Are there any arguments for helping the poor through government aid aside from 'muh feelings'?

Are there any arguments for helping the poor through government aid aside from 'muh feelings'?

Digits and OP's mom dies in her sleep

it's kind of nice to live in a society where ton's of people are not starving

also it reduces crime if poor people are given at least enough to live

Hard times can happen to anyone, so by allowing for a safety net system, it helps you, personally, out if you ever fall on hard times. It's like buying insurance, if you will.

Alternatively, the existence of a safety net encourages more risk-taking, which whilst often seen as bad, in in fact is an essential part of entrepreneurship.

the majority of people who benefit from government aid programs are a net loss to society in both tangible and intangible ways

The government should offer programs to help people get back on their feet after hardship. There should be many, many opportunities for people to get back up if they fall down and the government (and their fellow citizens) should be more than happy to help them do so.

But the state, and the citizenry, should not be forced to care for those who do not want to get back up.

A fair society, not a welfare society.

If poor people succeed they will breed and produce more poor people. Further more the money being used to aid them comes from people who now feel they do not have enough money to have a second child or possibly even a first. Welfare is dysgenic.

What purpose is there to a society, or state, if not to help its people?

>fucking homeless guy, begs for money all day, eventually commits a crime(s)
>get him a job, he becomes a unit in the free market, thus helping the economy

Not that hard you fucking sperglord

>helping the poor through government aid

Think of it as an anti-rioting tax

Yes. You don't want poor people annoying you on the streets and stealing your shit do you?

Helping your own people, raising your community, creating a mass movement for your entire nation for mass mobilization...

Lots of valid reasons for me.

Poor people spend a much larger portion of their money than anybody else. Redistributing wealth to them can actually increase spending and help the economy, or at least certain parts of it somewhat.

Reducing poverty reduces crime rates.

Reduced crime rates allow a smaller police force, permits collecting more taxes (assuming they're doing legit work), lowers insurance premiums...etc

The problem is, they're not actually trying to help them escape poverty with their actions. They're trying to maintain an impoverished, dependent voting block.

yeah im white, grew up in a meth riddled trailer park, went to a trade school and now im welding
but i cant make enough money to move to an apartment that doesnt make me want to kill myself. i dont drink or do drugs
i think i deserve some fucking help. but i wont ask for it because it would never come.

If you buy into the Left's premise of equality then helping the poor would only create a better more productive society. However the reality is that most poor people are generally inferior in every measurable aspect compared to people of higher economic status, meaning that subsidising their existance and further multiplication is not helping anyone in the long run.

Uh yeah how about people's well-being you cruel fuck

It is only acceptable when a government is running large surpluses and, thus, can afford to run these programs. Most people just do not understand that the vast majority of governments in the world today do not have any money, therefore to run these aid programs they either have to borrow the cash required (increasing deficits and the overall debt) or print the difference (increasing inflation acting as a "stealth-tax"). Both cases decrease all citizens' living standards over the long run; but nobody seems to care about the long term anymore, it's all short term gains these days - fuck the future apparently.

>poverty causes crime
when will this meme end. everyone knows crime causes poverty

Why are British women so hideous?

Keeping them off the streets. Like that program in the Netherlands where they give heroin addicts free heroin and places to stay so they stay off the fucking streets and stop bothering everyone.

depends what you mean by "poor people"
If you're talking about some entrepreneur who failed for legit reasons, then the safety net encourages new businesses
If you're talking about people who have been perpetually poor and whose greatest asset to society is giving the police a job, then you're planting and growing a burden on society that will eventually destroy it.

Yes, populace itself is more uncertain and uneasy if the times are tough without the safety net.

The only good thing about gommunism is the predictability of life. You know that state is going to put you somewhere and give you something to work with even if you are total retard, or absolute slacker or lose your job through unfortunate circumstances.

This predictability of life appeals to the white masses (which will cause them to breed), unlike within our own times when you never know when your factory will shut down, or whether you will be replaced by technology, or have to invest shitton on educating yourself just to find a new job.

>If you're talking about some entrepreneur who failed for legit reasons, then the safety net encourages new businesses
This couldn't be more wrong and goes against the very foundations and principles of free market capitalism which made your country so prosperous in the first place. It is essentially a bail-out for failed businesses, governments have no place getting involved in determining successes and failures in the free market; although unfortunately they have been getting more and more involved over the past few decades.

Most western nations run a form of ponzi scheme. Inflate housing prices to leverage as credit.

Welfare is a way to distract people from the far more costly ponzi scheme of housing. It's also a way for democratic societies to "buy" votes. Not only from the poor but from newly made lower-middle class and mid-middle class bureaucratic workers whose combined salaries dwarf the amount paid out.

Every tax paying person pays for two forms of welfare. There's welfare for the "poor". Then there's welfare for the mid-middle class up to the top 1%. The later form dwarfs the former form by trillions of dollars.

These trillions of dollars are robbery of future value from future generations. What anyone above the age of 35 have done is pic related.

And now that we have no more "frontier", at the moment, we have the explosion of classes of rent seekers who parasitize every "mature" civilization that refuses to expand.

CONT

But it's not enough to rob future capital. They have the nerve to pollute cognition with micro-frames of ads and commericals and moralisms that no cognitive agent should have to endure.

As I said, it's not enough to rob capital from the future. They also have to rob future cognitive frames of beauty and understanding and power by inserting microparasites in your memory.

but that's completley wrong, you fucking moron

>It is essentially a bail-out for failed businesses
Making sure someone who wanted to start a sporting goods store but failed doesn't have to sleep in a gutter isn't a bail out

"no"

If they legitimately need help, it's your duty as a fellow human being to offer them aid.

However, too many people are content with sitting on their asses and receiving handouts. These are the people that don't deserve shit and should be left to rot.

Of course it is. The government giving money to people who have failed businesses would be (and is) a disaster waiting to happen. Why should other taxpayers have to pay for this persons' failed venture?

5>4>>>>>>>>>the rest

>get him a job
>he flakes out and goes back to begging for money because hes a lazy piece of shit druggie

Being poor doesn't cause crime. If you disagree it's probably because you are a criminal.

Maybe if they're in dire straits; it becomes an issue when millions are dependent on the govt. to parent them.

Putting some sort of cushion for risk takers is a smart thing to do.

Learning from trial and error is superior to imagining that a platonic template exists for each instantiation of a business. You want the lessons of trial and error over people who have never interacted with complex systems in the world.

This is far different from bailing out banks. I think the person was talking about pizza places or supplement stores or whatever. Most businesses fail and most successful business people have had at least one business fail.

Which is a good thing. Trial and error.

get out, moralfag

there's a direct correlation between poverty and crime. so it could be argued that welfare has some effect on reducing crime. actually the same is true for higher education and progressives often use this argument to push for government provided university. it saves money in the long run by reducing the cost of policing and all the related costs of crime like housing prisoners etc.

In a free market, a significant fraction of the population will inevitably experience at least temporary failure. A strong social safety net allows a culture to experience the benefits of a market economy while mitigating the harms. Capital does not have good solutions, because a capitalist solution has to make a profit - which means things like payday loans, which ultimately harm the recipient. Communism offers an alternative, but most of us would rather not have a Communist revolution thanks. Private charity focuses on the most photogenic rather than those who need it most, and is often distorted by ulterior motives (the pretty fifteen year old runaway can TOTALLY find plenty of people willing to provide housing if she sucks their cock; organized charities have salaries to pay; reliance on personal charity like asking friends and family for money erodes the interpersonal relationships that help bind society together.)

You dare trivialize the numbers?

Ye shall reap what you sow...

Yes

Yes the government aid exists to cover up the inherent flaws of our capitalist system
if we didnt have some kind of "welfare state" we get things like communism

CONT.

Once again, most success stories have at least one failure in them.

If you don't understand the superiority of allowing trial and error without lifetime destitution...

well you're british so say high to Jamal and Mohammed for me.

>Communism offers an alternative, but most of us would rather not have a Communist revolution thanks.

Communism literally requires a central computer that has more processing power than the sum of individual societal agents. How are you going to build and allocate resources?

>A strong social safety net allows a culture to experience the benefits of a market economy while mitigating the harms. C

A safety net which becomes a political weapon for the one who promises the most bread and the most circuses.

This is the correct answer.

The argument is "might is right". Welfare is a tax on the middle class that gives to the rich.

People don't truly learn about risk as well as true success and failure if their is a government program which bails them out for there mistakes in business. This leads to massive inefficiencies in the free market with tonnes of misallocated capital - China is a key example of this, just look at the corporate debt levels and number of zombie companies there.

A true free market system means people are responsible for their own actions and therefore they don't put their clients' or investors' money on the line for stupid ventures if they know that the government won't be there to backstop them.

No it doesn't. We have guns for a reason.
>gibs removed
>nigs riot
>nigs get 2nd Amendment medicine
>nigs die
>crime goes down

*there obviously, it's late here expect many typos

>People don't truly learn about risk as well as true success and failure if their is a government program which bails them out for there mistakes in business.

What in the fucking hell are you talking about? You understand why we don't have debtor's prisons and why we have something called Bankruptcy...right?

"Bail out" is a poor choice of words and what failed ventures get is freedom from lenders taking everything they have like vultures.

You understand that also, under Bankruptcy, that it's a black mark on your record for 7 years. People are smart enough to understand that as a stick against repeating past mistakes with future ventures.

is that a half nigger or just an aboriginal wild celt?

CONT.

If somebody sees someone else dragged to prison for failing a business venture, that doesn't promote wise thinking.

It promotes looking for safe alternatives. Which is absolutely paralytic for dynamic market societies.

"At least with welfare, I'm not in prison for business failure"
"With this government job, I just do mediocre shit until the pension"

It all boils down to the fact that governments should not be giving money, that they don't even have mind you, to people who had failed business ventures. This is a classic case of unwarranted government intervention into the free market which invariably ends up as a complete disaster.

>governments should not be giving money

Bankruptcy =/= government giving you money

> This is a classic case of unwarranted government intervention into the free market which invariably ends up as a complete disaster.

It's why business is more dynamic than in most of Europe. You fail your business venture and your punishment is not being able to take out lines of credit over a few years.

Not having creditors rape you and then throwing you in debtor's prison.

What fucking part of "trial and error > a priori platonic conception of a particular business" do you not fucking understand?

Long term systemic stability. Gibsmedats are pretty much a cornerstone of an permanent settlement and are as old as civilization itself.

Now if we only didn't have so many niggers...

because the archons have stolen all the wealth and have left nothing with the serfs. Apart from that, no.

>Bankruptcy =/= government giving you money
The original argument presented was that "the government should give money to someone who had a failed business". That is what I am addressing. Window-dressing it as something else is a classic politician's trick but I do not fall for such nonsense.

It's really quite simple, if somebody has a business which fails then they should go through the normal bankruptcy proceedings, government shouldn't be involved in even a single step of this process.

>Supposedly reduces crime, but doesn't really
>Supposedly helps the economy by giving them purchasing power, but doesn't really
>"They're human and deserve dignity too" but most deserve everything that happens to them

I've lived in poor communities most of my 20s and I can say without a shadow of a doubt that they deserve every bad thing that happens to them. They are like maggots crawling over each other, constantly squirming and suffocating each other just to get their one bite of the rotten apple. They feel entitled. They feel victimised. None of them realize the reason they're poor is because they're pack a day smokers, drug addicts and alcoholics. They waste their money, they're wilfully stupid and ignorant. Let them starve. They'll either change for the better or die for the better.

This. I can add my own personal experiences to this. Live within council estates in Britain and all you find is scum who can't afford to live without benefits and it's because their lifestyle is degenerate; drinking, gambling, smoking and drugs for one and constantly getting into trouble with the law and having far too many fucking kids who will grow up exactly the fucking same. When you have a fire you don't add fuel you fucking put it out. I don't advocate culling these people but I sure wouldn't fucking miss them if they lost all of their government entitlements and found themselves penniliess, starving and no job prospects because they spent their whole life being scum.

>Communism literally requires a central computer that has more processing power than the sum of individual societal agents. How are you going to build and allocate resources?

No, it just requires central planners who are smarter than the markets. That's plausible, though history suggests that you're more likely to get central planners who THINK they're smarter than the markets and shit everything up. If I were running a Communist state I'd require public discussion periods for all resource allocation decisions and small-scale experimentation - that is, if I think my NEW FARMING TECHNIQUE is good I test it in a small area rather than ALL OF CHINA.

However, when I said 'most of us would rather not have a Communist revolution', 'most of us' was an euphemism for 'me'.

>A safety net which becomes a political weapon for the one who promises the most bread and the most circuses.

A large destitute underclass is a political weapon for whoever promises the most loot. Scandinavia gets along fine with a welfare state far more generous than our own; the UK was doing well until the Tories started cutting gibs to the bone.

Rome managed to go several centuries with a fucking goddess of food stamps, so the 'bread and circuses lead to downfall' argument seems more than a little off to me.

Normal bankruptcy proceedings go through the government, at least in our countries.

I am fine with the notion of someone whose business fails having the same access to welfare gibs as someone whose employer laid them off or someone who's too stupid to work. Entrepreneurs are greedy; we'd much rather have money to save for a house than be stuck on housing benefit. The option of going on welfare if your business fails helps encourage you to TRY, though.

>It's why business is more dynamic than in most of Europe.

Are you trying to imply that AMERICAN business is more dynamic than Europe due to smaller gibs in US? That's... not actually true.

I'm not talking about "whoops you failed here's a burger". I'm talking about declaring bankruptcy and not having your wages garnished the rest of your life.

sry, I bad at articulating lol.
to be more specific: there has to exist a sufficient amount of safety to encourage risk-taking (to a certain degree) when it comes to business. And I mean legit reasons. Like, you invested in something and then someone fucking nuked your building then you starve to death gg. Not saying you should provide assistance to people indefinitely; just keeping people with skills alive for a few weeks so they can find a job.

>Are there any arguments for helping the poor through government aid aside from 'muh feelings'?

I do believe in aid for the extremely poor, sick and elderly. I just don't believe in free gibs me dat. All aid should be in food stuffs only AND ONLY food stuffs. No free money, no free bills paid and there should be a lot of monthly conditions like health checks, drug checks and identity checks. Plus, NO AID FOR NONE CITIZENS.

My taxes should be going to feed the poor and needy; not giving tyrone and his 8 kids from 8 women food so that they can grow into big strong robbers and gang bangers.

To keep them from being used as cannon fodder in a jewish communist revolt
I'd rather them be fat and lazy than skinny hungry and angry

Shit gives birth to more shit. The % of decent human beings that come out of the shit they were born in is so low that they might as well not even exist. Just like islam. Sure, not all islams are terrorist but most terrorist come from islam, why even bother with the risks when the beneficiary gains are so little in comparison?

Programs like Medicaid for children 5 and under probably save money in the long run.

It used to be you aid your poor so they don't end up diseased or for children, retarded so they can be of aid to the country later
Eventually, it morphed into how you treat the dredges of society as an indicator of state development; this can be a international business incentive
Later, it became bring everyone to middle income because man it sucks being poor

:(((((((((
Sad but true
I was born into poverty and I got myself out but none of my friends or anyone I knew growing up did:(

It could be argued that the raising the standard of living for the lowest of society raises the standard of living for all society at the same time, while focusing only on the rich or middle class only raises the standard of living for the lowest class that benefits.

Kill, kill, smother, kill and kill