Socialism doesn't work: You cannot multiply wealth by dividing it!

Ummm, no they weren't. They were characyers in an illustrative parable.

I personally know of 6 families that have been on welfare, each for 4 generations. And that's in Montana, now. I guess it would be up to you to show me a stat of how many welfre recipients REALLY want to work.

I don't care what the intent was, as I am a results-oriented taxpayer. The welfare system is a huge failure.

 

Sounds like 21st century liberalism to me.

 

Who do you think the land-owner represents. The most common interpretation of the parable is that God rewards those who come to him late in life just as well as those who come early. Honestly, I have never heard anyone else suggest it isn't about God or God's followers. You are the first.

Whether it works well in Montana is not really what I'm getting at. If you are against welfare because it is difficult to administrate fairly, that's fine, it's difficult to argue without more data. There comes a point where the program should be scrapped if it is not implemented effectively. I don't think people on welfare are living a wonderful life (though they may find joy for non-economic reasons). Bad habits are generational, and it's difficult to break away from. To clarify, I'm not just in favor of meeting the needs of people, I'm in favor of offering education, job training and sufficient monetary resources to help them. Whether it is government or private charity, I take the view that we should help people in need. There will always be abusers of the system, but I don't think that should necessarily deter from us trying to help. Welfare programs need checks and balances.

There is one piece of data that I think is important, and that is unemployment rates. Compare states that offer welfare vs those that don't. Which have higher unemployment rates? Does welfare really deter people from working? You might be surprised. I think it may have the opposite effect. The US had 25% unemployment during the Great Depression. Roosevelt brought in social security, and unemployment dropped to 2%. Now, I'm not saying this is explicitly cause and effect, but if social security is a deterrent from employment, than the 2% happened in spite of that. Personally, I don't think it hurts that much, maybe it even helps a bit.

 

It is an illustrative paraple. You are the only one I have ever heard tell me it means everyone should be paid the same, despite levels of skill & effort.

How long after social securtity did unemployment drop ? And now that S.S. cannot support it'self, and has been shown to be nothing but a democrat ponzi scheme, do you still support it ?