• 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: Keep, Reform or End?

Welfare: Keep, Reform or End?

  • Keep it!

    Votes: 15 23.4%

  • Keep it, but it needs SEVERE reform.

    Votes: 33 51.6%

  • End it

    Votes: 9 14.1%

  • Other

    Votes: 7 10.9%
  • Total voters
    64
I'm all for some kind of emergency assistance, but it's got to be temporary. God knows we all need some kind of help at one point in our lives. We were caught between insurances when my wife had our son. We would've been up a creek if it wasn't for Medicaid. That being said, my wife and I have both resolved to never be in that situation again.
 
You're not only happy to have your taxes used, your happy for other peoples money to go to your programs against their will. I'm totally for charity work, it's just that I believe that I should set an example of what should be done and hope others follow rather than forcing others to donate to such an utter failure as our federal governments War on Poverty (see Detroit).

And it's not one hundredth of a penny. Taking all forms of welfare (83 programs incl. food stamps, public housing, EIC, etc...), between state and federal, we spent over 1 trillion dollars in 2011.


Captain Adverse said:
LOL It took me a couple of re-reads to figure out what you were trying to say here.

I work and pay my taxes, happy to let some of them be used for social welfare programs. I give blood freely although I've never had to use any. I've volunteered at food lines, serving, cooking and donating food. Now you don't have to do that, you are under no obligation.

Hmmmm.. Can I presume like me that you pay taxes? Now I am sure that there are many things you don't like our government doing they use our taxes to pay for. I know there are some that I don't like.

I bet there are some things you DO support our government paying for though. How about looking at it this way. Instead of thinking of your one-onehundreth of a penny in taxes that might be used for social welfare programs just pretend I paid two-onehundreths because I support them and you paid two-onehundreths to programs you do support?

There you go! Now none of YOUR tax dollars went to a program you don't support. All better now?? LOL :)
Click to expand...
 
If you were spending more that you took in and were charged with the responsibility to not only
'live within your means' but actually pay down your 'debt' of course you'd lower taxes yesterday to get more revenue
but seriously folks other than quitting the job of 'Team America World Police' (you could save a bundle right there)
are you smarter than fifth grader? A moron could finger this one out.

2010 United States federal budget - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
 
JC Callender said:
You're not only happy to have your taxes used, your happy for other peoples money to go to your programs against their will.
Click to expand...

Not at all. Just think of it as if your Congressmen know how you vote so they send YOUR taxes where you like and MY taxes where I like. Voila! You haven't paid for any programs against your will!!!

Now, is it all better??? LOL :)
 
IMO I think it would be advantageous to allow states to keep more of the money they send Washington and allow them to use it to address welfare issues in each state. Every state is different and so are their needs. Instead of these federal mammoth welfare programs that result in lots of double dipping, waste and fraud, the state would be able to eliminate much of it and target their specific problems more efficiently.

I also think having more business friendly legislation that would promote the creation of jobs needs to be part of the picture for welfare reform to be successful.
 
Born Free said:
How many people has to turn to assistance is not the question, but how it is administered. Welfare needs serious reform, it should not be a permanent solution for the needy to live on, but one that encourages back to work incentives that a person would rather get off Welfare than stay on it. I think you are saying the same thing.
Click to expand...

You are correct. I am saying the same thing.
 
ttwtt78640 said:
That is because the "mean" red states would likely make the great loafing class leave to get their "deserved" benefits elsewhere in short order.
Click to expand...

The statistics I posted demonstrate quite well that such a "great loafing class" doesn't really exist.
 
Dooble said:
I'm all for some kind of emergency assistance, but it's got to be temporary.
Click to expand...

Temporary emergency assistance becomes permanent by turning into a sequence of emergencies. A new emergency emerges as soon as the temporary assistance ends.

Perhaps welfare SHOULD be permanent, and should come with a corresponding permanent loss of autonomy, thus dissuading most people from ever wanting any government help.
 
Navy Pride said:
If they are truly addicted then they should be helped with treatment........Not free money.
Click to expand...

I certainly agree with treatment -- especially as an alternative to prison. But it all costs money.
 
Yeah, all better...lol

Detroit, Model City for the War on Poverty:

detroit-rundown-houses.jpg


Captain Adverse said:
Not at all. Just think of it as if your Congressmen know how you vote so they send YOUR taxes where you like and MY taxes where I like. Voila! You haven't paid for any programs against your will!!!

Now, is it all better??? LOL :)
Click to expand...
 

Attachments

  • detroit_628x434.jpg
    detroit_628x434.jpg
    80.5 KB · Views: 108
Last edited:
Neomalthusian said:
Temporary emergency assistance becomes permanent by turning into a sequence of emergencies. A new emergency emerges as soon as the temporary assistance ends.

Perhaps welfare SHOULD be permanent, and should come with a corresponding permanent loss of autonomy, thus dissuading most people from ever wanting any government help.
Click to expand...

Let's put all the old people on medicare in detention camps -- meager rations and little else for the dependent classes.
 
Neomalthusian said:
Temporary emergency assistance becomes permanent by turning into a sequence of emergencies. A new emergency emerges as soon as the temporary assistance ends.

Perhaps welfare SHOULD be permanent, and should come with a corresponding permanent loss of autonomy, thus dissuading most people from ever wanting any government help.
Click to expand...
If you mean that a person loses autonomy while he's on government assistance, then I'm all for that.
 
JC Callender said:
Yeah, all better...lol

Detroit, Model City for the War on Poverty:

View attachment 67152643
Click to expand...

Soooo, this means what? A city dies because industry leaves and no business comes in to replace it. That's the fault of the citizens? Please explain how showing me poverty which supports a need for welfare programs somehow supports your position they would do better begging for charity.
 
Some level of aid ... is always going to be necessary for a percentage of society. That's the nature of our economy. And it's not about the moral failings of those rendered dependent, so shaming policies are simply not necessary.

If every American earned an engineering degree, then engineers would command minimum wage. In a competitive economy, scarcity of skill helps determine value. There will always be a scale of economic viability, and at least 49% of us will be on the lower end of it. While "pulling yourself up by your bootstraps" is good advice on the individual level, it's meaningless when creating policy for a society of 350 million people.
 
how would the democrats buy votes if you derailed the
welfare/unemployment/social_security/medicare/medicaid/obamacare gravy train?
 
OMG people---why don't we just send them all to jail....
 
GhostlyJoe said:
so shaming policies are simply not necessary.
Click to expand...
the shame is in the utter destruction of the middle class but that was the object of socialism all along so by that measure it is a screaming success.
 
AngryOldGuy said:
the shame is in the utter destruction of the middle class but that was the object of socialism all along so by that measure it is a screaming success.
Click to expand...
That's not the goal and Capitalism doesn't have a middle class. That we created.
 
TOL, you didn't build that!
2ugytmc.jpg
 
John Liberty said:
I say we severely reform it. I'm all for helping people out...when they NEED it.

Some issues with our current state of welfare:
-Welfare is way too easy to get. There are too many people that are far from needing welfare.

-Welfare pays too much. Welfare is supposed to be just enough to keep you alive, welfare is not supposed to be comfortable! If it's comfortable than where is the initiative to go out and work?

-Welfare lasts too long. Welfare should be there just enough to help you get back on your feet.

-The "Obamaphone" welfare program gets its own section. There are a lot of things wrong with people getting phones from welfare programs. If you can't figure out why, then you will never get it.
Click to expand...
Welfare is not easy to get. My sister is on welfare. She has to wait on hold for hours to sometimes get hung up on instead of reaching an operator. One tiny error in the paperwork, and failure to notify her of her error, cost her months of food stamps. And it isn't comfortable. My sister brings in about $250 in food stamps for 4 people. I guess if all they ate was rice it would be fine. And as far as it lasting too long, the second she reports her sons income, he started his new job a week ago, she will lose that $250 even though he only makes minimum wage and shouldn't be expected to pay his mothers bills.
 
Well, this is a model city for the War on Poverty. Whether or not the Democrats drove this city down the tubes shouldn't matter, the War on Poverty programs should have been there to help this city from sinking to such depths of helplessness. If it weren't for all of the government subsidies going to Detroit over the years, the citizens would have to do things for themselves, and I guarantee that there would be many more businesses and many more citizens working with much better kept up neighborhoods. The citizens would have much more respect for their city because they would be building it themselves.

And why did industry leave Detroit, there are tons of factories and machine shops in the suburbs?

If you answer, I'll have to reply tomorrow as I'm going to sleep now. Goodnight C.A., good talk. :)

Captain Adverse said:
Soooo, this means what? A city dies because industry leaves and no business comes in to replace it. That's the fault of the citizens? Please explain how showing me poverty which supports a need for welfare programs somehow supports your position they would do better begging for charity.
Click to expand...
 
JC Callender said:
There has never been or never will be full employment, but I would say 4.4% is pretty low, and we had that back in 2007. Michigan, a very automated state, had a 3.4% unemployment rate in early 2000.
Click to expand...

Automation and outsourcing increase every year. From 2000 to 2007 there were many construction jobs from the great housing farce of that era. When those jobs went away, it was hard to replace them. Even housing is becoming more kit-like, the progress in robots is pretty significant, they already help replace spies and what job do you get if you're a laid off spy? So, I doubt you'll ever see 3.8% again unless we have another national mental breakdown or are saved by a new pet rock.
 
Navy Pride said:
There has never been and ever be full employment. Get unemployment down to around 4%.
Click to expand...

I was asked to define full employment. I said that meant everybody had a job. Are you disagreeing?
 
GhostlyJoe said:
Let's put all the old people on medicare in detention camps -- meager rations and little else for the dependent classes.
Click to expand...

No I'd abolish Medicare altogether, but I enjoyed your appeal to ridicule.

Juanita said:
OMG people---why don't we just send them all to jail....
Click to expand...

Ghostly Joe's appeal to ridicule is more clever than this one.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom