Reader comments
Walter Williams: Our welfare state has people stealing from each other
32 comments | Read story
Roland Kayser | 12:49 a.m. Aug. 6, 2008
The share of the nation's wealth owned by the top 1% of the population has
doubled in the last thirty years. Did the top 1% double their productivity in
the last thirty years, or were they just really lazy back then?
John Galt | 1:31 a.m. Aug. 6, 2008
Great. Let me add.
Consider what the democratic party/socialist party stands for: (platform of 64)
"the right to a decent home" "the right to a good education" "the right to medial care".....
A single question added to each of the above would make the issue clear: AT WHOSE EXPENSE?
Jobs, food, clothing, medical care and education do not grow on trees in nature. These are man made values, goods and services produced by men. Who is to provide them?
If some people are entitled by RIGHT to the products of the work of others, it means that those others are deprived of RIGHTS and condemned to slave labor.
Any alleged "right" of one man, which necessitates the violation of the rights of another, is not and cannot be a right!
No man can have a right to impose an unchosen obligation, an unrewarded duty or an involuntary servitude on another man. There can be no such thing as "the right to enslave."
Rights are moral principals which define and protect man's freedom of action, but impose no obligation on other men.
Those who advocate laissez-faire capitalism are the only advocates of man's rights
Consider what the democratic party/socialist party stands for: (platform of 64)
"the right to a decent home" "the right to a good education" "the right to medial care".....
A single question added to each of the above would make the issue clear: AT WHOSE EXPENSE?
Jobs, food, clothing, medical care and education do not grow on trees in nature. These are man made values, goods and services produced by men. Who is to provide them?
If some people are entitled by RIGHT to the products of the work of others, it means that those others are deprived of RIGHTS and condemned to slave labor.
Any alleged "right" of one man, which necessitates the violation of the rights of another, is not and cannot be a right!
No man can have a right to impose an unchosen obligation, an unrewarded duty or an involuntary servitude on another man. There can be no such thing as "the right to enslave."
Rights are moral principals which define and protect man's freedom of action, but impose no obligation on other men.
Those who advocate laissez-faire capitalism are the only advocates of man's rights
Timj | 5:10 a.m. Aug. 6, 2008
Meanwhile, not only do gas prices go up, but food prices do. If I'm poor,
I can maybe avoid paying higher gas prices by walking to work. But it's
pretty difficult to get out of paying considerably more for food. Everyone has
to eat.
Do we need to raise the minimum wage? Maybe. Maybe part of the solution is to teach personal finances in public schools (some schools are already doing it). In any case, America fails when its citizens go hungry, don't have a place to live, or don't have basic health care.
Or should we all just practice social darwinism and let the rich get richer and the poor get poorer?
Do we need to raise the minimum wage? Maybe. Maybe part of the solution is to teach personal finances in public schools (some schools are already doing it). In any case, America fails when its citizens go hungry, don't have a place to live, or don't have basic health care.
Or should we all just practice social darwinism and let the rich get richer and the poor get poorer?
Comments continue below
Worry about welfare for rich | 6:23 a.m. Aug. 6, 2008
Before I worry about the "welfare" of a young family getting food
stamps so they can have decent food, I will continue to worry about Corporate
heads who get 10's of millions regardless whether they earn it by doing a
good job.
Welfare for the rich is much worse than welfare for the poor, and it robs us of benefits at work and causes higher prices for goods and services.
Welfare for the rich is much worse than welfare for the poor, and it robs us of benefits at work and causes higher prices for goods and services.
let them eat cake | 6:58 a.m. Aug. 6, 2008
Perhaps the fact to contemplate is there are more millionaires today than people
living in the entire city of New York.
There are also three times more billionaires (that's right - billionaires) today than existed just a decade ago.
Something has gone drastically wrong.
There are also three times more billionaires (that's right - billionaires) today than existed just a decade ago.
Something has gone drastically wrong.
liberal Larry | 7:32 a.m. Aug. 6, 2008
Isn't amazing how George W Bush, Mitt Romney, and John Huntsman Jr. pulled
themselves up by their bootstraps! I'm sure that they all had to worry
about health care, three square meals and paying for college while they were
growing up.
Why is it that when the rich lavish opportunities on their children it's a good thing, but when society provides help for the poor it is considered a "hand out".
Why is it that when the rich lavish opportunities on their children it's a good thing, but when society provides help for the poor it is considered a "hand out".
Perspective | 7:56 a.m. Aug. 6, 2008
Adjusting for purchasing power parity, an American earning $10,000/year is
wealthier than 96% of the world. It is difficult to claim poverty when you are
wealthier than 96% of the world.
A bit of history | 8:22 a.m. Aug. 6, 2008
We did without compulsory education until the mid 1800's. We did without
government welfare until the early 1900's. We did without social security
until the 1930's. And through those years, America was still a massive
immigration draw from the whole world. Private charity provided for the poor,
and the poor expected to work hard and become independent as soon as
possible.
Perhaps we can't or shouldn't go back completely to that state of affairs. But the welfare state has grown by leaps and bounds every decade since the 1930's. Which means our taxes have grown too. You tax the rich more, they move their money into tax shelters, instead of investing in where they'll get the best return. Which is a bad thing - less money available for creating new jobs. Most rich people did not inherit their money - they earned it through their own efforts and investments.
If corporations pay executives a lot, they must find it worth it. If they screw up, they fire them. If the stockholders don't think the board is managing and hiring well, they can vote them out. Do you really want the government dictating to private corporations???
Perhaps we can't or shouldn't go back completely to that state of affairs. But the welfare state has grown by leaps and bounds every decade since the 1930's. Which means our taxes have grown too. You tax the rich more, they move their money into tax shelters, instead of investing in where they'll get the best return. Which is a bad thing - less money available for creating new jobs. Most rich people did not inherit their money - they earned it through their own efforts and investments.
If corporations pay executives a lot, they must find it worth it. If they screw up, they fire them. If the stockholders don't think the board is managing and hiring well, they can vote them out. Do you really want the government dictating to private corporations???
samhill | 9:47 a.m. Aug. 6, 2008
I laughed out loud at the comments and conclusions of "let them eat
cake" who, astoundingly, reasons that "Something has gone drastically
wrong" because there are more millionaires and billionaires than there used
to be.
That, ladies and gentlemen, is the essence of the whole socialist argument.
“Let there be no one who has more property than we deem decent and/or necessary.” Which boils down to the same childish logic displayed by playground bullies who feel entitled to take things from other kids simply because, “I wanna!”
The arrogance and presumptuousness, not to mention incredible hypocrisy, is simply amazing.
I say “hypocrisy” because you can bet that whatever the level is that these thieves determine is “proper” will always be somewhere above whatever level the thieves themselves can portray to be theirs.
I say “portray” because, if there is anything to learn from communist countries, the ultimate expression of the socialistic model, past and present, it is always the “leaders” who have exclusive access to the finest in everything. While the “workers”, the proletariat, are constantly driven and forced to “sacrifice” for the state.
Any society which inhibits meritorious reward will increase the suffering of all.
That, ladies and gentlemen, is the essence of the whole socialist argument.
“Let there be no one who has more property than we deem decent and/or necessary.” Which boils down to the same childish logic displayed by playground bullies who feel entitled to take things from other kids simply because, “I wanna!”
The arrogance and presumptuousness, not to mention incredible hypocrisy, is simply amazing.
I say “hypocrisy” because you can bet that whatever the level is that these thieves determine is “proper” will always be somewhere above whatever level the thieves themselves can portray to be theirs.
I say “portray” because, if there is anything to learn from communist countries, the ultimate expression of the socialistic model, past and present, it is always the “leaders” who have exclusive access to the finest in everything. While the “workers”, the proletariat, are constantly driven and forced to “sacrifice” for the state.
Any society which inhibits meritorious reward will increase the suffering of all.
Anonymous | 10:13 a.m. Aug. 6, 2008
Might as well face it.
There exists a huge mega-wealthy club that is a combination of corporate and governmental behemoths
running the entire show. (And we are not part of that club)
We the people may be a thing of the past.
There exists a huge mega-wealthy club that is a combination of corporate and governmental behemoths
running the entire show. (And we are not part of that club)
We the people may be a thing of the past.
Matthew Piccolo | 10:11 a.m. Aug. 6, 2008
"The question that naturally arises is if we're spending enough to
lift everyone out of poverty, why is there still poverty? The obvious answer is
poor people are not receiving all the money being spent in their name."
The other answer is that government programs mostly give people things they need to survive now but don't teach them to be self-reliant or give them the tools to do so.
Another problem with government redistribution of wealth is that it separates the giver of "charity" from the receiver. When you donate to a local homeless shelter or employment program or give money to a close friend or stranger on the street you might be able to help those people yourself and you might feel satisfied as you help them and want to help them more.
When the federal government takes your money and, after various levels of bureaucracy, uses it to help another person, you, the taxpayer, have no idea how your "charitable contribution" was used to help someone. Government welfare programs, though well-intentioned, are much less effective than private charity and even discourage it. We all need to step up and choose to help our neighbors in need.
The other answer is that government programs mostly give people things they need to survive now but don't teach them to be self-reliant or give them the tools to do so.
Another problem with government redistribution of wealth is that it separates the giver of "charity" from the receiver. When you donate to a local homeless shelter or employment program or give money to a close friend or stranger on the street you might be able to help those people yourself and you might feel satisfied as you help them and want to help them more.
When the federal government takes your money and, after various levels of bureaucracy, uses it to help another person, you, the taxpayer, have no idea how your "charitable contribution" was used to help someone. Government welfare programs, though well-intentioned, are much less effective than private charity and even discourage it. We all need to step up and choose to help our neighbors in need.
Joe | 11:12 a.m. Aug. 6, 2008
No one addresses the fact that we are providing enough "welfare" money
so that 37 million people could receive $67,000 per year for a family of four if
we eliminated all the bureaucrats and others who steal the money earmarked for
taking care of the "poor." How is Williams wrong?
Rather than starting the conversation "the rich are too rich," why don't we focus on why the poor are still poor? I know it is easier to change topics rather than focus on the fundamental problem.
Rather than starting the conversation "the rich are too rich," why don't we focus on why the poor are still poor? I know it is easier to change topics rather than focus on the fundamental problem.
Walter | 11:19 a.m. Aug. 6, 2008
If only the world of the poor and the solution were so simple; and if only the
rich were fair and honest then there would not be so much need for government
intervention of income redistribution. But neither the government nor the rich
need our symphany, they are doing very well, thank you. It is the poor that are
hurting. What can you do with them, no one likes them, no one wants them. For
the most part they do not even like themselves or their lives. So why are they
poor. Is it because of the greed of the rich and the power of politics. Then
what other solution is there other than government.
Cambridge | 12:12 p.m. Aug. 6, 2008
@ Walter
I do not see it as readily apparent "the poor" are even poor and even less apparent that they are as they are due to the "greed of the rich."
The "greed" of Bill Gates, to use a ready example, has created thousands, if not millions, of jobs and dramatically increased the wealth of the world. Wealth creation is not a zero-sum game. As Mr. Gates grew wealthy, others did not grow poorer to accomodate. On the contrary, as he grew wealthy, so too did many others grow wealthy.
I have walked the streets of Cairo, of Jerusalem, even of Southern Spain. There is little of that kind of poverty in the United States. Don't get me wrong, if we can do better by the poor, I'm all for it, but the poor in the U.S. are, for the most part, quite wealthy by most other standards.
I do not see it as readily apparent "the poor" are even poor and even less apparent that they are as they are due to the "greed of the rich."
The "greed" of Bill Gates, to use a ready example, has created thousands, if not millions, of jobs and dramatically increased the wealth of the world. Wealth creation is not a zero-sum game. As Mr. Gates grew wealthy, others did not grow poorer to accomodate. On the contrary, as he grew wealthy, so too did many others grow wealthy.
I have walked the streets of Cairo, of Jerusalem, even of Southern Spain. There is little of that kind of poverty in the United States. Don't get me wrong, if we can do better by the poor, I'm all for it, but the poor in the U.S. are, for the most part, quite wealthy by most other standards.
never blow off the poor | 12:30 p.m. Aug. 6, 2008
When the underserved are ignored it's just a matter of time before all of us will be suffering.
It's a karma thing.
Terradea | 1:17 p.m. Aug. 6, 2008
This article is VERY misleading. Past military spending (includes veterans
benefits, interest on debt) contributes to the total military budget, a whopping
54% of the total expenditures by the federal government. 30% more go to the
"government civil servants" and that leaves a mere 16% for social
programs, general government, physical resources. The article is misleading as
it states Social Security as part of the budget raised and spent from taxes,
which it is not.
This article was written by another supporter of the very corrupt conservative movement in power today, and should be taken with a few thousand grains of salt. Read "The Wrecking Crew" for a better idea of what is really going on today. Poor people are the fastest growing segment of citizens in the US today.
This article was written by another supporter of the very corrupt conservative movement in power today, and should be taken with a few thousand grains of salt. Read "The Wrecking Crew" for a better idea of what is really going on today. Poor people are the fastest growing segment of citizens in the US today.
Jon W. | 1:29 p.m. Aug. 6, 2008
" So why are they poor. Is it because of the greed of the rich and the
power of politics. "
That is a totally unsubstantiated conclusion. The poor didn't get poor because the rich stole from them. They got poor (or failed to rise out of poverty) because they haven't been properly taught how to be self-reliant, or because they have ignored the lessons. As for the "power of politics", the political scene has been dominated for the last 75 years by those who are trying to solve the problem of poverty. They have failed because they do not seem to understand basic human nature, and what it takes to change it.
That is a totally unsubstantiated conclusion. The poor didn't get poor because the rich stole from them. They got poor (or failed to rise out of poverty) because they haven't been properly taught how to be self-reliant, or because they have ignored the lessons. As for the "power of politics", the political scene has been dominated for the last 75 years by those who are trying to solve the problem of poverty. They have failed because they do not seem to understand basic human nature, and what it takes to change it.
wrz | 1:55 p.m. Aug. 6, 2008
Matthew Piccolo | 10:11 a.m. Aug. 6, 2008
"The other answer is that government programs mostly give people things they need to survive now but don't teach them to be self-reliant or give them the tools to do so."
And another answer is that, those who receive government handouts are not encouraged to get off handouts, but to sit back and expect more of the same. And they help elect people sympathetic to their cause. And, by the way, everyone gets a handout, eventually. Social Security comes to mind.
"The other answer is that government programs mostly give people things they need to survive now but don't teach them to be self-reliant or give them the tools to do so."
And another answer is that, those who receive government handouts are not encouraged to get off handouts, but to sit back and expect more of the same. And they help elect people sympathetic to their cause. And, by the way, everyone gets a handout, eventually. Social Security comes to mind.
Joe to Terradea | 1:56 p.m. Aug. 6, 2008
You are free to argue that social security and medicare are not expenditures by
the federal government, to get to your 54% military spending, especially if you
believe the entire federal debt is due to military spending alone.
All I know is at the end of the year, the combined amounts I pay for social security and medicare dwarf my "taxes." Since I am self employed, I get to pay 14% of my income on these non-taxes, rather than your 7%. And if you think there is a little pot of money in Washington DC labeled "Joe's Money; save till he needs it or retires" then you need to go back to the library.
And the question remains; why are the 37 million poor people not getting their $67,000 from the government each year? Where is the difference going?
All I know is at the end of the year, the combined amounts I pay for social security and medicare dwarf my "taxes." Since I am self employed, I get to pay 14% of my income on these non-taxes, rather than your 7%. And if you think there is a little pot of money in Washington DC labeled "Joe's Money; save till he needs it or retires" then you need to go back to the library.
And the question remains; why are the 37 million poor people not getting their $67,000 from the government each year? Where is the difference going?
here's how it's done | 2:56 p.m. Aug. 6, 2008
The best way to keep all the wealth is the Machiavellian way.
Treat everybody like dirt. (ever listen to Rush Limbaugh?)
Take away all social programs.
Move the good jobs overseas.
Make social programs sound like communism.
Make liberals sound like demons.
Treat everybody like dirt. (ever listen to Rush Limbaugh?)
Take away all social programs.
Move the good jobs overseas.
Make social programs sound like communism.
Make liberals sound like demons.
Dagny | 3:24 p.m. Aug. 6, 2008
John Galt speaks the truth.
Anon | 3:51 p.m. Aug. 6, 2008
To the socialists out there - its sure a lot easier to redistribute money when
its not your own...isn't it?
I would add the following point to Jon W.'s comment - it might be politically incorrect to say so, but some (not all) people are poor because they are lazy...no amount of social engineering is going to change that fact of human nature.
I would add the following point to Jon W.'s comment - it might be politically incorrect to say so, but some (not all) people are poor because they are lazy...no amount of social engineering is going to change that fact of human nature.
Rex | 3:54 p.m. Aug. 6, 2008
"here's how its done" has apparently never listened to Rush
Limbaugh. How do I know? "Treat everybody like dirt." I tune in for
a while almost every day - and I haven't seen that happen.
"here's how" has either never listened to him, or is verrrrry
thin skined.
NoSocialistHere | 4:12 p.m. Aug. 6, 2008
In most cases the poor are hurting due to their own actions. There are several
things that people can do to reduce the possibility of being poor.
Get a High School diploma and marry before having children.
The fact is that our standard of living has increased substantially in the last 50 years. We live in ever bigger homes. We have two or three cars. We have several TVs, cable, internet access, ATVs, motorcycles, snowmobiles, and the list goes on and on. The only problem is that most people don't know how to save money by differentiating between wants and needs. I know a couple who live in the San Francisco Bay area (1 bdrm apt. goes for $1,500/month) and he goes to school full-time. In two years they have saved over $50,0000. However, they are very frugal with their money and work very hard to save money.
However, when you give someone everything they come to expect it. Look at public housing. They are run down. Why? Because the tenants have no monetary investment in the property. When you work hard for something you appreciate it more and take care of it.
Get a High School diploma and marry before having children.
The fact is that our standard of living has increased substantially in the last 50 years. We live in ever bigger homes. We have two or three cars. We have several TVs, cable, internet access, ATVs, motorcycles, snowmobiles, and the list goes on and on. The only problem is that most people don't know how to save money by differentiating between wants and needs. I know a couple who live in the San Francisco Bay area (1 bdrm apt. goes for $1,500/month) and he goes to school full-time. In two years they have saved over $50,0000. However, they are very frugal with their money and work very hard to save money.
However, when you give someone everything they come to expect it. Look at public housing. They are run down. Why? Because the tenants have no monetary investment in the property. When you work hard for something you appreciate it more and take care of it.
samhill | 4:32 p.m. Aug. 6, 2008
And, who is this "John Galt"?
Oh Please | 5:19 p.m. Aug. 6, 2008
John Galt, hero of Atlas Shrugged, is just Satan in disguise. He's the
handsome, oh-so-sophisticated bright guy who got rich "without
anyone's help" and then tried to take over. When that didn't
work, he went pouting for the exits and convinced the selfish people to go with
him to Galt's Gulch where they could gloat over their brothers in the dust.
Galt's Gulch = Hell, if you ask me.
Wealth is relative | 5:21 p.m. Aug. 6, 2008
Although there are people in this country who struggle to make ends meet, the
reality is we have very few poor people in this country. All but the most
destitute poor person in America would be viewed as filthy rich by lots of
people around the world.
Most of the "poor" in our country have a TV set, a refrigerator, cable TV, a car, clothes, food, and access to a lot more resources thanks in part to our welfare state.
The real problem most socialists see is the disparity between the "rich" and the "poor". You could give everyone in this country a million dollars and these people would not be happy because "some" people have a billion. Its just not fair!
Most of the "poor" in our country have a TV set, a refrigerator, cable TV, a car, clothes, food, and access to a lot more resources thanks in part to our welfare state.
The real problem most socialists see is the disparity between the "rich" and the "poor". You could give everyone in this country a million dollars and these people would not be happy because "some" people have a billion. Its just not fair!
To: Oh Please | 6:08 p.m. Aug. 6, 2008
I take it you side with the "looters" in the book. I have never met
anyone like John Galt, but I have met many like the "looters" who
figure the way to wealth and power is not to produce, but to redistribute wealth
by establishing a need (a PC way to take money from those actually
contributing). That was one of the points of the book. Under socialism the
rewards go not to those who produce, but to those who can "sell" a
need. Money is then take from the producers and given to the "needy",
with something going to the looter who sold the need.
I agree with Dagny - John Galt speaks the truth.
I agree with Dagny - John Galt speaks the truth.
kRush | 8:19 p.m. Aug. 6, 2008
All Americans Lives should be modeled after our Washington representatives, they
have good lives, fine food and housing, excellent health care and retirement
plans, good friends, fun clubs and organizations, little work, good legal
representation to get them off the hook for their mistakes, political clout to
get forgivness for their sins, always get invited to the parties and are first
inline; now that is the American way. Being poor sucks.
re: Rex 3:54 | 9:11 p.m. Aug. 6, 2008
No Rex.
I don't bother with that Republican stooge and bigot, Rush Limbaugh because I'm thin-skinned as you say.
I just have more class than to listen to hate-mongering as "entertainment."
I don't bother with that Republican stooge and bigot, Rush Limbaugh because I'm thin-skinned as you say.
I just have more class than to listen to hate-mongering as "entertainment."
Anonymous | 9:21 p.m. Aug. 6, 2008
George Soros and the Kennedy Family are wealthy. Why don't they fear
democrats? Visit the Left Coast. Go to La Jolla, Marin County, Newport Beach,
Carmel, Palm Springs and other spots and see if you see a wealthy under class.
wkb | 8:43 p.m. Aug. 12, 2008
I'd wager that the vast majority of posters here are employed (if they are
employed)by companies whose owner(s) are wealthy, or well on their way to
getting that way. It's a simple economic fact: there are no poor people
hiring. Yet, the contempt/hatred demonstrated toward those who have wealth is
astounding ... and indicative of some seriously warped thinking. No doubt, all
of those harboring such socialistic viewpoints are Obama backers. Fortunately,
capitalism is very much alive and well in this country--courtesy of those who
work hard everyday to get ahead, rather than depending on others to provide for
their care and feeding--and Obama will be kicked to the curb come Oct.
Add your comment
Comments are monitored. Any comments found to be abusive, offensive, off-topic, misrepresentative, more than 200 words or containing URLs will not be posted.
Words Remaining
E-mail address: For internal use only. We may want to contact you to publish your comment (not your e-mail address) in the newspaper or for a separate story idea.
- Salem rezones land for industry 5:48 p.m.
- Tempering water shutoff rules 5:47 p.m.
- NFL capsules for Thursday's games 5:45 p.m.
- Transactions 5:40 p.m.
- Civil suit in teen's death will proceed 5:35 p.m.
- Wisconsin upsets Maryland 5:33 p.m.
- Hearing set for accused teen shooter 5:23 p.m.
- Students on the job front 5:22 p.m.
- ATP finals: Davydenko beats Nadal 5:22 p.m.
- Report: Iverson set to retire 5:20 p.m.
- Donny and Kym dance to victory
- Howard made the rivalry a rivalry
- Crews free man in Utah County cave
- Cougars cruise past Southern
- Loyal to Cougarettes, Crimson Line
- Twitterati to BCS: 'We hate you.'
- Y. focused on 10-win season
- BYU has slim shot at BCS
- Thunder rolls by Jazz
- Witness describes '99 killing
- BYU would like friendlier rivalry
258 - Glenn Beck to enter politics?227
- Protests against Phoenix LDS temple205
- RSL wins MLS Cup on penalty kicks202
- Bronco, Kyle rubber match139
- BYU records with win133
- Letters: Rushing to judge Palin129
- Hall, Johnson matchup key102
- Boys basketball rankings101
- Thunder rolls by Jazz100
Latest comments
Love the fact that this championship has the haters all bent outta shape....
Global warming has suffered a great set back by the hacking into of E mails...
The picks are all off. All the home teams will win this week. Lions...
Hey "Brick" can you tell me what similarities this movie has with ninja...
Sad that so many who claim to be so right are so easily mislead.
rivals and scout.com are not the be all, end all. As high school seniors eric...
I am very happy with the quality of GOP candidates to go against Bennett. I...
It's possible betting markers in the on-going global gold roulette turned...
So the Zoobs have gone from the "Quest for perfection" motto to focusing on a...
I would be beyond shocked if Ruud ended up in Salt Lake. He is almost as big...
Advertisements