• 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!

Is it possible to create a welfare system that rewards people to be self-sufficient?

What would a welfare that rewards self-sufficiency look like? Select all that apply:

  • 1.) It would not allow recipients more than is needed to survive

    Votes: 5 45.5%
  • 2.) The reward for getting off welfare would be: recipients could afford more than necessities

    Votes: 0 0.0%
  • 3.) programs would be temporary (recipients can only be on welfare for a certain period)

    Votes: 7 63.6%
  • 4.) It would grant small monetary payouts for every step forward

    Votes: 5 45.5%
  • 5.) Recipients would experience a sufficiently higher standard of living after getting off welfare

    Votes: 3 27.3%

  • Total voters
    11
Re: Is it possible to create a welfare system that rewards people to be self-sufficie

Hey buddy, I pay for your wants and desires too.. when did you not understand that?

My wants are your wants. Protection of military, police, courts, and money are your wants and mine.



If you had any inkling of what only those services would do to our country, including you and me .. you'd think twice about that assertion.

I need to know what?


You and I need and rely on many more services than that and you don't even realize it.

Like?

Have you been paying attention to anything I have been saying? Get rid of safety nets, progressive taxation and government regulations and you and I will both end up on the streets - end of story.

I'm sure this argument has feet.

The tax cuts for the uber-wealthy are already proving that to be true, i.e. look at our income disparity now as compared to in the past - it won't stop unless the government stops it.

The tax cuts are not what is causing the separation to grow. So what are they causing exactly?
 
Re: Is it possible to create a welfare system that rewards people to be self-sufficie

This is a mostly bogus statistic because it includes federal transfers like Social Security checks going to retirees who've moved South and military spending for bases in the South because San Francisco would go apoplectic if a military based was set up in Marin County.

Military bases are located in the South and the Southwest since they are the most impoverished parts of the country. Uncle Sam goes after the poor in order to fight for his wars. Yet, Republicans (not implying that you are), herald this as a patriotic duty.

Military service is not about being patriotic, but about opportunity and there is something gravely wrong with this.
 
Last edited:
Re: Is it possible to create a welfare system that rewards people to be self-sufficie

Blaming poverty and the stagnation of HH income on immigration is absurd.

US Census data found here.

whitehouseholds.jpg

blackhouseholds.jpg

hispanichouseholds.jpg


Hispanics are the fastest growing demographic group in the US, both from immigration and from births. The math here is very simple - what happens to the mean and median when lower income groups have a faster growth rate than higher income groups. Don't forget to account for the average household size variance between the groups.
 
Re: Is it possible to create a welfare system that rewards people to be self-sufficie

When you normalize the data to adjust for inflation, the average "white" family was earning the same back in the 1960's (around $33k if I do believe). A $55k median HH income is roughly equivalent to a median HH back in the early 60's.

I am not really sure what the rest of your nonsense post it about. (I am lying, but my honesty will get me in trouble. This is why I am not a fan of this forum since honesty will get me into trouble).
 
Last edited:
Re: Is it possible to create a welfare system that rewards people to be self-sufficie

As much as the right and psuedo-libertarians despise the poor and welfare, they never attack corporate welfare with the same amount of vigor.

It is almost an axiom.

I am a very libertarian in nature, but this is the main reason why I like to distance myself from them. They are completely silent on corporate welfare and how it creates a plutocracy while going after personal welfare which is such a small amount of the budget. It is ****ing absurd.

You and others might want to refrain from making wild and crazy statements about people you don't know but think you know how and what they think.

I am a Conservative therefore on the right and not only do I not despise the poor and those on welfare I have been there after having my identity stolen and all my money taken at the same time.

It has taken nearly 6 years to partially recover from it and I am not alone, Conservatives are not all rich they just think for themselves and have a moral compass that works.
 
Re: Is it possible to create a welfare system that rewards people to be self-sufficie

You and others might want to refrain from making wild and crazy statements about people you don't know but think you know how and what they think.

I am a Conservative therefore on the right and not only do I not despise the poor and those on welfare I have been there after having my identity stolen and all my money taken at the same time.

It has taken nearly 6 years to partially recover from it and I am not alone, Conservatives are not all rich they just think for themselves and have a moral compass that works.

You are a riot. You want me to stop making generalizations, yet you respond with a personal anecdote that has no relevance to this debate (which I am sorry hear). However, you try to make your sob story into an actual argument by ending your statement with a wild generalization that all Conservatives think for themselves and have a moral compass.

lmfao. I see through your antics.
 
Last edited:
Re: Is it possible to create a welfare system that rewards people to be self-sufficie

When you normalize the data to adjust for inflation, the average "white" family was earning the same back in the 1960's (around $33k if I do believe). A $55k median HH income is roughly equivalent to a median HH back in the early 60's.

That's a pretty impressive trick you're showing us - calculating the specifics of your conclusion all the way back to the early 60s when the data I posted only goes back to 1992.

Anyways, so much for your made-up numbers. Here is what the real numbers show when we break down the household income to a per-person basis.

whitehouseholdsincomepe.jpg
blackhouseholdsincomepe.jpg
hispanichouseholdsincom.jpg



Let's break this household income down.

White families, between 1992 and 2009, have seen their per-person income jump 23.16%
Black families, between 1992 and 2009, have seen their per-person income jump 32.31%
Hispanic families, between 1992 and 2009, have seen their per-person income jump 21.00%


I'll make my point again, when we import poverty, which is what we're doing by favoring a disproportionately large Hispanic influx, then we skew the calculations for how native-born Americans are doing in the economy.

Black income is growing the fastest, no doubt due to all of the favorable hiring quotas that liberals have instituted all throughout the economy, but they still lag white incomes.

Black birth rates are only a bit higher (2.168) than white birth rates (2.112) and both are far below Hispanic birth rates (2.995)

The upshot here is that the fastest growing demographic group in the US, via both immigration and birth, are Hispanics, and they have the lowest income as measured by household income divided by people in the household. So, when aggregated figures are reported in the press, all details like this are completely lost and uninformed people blame the economic system for depressed wages when, in fact, a good portion of the cause can be isolated to demographic shifts. In fact, the shifts are worse to come because when we look at births to unmarried women, the white birth rate (48.1/1,000) is lower than the Black birth rate (72.6/1,000) which in turn is lower than the Hispanic birth rate (108.4/1,000). This data suggests that the children are going to be requiring welfare support, will face school difficulties, and will face diminished job prospects when they reach adulthood, thus depressing aggregated income statistics even further.

Yeah, immigration and demographic shifts are a big part of the income problem that liberals like to complain about so much.
 
Re: Is it possible to create a welfare system that rewards people to be self-sufficie

Receiving welfare should include mandatory work or participation in a 2-year certification program for a field experiencing growth or high job demand. Upon completion of said program you will have access to an additional 6 months of payments while you seek a job in that field. At the end of that additional 6 months all benefits are discontinued.

Welfare recipients should also be mandated to take child development and intro to education classes as well as financial planning and money management classes.
Who's going to pay for all that free schooling?
 
Re: Is it possible to create a welfare system that rewards people to be self-sufficie

self sufficiency is not something everyone can attain. the economy can only support a certain percentage of "self sufficient" citizens. the economy requires the remaining percentage to be "not self sufficient." there are only so many jobs in the economy that can allow self sufficiency.

"Cyclical or Keynesian unemployment, also known as deficient-demand unemployment, occurs when there is not enough aggregate demand in the economy to provide jobs for everyone who wants to work."

Unemployment - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

we can find evidence of this type of unemployment when we look at unemployment rates for college graduates.

"The jobless rate for Americans with at least a bachelor's degree rose to 5.1%, the highest since 1970 when records were first kept, reports the Bureau of Labor Statistics. "

Unemployment rate for college grads is highest since 1970 - USATODAY.com

The people with bachelor's degrees did the right thing to try to be self sufficient. Unfortunately, there arent enough college graduate level jobs in the economy to support "self sufficiency" for everyone with a college degree. You cant just tell everyone to "work hard" and "take personal responsibility" and "be self sufficient" if the economy cannot support everyone to be "self sufficient."
 
Re: Is it possible to create a welfare system that rewards people to be self-sufficie

Welfare's purpose should be to eliminate, as much as possible, the need for its own existence. - Ronald Reagan

Anyway, it just needs to be disincentivized. The truth is that people can live quite well off the dole. I've seen people on all sorts of government assistance with their own place, own car, many of what can be listed as luxuries (air conditioning, computers, gaming consoles, etc.). That has to stop. We need to create the illusion - and make it real - that welfare recipients have a life barely above homelessness. Sardine can for a place, absolutely NO creature comforts, eating cold beans from a can. When you can have generally the same lifestyle as someone who works 40 hours a week without doing a thing, you'd be a fool to trade that in.
Obviously, we need a balance between these two examples..
I call this refowm/improvements...
It can be done on a state by state level....doubt the the federal government should even be involved...There will be poor states (deep south) ...people can always move...
Further, interesting what Ron Reagan had to say about welfare....
I say this....as long as there is intolerance, hatred,fear, there will be a need for "welfare"..
 
Last edited:
Re: Is it possible to create a welfare system that rewards people to be self-sufficie

Say What? You think disabled folks should have to work even though they cannot?:roll:

That isn't what he said. He said that disabled people who have skill sets and abilities that allow them to work should be expected to use those skill sets and abilities in a manner which provides them with income.

A man who is paralyzed from the waist down may still be perfectly capable of performing any number of office-related tasks. Why should he not be expected, then, to perform them?
 
Last edited:
Re: Is it possible to create a welfare system that rewards people to be self-sufficie

Sure.. Those folks on welfare really want to work a lowpaying job over some HIGH paying job all cause they want some foodstamps and/or the check. NOT! :roll: You are sterotyping and assuming a lot about people you do not even know.

I have had a LOT of experience in the system, Kali. And yes, when a system is devised so that you receive MORE if you stay on it, people will chose to stay on it instead of taking a path that will make life more stressful. Here's the scenario:

You're making $7.25 an hour, 35 hours a week with two children. Because of your income you receive food stamps, welfare, rent assistance, daycare assistance and SCHIP for your children. You're offered a management spot at $10.50 an hour, plus the option to purchase benefits at $350/month. If you accept that job you lose your food stamps, welfare, rent assistance, daycare asisstance, and SCHIP. Which do you choose?

It happens all the time. I'm not saying that these people prefer to be lazy. I'm saying that a system that doesn't provide a means of acquiring job skills that qualify the recipient for higher pay and better benefits is a system that will leave most people choosing the system over independence. It isn't the recipient's fault the system is built that way, but having a system built that way is part of the reason you don't see a lot of former welfare recipients in high-paying, high-skill jobs 5, 10, or 15 years after being pushed out because of time limits.

My whole point in this thread has been that we need to provide a system that encourages personal growth and independence. Our current system doesn't.

You can take it however you want, but your understanding of my post was wrong.
 
Re: Is it possible to create a welfare system that rewards people to be self-sufficie

Who's going to pay for all that free schooling?

So let me understand, Mickey. You're okay with your tax money (and more from the "rich") going to pay for people in poverty to stagnate, but paying for a program that will better these people and (at least according to most research) decrease the likelihood of their children living in poverty as adults is off the table? You do realize that welfare is often generational, and that children raised in poverty do worse in school, have a lower college attendance rate, and often end up in poverty themselves, right? So getting them out of poverty will, in all likelihood, save the country money in the long run.
 
Re: Is it possible to create a welfare system that rewards people to be self-sufficie

So let me understand, Mickey. You're okay with your tax money (and more from the "rich") going to pay for people in poverty to stagnate, but paying for a program that will better these people and (at least according to most research) decrease the likelihood of their children living in poverty as adults is off the table? You do realize that welfare is often generational, and that children raised in poverty do worse in school, have a lower college attendance rate, and often end up in poverty themselves, right? So getting them out of poverty will, in all likelihood, save the country money in the long run.

But schooling for degrees is expensive. Plus, most college students are poor, so they would all qualify for this free government schooling. Wouldn't we just end up applying a program like this on everyone who wanted to get a degree or certificate?
 
Re: Is it possible to create a welfare system that rewards people to be self-sufficie

But schooling for degrees is expensive. Plus, most college students are poor, so they would all qualify for this free government schooling. Wouldn't we just end up applying a program like this on everyone who wanted to get a degree or certificate?

Most college students don't qualify as "poor" until they're 24, at which time they are no longer required to report their parent's income on the FAFSA form. Until then, their parent's income is weighed to determine their financial obligation. Once they reach 24 (which is 2-3 years after most college students graduate), they can make up to 31k per year and still qualify for Pell Grants as the system current exists. That means that currently, many welfare recipients already qualify for PG, but since this money is first-come/first-serve and not allotted based on need, welfare recipients have no better chance of receiving the aid than do non-welfare recipients.

Further, the program I suggest would not allow welfare recipients to major in anything they wanted to major in. An AAA degree would not qualify under the program. These would be 2-year vocational certification courses in fields with median incomes above X-dollars. Nursing, CAD drafting, medical assisting, respiratory therapy, radiology and sonography...or other similar programs (even a 2-year cert in child care or social services). Many schools require that part of the course work be completed in-field, and a lot of the programs already have relationships within these industries, giving the students access to contacts in the field.

I'm not sure why you would think that anybody and everybody would take advantage of this, or even that "poor college students" would. This is a program specifically for welfare recipients, and is a mandatory requirement of continued government aid. So you have to apply and receive welfare benefits before you have access, but you can't receive benefits unless you take part in the program.

Not including books and supplies, you can get a 2-year certification at the local community college here for $2,600 if you live in district (within Dallas County).
 
Re: Is it possible to create a welfare system that rewards people to be self-sufficie

Most college students don't qualify as "poor" until they're 24, at which time they are no longer required to report their parent's income on the FAFSA form. Until then, their parent's income is weighed to determine their financial obligation. Once they reach 24 (which is 2-3 years after most college students graduate), they can make up to 31k per year and still qualify for Pell Grants as the system current exists. That means that currently, many welfare recipients already qualify for PG, but since this money is first-come/first-serve and not allotted based on need, welfare recipients have no better chance of receiving the aid than do non-welfare recipients.

Further, the program I suggest would not allow welfare recipients to major in anything they wanted to major in. An AAA degree would not qualify under the program. These would be 2-year vocational certification courses in fields with median incomes above X-dollars. Nursing, CAD drafting, medical assisting, respiratory therapy, radiology and sonography...or other similar programs (even a 2-year cert in child care or social services). Many schools require that part of the course work be completed in-field, and a lot of the programs already have relationships within these industries, giving the students access to contacts in the field.

I'm not sure why you would think that anybody and everybody would take advantage of this, or even that "poor college students" would. This is a program specifically for welfare recipients, and is a mandatory requirement of continued government aid. So you have to apply and receive welfare benefits before you have access, but you can't receive benefits unless you take part in the program.

Not including books and supplies, you can get a 2-year certification at the local community college here for $2,600 if you live in district (within Dallas County).

OK, that makes sense. I didn't go to college until I was 38, so I didn't know about the 24 y/o cutoff for parental support.

Carry on. It sounds like you have a pretty good plan. The one caveat is that these people have to pass the courses. Most of the people we need to help probably can't accomplish that little feat.
 
Re: Is it possible to create a welfare system that rewards people to be self-sufficie

The one caveat is that these people have to pass the courses. Most of the people we need to help probably can't accomplish that little feat.

This is a hugely important point that you've made. There are basically two reasons that people are in poverty. Circumstances and nature. If someone is in poverty because the they're newly arrived in America and don't speak the language well, they wasted away their youth on drugs and now can't get back on the right track even though they have the desire to, then helping hand programs can repair the factors that are keeping them in poverty. Other people though are there because of who they are - they have poor impulse control, they have little future time orientation, they have poor decision making skills, they're not very smart, etc and even if you hold their hand and put them on the right track, as soon as you let go of their hand, they'll fall off the track and be back where they started.
 
Re: Is it possible to create a welfare system that rewards people to be self-sufficie

Welfare's purpose should be to eliminate, as much as possible, the need for its own existence. - Ronald Reagan

Anyway, it just needs to be disincentivized. The truth is that people can live quite well off the dole. I've seen people on all sorts of government assistance with their own place, own car, many of what can be listed as luxuries (air conditioning, computers, gaming consoles, etc.). That has to stop. We need to create the illusion - and make it real - that welfare recipients have a life barely above homelessness. Sardine can for a place, absolutely NO creature comforts, eating cold beans from a can. When you can have generally the same lifestyle as someone who works 40 hours a week without doing a thing, you'd be a fool to trade that in.

Air conditioning..seriously? Should be just pitch some tents for them or what? I agree on the gaming consoles, but people need computers and telephones these days to continue an education or get and keep a job.

As much as the right and psuedo-libertarians despise the poor and welfare, they never attack corporate welfare with the same amount of vigor.

It is almost an axiom.

I am a very libertarian in nature, but this is the main reason why I like to distance myself from them. They are completely silent on corporate welfare and how it creates a plutocracy while going after personal welfare which is such a small amount of the budget. It is ****ing absurd.

I've noticed this. It's the consistent ranting and raving over welfare for the poor, but the blatant oversight of corporate welfare that gets me. It's almost an elitist attitude that some people deserve government aid while others do not.


This is a hugely important point that you've made. There are basically two reasons that people are in poverty. Circumstances and nature. If someone is in poverty because the they're newly arrived in America and don't speak the language well, they wasted away their youth on drugs and now can't get back on the right track even though they have the desire to, then helping hand programs can repair the factors that are keeping them in poverty. Other people though are there because of who they are - they have poor impulse control, they have little future time orientation, they have poor decision making skills, they're not very smart, etc and even if you hold their hand and put them on the right track, as soon as you let go of their hand, they'll fall off the track and be back where they started.

What do you honestly think society should do with these people?

If they are useless, what is the point of helping them?
 
Re: Is it possible to create a welfare system that rewards people to be self-sufficie

What do you honestly think society should do with these people?

If they are useless, what is the point of helping them?

The point of helping them is that it keeps the liberal dream alive - give me enough money and resources and I can fix the problem. To many liberals, to acknowledge reality is to abandon hope. That shatters an entire world view.

These people are a drag on society. This is the same principle I invoke upthread with respect to the math. This class of people who can't be helped require a lot of social welfare. They are also a class with a very high birth rate. The Australians and the Canadians tried to fix a "problem" with their aboriginal communities by, basically, taking the place of the parents. Hoo-boy, that turned out to be a cluster**** of epic proportions. There are already ideas being mooted in liberal circles about launching more intensive social interventions for the children born into multigenerational poverty. First, I personally don't believe it will do enough good and the little good it will do will mostly erode away as the child grows older. The cost of doing this is admitting that this class of people don't know how to raise their own children and shouldn't be trusted to do so. The thing of it is though, as the Canadian and Australian experiments showed, the good liberals can't do much better.

The best of the worst solutions is already being tried. Here is a charity which I support quite generously, Project Prevention:



Project Prevention offers cash incentives to women and men addicted to drugs and/or alcohol to use long term or permanent birth control. Project Prevention is a National, 501 (C) 3 organization using your donations to stop a problem before it happens. We have paid addicts in 50 States and the District of Columbia.

Our mission is to continue to reach out to addicts offering referrals to drug treatment for those interested and to get them on birth control until they can care for the children they conceive. We are lowering the number of children added to foster care, preventing the addicts from the guilt and pain they feel each time they give birth only to have their child taken away, and preventing suffering of innocent children because even those fortunate enough to be born with no medical or emotional problems after placed in foster care face often a lifetime of longing to feel loved and wanted​


We have to create a powerful enough incentive for people NOT to have kids. Upper class women have that incentive - many of them choose career and "exciting lives" over motherhood. Society needs to create powerful incentives for men and women who are stuck in this class to not have children. Cash grants seem to work. On balance, they save money and lessen hardships in innocent people's lives as well as in the lives of the prospective parents.
 
Re: Is it possible to create a welfare system that rewards people to be self-sufficie

Air conditioning..seriously? Should be just pitch some tents for them or what?

I agree on the gaming consoles, but people need computers and telephones these days to continue an education or get and keep a job.


You should do what you feel is right but keep me out of it. If you feel they need air conditioning buy them an air condition. If you feel they need a phone or a computer buy them one of each. Take some responsibility for how you feel about others. If you feel they deserve a better life take your money that is in your pocket right now, go out, and buy them what you think they need. Then figure out a plan to get them whatever it might be. You have the power to do it. Try to believe in your abilities.


I've noticed this. It's the consistent ranting and raving over welfare for the poor, but the blatant oversight of corporate welfare that gets me. It's almost an elitist attitude that some people deserve government aid while others do not.

Start a thread on the topic if you want to hear me. Just know its more or less a copy and paste of what I said here just with a different context. However I find liberals support corporate welfare if its to their benefit. Take GM, take Green energy as examples of the hypocrisy. I however never support it, be it oil, be it building of power plants, be it bailouts, be it whatever it might be. I believe in capitalism, not government assistance of business for either their benefit or mine.


What do you honestly think society should do with these people?

Nothing.

If they are useless, what is the point of helping them?

That is a question you have to answer yourself when you decide to actually use you own power to do so.
 
Last edited:
Re: Is it possible to create a welfare system that rewards people to be self-sufficie

The point of helping them is that it keeps the liberal dream alive - give me enough money and resources and I can fix the problem. To many liberals, to acknowledge reality is to abandon hope. That shatters an entire world view.

These people are a drag on society. This is the same principle I invoke upthread with respect to the math. This class of people who can't be helped require a lot of social welfare. They are also a class with a very high birth rate. The Australians and the Canadians tried to fix a "problem" with their aboriginal communities by, basically, taking the place of the parents. Hoo-boy, that turned out to be a cluster**** of epic proportions. There are already ideas being mooted in liberal circles about launching more intensive social interventions for the children born into multigenerational poverty. First, I personally don't believe it will do enough good and the little good it will do will mostly erode away as the child grows older. The cost of doing this is admitting that this class of people don't know how to raise their own children and shouldn't be trusted to do so. The thing of it is though, as the Canadian and Australian experiments showed, the good liberals can't do much better.

The best of the worst solutions is already being tried. Here is a charity which I support quite generously, Project Prevention:



Project Prevention offers cash incentives to women and men addicted to drugs and/or alcohol to use long term or permanent birth control. Project Prevention is a National, 501 (C) 3 organization using your donations to stop a problem before it happens. We have paid addicts in 50 States and the District of Columbia.

Our mission is to continue to reach out to addicts offering referrals to drug treatment for those interested and to get them on birth control until they can care for the children they conceive. We are lowering the number of children added to foster care, preventing the addicts from the guilt and pain they feel each time they give birth only to have their child taken away, and preventing suffering of innocent children because even those fortunate enough to be born with no medical or emotional problems after placed in foster care face often a lifetime of longing to feel loved and wanted​


We have to create a powerful enough incentive for people NOT to have kids. Upper class women have that incentive - many of them choose career and "exciting lives" over motherhood. Society needs to create powerful incentives for men and women who are stuck in this class to not have children. Cash grants seem to work. On balance, they save money and lessen hardships in innocent people's lives as well as in the lives of the prospective parents.

That's a good plan. Ultimately children guarantee that people will stay in poverty, and they even make a borderline financial situation much worse. Children also interfere with plans for advancement. Overall, they are simply not cost effective for even those who are well off. The only purpose they serve is genetic immortality, and/or emotional fulfillment.

You should do what you feel is right but keep me out of it. If you feel they need air conditioning buy them an air condition. If you feel they need a phone or a computer buy them one of each. Take some responsibility for how you feel about others. If you feel they deserve a better life take your money that is in your pocket right now, go out, and buy them what you think they need. Then figure out a plan to get them whatever it might be. You have the power to do it. Try to believe in your abilities.

I guess I don't need to ask you what you think.



Start a thread on the topic if you want to hear me. Just know its more or less a copy and paste of what I said here just with a different context. However I find liberals support corporate welfare if its to their benefit. Take GM, take Green energy as examples of the hypocrisy. I however never support it, be it oil, be it building of power plants, be it bailouts, be it whatever it might be. I believe in capitalism, not government assistance of business for either their benefit or mine.

yeah, I get the idea. You are only concerned for your self. No need to start a thread to hear that self absorbed nonsense.




Maybe someday you'll need someone else's help, and that will be how they will respond to you. Unfortunately, i do not believe in karma.


That is a question you have to answer yourself when you decide to actually use you own power to do so.

When mankind can see beyond its own short sighted view of what is really important, perhaps these questions will no longer need to be asked.
 
Re: Is it possible to create a welfare system that rewards people to be self-sufficie

That's a good plan. Ultimately children guarantee that people will stay in poverty, and they even make a borderline financial situation much worse. Children also interfere with plans for advancement.

Yes, this I agree with. The data very clearly supports this position.

Overall, they are simply not cost effective for even those who are well off. The only purpose they serve is genetic immortality, and/or emotional fulfillment.

This I disagree with. When we start talking about solidly middle class and up, children tend to be beneficial to society, though they are still a money-pit for parents. We get this split because liberals have instituted policies which socialize the gains that children produce away from parents and directed them towards society and they've privatized the costs, though they are working their damnedest to socialize the costs as well. If we could re-engineer the social contract then we could work to insure that the costs that parents incur in raising their children are returned to them by the gains that the children produce later in life. Too many of those gains go towards society and not enough go back towards the parents. This creates a huge disincentive for parents to have children.
 
Re: Is it possible to create a welfare system that rewards people to be self-sufficie

I guess I don't need to ask you what you think.

Have some confidence in yourself.


yeah, I get the idea. You are only concerned for your self. No need to start a thread to hear that self absorbed nonsense.

Not really. I am concerned about many people. What I told you to do is what I do about it.

Maybe someday you'll need someone else's help, and that will be how they will respond to you. Unfortunately, i do not believe in karma.

If they are unwilling that is fine. I would never hold that against them.

When mankind can see beyond its own short sighted view of what is really important, perhaps these questions will no longer need to be asked.

When people stop trying to solve problems with the property of the unwilling and truly embrace the giving of the willing we will truly grow as a people.
 
Re: Is it possible to create a welfare system that rewards people to be self-sufficie

Have some confidence in yourself.

Not really. I am concerned about many people. What I told you to do is what I do about it.

If they are unwilling that is fine. I would never hold that against them.

When people stop trying to solve problems with the property of the unwilling and truly embrace the giving of the willing we will truly grow as a people.

It's not that the liberal mindset is incapable of seeing your point, or even agreeing with it. I think that we all would prefer that eventually that becomes the way of it. I am of the opinion that we simply disagree about how to get there. One view (yours, or rather, that of the right, I believe) is that when things have gotten as bad as they can reasonably get then maybe people will wake up and start living up to their responsibilities because they will realize they have no other choice.

The liberal viewpoint is that things have already gotten as bad as they can reasonably get, and we already don't have a choice. But there are a great many people who don't have the freedom to live up to their responsibilities yet, and liberals would very much like them to be able to do that. Yes, of course there are examples of some who do climb out of the great pit of poverty and find a "respectable" place in this society. But there are more who might have a lot to offer the world, if there were not so many barriers in place designed to keep them where they are. Liberals would like to remove those barriers and allow everyone to have a freedom to move along the socio-economic scale that is only limited by their potential and their ambition to reach that potential and the ethical integrity to do so without stepping on others on the way up. Right now, that's not possible. We could make it possible, but that would require the folks at the other end of the scale to do the right thing, wake up and live up to their responsibilities first. The programs everyone on the right keeps shouting about don't need to exist forever, and I don't think anyone wants that. But, like other wars our nation has had to fight, this war against corruption and selfishness (on both sides.. no group is completely innocent or guilty here) may require another good surge from the wealthy in order to make it right.

It's really all about timing. Historically speaking, there is a cycle of growth and decay and violent change that marks the evolution of society, and when the weight of poverty exceeds societies tensile strength, the bonds of the social contract snap, and there is a terrible price to pay before things get set right again. For the first time we are reaching that point with our eyes open and awareness of our own evolutionary process. Liberals believe that accepting responsibility means acting to address the imbalance before society snaps. To repeat that part of the cycle when we have the power to prevent it is just wrong. Otherwise we are giving tacit permission for this ancient vendetta between the poor and the wealthy to continue.

Earlier in this thread, I made the argument that we need to look beyond our own lives and invest in the future to make a better place for our descendants. The one voice from the right which answered that argument ridiculed it as a "Liberal guilt trip." So now I have to ask, what is the prosperity of our grandchildren worth? What does a person get for selling their great-grand kids into a world where the American Dream no longer exists? Is the knowledge that you never compromised your ideals even so much as to consider a better alternative really worth their futures? If this is a guilt trip, that I must lay on you, then I might as well give it some weight.
 
Last edited:
Re: Is it possible to create a welfare system that rewards people to be self-sufficie

Have some confidence in yourself.




Not really. I am concerned about many people. What I told you to do is what I do about it.



If they are unwilling that is fine. I would never hold that against them.



When people stop trying to solve problems with the property of the unwilling and truly embrace the giving of the willing we will truly grow as a people.

And what do you do about poverty?
 
Back
Top Bottom