• 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!

Welfare

What do you think welfare should be?

  • Leave it as it is

    Votes: 3 8.1%

  • Make provisions to the current welfare system. Explain

    Votes: 24 64.9%

  • Abolish it completely.

    Votes: 6 16.2%

  • Other. Explain

    Votes: 4 10.8%
  • Total voters
    37
fatimasm.jpg

From September 17, 1787 to February 3, 1913, 126 years, most of U.S. history, it was unconstitutional for the federal government to tax "income."


There were "NO" safety-net socialistic programs.

Workers Compensation Insurance

Social Security

Medicare

Medicaid

Food Stamps

Child care for AFDC

Student Grants

School Lunches

Supplemental Security Income

Lower income housing asst.

Earned Income Tax Credit

Social Services (Title 20)

Pell Grants

General medical assistance

Foster Care

Head Start

Food supplements (Women, infants and children)

Training for disadvantaged youth and adults

Low-income energy assistance

Rural housing loans

Indian Health Services

Summer youth employment

Maternal and child health

JOBS and WIN

Job Corps

Child care block grant

School Breakfast

Nutrition Program for Elderly

Housing interest reduction

Child and adult care food program

Walter Williams:

"Government is necessary, but the only rights we can delegate to government are the ones we possess. For example, we all have a natural right to defend ourselves against predators. Since we possess that right, we can delegate authority to government to defend us. By contrast, we don’t have a natural right to take the property of one person to give to another; therefore, we cannot legitimately delegate such authority to government."

Our elected representatives "represent" us, not "rule." We "delegate" to them some of the authority that we "have." We can't steal someone's wealth and give it to others and we "can't" delegate that authority to government. Our current government is acting lawlessly.
 
When we go to the Department of Human Services, where 'welfare' is applied for and managed, we do not bring the person that is getting it with us except for the first time. When we went to the Social Security building we brought him for the first few times. We drove our nice new 2011 car w/ alloy rims, not his beat up 1996 old Ford w/ alloy rims. We see the others doing the same thing. We do see some that may be collecting assistance that have new subculture in style clothing, but most are doing what we are doing.
 
Gipper said:
Heard the story before, minnie. The story misses one word.

Random.

Give me a week in advance, and I'll pass the pee test too.
Click to expand...

My place of work had random pee tests. It was supposed to get rid of all those that were hurting our productivity, quality, etc. Many were delighted. Some of our engineers left and formed a new company on the other side of the freeway; you could see their building from our main entrance. We never got the results since nothing improved. Drug testing was canceled. This division eventually failed but the engineers that left serviced us well while we were in business. Several years later I checked on them and found them doing well and growing. So much for random drug testing.
 
cthomp said:
I come from an area that has a lot of people on welfare. My neighboring town is roughly 86%. I can honestly say that when I go through that town I am amazed. It is not rare to see expensive cars, rims, and hear the bumping of expensive stereo systems in cars. For the most part the people are dressed in expensive clothes and shoes. To pile it on it is common to see many people walking the streets in the middle of the day during the week. It frustrates me to see the welfare system abused. However, I am not completely against it. My question is what do you think the welfare system should be like?

I feel it should go something like this. I would like to see the people on welfare drug tested. Next I think there should be somewhat of a stepping system. People that receive welfare should have to do some community service. Maybe two three times a week to earn their check. Give them x amount of days to get a job. Any job, working at McDonalds if they have to. This way their welfare check can be reduced. The system should be organized to help people get off of their feet, not feel its ok to sit at home and just get a hand-out.
Click to expand...

TOTALLY AGAINST THIS. ... the drug testing...
Or, we should drug test everyone !
Community service ?
YES
work to receive welfare..
But, would you want a tattooed goon serving a "big mac" to your children...???
Reform/improvement is /or may be necessary in the welfare arena.....and how about those who administer this ???
 
earthworm said:
TOTALLY AGAINST THIS. ... the drug testing...
Or, we should drug test everyone !
Community service ?
YES
work to receive welfare..
But, would you want a tattooed goon serving a "big mac" to your children...???
Reform/improvement is /or may be necessary in the welfare arena.....and how about those who administer this ???
Click to expand...

Not sure where your going with the tattooed goon. Just because he is tattooed and appears to be a goon he shouldn't work at a McDonalds? If someone made mistakes in their life and don't appear great does not mean that they can't change for the better.
 
Henrin said:
How are no bid contracts welfare and how are they corrupt in nature?
Click to expand...
I think that they are a form of "welfare".
Unless you are a highly moral/ethical man, you should know the answer to corruption and no-bids.
 
Being a tattooed goon is one serious mistake, if one wants to mainstream in society.
If not, he can stay in the ghettoes; very few want "tattooed goons".
 
Gipper said:
Heard the story before, minnie. The story misses one word.

Random.

Give me a week in advance, and I'll pass the pee test too.
Click to expand...

I agree.Anyone with a small bottle and a friend who doesn't use illegal drugs can pass any urinalyses with advance notice.
 
jamesrage said:
I agree.Anyone with a small bottle and a friend who doesn't use illegal drugs can pass any urinalyses with advance notice.
Click to expand...
Yup. All that has to be done is to show up at the home of someone who is getting benefits and have them pee in a cup in front of a witness. No problem.
I had a close acquaintance taking illegal drugs, pills from India etc. He had been prescribed legal psychotropic drugs, but the diagnosis were incorrect several times as doctors made errors and the drugs didn't help. Finally the doctors got it right. What was 'funny' was that the illegal drugs he was taking from India were old versions of what he actually needed. He'll pass a drug test now since they are legally prescribed.
 
Considering our unemployment rate I find it quite funny when people carry on about welfare recipients getting/having jobs. My guess is, if there were plenty of good, fair-paying (doesn't have to be great pay!) jobs out there welfare would be a much smaller problem. Here they have two years and we provide education/training assistance. We also work out child care arrangements if needed.

Food stamps are a bigger issue and only a business solution will cure that ill. Good luck getting that to fly.

Government work programs are a good idea as long as they can actually work or you find something they can do.

Harry Guerrilla said:
Low income welfare should be modified to not reward single parent families.
Click to expand...
I can understand the single parent issue but, in reality, many homes are that way often with no one at fault. We could promote two same-sex singles, especially those with children, sharing accommodations. It might help with scheduling and child care as well as cutting down on housing.

Centinel said:
In my opinion, yes. It's wrong to steal, even if one uses the stolen money to help another person. The ends don't justify the means.
Click to expand...
We've been over this before. Your ideology allows for stealing but it's stealing for what YOU think is right/just/fair/required - so it's OK.
That self-righteous "stealing" crap is getting old, though. It's alright to call it "taxes" or "taxation".

Rosie1 said:
Low bid isn't the best bid. About 20 years ago our local county government had a new building constructed. There were rumors at the time about how the countractor cut corners. Well, go figure, now recently, the entire building had to be torn down, before it fell down. The city and county argued over who would cover reconstruction cost. Does this have anything to do with the subject of this thread? Yes, it does. Basically, you get what you pay for. If you want to operate on the pure profit policy, you have to contend with a slashed and burned country.
Click to expand...
That's a matter of proper review and inspection, not the bidding process/low bid system. We've been using the low-bid system here since before WWII and it works fine if implemented correctly.

jamesrage said:
I agree.Anyone with a small bottle and a friend who doesn't use illegal drugs can pass any urinalyses with advance notice.
Click to expand...
Sounds like someone with experience - that explains a lot.
 
Last edited:
I support guarding the program against fraud. If we want to reduce the need for it however, we will need to increase the opportunity to work, not just demand that those who are currently unable to find work magically find a job in the current labor market.
 
Helix said:
I support guarding the program against fraud. If we want to reduce the need for it however, we will need to increase the opportunity to work, not just demand that those who are currently unable to find work magically find a job in the current labor market.
Click to expand...
Guarding against abuse/fraud is a good idea until you start spending more money policing than you would have as a loss.
 
I prefer that people can work for a living, so I think we should increase minimum wage a few dollars an hour to make it a living wage for full-time work to reduce the welfare roles.
 
Catawba said:
I prefer that people can work for a living, so I think we should increase minimum wage a few dollars an hour to make it a living wage for full-time work to reduce the welfare roles.
Click to expand...

That would be very bad for small businesses, though, as they may not be able to pay out that money.

Perhaps a better solution would be to peg executive pay at what a business pays its lowest paid employee. That way small business owners will still be able to afford to pay employees while big businesses will have more capital to spend on either more employees or on equipment or services which will trickle down to those businesses.
 
samsmart said:
That would be very bad for small businesses, though, as they may not be able to pay out that money.
Click to expand...
That's always been the real hang-up. What would work for C-Corp won't work for Mom & Pop. Of course, we already have rules that only apply once a business reaches a given size, maybe that would work here as well?

samsmart said:
Perhaps a better solution would be to peg executive pay at what a business pays its lowest paid employee. That way small business owners will still be able to afford to pay employees while big businesses will have more capital to spend on either more employees or on equipment or services which will trickle down to those businesses.
Click to expand...
Nice ideal but it'll never work IRL. Exec pay is too spread out over various industries and what are you going to do about bonuses, including "signing bonuses"? How would you put a value on stock options due years up the line? Like I said, great idea but I don't think it's workable.


Ed:
I think it would be a good idea to tie minimum wage to the poverty level, though.
 
Last edited:
MoSurveyor said:
That's always been the real hang-up. What would work for C-Corp won't work for Mom & Pop. Of course, we already have rules that only apply once a business reaches a given size, maybe that would work here as well?

Nice ideal but it'll never work IRL. Exec pay is too spread out over various industries and what are you going to do about bonuses, including "signing bonuses"? How would you put a value on stock options due years up the line? Like I said, great idea but I don't think it's workable.


Ed:
I think it would be a good idea to tie minimum wage to the poverty level, though.
Click to expand...

Your bolded parts would provide a good compromise to enable people to work full time for a living!
 
I personally would like to see welfare limited to the lower classes, not to satisfy a moral obligation or to make things fair, but to allow the poor to contribute to the common good. I've been a bigger fan of wage subsidies.
 
Last edited:
I think the case should be as I think it was in Chile.

Unemployment was changed to an entirely private system. People built up an unemployment account and could draw upon it if they lost their jobs, however if they retired it would be added to their retirement account.

The only person you would steal from at that point would be yourself; this I feel is the fundamental flaw of the US welfare system. People benefit from other peoples labor.
 
John said:
I think the case should be as I think it was in Chile.

Unemployment was changed to an entirely private system. People built up an unemployment account and could draw upon it if they lost their jobs, however if they retired it would be added to their retirement account.

The only person you would steal from at that point would be yourself; this I feel is the fundamental flaw of the US welfare system. People benefit from other peoples labor.
Click to expand...

Why not just pay a living wage for full time work?
 
Catawba said:
Why not just pay a living wage for full time work?
Click to expand...

because as I have read and seen economically a "livable wage" is an illusion.

Our livable wage is based on prices and costs remaining fixed. Now if you could close the market (ie, eliminate all foreign goods & services) it would be a start in the right direction.

Next you would have to tell the federal and all other governments to never run up debt. Why because this increases the eventual taxes needed to pay for everything.

These two things would greatly change the effect of the minimum wage.

afterward, taxes would have to be reduced on the people. And I don't mean more on the rich and more refunds to the poor. it needs to be streamlined, yes it's great with the bottom 20% (or whatever) pays no taxes. But what about the refund mechanisms? they cost money to operate.

at this point is where I would plug "The Fair Tax Act" to simplify tax revenue collection.

Finally, the US government can never "issue" more money. This creates inflation which hurts the poor directly. If you notice the "poverty level" always rises. Why? inflation. However, this is because more money is being issued. This is theft and the worst part is it hurts those least able to stop it.

Will this completely fix the problem. I don't know, however it would greatly improve the situation.

Oh, final note. To improve the wages received by everyone, the elimination of all welfare would increase the value of money held by the poor. Again, it won't fix everything. But it will be easier to spot the problems remaining.
 
John said:
because as I have read and seen economically a "livable wage" is an illusion.

Our livable wage is based on prices and costs remaining fixed. Now if you could close the market (ie, eliminate all foreign goods & services) it would be a start in the right direction.

Next you would have to tell the federal and all other governments to never run up debt. Why because this increases the eventual taxes needed to pay for everything.

These two things would greatly change the effect of the minimum wage.

afterward, taxes would have to be reduced on the people. And I don't mean more on the rich and more refunds to the poor. it needs to be streamlined, yes it's great with the bottom 20% (or whatever) pays no taxes. But what about the refund mechanisms? they cost money to operate.

at this point is where I would plug "The Fair Tax Act" to simplify tax revenue collection.

Finally, the US government can never "issue" more money. This creates inflation which hurts the poor directly. If you notice the "poverty level" always rises. Why? inflation. However, this is because more money is being issued. This is theft and the worst part is it hurts those least able to stop it.

Will this completely fix the problem. I don't know, however it would greatly improve the situation.

Oh, final note. To improve the wages received by everyone, the elimination of all welfare would increase the value of money held by the poor. Again, it won't fix everything. But it will be easier to spot the problems remaining.
Click to expand...


Poppycock, our minimum wage in 1968 was close to a living wage for full time work and the planet didn't explode. It would only take an increase of a couple dollars an hour to the current minimum wage. We already have the minimum wage system set up.

Or, we can continue to subsidize employers inadequate pay for full time work with taxpayer supported welfare.

None of the candidates are proposing the so called "fair tax" because it is even more regressive than our present system has become.
 
Gipper said:
Welfare needs a drastic overhaul these days. The amount needs to be reduced, it needs to require full-time employment, recipients should be mandated to take random, frequent drug tests, and women need to be placed on some sort of birth control who receive funding. These are just tips of the iceberg.
Click to expand...

I'd add one favorite term from left; Regulation. Tougher, tighter regulation of who get welfare, how much for how long, and under what circumstances. Yes it's abused, but yes it's also needed at times.
 
I saw this floating around on facebook the other day and found it very interesting

417434_185576588216000_100002909812407_320618_1499972823_n.jpg
 
kerussll said:
I saw this floating around on facebook the other day and found it very interesting

View attachment 67124023
Click to expand...
I'm glad someone spent the money testing that stupid theory. Maybe we can finally put it out of it's misery?
But I'm also glad it wasn't my State that wasted the money. ;)
 
MoSurveyor said:
I'm glad someone spent the money testing that stupid theory. Maybe we can finally put it out of it's misery?
But I'm also glad it wasn't my State that wasted the money. ;)
Click to expand...

Yeah, I'm glad it wasn't my state either. I know it's shocking, but all poor people aren't drug-using mooches!
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom