Karl Marx

Remove all ads!

Yes, but it is NOT what they, or their platform, are "all about." And a college "loan" as welfare? I can't agree that anyone who gets a loan is receiving welfare. I apologize to you, NOG, for being sarcasitc in my last post. But "welfare" as you call it, is a specific government program, which 30 years ago was a large part of the Democratic platform.

There was a reform of welfare in the 1990s (now almost 20 years ago?), in which both Democrats and Republicans voted for and that Bill Clinton signed into law. In those days, hardly anyone opposed welfare, (hence the reason it is still around), but Republicans objected to the welfare fraud that was rampant, the waste within the program, and the rules which encouraged people to not only remain on welfare, but have more "welfare children," which made it mulit-generational. Since reform, it's been a dead issue, except when a debate about Dems (like we are having) occasionally comes around. Republicans still proposed a bill that contained welfare, because almost everyone back then believed that some form of welfare was still needed, including Republicans

I consider this, the welfare argument, to be the "argument of last resort," by the opposition; taking a time machine back to 1980 to try to make a desperate attempt to prove that Dems are really the "communists" after all. It's a very feeble argument. Dems are about a lot of different things - everything from the corporate welfare I mentioned, which btw, is somewhat different than welfare for the rich, to a liberal agenda. Since I'm not a Democrat (although they sent me a membership card last month, just out of the blue), I'm not that familiar with the official party platform, and neither are you from the looks of things. I wiil, however, give you an idea of what the grassroots liberal/progressive agenda is for this year:

1. Health care reform
2. Job creation
3. Climate change and a shift towards a green economy
4. Ending the War in Iraq

How many times do you see welfare on that list? And don't even try to claim that health care is, since it is much in the same category as SS. And we have already had the SS debate.

I claimed neither, but that specific tax cuts are. If it is an acorss the board tax cut for all Americans, then it is NOT welfare, but only when everyone else has to pay, but those interests get a free pass is it a form of welfare. They still use the same government services that everyone else pays for.

BTA - Please note that I am using the term "welfare" in more of a sarcasitc manner, because that is how it is used by the opposition, as anything the government does for one interest group at the expense of another.

 

Here are a couple of quick examples.

The Auto Industry- General Motors- The government basically owns the entire company. There still hasn't been a good accounting of who made the decisions as to what dealerships were being forced to close. It is suspected by many that many of them were politically motivated.

The banking industry- The government is the majority shareholder of Citi

Health Care- Do I even need to explain further

Energy- Cap and trade legislation

 

And what does that prove, other than the company would no longer be around without government help?

Yes, by partisan hacks.

I believe that there was a bailout of the SN&Ls, and a bailout of Chrysler once upon a time. The country hardly turned "communist" as a result.

What about the "banking industry?" Do you know who insures the deposits in the banking industry? Yes, you and I do. Is that Marxism as well? Nevertheless, the banks were not nationalized, unfortunately, so it is nothinng more than another glorified hand-out to corporate America. Personally, I think Citi should have gone like Lehman: They were mismananged to the point that they should have gone away.

GM may have been a good save in the end. I think we need to have the heavy industry, at least the backbone of a heavy industry for a decent economy. While I don't think the government should own any of these industries, I think we should save as much of our heavy manufacturing as we can.

What is Marxist about health care reform? CAN you explain any of this?

Are you sober, Snook?

 

Snook: Are you actually arguing that Obama is a socialist, communist, or Marxist of some variety? I'd like to see someone try and seriously make that argument because right now I find it bizarre and hard to comprehend. I'd love to see the logic of someone who actually believes this.

 

I don't think anyone would argue that the democratic party in general is closer to socialism than the republican party. However, to say the democratic party (and by association President Obama) are socialists is quite a stretch.

 

Alright, I may have exaggerated. It is a common theme, though.

The conditions of these loans are charity, comparatively.

And it's still a pretty sizable part these days. Some of the biggest attacks I've heard from Dems on Reps were about Reps removing welfare programs.

I may not know my history that well, but I do know that some campaigns are still based on welfare (and pretty much only Dem campaigns).

I'll agree if they're trying to link it to communism. My point was that this isn't communism at all. It's a way of winning support and pacifying the masses, which both parties do (which is why they're in power).

Some aspects of the healthcare debate are welfare, but those are killed even by most Dems. Other issues have been on the burner recently. Increased subsidized housing, more grants and favorable loans for minorities starting businesses or going to college, the whole government-funded cell phone thing. Some go back to the 80s but have been extended and expanded while others are just new.

Actually, they don't. The businesses themselves often use very different government services. The individuals they employ may, but them getting tax breaks is a different issue.

Gov't-owned industry isn't socialism. It's a pre-requisite for socialism, but it's not socialism itself.

Yes, considering how many health care plans there are out there.

A bad idea, but not socialism.

 

How so?

Which welfare programs and when? I don't recall any of this.

No, sorry, it's not. It's not even on the radar screen.

For instance?

I did pick that up from your post, but that is baloney.

Again, none of that is welfare. And I notice that you claim that loans for minorities are "welfare." Can you explain this? I think it's a disgrace that you consider loans to minorities "welfare," or if they wish to go to college (like anyone else) it's suddenly "welfare." Especially since none of that is welfare in the first place. And nothing in the health care bill is welfare.

You keep making these outrageous claims. How can a "loan" be welfare? You sound desperate to make your point.

Really? Now you are desperate. Our military doesn't defend them? They don't use our roads to ship their products on? They don't get police service, fire protection, or other public services? Are you really on crack?

Now I know why DR gave up on you, NOG. But you can make up all the nonsense you wish. This is just for fun anyway.

Just how many are out there?

 

Extremely low interest rates. Interest doesn't accrue until you graduate. Payments in some cases are based off of your income, so if you make no money, you make no payments. In some cases, debt can even be completely forgiven.

Late in the campaigns, the Dems (or their affiliates) ran a radio ad campaign accusing McCain of planning to cut Medicare, Medicaid, and Welfare benefits to 1/3 of what they were. That's the most recent example I can think of, and it hit the big three.

Chandos, giving anything to those in need is welfare. I'm not saying all welfare is bad, by any means, but that's welfare. Grants can be welfare, substantially favorable loans can be welfare, subsidies can be welfare, free services can be welfare. How are these things not welfare?

I've already answered that.

Ok, excuse me, they don't use all the same services. No schooling for example. For police, most large ones employ private security and rely on them. For garbage, some (fewer) have private systems (especially where proprietary information is concerned). Water, sewer, power, roads, phones, I guess they use the same ones as corporations that we do as citizens. For courts, they rely on civil courts a lot more than criminal courts, whereas most citizens are more likely to rely on criminal than civil courts.

Surviving today as serious candidates? None. Proposed? I've lost count. In formal bills I think there were three in the House and two in the Senate? Or do I have those numbers backwards?

 

You mean like the fed makes available for the big banks? They give them prime rate, is that "welfare" as well?

Payments are calculated off of what clients can pay on all kinds of loans.

What cases?

The only thing I can figure here is that you don't have much experience with loans, and that somehow you have it in your head that loans are "welfare."

Medicare is NOT welfare. Sorry, never heard of those ads. You must be mistaken.

No, they are not. I don't know why you believe this.

No, you haven't.

No they don't. Most businesses don't employ private security. A few very large ones do, but most don't. And it does not take the place of real law enforcement. If a crime is committed the police still investigate, make arrests, that type of thing. You know, the Law? maybe you've been watching too much TV.

Most garbage pickup is private, for everyone, at least here. I pay mine through the homeowner's assoc.

Really? And here I thought that depended on the crime, or the particular TYPE of case? Anyway, guess who runs both sides of the courthouse? Are you for real? Do you really think that civil court is not run by the state?

Anyway, I'm not sure what you are trying to say here. My only point is that business uses public services and should pay for them like everyone else. You said they don't, which is not only ignorant, but since you are a fairly smart person, just a game of pretend. Most everyone knows that most of the same public services are available to a business, whether its the pizza place down the street, or Wal-Mart, or the car dealership or Best Buy or McDonald's or the Exxon station or whatever. You really don't know that? And you don't know the difference between a loan and welfare? And you want to homeschool your kids?

 

Actually, considering recent events, yes. The banks were in need, serious need.

But how many creditors say, "Oh, you lost your job? Don't worry about payments, then."

I've forgotten what conditions had to be met, but it was something involving the field of education taking a major crash.

Medicare is a cheap system that offers something that no private corporation would find worhwhile, meaning that it's below-cost, or at least at-cost, and offered to a population in need. It's not the most extreme form of welfare ever, but it is welfare. What's not welfare is Social Security, because there's nothing given there at all.

Well if that's not the most arrogant statement I've ever seen come from you, I don't know what is. Are you serious? You never heard of it, so it must not be?

Maybe you'd better give me your definition of welfare, because those things match the definition I've given to a tee. How can you see a tax-break to someone not in need as welfare, but a favorable loan or grant to someone who is in need as not?

Yes, I have. You may not agree with it, but I've answered that already.

Ok, I was thinking large corporations, not all businesses. I admit I stretched that quite a bit.

Really? Around here it's by city. There's been talk of changing that, of making a single contract for all of hampton roads with a private contractor, but it hasn't happened yet.

Chandos, are you even paying attention now? I never even suggested that the courts weren't run by the state, or that businesses didn't depend on the state, just that they did so in a different manner than a citizen.

 

Why do corporations file more civil cases than individual citizens? A lot of indviduals file private law suits everyday agianst companies for various reasons -some valid, some not.

First, you have yet to prove that even happens in the manner you describe. Second, if a lender chooses to, it can work out payments in a different manner of payment for debt. Some people have had some luck refinancing their home loans with banks, others have not.

I will repeat, a loan is not welfare. You have made up your own definition of what the term is, in a feeble attempt to prove that "Dems are about welfare." YOu do this often in a debate: You will change or challenge a meaning for a word to suit the purpose of your argument.

I don't really have a problem with that in itself, since some definitions are not so cut-and-dry, and can have mulitple meanings. The problem I have is your self-serving political hackery in applying your meaning to Dems, and then changing the meaning back when you switch to Repbulicans: "It's trickle down economic theory" for the Republicans, but welfare for the Dems. This fits the reality you have created within your own mind, which where it should stay.

 

Chandos, I've provided a definition for welfare from a major internet site, and it corresponded with definitions from every dictionary site I visited. You haven't even concretely challenged it (just said I've made it up which is pure ), much less provided an alternative definition (despite being directly asked to). I'm sorry, but your complaints on this are pure , as is the accusation that I frequently make up definitions. Of everyone on these boards, I'm the most likely (at least that I've seen) to go to a dictionary and pull out official definitions. That's not 'making things up', that's going to an official source to make sure you've got it right.

Lastly, this:

Suggests you really haven't been paying attention. Political hackery? How on earth did you get that? I'm not criticizing the Dems for supporting welfare, at least not any more than I'm criticizing the Reps for supporting trickle-down-economics. It looks to me like you're reading what you want to hear from me into my posts rather than reading what I'm actually writing. Correct me if I'm wrong (preferably with quotes to explain where you got this idea).

 

No, not that I can see. Where is the link? To which site?

There is nothing to challenge. You have never bothered to explain just HOW a loan is welfare. Try again.

I did. Welfare is a specific govenment program, which was reformed in the 1990s to elminate fraud, waste and abuse. One thing it did state, that affects our argument, is that welfare was no longer an "entitlement" program like Medicare or SS are, under the law.

I'm working with the very specific sense of "welfare" as federal or state cash assistance to those that are not employed and are defined as "poor."

When I sought to expand this definition to include any federal assistance, payout, or subsidy to anyone, including corporations you complained and continued on about the poor, particularly minorities, and excluded any assistance to the middle class, corporations, farmers, whatever, or whoever is getting direct payouts in the form of assistance from the government.

To do so, you would have had to include Republicans as major players in the broader definition of the term. Thus, you sought to bend and contort the term until I could barely tell you even had one, all in an apparent attempt to be sure that only dems could be the major players in welfare.

Unless now you are finally willing to concede that the Dems AND Republicans are equal players in welfare, only taking a different approach to different interest/client groups.

And it's time you started paying attention to your own comments.

 

I quoted:

And when you accused me of making that up, I said:

If you want a link: Here. Sorry, I figured you could look it up on Wikipedia for yourself. I quoted the beginning of the first paragraph. For more links, see:
here
here
here
Those are the three top links on a google search for 'welfare definition'.

Again:

Favorable loans to minorities or the poor who can't afford college and can't get any other loans, with the express purpose of putting them through college is an action or procedure striving to promote the basic well-being of individuals. Further on in the Wikipedia definition it says that, while this is typically monetary aid to help their economic position, it can also be other forms of aid, or aid designed to help social or employment positions, such as college education, starting businesses, getting people into homes, etc.

Chandos, that's a singular government program called 'Welfare'. Do you honestly believe that's the only time the word has ever been used in the english language? Do you honestly think they made up that title out of the blue? No, they titled it 'Welfare' because it met the already-established definition of welfare.

I didn't take that as your definition of 'welfare' as an overall concept because I was quite sure you were aware of the overall concept to some degree, and so I assumed you were giving this as an example of welfare or something.

No, actually, you're not. If you were, you wouldn't have called tax-breaks to the rich and to corporations 'welfare'. Regardless, though, I brought welfare into the discussion as a socio-economic ideal which the Democratic party has championed.

That's because the basic definition of welfare everywhere I look is aid (especially government financial aid) given to those in need. If you aren't in need, if you aren't poor, you don't get welfare. You may get gifts, charity, incentives, tax-breaks, whatever, but it's not welfare.

No, actually, I stuck with my original definition given in post #14. You're the only one that's been changing your definition.

Care to cite? I've been paying attention to my comments. I'll stand behind any of them or admit I was wrong.

 

Well this thread sure got stupid. Can we go back to talking about something of deeper significance than the definition of welfare?

 

Great. Thank you for the link.

I already explained when I expanded the definition, as you were doing. Go back and read my post. And you claimed you were paying attention? Here I'll just post it here for you:

But I want to resolve the key issues here, so we can move on (I sense your disappointment already). I commented here:

This was your reply to my comment.

This from the same website:

See? Corporate welfare is not based on need, but on its lack of fairness. Keeping in mind that this is the same website, here's more:

More, but this is a different source, the Cato which is cited as part of the above sources:

Notice, they use the term "subsidized loan," which is a loan in which the government pays all the interest. Anytime a loan costs the government money (the taxpyer), that I might consider a type of welfare, but a low interest loan or a loan given to someone in which there is no cost to the govenment, is NOT welfare (where the government secures the loan). The loans you cited as for small buiness, if the borrower pays interest on the loan, it is not welfare. And just because the person is NOT white, that does not make a government loan "welfare" either. Same with student loans. Only if it is a subsidized loan would I even remotely consider it "welfare."

Hardly anyone can afford college these days, and student loans are made available through US government loans to a variety of people, Stafford loans, I think, typically at a low interest rate (which you claim is welfare). In your scheme Pell Grants would be "welfare" as well.

Of course, that's what the government strives for in most everything: The "basic well-being" of its citizens. That is the basic function of government. That doesn't make it "welfare." It becomes welfare when one interest group gets unequal benefts at the expense of another, whether corporate, the poor, based upon race (which CAN include white people, not just minorities), or other factors.

The only thing I can surmise from your last post is that you were only looking for a general usage of the word welfare. I took it to mean the specific government program for the poor in the United States. The Democrats are not directly responsible (at least I don't think) for the "welfare of the poor" in other countries.

I was referring to the link below, which was enacted by a Republican Congress as part of the "Contract with America," in 1996. This is the welfare program created by the Republicans and signed into law by Bill Clinton. As I said, way back at the beginning, this is no longer much of a live-wire issue in the politics of United States, despite your comment about it being the "platform of the Democrats," since the Republicans revised the welfare program.

So, you are NOT referring to the welfare program in the US, and you are NOT referring to coporate welfare, but only saying that democrats are "all about" looking after the "poor and their basic well-being" - and that makes them appear "marxist, communist or socialist" to some people.
I have no idea how that makes them appear communist, but as I've commented before, the label is left over from the days of the Cold War politics.

Notice I left out the term welfare, but I kept your definition intact (correct me if I'm wrong).

What I will say about the subject of welfare, (in a general sense, not within the program itself), is that we have an unemployment rate of almost 10 percent, much higher in some states, and that I'm sure federal assistance to states, local governments and individuals have increased. Taken within the context of the large amounts of welfare that has been given out by the Democrats and Republicans to big business, I suspect that we well see an increase of federal money going to main street and the working people in the near future.

This article, at least in part, counters your notion that there has been a demand for increases in welfare by Democrats:

http://www.nytimes.com/2009/02/02/us/02welfare.html

When some Republicans start complaining that there is not enough welfare (the program) to meet the needs then there may be something going on.


http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Personal_Responsibility_and_Work_Opportunity_Act
http://www.cato.org/pubs/handbook/hb105-9.html
http://www.nytimes.com/2009/02/02/us/02welfare.html
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Corporate_welfare

 

First off, Chandos, I just want to say that there are indeed multiple definitions of welfare. Some are not useful in this discussion, and are fairly obviously not what I meant. The general well-being of all people, for example, isn't a common platform of the Democratic party (or any party that I know of), or is it likely to be any time soon. Neither is the Welfare program as it exists in American law (note the capital W, it's a proper noun if I'm not mistaken). The idea of welfare as giving aid to the needy, however, is.

Corporate welfare, however, isn't even welfare by any independant defition of the term. It's a joke term and an insult. That's why 'corporate welfare' needed an entirely seperate definition, because it's not the same thing. It's kind of like 'government cheese'. The government isn't in the business of making cheese, as far as I know, but handouts from the government are often called that.

Yes, essentially. When the Dems take it upon themselves to take money from the rich, especially corporations, and give it to the poor, that's welfare. Some idiots take that as communism/socialism/Marxism (take your pick, some idiot will mistake it as that), based on the mistaken idea that these things are based on the precept of equal distribution of wealth, that they mean to take money from the rich and give it to the poor for no reason other than that the rich are rich (and thus evil) and the poor are poor (and thus good). It's a stupid generalization, but it's unfortunately common.

No, I think you did it pretty well. I didn't really mean to say that it's all the Dems are about, but it is a common theme in their campaigns.

One can only hope. Actually, I'd like to see an end to this whole welfare idea of giving away money (to anyone) and instead replace it with the government spending that money to create low-level jobs, by, for example, spending the money on massive gov't-run infrastructure programs. The US is in something of an infrastructure crisis. We could use a few hundred billion spent on updating roads, power lines, sewer lines, and the like.

I never actually claimed that, or at least if I'm reading this right. Actually, one of the things that's made me mad at the Democratic party is that they so often promise these things and get elected on those platforms, but then do nothing about it.

 

Why would they be taking it from only the rich? and corporations? I thought these funds came out of general revenue, which means that all taxpayers are paying the tab for welfare. And that is part of my point about the problem of the lack of fairness within the welfare programs.

Did you not bother to read the definition of corporate welfare? where does it say anywhere that it is a "joke." More distortions from you, NOG? I suppose you are entitled to your own opnion but I notice that you are quick to distort the facts around who pays for welfare in the first place by crafting a phony fantasy about some Robin Hood story - taking from the "rich to give to the poor." What a crock!

Yes! Something we can agree on!

 

Anyone who would call the Democrats Marxists has never lived in a communist country, obviously.

Besides, any populist actions by politicians can be explained by the very non-communist sucking up to constituents, or even somehow explained by individual rights taken to some high level.

There's nothing actually wrong with the idea of a caring state (I don't want to say "welfare state" for reasons I'll get into in a minute) or even emphasis on community, a collective sense and presence, some measure of economic sharing and solidarity. These all shouldn't be discounted just because the reds tried to use them as slogans.

There's a lot of wrong in the reds charging in with bayonets and rigging elections, after slaughtering the wealthy, the educated, the nobility (where existing) and the rest of "enemies of the people". There's a whole lot of wrong with the reds usurping the right to speak in the name of the people, like the reds know better than the people what the people want or need.

Similarly, there's plenty of wrong with how the reds mess up the economy and drive it all the way down. There's plenty of wrong with the communist feudalism that originates when they get in power. They do create a new ruling class, much like old nobility (birthright from old comrades), not even merely bourgeoisie. Whole lot of privileges for the people's finest. And their families. And I don't mean the so called "work leaders" and other such figureheads, but plain commie functionnaires.

That is horribly wrong and has nothing to do with the jolly kind of socialism you have in Sweden. Let alone the dems.

Give me sure work for everybody, give me healthcare for everybody, give me education for everybody, give me freedom from the commies, however.

Plus, you've got to help people grow. You can't just hand out fish, you need to teach them to fish. The commies weren't very agile in that. In fact, they wanted the conquered peoples not to grow, as growing would lead to throwing out the commies. Heh, didn't one of the founding fathers of liberalism (not like I subscribe there) say that liberalism starts with education?

I would like to see a state in which no party is interested in keeping the bulk of the people uneducated, unaware, passive. And in which no party is interested in making savings on people's basic needs or maintaining a quota of unemployment, poverty or even hunger for economic goals. Call me a lefty for this if you will, but this is what I believe.

Heh, to finish off on education, on second thought, I don't wish to mean that everybody should finish university, let alone everybody should be a poli-sci BA with a penchant for lavish civic elocution and writing. But I do believe people should be educated enough to find and keep a place in the society, preferably one in agreement with their own skills and preferences (and yes, the workman, the artisan, should be respected, not just the grad job holder; strangely, free market sometimes provides for that, e.g. when the monetary return is greater for and from an experienced artisan than for/from someone who's just a grad; see how e.g. an experienced sergeant in the US Army earns much more than a brand new 2LT does), enough education to vote in the elections, form some kind of opinion, not get robbed blind or told whatever the TV wants him to believe.

A capitalist state is ready to invest money in the growing business, even the new entities that only just file the registration form. Those are big sums. It somehow seems to pay, but isn't it "leftist" (though not Marxist, as I can't really find a connection) in some way? Same way, it could pay to invest in education and it might pay to make people healthy, happy and cultivated. No pretence to know how it works out in a living economy, though.

Heh, I suppose lots of ideologies bring in something positive. We shouldn't cross anything out just because some baddies said it.

For the record, this is not to say I support Obama's healthcare bill (reasons would lead to an off-topic debate).

Sorry for lack of collection. This was a bit of a stream of consciousness.

EDIT: Heh, it looks like I have to empty my mind of this one: nothing wrong with adjusting the system to reduce the income divide. I'm no fan of forced redistribution, but generally, property is acquired in and via a system. That system, out of necessity, has some rules, principles. Those don't operate to everyone's favour and they aren't somehow sacred or set in stone, unchangeable, whatever. There may be room for correction by charitable enterprises of the state itself, but also by choosing to tax the wealthier more heavily than the poorer or provide poverty breaks. What is wrong is taking away from hard-working people who are successful and giving it--for management--to people who don't have the skill, knowledge or some other necessary asset to make it bring fruit. Say, such as taking away plant seeds or breeding animals from a successful large-areage farmer and giving it to one who's poor and at the same time not prepared (via lack of education or lack of skill or lack of willingness) to put them to equally good use. That kind of solution provides immediate relief to some lefties' sensibilities, but it doesn't solve anything in the long run. On the other hand, there is nothing wrong with not wanting to keep in place a system that makes the rich become richer and the poor become poorer. One thing I like in the American system is that, at least in theory (and in practice certainly still to a larger extent than in other countries), if you want to work, if you have an education, if you know what to do with it, you fill find work, you will pay for healthcare, you will even get some social standing (in a very egalitarian way, at least in theory). You will not stay jobless just because companies elect to be stupid and play conservative, shutting up in a shell not hiring people or expanding, while the tax administration and other administration is looking to bury people in tons on tons of regulations to comply with and forms to fill in (okay, I do know of the infamous 25,000 pages of executive regulation by the IRS). You will find a job, you will start a business. That's a good thing. You don't need to have everything, but you shouldn't be immobilised or left without opportunities.

 

Not only, just mostly, since the rich and corporations pay most of the taxes and all.

Pejoratives are usually joke-terms. They're rarely meant literally. They're insulting, demeaning jokes, but jokes nonetheless. You're first definition calls corporate welfare a pejorative term

Please, Chandos. Stop and think. Who pays most of the taxes in this country? We've talked about this before. I'll give you a hint, they also have most of the money. Now also question who the Dems always want to raise taxes on. No, I'm not saying the rich and corporations pay 100% absolutely and directly, but when you raise taxes on them, and then raise spending on X by about the same amount, it's easy enough to say that they payed for X.

As overall ideas, no. As far as applications go, they can be tricky.

No, but again, it's all about how you do it. The problem I see is that too many people lump all rich and all poor together and there's little if any effort to differentiate between those who earned their position (be it high or low) and those who inherrited it (again, be it high or low). The ideal seems appealing, and people stick with that. Since the Welfare program scandal, some efforts have been made to identify who's poor because they have no choice and who's poor because they're just plain lazy, but little to no efforts have been made for the rich.