• 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!

Which is more reprehensible?

Which is more reprehensible?

  • Total voters
    52
  • Poll closed .
TheDemSocialist said:
I wonder the amount of people that actually enjoy living off welfare.... Im guessing its a very slim amount.
But point being no matter what kind of gov assistance program, a slim amount are going to take advantage of that.
Click to expand...

I did not enjoy it. It is an awful style of life.
 
TheDemSocialist said:
Who is "we"? If you mean "we" with about probably a very very very small minority of Americans...
Click to expand...

Not sure what your trying to say, but if you really want, I will change my previous statement to:

Welfare as it exist in America today should not exist.

It is illogical to use limited resourses to maintain intentionally non-productive members of our society or to limit the negative affects of poor choices. Workfare, not welfare, is the only logical choice as it makes all participating in it to make positive contributions to society.
 
DVSentinel said:
Not sure what your trying to say, but if you really want, I will change my previous statement to:

Welfare as it exist in America today should not exist.

It is illogical to use limited resourses to maintain intentionally non-productive members of our society or to limit the negative affects of poor choices. Workfare, not welfare, is the only logical choice as it makes all participating in it to make positive contributions to society.
Click to expand...

Workfare? What jobs? Isnt everyone bitching and complaining about the job market? And what exactly is wrong with our welfare system? "Affects poor choices"? What "poor choices"? The "choice" of being impoverished?
 
TheLastIndependent said:
Obviously intentionally living on welfare. But tell me, what percentage of welfare recipients do you think intentionally live on it?
Click to expand...


Oh everyone thats not making a million a year strives to live on welfare...Ive been trying to get on it all my life...lol
 
grip said:
It's more reprehensible for someone making $1 million annually to complain about any poor slob living off welfare.
Click to expand...


There couldnt be a more perfect response to this silly stuff :)
 
TheDemSocialist said:
Workfare? What jobs? Isnt everyone bitching and complaining about the job market? And what exactly is wrong with our welfare system? "Affects poor choices"? What "poor choices"? The "choice" of being impoverished?
Click to expand...

Workfare is the requirement to perform work or sevices inorder to receive what in the US would be a welfare check. There are all kinds of jobs that need to be done everywhere that we do not have the tax monies to pay for, sometimes because we are paying welfare people to do nothing. Things like picking up trash along highways, mowing public places, then you create things like labor camps to do large projects that are needed and farms to supply the food they eat (limited to the needs of those in the workfare system, not to compete with private markets). These farms could even grow the cotton, gin it into thread and make the clothers needed by workfare people.

Poor choices, lots of them. Not getting the education you need to stay employable even though you had plenty of opportunities. Quiting school and not getting the education you need to become employable and ending up on welfare. Choosing to open your legs and getting knocked up at 13-14 thus limiting you education options that later affect your employment options. Choosing not to wear a seat belt and you eat a windshield and now society has to support you.

Each an every individual is in their current situation, unless born disabled (including mentally), because of the choices they have made in thier life. This country is in the shape it is in because of choices the people made politically in the past. We were once the Country of opportunity, there were few limits (discrimination falls under this) on what individuals could accomplish other than their own unwillingness to do for themselves, now we have beome a society where many are selfish, lazy and want socialistic methods to provide for them by stealing from those who do to give to those who won't.
 
Kandahar said:
They're not basically living off charity...at least not the government's. Very few poor people are doing that. Poor families/communities have lots of coping mechanisms that don't even occur to wealthier people. Relying on extended family, working under the table (at legal or illegal jobs), selling/pawning items (both legal and illegal), etc. There is a vibrant economy in poor communities, and although it's a totally alien way of life to many people, there are other sources of income besides the government. Very few people can live off of the meager anti-poverty allowance they get from the government.
Click to expand...


I don't agree. There are a large percentage on Welfare who have no assets and there's a good probability they'd be homeless without it. I've been very poor and am well aware of the alternative methods and addon's that assist in making ends meet. And IMO there's not that many that really add much. Many of the more illegal activities that make the most get you landed in jail. Decades ago poor people had less help and lived with less than in today's world but the cost of the basic necessities has also increased. To hear you put it those in poverty would do just as well without gov programs, though I sincerely doubt it.
 
ttwtt78640 said:
First by REQUIRING a highschool eduction, drug testing and public service to get ANY public assistance. If you have a pet that you can not (or will not) properly care for you are fined and the pet is removed to a shelter, usually placed for adoption. The idea that by simply having a child that you can not (or will not) care for somehow entitles you to gov't funding is INSANE social policy and has contributed to (if not outright caused) a HUGE increase in out of wedlock childbirth; current rates for out of wedlock child birth in the USA are 70% for blacks, 50% for hispanics and 30% for whites. It is no secret that the chances of these children dropping out of school and turning to a life of crime are MANY times greater with no daddy in the "familiy" yet we subsidize this destructive behavior regardless of it being PROVEN to be VERY bad for the children that we PRETEND to be "helping".
Click to expand...

No question that a lifestyle of continued reliance on welfare does exactly what you've described. Now, as for the solution:

REQUIRING a highschool eduction, drug testing and public service to get ANY public assistance.
Click to expand...

If Mom (who knows where or even who dad is) doesn't have a high school education, then she doesn't get public assistance. What happens next?

Drug testing: Mom smokes dope. What happens next?

Florida tried that, BTW, and discovered that fewer welfare recipients than a random sample of the general public were on drugs, but that's an aside.

Public service: Now, that might have some merit. Of course, there would have to be some provisions for child care.
But: Mom doesn't show up, or shows up drunk or stoned. What happens next?
 
lpast said:
Oh everyone thats not making a million a year strives to live on welfare...Ive been trying to get on it all my life...lol
Click to expand...

:lol: Oh yes, I try to make sure my entire family loses their jobs so that we can all wallow in the stench of poverty for the rest of our days!
 
"A poor girl wants to marry, And a rich girl wants to flirt.
A rich man goes to college,And a poor man goes to work.
A drunkard wants another drink of wine,And a politician wants a vote.
I don't want much of nothin' at all,But I will take another toke.

'Cos I ain't askin' nobody for nothin',If I can't get it on my own.
If you don't like the way I'm livin',
You just leave this long-haired country boy alone."

CDB- Longhaired Country Boy

Nuff said.
 
Dittohead not! said:
Force them to be responsible?

How?
Click to expand...

Chemically or surgically fix the parents so they cannot breed again. Make them entirely ineligible for welfare. Take the kid away forever and make them provide 25% of their income for the next 18 years for it's support.
 
TheDemSocialist said:
oayqz4.jpg
Click to expand...

That's why rational people are both pro-choice and pro-responsibility.
 
TheLastIndependent said:
I know quite a few welfare recipients that hide the fact that they work so that they can have enough money to pay for necessities. The problem with welfare is that it is taken away in whole and the people are not weened off. Welfare is not wealthy living
Click to expand...

And you've reported these people, of course.
 
Cephus said:
That's why rational people are both pro-choice and pro-responsibility.
Click to expand...

No, rational people are Pro-life and believe in adopting children out to responsible parents. All welfare recipients should have their children taken away and either raised by good parents or in properly managed group homes.

Placing welfare children in a group home run by Nuns and Marine DIs would be much better for the children and cheaper for society.
 
DVSentinel said:
No, rational people are Pro-life and believe in adopting children out to responsible parents.
Click to expand...

When you come up with enough qualified adoptive parents to handle the unwanted children we already have, be sure to let me know. They just don't exist.

All welfare recipients should have their children taken away and either raised by good parents or in properly managed group homes.
Click to expand...

I think that while on welfare, there needs to be a strict no-breeding clause. You will absolutely not make a penny more if you have any more kids while on welfare. I'm cool with all kids taken from welfare mothers if they have any more kids while on the public dole.

Placing welfare children in a group home run by Nuns and Marine DIs would be much better for the children and cheaper for society.
Click to expand...

The last thing we need is more mind poison being spread to the next generation.
 
DVSentinel said:
Not sure what your trying to say, but if you really want, I will change my previous statement to:

Welfare as it exist in America today should not exist.

It is illogical to use limited resourses to maintain intentionally non-productive members of our society or to limit the negative affects of poor choices. Workfare, not welfare, is the only logical choice as it makes all participating in it to make positive contributions to society.
Click to expand...

Thank you for supporting the claim that the Far Right firmly believes in karma.
 
ksu_aviator said:
To you, which is more reprehensible?
Click to expand...

Legally earning money is not reprehensible. The only one that is actually reprehensible is intentionally living off welfare. What I mean by intentionally I mean popping out more kids than you can afford to take care of on your own and not using any opportunity to get a better job, Not someone who has fallen on hard times has to use public assistance in order to get back on their feet.
 
Cephus said:
The last thing we need is more mind poison being spread to the next generation.
Click to expand...

How is that poisoning the minds of the next generation? It gives them a balance between compassion and discipline, also good physical fitness habits for life. Ok, replace the nuns with compassionate women who will give them the love they need (that way they won't be encouraged to be catholic). Besides, they would have chores to do, so they learn good work habits. Older children can do the cooking with guidence, everyone should learn to cook. From around the age of 11 on, they provide most of the needs the infants when not in class. After changing dirty diapers and trying to calm squalling babies, knowing that babies are created by having sex, I bet far fewer of them will be sneaking off to have a roll in the hay. The discipline they learn will help them in all things in life and help them not only be better educated and better citizens but will help them reach their potential.
 
DVSentinel said:
How is that poisoning the minds of the next generation? It gives them a balance between compassion and discipline, also good physical fitness habits for life. Ok, replace the nuns with compassionate women who will give them the love they need (that way they won't be encouraged to be catholic). Besides, they would have chores to do, so they learn good work habits. Older children can do the cooking with guidence, everyone should learn to cook. From around the age of 11 on, they provide most of the needs the infants when not in class. After changing dirty diapers and trying to calm squalling babies, knowing that babies are created by having sex, I bet far fewer of them will be sneaking off to have a roll in the hay. The discipline they learn will help them in all things in life and help them not only be better educated and better citizens but will help them reach their potential.
Click to expand...

Remove the religious component entirely and you might be a little closer. Yeah, I wouldn't mind seeing people required to take a class in high school, for instance, where they have to spend a significant amount of time around children, which would probably convince lots of them not to have any at that age.
 
DVSentinel said:
No, rational people are Pro-life and believe in adopting children out to responsible parents. All welfare recipients should have their children taken away and either raised by good parents or in properly managed group homes.
Click to expand...

What does being a "good parent" have to do with being on welfare? Are the two mutually exclusive? If your concern is for providing for the kids, then do you also support taking kids away from parents who are just poor but AREN'T on welfare? Wouldn't INCREASING the amount of government help that the kids get make more sense?

Placing welfare children in a group home run by Nuns and Marine DIs would be much better for the children and cheaper for society.
Click to expand...

I'm sure you wouldn't just make that up out of thin air, and must have some sociological or economic studies that confirm your theory. I await your evidence.
 
Cephus said:
I think that while on welfare, there needs to be a strict no-breeding clause. You will absolutely not make a penny more if you have any more kids while on welfare. I'm cool with all kids taken from welfare mothers if they have any more kids while on the public dole.
Click to expand...

Eugenics FTW!
 
Dittohead not! said:
No question that a lifestyle of continued reliance on welfare does exactly what you've described. Now, as for the solution:



If Mom (who knows where or even who dad is) doesn't have a high school education, then she doesn't get public assistance. What happens next?

Drug testing: Mom smokes dope. What happens next?

Florida tried that, BTW, and discovered that fewer welfare recipients than a random sample of the general public were on drugs, but that's an aside.

Public service: Now, that might have some merit. Of course, there would have to be some provisions for child care.
But: Mom doesn't show up, or shows up drunk or stoned. What happens next?
Click to expand...
The drug testing for welfare was a feel good thing, but like you said, are they really going to dump people on the street if they fail a piss test? A lot of them are in the situation they are in because of addiction. So then what? Do we put them through re-hab and then get the welfare? Its still going to cost the state money regardless if that is the case.
 
TheDemSocialist said:
I wonder the amount of people that actually enjoy living off welfare.... Im guessing its a very slim amount.
But point being no matter what kind of gov assistance program, a slim amount are going to take advantage of that.
Click to expand...
There are more than just a slim amount. And there are many who do not need it at all and are exploiting the system. I would say all in all I am sure most aren't living the life they dreamed about as kids. I also feel that it is a trap that people fall into. I would rather see the majority of our resources go to tragic circumstance victims. Flood, earthquake victims, tornado, hurricane. You hear about these people not getting assistance for weeks and sometimes months. But people go and get normal welfare and that starts up immediately. There is a lot wrong with the system here, and the priorities are quite far out of whack.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom