Why are conservatives against welfare to the poor

Why are conservatives against welfare to the poor but are in favor of corporate welfare?
www.quora.com/Why-are-conservatives-against-welfare-to-the-poor-but-are-in-favor-of-corporate-welfare

We do the work. You get the ROI.
We do it all for your vacation rental. Marketing, pricing, guest requests, housekeeping, and beyond.
16 Answers

Pascal Morimacil, Worker, Thinker, Writer

Answered 1 year ago · Author has 4K answers and 25.3M answer views
They are against welfare for the poor, because they think that if people are not desperate, not choosing between work or death, then they will not work.

They dont mind welfare for the corporations, because corporations will spend the money on stuff.

Like stock buybacks, paying out dividends to investors, buying up smaller firms, relocating their factories to the other end of the world, or automating things, etc.

And at some point, that money might theoretically be used to employ someone.



Ray, Sales/Marketing (2015-present)
Answered 2 years ago

The rich rely on Republican middle class voters (who think that they can relate to the rich) but are much more closely related to working poor people to vote for them and empower their agenda. If only billionaires voted for billionaires, they would never get in office, because they only represent 1% This mass appeal to middle class conservatives gives them the voting base and support, but those people are delusional. Do you really think those people you mention are like Donald Trump? Far from it. It's the delusion that they are better than the poor, more deserving and (never request a hand out) that keeps them passionate about voting against poor interests. It's opposite of Peter pan. By supporting corporate greed, they rob the poor to give to the rich. Poor working people pay higher percent in tax than rich. Period.

Angela Stockton
, former Legal Secretary
Answered 3 years ago · Author has 20.6K answers and 81.8M answer views
(sarcasm alert)

Why, because corporations are the job creators, of course. If you don’t believe that, Mitch McConnell and Paul Ryan will be happy to remind you ad nauseam, as they vote for more goodies to reward the corporations. If the corporations are creating jobs for robots, or for overseas employees who will work for a dollar a day in an unsafe factory—well, you must be a communist, because this is how capitalism works.

The poor, on the other hand: it doesn’t matter if they’re elderly, children, disabled, discriminated against for their skin color, ethnicity or a criminal record, or unemployed because the factory or the coal mine which used to provide jobs has shut down. They—or in the case of children, their parents—obviously are poor because they made unwise life choices. Now they just have to pay the price for not being clairvoyant.

If that means they have to miss some meals—well, as former Sen. Phil Gramm of Texas was fond of saying, the United States is the only country where all the poor people are fat.

Justin Hoskins
, former Soldier, NCO, Leader, Master Driver, Instructor at U.S. Army (2003-2015)
Answered Aug 25, 2021 · Author has 3.8K answers and 307.7K answer views
I don’t think they are.

I think these are different topics.

Being against poor people getting welfare is a straw man to what people are actually against.

as far as I know conservatives are against “welfare” at the corporate level. We are talking hand outside to Walmart and the likes. I don’t know a right winger, or an extreme right winger that is in favor of hand outs to these corporations.

Related questions

Profile photo for Kaia RaineKaia Raine
, Masters Social Work & Sociology, University at Albany (1997)
Answered 3 years ago · Author has 255 answers and 248.7K answer views
For a good answer to this question I would ask you and readers to look at the connection, social-cultural and economic, of conservatives who support corporate/state contracts and bail outs, to corporate entities. Strangely, it is a kind of mutated socialism, where profits and stability are maintained by state intervention. Yet, when it comes to welfare and other programs for the poor, disabled, and oppressed groups, we often hear that we got to get rid of "big government," or more recently, to "deconstruct" government. On a local level, asking "who benefits" could be answered empirically. I found the work of the late Seymour Melman to be helpful in looking at similar questions.

296 views
Sponsored by SmartAsset
How can you find a top financial advisor in the U.S.?
Hiring the wrong financial advisor can wreak havoc on your retirement. This tool is changing everything.
Profile photo for Steve Paul
Steve Paul
Answered 3 years ago · Author has 9.1K answers and 9.5M answer views
True conservatives oppose “crony capitalism” and any form of corporate welfare, and support entrepreneurial capitalism that promotes economic growth and human progress.

Subsidizing “Green Energy” using taxpayer and ratepayer money is Crony Capitalism. Subsidizing the purchase of Tesla cars by wealthy people is Crony Capitalism. Paying billionaires to build football and baseball stadiums so millionnaires can play ball backed by taxpayer dollars is Crony Capitalism.

True conservatives support welfare for people during their temporary time of need, and oppose lifetime dependency or creating incentives not to work. Paying people not to work under Guaranteed Minimum Income (GMI) is welfare for life.

Conservatives believe that people who become productive members of society feel good about themselves.

Conservative believe keeping what they earn is not greedy; people who feel they have a right to the fruits of other people’s hard work are greedy.

Based on the tone of the question, you might re-consider your beliefs. They’re seriously misguided and uninformed.

364 viewsView upvotes
Profile photo for Dennis Copeland
Dennis Copeland
, Worked on various social welfare systems in California and New York
Answered 3 years ago · Author has 2.4K answers and 1.9M answer views
While “corporate welfare” seems to be an incendiary term (based on answers so far), we should not deny that corporations, along with many, many every-day citizens receive more money or equivalent benefit value from all levels of government versus the amount of money they have put into government coffers. Of course these are not CALLED welfare, but are called “tax mitigation”, “adjusted assessment”, “mortgage deduction”, “charitable deductions”, and or an endless list of creative legislative language phrases used to disguise their impact (lower flow of tax revenue to government).

Moving a corporate hq, but not operations…or anything else to Bermuda, Ireland, Cyprus or other low corporate tax places, while totally legal actually means that a corporation BENEFITS from American infrastructure, citizens, educational system, military security, local police, fire, medical facilities etc… but doesn’t bear their “fair share” (however defined) of the costs borne by the rest of Americans.

Most Social Security and many Medicare beneficiaries also receive more benefit value or cash then they’ve paid in over their lifetimes…. But most don’t call them or think of them as welfare either.

So corporations donate to politicians, vote and otherwise support politicians who support policies that benefit the stockholders snd executives.

Poor people don’t vote, don’t lobby, don’t contribute to politicians and are ill-understood by those in power.

This is not a particularly “conservative” vs “liberal” issue. It’s an issue of representative government. Those who give money get face time and favorable outcomes. Those that don’t….ummm don’t.

477 views
Profile photo for Henry Wetter
Henry Wetter
Answered 2 years ago · Author has 180 answers and 16.1K answer views
I don’t think conservatives are against welfare. I think they area against welfare as a lifestyle. I think they are against welfare fraud and waste. We all agree there needs to be a safety net for those who truly need it. There needs to be rules as to who qualifies and for how long you can receive welfare but we need to have a welfare system definitely and most conservatives agree with that. Benefits for corporations helps them to expand and hire people which makes sense.

70 views
Profile photo for Henry Resheto
Henry Resheto
, studied at University of Southern California
Answered 1 year ago · Author has 7.3K answers and 2.3M answer views
I am a conservative. And I am not for corporate welfare. During Obama day I raised my strongest opposition to $5B in federal R&D grants to private companies to do research in self driving cars.

I am not against welfare to poor. What I oppose is measuring the success of government policies by how many people sighed up for food stamps. I stand for measuring the success of government policies by how many people got off the food stamps.

120 views
Profile photo for Jorgen Harmse
Jorgen Harmse
, wrote a proposal for a multi-commodity currency that would provide price stability.
Answered 3 years ago · Author has 1.1K answers and 426.3K answer views
The question speaks of corporate welfare, but that is hard to separate from other handouts to the wealthy. This page has a lot of snark from the Left, but that may be justified by the evasions on the Right. The latter are more important for answering the question.

Dennis Copeland’s answer at least acknowledges the problem, and one paragraph is eloquent: “Poor people don’t vote, …”. However, he then minimises the problem by pointing out that everyone receives tax & other benefits. For example, some of my income is in capital gains (taxed at a lower rate than ordinary income), but many wealthy people have even more of their income in forms with preferential tax treatment. Copeland also mentions Social Security & Medicare beneficiaries receiving more than they put in, but these programmes as a whole will be lucky to escape raids on their trust funds. Perhaps Copeland is counting the interest on Treasury bills (hardly a gift) or restricting the analysis to those who live long enough to receive benefits.

Steve Paul says that true conservatives oppose crony capitalism. That is correct, but true conservatives left the Republican party several years ago and voted for Hillary Clinton in 2016. Paul might be right about some of the programmes he mentions and I agree about football stadiums, but he concludes by trying to deny the problem. Apparently paying a lower tax rate than workers is keeping what you earn. I don’t see that he addresses bailouts, farm subsidies, excessive military spending, resource giveaways, or no-bid contracts at all.

William Steyer tries to limit the discussion to tax breaks & TARP. He describes the latter as the government making corporations do things (which is partly true, but ignores the lobbying & accounting tricks by which corporations get what they want). He notes that TARP at least made a profit, but the government took large risks when many investors thought that the world was ending. If assets had been purchased on anything like arms-length terms then the profit would have been much bigger.

John Franklin Doe & User-10881863224790074203 apparently know no conservatives who support corporate welfare. If they mean real conservatives then I believe them, but I already noted that real conservatives no longer control the Republican party.

1.1K viewsView upvotes
Profile photo for William Steyer
William Steyer
, Bachelor Computer Engineering, University of Minnesota - Twin Cities (2007)
Answered 3 years ago · Author has 158 answers and 69.6K answer views
I think the real problem is corporate “welfare” isn’t really anything like welfare to the poor.

When people talk about welfare for the poor they mean things like TANF, SNAP(food stamps), Medicaid, section 8. Basically a person cannot take care of themselves, or their dependents, so the government gives them money(or money equivalents).

Most things that are called corporate welfare are in reality simply tax breaks. And in fact until the recent Trump tax cuts the US had one of the highest marginal corporate income taxes in the world. This was counterbalanced by having lots of deductions, so that politicians could push corporations do what they want(or reward donations ). I don’t think calling tax deductions as welfare is accurate way of seeing things.

If you want to look at the government actually giving money to corporations that might be more analogous to welfare there are actually recent examples. The auto company bailouts and TARP for financial companies back in 2008. Of course TARP at least actually turned a profit for the government, so even that isn’t a very good example.

503 viewsView upvotes
Profile photo for John Franklin Doe
John Franklin Doe
, Real Estate Investor (2005-present)
Answered 3 years ago · Author has 792 answers and 324.6K answer views
Haven't met a conservative that believes in any subsidies, social nor corporate.

It isn't a power granted to or federal government to implement either.

In fact or Founders believed poor relief should be only established at the local level as to not create unnecessary waste and debt for the country.

Yeah they were centuries ahead of their time

106 viewsView upvotes
Profile photo for Dennis Boyle
Dennis Boyle
, I read lots of books on money
Answered 3 years ago · Author has 175 answers and 103.4K answer views
no conservatives are in favor of corporate welfare. gimme a break

79 viewsView upvotes
Profile photo for Jared Zimus
Jared Zimus
, lived in The United States of America
Answered 2 years ago · Author has 672 answers and 662.4K answer views
Those who think as you indicate are confused about what capitalism and the free market are. And they place high value on the economy.

57 views
Profile photo for Albert de Koninck
Albert de Koninck
, former Ex-Regulatory Compliance Documentation Expert at Banking (2004-2008)
Answered 3 years ago · Author has 163 answers and 70.2K answer views
The Conservatives are against welfare for the poor with the excuse that they want an efficient, small government but they are actually trying to appeal to (lower) middle class people who resent having to pay taxes to support poor people, some of whom they know as neighbours that are slothful individuals, who will expend more effort into cheating the system than in doing an honest day's work.

They support corporate welfare, on the other hand, because they rely on donations from corporations and their officiers to fund campaigns. The excuse here is that the payments will provide jobs even though economic theory states that business should undertake operations that will earn a high enough rate of return so basically government is subsidizing activities that should not be undertaken from an economic point of view.

291 views
Profile photo for Gene Marr
Gene Marr
, studied at The United States of America
Answered 1 year ago · Author has 6.3K answers and 878.3K answer views
Because conservatives are crooks and poor people do not contribute to their criminal endeavors in government but corporations do.

14 viewsView upvotes
Related answers
Related Answer
Profile photo for Cassandra Lone
Cassandra Lone
, Autodidact
Answered 3 years ago · Author has 367 answers and 489.7K answer views
Should people on welfare be forced to work?
Hell no, most of them already do and those who don’t are largely:

Disabled by birth, circumstance or accident
About to give birth or recently having given birth
Minors
Retired
Unable to find gainful employment due to it not existing
Able to find work within two years anyway.
There’s a number of states who have placed work requirements on several programs, who have run into an interesting problem:

Poverty skyrockets and crime rises.

Doesn’t make sense at first glance, does it?

Many crimes by the poor are out of necessity. Theft of varying things, traffic violations such as out of date insurance or expired tabs-those are the kinds of crimes you’ll see more, along with drug abuse or intoxication-related crimes as stress piles up.

Not making excuses for them, but having enough to eat actually cuts down on such things significantly.

When support services are in place, we don’t quite get a utopia-but we do get better cities out of the deal. Kids go to school and don’t have to worry about being hungry, they just have to worry about school. Adults can more easily find jobs and keep them.

The average food support case is a family, not an individual. 70% of SNAP/Food Stamp recipients are only on the program 9–18 months, which is often keyed to the average time it takes locally to find gainful employment or complete an education course to better the odds of finding employment.

In terms of benefit, SNAP is one of our least wasteful and successful programs for investment into the US economy, better than tax breaks or refunds. For every dollar spent on SNAP, 1.75–2.00$ spending is stimulated. Remember that stimulus Bush and Obama did?

It was not nearly so effective. (Though Obama’s choice of stimulus came closer.)

Those that are on SNAP for longer than a year tend to be elderly, disabled and single mothers. Before someone brings up race, 70% of the single mothers identify as Caucasian/white, a far cry from the racist “Welfare Queen” myth.

Many of these mothers have no access to affordable childcare in order to work enough to support themselves.

What happens if they are forced to work is that they often find themselves in hot water with CPS or find their kids wandering the streets after school or when school isn’t in session.

Many were not single moms to begin with before you counter with “well, maybe they shouldn’t have had kids.”

The fraud rate for SNAP is actually 4%, the lowest of any federal program.

1.1K viewsView upvotesView 1 shareAnswer requested by
Travis Gaines
Related Answer
Profile photo for Trevor Young
Trevor Young
, Owning multiple firearms
Answered 10 months ago · Author has 465 answers and 238.4K answer views
If Republicans say welfare causes governmental dependence, why do they still provide welfare to corporations? Aren't corporations, by that logic, going to become governmental dependent too?
The government does NOT provide welfare to corporations. “Corporate welfare” is just a bullspit phrase liberals made up to further their anti-capitalist agenda with a logical fallacy (false equivalence). What they are talking about is corporate tax cuts. You see, to a liberal, all money belongs to the government. The amount they let you keep is a GIFT to you. So when they let you keep more of your money, it's “welfare”. And when they let corporations keep more of their money, it's “corporate welfare”.

There are a few legitimate cases of ACTUAL corporate welfare. Like when the government bailed out GM and Chrysler and a bunch of banks 13 years ago. But Republicans (at least the rank and file) were very much opposed to that and to this day are still angry about it. I, for one, will never own a car made by GM or Chrysler.

Then there is “crony capitalism”. That's when the government plays favorites by giving certain companies some kind of edge over their competitors. Generally, the companies who receive the benefit are those that give the biggest campaign contributions to the party in power. The Covid 19 lockdowns are an excellent example. Just look who was allowed to stay open. Walmart. The big grocery chains. Other large chain retailers. The big chain restaurants. Amazon. All the small businesses were shut down. Mom and pop retailers. Local restaurants. Hair salons. Seeing a pattern?

But crony capitalism existed long before Covid 19 did. It has been around for as long as capitalism itself. But it's been on the rise over the last couple of decades, which is why we've seen a shift from most big businesses supporting the Republican party, to most of them supporting the Democrat party. The big businesses traditionally supported the Republicans, because the Republicans could be relied upon to push “laissez faire” capitalism and leave the big businesses and their profits alone. But when the Democrats were in power, they went after big business with a vengeance. So the big businesses got smart and switched their support to the Democrats, because the democrats had a history of giving perks to their supporters. Perks like ACTUAL welfare, which is just legalized vote-buying with other people's money. And if the Republicans managed to get back in power, worst case scenario, the big businesses got left alone for a few years.

260 viewsView upvotes
Related Answer
Profile photo for Gregory Norton
Gregory Norton
, studied Political Philosophy & Economics
Updated 4 years ago · Author has 15.7K answers and 6.2M answer views
What are some examples of corporate welfare in the United States?
Agriculture subsidies. Pretty much the entire Department of Agriculture. Even its product inspection and certification programs were requested by large companies to protect them from small competitors that cannot afford to comply with USDA paperwork requirements. Foodstamps were designed to help corporations get rid of surplus food as much as to help the poor. Have you ever wondered why Foodstamps is run by the USDA rather than HHS?

The Interstate Highway system.

The Export-Import Bank

Special treatment for alternative energy investments

Non prosecution of the owners of wind turbines when they violate the law by killing endangered hawks and eagles

Bailouts

Guaranteed loans

Dredging of harbors and waterways by the Army Corp of Engineers

Import restrictions

Foreign aid that is tied to the purchase of American exports (particularly military equipment).

Regulations that hinder small firms and startups more than their large and established competitors.

The anti-marijuana laws. Now there’s an interesting example. Hemp makes better paper than wood pulp, it grows faster and the paper lasts longer. Marijuana is hemp. By outlawing the growing of hemp, large timber businesses were subsidized (by regulation rather than by giving them money) at the expense of the smaller hemp industry.

And on and on and on. Direct cash subsidies are only part of corporate welfare.

Not all of the assistance government gives to businesses are readily recognized as welfare, and much of what government does really is for the general welfare, including the welfare of businesses. The Interstate Highway system, for example, seems to be for the good of everyone, but the highways would last for a very long time if only 5,000 pound cars used them, yet they wear out in a decade or so when 50,000 to 100,000 pound trucks use them. Everyone pays to repair the damage caused by the trucks.

1.5K viewsView upvotesAnswer requested by
Marshall Solomon
Related Answer
Profile photo for Galen Barnaby
Galen Barnaby
, former Was Employed, Did Stay at Holiday in Express 2002
Answered 1 year ago · Author has 1.7K answers and 352.6K answer views
Is corporate welfare socialism for the rich?
“Is corporate welfare socialism for the rich?”

Call it whatever you choose, the name doesn’t matter. Bastiat calls it “legal plunder”[1] . It is theft. Anyone that tries to justify it are on the same side as those that justified slavery.

“But how is this legal plunder to be identified? Quite simply. See if the law takes from some persons what belongs to them, and gives it to other persons to whom it does not belong. See if the law benefits one citizen at the expense of another by doing what the citizen himself cannot do without committing a crime.

Then abolish this law without delay, for it is not only an evil itself, but also it is a fertile source for further evils because it invites reprisals. If such a law — which may be an isolated case — is not abolished immediately, it will spread, multiply, and develop into a system.

The person who profits from this law will complain bitterly, defending his acquired rights. He will claim that the state is obligated to protect and encourage his particular industry; that this procedure enriches the state because the protected industry is thus able to spend more and to pay higher wages to the poor workingmen.

Do not listen to this sophistry by vested interests. The acceptance of these arguments will build legal plunder into a whole system. In fact, this has already occurred. The present-day delusion is an attempt to enrich everyone at the expense of everyone else; to make plunder universal under the pretense of organizing it. “

Footnotes

[1] The Law, by Frederic Bastiat
286 viewsView upvotes
Related Answer
Profile photo for Karlan Demmin
Karlan Demmin
, Entrepreneur (2015-present)
Answered 1 year ago · Author has 5.4K answers and 838.2K answer views
Do conservatives in America support a welfare state?
Do conservatives in America support a welfare state?

Okay the word welfare is a bad descriptor it leads to shame

We already have a fairly strong social back stop and hand up program that has existed all of my working lifetime and beyond I am sure.

Let me explain:

We have an index (a baseline) that is never rarely talked about, but was used to develop a very robust system where most of people’s lives are dependent on the decisions they make based on the dreams and goals they have

The issue is what is a level playing field?
Which to mean means at what income can you pay for all your needs, and have a small amount of wants fulfilled

Well that really fluctuates depending on how many people are dependent on you as a wage earner or a household if you are married.

It is not about dollars per hour it is about a level of money that sustains the basics needs of your household.

I call that a lifestyle index 100% of the lifestyle index is poverty level which is actually what the government calls this index The Federal Poverty level.

Poverty is again a word that brings out the emotion of Shame. Where as the word lifestyle promotes hope,

As I said the US system of government is really built on this index, but we talk about tax rates and living wages as a set dollar a6mount per hour. When in fact the actual social safety net

Social Security is a set percentage of everyone's actual income regardless of per/hr rate.

The breakdown goes like this

6.2% from your pay and a match of 6.2% by your employer
Which currently covers
Long Term Disability
and
Life insurance if you have minor children.
And a totally worthless death benefit to somehow bury you of I believer $255 which does not even really cover a cremations so whatever on that.

Then we have a problem the acronym FICA in long form is Federal Insurance Contribution Act

Insurance means:
a thing providing protection against a possible eventuality.

In this case it means it is protection against you not being able to provide enough income to cover your basic NEEDS… Not wants Needs.

There is an additional portion for medicare/medicaid or health insurance

That portion is

1,45% from your check with a match of 1.45% from your employer

Which adds up to 15.3% from both you and your employer. If you are self employed FICA is called Self Employment tax. No cute shortened acronym there. I guess the government decided to tell you that the tax is a tax and explain what it is for (basically)/

At any rate back to the problem
There is no Healthcare insurance for all in this plan there is one for those below the proper lifestyle index number which again is called the Federal Poverty Level

Health insurance is therefore “free” if you make about 150% of Federal Poverty Level and you gradually end up paying a larger portion of that healthcare premium until you end up paying the full cost at about 300% of Federal Poverty level.

That would be the Affordable Care Act. The problem really is the affordable care act did not take into account the actual health level of an individual thereby forcing the relatively healthy to pay a lot more to cover the more sick individuals.

That breaks the health insurance model of this nation and therefore the people that complained about it where the relatively healthy. Me for example, My coverage went down to pay the same price or my price tripled if I wanted the same level of protection I had before.

The real problem though is that the medical system in the US is a “Sick Care” system meaning the Drug companies and the Medical groups seek high profits and do not really care about health

A Healthcare system would fix that, and Actually Trump and Biden want to address the profit ratio to some extent, but The Pharma industry is fighting that (surprise take away some of my profit to create a healthcare system rather than a “sick care system”)

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

Now lets go back to the flaw in social security Which is the part everyone knows about and kinda likes until they understand it really sucks.

You pay into the social security system up to a cap of $137.700 after that income level is reached if you as individual reach that point Congratulations you are now a high income person,

Now the max retirement income “benefit is” 40% of the best 35 years of your working lifetime.

I don’t know about you, but I want more income after I retire than I had before I retired not 40% of my best years good grief, so that is why the national retirement income benefit sucks, and really should be phased out because we now on average live longer and can in most cases work longer if we need to in order to get to a better income than we had in our working lifetime

Which brings me back to the Federal Poverty level or again to be more hopeful the lifestyle index.

The level playing field seems to be about 250-300% of the Federal poverty level (look it up for the number of dependents you have) it does vary for dollar amount the more dependents you have.

So there really is no “living wage/hr”, but the government and people tout that dollar/hr thing

You can work more or less hours depending on the level that you hone your gifts and talents to over time, but you might have to spend more time getting to that 250-300% of Federal poverty level until you get better at what you are providing to earn money from the work and/or product you offer to the consumers of your product (be a service or a physical item)

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

Where this becomes a real problem is the Marginal Tax rate on income. If you are better at what you do or your physical item you sell is a better product than others you are forced to pay more taxes

In other words you are penalized for providing more.

That is stupid and it is why the nasty theory of “socialism does not work”

There is no intensive to bring your A game if you are selling your gifts/talents or you make a better widget than the other guy. Because you are force to pay more into the lifestyle equation for others

Again stupid.

The way the actual Federal poverty level works is to raise you up to and keep you at 250-300% of the survival level (100% of the Federal poverty level)

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

Now maybe there should be an income tax for infrastructure maybe 15% for everyone over 300% of Federal poverty level, but that is not how the marginal tax system is set up.

So someone somewhere is taking that money and hoarding the extra for doing nothing.

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
If we all got to and maintained 250-300% of Federal poverty level then theoretically we would all have a place of relative contentment to fall back on,

and from there we could grow out and start pursuing our dreams (which are all different), but if you make a smart life plan you put in a line item in a spending plan that you choose to right a wrong with some of your money (not the government which would be the social safety net).

As for replacing retirement (no government 40%) well invest somewhere between 7.65% and 15.3% of your income that you manage (take home pay) and you will create a very tidy sum that at some point you can decide I do not need to earn money anymore because your investment portfolio will cover everything the social security does not need to cover anymore

Of course plan for better healthcare than Medicare for the old because you will likely need more, but that goes back to the tax advantage self directed retirement plans

For healthcare that would specifically be a Health Savings account
,but you could lump it all into
401k’s, 403b’s, Thrift Savings accounts and or Roth IRA’s

In conclusion the system we have really does work for all people if they actually work and contribute to society as well as to their own personal pursuit of happiness.

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

To really make the American Dream fly though you have to go against the conventional normal in personal finance.

You have to stay out of consumer debt

and invest long term instead,

another good rule of thumb is create a reserve (an emergency fund) so that you do not use government money (stimulus packages) in the case of this pandemic.

You might ask why?

The answer to that would be that the federal government spends all they bring in if you look to them for answers to when something unexpected happens. Well they have to create the money (which they can), but it is debt. Which takes away from the Full faith and credit of the US in the long run.

Thereby slowly eroding the hope that exist here at home and around the world. Nations for many years did call us the leaders of the free world. That is disappearing and We the people really do not want that (at least I think most of us don’t)

47 viewsView upvotesAnswer requested by
Nelson Vidinha
Related Answer
Profile photo for Jim Parker
Jim Parker
Answered 2 years ago · Author has 10K answers and 1.5M answer views
Why does the United States support corporate welfare over human welfare?
Based on the thrust of your question I’ll presume that we share the same opposition to crony capitalism, and de-centralizing government in 21st century America. With that as a starting point let me propose that we agree to a couple of facts.

A. America spends too much money, and

B. the individual states would do a better job of spending than Washington does.

I’m not as sure about B as I am about A but for the sake of progress let’s assert that a dollar sent to Congress makes a one-way trip.

Let me cite as evidence the concentration of wealth in the suburbs surrounding Washington DC. Once those dollars get to Washington they like to stay there.

And truth be known, I’m not sure that our respective state capitals don’t like a little public money to spend themselves. It’s just that when Tallahassee screws something up, people in Tampa (not Tulsa) pay the price. This is an important point, because when people in my state capital make a mess they get fired. In Washington, it does not seem to work that way.

We have fifty state capitals in America and they form a laboratory of public administration. Bad ideas can quickly be replaced at the state (and local) level but they just seem like a bad Kevin Costner movie in Washington. It just goes on and on and on.

Can you say Fannie Mae? Speaking of corporate welfare! What about the Tennessee Valley Authority? Or NASA? Or the CDC? We don’t think of them as corporate welfare but in a way, they are.

Only different by degree. It’s late and I’m up past my bedtime but you get the drift. Please leave a message in the comment section if you have a different viewpoint. If you like it…that’s ok too.

81 viewsView upvotesAnswer requested by
Erin Freedman
Related Answer
Profile photo for Bill Smith
Bill Smith
, I like paying taxes. Especially for social programs
Answered 2 years ago · Author has 543 answers and 110.7K answer views
Are all Republicans against social welfare completely? What is your opinion on those people who say welfare kept them alive and were able to join the workforce again due to temporary assistance? Do you believe that is a valid use of welfare?
As asked:

Are all Republicans against social welfare completely? What is your opinion on those people who say welfare kept them alive and were able to join the workforce again due to temporary assistance? Do you believe that is a valid use of welfare?

I must say, the phrasing of the question is problematic insofar as a) it asks at least two separate questions, b) the first of those is stated in divisive and antagonistic terms, and c) the other is stated in terms that ask only for opinions while appearing to express the OP’s own opinion (which to date has, predictably, elicited a collection of rather combative answers)

As for the second part of the question, I suggest to the OP that she resubmit it as its own separate question (or questions) and ask it in a way that might elicit more useful answers from which some members of the community might actually learn something they don’t already know. For example: “Can you provide an overview of the “welfare” programs in the US in terms of what they cost (absolute terms and as % of all government), who they benefit, what their intended purposes are, and why they succeed or fail (to the extent that they do either or both)”. Or for example” “What are some of the perversities of incentive that are associated with various social welfare programs in the US?”

Here, I will do my best to honor the A2A with a response to the first part of the question that is hopefully more balanced and lighter in tone. So:

“Are all Republicans against social welfare completely?”

This question has the cart before the horse. People don’t take their positions on issues because they identify as Republican or Democrat or whatever. Instead they identify as Republican or Democrat or whatever because they a) have positions on various issues and b) view certain issues as more or less important than others. And so, of course not all Republicans are “against social welfare completely”. Some Republicans identify as such, based upon their positions on issues other than social welfare. For example they might be ambivalent or even favorable toward social welfare, but they identify as Republican based on their positions on other issues such as gun control or the legality of abortion.

Now, that was pretty obvious and even… inescapable, wasn’t it? And thus, not very interesting. So to make this a more interesting answer, I’ll do a couple of things.

1. Ask you to consider this: www.businessinsider.com/how-negative-income-tax-earned-income-tax-credit-works-2017-1 (I am not 100% certain about this, but I strongly suspect that Jamie Dimon, for example, is a Republican)

2. Take a step back and ponder a few of the different perspectives from which folks think, and form their opinions, about social welfare.

Social welfare viewed from perspectives of taxation and redistribution

No one really likes paying taxes, right? (Including me, my tongue-in-cheek “credential” notwithstanding). But some of us do tolerate it better than others.

At one end of the spectrum, some folks rigidly and ideologically view all taxation and redistribution as theft. And most of these folks view redistribution to the poor as being a more egregious type of theft than, for example, redistribution to the defense industry.

Toward the other end are folks who rigidly and ideologically view as immoral, a government that doesn’t strive to ensure that none of its citizens are in economic need. And unless they are so far toward that end of the spectrum as to believe that outright government ownership or control of the means of production and distribution is the way to go, then “tax-and-spend is their best friend” (Try saying that out loud, like a chant - Republicans could diss Democrats with it at their campaign rallies. Or Democrats could diss Republicans with at, at their campaign rallies ).

In between are folks who think about taxation and redistribution in an endless variety of more flexible, nuanced, and pragmatic ways.

For example some may view taxation as a price they pay – some willingly, some grudgingly -- to be part of a society that is secure, which requires that it have a strong defense capability. They may view redistribution to a military as the only valid basis for taxation, and view other tax purposes as theft. Others may view additional purposes as also valid. For example redistribution to law enforcement, and criminal courts.

Moving farther along the spectrum, some may view taxation as a price they pay – again some willingly and some grudgingly -- to be part of a society that is economically prosperous. For them, redistribution to the construction industry to fund public infrastructure, and to civil courts, may be valid bases for taxation.

It is at about this point on the spectrum that all Libertarians have been accounted for. But not yet all Republicans.

Moving still farther along we encounter an extent of the spectrum wherein there are persons who take either or both of the following views:

· Economic prosperity is dependent not only upon physical and legal infrastructure, but also upon having strong worker-consumer classes

· In order for a society to be (largely) orderly and stable by its nature (as opposed to “orderly and stable” as enforced by the iron hand of a totalitarian government) its citizenry must not manifest overly extreme class divisions.

As regards the second of those views, their definitions of “overly extreme” will vary, but in general those who share this view want their society, as reflected by its government, to value inclusivity and to seek to maximize the percentage of the population that is enabled to access and pursue economic opportunities. Many of them view the history of economic and governmental systems as a long series of lessons that a) wealth begets power which begets corruption; b) together those feed themselves in spirals that ultimately over-concentrate not just the wealth and power themselves, but also economic opportunity; c) at which point a revolution occurs and there is a reset. And from those lessons they conclude that there needs to be some sort of counterweight to the natural tendency toward over-concentration.

It is along this range of the spectrum where we begin to find those who see validity in the concept of a progressive (as opposed to flat or regressive) tax code. Predicated on the simple reality that the size of the lower and middle income employee classes dwarfs that of the upper income owner/employer classes, such a tax code is designed to economically strengthen the working classes and increase their chances of accessing economic opportunities (i.e. moving into the owner/employer classes), thus raising their ability to consume. It strives to do so by (in effect) marginally redistributing some wealth from the owner classes to the worker classes. It doesn’t redistribute in any direct way. It just makes marginally higher incomes bear marginally higher percentages of the overall tax burden. Any type of direct redistribution remains a function of what kinds of things the taxes are used to pay for.

As radical as a progressive tax code may sound, at this point we still have not yet lost all Republicans. But we also have not necessarily identified any folks who would boldly say “I am not against social welfare”.

Those folks are even farther along this spectrum of viewpoints on taxation and redistribution. They have concluded that in order to be “(largely) orderly and stable by its nature”, a society must not only strive to ensure economic opportunity, it must also be (largely) kind. That is: they perceive that it is polarizing, and potentially destabilizing, to just turn a blind eye to all the millions of those persons who are temporarily or permanently unable (not unwilling) to access and pursue economic opportunities. And they conclude that a) the society must strive to take care of those at-risk millions; b) the mechanisms for doing so must be reliable (no huge ups and downs in funding); and c) the mechanisms for doing so must be coordinated at large scale (because the numbers are huge and the concentrations of need can shift geographically over time).

<SIDEBAR>

In case some elaboration is needed on what “temporarily or permanently unable (not unwilling) to access and pursue economic opportunities” means, here are some examples of “temporarily”:

· a lack of available opportunities due to factors such as recessions, or such as the obsolescence of skill sets due to technological and structural changes (e.g. outsourcing) in an industry or business practices at large

· temporary disabilities

And some examples of “permanently”:

· permanent disabilities

· advancing age (at some point, employers simply won’t hire you any longer – at least not at a living wage, and not on a full-time basis that qualifies you for a benefits package – because they fear they won’t get enough years and/or enough energy out of you to provide them with their required ROI)

</SIDEBAR>

Most of the folks in this “society must be (largely) kind” group have considered whether or not it should be the government’s job to do the whole kindness thing. Some concluded that it should not because, well, there’s private charity. But others concluded that doing it reliably requires that the bulk of the necessary funding be established by mandate (rather than subject to the vagaries of people’s moods – voluntary charitable giving ebbs and flows with the economic and calendar seasons, and is likely to be smallest during times when the need is greatest). And they concluded that doing it at scale requires a set of organizational and oversight structures that would, if separate, end up being tantamount to a whole separate shadow-government with all of the same potentials for inefficiencies and abuses and perversities of incentive. So they concluded that at least part of the job does belong to the government that is already in place because… heck, why not? It already has the necessary scale, the established organizational and oversight structures, and the established ability to mandate funding.

Even at this point on the spectrum, some Republicans remain. Less today than in the past. A great many Eisenhower Republicans fit in this range. Far fewer Reagan Republicans do. I think it is safe to say that very few if any Freedom Caucus Republicans do.

Social welfare viewed from perspectives of what the programs are, what they do, who they benefit, and why they are structured the way they are

At one end of the spectrum, some folks might simplistically view all transfers as “handouts” and/or they might simplistically view all recipients as “lazy”.

Toward the other end are folks who view all transfers as righteous and do not necessarily view work-for-pay as something that is highly virtuous.

In between are folks who view people, their circumstances, and social welfare transfers in an endless variety of more flexible, nuanced, and pragmatic ways. They recognize to varying degrees that needs do exist for a variety of purpose-built transfers (programs) designed to address the widely varying circumstances of many different kinds of potential recipients. This group includes some Republicans.

Moreover, the way they express their opinions regarding social welfare programs may reflect a range of differences in terms of what kinds of programs fit their own definitions of “welfare”. Pretty much all would agree that programs like TANF and SNAP and Section 8 housing are “welfare”. But some might view programs like Social Security, Medicare, and Unemployment Insurance – even though they are concerned with social welfare -- as something other than “welfare” programs. Perhaps because those programs are not means-tested. Perhaps also because they accomplish redistribution through mechanisms that function like insurance policies (except that the issuer is non-profit), and maybe to some folks, paying taxes that resemble insurance premiums is more palatable than paying other types of taxes. But one thing is certain: once you’ve paid into such programs for many years, you damned sure don’t want to see them discontinued. Republicans included.

Social welfare viewed from perspectives of efficiency and efficacy

At one end of the spectrum, some folks fixate on their presumptions that government is invariably {inept &| inefficient &| corrupt}. Or they fixate on the fact that social programs are vulnerable to abuse, or that some of them create perverse incentives. Or all of the above.

Toward the other end… well, I’m not sure what the other end could possibly look like. I don’t think anyone, anywhere, presumes that governments are highly efficient, let alone infallibly effective.

In between are folks who recognize that while certain programs (and certain governments!) work better than others, none is perfect. Yet they don’t fixate solely on the inefficiencies or the abuses, nor do they consider those to be such a high price to pay that the whole freakin’ effort should be abandoned. This group includes some Republicans.

These folks probably tend to see the-world-in-general as highly imperfect, perhaps even random and chaotic. Some of them may have concluded that certain types of societal challenges are impossible to solve using any-and-every morally defensible kind of carrot, stick, support, or education that exists. (A good example is the perpetual reality of single, unemployable teenage mothers. Taking that example in particular, such folks may conclude that in many of these cases the most that can be accomplished is to try to prevent the children from going into the foster care system, or going hungry (or worse) for however long it takes for the mothers to become developmentally able to support them.)

And these folks may also look around and recognize that the private sector -- including private charities and non-profit agencies -- is also rife with inefficiencies and abuses and perverse incentives, and always “takes its cut for expenses”. And they don’t expect their government to outperform the-world-in-general. This includes some Republicans.

Anyway, I’m sure there are several other perspectives from which folks may view social welfare, but I’ll stop there. Perhaps others will elicit some discussion around those perspectives by posting additional questions. For example, “Are social welfare programs good or bad for business?”

133 viewsView upvotes
Related Answer
Profile photo for Simon John Duffy
Simon John Duffy
, Director (2009-present)
Answered 3 years ago · Author has 97 answers and 74.6K answer views
Why don't conservatives support welfare?
The word conservative is ambiguous and it’s best to distinguish between free-market liberals (in the US you might call them libertarians) and social conservatives (say, traditionalists). Let us also remember to define welfare as education, healthcare, disability support, housing support and income security

In the UK the Conservative Party used to be dominated by social conservatives and, with some caveats, these people were not opposed to welfare and were amongst the architects of the welfare state in Britain after World War II. Remember also that Bismarck, certainly a conservative, developed many welfare provisions in nineteenth-century Germany. The attitude of social conservatives towards welfare tends to be positive - but ecological. They like the idea that everybody in society can flourish, but they are nervous that new arrangements might undermine existing arrangements that they think are also valuable: faith, family, community etc.

For example it was Archbishop William Temple who coined the term “welfare state” and he was an important architect of the UK welfare state, persuading the Church of England and many in the Conservative Party that the state had now to take a hand to ensure the great injustices of poverty, inadeaquate housing, education and healthcare (the cause of growing social unrest) must be tackled. Beyond everything the social conservative fears revolution and civil unrest - hence many recognise that welfare is essential.

Free-market liberalism has had a renaissance in the late twentieth-century and today the UK’s Conservative Party is dominated by free-market liberals. I suspect that this change has also influenced the modern Republican Party in the USA. Free market liberals tend to be much more negative about welfare as they believe that each individual is entitled to make his own decisions, safeguard his own welfare and has few if any obligations to his neighbour.

For a libertarian social justice does not exist, social and economic rights do not exist and poverty is not an injustice - just a sad, but natural state of the world. The libertarian’s goal is to be free and that means free of obligations to others, including the obligation to contribute to the welfare of others. The libertarian seriously believes that taxes (or at least taxes that are used to benefit others) is a form of theft. [This is an interesting paradox - because the right to property is a human right and an example of a social and economic right - but this becomes the only right libertarians want to recognise - so in effect the libertarian is not rejecting social rights - just those social rights that might be disadvantageous to themselves.]

It is also strange and interesting that free-market liberalism or libertarianism is a successful political philosophy, because anyone advancing it must ultimately believe that they are free to exploit anyone, including those who vote for them. In effect their message is “Vote for me, because I’ll look after myself.” In reality those posing a libertarians are merely acting as representative of the rich and their political role is to advance the interests of this particular and rather small club. I suspect it is for this reason that free-market liberals have tried to team up with others, like Evangelical Christians and nationalist, to create a broader appeal - despite the obvious tensions between libertarianism, Christianity and nationalism.

It is also interesting that the serious free-market liberals thinkers that are often cited (Hayek and Friedman) are in their actual writings much more pro-welfare than many of their advocates seem to realise. Hayek argued that a welfare system was an essential part of a free society and Friedman argued for a form of basic income where everyone would receive a guaranteed income.

So in summary conservatives - because they care about society - actually do support welfare, but libertarians, often posing as conservatives - do not support welfare - because they only care about themselves.

1.8K viewsView upvotes
Related Answer
Profile photo for Donnie Winn
Donnie Winn
Answered 4 years ago · Author has 217 answers and 18.6K answer views
What do American conservatives think of a job guarantee program instead of welfare?
This is a bogus idea because the premise of this proposal is invalid. The premise being that a job opening will automatically be generated to fill someones need for money.

A job exists because a job needs to be done or something of value must be produced. Jobs dont exist to provide you with something to do.

46 views
Related Answer
Profile photo for Al Cowden
Al Cowden
Answered 2 years ago · Author has 738 answers and 893.1K answer views
Why are conservatives against welfare, yet many conservative voters have used welfare at some point?
Madeline,

Where did you get the nugget that “many conservative voters have used welfare at some point”?

What kind of numbers are you thinking is this true of?

If your source is just that Elizabeth Bruenig article “Conservatives love small government - until it comes to welfare” (not her other masterpiece “It’s time to give socialism a try” … jeeze)

Then I’d suggest you re-read her article, which though poorly written and bordering incoherent (as is her apparent natural writing style) it does not support your question.

Thanks!

ok so the question is from a Pew survey. Which shows that “10% of Republicans” and “22% of Democrats” have received welfare at some point.

Or, in reading further, that “17% of conservatives” have received welfare, roughly the same as liberals.

Ok, so let’s take this as a well-executed, not slanted questions and honest populations pool kind of survey (quite a concession for Pew surveys).So we assume that.

How does the survey find that more “conservatives”(17%) than “Republicans”(10%) have received welfare at some point?

In the liberal world of surveys-mean-so-much, they have managed to identify there are more conservatives (the further right subset of Republican) taken handouts than middling average Joe Republicans? Marvelous! Now, right here on Quora I have had 2 apparently serious (if somewhat confused) sorts claim to be “conservatives” and quickly found they were wobbly center between the 2 parties and certainly nothing remotely conservative about them (hint: both were horrified to be thought as Reagan Republicans. Gasp!)

I may dig into this a bit when I have more time, but it doesn’t take my degree in Rocket Surgery to detect either the methodology and labeling are dodgy on this survey - or an unfortunately nuanced intrepretation by the author. That is a nice way of saying either the numbers were handled incompetently or intentionally to achieve a nonsense outcome.

179 viewsView upvotes