• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every person's position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!

Food-stamp use doubles

Henrin said:
You seem to wish to ignore how the party is behaving to reach an end you find desirable all so you can believe you are dealing with benevolence. I'm sorry, but when you must abuse someone in order to help someone else that is not benevolence.
Click to expand...

What they're not realizing is that they are not actually helping anyone. Their programs only create dependency leading to an eventual entitlement and loss of productive potential...
 
AlabamaPaul said:
What they're not realizing is that they are not actually helping anyone. Their programs only create dependency leading to an eventual entitlement and loss of productive potential...
Click to expand...

That is other half of the equation I brought up earlier. They think these services help people because of the existence of an immediate gain, but what they ignore is everything around it. The dependence, the lower wages and the higher profits that come about from it. They just simply ignore that all they are doing is making their life worse all so they can feel good that they gave them some food. I don't really much like when people ignore the equation so they be seen as the good guy.
 
AlabamaPaul said:
What they're not realizing is that they are not actually helping anyone. Their
programs only create dependency leading to an eventual entitlement and loss of productive potential...
Click to expand...

And whats painfully obvious is that Democrat politicians are well aware that these programs perpetuate generaltional dependency.

It's not like places like Cabrini Green and Robert Taylor Homes are long distant memories.

Its the insidious nature of the left wing ideology that they are willing to essentially enslave a population in poverty, crime and violence, just to ensure a vote.
 
Shadow Serious said:
Those who are born into wealth tend to be progressive and call themselves Democrats. Conservatives are usually the newly wealthy and fell they earned it given the roadblocks and other deterrents that the Old Wealth (the Progressive Democrats) have put in placed to avoid newly rich people from making it. Now the Conservatives may be self driven and may not understand why others are not. Having a welfare system is the way the Old Wealth keeps the impoverished from rioting and as a means of a base of power against the New Wealth and uses the New Wealth as a scapegoat to blame for the policies and outcomes of the Old Wealth. Also, Old Wealth doesn't have the same drive as the New Wealth so they would not think it odd that someone would not necessarily have the means to get out of poverty so again Old Wealth would lean progressive and be more likely become Democrat.
Click to expand...

I would be interested to know where your assesment comes from. I can only speak from my personal experiencee, and those experiences have been almost 100% the opposite of what you have described. Obviously these are opinions, so it's hard to say which assesment is more accurate. I don't have any statistics or studies to back up my opinion, it's solely based on personal interactions. I would love to know where your perspective comes from!
 
Fenton said:
And whats painfully obvious is that Democrat politicians are well aware that these programs perpetuate generaltional dependency.

It's not like places like Cabrini Green and Robert Taylor Homes are long distant memories.

Its the insidious nature of the left wing ideology that they are willing to essentially enslave a population in poverty, crime and violence, just to ensure a vote.
Click to expand...

This is true, however, it seems you may be leaving out the part where Republicans do the same thing.
 
WWGWD said:
It sounds to me, and I may be wrong about your intention, but it seems you want to punish the lot, for actions of a few. From my experiences, there is nothing a poor mother wants then to get her kid out of poverty and ensure they get a better life. Obviously, you will have exceptions to that, but I don't think this lazy attitude you highlight is as rampant as you think. The people I have worked with over the years, want nothing more then to be able to provide for their families, and give back to their communities. This is just a viewpoint I pulled out my optimistic, liberal head. I can put names and faces to the people who actively work hard to help the next generation out of poverty and into productivity.

Is the system flawed? Yes. Should their be an emphasis on short term assistance? Yes. Is there an incredible need for reformation of these programs? ABSOLUTELY. However, just writing off an entire socio economic class as lazy, entitled, scam artist, is disengenous at best. I have no problem seeing that the people you describe exist and should be addressed. I just don't believe the rhetoric and the stereotypes that claim all people benefiting from entitlements fall under that category.
Click to expand...

WWGWD said:
Please don't patronize me. There is no reason in the world for you to call me sweetheart other then to be demeaning is some capacity. It doesn't make what your saying true. The stereotypes have been around for decades. Just because you repeat something enough doesn't make it true. It makes it a common miss perception.



Now, this is an actual statement with substance! I actually love this idea and have advocated it myself. However, the trouble I run across in practicality is the cost. Can you implement a system like that, with the same allocation of funds the current system has? The argument you into is, no and we shouldn't anyway, because it's a waste of tax payer money. How logistically, do you restructure funding, and get the people who truly believe the poor are just lazy on board with that kind of a system?

The problem I see, is when the argument shifts to the merits of the recipients, you have a problem. Because the narrative from the right promotes the stereotype about poverty that deems them worthless and lazy, it makes it difficult to discuss. That type of narrative drives an invalid perception of the poor, that makes people think they aren't worth helping. The kinds of stereotypes you yourself promoted here. How does a national discussion about that kind of reform, if one side doesn't acknowledge it's worth reforming?
Click to expand...

WWGWD said:
I would be interested to know where your assesment comes from. I can only speak from my personal experiencee, and those experiences have been almost 100% the opposite of what you have described. Obviously these are opinions, so it's hard to say which assesment is more accurate. I don't have any statistics or studies to back up my opinion, it's solely based on personal interactions. I would love to know where your perspective comes from!
Click to expand...

General observation of politics. Those in Congress are generally wealthy and those who are Democrat and Progressive tend to be born into wealth. Those who are wealthy and are accused of not understanding of the poor tend to be New Wealth and Republican. I do not consider people who net wealth (Capital) less than 25M$ to be wealthy anybody 1M$ to 25M$ is just well off especially since that the bulk of the assets of the well off would be in real property or a business which would have a likely inflated value (liquidation of an asset is more likely to be less than estimated value due to an assumption that this is due to a distressed situation even if it is obvious that it is not so.) People who have greater wealth tend to have more fungible sources and less if not none are tied into a business they directly own or thru partnerships. The idea is that New Wealth have a world view that one works for a living or a better living. People who are professionals and born into middle class households might not understand about the position that the poor may have to deal with they are more like a person who was born into wealth to an extent they did not have to struggle as much to get their training so they may not understand what hard work would be necessarily to get out of poverty. The New Wealthy understand that point but they want the system to make it easier for those in poverty to get out of it instead of being just a dole. It is not easy but the way the welfare is run needs rework to avoid punishing those who are making attempts to get out of it.
 
Shadow Serious said:
General observation of politics. Those in Congress are generally wealthy and those who are Democrat and Progressive tend to be born into wealth. Those who are wealthy and are accused of not understanding of the poor tend to be New Wealth and Republican. I do not consider people who net wealth (Capital) less than 25M$ to be wealthy anybody 1M$ to 25M$ is just well off especially since that the bulk of the assets of the well off would be in real property or a business which would have a likely inflated value (liquidation of an asset is more likely to be less than estimated value due to an assumption that this is due to a distressed situation even if it is obvious that it is not so.) People who have greater wealth tend to have more fungible sources and less if not none are tied into a business they directly own or thru partnerships. The idea is that New Wealth have a world view that one works for a living or a better living. People who are professionals and born into middle class households might not understand about the position that the poor may have to deal with they are more like a person who was born into wealth to an extent they did not have to struggle as much to get their training so they may not understand what hard work would be necessarily to get out of poverty. The New Wealthy understand that point but they want the system to make it easier for those in poverty to get out of it instead of being just a dole. It is not easy but the way the welfare is run needs rework to avoid punishing those who are making attempts to get out of it.
Click to expand...

I will definitely have to look into this a little more. It's an interesting idea, and I agree whole heartdly with the need to rework the system. I did want to share an a paper I came across in my preliminary search. It's from 2000, so I'm still working on more recent information. However, it actually contridicts your assertion regarding new wealth liberalism, by looking at the Forbes 400 richest American's list. It's an interesting take, but I assure you, I will be looking for a credible counter source study as well. I just wanted to share this one with you.

The Myth of Old Money Liberalism: The Politics of the Forbes 400 Richest Americans
VAL BURRIS, University of Oregon

http://darkwing.uoregon.edu/~vburris/oldmoney.pdf
 
WWGWD said:
I will definitely have to look into this a little more. It's an interesting idea, and I agree whole heartdly with the need to rework the system. I did want to share an a paper I came across in my preliminary search. It's from 2000, so I'm still working on more recent information. However, it actually contridicts your assertion regarding new wealth liberalism, by looking at the Forbes 400 richest American's list. It's an interesting take, but I assure you, I will be looking for a credible counter source study as well. I just wanted to share this one with you.

The Myth of Old Money Liberalism: The Politics of the Forbes 400 Richest Americans
VAL BURRIS, University of Oregon

http://darkwing.uoregon.edu/~vburris/oldmoney.pdf
Click to expand...

I just scanned the article but of course I can be wrong. While the top rich may be more inclined to be Republican does this mean that they in particular do not want poor people to get out of poverty or have the welfare system to help those who do want to get out of it? That is my issue anyway.
 
Shadow Serious said:
I just scanned the article but of course I can be wrong. While the top rich may be more inclined to be Republican does this mean that they in particular do not want poor people to get out of poverty or have the welfare system to help those who do want to get out of it? That is my issue anyway.
Click to expand...

My guess, is that it's really hard to distinguish sometimes the difference between conservative values, and conservative politics, which is what makes someone Republican (I'm totally generalizing here, I know that, lol). The conclusion of that paper had an intersting quote that I think applies to this discussion:

.... Economic interests associated with the defense of property rights and opposition to labor unions and wealth redistribution tend to overwhelm all other sources of political partisanship and ideology....
Click to expand...

I think, and this is totally my opinion, that the values mentioned in that quote, becoming the driving force for the party you support. In general, those are the values of the Republican party, so it would make sense that that is the party that draws the support of the wealthy. With that, comes the GOP establishments additional values, of dismantling and defunding a lot of assistance programs. Not because they don't want them (though some do), but because they are inefficient and expensive. The problem I have found with that sort of an approach, is that it doesn't fix the problem of poverty in America. Simply axing the programs, doesn't help us move forward in a better way, it simply makes life more difficult for those who already have the least.
 
muciti said:
This is true, however, it seems you may be leaving out the part where Republicans do the same thing.
Click to expand...

Right now who is pushing for entitlement reform, and who is opposing it ?

I get it, I'm not completely enthralled with the old guard Republicans that allowed those policies to grow and fester at the expense of millions of Americans.

But if I only get two legitimate choices in political parties then I have to at least chose the one who's making an attempt.
 
WWGWD said:
My guess, is that it's really hard to distinguish sometimes the difference between conservative values, and conservative politics, which is what makes someone Republican (I'm totally generalizing here, I know that, lol). The conclusion of that paper had an intersting quote that I think applies to this discussion:



I think, and this is totally my opinion, that the values mentioned in that quote, becoming the driving force for the party you support. In general, those are the values of the Republican party, so it would make sense that that is the party that draws the support of the wealthy. With that, comes the GOP establishments additional values, of dismantling and defunding a lot of assistance programs. Not because they don't want them (though some do), but because they are inefficient and expensive. The problem I have found with that sort of an approach, is that it doesn't fix the problem of poverty in America. Simply axing the programs, doesn't help us move forward in a better way, it simply makes life more difficult for those who already have the least.
Click to expand...

I don't align well with the Repubs since I'm libertarian and want small government in all areas not just for business. One can say that the Democrats and progressives do not want to help the people stuck on welfare as an intervention they think it is an insult that help might be needed.
 
Henrin said:
You seem to wish to ignore how the party is behaving to reach an end you find desirable all so you can believe you are dealing with benevolence. I'm sorry, but when you must abuse someone in order to help someone else that is not benevolence.
Click to expand...

:shock: You really think taxes are abuse?

You can not simply ignore the equation so you can declare the ends a good.
Click to expand...

I don't ignore the equation, I'm telling you what the government does is a benevolent act (at the very least for the person it provides for and helps to become a fully functioning citizen again, but also for the whole of society).
 
Well in Illinois the Repubs tried to pass legislation to stop people that have link-cards from being able to Purchase alcohol, Cigarettes, being used for Strip Clubs or Porno shops. This was after a Police office informed some that a woman had used her link-card to bond herself out of jail. It was shot down by the Demos. Stating that we shouldn't be picking out products in a free market that people may need. Which to me is a crock of BS. there was no good excuse to shoot down this type of legislation.

As here in Chicago. People use them for gambling and whatever they can. Which is while still getting assistance off other programs.
 
Shadow Serious said:
I don't align well with the Repubs since I'm libertarian and want small government in all areas not just for business. One can say that the Democrats and progressives do not want to help the people stuck on welfare as an intervention they think it is an insult that help might be needed.
Click to expand...

I would not disagree with your assessment, except to say that intention means a lot. I don't think that the programs in question were intended to keep people in a perpetual state of poverty. That is what has happened for a significant number of people, demonstrating an obvious need to address the ineffective parts. Again, I find the struggle comes down to a GOP (and libertarian) belief that these programs should be eliminated all together. I can't support that ideal, and don't know how anyone find a productive solution under that circumstance.
 
babilfish said:
:shock: You really think taxes are abuse?
Click to expand...

Certainly they can be an abuse.


I don't ignore the equation, I'm telling you what the government does is a benevolent act (at the very least for the person it provides for and helps to become a fully functioning citizen again, but also for the whole of society).
Click to expand...

The government is not benevolent.

If, under threat, I take money from Peter, keep 50%for myself, and then give the remainder to Paul, how am I being 'benevolent'?
 
Grant said:
Certainly they can be an abuse.
Click to expand...

Aha

But not in all cases, right?


The government is not benevolent.

If, under threat, I take money from Peter, keep 50%for myself, and then give the remainder to Paul, how am I being 'benevolent'?
Click to expand...

If Paul was going to starve in the street sans your money, at the very least you're being benevolent to Paul.

If Peter, on basis of the social contract, is living in your "territory" protected by your military and free to flourish under all the benefits you provide like law and such, I can't really see how you're being malevolent by taking a fee for this.
 
Dittohead not! said:
Not so much change, as eliminate as many as possible.
Another, perhaps even better alternative, would be to leave feeding the poor to churches and other private charities. They could no doubt do the job more efficiently than the federal government can.

That way, we could eliminate that subsidy altogether.

Agricultural cooperatives could work to even out the spikes of supply and demand, too, leaving the federal government out of it altogether.
Click to expand...

I think you're mistaken concerning churches. Historically they actually lobbied the government to help as the problem was often too big for them.
 
AlabamaPaul said:
There are always jobs available. It's a question of someone willing to take them and do the work. If you're basic needs are being met and you're content, why work?
Click to expand...

Not sure that's 100% true. It depends on where you are, your age, and willing the employer s to her someone over qualified. We have more jobs here than people, but the reference is for younger workers.
 
Boo Radley said:
I think you're mistaken concerning churches. Historically they actually lobbied the government to help as the problem was often too big for them.
Click to expand...

Really? I didn't know that.

It seems the job may be too big for the government as well.
 
Dittohead not! said:
Really? I didn't know that.

It seems the job may be too big for the government as well.
Click to expand...

It may be. But no one has conquered poverty yet to my knowledge. However, being poor here is not only better than other places in the world, but better than it used to be here.
 
Boo Radley said:
It may be. But no one has conquered poverty yet to my knowledge. However, being poor here is not only better than other places in the world, but better than it used to be here.
Click to expand...

Oh, yes, much better. The sort of poverty described in the Grapes of Wrath, for example, would be hard to find in today's society.

and it would be better still if the focus were to be more on jobs and less on handouts.
 
Dittohead not! said:
Oh, yes, much better. The sort of poverty described in the Grapes of Wrath, for example, would be hard to find in today's society.

and it would be better still if the focus were to be more on jobs and less on handouts.
Click to expand...

There are many reasons for less jobs, many if which can't be fixed by government. From out sourcing to mechanization to weakening of unions to cost of education, it is nt surprising that the need has grown.
 
Boo Radley said:
There are many reasons for less jobs, many if which can't be fixed by government. From out sourcing to mechanization to weakening of unions to cost of education, it is nt surprising that the need has grown.
Click to expand...

Weakening of unions increases jobs. Just wanted to make that correction.
 
Boo Radley said:
It may be. But no one has conquered poverty yet to my knowledge. However, being poor here is not only better than other places in the world, but better than it used to be here.
Click to expand...

That might be difficult to demonstrate, given that the government is $17 trillion in debt. Living on credit or just printing money is not a long term solution for poverty.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom