At 11:13 AM 2/21/03 -0500, Tyler Durden wrote: ...
However, one way to see the situation is more of a buy-off. Arguably, the government plunders in order to "pay off" welfare society, because if they didn't the masses would rise up and kill off the system that does not really do much to equip them for the opportunities that immigrant kids come in and sweep up. (The term "Brain drain" comes to mind.)
The reality is even more weird, I think. Suppose there's some struggling-to-make-it new family down the street, and I start helping out by bringing them dinner every night. If I do it for a few days, e.g., while the mom is in the hospital or something, it's a genuine act of kindness. If I do it every day for five years, then they are more-or-less going to become dependent on me. The day I decide I have better uses for my time than bringing them dinner, they're almost certainly going to be mad and bitter at me. (If you don't believe this, observe the interaction between a parent and newly-independent kid asking for money, or between a rich uncle and his hoping-to-inherit nephews.)
Social programs in general work this way. It was a goodie being handed out once, but now, it looks to the people involved like a necessity, and they'll fight hard to keep it. This is just as true of social security and farm subsidies as of welfare. Listen to a Republican-voting farmer justify farm subsidies some time. You ought to have to *pay* for that kind of entertainment. (Oh, wait, I *am* paying for it.) In fact, smarter and better educated people will tend to be a lot more effective at fighting for their benefits than less intelligent, poorly educated people. So welfare reform, for all its weirdness, seems to be working much better than the attempts to reform farm subsidies, say. And even with Republicans in control of everything, I'll bet we don't see any major cuts to NEA, say.
-TD
--John Kelsey, [EMAIL PROTECTED]
