Archived Rand Paul "Boston Bombers Were Coddled But They Still Attacked Us" (breitbart.com)
submitted ago by Sickofit
Posted by: Sickofit
Posting time: 5 years ago on
Last edit time: never edited.
Archived on: 2/12/2017 1:51:00 AM
Views: 2364
SCP: 161
170 upvotes, 9 downvotes (95% upvoted it)
Archived Rand Paul "Boston Bombers Were Coddled But They Still Attacked Us" (breitbart.com)
submitted ago by Sickofit
view the rest of the comments →
[–] thefedisascam 9 points 21 points 30 points (+30|-9) ago
The point of welfare (paying people to not work) isn't to help society but to destroy it (see any predominantly black neighborhood).
[–] jaceame 0 points 7 points 7 points (+7|-0) ago (edited ago)
What is your opinion of unemployment insurance?
[–] Yukonman 2 points 25 points 27 points (+27|-2) ago
I'm not a supporter of it.
People use to have to save money for a rainy day. Now they depend on social benifits to cover them in the event of a job loss.
This provides a disincentive to save. We can find causation on the data series that proves Marginal Propensity to Save decreases as social benifits increase.
This becomes a problem, under the Solow Growth Model long run economic growth depends on a high MPS.
This hurts us in the long run and drives the inequality rate up. The largest factor for personal wealth and financial improvement is the individuals savings rates and the saving rates of their parents.
If we look at countries that have had the highest growth, it's the countries that have the highest marginal propensity to save.
Now counties in Europe have found ways around increasing savings rate while managing social benifits but it's not something the US does and as a result the policies hurt our economy and inflict a system of economic stagnation on individuals.
Source: Masters in Economics
[–] anonlymouse 2 points 3 points 5 points (+5|-2) ago
You do want an income floor so that you don't have a domino effect every time someone loses a job. There is a proper way to do welfare, but it's very minimal, and the key is to remove as many barriers to employment as there are (such as minimum wage), and you also can't have open borders and a welfare system.
[–] thefedisascam ago
Only if it is voluntary and not coerced by the guns of the state.
[–] whisky_cat 1 point 1 point 2 points (+2|-1) ago
I know people that welfare actually helped. I'm not huge on Federal welfare but I've seen it positively effect some lives. Thus sweeping statements are dangerous.
[–] Yukonman ago
That's the problem with economics it deals with aggragate data that isn't aimed at everyone.
But most people do forget the opportunity costs. Say those people that used the system were able to save more in case of the threat of lost employment. The lack of benifits would equal an equally lower tax rate to allow the extra savings but reduce bureaucracy and allow comoound interest to be applied before it was needed.
However, some people may not have had the ability to work long enough to be able to save, so while there's an overall increase to the aggragate economy this would be an inequality.
Instead of the current social setup you could take out employment insurance young in the form of loan with the condition that you pay it back later once your working again.
(This arguement was for EI not disability welfare)
Disability welfare is just an unfortunate social cost we all pay. like an insurance policy for everyone.