• 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!

Should we end welfare?

Should we get rid of welfare?

  • Yes. Nothing wrong with soup kitchens

    Votes: 19 44.2%
  • No. Freebies are great

    Votes: 24 55.8%

  • Total voters
    43
Uhmmmmm....let's see now. Medical professionals per visit can cost anywhere from about 150.00 to 550.00 depending on what kind of medical provider. So how will this work? Who's paying for these medical screening requirements? What are they to look for? Can they assess a person without doing any diagnostic tests?

And given the number of medical professionals per the number of those who would be seen by medical professionals...how many years will pass before all of those folks will be screened?

But given that those who receive any money because of medical reasons - well, eligibility is already based on medical professional diagnosis and treatment plans.

I'm still wondering about what population your talking about. Any random person is receives anything from the government? Or for specific medical reasons via SSI? Who are you talking about?
Ah, deflection and a rant. You know exactly what I am talking about. Anyone that does not or says that they cannont work based on a medical condition.
And there are millions of them. I know a few.
Well enough to go boating, riding ATVs, hunting, jeeping etc etc etc. Yet, backs and such are too screwed up to hold any meaningful job.
 
If it means keeping people and businesses honest and unable to receive free handouts at the expense of everyone then sure.

It'd be scary if GM went under but the market does indeed (and I know this will sound cliche) have built in mechanisms in order to ensure that what goes down must come up. No one should be entitled to economic handouts. Ever.

So you are fine with most of the country losing their health insurance, wow.
 
We have a cultural problem in America, particularly inner city, with people living on public money and not being productive members of society.

Part of the problem is that underclass inner city women begin having babies at age 15. They continue to have babies, with different men, until they have had five or six. These women do not go to school. They do not work. They are not ashamed to live on public money. They plan their entire lives around the expectation that they will always get free money and never have to work.

The inner city men who are part of the problem also do not work. They get social security disability payments for a mental defect or for a vague and invisible physical ailment. They do not pay for anything: not for housing (Grandma lives on welfare and he lives with her), not for food (Grandma and the baby-momma share with him), and not for child support.

I once asked a 19 year old with no job and no schooling from the inner city, "What do you do all day?”

“You know, just chill.” These men live in a culture with no expectations, no demands, and no shame.

Should we change that? Should we get rid of the handouts and end welfare?

Nothing wrong with the old soup kitchen. I don't believe in letting people starve, but let's get rid of food stamps, welfare payments, and other bs government giveaways.

Let's make these people learn personal responsibility



There are people such as you describe, but they are not the majority of those receiving some sort of gov't aid.

You'd be harming a lot of good folk with the bad.


We need reform and efficiency, but not to throw out he baby with the bath water.
 
you make valid points

but....when "we" suggest those kids be allowed to go to charter schools to get out from under that issue....that idea is shot down faster than the ending of welfare

so we have a never ending cycle.....and it is NOT betting better, no matter how much money is thrown at it

so....give me solutions.....real, valid solutions

i am listening

Charter schools don't make things better. We've tried that.
 
If lots of net taxpayers were to move, NY would have to be less generous to the public teat suckers

NYC is a global port and destination with many viable industries (arts, TV, movie, cuisine, universities, etc) and attractions found no where else in the world. It generates plenty of taxes, domestic and international. The number of rich that live there, $$-wise, probably come close to the $$ of the poor.
 
The single most important thing to do continuously is to strive for the re-building of human dignity .. Most poor have this not , IMO ..
I note that we have misanthropes here (haters of their fellow man) .. at least , that is the impression I receive from the Turtle and others ..
These people can emote a lot but contribute nothing of value .
Love is necessary .

Very nice.

But kindness without consideration kills. You can love your kids all day long but if you dont discipline them and constructively guide their development....they only end up harming themselves or others, or both.
 
There are ways to structure social safety nets that mitigate or minimize the damage that you are describing. Get rid of welfare? No, but reform it, sharply, to at least stop punishing good decisions and rewarding bad ones.

/thread
 
YES, it is ... I think this exposes the hate, the misanthropes ..
The liberals, the progressives must take charge here and come up with solutions ...

Throwing money at things is not always...usually not IMO...a solution.
 
There are ways to structure social safety nets that mitigate or minimize the damage that you are describing. Get rid of welfare? No, but reform it, sharply, to at least stop punishing good decisions and rewarding bad ones.
Sounds wonderful. And I completely agree. How do we do that?
 
Ah, deflection and a rant. You know exactly what I am talking about. Anyone that does not or says that they cannont work based on a medical condition.
And there are millions of them. I know a few.
Well enough to go boating, riding ATVs, hunting, jeeping etc etc etc. Yet, backs and such are too screwed up to hold any meaningful job.

I wasn't deflecting or ranting. A million of them...you want medically diagnosed so government can decide to pay or not. How do you think claims are made...without any medical diagnosis?
 
It is a cheaper way of constructing a net to catch people before they drop out of society. It needs no bureaucracy and is too small to let people stay on dole.
I see this idea touted-around a lot lately, and it is interesting with a fair amount of merit, but it still becomes a form of means-tested benefit IMO, and I have problems with any form of means testing as a way to segregate sub-groups of fellow Americans.

I agree with all your saying, except my vote would be a pure GMI (Guaranteed Minimum Income). Just like a single-payer health system, everyone receives equal benefit.

(I would keep the benefit very low)
 
radcen's Plan:

- Execute all criminal prisoners.

- Fill prisons with "teat suckers".

- Make "teat suckers" earn their own way in prison.

- Once "teat suckers" are no longer productive, execute them, too.

Wow. Sounds like a conservative/libertarian paradise. :2usflag:
 
Treat those on welfare like students. Give them money to better themselves but tack it to a high interest rate and make them pay it back when they are done with welfare/time allowed on it.

If it's good enough for broke students trying to advance themselves it should be good enough for those not in school and would ensure when they get out or run out of welfare time that they'll seek jobs to pay back their non-bankruptcy erasable debt that can dip into their tax returns and have severe legal consequences for being delinquent on.
 
Throwing money at things is not always...usually not IMO...a solution.

Only because they're not throwing money at me.
Exactly!

Throwing money at things is NEVER a good solution.

But throwing money at ME is a great solution, and is to be ENCOURAGED.

(and this is why allowing MONIED individuals & entities to use THEIR money to TELL Congress Critters how to throw OUR money around is a VERY BAD idea!)
 
Treat those on welfare like students. Give them money to better themselves but tack it to a high interest rate and make them pay it back when they are done with welfare/time allowed on it.

If it's good enough for broke students trying to advance themselves it should be good enough for those not in school and would ensure when they get out or run out of welfare time that they'll seek jobs to pay back their non-bankruptcy erasable debt that can dip into their tax returns and have severe legal consequences for being delinquent on.

But re: interest....how do you get $$ from a stone? If they never earn, they never pay back.
 
I see this idea touted-around a lot lately, and it is interesting with a fair amount of merit, but it still becomes a form of means-tested benefit IMO, and I have problems with any form of means testing as a way to segregate sub-groups of fellow Americans.

I agree with all your saying, except my vote would be a pure GMI (Guaranteed Minimum Income). Just like a single-payer health system, everyone receives equal benefit.

(I would keep the benefit very low)

No. No means testing.
 
I wasn't deflecting or ranting. A million of them...you want medically diagnosed so government can decide to pay or not. How do you think claims are made...without any medical diagnosis?

Lots of doctors sign off on all kinds of crap that people take to the SSI office.
 
I see this idea touted-around a lot lately, and it is interesting with a fair amount of merit, but it still becomes a form of means-tested benefit IMO, and I have problems with any form of means testing as a way to segregate sub-groups of fellow Americans.

I agree with all your saying, except my vote would be a pure GMI (Guaranteed Minimum Income). Just like a single-payer health system, everyone receives equal benefit.

(I would keep the benefit very low)

If people can 'live' on that and continue to have kids and get that expanded to cover the kids...where is there any incentive to work?

All some people require is a couch, a TV, the Internet (pretty cheap), and food. Medical is already taken care of. :-\
 
Lots of doctors sign off on all kinds of crap that people take to the SSI office.

So then how does your 'solution' fix that if that's what you suggested? Do they need multiple opinions/doctor sign off then?

That sounds even more expensive. And I'm not aware that the majority of welfare recipients use medical excuses....is that true? Is it a highly significant number, even if not a majority? What can you offer as substantiation?
 
So then how does your 'solution' fix that if that's what you suggested? Do they need multiple opinions/doctor sign off then?

That sounds even more expensive. And I'm not aware that the majority of welfare recipients use medical excuses....is that true? Is it a highly significant number, even if not a majority? What can you offer as substantiation?
To fix things, sometimes you have spend a great deal of cash to eventually get a savings. That's just how many things are.
But doing nothing is just making us broke.
 
No. No means testing.
Well, your tax system is not 'true' means testing, but it is 'income' testing, and will still have many of the same detrimental effects.

Tying benefits to income has all kinds of negative effects - scamming, disincentive, underground economies, etc. If a benefit is universal (like a single-payer healthcare system or guaranteed basic income), everyone has incentive to work harder to add above & beyond their base benefit, since work & higher income will not decrease the benefit.

With the systems I'm describing, there's no incentive to lay-back or work for cash.

The current social systems are rife with individuals who will stop their traceable income at specific amounts due to income testing - those are negative-enforcement systems, and I believe they should be avoided. Obamacare included.
 
To fix things, sometimes you have spend a great deal of cash to eventually get a savings. That's just how many things are.
But doing nothing is just making us broke.

I dont disagree with this. As a matter of fact, it is similar to what I would recommend, but no one on either side ever likes it:

--Require higher education/degrees for social workers...those that assess eligibility (or whoever it is). Pay them what their job is worth...a lot.
--Require very frequent and random home visits (now by motivated and qualified professionals).
--Create individual budgets for families and during home visits, review these and nail down where all the $$ goes. This is mostly to be helpful in teaching people to manage $ but also to keep track of abuses.
--This will also make sure that 'the children!!!!' are being properly fed and housed instead of having them used as emotional leverage. It's not perfect but will help.
--Restrict food stamps to ONLY necessities...but as much as they need. No candy, snacks, smokes, etc. THey can pay for those things with their own cash. No one is preventing them from 'buying' them. (Some ridiculous stuff is still allowed, I see it at the market)
--Require job training and job searches as criteria for checks and make sure this is covered under the more frequent oversite.
--Require they must take a job they are qualified for and if they want to do something different, then they have to sign off on the welfare.
--Provide free daycare. This can be provided by others that have applied for welfare.

And yes it would cost a fortune but the intent would be to stop the institutionalized abuse and then be able to regulated in the future more cheaply and practically, since there would be fewer dependents and less need. Break the cycle.
 
Last edited:
Well, your tax system is not 'true' means testing, but it is 'income' testing, and will still have many of the same detrimental effects.

Tying benefits to income has all kinds of negative effects - scamming, disincentive, underground economies, etc. If a benefit is universal (like a single-payer healthcare system or guaranteed basic income), everyone has incentive to work harder to add above & beyond their base benefit, since work & higher income will not decrease the benefit.

With the systems I'm describing, there's no incentive to lay-back or work for cash.

The current social systems are rife with individuals who will stop their traceable income at specific amounts due to income testing - those are negative-enforcement systems, and I believe they should be avoided. Obamacare included.

No. that is the nice thing about negative tax. Everyone gets the same and there is no need to test.
 
Back
Top Bottom