View Poll Results: Should the poor be given free money?

Voters
45. You may not vote on this poll
  • No, not at all

    17 37.78%
  • Yes, but only the poorest of the poor

    6 13.33%
  • Yes, everyone below the poverty line

    10 22.22%
  • Other

    12 26.67%
Page 6 of 6 FirstFirst ... 456
Results 51 to 54 of 54

Thread: Welfare for the Poor

  1. #51
    Banned
    Join Date
    Nov 2007
    Location
    Ventura California
    Last Seen
    11-15-11 @ 11:17 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Conservative
    Posts
    8,706

    Re: Welfare for the Poor

    Quote Originally Posted by phattonez View Post
    They should be given money only if I or other people choose to give it to them. I don't want other people deciding what I have to do with my money.
    This sums up my opinion on the matter. As we have seen for the last 6 decades, nothing concocted by the Government has led to an improvement in the status of the poor and has rather created a dependent class of citizens.

    But I believe that this is the exact strategy Democrats promote when they create such useless re-distribution plans; they are pandering to ignorant voters who think they can get something for nothing. Thus they are able to maintain majorities in many areas because people actually fall for the inane logic that we should not judge these Liberals for their results, but rather judge their failed policies because they care.

    Because I and many Conservatives REALLY care and therefore do not agree with the asinine idea of re-distributing the hard earned wealth through idiot Government programs, we are demagogued as heartless and uncaring in order to promote this “good” feeling legislation which after six decades and spending over $40 trillion has done NOTHING to improve the conditions for the poor.

  2. #52
    Clown Prince of Politics
    Psychoclown's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2006
    Location
    Hiding from the voices in my head.
    Last Seen
    12-14-17 @ 09:31 AM
    Gender
    Lean
    Libertarian - Right
    Posts
    1,738

    Re: Welfare for the Poor

    Others have expressed pretty much what I believe, but I'll chime in. I'm not opposed to long term welfare for folks who are legitimately disabled, impaired, or otherwise physically unable to work. Providing them with some basic aid is humane and noble.

    I also think it is good policy to provide assistance to people who fall through the cracks and need help to get back on their feet. I'd like to see aid for these people provided in several ways.

    1. Enough financial aid to provide for their needs and help get them in a financially stable situation so they don't easily relapse into needing welfare. This of course would expire after a set time.

    2. Education and/or job training and placement. Help them become employable and even assist them in finding a job. This could range from helping them learn a trade, get a degree, or just learn basic workplace ettiquete and expectations.

    3. Provide training in basic life skills. Teach them to balance a checkbook, figure out the true cost fo interest rates, and other basic personal finance skills that some folks are lacking. This would be on a as needed basis of course.

    I've heard some folks suggest being eligible for such programs only once in a lifetime, I wouldn't object to allowing multiple times with restrictions. No more than once every ten years, must be approved by a board or a case worker for second and third chances.

    Welfare for physically able bodied individuals should be in form of a temporary helping hand to get them on their feet again and give them the skills and knowledge needed to be employable. After that, its entirely up to them what they do with it. Long term dependency on welfare or other government programs by adults who could otherwise be working but for whatever reason do not should be eliminated.
    Slipping into madness is good for the sake of comparison - Unknown.

  3. #53
    Banned
    Join Date
    Jun 2008
    Location
    Canada
    Last Seen
    12-26-10 @ 06:57 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Independent
    Posts
    8,083

    Re: Welfare for the Poor

    I would rather know that some of my tax dollars are going towards helping some people get back on their feet, than know that the minuscule tax money I am saving is resulting in people who would otherwise be okay in the long term slipping through the cracks and ending up in dire straits. I care about my neighbourhood and community, and don't want to see an influx of people on the streets.

    Can you imagine if there was no welfare during a recession? That 10% unemployment rate in some places would turn into at least half that ending up not paying their rent, getting kicked out, turning to street crime and the underground to pick up the slack, etc.

    I understand the notion that free money is a sensitive issue, but not having welfare at all in a developed part of the world makes no sense. There are places with no weflare. They're called India, China, etc. In Nepal this summer I saw a dead body in the street... and children running up with no clothes to beg for money. When people have no agency, that's what happens to them. If you want that for your own country, then be my guest. I would fight my government to the teeth to make sure it supports its own people who need a little help. There is enough money to help members of our public in need, and in nations like ours where there is such gluttony and selfishness, I expect the matter to be forced. We can all afford it.

    Not everyone lives their life error free or with all the resources to do well continuously. Many fall unto hard times.
    Last edited by Orion; 09-29-09 at 08:25 PM.

  4. #54
    Banned
    Join Date
    Sep 2008
    Location
    Between Hollywood and Compton.
    Last Seen
    11-25-09 @ 12:02 AM
    Gender
    Lean
    Libertarian
    Posts
    5,497

    Re: Welfare for the Poor

    Quote Originally Posted by Truth Detector View Post
    Because I and many Conservatives REALLY care and therefore do not agree with the asinine idea of re-distributing the hard earned wealth through idiot Government programs, we are demagogued as heartless and uncaring in order to promote this “good” feeling legislation which after six decades and spending over $40 trillion has done NOTHING to improve the conditions for the poor.
    While I'm not a liberal, I'm aware of the fact that rightists lean more towards being economically misinformed than heartless and uncaring, inasmuch as they rely on inane platitudes rather than the empirical literature into the actual effects of welfare state policies, such as Mares's The Economic Consequences of the Welfare State:

    What are the economic and employment consequences of larger social insurance programmes? Are larger welfare states diverting resources from economic activity and distorting the investment decisions of firms? I examine theoretical and empirical research on the economic consequences of the welfare state. This review shows that the predictions of a negative relationship between higher levels of social protection and growth have not been borne out in the data. Both insurance programmes and other policies that increase investment in human capital or the overall productivity of workers generate important economic externalities that outweigh the potentially distortionary effects of higher taxes. Empirical studies also fail to uncover a consistent negative relationship between larger welfare states and the level of employment. The employment consequences of the welfare state are mediated by existing institutions and policies - such as the level of centralization of the wage bargaining system - which affect the redistribution of the costs of higher taxes among workers and firms. As a result, the employment consequences of larger welfare states are non-linear.
    When coupled with the evidence of social democratic states being uniquely enabled to reduce unemployment (a form of static inefficiency), and the similar reductions of underemployment and underpayment that they're likely able to achieve to a greater extent than more rightist capitalist countries, we're able to observe the role of the welfare state and related government intervention as integral facets of the well-functioning capitalist economy, which shows the comically fallacious nature of the claim that they represent an advance of "socialism."

Page 6 of 6 FirstFirst ... 456

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •