This is what I say when Republicans rail about the welfare state

[More Than A Feeling]

I tell them that it is vital to the economy. There will never be full employment, because some people have seasonal work, there are economic transitions as new technologies come online, and so forth. Those unemployed workers have to be ready to take new jobs when they come down the pike, otherwise other workers won't work as hard because they will know that there is no one waiting to replace them. In order for unemployed workers to be ready, they have to have maintained some level of their prior economic status, or else their skills will degrade or they will sink into despair. The system breaks down when they aren't ready.

What do you all think about this argument? Am I right, or way off base?

on edit: If they bring up charity there are two responses. One is that one of the values of government welfare is stability. What kind of life is it if you are living handout to handout, never knowing when the generosity of the fortunate will suddenly dry up. If they are religious, I remind them of the parable of Lazarus the begger and the rich man. Lazarus lived off the table scraps of the rich man, but when they died the rich man still went to hell. Clearly, God is not a supply sider

[RPM]

1. all true - but there is an easier way.

Corporate Welfare....

A long history of it in America
- Exclusive Corporate Franchises
- RR Land Grants
- Corporate Tax Breaks
- Outsourcing military functions to Halliburton

If they want rid of welfare, get rid of these too...

[More Than A Feeling]

2. I was trying to come up with a positive argument for welfare

that anyone can accept even if they don't care about helping the poor for moral reasons. Who can be against something that keeps the economy running smoothly?

I just feel like it isn't as strong if I am arguing for something solely by arguing against something else.

[RPM]

7. flip it around then...

if we help corporations on a doctrine of supporting the "greater good", the same argument can be made for helping individual.

If the person counters with - individuals don't help the greater good, counter by mentioning that individuals are the consumers who keep the economy afloat (someone needs to buy stuff...)

Sorry to couch it in the negative - but my experience has been more positive addressing that kind of issue on the ground that is near and dear to them; They can see getting a benifit from the government for running a business, but can never imagine taking a red cent because they need help.

:-)

[More Than A Feeling]

8. that might work, but if they think of the money as theirs

then they would say that they would spend it, rather than the other people. (sorry to taint the board with a RW talking point. I hear it a lot, unfortunately)

on edit: I do understand your logic though. ITs just that they can see themselves spending all that money, but I doubt they think they could take every new job that opens up

[Solon]

3. You make to much sense for them...

Republicans do not think that far ahead, and they also do not realize that our unemployment numbers are too low when even mentioned and that their are ALWAYS people that are unemployed at one time or another. Particularly the working class are the ones that are hit the hardest when changes that lead to unemployment come. One reason that they oppose it is that it ensures that there is a pool of people that will compete for lower wages, that saves their corporate masters money, and is therefore a good thing, it lowers standards.

[satya]

4. I agree with them--eliminate government housing subsidies...

and ask them to support eliminating the mortgage deduction. That shuts 'em up pretty quick.

[satya]

5. I don't see it as GOP values vs. Democratic values.

I absolutely agree with your position and found it hard to understand the opposing viewpoint, until I read Lakoff's "Don't Think of an Elephant". In the conservative/'strict father' view, being poor is immoral--if you were moral, you would take care of yourself and if everyone did that, there would be no need for welfare. Hence their argument for taxing labor and not wealth--to reward the "moral" wealthy. Until we can frame the issues in a way they would understand, we won't be successful in getting our point across.

[More Than A Feeling]

6. So what sort of frame would this require?

Right now it is an argument that appeals to self-interest and money. How could be a changed in a way to make it a moral argument without becoming "bleeding heart" so to speak?

[satya]

9. Lakoff says you would shift the frame to universal values of fairness...

prosperity, opportunity. The people doing those jobs enable the conservative's lifestyle. America is supposed to be a land of opportunity, so it's only fair that the laborers, who are doing their share to support the economy, have a decent standard of living. By increasing taxes on the top 2%, the wealthy are paying for their own lifestyles. In my mind, taxes are sort of like country club dues. As your wealth increases, you have access to a better lifestyle, but only because there are people doing the labor make that possible.

Rockridge Institute

[More Than A Feeling]

10. I know a lot of conservatives who don't care about fairness

or at least they say they don't, but maybe I am just scraping the bottom of the barrel

[satya]

15. In that case, they're probably what he calls "nasty ideologues"

You won't be able to get through to them. I know my share of those people too. Trying to have an intelligent discussion with them will quickly degenerate into personal attacks. In that case they win, because there is no dialogue, just war. You can't have a debate with someone whose goal is to "win" at all costs.

[proud patriot]

11. I just point out the pre-amble to the Constitution

:hi:

[More Than A Feeling]

12. har har! a good point I will have to remember

that will be one to use with the strict constructionists

[Raiden]

14. Brilliant! LOL

n/t

[cattleman22]

18. That may not work.

doesn't the Preamble refer to "General" welfare and not specific welfare?

[bemildred]

13. What welfare state?

We don't have a welfare state, except maybe for corporations.

[UdoKier]

16. Funny, I'd be more inclined to say "What welfare State?"

Isn't the pittance people get for welfare limited to two years, then you're done for life? As for food stamps and WIC, how do you begrudge the poorest of the poor getting food?

Social Security & unemployment are insurance, not welfare.

Our welfare spending is miniscule compared to most other industrialized countries.

[w4rma]

17. Getting rid of social security means making 90 year old Americans work

somewhere (where, I don't know.). *Most* of these same 90 year old Americans already cannot afford the health care they need to survive a little longer.