator) took offense at our article "In Entitlement America, The Head Of A Household Of Four Making Minimum Wage Has More Disposable Income Than A Family Making $60,000 A Year." In it we merely explained what has become the painful reality in America: for increasingly more it is now more lucrative - in the form of actual disposable income - to sit, do nothing, and collect various welfare entitlements, than to work. This is graphically, and very painfully confirmed, in the below chart from Gary Alexander, Secretary of Public Welfare, Commonwealth of Pennsylvania (a state best known for its broke capital Harrisburg). As quantitied, and explained by Alexander, "the single mom is better off earnings gross income of $29,000 with $57,327 in net income & benefits than to earn gross income of $69,000 with net income and benefits of $57,045."

We realize that this is a painful topic in a country in which the issue of welfare benefits, and cutting (or not) the spending side of the fiscal cliff, have become the two most sensitive social topics. Alas, none of that changes the matrix of incentives for most Americans who find themselves in a comparable situation: either being on the left side of minimum US wage, and relying on benefits, or move to the right side at far greater personal investment of work, and energy, and... have the same disposable income at the end of the day.

Naturally, the topic of wealth redistribution is paramount one now that America is entering the terminal phase of its out of control spending, and whose response to hike taxes in a globalized, easily fungible world, will merely force more of the uber-wealthy to find offshore tax jurisdictions, avoid US taxation altogether, and thus result to even lower budget revenues for the US. It explains why the cluelessly incompetent but supposedly impartial Congressional Budget Office just released a key paper titled "Share of Returns Filed by Low- and Moderate-Income Workers, by Marginal Tax Rate, Under 2012 Law" which carries a chart of disposable income by net income comparable to the one above.

But perhaps the scariest chart in the entire presentation is the following summarizing the unsustainable welfare burden on current taxpayers:

  • For every 1.65 employed persons in the private sector, 1 person receives welfare assistance
  • For every 1.25 employed persons in the private sector, 1 person receives welfare assistance or works for the government.

The punchline: 110 million privately employed workers; 88 million welfare recipients and government workers and rising rapidly.

And since nothing has changed in the past two years, and in fact the situation has gotten progressively (pardon the pun) worse, here is our conclusion on this topic from two years ago:

We have been writing for over a year, how the very top of America's social order steals from the middle class each and every day. Now we finally know that the very bottom of the entitlement food chain also makes out like a bandit compared to that idiot American who actually works and pays their taxes. One can only also hope that in addition to seeing their disposable income be eaten away by a kleptocratic entitlement state, that the disappearing middle class is also selling off its weaponry. Because if it isn't, and if it finally decides it has had enough, the outcome will not be surprising at all: it will be the same old that has occurred in virtually every revolution in the history of the world to date.

But for now, just stick head in sand, and pretend all is good. Self-deception is now the only thing left for the entire insolvent entitlement-addicted world.

* * *

Full must read presentation: "Welfare's Failure and the Solution"


Some other thoughts on this topic: DOES IT PAY, AT THE MARGIN, TO WORK AND SAVE?


- advertisements -

Comment viewing options

Select your preferred way to display the comments and click "Save settings" to activate your changes.
Tue, 11/27/2012 - 14:28 | 3014766 Crtrvlt
Crtrvlt's picture

replace the word "entitlement" with "war" and then watch those leeches over at lockheed martin for example, who derive 95% of their ~40 bln in revenue from the fed govt,whither away  

Tue, 11/27/2012 - 15:03 | 3014905 Kobe Beef
Kobe Beef's picture

another good idea. Predators above, parasites below, and the productive are their feast. End the Warfare/Welfare State!

Tue, 11/27/2012 - 15:15 | 3014959 LFMayor
LFMayor's picture

LOL.  End it?  How?

You must be talking about more war, because they're not going to just up and walk away from the trough simply because you asked politely, in your "firm" voice.

Malthus was correct.  We just need to be the first ones to the button.  Winner takes all.

Tue, 11/27/2012 - 15:46 | 3015062 Kobe Beef
Kobe Beef's picture

Yes, war-- if necessary. Would that our differences could be settled peacefully, but if not, then American Revolution II, Civil War II, call it what you will. I do not shy from our responsibilities as Free Men. If we wil not fight for our lives, freedom, and posterity, then we are unworthy of our ancestors who did the same. Should I meet them in an afterlife, shall I hang my head in shame, or embrace them as kindred souls?

Does any animal not fight for its life against a predator? Does any organism not fight against infection? Facts of Life. Tell me technological modernity has not so cocooned us among the accoutrements of ease that we shall forget life's own imperatives, nor the glory of living as Free Men, in possession of ourselves and our labor. I have not. I will not.

Tue, 11/27/2012 - 18:45 | 3015668 AGuy
AGuy's picture

"Does any animal not fight for its life against a predator?"

No most run away. Pray animals aways run from predators. Most of Europe surrendered to the Nazis and the Soviets. No sure why you think  today is any different.


Wed, 11/28/2012 - 09:39 | 3017049 Kobe Beef
Kobe Beef's picture

Right. So the Russians didn't fight a civil war against the Reds? Unfortunately, they lost. And then there's that whole World War II event that also involved lots of fighting along the lines and behind them. But no, you're right, we should all just surrender. That's the worthy thing to do. I'm sure our benevolent predators have such wonderful collectivist utopias planned for us, with skittles, unicorns, and the occasional death camp.

Tue, 11/27/2012 - 18:37 | 3015641 AGuy
AGuy's picture

" if a government can't pay for entitlements via way of tax receipt, then the entitlement has to get cut"

Thats not really correct, since the US gov't can print money to pay for entitlements, and that pretty much what the gov't has done since 2009. No way entitlements get cut since the 90% of votes either have them, or are expecting them. Cutting entitlements is political suicide.



Tue, 11/27/2012 - 13:20 | 3014543 SoundMoney45
SoundMoney45's picture

This truth is painful to read

Tue, 11/27/2012 - 13:21 | 3014546 max2205
max2205's picture

Welcome to the gulag ( or stalag). Take your pick

Tue, 11/27/2012 - 13:23 | 3014550 mrktwtch2
mrktwtch2's picture

yes dignity is becoming a emotion that doesnt pay very well

Tue, 11/27/2012 - 13:27 | 3014573 Seasmoke
Seasmoke's picture

feeling a Fool, will trump that every time

Tue, 11/27/2012 - 13:23 | 3014554 not fat not stupid
not fat not stupid's picture

Plutocrats sent American work opportunities overseas to squeeze out a few extra EPS, to pad their own pockets. Kill that incentive and the whole system can thrive/heal.

Tue, 11/27/2012 - 13:26 | 3014563 tmosley
tmosley's picture

I'm sure it had nothing to do with the high levels of taxation and regulation here.

Tue, 11/27/2012 - 13:39 | 3014619 Shizzmoney
Shizzmoney's picture

Correct.  That's why corporations, to save money on labor, rely on Communist states like China.


Tue, 11/27/2012 - 14:15 | 3014714 tmosley
tmosley's picture

Government in China makes up ~20% of GDP.  Government in the USA makes up ~43% of GDP.

Which state was the communist one again?

Tue, 11/27/2012 - 13:27 | 3014569 LawsofPhysics
LawsofPhysics's picture

almost.  What is required is the return of real consequences for bad behavior at all levels of society.  No more fucking bailouts, period.

Tue, 11/27/2012 - 13:32 | 3014590 CH1
CH1's picture

And above it all... the great coercive entity - the structure which allows all of these abominations to happen - is unquestioned, unchallenged, and presumed to be both righteous and as necessary as air.

Ah well...

Tue, 11/27/2012 - 13:40 | 3014598 LawsofPhysics
LawsofPhysics's picture

Yes, the event horizan has long passed.  See the Soviet Union circa 1987-1989 (you are here).

Tue, 11/27/2012 - 14:17 | 3014719 Bicycle Repairman
Bicycle Repairman's picture

The "kaboom" seems to always be 5 years away.  I simply could not forsee the ability of this regime to kick the can.

Tue, 11/27/2012 - 14:39 | 3014804 LawsofPhysics
LawsofPhysics's picture

There was no "kaboom" with the Soviet Union either, and there won't be for the U.S.  This can be the case, even if some states seceded (as was the case in the Soviet Union).  The currency will simply continue to lose purchasing power and greater capital controls and price "fixes" will be put in place, along with rationing.  The "official" word will always be that everything is okay, but there will be power and supply line disruptions all over the place.  As my friends in St. Petersburg used to always say, "no problem", at which point you knew things were not going as planned and a bribe would have to be paid in the near future.

Tue, 11/27/2012 - 14:34 | 3014785 Vegamma
Vegamma's picture

Please add Pell grants and all "needs based" educational assistance to this analysis if you include older children. If you were stupid enough to save and have kids in college, you will understand what I am talking about.

Tue, 11/27/2012 - 15:01 | 3014896 Chaos_Theory
Chaos_Theory's picture

That's why I'm transfering my savings to precious metal and other substances....copper, primers, propellant, lead and ballistic tips

(don't sleep on Jack Daniels bottles either)

Tue, 11/27/2012 - 13:35 | 3014604 Shell Game
Shell Game's picture

+1  The two legs of Liberty are Rule of Law and anarcho-capitalism (Darwinian law). 


p.s. what twisted soul would down arrow your comment? 

Tue, 11/27/2012 - 15:01 | 3014894 MachoMan
MachoMan's picture

Ramblings fit only for an academic vacuum.  Please enlighten us all (the world) how the rule of law can be practically reconciled, in the real world, with anarcho-capitalism.  If you have a historical example, I'd like to hear about that too... 

Rhetorical questions aside, those two "legs" can never be maintained by humans for any reasonable period of time.  Once you introduce law, then it can be punitively implemented...  of course, without law, the capital formation necessary for capitalism is probably non-existent.  These things may not start mutually exclusive, but in practice they end up being so...

Tue, 11/27/2012 - 16:00 | 3015089 Shell Game
Shell Game's picture

"Ramblings fit only for an academic vacuum."

Really?  So roll over and allow the cesspool of central planning to run amok?  Do you have a better answer that is both sustainable and preserves individual liberty (if you value it)? I am all ears.   Remember, ideas - those things easily vilified as 'academics' - must always preceed and facilitate an awakening.

For enlightenment I would recommend Bastiat's The Law for starters, this reading list and Ron Paul's farewell speech for more. 


"those two "legs" can never be maintained by humans for any reasonable period of time."

Do you actually believe that any and all human institutions will not eventually fall to corruption?!   Anarcho-capitalism is simply the opposite of centrally planned fascism.  One is empowered by real money/barter, law and survival of the fittest, the other is empowered by fiat, special interest$ and protectionism.  Again, love to hear what ramblings you offer that lead to a resonably sustainable path for a reasonable length of time..


Tue, 11/27/2012 - 16:34 | 3015211 MachoMan
MachoMan's picture

I have no suggestion because humans have yet to find the answer.  It may very well be a limitation to human ingenuity.  Who knows.  Hopefully not, but...

The issue is that under any system of "hands off" or "anarchy", there must be rules implemented in order to have the rights necessary to compete as well as to ever get public acceptance.  Once you open the door to ANY rules, you open the door for the destruction of the system by and through those rules and their progeny.

I agree that it may be the best horse in the glue factory and, practically speaking, we may have no choice, but "liberty" in any real sense of the word is largely a relative measure, which is code for nothing resembling liberty.  In short, liberty does not exist absolutely, but only in materially watered down states and only for brief durations.  However, it does not change the fact that the "two legs of liberty" are practically diametrically opposed.  They likely cannot co-exist because humanity is apparently incapable of managing their intersection.  Each leg constantly kicks the other until the body collapses. 

Tue, 11/27/2012 - 17:02 | 3015260 Shell Game
Shell Game's picture

The dragon consuming it's own tail.  It is indeed frustrating.  But by definition, we must aim for the impossible to push the next collapse three or four generations forward.  I believe natural law is compatible with free markets. And that is the 'impossible' a free man must fight for.

Tue, 11/27/2012 - 17:25 | 3015364 MachoMan
MachoMan's picture

One of the big issues to tackle and, where I think your thesis hits a snag, is the distribution of non-renewable resources...  in this case, among other things, the fight for oil and water.  Natural law really has no answer for the trajedy of the commons/externalities.  We're getting into a position where real "production" is very difficult because of limited resources...  there are no more undiscovered frontiers to subjugate and enslave...  I think it will inevitably change the perception of economics and the notion of productivity.  Maybe this will provide an opportunity to positively change our groundhog day.

Tue, 11/27/2012 - 17:43 | 3015446 Shell Game
Shell Game's picture

Not to beat a horse heading for the glue factory, but...   In a world of diminishing natural resources isn't the 'growth' mantra the true snag?  In the coming $US collapse, and defacto cheap oil collapse, the centrally planned and hollowed economy will contract and what will emerge will be local economies with new wants and needs.  It will be all too Darwinian.  But maybe it will afford an opportunity, I do hope so.

Tue, 11/27/2012 - 19:33 | 3015806 MachoMan
MachoMan's picture

The thing about anarcho capitalism is that it presumes an equal playing field at the first move...  at present, we have everything but a level playing field.  The resources already have someone else's name on them.  Production, in the real sense of the word, is largely an impossible task...  hence why, in large part, capital has completely destroyed labor in their little struggle.

Tue, 11/27/2012 - 21:17 | 3016100 Shell Game
Shell Game's picture

Nothing healthy can be created top down at this current time. The playing field must be cleared first.  The petro-dollar story will play a major role in providing that opportunity, if we're lucky enough.

Wed, 11/28/2012 - 00:59 | 3016544 MachoMan
MachoMan's picture

All of the old paradigms will be challenged, including the petrodollar (presently operating on weekend at bernies time).  We're probably slated to devolve into neofeudalistic/plantation models with regional robber barons.  The only thing that will really change this is collective bargaining...  ironically, exactly how we got in the present situation.

Tue, 11/27/2012 - 14:42 | 3014822 Zap Powerz
Zap Powerz's picture

The people living in the decaying western cultures are now incapable of following your very good advice.  They will not return to a world of real consequences voluntarily.  Nature will force it upon them (at least the ones that dont die in the process) and Nature will restore order.

We cannot fool Mother Nature forever.

Tue, 11/27/2012 - 14:06 | 3014685 chubbar
chubbar's picture

It's not just the plutocrats sending jobs overseas, it's the tax and regulations as well. I just was speaking to an old friend that owns (with other investors) a company that is very capital intensive and employs 30 or so folks making in the 50-60k range.

If this tax bill goes through that greatly increases their dividend taxes then they are moving to a suitable overseas location. My friend draws a salary as CEO (plus dividends) that is pretty decent but the other investors get dividends from profits (sub S corp or something along those lines). I think they are over the 250K limit of income but under 500K if they make what my buddy makes, so they are members of the hated 1%.He is saying with all the FICA, UI, State, FED and regulatory rules already in force plus Obamacare taxes to come, the dividend tax increase will be the straw that breaks this particular camels back for the investors. Too much money at risk for too little return after taxes, etc., are taken into account. I think they have already started the search process in fact. That'll be another 30 folks looking for work and increasing the welfare roles. When will these asshats learn you can't tax yourself to prosperity. Heckofajob Brownie!

Tue, 11/27/2012 - 15:04 | 3014908 seek
seek's picture

The 200K-1M income range seems to be the primary target for wealth harvesting these days. This is where successful upper middle class (doctors, lawyers, small business owners) all reside, as well as where middle-class weath that remains is.

I'm in that 1% as well, if 2013 is an exact repeat of 2012 with the tax laws you mention in place and no changes to the structure of my business, I'm looking at about a 40% increase in my taxes in 2013. Needless to say I'll be making adjustments in my business to reduce the tax burden based on whatever my CPA tells me to do.

I really don't think it's comprehended by most just how large of a tax bomb is set to go off at the start of the year, and how much disincentive this gives smaller businesses to spend or hire, e.g. this will be a massive drag on the economy.

Tue, 11/27/2012 - 17:21 | 3015346 Blankenstein
Blankenstein's picture

The puppeteers that pull the strings (the billionaires and multimillionaires) won't be affected by the tax hikes.  They want to wipe out any possible opposition to their plan to impoverish and enslave the 99.9%.

Tue, 11/27/2012 - 13:24 | 3014556 slaughterer
slaughterer's picture

Thinking ahead, I will need to earn capital losses to control my tax bill after 2012.   Guess FB and ZYNG will come in handy then.  

Tue, 11/27/2012 - 14:35 | 3014790 BraveSirRobin
BraveSirRobin's picture

Need capital losses? Easy, sell your house.

Tue, 11/27/2012 - 15:11 | 3014939 MachoMan
MachoMan's picture

So you're going to make the losses up on volume are you?  [note: giving away a dollar is more expensive than just paying the tax on the dollar (obviously this gets thrown out the window with creative valuations for assets, but this is the general rule)].

Tue, 11/27/2012 - 13:25 | 3014559 drbill
drbill's picture

Damn! Now its just that much harder to get out of bed and go to work....

Tue, 11/27/2012 - 13:45 | 3014636 Umh
Umh's picture

I know just how you feel about it. Somehow it doesn't feel right to be paying for someone else to goof off while you work.

Tue, 11/27/2012 - 13:25 | 3014561 ebworthen
ebworthen's picture

Guess what?

When wages are so low that going on the government dole is more beneficial than busting your ass most people actually have a brain.

Let's see:  bust my ass to not have time with my kids and pay taxes that are funneled to foreign countries and corrupt Wall Street institutions or take advantage of handouts?


Tue, 11/27/2012 - 13:51 | 3014652 toady
toady's picture


I find the numbers in these articles ridiculous. 'A single mother making $60K'... does anybody know a single mother making $60K? Hell, I don't know ANYONE making $60K.

I used to know a lot of them before pensions were turned into 401k's, employers stopped paying for healthcare, and any job that paid that $60K was shipped overseas.

The main premise of the article should be 'will you work two jobs that cover 12 hours a day, for a total of $40K a year, then pay $10K for insurance & taxes & childcare to make $30K a year, or stay home and raise your kids right for $60K?'

Tue, 11/27/2012 - 14:15 | 3014697 williambanzai7
williambanzai7's picture

This lazy single mother narrative is one of the things that killed Romney. The idea that lazy single mothers are running around sucking the system dry is ludicrous. The only single mothers I have ever known worked their asses off for their kids.

Now for this purpose we should be careful to exclude bailout mothers like Lloyd Blankfein.

Here's a question for you. Retail is typically one of the few areas of small business economic activity that someone might attempt to self start.

How the fuck does one do that in a country dominated by the box store retail culture of Walmart?

Tue, 11/27/2012 - 14:18 | 3014725 prains
prains's picture

the racial undertone is unmistakable, the 1% love this shit, "everyone point the finger at anyone but us"

Tue, 11/27/2012 - 15:03 | 3014897 darteaus
darteaus's picture

"The only single mothers I have ever known worked their asses off for their kids."

Maybe you should get out a little more.  The non-anecdotal evidence regarding the correlation of single parents and poverty is pretty overwhelming:

Tue, 11/27/2012 - 15:17 | 3014966 MachoMan
MachoMan's picture

The country is dominated by e-tailers and consumers smart enough to avoid tax and the cost of driving around town to pick up goods.  The "box store retail culture" is all but dead.  Wal-mart still exists simply because it is the victor of the box store wars and has a core comptetency (logistics) that allows it to compete with e-tailers in a hybrid warehouse/retail model. 

If you want to start a business, then you can do so from the comfort of your own home...  which is how businesses are now being created.  The ready market on the internet is actually the great equalizer to the capital costs necessary to create a box store.

Retail, like many other aspects of our society, really serves no purpose other than for immediate, mindless consumption.  Thankfully, economic conditions are largely incentivizing people to behave differently.  Needless to say, differentiation is the only possible business stategy for start-ups...  the economies of scale needed to become a low cost leader are cost prohibitive.

Tue, 11/27/2012 - 14:12 | 3014705 cartonero
cartonero's picture

Ridiculous indeed. This article starts with a complaint about the msm using strawman arguments, then goes ahead and creates one. 

Tue, 11/27/2012 - 18:11 | 3015569 waterhorse
waterhorse's picture

But of course, what else would we expect of the AEI think tank?

Tue, 11/27/2012 - 14:40 | 3014813 MyBrothersKeeper
MyBrothersKeeper's picture

Actually the inner city segment of the population makes up a large portion of single moms who are on the dole.  Remember that 50% of all African American babies are born out of wedlock...many of those "moms" have multiple children fathered by multiple fathers. For that reason alone, collecting child support is virtually impossible. Considering you only have a 3% chance of becoming impoverished if you finish high school and have your first child after marriage, the solutions should be relatively easy.

As you state, most hard working single moms are getting the shaft just as bad or worse than the rest of the middle class

Tue, 11/27/2012 - 15:07 | 3014922 sunnyside
sunnyside's picture

I think that the number is closer to 70% out of wedlock last reported.  The destruction of the black family and father figure is pretty well complete.  The federal gov't is the father to most black youth in this country.


Tue, 11/27/2012 - 19:47 | 3015839 Overfed
Overfed's picture

"Black Culture" is the worst thing to happen to black people in 500 years.

Tue, 11/27/2012 - 15:30 | 3015018 Cathartes Aura
Cathartes Aura's picture

always helpful to remember that "African Americans" are only 13% of the population, and out of that, "half" will be males, and then there's only a certain age group that can birth. . .

how many African American birth moms benefit-ing make up a Banker/CEO corporate bonus - MATH, please.

Tue, 11/27/2012 - 15:06 | 3014917 darteaus
darteaus's picture

"Hell, I don't know ANYONE making $60K."

Your ignorance does not invalidate the argument - that 'A single mother making $60K...'.

Tue, 11/27/2012 - 16:56 | 3015268 toady
toady's picture

OK, but do you know anyone making $60K? Especially any single mother's? I'm sure there are a few in NYC and other high rent locations, but that would just mitigate the higher pay rate.

Tue, 11/27/2012 - 17:59 | 3015516 darteaus
darteaus's picture

Yes - my wife and I.  Single mothers - no.

We did not start off making $60K - I started off making $3.85/hour, and I built my job skills.

The whole point of the article is that the government has created an incentive to not work, as a single mother would need to make $60K to cross the threshold of having more disposable income.  When she figures in the few shekels difference versus giving up 40+ hours/week - that is a HUGE "wall to climb", and few will choose to climb it.

So, now you have an underclass of single parents dependent on government benefits, ultimately taken from the productive.  Where will that lead?

Tue, 11/27/2012 - 19:50 | 3015854 toady
toady's picture

I remember $3.85! I started at $3.35 in the late 70's, then jumped to $3.85 when the minimum wage was increased. Ah, the good ol' days!

I, and many of my friends in telecom & IT, were making low 6 figures until offshoring hit. Now the highest paid one in that group makes 40k at an IT startup.

It's just messed up out there. The bulk of people making decent money are people holding on to old paradigm jobs, while anyone trying to start a career better get used to no benefits,long hours, and low pay.

Given that to look forward to, I find it difficult to find fault with those looking for better options.

Tue, 11/27/2012 - 15:08 | 3014924 darteaus
darteaus's picture

"...bust my ass to not have time with my kids"

Why aren't your kids in school instead of sitting around the house watching soaps with you?

Tue, 11/27/2012 - 15:18 | 3014970 ilovefreedom
ilovefreedom's picture


Imagine you make a six-figure salary but don't have kids and have quite of bit of cash saved up.

You toil everyday, 2 hours in traffic to commute to work a job you don't love-- you don't even like it, but hey, you make more than you friends, some of them can't even find a job.

A few of your friends are unemployment, they wake up at 10am, read a book, go to the beach, have a leisurely lunch, badger you to hang out after work because they've been doing nothing all day and you're exhausted by the time you get home. You have lots of cash comparatively, but very little free time in which to spend it.

After all of this unemployment starts looking pretty good... why work so hard when your life isn't necessarily better than someone on unemployment?

Tue, 11/27/2012 - 16:14 | 3015154 Cathartes Aura
Cathartes Aura's picture

do it.  you've studied the facts, and made the correlations, and are obviously curious - you should definitely try out your theories before they eat you alive with bitterness.

quit the paycheck, sign up for free stuff, and then report back to ZH how brilliant reading a book & hanging at the beach every day really is!

I'm serious by the way.

Tue, 11/27/2012 - 16:18 | 3015163 Henry Hub
Henry Hub's picture

Call me naive, but I still believe that the vast majority of people, given the choice, would choose to work over being unemployed. A lot of people are underestimating the harm unemployment causes on people; lost of self esteem, loss of respect from family members, etc. Anyone who has been unemployed for any length of time is aware of this. 

Tue, 11/27/2012 - 20:48 | 3016026 blunderdog
blunderdog's picture

That's not naive, that's honest.

Tue, 11/27/2012 - 13:25 | 3014562 Seasmoke
Seasmoke's picture

WORK is a 4 letter word !

Tue, 11/27/2012 - 13:28 | 3014564 Againstthelie
Againstthelie's picture

Same here in Europe.

The parasites below AND above are destroying the laborious middle class and the middle class doesn't recognize, that there is NO political party that is defending it.

The wise reaction is: Try to get out of the productive workforce and have no official income. Too bad the productive white ants see this as bad parasitic behaviour and keep the parasitic system, that destroys themselves, running, with their behaviour.

Good is bad and bad is good under this regime of parasites.

Tue, 11/27/2012 - 14:24 | 3014752 Bicycle Repairman
Bicycle Repairman's picture

This is the answer, IMHO.  Increasingly the 1% do not value your work.  They buy off the 47% cheaply to control them, and control their votes and control democracy and there by control you.

Tue, 11/27/2012 - 13:26 | 3014566 Jason T
Jason T's picture

go galt, get productive oneself and be self sufficient.

if you got brains and skills, you will have high standard of living being self sufficient.  

Tue, 11/27/2012 - 13:27 | 3014568 the iD
the iD's picture

"One can only also hope that... the disappearing middle class is also selling off its weaponry. Because if it isn't..."

RGR hits new all time high today...

Tue, 11/27/2012 - 13:27 | 3014576 LawsofPhysics
LawsofPhysics's picture

Apparently, the middle class is more familiar with Otto Von Bismark than originally thought.

Tue, 11/27/2012 - 13:27 | 3014570 chet
chet's picture

I don't refute the basic premise here. 

But how is the "head of a household of four earning minimum wage" sitting around doing nothing?  He's working some (likely thankless) minimum wage job to support his family. 

Be careful not to denigrate the working poor while attacking the welfare state.  They are two different things.

Tue, 11/27/2012 - 14:14 | 3014710 MeBizarro
MeBizarro's picture

Neither party really gives 2 $hits about the working poor.  Only thing that has really been done for them to help them out in the past 15 years is the EIC credit (which I would like to see expanded & offset with welfare benefit) reductions to encourage people to work) and Obamacare (which was plenty of flaws and warts but is still better than no coverage). 

Tue, 11/27/2012 - 14:19 | 3014734 blunderdog
blunderdog's picture

Well-spotted.  The original article was bullshit, too.

"Disposable income" had a different meaning in this context.  It didn't actually refer to INCOME--it was a hedonic calculation which attributed a theoretical income level to people so blessed to live "for free" in housing projects and get food "for free" from SNAP.

Folks who haven't been around the poor have an incredibly unrealistic set of beliefs about how great it is.

Tue, 11/27/2012 - 13:27 | 3014571 BLOTTO
BLOTTO's picture

They say moderation is the key to life...yeah - except 'work.' Then 'moderation' gets thrown out the fuckin window.


And im not lazy - ive been employed since 14 and im currently 38..during that time ive never been unemployed and never been off work longer then 1 month.


Work - Monday to Saturday and Sunday. Just how the education system set us up for...scheduled slavery with breaks and lunches.


How is the moderation working out? Damn calendar/time/space ruling us yet again courtesy of our global occult elitists.


Tue, 11/27/2012 - 15:27 | 3015010 Panafrican Funk...
Panafrican Funktron Robot's picture

Personally, I just adjust my effort level to meet my level of compensation in real (vs. nominal) terms.  I have similarly attended work from the time I was 15 to my current ripe old age of 34 (I was one of those weird fuckers that actually worked his way through school, graduating with no debt), and I spent much of my 20's getting burned out working 70-80 hours a week.  That turned out to be a pretty fucking stupid life path.  So, now I work at a nameless/faceless desk job, doing, as one fellow in the film The Office put it, "just enough not to get fired".  Fuck effort.  There are better places to spend one's energy, like relaxing, spending time with wife/kids, learning skills that are actually useful in this strange space called "free time".  

Tue, 11/27/2012 - 17:22 | 3015351 catacl1sm
catacl1sm's picture

You're referring to "Office Space", the inspiration of our generation.

Tue, 11/27/2012 - 13:28 | 3014572 EscapingProgress
EscapingProgress's picture

"A democracy cannot exist as a permanent form of government. It can only exist until the voters discover that they can vote themselves largesse from the public treasury. From that moment on, the majority always votes for the candidates promising the most benefits from the public treasury with the result that a democracy always collapses over loose fiscal policy, always followed by a dictatorship. The average age of the world's greatest civilizations has been 200 years." - Alexander Tytler

Tue, 11/27/2012 - 13:56 | 3014664 NotApplicable
NotApplicable's picture

"Every election is a sort of advance auction sale of stolen goods." -- H. L. Mencken

Tue, 11/27/2012 - 13:27 | 3014574 Insideher Trading
Insideher Trading's picture

Free market capitalists hear the words welfare and altruism and automatically negative connotations arise.

The leftists in this country love welfare of all kinds for everyone. This is exactly what they want because if they can control how much carbon you use, what kind of car you drive, what goes into your body, etc, than they have complete control over you. They don't care if they're starving in some urban project, as long as you maintain control of the masses, you maintain power.

This welfare mentality is not by accident, it is by design.

Tue, 11/27/2012 - 13:30 | 3014585 LawsofPhysics
LawsofPhysics's picture

correct.  It is and has always been about power and control, period.  Money is indeed an illusion.

Tue, 11/27/2012 - 13:36 | 3014591 Insideher Trading
Insideher Trading's picture

Don't forget...

Nancy Pelosi said the best way to stimulate the economy is with welfare.

As insidious as it is the government is now starting to censor the internet.

It started with online poker sites, than intrade got boot they are spying on all of your digital communications.

These are mainly leftist ideological laws/actions.

Tue, 11/27/2012 - 13:41 | 3014623 LawsofPhysics
LawsofPhysics's picture

still very tied to the earth, Nature, and the laws of physics in my current profession.  Have faith, that which cannot be sustained, won't be.  Hedge accordingly (it's all you can do anyway).

Tue, 11/27/2012 - 16:32 | 3015205 Henry Hub
Henry Hub's picture

***government is now starting to censor the internet...These are mainly leftist ideological laws/actions***

Censoring the Internet is a function the totalitarian police state being created by the oligarchs that own and control this country. Leftist ideology has nothing to do with it.

Tue, 11/27/2012 - 13:53 | 3014656 Toolshed
Toolshed's picture

Yeah, it's all the Left's fault. The geniuses on the Right never make mistakes or implement self serving policies. You, and everyone that thinks like you, are a dream come true for TPTB. Good job!

Tue, 11/27/2012 - 13:58 | 3014669 NotApplicable
NotApplicable's picture

I downvoted you both for playing the divide and conquer game of lefty vs. righty.

Shame on you, supporting evil like that!

And for what?


Tue, 11/27/2012 - 17:31 | 3015391 dogbreath
dogbreath's picture

democrat  =  free goodies for the lower class courtesyof the middle class

republican  =  free shit for the upper classes courtesyof the middle class


tell me again who is right wing

Tue, 11/27/2012 - 13:54 | 3014659 Toolshed
Toolshed's picture

Nice name and avatar btw.

Tue, 11/27/2012 - 14:35 | 3014768 Republicae
Republicae's picture

It appears, more and more, that you are correct. In the eyes of government bureaucracy, the ideal would be to remove all determination from the individual to make choices in his consumption of goods and services, in his ability to think for himself, to have a type of censorship that only allows for the individual to think that which is generally acceptable to the whole of society, of course, what is acceptable to the whole of society has been engineered through decades of gradual compulsory regiments, each building one upon the other, all with the goal of a collective conformity of purpose. We talk about the dumbing down of the American public, but we fail to understand that has simply been one of the methodical processes of control that the government bureaucracy has implemented in its quest for placating and thus dominating the independent spirit of the individual. This government has evolved into what other governments throughout history evolved into, that being a Paternal Organization set to develop the public opinion with a defined belief system, one that is ultimately compliant with and supportive of government without the necessity to question its directives.


It is therefore, essential that any hint of free market decision-making be eliminated, for once a person cannot longer determine his own choice in consumption, then the individual becomes essentially a ward of the State. Likewise, the assault on the idea that there is a Right to Private Property is an equally essential component of the overall directive of control. When the government can issue money substitutes that cannot, by definition, be considered the actual real property of the bearer, then the remaining directives become easier to establish. Government intervention and thus interference in economics is the main avenue utilized by government to implement its controls over the population. What has happened and is happening is nothing short of a longer version of a communist revolution; instead of a radical violent revolution, the same effects can be achieved through a gradual introduction of what amounts to communism through incremental government directives, regulations, prohibitions and induction training in public opinion, i.e. “political correctness”.


Never assume that there is not a political and social purpose behind the governments programs, which directly interfere with market forces, whether it is through regulation, monetary creation or manipulation, all are methodologies toward the goal of ultimate control over an increasingly compliant population. It is evident that through such interference into the markets, businesses and entrepreneurs are systematically forced to actually change the way they do business from market induction to government bureaucratic dictates. Business must take its signals from a distorted view of the market, one that is regulated and controlled instead of proper market signals. Instead of obeying market directives, which actually generate a market result, businesses must obey a plethora of government regulations that are so immense that even the regulators cannot adequately discharge their regulatory duties and can rarely properly interpret the very regulations they are responsible to enforce. Far from being a negative for government regulators, such vagueness is necessary for it provides government with a broadness of implementation and an “out” when such policies are questioned.


Such bureaucratic systems are always subject to corruption, this is true anytime actual market forces are interfered with and controlled. Under normal free market conditions, fraud is short-lived due to the fact that there are signals given that alert the consumer early of the possibility of corruption. Under a system where government intervenes and interferes with market processes, fraud becomes easily hidden since the market signaling process is distorted through government intervention and the regulatory processes employed. It is also essential to understand that any system that employs force to achieve a goal will always create an atmosphere where few will profit from many and income distribution is always stratified through such systems of bureaucratic controls and intervention. Government patronages become common place as those with political connections benefit the most.


Opportunities become very limited due to regulated competition that favors certain politically connected corporations, entrepreneurship becomes increasingly difficult to compete in business where regulation is based upon government patronage to the virtual exclusion of those that might build a better mouse trap but are limited in the opportunity to do so because the established mice trap company is protected by official regulatory walls. There can be no possible way to insure an equitable field of opportunity under such systems, as a rule there are those few therefore, who will prosper at the expense of the majority of individuals. As we have seen, risk becomes socialized while profits remain privatized which, is a complete distortion of market principles where risk and profits are always a private combination of business.


It can be observed therefore, that there is simply no possible method by which the bureaucratic regime can exert such power with any degree of fairness or equitable distribution of opportunity. There is the assumption, by those in government, that it is within the power of government to implement changes in the market that will actually produce equitable results, thus the exercise such power under that assumption, but reality points to a very different set of results. Government intervention into the markets is based on certain assumptions. Most bureaucrats tend to view the public with a condescending eye, one that sees the public as needing direction and guardianship. Thus, government becomes the social worker and policeman of the population. It is this attitude that permeates bureaucracy and provides the excuse for more and more intervention into individual lives, organizing the individuals through classifications and groupings, stratifying the population into distinct and separate classes all for the purpose of social control.

Tue, 11/27/2012 - 14:36 | 3014793 ElvisDog
ElvisDog's picture

Okay, hands up, who actually read the 1000 word post written above? Seriously, dude, if you can't make your point in 50 words or less don't bother.

Tue, 11/27/2012 - 14:54 | 3014856 Republicae
Republicae's picture

Dude....then why on earth did you read it? It was, after all, your option. Seriously, dude...why did you bother? The assumption therefore, is that because the original article was so extensive that you also decided not to read it...are you so slothful, really? Hilarious!

Tue, 11/27/2012 - 15:00 | 3014885 Almost Solvent
Almost Solvent's picture

Everything today has to be "twitterized" so that any thought or writing is 140 characters or less.


Critical thinking and writing is not helpful to the status quo . . .

Tue, 11/27/2012 - 15:02 | 3014898 Republicae
Republicae's picture

That is, unfortunately, the truth of the times...

Tue, 11/27/2012 - 15:03 | 3014907 ElvisDog
ElvisDog's picture

I read the first paragraph and gave up. Long and bloviating does not equal meangingful and well-written. Effective communication is concise, readable, and to the point. Honestly, I had no idea what your point was and wasn't going to waste my time with the other 75% of it.

Tue, 11/27/2012 - 15:45 | 3015061 Panafrican Funk...
Panafrican Funktron Robot's picture

Having taken the time to read the whole post, I can attest to a feeling of regret at time wasted.  Really, saying "government is bad" would have been about as illuminating.  

Tue, 11/27/2012 - 15:53 | 3015090 Uncle Remus
Uncle Remus's picture

"Effective communication is concise, readable, and to the point."

I see short is not on that list.

Tue, 11/27/2012 - 16:24 | 3015188 Republicae
Republicae's picture

Obviously...but not unexpected.

Tue, 11/27/2012 - 15:52 | 3015085 Uncle Remus
Uncle Remus's picture


Tue, 11/27/2012 - 15:10 | 3014938 darteaus
darteaus's picture

A politician only collects money for something.  They only have welfare - corporate and public - to sell.

Tue, 11/27/2012 - 13:27 | 3014575 buzzsaw99
buzzsaw99's picture

Everyone should just rob pension funds like the maggots do. Trying to set one class of poor against the other is a divide and conquer strategy devised by the corzine kleptocrats of the world.

Tue, 11/27/2012 - 13:33 | 3014595 alien-IQ
alien-IQ's picture


Tue, 11/27/2012 - 14:25 | 3014759 centerline
centerline's picture

Too late.  Those cookie jars are stuffed full of IOUs and other assorted love notes.

Tue, 11/27/2012 - 13:31 | 3014588 eaglerock
eaglerock's picture

Sickening.  One other chart I would like to see is what is the payout per child, and is it an economic benefit to have more children when on welfare.

Tue, 11/27/2012 - 14:22 | 3014743 adr
adr's picture

Yes it is, up until 4 children, which is why the abortion rate goes up to about 100% for welfare queens after the fourth kid.

The best part is when your first kid turns 16, then she can pump out four kids over the next four years and still live in the house. The first mama can only claim the 16 year old for the next two years, but after that they can now get money for 7 kids instead of just four by the time she's 20. Repeat over an over again.

That is why there is a huge expansion of the ghetto every 15 years or so when the next round of baby makers hits the cashmaker age.

Under welfare, kids aren't human beings, they are extra EBT benefits. It also explains why the worst selling product in the ghetto are condoms.

Tue, 11/27/2012 - 14:56 | 3014868 DeadFinks
DeadFinks's picture

And if the fathers can contribute, fine and if not, that's fine too.  They're really only useful for one thing you know./

Tue, 11/27/2012 - 15:55 | 3015095 Cathartes Aura
Cathartes Aura's picture

and yet, the desire is to vote in enForced pregnancies. . .

Under welfare, kids aren't human beings, they are extra EBT benefits

oooh, you left out cannon fodder!  then it starts to make more fiscal sense, right?

Tue, 11/27/2012 - 17:42 | 3015442 dogbreath
dogbreath's picture

 if you collect welfare you have made a contract  and are governed by corporate admiralty law and seen as a PERSON.   To be a human being you have to claim your rights under the common law and waive the benefit of socialism.

Tue, 11/27/2012 - 20:52 | 3016038 Blankenstein
Blankenstein's picture

And no surprise our government in too stupid to understand the exponential function and creates policies that will drive us to the point where mother nature will correct the population problem in a very undesirable way.  Instead, the US could educate and change their policies to deal with this impending crisis instead of racing us toward great suffering in the future.  

"if this modest 1.3% (growth rate) per year could continue, the world population would reach a density of one person per square meter on the dry land surface of the earth in 780 years. And the mass of people would equal the mass of he earth in 2400 years."  (from the second video)

Tue, 11/27/2012 - 14:28 | 3014767 centerline
centerline's picture

The short answer is yes.  There is an actual incentive to have more kids in order to increase welfare benefits.  Great system huh?

Tue, 11/27/2012 - 13:32 | 3014589 alien-IQ
alien-IQ's picture

Yes, fire all government workers and cut off all welfare recipients. Surely that'll fix everything. Brilliant.

Tue, 11/27/2012 - 13:45 | 3014632 LawsofPhysics
LawsofPhysics's picture

I'd argue that it would in honest, hard-working, communities.  Know your neighbors?  You fucking better.  Don't be small minded and think the wealthier neighborhoods would in some way act more civil.  Ask yourself, where's the food, water, and firepower?

Tue, 11/27/2012 - 14:12 | 3014704 alien-IQ
alien-IQ's picture

Yes, the Amish will be just fine.

Tue, 11/27/2012 - 14:22 | 3014748 adr
adr's picture

I know a lot of Amish. My uncle teaches thier kids. We woould be welcome since I know how to use a hammer and a saw.

Tue, 11/27/2012 - 16:18 | 3015162 CaptainObvious
CaptainObvious's picture

Not in my state they won't.  The Amish will represent free food to the starving denizens of Filthydelphia, who will unerringly migrate west like locusts.

Tue, 11/27/2012 - 14:11 | 3014698 Kobe Beef
Kobe Beef's picture

Sterilize all welfare recipients. They have no right to continue forcing other people to pay for their mistakes. We have multiple generations of parasites born on welfare, overtaxing public services, hospitals, schools, and ultimately, prisons. This vicious, dysgenic cycle must either end humanely or in ashes.

Tue, 11/27/2012 - 14:36 | 3014800 alien-IQ
alien-IQ's picture

Why not take it a step further and just assassinate anyone who is ever late on a payment?

You really deserve a brutal beating.

Tue, 11/27/2012 - 15:17 | 3014967 Kobe Beef
Kobe Beef's picture

Try it. Try to beat my principles out of me. I will gladly float your corpse back home.

Otherwise, understand that what I have proposed is a humane response to the deleterious social policy of today. Encouraging generational poverty, decaying cities, dysfunctional schools, the redistribtionist state, parasitism, violent crime, and huge prison populations is not the answer.

Tue, 11/27/2012 - 15:57 | 3015100 Cathartes Aura
Cathartes Aura's picture

jeezus, which is it?

sterilise 'em or force 'em to give birth??

Tue, 11/27/2012 - 16:19 | 3015165 Kobe Beef
Kobe Beef's picture

Was I not clear enough the first time? Sterilize them. Norplant, tubal ligation; whatever is consistent and cost-effective. Compare the cost of this simple, humane procedure with the social costs incurred by the cradle-to-grave Welfare State and the Prison Industrial Complex.

And keep your strawmen to yourself, thank you.

Tue, 11/27/2012 - 16:28 | 3015197 Cathartes Aura
Cathartes Aura's picture

sterilise "them"?  the wombs you mean?  not the more simple *snip* of a vasectomy?

ooooh, no, can't be doing that!!  gawd forbid the sperm donor, who can make multitudes of baybeez every week if he only puts his *cough* mind to it - whereas a pregnancy will occupy a womb *cough* for at least 9 months.

my "strawmen" references a certain voter demographic strongly evident here, and policies desired, and I suspect you realise this.

Tue, 11/27/2012 - 17:21 | 3015342 Kobe Beef
Kobe Beef's picture

Did I not say "Sterilize all welfare recipients"? If not, let me say it here: Sterilize all welfare recipients. That way you cannot pretend to misunderstand me again. So, if the males are receiving welfare benefits, then sterilize them too. Snip away. My policy desired is simply removing the burden on our overtaxed society in a humane way. More humane than the poverty- & prison-farming system of today..

So reference "whatever voter demographic strongly evident" you think will best obfuscate my statement. Go ahead, because you're fooling no one. If you cannot read nor hear, it's because you are trying too hard to characterize and redirect. So squirt your little ink and disappear already.

Tue, 11/27/2012 - 16:01 | 3015116 eaglerock
eaglerock's picture

Let's say there was no such thing as welfare, and my unwed daughter had a child that I was stuck supporting.  I would tell her she could not have any more children if she wanted me to keep supporting her.  That would be considered 'tough love'.  If the government says this, it is called immoral and inhumane.  Crazy!

Tue, 11/27/2012 - 16:23 | 3015184 Cathartes Aura
Cathartes Aura's picture

if your "unwed daughter" has a baby, and you were supporting her, and she kept having sex with her "boyfriend" and kept getting pregnant - would you expect her to continue giving birth?  and at any point would you ever think to have a conversation with the fathering person?

I'm in no way defending lack of awareness about how pregnancy happens, for any of the participants - but I do find it very telling that only the "mother" is EVER mentioned as "at fault" - and that Constitutional Amendments are drafted to control only the womb, not the sperm donor.

Tue, 11/27/2012 - 17:14 | 3015312 eaglerock
eaglerock's picture

I am not telling her she can or cannot have any more children, and let's say I have no clue who the father is.  What I am saying is that if she does decide to have another baby she gets no more money from me.  Her choice.  Not sure why it is immoral for the government to give people that choice.  I guess if the choice was between no welfare and going on birth control, most people would choose birth control. 

Wed, 11/28/2012 - 01:10 | 3016559 Cathartes Aura
Cathartes Aura's picture

I understand the point you're making - that you'll draw the line at assistance should the behaviours remain unchanged.

what I am pointing to is the Repub party continuing to promote the Sanctity of Life type amendments which will FORCE women to give birth, by Constitutional Amendment, by awarding the zygote - not foetus, but zygote - personhood status.

and I realise I am boring with this topic, but it never ceases to amaze me that, even AFTER the whole voting season so recently behind us, so few here have a clue about this.

particularly because of the precedence it sets.

Tue, 11/27/2012 - 16:55 | 3015266 alien-IQ
alien-IQ's picture

If Sterilization based on economic class is your idea of "humane"...then you have no principles, just a misguided sense of superiority and some seriously pent up hatred.

This thread has really bought out some ugliness in people, but few have touched the grotesque level of degeneracy and loathing that you have managed to achieve.

Tue, 11/27/2012 - 17:50 | 3015455 Kobe Beef
Kobe Beef's picture

"Seriously pent-up hatred... grotesque level of degeneracy". That's cute. You win the ad hominum prize for the day. In exchange you can tell me how a system which births children into a lifetime of grinding poverty, brutal violence, civil destruction, and mass incarceration is better than a little preventative medicine.

I did not say sterilization based on economic class. I said sterilization based on economic behavior, that of economic cannibalism. This is not based on some sense of superiority and hatred. It is based on the firm understanding that a society growing a permanent, State-sponsored underclass cannibalizing the productive will not survive. Choices have consequences, and subsidizing bad choices (ie. creating children you cannot feed nor raise & instead foist onto society in exchange for some Free Shit) has led to a significant reduction in quality of life for all parties involved; the parasite loses his humanity, the prey their livelihood.

I am attacking the system which has created this wholesale destruction and the behavior which feeds it. I am advocating preventative medicine, though you may mischaracterize and smear my argument as you please.


Tue, 11/27/2012 - 18:29 | 3015617 Shigure
Shigure's picture

Kobe Beef, I'm sure you remember this infographic posted on ZH:

100 million dollars = 1 year of work for 3500 average Americans

The banks are the biggest recipients of state benefits.

I think that fractional reserve banking has actually caused the growth of the welfare system.

Wed, 11/28/2012 - 03:12 | 3016646 Kobe Beef
Kobe Beef's picture

I have never excused the banksters for their predatory behavior either. This thread is about social welfare, so I am addressing that topic, not trying to redirect it toward corporate welfare. When Tyler posts a piece about bankster malfeasance, you can see me give them both barrels too.



Tue, 11/27/2012 - 13:34 | 3014594 Waterfallsparkles
Waterfallsparkles's picture

Welfare should not be comfortable.  I never understood why the People on Welfare live as well as they do.

I would like to see the People on Welfare in the old Military Bases.  Everyone would get a room to sleep in.  There would be common Bathrooms and TV, game rooms.  I would also have a chow line.  Three times a day food would be served.  Some would work to pay for their keep, some would watch the children of those who work and some would cook, clean, do laundry.  Everyone would have to contribute.

I would not make it comfortabe.  That way people would want to get off Government assistance.  Not stay on it for life.  I would provide a roof over their head and food but no frills.

Tue, 11/27/2012 - 13:52 | 3014645 Catullus
Catullus's picture

Yes. We can call them "camps" and we can "concentrate" them to do work.

Tue, 11/27/2012 - 15:11 | 3014941 darteaus
darteaus's picture

I love that episode.  That and "NAGGERS".

Tue, 11/27/2012 - 15:52 | 3015084 BlueCollaredOne
BlueCollaredOne's picture

Don't forget "and its gone"

Tue, 11/27/2012 - 13:56 | 3014663 SokPOTUS
SokPOTUS's picture

I believe FEMA is currently accepting applications.

Tue, 11/27/2012 - 14:04 | 3014681 ElvisDog
ElvisDog's picture

I wouldn't go quite as far as you suggest, but what I would do is get rid of EBT/SNAP cards. Welfare is too damn convenient these days, and SNAP cards can be used to buy fucking Monster energy drinks at 7-11. They should go back to handing out actual staple food - flour, pasta, hamburger, beans, etc. from government-run facilities. This bullshit of being able to sit on your ass until the end of the month and then waddling down to Walmart to buy Doritos on your SNAP card should end.

Tue, 11/27/2012 - 14:18 | 3014728 cartonero
cartonero's picture

As an actual SNAP recipient I can tell you that I use my benefit to buy the healthiest food I can, which does not include flour, pasta, or hamburger.  Got any other ideas?

Tue, 11/27/2012 - 14:36 | 3014796 Kobe Beef
Kobe Beef's picture

Yes. If you have children, eat them. Then your neighbors'. Thanks for asking.

Tue, 11/27/2012 - 16:15 | 3015155 cartonero
cartonero's picture

Or I can migrate to your self righteous world and eat Beef.  You're welcome.


Tue, 11/27/2012 - 16:29 | 3015192 Kobe Beef
Kobe Beef's picture

Self-righteous? Or simply righteous. I call it principle. Without it, man is merely beast and will heartily feed on one another, as you attest to here.

I was a bit harsh in my response to you, and I apologize-- but the time for coddling dangerous fallacies, marxist parasitism, and economic cannibalism is over. Please, do your best and make do without the fruits of others' flesh and labor.


Tue, 11/27/2012 - 17:02 | 3015285 cartonero
cartonero's picture

You're the one who's suggesting cannibalism, Reverend.

Tue, 11/27/2012 - 18:11 | 3015565 Kobe Beef
Kobe Beef's picture

You're practicing it, leech.

Tue, 11/27/2012 - 14:36 | 3014798 Almost Solvent
Almost Solvent's picture

Fresh fruits, vegtables, gluten-free/dairy-free products.

And find a way off the SNAP by any means necessary.

Tue, 11/27/2012 - 14:42 | 3014819 ElvisDog
ElvisDog's picture

Well, congrats because you're someone who is being responsible. But when I go down to the gas station and see "EBT accepted" in the window, that gas station is not offering "the healthiest food" available. It's offering sugar, salt, and hydrogenated vegetable oil. My point is that gas stations should not be able to accept EBT cards and people shouldn't be able to buy whatever they want with them.

Tue, 11/27/2012 - 16:22 | 3015173 CaptainObvious
CaptainObvious's picture

Yeah, I do.  Use your SNAP to buy heirloom's perfectly legal to do this.  You can do a container garden if you don't have actual land to do a real garden.  Then, when your harvest is complete, let the plants bolt, collect the seeds, and use them to plant your next garden.  This way you reduce your burden on society by learning to feed yourself. 

Tue, 11/27/2012 - 16:43 | 3015240 Cathartes Aura
Cathartes Aura's picture

possible ideas might include joining a CSA (community supported agriculture) if available in your area, or starting a community garden plot with others, or a bulk buying group of folks - bonus there is getting a larger food storage going just in case. . .

having the awareness that SNAP cards are pixels funneled from JPM through you to benefit supermarkets, etc. - that should help with the storyline some!

best wishes.

Tue, 11/27/2012 - 15:32 | 3015025 Waterfallsparkles
Waterfallsparkles's picture

I would also limit the food you could buy with a snap card.  It would be for dried beans, rice, potatoes, pasta, canned vegtables, carrots, onions, celery, flour, sugar, milk, hamburger, chicken.  Just the basics.

They have the time to cook from scratch like I did in the old days.  They could make their own bread.  You could make a lot of soup with dried beans, celery, onions, etc.  You could make a lot of dishes from rice and chicken or beans.

Why should they be able to buy Lobster and Prime Rib?

Tue, 11/27/2012 - 14:43 | 3014803 Bicycle Repairman
Bicycle Repairman's picture

I understand your anger.  Keep in mind the USA fought a civil war over these issues in the 1960s.  The rebels inadvertently received training from the military starting in 1948.  Then in the 1960s they used illicit connections in the military to get armed.  They had many sympathizers within the establishment.  After warfare and great destruction in many major cities, a truce was negotiated whereby the rebels were bought off.  The rebels were also allowed to occupy several major cities.  And today the settlement manifests itself as welfare, government jobs and endless favorable propaganda.

Tue, 11/27/2012 - 21:16 | 3016095 Cloud9.5
Cloud9.5's picture

Now that was insightful.  I had never thought of the outcome of the civil rights movement in that light.  I am not sure I agree with you but it is a whole different way of looking at the movement and its outcome.  I will have to back up and consider that perspective for a while.


Tue, 11/27/2012 - 16:17 | 3015159 Cthonic
Cthonic's picture

Comfort is relative; and any thing that sustains a human being is 'a way of life'. Perhaps not one you or I would wish to partake in, but one nonetheless.  The whole point of the welfare exercise is to maintain the illusion of stability under the status quo while rendering the recipients psychologically/economically dependent; making the recipients 'uncomfortable' defeats this centralization of power in the hands of the parasitic 'dispensers'.

Tue, 11/27/2012 - 16:32 | 3015206 Cathartes Aura
Cathartes Aura's picture

your proposed scenario would severely impact Section 8 landlords, and their profits via same.

think it through now. . .

Tue, 11/27/2012 - 13:34 | 3014597 oleander garch
oleander garch's picture

As long as Jamie Dimon can be paid by the Federal Reserve to take printed money which he can then lend out via credit cards at an average of 15%, then the welfare state will exist.  Remember, Jamie gets paid to borrow more money from the Fed than the entire amount Pennsylvania spends on welfare for its poor, sick, elderly and children.  What is the line where the taxpayer is better off for ending Fed welfare to the TBTF?  I think it is somewhere around one dollar. 

Tue, 11/27/2012 - 13:34 | 3014600 slickrock
slickrock's picture

Ineptocracy: A system of government where the least capable to lead are elected by the least capable of producing, and where the members of society least likely to sustain themselves or suceed, are rewarded with goods and services paid for by the confiscated wealth of a diminshing number of producers.

Tue, 11/27/2012 - 14:32 | 3014781 andyupnorth
andyupnorth's picture

Wow!  That's heavy!

Do NOT follow this link or you will be banned from the site!