• 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!

Should we Abolish or Reform WELFARE/goverment assistance programs?

faithful_servant said:
So do you support making welfare's focus on getting people self-sufficient or making welfare a way of life??
Click to expand...

Again, it's doggone near impossible for a homeless person to get a job...because he is HOMELESS. What boss would hire him if he can't reliably show up for work without having showered, in dirty clothes that are wrinkled because he has no place to take a shower, much less to wash and iron his clothes?

So that begs the question - exactly HOW is that homeless person EVER going to become self-sufficient if he cannot get a freaking job because he is homeless? This is the classic Catch-22. It's good that you want the homeless person to learn to become self-sufficient...but as long as he's homeless, it's doggone near impossible for him to get a job so he can become self-sufficient! A very few can do it and have done it...but for the vast majority, you're asking the impossible.

If the taxpayers pay for cheap, secure apartments for the homeless - which studies have shown is CHEAPER for the taxpayer than to just leave them on the streets - YES, some will take advantage of the system and try to live the rest of their lives on the dole...but you'd be surprised at the number of them who will actually try to get jobs...and they will be ABLE to get jobs because now they can reliably show up for work showered and wearing clean clothes.
 
Glen Contrarian said:
Again, it's doggone near impossible for a homeless person to get a job...because he is HOMELESS. What boss would hire him if he can't reliably show up for work without having showered, in dirty clothes that are wrinkled because he has no place to take a shower, much less to wash and iron his clothes?

So that begs the question - exactly HOW is that homeless person EVER going to become self-sufficient if he cannot get a freaking job because he is homeless? This is the classic Catch-22. It's good that you want the homeless person to learn to become self-sufficient...but as long as he's homeless, it's doggone near impossible for him to get a job so he can become self-sufficient! A very few can do it and have done it...but for the vast majority, you're asking the impossible.

If the taxpayers pay for cheap, secure apartments for the homeless - which studies have shown is CHEAPER for the taxpayer than to just leave them on the streets - YES, some will take advantage of the system and try to live the rest of their lives on the dole...but you'd be surprised at the number of them who will actually try to get jobs...and they will be ABLE to get jobs because now they can reliably show up for work showered and wearing clean clothes.
Click to expand...

Than your idea is we should get rid of Welfare and other programs which are suppose to make homeless people NOT HOMELESS? Why not just make these programs take in all homeless an get them into jobs? Why do you want people to stay poor and homeless forever?
 
Glen Contrarian said:
Again, it's doggone near impossible for a homeless person to get a job...because he is HOMELESS. What boss would hire him if he can't reliably show up for work without having showered, in dirty clothes that are wrinkled because he has no place to take a shower, much less to wash and iron his clothes?

So that begs the question - exactly HOW is that homeless person EVER going to become self-sufficient if he cannot get a freaking job because he is homeless? This is the classic Catch-22. It's good that you want the homeless person to learn to become self-sufficient...but as long as he's homeless, it's doggone near impossible for him to get a job so he can become self-sufficient! A very few can do it and have done it...but for the vast majority, you're asking the impossible.

If the taxpayers pay for cheap, secure apartments for the homeless - which studies have shown is CHEAPER for the taxpayer than to just leave them on the streets - YES, some will take advantage of the system and try to live the rest of their lives on the dole...but you'd be surprised at the number of them who will actually try to get jobs...and they will be ABLE to get jobs because now they can reliably show up for work showered and wearing clean clothes.
Click to expand...

That was nice sermon on homes for the homeless, but that doesn't address the core issue - getting people off of welfare by getting them jobs. The best way to fund your idea is to stop paying people to not work and start paying them to work and getting them on a path to financial independence. Do that and you'll have big piles of money available to provide homes for the homeless and a path for them to become financially independent (and get their own homes). We need to take away the choice to live on welfare and make having and following a plan to get off of welfare part of the requirements for getting welfare. If you have people who have lived off of welfare for decades, then your welfare program is VERY broken. Our current system is DESIGNED to build dependence and discourage independence and that's the biggest issue that needs to be addressed. Homes need to be a part of that, but the funding for that kind of program needs to be in place first (I don't buy the study that said that simply giving someone a home will save us a big pile of money, since it's predicated on the idea that giving someone a place to live equates to them getting a job and with how our current system works, that wouldn't be the case AT ALL).
 
faithful_servant said:
That was nice sermon on homes for the homeless, but that doesn't address the core issue - getting people off of welfare by getting them jobs. The best way to fund your idea is to stop paying people to not work and start paying them to work and getting them on a path to financial independence. Do that and you'll have big piles of money available to provide homes for the homeless and a path for them to become financially independent (and get their own homes). We need to take away the choice to live on welfare and make having and following a plan to get off of welfare part of the requirements for getting welfare. If you have people who have lived off of welfare for decades, then your welfare program is VERY broken. Our current system is DESIGNED to build dependence and discourage independence and that's the biggest issue that needs to be addressed. Homes need to be a part of that, but the funding for that kind of program needs to be in place first (I don't buy the study that said that simply giving someone a home will save us a big pile of money, since it's predicated on the idea that giving someone a place to live equates to them getting a job and with how our current system works, that wouldn't be the case AT ALL).
Click to expand...

Glen and most liberals dont care about this, they just want to keep the homeless and the poor in poverty forever. They dont care about giving people better lives.
 
MisterLogical said:
Glen and most liberals dont care about this, they just want to keep the homeless and the poor in poverty forever. They dont care about giving people better lives.
Click to expand...

There are more people than jobs available, by a large margin. Solve that problem before you talk about getting rid of traditional safety nets. You talk about better lives like they are out there for the taking.
 
JohnfrmClevelan said:
There are more people than jobs available, by a large margin. Solve that problem before you talk about getting rid of traditional safety nets. You talk about better lives like they are out there for the taking.
Click to expand...

That is the problem! We need to bring jobs back to America. We need to give businesses incentives to hire, and new business incentive to open up. Simply putting everyone on welfare is not fixing the problem. Since taxes are taken from the working to support those people and eventually there will not be enough people to tax and the system is GOING TO COLLAPSE! We are going the way Soviet Russia was. Where everyone had to WAIT IN LINE FOR BREAD!
 
From Brad DeLong, growing dependence on government is mostly a myth.

I see a short-term rise in UI, SNAP, Medicaid, and SSI due to the economic collapse. I see a longer-run bipartisan extension of income support to the working poor in order to partially offset the rise in the inequality of market income and to diminish the danger that a benefit cliff would create a culture of dependency. Those seem to me to be the opposite of "pleading poverty to get handouts". The first is a (hopefully temporary) rise in real poverty. The second is a successful bipartisan policy initiative to diminish any culture of dependency.
Click to expand...
 
MisterLogical said:
That is the problem! We need to bring jobs back to America. We need to give businesses incentives to hire, and new business incentive to open up. Simply putting everyone on welfare is not fixing the problem. Since taxes are taken from the working to support those people and eventually there will not be enough people to tax and the system is GOING TO COLLAPSE! We are going the way Soviet Russia was. Where everyone had to WAIT IN LINE FOR BREAD!
Click to expand...

I think that's a little over the top. We are far from waiting in line for bread. When is the last time you saw a bare shelf in the store? I think you would be shocked to go to your local grocery and find that they were out of bread, or even something as obscure as creamed corn. We are a nation of plenty, even with an unemployment problem.

There is only so much demand. When the private sector can meet all demand using less than 100% of the labor force, it would be silly to look to the private sector to provide more jobs. The government, on the other hand, can put people to work almost as easily as it can hand out welfare. It doesn't really matter what those workers do, either.

BTW, when deficit spending pays for these things, people are not being taxed. That's why we call it a deficit.
 
This was from post# 22

faithful_servant said:
Complete crap... I know LOTS of conservatives and not one single one of them thinks like this.
Click to expand...
This is exactly what I wrote about in my post. You can deny that conservatives think that the way to help the poor is to do nothing for them but the post below expresses that very notion.

According to conservatives, they think that programs that help the poor make them dependent and the best way to make them independent is to get rid of all the programs that provide help.

MisterLogical said:
Glen and most liberals dont care about this, they just want to keep the homeless and the poor in poverty forever. They dont care about giving people better lives.
Click to expand...
 
Last edited:
JohnfrmClevelan said:
I think that's a little over the top. We are far from waiting in line for bread. When is the last time you saw a bare shelf in the store? I think you would be shocked to go to your local grocery and find that they were out of bread, or even something as obscure as creamed corn. We are a nation of plenty, even with an unemployment problem.

There is only so much demand. When the private sector can meet all demand using less than 100% of the labor force, it would be silly to look to the private sector to provide more jobs. The government, on the other hand, can put people to work almost as easily as it can hand out welfare. It doesn't really matter what those workers do, either.

BTW, when deficit spending pays for these things, people are not being taxed. That's why we call it a deficit.
Click to expand...

We are going to be waiting in line for bread since almost no one will have the money or means to buy food and basics needs anymore.
 
MTAtech said:
So, you are saying that modern conservatism don't use the argument of self-reliance, individualism and character in order to justify cutting programs for the poor?

Evidence to the contrary -- Paul Ryan.

Leon Wieseltier: His Grief, and Ours | The New Republic

The Ryan Budget's Radical Priorities

Ryan's Poverty Plan
1. Cut spending on the poor, cut taxes on the wealthy
2. Shred safety net through block granting federal programs
3. Encourage entrepreneurship, sprinkle around some vouchers and tax credits
Click to expand...

First.. Paul Ryan is not a conservative.

However.. conservatives don't do this

MTAtech said:
Modern conservatism uses the smoke-screen of self-reliance, individualism and character to mask policies which are self-serving, bigoted and cruel.
Click to expand...

What conservatives (true conservatives) will say is that our safety nets need to be designed to be hand ups and not hands out. Great example: When I was a middle manager in a healthcare organization.. I tried paying the aides and CNA's more money to get better retention and more stability in the workforce. and attract the best workers. It backfired because many if not most of the lower wage workers, got assistance of some type from the government.. especially Medicaid. The moment that their paychecks went up enough to hit the criteria.. then they were cut off from all assistance (its an arbitarty amount.. over and things go away). SO... they would quit.. or reduce their hours rather than risk losing benefits because the increase in wages. would not make up completely for being cut off assistance. AND even for those that were willing to be cut off because the pay increase was enough to outweigh benefits.. they were reluctant to accept the increase because "what happens if I get low censused, etc".. In other words.. it was a huge risk because if their income dropped either because of slow downs in work hours, or for some reason they had to stay home, or a lay off... suddenly they had no safety net and there is a long delay to get back onto benefits again.. and in the meantime, their families suffered.

These are real problems with trying to better the poor in that it tends to punish those that try to work harder and make better decisions. the flip side.. is that I have patients who are in their teens that are having children because their parents are asking them to have children because the welfare money follows the child. And a teenage mother with children brings in money to the household like nobodies business. Saddest thing in the world to see my teenage patient that's smart and driven.. being pushed into having a child by her parents and her peers because of the immediate financial incentive.

Now a conservative tries to bring up these real world issues and suddenly.. we are "justifying cutting programs for the poor and furthering policies that are "self serving, bigoted and cruel".

Another good example is unemployment payments. There is no doubt that unemployment benefits act as a safety net and stabilizer of the economy.. HOWEVER.. unemployment benefits particularly when reauthorized over and over can stagnate the economy and people as well. Perfect example my best friends wife. The economy in this area was in boom from home building and construction.. so when the market collapsed so too did the boom and the local economy crashed. My best friends wife was laid off and started collecting unemployment. Now the job that she had was NOT.. repeat NOT coming back in the near or immediate future since it was based on the boom in building. Yet she continued on unemployment benefits rather than taking steps to get into another line of work. Not because she was lazy.. far from it.. but because it made no fiscal sense to take a job making less money than unemployment would pay (since she would have to go to an entry level job in a new field) and because hope springs eternal that a miracle would happen. Once Congress failed to pass a further extension of unemployment benefits.. and she new it was running out.. she went back to school.. got a degree in another field and then got a good job in another field.

But if a conservative brings up these realities of life... then we are accused of trying to take the food out of babies mouths.

.
 
MTAtech said:
This was from post# 22

This is exactly what I wrote about in my post. You can deny that conservatives think that the way to help the poor is to do nothing for them but the post below expresses that very notion.

According to conservatives, they think that programs that help the poor make them dependent and the best way to make them independent is to get rid of all the programs that provide help.
Click to expand...

No, what we believe is that programs should be designed to DISCOURAGE dependence and encourage INDEPENDENCE. Not throw them out wholesale, but fix them so that they low poverty rates instead of increase them.
 
Reform it. There is massive waste and it needs to be streamlined and brought under one roof, and the duplicate and do-nothing agencies eliminated.


We need a safety net, and it needs to be focused on a hand-UP for the able (a generous hand-UP! teach them a useful trade that's in demand...), and a hand-out only for those who are entirely unemployable or helpless.


But our current mess is... well, a mess.
 
Goshin said:
Reform it. There is massive waste and it needs to be streamlined and brought under one roof, and the duplicate and do-nothing agencies eliminated.


We need a safety net, and it needs to be focused on a hand-UP for the able (a generous hand-UP! teach them a useful trade that's in demand...), and a hand-out only for those who are entirely unemployable or helpless.


But our current mess is... well, a mess.
Click to expand...

I agree we should get rid of the do nothing agencys too. There is a lot of them that collect money but never help clients. They just need a head count to pay workers but anytime someone signs up for these programs, they just kind of give the clients the run around.

So you mean like only give it out for free for people are for example Handicapped or dying from cancer vs someone who is poor right?
 
Uw
Goshin said:
Reform it. There is massive waste and it needs to be streamlined and brought under one roof, and the duplicate and do-nothing agencies eliminated.


We need a safety net, and it needs to be focused on a hand-UP for the able (a generous hand-UP! teach them a useful trade that's in demand...), and a hand-out only for those who are entirely unemployable or helpless.


But our current mess is... well, a mess.
Click to expand...
Where, specifically, is this waste you speak? It's easy to charge the typical "waste and abuse" but it is often difficult to find.

How will you reform it?
 
JohnfrmClevelan said:
There are more people than jobs available, by a large margin. Solve that problem before you talk about getting rid of traditional safety nets. You talk about better lives like they are out there for the taking.
Click to expand...

I bet you also believe that illegals do the jobs Americans won't do...
 
faithful_servant said:
That was nice sermon on homes for the homeless, but that doesn't address the core issue - getting people off of welfare by getting them jobs. The best way to fund your idea is to stop paying people to not work and start paying them to work and getting them on a path to financial independence. Do that and you'll have big piles of money available to provide homes for the homeless and a path for them to become financially independent (and get their own homes). We need to take away the choice to live on welfare and make having and following a plan to get off of welfare part of the requirements for getting welfare. If you have people who have lived off of welfare for decades, then your welfare program is VERY broken. Our current system is DESIGNED to build dependence and discourage independence and that's the biggest issue that needs to be addressed. Homes need to be a part of that, but the funding for that kind of program needs to be in place first (I don't buy the study that said that simply giving someone a home will save us a big pile of money, since it's predicated on the idea that giving someone a place to live equates to them getting a job and with how our current system works, that wouldn't be the case AT ALL).
Click to expand...

What happens when someone loses a job due to no fault of their own? You know very well how businesses "downsize" or do "layoffs" or send their business overseas. All of a sudden there's no income...and what happens to the breadwinner's ability to pay the mortgage, much less for food, clothing, and all the other needs of a family? This is why we have unemployment INSURANCE...but after the jobs go away, it becomes really tough to find another job because all the local small businesses are no longer hiring since so many of their customers just lost their jobs...and when the unemployment insurance runs out, if there is no welfare, no place to turn, that person who couldn't find a job - and his entire family - are now homeless...and now you have another person who CAN'T get a job BECAUSE he is homeless...and he and his family members are much more likely to turn to crime.

What happens when the husband decides to leave the wife, and he was the only breadwinner? All of a sudden she and her children have NOTHING...and listening to you, that's the way it SHOULD be...that somehow the fact that she's got NOTHING will prevent her and her children from becoming homeless.

What's going on here is you - and so many conservatives and libertarians like you - have convinced yourself that those who find themselves on welfare somehow WANT to stay on welfare, that dignity and independence somehow aren't important to them. YES, there are *some* who would be that way...but the great majority of those on welfare do NOT want to remain on welfare - they WANT decent jobs, they WANT opportunities to prosper, to advance...but as long as you and people like you insist that "you'll do better if we kick you to the curb", such remain distant dreams that they'll never have a chance of reaching.
 
MisterLogical said:
Than your idea is we should get rid of Welfare and other programs which are suppose to make homeless people NOT HOMELESS? Why not just make these programs take in all homeless an get them into jobs? Why do you want people to stay poor and homeless forever?
Click to expand...

Y'know, your reply doesn't fit your DP name at all. Try again, and this time please try to follow a logical train of thought.
 
Glen Contrarian said:
What happens when someone loses a job due to no fault of their own? You know very well how businesses "downsize" or do "layoffs" or send their business overseas. All of a sudden there's no income...and what happens to the breadwinner's ability to pay the mortgage, much less for food, clothing, and all the other needs of a family? This is why we have unemployment INSURANCE...but after the jobs go away, it becomes really tough to find another job because all the local small businesses are no longer hiring since so many of their customers just lost their jobs...and when the unemployment insurance runs out, if there is no welfare, no place to turn, that person who couldn't find a job - and his entire family - are now homeless...and now you have another person who CAN'T get a job BECAUSE he is homeless...and he and his family members are much more likely to turn to crime.

What happens when the husband decides to leave the wife, and he was the only breadwinner? All of a sudden she and her children have NOTHING...and listening to you, that's the way it SHOULD be...that somehow the fact that she's got NOTHING will prevent her and her children from becoming homeless.

What's going on here is you - and so many conservatives and libertarians like you - have convinced yourself that those who find themselves on welfare somehow WANT to stay on welfare, that dignity and independence somehow aren't important to them. YES, there are *some* who would be that way...but the great majority of those on welfare do NOT want to remain on welfare - they WANT decent jobs, they WANT opportunities to prosper, to advance...but as long as you and people like you insist that "you'll do better if we kick you to the curb", such remain distant dreams that they'll never have a chance of reaching.
Click to expand...

If you want to have discussion with me on this topic, how about sticking to what I have clearly stated that I believe instead of assigning to me what you want me to believe. I have stated repeatedly that there is a time and place for help, but the issue is that our system of help is not oriented around getting people back on their feet. Do you want to discuss that idea??
 
MisterLogical said:
Originally welfare was created for poor mothers to take care of kids while the Fathers were away at war and they had to take care of the kids. For some time a lot of troops and military men were coming home with displaced families and all of the property they had when they left for war were being sold and everything they had before the war was completely gone when they returned. Now a lot of times this assistance and other Federal aid is used to help the following groups.

Homeless who are also mentally ill(Since we dont just help homeless)
Recovering drug addicts
Pregnant 16 year olds who were dumb enough to get pregnant at 16
Low income families who apparently are too poor to feed their children

I think either we should reform them or else remove them.

Removing them meaning there will be no assistance for any of the listed groups who they currently help other than private charities like Churches.

Reforming it will change how its distributed, who its distributed by or what it offers.

If we reform these things I believe we should first change it to mainly focus on getting people jobs and getting them out of poverty apposed to just giving them free stuff so they stay poor and on aid forever. I also believe that we should expand what kind of people we are assisting. Like I dont think we should only be helping homeless if they are mentally ill, are rape victims or have drug problems since often those are results of becoming homeless.

So what are your thoughts? Do you believe we should reform or simply abolish these programs and do you or do you not agree with the reformation ideas I had. Why or why not?

Currently the Military will help house the families of the military people. As well as that you are given extra pay if you are married and have a family and are allowed to live off base to live with your family if you have a family or a wife.
Click to expand...

I've often thought that we should adopt a similar system with adults who are wards of the state as with children who are, give subsidies to people who will take them in. This way, it's a matter of, if you want state assistance, you give up your right to direct your own life. And the state should offer employment to them.

Also, strengthen filial support laws, so only those without well-off relatives are eligible at all. And make it funded by the states, not the federal government.
 
Paleocon said:
I've often thought that we should adopt a similar system with adults who are wards of the state as with children who are, give subsidies to people who will take them in. This way, it's a matter of, if you want state assistance, you give up your right to direct your own life. And the state should offer employment to them.

Also, strengthen filial support laws, so only those without well-off relatives are eligible at all. And make it funded by the states, not the federal government.
Click to expand...

By Wards of the state you mean Foster/Orphans right? I know Orphans at 18 are considered Independent, so they can declare themselves as their own income.
 
Last edited:
MisterLogical said:
By Wards of the state you mean Foster/Orphans right? Those groups do get a lot of goverment aid too. Since they have no families they are automatically declared Independent. Sorry for not listing that one.
Click to expand...

By "wards of the state" I mean people who are dependent on the state. By "children who are wards of the state" I mean fosters/orphans.
 
Paleocon said:
By "wards of the state" I mean people who are dependent on the state. By "children who are wards of the state" I mean fosters/orphans.
Click to expand...

What I think your asking is people getting a tax cut for taking in adults who have no where to go at 18?
 
MisterLogical said:
What I think your asking is people getting a tax cut for taking in adults who have no where to go at 18?
Click to expand...

Basically. On the condition that said adults accept state employment.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom