[tasuki]

> ending welfare as we know it

> That attack on labor

How is ending welfare an "attack on labor"?

(I live in a welfare state and am quite happy about it, despite it having very real financial consequences for me. Welfare state does not benefit "labor", but rather benefits the various people who either can't or don't want to perform labor)

[dannyfritz07]

Why do laborers have to work for the right to live when capitalists only have to provide capital and are always assumed to be worthy? Capital and labor is combined to produce new capital. Yet we only expect labor to prove their worth. We're always holding labor's feet to the fire and killing them through policy that allows their poverty by assuming they are lazy.

There is basically zero consequence for capitalists when they decide to withhold capital from laborers. Therefore taking away labor's ability to generate new capital. They took down the entire rust belt by doing this. Why shouldn't we hold them accountable? Why does everyone blame labor and say welfare is only for people in poverty?

[tasuki]

> Why do laborers have to work for the right to live

I don't know why, but this is sort of the definition of a laborer, no? Someone who labors.

People who live on welfare are – by definition – not laborers. That was my whole point: "ending welfare" is not "an attack on labor", it's an attack on non-labor.

[dannyfritz07]

I reject your definition of welfare. You're thinking far too narrowly about the benefit to society by taking care of your citizens' needs.

[tasuki]

What is your definition of welfare? Generally caring how the citizens are doing? I believe governments usually don't. There's too much politics for that.