Added: 2 years ago
From: ForaTv
Views: 7,539
Sort by time | Sort by thread (beta)

Link to this comment:

Share to:

All Comments (251)

Sign In or Sign Up now to post a comment!
  • what do you mean why did it happen just look at human nature and it explains everything. no incentive no ambition

  • socialism has failed all over the world. huge government makes for a very ineffectual system. human nature always overcomes reason. we are all introuble because of the modern welfare state. western europe who embraced it so widely are now seeing that it is unsustainable.

  • I'm sure welfare does ruin ambition with all the drug addicts abusing it.

  • Benjamin Franklin was right. “I observed that the more public provisions were made for the poor, the less they provided for themselves. And, on the contrary, the less was done for them, the more they did for themselves.”

  • can't get a job these days without surfing the internet for work. You cannot stay in touch with most prospective employers without the internet and you can't migrate from one industry to another without a lot of time spent on the internet. Your children will be at a disadvantage if they do not have a computer in their home and internet access. Even the easiest way - and least error-prone way - to apply for unemployment benefits is over the internet -Website

    Do you think internet is a necessity?

  • There's people who get more money off welfare then they ever could from an actual job. I blame companies who outsource their jobs to china and thus cut wages and benefits drastically because it's so cheap.

    So the problem is not welfare, it's the degrading labor market.

  • @jcrowley1985 Proves how dumb you are. Your income from an actual job is limitless.....limited only by your own ambition. To say they cant earn more unless on welfare proves you are an idiot.

  • @MuslimPigFuckers

    Except that 90% or more of the jobs in this country don't even encourage ambition and enthusiasm. There's tons of people in America who hate their job and are only doing it because they can't find another. Companies don't want ambitious and creative people, they want mindless drones who will do the same desk job for 40 years for minimal pay and benefits.Which is why their outsourcing to India and China, it's cheaper and there are plenty of people over their who work cheap.

  • Any welfare is a trap..it tends to destroy free market systems..draining finacial investment and leading to a looped life of monthly checks and no desire to achieve and aspire to greatness..regardless of your circumstances..

  • YES!

  • Welfare=Charity

  • @myshoesgofast Welfare = Charity that gets donation through force.

  • it's all about acquiring power.. people tend to keep voting for the person who signs their cheques..

  • The problem is this, fuck up people must stop breeding. When people on welfare gets jobs, they complain, work slow, do half ass work, come late, leave early, very rude, there at dead end jobs.

  • I love the way the lower classes defend the rich. it blows my mind

  • AMAZING! That's gona be the U.S. if we don't stop it now!!!

  • Again somebody who doesn't understand that the majority of people DON'T CHOOSE to be on welfare! The amount they get is not a living wage! They want to have a career! They want their children to do well! They have ambitions and dreams but they're being stomped on by the greed driven system at the top! Have some humility and compassion. 165% wealth increase for those not willing to pass it down, hence the increased inequality of our 'classes'. So what we gonna do about it? Complain on youtube?

  • @joeythebean So then you're ok with forcefully taking money from one group of people to distribute amongst another group? I bet you wouldn't be too happy if I came up to you with 10 armed men behind me and took some of your money because "I need it more than you do". You're trying to pay or reward people when they fail and take from or punish people when they succeed.

    I don't mind helping people if they ask, but they're not asking for help; they're forcing others to help. That's just thievery.

  • @Cosmo1093 Simply, yes I am. We work in a top down system. Everything we need is being held by people with money, control and power. These things needs to reach the people who need to eat and survive.

    How fucking dare you accuse these people of failing?! Some have been through things that would bring the suits to their knees. You're telling me it takes more energy, time and self sacrifice to number push accounts than it does to unblock a toilet or work in a care home?! Get real.

  • @joeythebean Then people should try and claw their way to the top. I mean, my dad was a poor (legal) immigrant who had to pay his own way through college and is now within the top 5% of earners. Everyone is already given public education, they should have utilized it like most engineers, doctors, and account pushers.

    That would still be considered failing, despite any circumstances. It certainly took more time, energy, and self sacrifice during the account pusher's education, which payed off.

  • @joeythebean If some poor guy comes up to me in the street and asks me for some help feeding his family or getting medical help for Tiny Tim, perhaps I will be compassionate and want to help. I would then reach into my pocket and see if I have anything that would help. But let’s say I don’t have the means or interest in helping out this guy. Is it okay for me to go to you, beat a few dollars out of you and give it to him? No, it’s not. That is theft. Maybe well-intentioned theft but still theft.

  • @Cosmo1093 Well done to your dad then. But imagine at one stage in his life or education he got attacked in the street or assaulted and became depressed, or fired because a company was outsourcing and lost his income, or became ill and couldn't keep studying, or was living with abusive partners or parents. Would you still say he 'failed' if no one was there to pick him up when he needed it most?..

  • @joeythebean Well considering he was only a resident alien for quite some time, he wouldn't have been able to use welfare regardless.

    Being taxed to fund welfare is not "offering a helping hand", as I have absolutely no say in it. Donating to charity is "offering a helping hand", as is serving the community, both of which I do. I cannot choose what my money goes to or who it goes to. For all I know, my money could be going to a single mother who had children just for larger welfare checks.

  • @Cosmo1093 Would you blame him and not be willing to offer a helping hand? Or are these the "despite any circumstances" you are referring to?

    You're arguing morals, saying its wrong to steal, but seem to forget it's your skewed morals that are saying we should let people suffer and starve because "it's mine! i earnt it! go get your own". I'm not saying take all of the riches money but take what each person can afford to give. £5 to a homeless man is much more than £5,000,000 to a billionaire

  • @joeythebean And how can you be sure the homeless man isn't a drug addict or didn't become homeless due to his own idiotic mistakes? Let's face it, not every hobo or poor person is in a bad situation because they're victims of unfortunate circumstances.

    At least the billionaire earned his own money. Chances are, that billionaire has already donated thousands, if not many millions to charity. Isn't that enough? Or should the rich basically be forced at gunpoint to end world hunger altogether?

  • @Cosmo1093 You obviously have little interest in integrating within society or community. Every man for himself. You want to see each person fight it out in a race, or "claw", to "the top", trampling on others and leaving them behind to starve and die so the rich can pursue materialistic dreams. You would "perhaps" be compassionate to Tiny Tim in need of medical attention, "if you had the interest" in helping him. Where's your love of mankind? Where's your heart?..

  • @joeythebean I help people because I choose to, and what I do with my money should not be decided for me. You don't even need a heart if the government is just going to take your money anyway. I will gladly help my friends and family, and maybe even a random person on the street, but if ANY one of those people try to forcibly take my money, they will be greeted by a .45 ACP, 12-gauge, or a knife. I have no heart to anyone who thinks they have some sort of entitlement to money they did not earn.

  • @Cosmo1093 ..You don't make mistakes? You think drug addicts CHOOSE to be addicted? You think once you've messed up you should be left? What if he was your son?

    Yes. You're correct that a minority of people abuse the system, and a minority of the rich are exceptionally generous, but do you think those crying for help should be left to suffer so the rich can 'claw' for more of what they don't need?! If the rich lose their yachts, expensive cars and champagne to end world hunger, yes, force them.

  • @joeythebean I think those addicts CHOSE to even try drugs in the first place. I think alcoholics became alcoholics by drinking a whole fucking lot. They did it to themselves. And if he was my son, of course I'd try to help first, but there are still limits, and once those limits are reached, he's out on his ass.

    "Crying for help"? With welfare, its expected, demanded, or forced help. People aren't even given a choice in responding to those "cries for help".

  • @Cosmo1093 If it wax your soon YOU should help him! If it's the son of someone you love , a friend or someone you deeply care YOU should help him.

    If you're do that with money, by spending time with him, by sharing your knoledge and being there to support his emotionals needs it's up to ypu , and only you to decide.

    No one should be stolen and forced to pay for other's mistakes, speacialy if you don't know them.

  • @Cosmo1093 If it was your soon YOU should help him! If it's the son of someone you love , a friend or someone you deeply care YOU should help him.

    If you're do that with money, by spending time with him, by sharing your knoledge and being there to support his emotionals needs it's up to ypu , and only you to decide.

    No one should be stolen and forced to pay for other's mistakes, speacialy if you don't know them.

  • @joeythebean Also, do you think the government really cares more than charities and such? Politicians are in it for the votes more than out of compassion. Many billionaires, including Bill Gates and Mark Zuckerberg, pledged at least half of their fortunes to charity. Besides, trying to take the rich's money is probably the worst idea out there. They're not stupid, they would simply charge more for goods and services to make up the losses. You'd be causing the collapse of the global economy.

  • @Cosmo1093 And the votes are there out of compassion and caring. If some rich tried to raise prices they would be undercut by other companies.

  • @sdmitch16 They can act like they care, but at the end of the day, you're nothing but a nameless vote to them. They know people will vote for the politician who promises/gives them the most. That's what politicians on both sides do, they buy people's votes by promising things like tax cuts, tax increases on a another group, or entitlement/help programs.

    There are many options other than just raising prices too; they could also lay off workers, freeze pay, lower wages, or cut/reduce benefits.

  • @Cosmo1093 Not all liberals are on welfare. The ones that aren't vote out of compassion. I never said the politicians were compassionate. I meant the voters.

  • @sdmitch16 I never said they were, but those who are on welfare tend to vote for politicians who support welfare.. Voters may be compassionate to those who they way to help, but what are their attitudes towards those whom they expect to pay for the needy? Generally, they label anyone who dissents as greedy and heartless... Plus, I don't think its right for anyone to have the power to vote to take group A's money to give to group B..I think people are entitled to the money that they earned.

  • @Cosmo1093 Well they refuse to give in an equal and far way. They haven't been to slums so they can't give to the people living in slums. They also refuse to believe how bad life is for people on welfare, choosing to ignore like they ignore poverty in Africa. The difference is Africa has a higher birth rate and funds would produce more impoverished Africans, while impoverished Americans have an acceptable birth rate.

  • @sdmitch16 So because they don't give, they should have their money forcefully taken from them?

    Oh, and research has shown that those who reject the notion that its the government's job to redistribute wealth tend to give a higher percentage of their earnings to charities (along with more blood donations and community service) than those who think that its the government's job to redistribute wealth. How do Conservatives refuse to "give" in an equal or fair way?

  • @Cosmo1093 Why should the rich be forced to pay for police when they could afford their own security? or libraries when they could buy their own books? Should the entire government be optional?

  • @sdmitch16 Hm, maybe because those services benefit everybody, including the rich. That means they pay for the sake of themselves too, not solely for the sake of others in a government attempt to steal from one socioeconomic group to pay for another. Even if the rich have security, they still have to call the police because of their security's relatively limited power. Why exactly would the rich buy a book they can simply check out? The rich like to save money when possible, they''re smart.

  • @Cosmo1093 They could hire security that would be more powerful than police. Police have very low shooting accuracy in real world situations, unlike military personal. They don't need police. Why should they have to pay for them? Why should the the rich be forced to pay for libraries that stock books they will never read? Why shouldn't they be able to choose not to pay taxes on libraries and then not be allowed to use library services?

  • @sdmitch16 Too bad security isn't ALLOWED to shoot without a damn good reason. If they apprehend someone, they can't legally arrest them either - they lack the legal authority.

    Why should ANYONE have to pay for libraries when we are now in the digital age where the internet and eBooks have taken over, nullifying the usefulness of libraries for most Americans? I'm biased, I prefer the internet to books anyway. Your question doesn't apply only to the rich, but for the entire middle class as well.

  • @sdmitch16 (continued) So people can't give to charities or churches that work in ghetto areas? I think its indisputable that people living in ghettos and slums have it hard, but is giving them a check the best way to solve the problem? That's a quick, temporary fix that doesn't solve the problem at all. "Give a man a fish and you feed him for a day. Teach a man to fish and you feed him for a lifetime."

    Right, the US has other problems like single parent/fatherless families.

  • @Cosmo1093 Medicaid isn't a check. Section 8 is help with rent, a place to live and be protected from the elements.

  • @sdmitch16 Medicare might as well be a check, it still requires tax funding, which is essentially just another handout. The country can't even afford Medicaid, that and Medicare are without a doubt the largest deficit drivers for the US (even according to Obama). And section 8 housing vouchers are still handouts, no matter the use. It's also a bullshit open-ended entitlement that has no time restrictions. It may have be a noble cause, but it can also breed dependency.

  • @Cosmo1093 Medicare pays for check ups that prevent much more serious and costly. Medicare is a necessity that saves lives. If you want to help the deficit, close tax loop holes like private jets and oil. Oppose subsidies for big farms, corn, ethanol, and hydrogen fueled cars. Oppose the sugar import quota.

  • @sdmitch16 That doesn't change the fact that Medicare and Medicaid are still the largest deficit drivers. Medicare is also supposed to be paid for through FICA or SECA taxes, but the expenditures still vastly outweigh the tax revenue, so that doesn't really work.

    The private jet loophole would bring in insignificant tax revenues of $3 billion over 10 years, .2% of this year's current $1.4 trillion deficit. Add the $4 billion from big oil, and the result is a WHOPPING .48%! Only 99.52% to go!

  • @Cosmo1093 That doesn't justify not letting them be clossed.

  • @sdmitch16 I'm not saying to not close the loopholes, just that closing them will have virtually no effect at all.

    From my understanding, link cards are only issued in Illinois, and those link cards are still cash assistance funded through taxes.

    I frankly don't care about car emissions, hybrid/EV drivers are frustratingly slow, and all the cows in the world release more greenhouse gasses than all the cars in the world anyway.

    Really? Because they capped defense spending at $684 billion.

  • @Cosmo1093 Food stamps will take care food price increases. I think corn is not the cheapest plant to grow, its just cheap because its subsidies. If the subsidies were moved to other crops, they would be cheaper than corn is today.

  • @Cosmo1093 and go to Wikipedia's page on U.s defense spending and crtl f trillion.

  • @sdmitch16 "Food stamps will take care food price increases." - That's only shifting funding between programs. Instead of tax money paying for subsidies, it now has to pay for more food stamps.

    Before you said "The Military budget is over $ trillion dollars for 2012". "Defense related spending" isn't all for the military. The DoD (which all branches of the military fall under) gets $684 billion for 2012 as of now. This number will actually too decrease due to all the budget cuts.

  • @Cosmo1093 It would cost less to have them use food stamps because they could buy cheaper food than corn. Also, they could get better nutrition because all foods would be 'subsidized' instead of one. It would be good for the environment to because corn uses more water and fertilizer than the average crop and most of the plant can't be eaten.

    The military may not get more than Medicare but defense does. Defense and Medicare are getting cuts, so defense will probably still be bigger than Medicare

  • @sdmitch16 (continued) And I do oppose subsidies for ethanol fuel, as does Al Gore who now admits his push for ethanol was a politically-driven mistake. I oppose hydrogen subsidies too, as well as hybrid and electric car tax credits.

    If I did oppose subsidies for farms, corn, and the sugar import quota, people like you would call me heartless for how it'd make food unaffordable for some people. A big chunk of that cost would probably be passed on to the welfare/food stamp system anyway.

  • @Cosmo1093 Those people have link cards and thus don't need food subsidies. The sugar import quota (limit on how much sugar can be imported) raises the price of sugar.

    Without hybrid and electric car tax credits, how will we reduce car emissions?

    The Military budget is over $ trillion dollars for 2012, $300 billion more than Medicare.

  • War is a much bigger waste of money than welfare could ever be !

  • no the greed of the bankers fuck it all up

  • teach a man to fish and he will never be hungray

    Teach a baby mommy to spread her legs and she will never do anything else

  • @rentatrip1

    a man must eat while learning to fish

    mommy need to make more daddys so you get more fish

  • Why should someone who has worked hard all their life support some black woman with four kids from four different fathers? Doesn't make sense!

  • @RImusclebear You would have convinced a lot more people if you didn't feel the need to throw in the word "black" to describe the woman.

  • Welfare is going away or will be severely cut in the future. The government can't afford to help people who won't help themselves. The elderly and mentally incompetent will be the only ones and rightfully so, supported by the system. Black women with four or five children by four or five different fathers will be the first to be cut from the welfare roles.

  • what a cunt on his £500,000 a year job. so benefits are high? £70 a week or even less if under 24... all these prick stuck up twats will never know the real world

  • @splifmonster And your writing will never make any sense.

  • Video so true. D majority on welfare r not poor when they can afford things that d wkg class cannot. "My YouTube Video Got Me Fired". I speak about homelessness, unemployment, underemployment, college degrees, Spanish language, WIC, Medicaid, Food Stamps, & govt spending programs. "Govt Nutritionist exposes truth". Click on my channel below to view n spread d word. Thk u.

  • Jesus advocated helping the poor. We have a separation of church and state in this country, so if the government is forcing people to be charitable (it's no longer charity, it's welfare then) it is a violation of the separation of church and state.

  • People in line for a welfare check should recieve a copy of this speech instead.

  • welfare has become a lifestyle choice 4 many ppl. it eats away @ human dignity.

  • @westnblu So the solution to those abusing it is to take it away from those who need it? Is that about right?

  • @GodlessInfinity welfare was is it good 4? absolutely nothing!! good title 4 a song dont u think? haha who really 'needs' it? think about it. Tell me so i can b informed

  • @westnblu You must be trolling, because you are ignoring my points and making absolutely no argument. Millions of people are dependent on Social Security Insurance as their sole source of income, until we can create a suitable alternative that's accessible to everyone (including the disabled and elderly who have no income) millions of lives are depending on it, and unfortunately countless small businesses and landlords are now rather dependent on it as well, because they're tenants and customers

  • @GodlessInfinity woaaa hold your horses!! who told u the disabled and the elderly dont have income?

  • @westnblu They do have an income through Social Security Insurance, for millions of elderly and disabled people that is their only source of income, until a viable alternative is presented for those people that does not rely on chance and does not significantly reduce the quality of their lives, they are dependent on SSI, and unfortunately due to the fact that they represent many of the nation's customers and tenants, countless small business owners and land lords depend on their income.

  • @GodlessInfinity 'viable alternative ' 4 the elderly could b working hard all their working lives and saving enuff $ 4 their autumn years . As 4 the disabled my neighbour she contracted polio a few years b4 the vaccine came out when she was 5 years of age! shes now 64 and retired and doin volunteer work. Another guy my missus worked with he used 2 go 2 work on his skateboard . He wore a suit and a briefacase on 1 hand and skated 2 work u wanna know why? he had no limbs!! no legs!!

  • Comment removed

  • @westnblu Arms are limbs.

  • @sdmitch16 well u right but i was tryin 2 emphasise it!! haha But never assume because u know somethin others do big mistake could come back and bite u! There u go some wisdom 4 u

  • @GodlessInfinity so when u talk bout the elderly and disabled never brush ppl with the same brush . U make do with wot life throws @ u and the word 'victim' has a very blurry meaning in todays ever growing welfare state

  • @westnblu I'm now convinced you're trolling. Millions of elderly and disabled people rely on social security insurance as their sole income, that statement stands true in and of itself, and your "alternative" is not a viable alternative for many, you make a variety of flawed assumptions. 1: You assume that they are able to work. 2: You assume that they will earn enough to invest in dignified retirement 3: You assume they are not disabled to begin with 4: You assume availability of paid labor ect

  • Comment removed

  • Oops again, Point 4 should be the assumption of availability of paying jobs.

  • @GodlessInfinity the point is welfare creates misery and a welfare state stifles dignity and is no substitiute 4 human endevour and ingenuity. Many experts agree with me and u cant dismiss their arguments off hand.

  • @westnblu And what's your solution to the current situation?

  • @GodlessInfinity u heard of the movie and book 'The grapes of wrath'? It is quite profound in its msg .If u havent id suggest u look into it , it may prove an eye opener.The welfare state as we know it is a relatively new phenomenon a 20th century invention.

  • @westnblu I didn't say it wasn't a new phenomena, I said the situation is what it is, and canceling welfare without first providing a viable alternative (and it actually has to be viable, and ready to be implemented, not one of these wild shot 'well what about this' ideas that really don't address a wide range of issues that canceling welfare would create) would be catastrophic.

  • @GodlessInfinity how exactly will it b 'catastrophic' ? There will still b welfare but with pvt organisations as it has been 4 centuries. Most ppl want 2 b self reliant having 2 rely on others 4 help is by its very nature demeening..It is the ballooning govt welfare state that is in fact in crisis.

  • @westnblu Why it would be catastrophic has already been explained, if we're going to end Welfare we have to do it in such a way that a viable alternative is already set up and readily available, and in such a way that those who can not work do not require an initial income (as most private plans require) to sustain their quality of life. It must also not leave the fate of those who can not work up to chance, such as assuming that unnamed private charities will step up and maintain their income.

  • @westnblu By the way shat specific private organizations are going to provide welfare? I want their names and signed documents showing a commitment to provide welfare support to the elderly and infirmed regardless of whether they're able to pay into the system. Or are you simply talking about private insurance policies, not actual welfare? Or are you talking about random charities like homeless shelters and soup kitchens?

  • @GodlessInfinity wot u mean 'random' charities? u make it sound insignificant. soups cost $ and some1 2 cook it! it doesnt just fall from the sky. and homeless shelters provide an invaluable service 2 street ppl again costin a lot of money. All these groups r legitimate welfare agencies doing an invaluable service 2 ppl who otherwise wouldnt have a roof over their head and a basic meal. charities such as the salvation army and others r very much pvt welfare agencies

  • @westnblu There's no point in having this conversation with you, not only are you obviously trolling but what I said is self explanatory. Most Americans aren't willing to reduce our elderly and disabled to either private insurance or homeless shelters and soup kitchens, and the Salvation Army discriminates against homosexuals and other minorities and uses it's charity as a tool to spread it's religious teachings, there would need to be controls against discrimination and proselytization as well.

  • @GodlessInfinity how does the salvation army discriminate against homosexuals and 'other' minorities exactly? U clearly r against church based charity groups as u r an atheist and u letting your bias blind u 2 the invaluable jobs these charity groups do in the community.Such groups and not all r religious groups developed long b4 the destructive govt welfare system came into existence.They also provide job and training skills not just handouts

  • @westnblu Happy trolling, but this isn't a discussion about religion. If you want to know more about the Salvation Army's discrimination against homosexuals, google it.

  • @GodlessInfinity Have u considered the reason why many ppl dont earn enuff 2 make a comfortable retirement? Its because of high taxes 2 finance the ballooning welfare program. big welfare must follow big taxes there can b no alternative.And the elderly and disabled surprisingly make up a tiny component of welfare recipients believe it or not.!

  • @westnblu Yes I suppose a person born with no limbs would be just fine if only welfare didn't exist. All those who are infirmed and unable to work for whatever reason would be better off fending for themselves, no doubt, than living off government subsidies. And I suppose those elderly people who do rely on social security insurance should be cut loose, since they're a "tiny component" of welfare recipients they don't really matter anyway, right?

  • Oops, point 1 makes point 3 a redundancy.

  • I'm sure welfare ruins the ambition of some people, but it's also necessary for globalized economy in which businesses take advantage of third world labor and in which mainstream automation has rendered much of the work force redundant. Furthermore welfare distribution encourages and sustains small businesses like mine, whereby people on welfare pay rent and buy the basic goods that create the most jobs, and do so in steady regular intervals.

  • @GodlessInfinity what is your business? (food store, convenient store, retail), because I assure you it is not the welfare recipients that allow businesses to thrive.

  • @hyetalian1 I run a general store, selling groceries and goods that people need on a regular basis, I also run a small thrift shop in the back, where people can buy used cloths and other items at a significant discount.

    I can assure you, millions of small business owners and land lords are dependent (at varying degrees) on welfare recipients. I live in a poor area populated mostly by the elderly, nearly half of my customers are on SSI. Their SSI checks aren't going into a black hole.

  • Welfare just keeps people from not starving.

  • Ron Paul 2012

  • Real wages have declined in Britain since the 70s,

    It's no wonder so many people on welfare, their positive freedom has been destroyed.

  • @AndroidPolitician The sad thing is, even if British workers would work in sweat shops for two euros an hour, that can't compete with third world slave children working for 12 cents an hour, and it can't compete with a machine that works with five times the productivity and a quarter of the cost.

  • He didn't answer the question. With around three and a half million unemployed it doesn't take a rocket scientist to see why the welfare state is expanding rather than detracting. Providing welfare for people who have become unemployed as an interim payment until work becomes available is humane. Problem is if the minimum wage makes a person on benefit worse off then the problem is with the minimum wage not the welfare system.

  • "not everbody can't take care of themselves you bitch" (sic)

    Not "everbody" can spell

    But they can learn

  • They don't say welfare breeds welfare for nothing...

  • It can if they allow it to be their main ambition itself. I can understand if some need it for temporary help, but f9or long term use is bad. Plus welfare isn't a lot money, you make more when you have a good career.

  • "Does Welfare 'Ruin' Ambition"?

    In almost all cases, yes.

  • this guy should skew another shrimp on the bar-b...ahaha

  • @ltrizzle84 He's British though, not Australian.

  • @Re5Publica

    well...that just ruins my joke doesn't it. I guess I caught a bad case of down syndrome.

  • @ltrizzle84 Well, in your defense, I think they call it bar-b in Britain too, but they call shrimp, prawns.

  • welfare is for people who waste oxygen a decent person could be breathing! I value the life of my dog more than these blood suckers!

  • @Ironhand09 Welfare mentality becomes its own disease upon any free world economy.

  • The welfare system was introduced to help those most in need, eg. the immobile who could not work, widowed mothers who couldn't take their x amount of children to work, the elderly who had no family to look after them. It was to diminish people dying in poorhouses, reduce disease in the streets and provide a better future for the next generation.

    How unfortunate do you have to be to believe that having £50 a week "free" money to live on, is better than having a decent paying job?

    Hmmm...

  • @jingles30 That is the problem welfare takes away personal responsibility to care for family and the single mother(these days) who has more children without marriage which makes it her career. WHy work for $100 per wk w/no benefits when gov will give you $95 + food stamps+free medical care. You suddenly qualify for (in the US) Income tax returns though you earn no income. You qualify for section 8 government housing. These people teach their children the system which creates its own economy.

  • Welfare is the anti-progress incentive created by democrats to get more votes. 2 rabbits then 4 rabbits then 8 ETC...... Eventually the supply is overcome by demand. This is a program that is meant to make our system fail. Enabling drug dealers, lazy people, and stupid people to feed off hard working adults with responsibility. Democrats pay people like teachers, welfare ricips, union workers, government employees to spread the disease that is known as liberalism. This is a perpetual machine.

  • A homeless shelter is enough. The question I want to ask is how did this guy get to the point of no home? Alcoholism? I can tell you he never saved a dime, he was not motivated enough to find work. He ended up getting fired for something. He was living beyond his means. True some people honestly get layed off and couldn't sustain there way of living. The majority of these people are ignorant free loaders who feel that the government owes them some sort of living.

  • I was homeless and no one helped me. That was the best help I could have received. My wife and I lived in a semi-truck for 1 1/2 yrs. That was all we had. We now have a home that we own, a car and plenty of food. We don't take it for granted. Guess what I am saying is that if you feed a starving dog it will keep coming back. However, if you teach that dog to hunt it will take care of itself. Don't feel sorry for these people mooching give them the wanted ads and tell them get a job.

  • "Don't feel sorry for these people mooching give them the wanted ads and tell them get a job."

    Yes, but I'd also add that employers should be made to pay a fair wage (there should be no people working three jobs and despite that just squeaking by - that's just horrifying.)

    Apart from that, kudos to you for all you've achieved - I salute you!

  • @patrick1969usa

    and nobody cares. not everbody can't take care of themselves you btich

  • Hungy? Homeless? GET A JOB YOU LAZY BUMB Use the computer to look for work instead of looking at youtube. I am sick of lazy people crying "I have no food" or "I need free Health care" Piss on that. The best help you can give people that are homeless is not to give them any help at all. By helping them you take away any desire for them to help themselves. Take care of the kids, after all it is not their fault the "adults" are lazy. Let the adults starve.

  • He is absolutely right. Welfare dependency is a phenomenal failure of sucessive governments to pull people out of this cycle. We now have:

    1) The highest levels of crime in Europe

    2) The highest rate of teenage pregnancy in Europe

    3) The worst binge-drinking in Europe

    Supposedly, the Welfare State was supposed to remove these evils?

    No: it has exacerbated them.

  • The Englishman is telling the truth,

    I have many friends in the UK (London and Northern Ireland) and healthcare is a mess; their indifference and incompetence resulted in a dear friends death, she was only 29 yo and diagnosed with early-stage ovarian cancer, they gave her minimal treatment, then sent her home to die, This is a regular occurence in today's UK hospitals,...they send their cancer patients home to die,

  • Corporate welfare is the result of government giving to the politically connected what they take from the ordinary citizens. The inevitable consequence is that the worst of the burden is borne by the poor, and it keeps them poor. Read Bartholomew's book - he makes this point very clearly.

    Government shoots you in the knees, then hands you crutches and says "Look. What would you do without us?".

  • If his book is anything like his talk in the video than I expect it would be worthless. Guess who owns and runs government? It isn't an institution in and of itself. The wealthy run it in service of their interests and their interests are often the polar opposite of the majorities, the same circles he served as a banker.

    Corporate power shoots the people in the knees, uses their bought politicians to try and take away any help or security and says "look, you have a right to nothing."

  • As an opponent to the welfare state i will say that corporate welfare is just as bad if not worse. Corporate welfare incentivizes individuals to make bad decisions and act in a morally hazardous way. It socializes the losses and does not allow the market to purges entities that combine the factors of production in an inefficient way.

    Why your require somebody to talk about corporate welfare, subsidies or bail outs to be able to discuss the problems of welfare to teh poor.

  • 2 must anybody who opposes the Welfare for the poor take some amount of time to discuss the dangers of corporate welfare? If so how much ?

  • He has not created a plausible link between this increase in wealth in the country and the increase in welfare benefits. Have wages gone up with this increase in wealth he is talking about? In America the recent boom has sent most of the wealth to the already wealthy and increased the ranks of the poor. I imagine the same has happened in Britan. The aim of this rhetoric is to reduce taxation on corporations even more while weakening the labour market by making people more vulnerable.

  • Counter Point western Europe.

  • better to be on welfare than on the streets or vulnerable to the adverse conditions that go along with "being on the streets" and being on welfare is nothing great, you get food and a place to live usually a crappy place to live BIG DEAL

    These people really have no idea what it is like to be destitute, poor or working class, one reason is that they get much more fulfillment from their occupation than a cashier or a janitor or someone of this class of workers, they look down not up

  • The country has become richer?? The top 1% has become richer Mr. Bartholomew, and the money has not trickled down.

  • Remove minimum wage, allow people earn extra money on top of the welfare payments. Social safty net is good, minimum wage is evil.

  • Technology, Centralisation, and monopolies means there are simply less jobs today.

    Is this guy suggesting that the 1/3 of people on benefits COULD find (full time) jobs if they wanted? The days when companies used to have signs out front requesting employees are over. Now companies have to hide behind agencies so they don't get swamped with job seekers.

    Clearly this elitist high-flyer assumes that everyone else can find work as easily as he can, but they are just too lazy to do so.

  • Necessity is the mother of invention.

  • there would be more jobs if corporate taxes came down and that could happen if welfare were curtailed. But more than likely they would scrap welfare and STILL keep corporate taxes high.

  • take away the rpinters and you'll get more jobs.

    take away automated processes and you'll have more jobs.

    take away computers and everybody will have work..

    hahahah

  • well Im an englishman on benefits and they have in the past stopped me from starving because there have been no jobs. I have have paid my taxes. Why should I starve?

  • I don't think nationality has anything to do with it?

    People in general will give food, clothing & shelter as part of a national system. With that handout you are expected to make extra ordinary efforts to reduce your burden to society.

    By accepting government aid you are in fact saying I cannot fend for myself please help.

  • Charity groups that help the poor become self-sufficient like mutual aid organizations actually have standards. They don't let the people who enter just live their old way of life and get all these benefits. They have to make real changes. Sure, in the hands of responsible, hard-working folks who were laid off, welfare is just a temporary fix. But for those who made themselves poor through lifestyle, it just encourages gov't dependency. Plus, we still have 12-13% poverty.

  • Obviously we need a new approach since the War on Poverty has failed long-term. Minimum wage laws increase unemployment among low-skilled workers. "Stimulus" projects crowd out private sector spending that would be used to encourage faster growth. The Federal Reserve screwed up our economy and gives us recessions every decade or in even less time through artificial currency manipulation and elimination of gold standard.

    But school vouchers DO work.  School choice, absolutely.

  • Most of the welfare state is total nonsense. I mean, decreasing standards for receiving AFDC/TANF was just stupid! The problem with the handouts of the welfare state is that there are no good standards for eligibility. It's just "are you poor?" What about investigating or asking about their lifestyles and what caused them to be poor? Did they drop out of HS? were they drug addicts who spent it all on crack? Or were they truly born into poverty or laid off? Bureaucrats can't ask this.

  • More people need to listen to guys like him, Cato, Fraser and other great organizations which debunk the long-held notion that big government is necessary for a modern-day society. It's NOT! It never has been. Government must be minimal, and by that, I don't mean getting rid of good regulations that protect consumers. But I do believe in providing competition to the FDA, for example, rather than letting them alone delay drugs for years on end, preventing many from getting life-saving ones.

  • Of course, a lot of regulations that are enacted "To protect consumers" end up hurting the economy and/or consumers in the process. You can't just put any old law into place to 'protect' people without anticipating the consequences. That's why, if you ask me, economists and actual experts should run government, not idiot legislators. Things would be so much better. And not Keynesian asshole economists like Krugman, either. but Austrian and Chicago ones who know their stuff.

  • Really, Fora's credibility just fell thru the floor. This is pure fact twisted propaganda. I guess the amount of actual jobs had nothing to do with unemployment or how many people are on assistance. Now I dont agree with our current welfare systems is good or that the government should fund it. Saying that people are lazy or get lazy is just unwarrented. Its an arguement for lazy thinkers.

  • Is it? As Reagan said, if you subsidize something, you'll get more of it.  It's almost a law of government, like the laws of nature.

  • Was it his ambition alone that provided Mr. Bartholomew the means to attain a cushy job in the banking industry?

  • LMFAO this guy is a joke. all he does is take bad trends from the last 100 years and blame them on the welfare state. LOLOLOL i dont know whether to laugh or cry.

  • Sadly part of the problem is reproductive choices. People on welfare tend to have more kids. Educated people who work are more likely to plan how many children they can properly provide for.

    The bottom line is that their is an inverse correlation between how capable you are to care for children and how many you have.

  • The incentives are perverted. They actually get more money to have more kids.

  • the best kind of welfare is a job

    -Ronald Reagan

  • What?! The welfare makes people unemployed? Buahahahaha... moron.

  • from what i have seen with my own two eyes welfare has made people lazy whores, they fuc# to have more children so they can get more money. it makes me sick. lazy whores collecting food stamps and any other benefits they can, my sister inlaw is not even legally here and she gets 800 dollars a month in food stamps and a church pays her bills so she can go out drinking

  • ya....sounds like my sister.. a total waste of life just being catered to by the system. Makes me sick too.

  • Before 1920 there were people dying on the streets from poverty. The mentally ill were left to fend for themselves as were the old (the life span was much shorter). In the 1950s there was less welfare for pensioners. Single mothers had abortions or were forced to give up kids (recent revelations about church-run orphanages show the results). Mentally ill were marginalised and ill or disabled poor kids didn't last long.

    Not everyone is a healthy, white man who can work a 50 hour week!

  • maybe, the scale of problem could be debated. However, if you care so much then you, and others like you, should pay for your altruism. Do not force other people to contribute to the pet projects that you believe are important. The "poor's need" is not a mortgage on my assets/production. People should spend their resources however they see fit, because it is theirs'. When it is fully accepted that group A can take group B's assets to help group C, then we have ceased being a free people.

  • there has been an epidemic condition where generations upon generations of people- all within the same families mind you, have depended solely on government assistance. in fact they count on it. these people deliberately have more and more children simply as a means to increase their allotment. they think they are entitled to it. as a result, they're conditioned to not aspire to greater opportunities in life. don't be so quick to blame the gov't. these people intentionally manipulate the system.

  • Very good analogy.  The "safety net" is a spider's web.