From: egl1@cunixf.cc.columbia.edu (Elizabeth G. Levy)
Subject: Re: Welfare vs. Workfare
Reply-To: egl1@cunixf.cc.columbia.edu (Elizabeth G. Levy)
Organization: Columbia University
Date: Wed, 23 Dec 1992 00:31:48 GMT

In article <1992Dec22.222319.8702@news.acns.nwu.edu> dmeier@casbah.acns.nwu.edu (Douglas Meier) writes:
>In article <4103@master.CNA.TEK.COM> mikeq@freddy.CNA.TEK.COM writes:
>>
>>Yup. Millionaire cattle ranchers, wheat ranchers, logging company owners, 
>>land developers, corporate CEOs...  Just to name a few.
>>
>>FIRST, wean the rich off the welfare rolls, THEN work on the poor.
>>MUCH more efficient way to go.
>>
>I can't think of any instances where the people you just described are
>receiving welfare.  Some may be cheats, to be sure, but that is not quite what
>I was talking about.  Very few if any rich people are "on the welfare rolls",
>as it were.

There's a nice article in an issue of _The Atlantic_ from last year
noting that the US gov't would be more efficient in distributing
financial aid if it simply mailed $5000 checks to every family in the
US.  The system as is grants somewhat more than $5000 (through tax
breaks, various entitlements, etc) to middle-class (and above)
families.  Similarly, poor families receive somewhat less than $5000.
(I may be off by a few hundred dollars, but the portions are more or
less correct.)

Stephanie Coontz, in _The Way We Never Were: American Families and the
Nostalgia Trap_, documents how America was built on government
largess, be it frontier families buying government land on the cheap
(after the US gov't waged war with the occupants to get it) to more
recent subsidies, like the Highway Act that made the suburbs possible,
and the GI bill which allowed many relatively poor Americans to get a
decent education and achieve a middle-class living standard.  Oh, more
about the 'burbs: the Goverment came down on banks to bring mortgages
within the possibilities of middle-class Americans.

Among the people the previous poster mentioned, logging interests
originally acquired their land from the government at dirt cheap
prices (as had the railroad barons of the 19th C).  The same would
most likely go for the big cattle ranchers.  Wheat farmers have price
supports to this day, etc.  All live or started their fortunes on
government largess.

>
>Oh, OK, I get it now!  You suggest that we don't let entrepreneurs keep what
>they stick their necks out for.  They pay the checks, and they take the risks,
>but they shouldn't be allowed to keep the profits if their endeavor is
>successful.  Gotcha.

No, entrepreneurship should be encouraged.  They drive the economy
after all.  They, however, should not avoid paying a "fair share" and
they should not forget that they are where they are now in part
because of government support (investment in the infrastructure in the
'50s and '60s, education grants, funding for basic research, etc.)

>
>Somehow equating Commie-Liberal Pinko Bolshie Socialism with efficiency
>doesn't seem to quite add up.  Rewarding laziness is more efficient than
>punishing it?  Come now!  You must be joking.
>
>This was a joke, right?
>
>Right?
>-- 
>Douglas C. Meier		|  I have a trig midterm tomorrow and I'm
>Northwestern University, ACNS 	|  being chased by Guido the killer pimp.
>This University is too Commie-	|  -Miles, from "Risky Business"
>Lib Pinko to have these views.	|  dmeier@casbah.acns.nwu.edu

Ya know, we might take you more seriously if you refrain from
name-calling.  "Commie-Liberal Pinko Bolshie Socialism" indeed.


--
"What does not kill me only makes me stronger, right?"
	"Ooooh, no. You're weak as a kitten!"
Newsgroups: talk.politics.misc,soc.motss,alt.sex