• 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!

What is the primary purpose of social welfare policy?

What is the PRIMARY task of a social welfare system?

  • To socialize individual charity taking advantage of the superior efficiency of government

    Votes: 0 0.0%

  • Total voters
    21
Regardless of whether you think that said policy should be designed with some or all of these in mind - which one takes precedence. If given a choice between one thing and any other, which one wins?
None of them. And you made up a ridicules one. How about one like: To temporally support those that have become sick and lost their job.?
 
None of those.

The primary purpose of social welfare is to create a social floor by which no person may fall beneath that all people may have access to and that all people contribute to in the form of taxes when they are able. This social floor includes providing for children, as they cannot provide for themselves, for the mentally ill, as people who suffer mental illness suffer it by no fault of their own, for the physically disabled, who may still contribute to society after some initial support, and to the elderly, who get so old that they can no longer support themselves.

...that.... sort of sounds like option #1.... just swap out "social floor" with "poverty line".

And it is up to the government to provide this social floor as private charities may be too selective in who they determine are worthy support.

can you explain this?
 
None of them. And you made up a ridicules one. How about one like: To temporally support those that have become sick and lost their job.?

at 100% of their previous standard of living?
 
...that.... sort of sounds like option #1.... just swap out "social floor" with "poverty line".

That option doesn't fit in my beliefs, as I favor certain government services provided to all people no matter their income or wealth. For example, I want public transportation, education, and health care for all people provided for by government agencies - not just for those below the poverty line. Providing these services, I think, will create that "social floor" as people can benefit from these services no matter their wealth.

can you explain this?

Private charities may pick and choose who will benefit from their charity. So, for example, some charities run by fundamentalist churches may choose not to provide charity to homosexuals, for instance. I'd rather that social floor be granted to all people, which is why I prefer them to be run by government agencies that are not allowed to discriminate in such ways.
 
The primary purpose of social programs is to provide social stability. Bismark implemented one of the first social security systems because it proved the only effective tactic to removing the support base for marxists and anarchist. The poverty ridden lifestyle of a 19th century factory worker was bad enough that any kind of change seemed better. Having a minimum standard of living removed the desperation that makes revolution attractive and more importantly gave the common worker a reason to be invested in the status quo. Less radical but equally important, having less destitute people also limits crime.

There is a reason that every modern nation with a decent economy has some kind of social programs, they are an absolute requirement to a successful nation state.
 
I'd say 2 and 1. Welfare benefits a society. You guys ever been to places that don't have welfare systems for their citizens? You ever wanted to move to them? Who wants to move to Bangladesh and India? Nobody. With that said, I'd rather have them and have a few leaches here and there than not have it and live like the Congolese.
 
I dunno cpwill, used to be people served their country because they believed in it not because they wanted a bunch of benefits. Maybe you could make a silly poll for that? For example, most people I know that serve in the military do so because they're to stupid to compete in a real marketplace.

I think the system is abused but is also used legitimitley like sb stated as well as by older folks and people with children.
 
None of the above. The purpose is described in the name itself: welfare. However, it's not just the welfare of the person receiving the assistance. It's the welfare of us all. For example, when you have a child growing up in such extreme poverty that he doesn't have enough to eat, he doesn't develop. He doesn't grow properly. His brain doesn't develop. His psychologically stunted. His intelligence doesn't develop. He doesn't develop his full potential to contribute as a human being. This is in no one's best interests. Certainly not his, but not in yours or mine either. Give him the proper nutrition that he needs; give him the medical care he needs and the education and maybe he'll grow up and be a fire fighter or a doctor or a mechanic or a janitor or an athlete or even just a street sweeper. In short, he becomes useful in some way. That's far better than growing up stunted, desperate, and homeless, living in a box somewhere and begging for food. With welfare helping him with the basics when he started out as a kid, at least he had a fighting chance. Welfare is an equalizer. It's the concept of the common good.

Some would have us throw away the common good safety net, preferring the pseudo-darwinian notion of humans being ruthless with one another and just letting one another die. That's not how we survived as a species. It's not how we thrived. We did well be cooperating well with one another, emphasizing one another's best talents, being responsible for one another, not stabbing one another in the back. Creating a quality safety net is one of the ways we do that. That's the purpose of welfare.
 
No, I think that is different.

"Making sure people don't fall into poverty" sure seems like it would fall under "ensuring that no one lives in poverty".

I dunno cpwill, used to be people served their country because they believed in it not because they wanted a bunch of benefits. Maybe you could make a silly poll for that?

:) We have had that poll. I voted to cut our pension by making it a 401(k) style match, and I called for not giving E-5's and above an annual pay raise last year. In addition I have argued on multiple occasions that we should look into the potential savings of switching to a competitive HSA style system vice TRICARE.

For example, most people I know that serve in the military do so because they're to stupid to compete in a real marketplace.

Really? How fascinating. And what branch did you serve in?
 
That option doesn't fit in my beliefs, as I favor certain government services provided to all people no matter their income or wealth. For example, I want public transportation, education, and health care for all people provided for by government agencies - not just for those below the poverty line. Providing these services, I think, will create that "social floor" as people can benefit from these services no matter their wealth.

Ah. So it's a mixture of #1 and #4, wherein you utilize the superior efficiency of government in order to provide all citizens with superior access to goods and services.

Private charities may pick and choose who will benefit from their charity. So, for example, some charities run by fundamentalist churches may choose not to provide charity to homosexuals, for instance. I'd rather that social floor be granted to all people, which is why I prefer them to be run by government agencies that are not allowed to discriminate in such ways.

So there is no notion of ever "cutting people off" with you? Someone can take a free ride their whole life long on the backs of others? That's the strength that private charity brings - it is better able to know when it is hampering someone by enabling their destructive lifestyles.
 
So there is no notion of ever "cutting people off" with you? Someone can take a free ride their whole life long on the backs of others? That's the strength that private charity brings - it is better able to know when it is hampering someone by enabling their destructive lifestyles.

Well, for one, you can't guarantee that charities can decide to what level their efforts enable any destructive lifestyles. Actually, most charities limit their benefits based not on any destructive behaviors people engage in but rather their own limited resources.

And the downside to private charities is that they are entirely voluntary efforts but needs for a social floor is constant. As in private charities flourish only so as long as the people who decide to donate to them prosper. So during bad economic times, those charities will suffer just in times when the need for a social floor is greatest.

There will always be children. There will always be the mentally ill. There will always be the physically disabled. There will always be the elderly. And they need to be taken care, though no fault of their own. And a constant government system of welfare can help provide that.

And I think you put too much credit in "free riders." Even in a society with a social floor, I think people will be more than willing to work if they do so in a position in which they are treated with respect and can get the rest they need to deal with stress and mental and emotional wear.

That is I think that asshole bosses are much bigger deterrents to people wanting to get and keep jobs than a social welfare floor is.
 
None of those.

The primary purpose of social welfare is to create a social floor by which no person may fall beneath that all people may have access to and that all people contribute to in the form of taxes when they are able. This social floor includes providing for children, as they cannot provide for themselves, for the mentally ill, as people who suffer mental illness suffer it by no fault of their own, for the physically disabled, who may still contribute to society after some initial support, and to the elderly, who get so old that they can no longer support themselves.

And it is up to the government to provide this social floor as private charities may be too selective in who they determine are worthy support.

Well said Sam, I didnt vote because none of the choice applied to how I view it either.
Govt has to recognize that only a few will ever be successful and rich, most should be self sufficient and reasonably comfortable and a smaller percentage should need help from time to time...theres absolutely nothing wrong with govt providing that helping hand...because turtledude Cpwill the teaparty and our corporations ARE NEVER going to do it...
The haves used to be content with having alot more than everyone else, they took theirs and some of what was left around to their workers and that kept the middleclass strong and kept most americans working and able to sustain themselves and add to the tax rolls...when the culture of total greed kicked in and the haves decided they were entitled to it ALL they created a much larger group of unproductive non tax paying poor and a much smaller tax paying middleclass....they caused this by outsourcing as many middleclass incomes as they could for an extra buck, taking pensions and benefits and sticking it in their pockets.....they have no one to blame but themselves.
Govt has to be the watchdog imperfect as it is...the private sector will do nothing for anyone that doesnt make lots of money for them or doesnt have anything they can take from them anymore.
 
Well, for one, you can't guarantee that charities can decide to what level their efforts enable any destructive lifestyles. Actually, most charities limit their benefits based not on any destructive behaviors people engage in but rather their own limited resources.

And the downside to private charities is that they are entirely voluntary efforts but needs for a social floor is constant. As in private charities flourish only so as long as the people who decide to donate to them prosper. So during bad economic times, those charities will suffer just in times when the need for a social floor is greatest.

There will always be children. There will always be the mentally ill. There will always be the physically disabled. There will always be the elderly. And they need to be taken care, though no fault of their own. And a constant government system of welfare can help provide that.

yes, but I think you are mixing social welfare with merely the social provision of goods. public transportation doesn't fall under "welfare".

And I think you put too much credit in "free riders." Even in a society with a social floor, I think people will be more than willing to work if they do so in a position in which they are treated with respect and can get the rest they need to deal with stress and mental and emotional wear.

That is I think that asshole bosses are much bigger deterrents to people wanting to get and keep jobs than a social welfare floor is.

Really?

welfare-trap.jpg


Why would someone work harder or longer if it meant a lower standard of living?

I would strongly recommend to you Charles Murray's description of Fishtown if you honestly think that industriousness has not decreased in our populaces that face these kinds of disincentives.
 
Well said Sam, I didnt vote because none of the choice applied to how I view it either.
Govt has to recognize that only a few will ever be successful and rich, most should be self sufficient and reasonably comfortable and a smaller percentage should need help from time to time...theres absolutely nothing wrong with govt providing that helping hand...because turtledude Cpwill the teaparty and our corporations ARE NEVER going to do it...

Actually it's liberals who give less to charity :) In fact, people who reject the idea that "government has a responsibility to reduce income inequality" give an average of FOUR TIMES more than people who accept that proposition.

The haves used to be content with having alot more than everyone else, they took theirs and some of what was left around to their workers and that kept the middleclass strong and kept most americans working and able to sustain themselves and add to the tax rolls...when the culture of total greed kicked in and the haves decided they were entitled to it ALL they created a much larger group of unproductive non tax paying poor and a much smaller tax paying middleclass....they caused this by outsourcing as many middleclass incomes as they could for an extra buck, taking pensions and benefits and sticking it in their pockets.....they have no one to blame but themselves.

interesting. so the middle class is a bunch of helpless victims, unable to take care of themselves? we require the wealthy to take care of us?
 
To ensure that those who are genuinely incapable of tending to their own needs and necessities are not simply cast aside in the name of profitability and inconvenience, alongside promoting income mobility through supplementary aid. Those who deride programs such as food stamps and unemployment benefits often do not consider the negative consequences that would coincide with a large chunk of society being forced to dip into the meager savings they may have accumulated in order to purchase necessities and daily needs.
 
Actually it's liberals who give less to charity :) In fact, people who reject the idea that "government has a responsibility to reduce income inequality" give an average of FOUR TIMES more than people who accept that proposition.

Will the only reason the rich routinely give to charity is their accts tell them to for a tax benefit...yes there are some that are geniunely kind and give out of the goodness of their heart and then take the tax break.


interesting. so the middle class is a bunch of helpless victims, unable to take care of themselves? we require the wealthy to take care of us?


Charities cannot and would not successfully do near what the govt does and know what...I KNOW YOU KNOW THAT...its just a teaparty talking point

Yes the middleclass are victims of the rich corporations who have devestated their jobs and their quality of life and their little security OUT OF GREED
they are victims of vicious assaults on their pensions and benefits that give them comfort and the greedy outsourcing of every decent job they can..

You got it all down Cpwill your just blame the wrong victims like the teaparty directs their flock to do...:)
 
The primary purpose of social programs is to provide social stability. Bismark implemented one of the first social security systems because it proved the only effective tactic to removing the support base for marxists and anarchist. The poverty ridden lifestyle of a 19th century factory worker was bad enough that any kind of change seemed better. Having a minimum standard of living removed the desperation that makes revolution attractive and more importantly gave the common worker a reason to be invested in the status quo. Less radical but equally important, having less destitute people also limits crime.

There is a reason that every modern nation with a decent economy has some kind of social programs, they are an absolute requirement to a successful nation state.

Essentially this. When people become too poor, they become desperate and willing to listen to any crazy idea that may have the side effect of making their life easier. Notice the rise of golden dawn in greece. It is important we keep a nation that is stable enough to not consume itself in a french style revolution.

If we have an underclass of people who have no hope for the future and no base standard of living, they have no reason to have emotional investment in the greater US society. It is that hope and idea that they the world is such that they are able to help themselves, even if they need government help to do so, or else it fosters a sense of anomie that is ultimately destructive.
 
Last edited:
"Making sure people don't fall into poverty" sure seems like it would fall under "ensuring that no one lives in poverty".

It's no one part. As well as the live part. Having a safety net that helps lessen that problem and allows a way to recover is not as incompassing as your selection. SB lays out what he means rather clearly.
 
I'd love to see a lot more responses - 13 is terrible !
Maybe this forum is America's elite, and not really indicative of how our nation is "thinking".
IMO, the intentions of those who created this "socialism " are honorable, BUT , in cases, the results are not !
Apparently, these results are in the 20% range, so we must work to lower this number...if humanly possible....
 
The primary purpose of social programs is to provide social stability. Bismark implemented one of the first social security systems because it proved the only effective tactic to removing the support base for marxists and anarchist. The poverty ridden lifestyle of a 19th century factory worker was bad enough that any kind of change seemed better. Having a minimum standard of living removed the desperation that makes revolution attractive and more importantly gave the common worker a reason to be invested in the status quo. Less radical but equally important, having less destitute people also limits crime.

There is a reason that every modern nation with a decent economy has some kind of social programs, they are an absolute requirement to a successful nation state.

This, while not being a poll choice, is the right answer. It quells revolution and keeps the well-to-do safe from the desperate.
 
The purpose of social programs is to make us all poor.
 
Back
Top Bottom