Posted on 07/13/2012 5:22:21 AM PDT by jakerobins
MAKING benefits a human right would condemn a generation to being jobless, warns Big Issue founder John Bird.
A panel set up by Justice Secretary Ken Clarke and Deputy PM Nick Clegg wants Brits to be given handouts as a birthright – a suggestion that has infuriated Tory MPs.
John, who was born into poverty but went on to build a string of businesses, explains here why any right to state handouts would be madness
(Excerpt) Read more at thesun.co.uk ...
I have this argument with a Liberal friend all the time. One of the points I make is that a person’s “needs” is relative. Where does it stop? If you give a person one thing, why not another thing?
The end result of the Welfare State — work becomes optional and living off the dole becomes a lifestyle choice paid for by the suckers who do work. This problem is the Number One reason why I am conservative.
I like the Walter Williams analysis of entitlements vs charity.
Basically, no matter how many people agree with you, it is despicable to steal money from a person and justify it by saying you’re doing beneficial works with it.
Kipling, Gods of the Copybook Headings:
As it will be in the future, it was at the birth of Man
There are only four things certain since Social Progress began.
That the Dog returns to his Vomit and the Sow returns to her Mire,
And the burnt Fool’s bandaged finger goes wabbling back to the Fire;
And that after this is accomplished, and the brave new world begins
When all men are paid for existing and no man must pay for his sins,
As surely as Water will wet us, as surely as Fire will burn,
The Gods of the Copybook Headings with terror and slaughter return!
Good point.
I agree with him, but he is making a tactical mistake. That is, he is defending the status quo, where in fact he should make the counter argument that the emphasis needs to be getting those on benefits *off* benefits.
This is done in the US in two ways: one that is mean spirited and ineffective, and the other that is honest and works.
The mean spirited and ineffective way is to start putting more and more niggling conditions on benefits, essentially making those on benefits do stupid, time consuming and worthless rituals. Things like making them take a bus to the far side of a large metro area, to attend a “meeting” that is nothing more than a sign in sheet. Wasting hours on the bus just to go there and return.
The honest way to get people off benefits are programs like “workfare”, in which to get benefits you have to earn benefits by working all day. Why work all day for benefits when you can work all day in a real job and get more money?
It is simple and logical and gets a LOT of people on benefits, *off* benefits.
But this points to the next important points. Left wing governments try to get people off benefits by hiring them to do worthless jobs for the government. A better way is to insist that their job has to be from the private sector.
Now granted, helping to connect employers with potential employees on benefits is a good thing for government to do, they can’t make employers hire someone who will not be a good worker.
So this is where the cutoff must be. If they want to slack off on benefits and not work, they don’t need benefits to subsidize them. Those who work not shall not eat is just a fact of life.
Anyway, he was expressing dismay at the way cities like Scranton, had to take drastic measures (like pay its employees minimum wage) to keep afloat. His blame was directed at "all politicians," but truthfully, he should be blaming the Democrats and their union breathren, who are largely responsible for this mess.
I said to him, "what do you expect the cities to do? They have no money to pay their employees, and the well's run dry. They made promises to their government workers on the backs of taxpayers that no longer exist. There's simply no more money."
He then said to me, "Would you work for $7.25 per hour, or would you go elsewhere? Don't you value safety and security?"
I couldn't help but think of the famous quote from Franklin, but I said "of course I would go elsewhere for work." I told him that "city, state, and federal governments can't promise safety and security for one person without taking it from another."
I still don't think my friend gets it, but he will eventually.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.