• 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!

Is wellfare today un-American?

Wellfare... Is it un-American


  • Total voters
    59
There is no way that welfare system can sustain the welfare needs of society, thus this point is kind of moot.

As long as welfare demonstrates an ability to help people rise above their circumstances, then it is a useful tool. You may only wish to focus on the abusers of the system but many people raising families rely on that government check in order to make ends meet so that their children can continue to focus on school instead of focusing on domestic duties.

My point is far from moot.

Each individual is responsible for their savings and spending, not you, not I and especially not the state.

We all live in a nation and a community, which means we have an obligation to help one another. I realize you didn't choose where you were born but you definitely have a choice over where you live and paying taxes. If you don't like it, you can move, or simply stop paying taxes and face the consequences. I'm sure there are plenty of pet projects you support through tax dollars that I wouldn't support. You just have to take the whole kitten and kabootle.

Well, I never said they would, I said it is wrong for you or the state to force me to give. The Salvation Army pulled in about 26 million alone in 2009 by contributions and that is just one charity group and people would not donate enough.

By that logic it is wrong to tax people at all, but taxation is necessary for the health of the nation. How many times does it have to be said?

26 million is nothing. The Salvation Army is a good organization I support them for their local initiatives, but they cannot carry the whole nation nor should they be expected to. That is the job of the government.

It's not a twist, if I gave to charity by myself well, that is my choice but, when you have government force my hand then it’s stealing. I also never claimed a state without welfare would be a utopia. There is a better way, and maybe one day you’ll see.

Why stop at social programs then? Why not just come out and say that it's wrong to tax people at all?

Why should your pet peeve get exempted from taxation and mine doesn't?

Learn to live with it because it's not going anywhere.

The state has already won; they got you believing you need them.

lol...
So you're a mind reader now too? Piss off.

Welfare is not only wrong but, it makes things worse.

What makes things worse are people who think in black and white terms, and think that all things either fall into column A or column B. As I said before, even fiscal conservatives know that welfare is necessary. But you're a libertarian, which, in fiscal terms, is even more ridiculous. The system can only go back to local levels of small taxation and spending if the current system collapses. Until then, it has just gotten too big and out of control. It is clear that both parties intend to spend the nation into the gutter.
 
If people on government assisted welfare were not allowed to vote, this would prevent most of the nonsense. Since they can, it creates an abusive situation where one set of politicians (the ones who do not represent the producers and creators of wealth) pander to and expand the welfare class

that is why the situation is so bad. People don't gain political power and the wealth that comes from it (look at the kennedys and the gores) by encouraging private charity. They gain political power by using the wealth of some to buy the votes of the many

George Bernard Shaw said it. I use a slightly altered versionin my signature line: "Governments who rob from Peter to pay Paul will always have support - from Paul." I believe the United States is on a dangerous precipice. The next several generations will tell the tale.

So, what DO we do? To me, the answer's got to have something to do with "nothing's for nothing." There's got to be some kind of accountability. Welfare moms can't just be stay-at-home moms and collect their checks. We've got to find a way to day-care their kids and insist that moms give back somehow. Public service? Teacher's Aids? School Hall Chaperones? Daycare Workers? I don't know what -- that's a problem for us to solve. But something. That something has got to include finishing one's education and learning skills. Half-day for each, perhaps.

We simply cannot have too many more years of the job objective of some teen-aged girls being that of "having a baby and getting on public assistance." We just can't afford it. I would bet that the greatest majority of people in this country would support a program like that. So, tell me. Why don't we have it?

That's just one example. But that's where my mind goes.
 
Last edited:
I agree that politicians do target those that are government assisted as potential votes. However, I believe Medicare is a problem with your solution. A vast number of Americans benefit from Medicaid. What do we do about that?
 
If people on government assisted welfare were not allowed to vote, this would prevent most of the nonsense. Since they can, it creates an abusive situation where one set of politicians (the ones who do not represent the producers and creators of wealth) pander to and expand the welfare class

that is why the situation is so bad. People don't gain political power and the wealth that comes from it (look at the kennedys and the gores) by encouraging private charity. They gain political power by using the wealth of some to buy the votes of the many

A lot of people vote because of how it will further their personal beliefs or cause - wealthy or poor, black or white, religious or non religious, pro gay-rights or anti gay-rights - on we can go with this list. Yes, people will or won't vote because of how it will personally help them. Not everyone - but many do and will and *will always do so* - there is *no way* to actually end it completely. But you can regulate and control it - or at least try to.

Example of regulation and control: limited personal-funding to political candidates . . . it's capped off - Chuck Norris can't throw a million into Huckabee's pocket even if he wanted to. . . He could *figure* out a way around this but he'd have to use his noggin to do it, which deters and hinders the notion.

However - when you're discussing cutting-off people from voting based on their financial situation (etc) then you're encroaching on elitism and prejudice. . .and people being punished for something like their husband running off with another woman - or a man who's wife died in childbirth and he now has to take care of his other kids without her.

Our political and voting system was designed *to be* a popularity contest. That's the purpose. That's the point. *If* they want to continue in office they must make us, their constituents, happy.

So Conservatives, Republicans, Liberals and Democrats - etc - shouldn't be focused on driving the opposition into the ground or deterring *them* from exercising their right to vote. They should focus on expounding on the support of *their* constituents.

From the Conservative Camp I've heard a lot of "I don't support that" over the years - but they have no viable alternatives to very serious issues that people *do* vote on - like Welfare. You can't just say "I want to END welfare!" and expect people to take you seriously or not be angry. You MUST have a viable option - a solid plan - which doesn't treat people as 'lesser than' - but rather gives them the ability and knowledge to *get* and education *get* a job and *get* off of welfare. . . you must understand their problems, provide them a viable solution and help them out - if you don't then you'll piss them off. And an angry constituent = a vote for your opponent. It's just that simple, that basic and crude but that's what they chose to do when they wrote up the system and assigned the rules.

When it comes to welfare in general we're not necessarily dealing with a "bad idea" - we're dealing with a "way of life which has been around for DECADES" and if you want to change that it *must* happen slowly and *not* just rip the rug of lifestyle out from underneath everyone.
 
Last edited:
Orion said:
As long as welfare demonstrates an ability to help people rise above their circumstances, then it is a useful tool. You may only wish to focus on the abusers of the system but many people raising families rely on that government check in order to make ends meet so that their children can continue to focus on school instead of focusing on domestic duties.
I will have to disagree. I will not support theft no matter if the theft is used for good. I will not support a program that is unfair and destructive to everyone.
Your original point is moot because I can easily use it to support my point.
Orion said:
We all live in a nation and a community, which means we have an obligation to help one another.
I will not support a forced obligation, I mean, do I got to support the people living on my street likes children? No! I do not have to take the whole ‘kitten and kabootle’ and you should not either. I know you are from Canada, but America fought a war against this type of thing (taxes).
Orion said:
By that logic it is wrong to tax people at all, but taxation is necessary for the health of the nation. How many times does it have to be said?
Well, there is a difference between voluntary and involuntary.
Orion said:
26 million is nothing.
I actually laughed out loud reading this. First, 26 million is not ‘nothing’, do you even know how many programs this 26 million funds throughout the world? Second, like I said, THIS IS ONLY ONE GROUP!
Orion said:
Learn to live with it because it's not going anywhere.
I am sure glad you were not the leader of the civil rights movement.
Orion said:
But you're a libertarian, which, in fiscal terms, is even more ridiculous.
Yup, it’s ridiculous to be an adult and in change of my own finances; let’s be children and let the government take care of us.

I am moving on to fixing the problem now.
 
MaggieD said:
So, what DO we do?
Well, it’s going to take a lot of work and it will touch multiple items other than welfare.
I’ll work on fixing the problem in my later posts.
 
I will have to disagree. I will not support theft no matter if the theft is used for good. I will not support a program that is unfair and destructive to everyone.

Theft is illegally acquiring someone else's property. Welfare is not theft anymore than taxation itself is, as both are legal. We can talk about the morality of taxation if you want, but calling it theft is disingenuous.

Your original point is moot because I can easily use it to support my point.

Your point was that welfare is destructive, yet you gloss over all the success stories of people who use welfare to improve their lives and arrive at personality stability; you also conveniently ignore the many, many people who fall back on welfare as a temporary measure due to life circumstances, but who get it off it later. Actually, of the people I personally know who went on welfare, it was for the latter reason.

I will not support a forced obligation, I mean, do I got to support the people living on my street likes children? No! I do not have to take the whole ‘kitten and kabootle’ and you should not either.

I'm saying that you don't get to pick and choose where your tax money goes. Social programs create budgets for education, highways, the postal service, family services, etc. Those are all really useful and should not be tossed out. As for social entitlements, there is no way you can prove that it's all money wasted. I agree that there are abuses in the system, but c'mon.

I know you are from Canada, but America fought a war against this type of thing (taxes).

Canada didn't have its current level of taxation until WWII, so don't preach to me about my own country. We got slammed with a greedy government just like you did, especially in central Canada.

Well, there is a difference between voluntary and involuntary.

You're right, there is. Voluntary donations do not produce enough money to run the social programs in your nation, or mine. If we had to rely on people's good will alone, our streets would be crammed with shanty towns like you see in rural India. Speaking of which, government subsidies also support rural families who produce your food. Without government help food production would drop. It is just one example of how social programs are benefiting you... but all you can look at is, "it's my money and not yours." Greedy greedy.

I actually laughed out loud reading this. First, 26 million is not ‘nothing’, do you even know how many programs this 26 million funds throughout the world? Second, like I said, THIS IS ONLY ONE GROUP!

Social programs require tens of billions of dollars annually. How many times can it be said? Charities are not enough.

I am sure glad you were not the leader of the civil rights movement.

Cute.

Yup, it’s ridiculous to be an adult and in change of my own finances; let’s be children and let the government take care of us.

It's not about just you and never has been. This kind of selfish remark is why modern America cannot rely on charities to get by. I guarantee that half of the people who talk about voluntary donations would never donate their money in a voluntary system; and like I said, this is the consumer era where people spend, spend, spend. You are encouraged to throw away your current stuff and spend more money to acquire new stuff. It is a pack-rat philosophy spanning a couple of generations now. People are no longer charitable like they were before modern consumerism.

I am moving on to fixing the problem now.

Have fun with that.
 
Last edited:
Yup, it’s ridiculous to be an adult and in change of my own finances; let’s be children and let the government take care of us.

Of course I support that adults should be capable of handling their affairs and properly supporting their children.

So why can't they? Why don't these certain people feel that same way? Why don't they want to?

We can't *make* them want to do it and care - (which is odd considering that their support comes from taxes which people don't *want* to pay but are *forced* to do - because money is tangible. . . people's interest's and desires aren't.)

But we can help those who *do* want help with solid and adequate programs that will put them in the right direction.
We can also further reward those who do more and more of their part - right now the system is set up in a way that discourages self-sufficiency.
 
Orion said:
Have fun with that.
I responded to your post, point by point then deleted it.
I invite you to help in ideas to reform or gradually end welfare.
 
But we can help those who *do* want help with solid and adequate programs that will put them in the right direction.
We can also further reward those who do more and more of their part - right now the system is set up in a way that discourages self-sufficiency.
It’s because gradually the state has created a society of dependants. I think we currently need major reform of the welfare system and then gradually end it but, I will type out more another time.
 
It could happen here if we allow our population to become millions of people with nothing. The millions of Romans with nothing decided that the few wealthy Romans really didn't need anything either. So they destroyed the empire. History tends to repeat unless there are means with which to alter the circumstances.

I have guns, dogs and have no problems killing those who I hate. Your argument fails.
 
I have guns, dogs and have no problems killing those who I hate. Your argument fails.

I shot someone once when he and his partner tried to mug me. I didn't hate them. It wasn't personal. But if hordes of people who think like Mickey Shane come a looting in my neighborhood, I'd stack em up like cordwood. No hate-just a nasty job that would need to be done. If the poor riot as some libs claim they will, I'd suggest that the number of poor would no longer be statistically relevant in any discussion subseqent to such an uprising.
 
It’s because gradually the state has created a society of dependants. I think we currently need major reform of the welfare system and then gradually end it but, I will type out more another time.

the dems-with the help of more than a few republicans (mostly judges who don't like overturning leftwing decisions) have spent close to a century creating a nation of people who suck on the public teat and have been led to believe that such suckling is both natural and a right.
 
the dems-with the help of more than a few republicans (mostly judges who don't like overturning leftwing decisions) have spent close to a century creating a nation of people who suck on the public teat and have been led to believe that such suckling is both natural and a right.
Unfortunately, the majority of the 2-party system has created this. I think reforming and ending the welfare system is toward the bottom of the lists of things to do in order to get our limited government back. I think we need to first reform welfare then slowly end it. Now I hope we can talk about the reforming/ending part in further posts.
 
I responded to your post, point by point then deleted it.
I invite you to help in ideas to reform or gradually end welfare.

I accept your concession.

And why would I help with something that I don't agree with? Welfare is needed and it has positive results.
 
Orion said:
I accept your concession.
Well, I have learned by debating a long time that sometimes you need to stop the endless cycle and actually get to a solution.
We do the issue no justice by going back and forth like we are.
So, let’s see if we can meet in the middle with solutions.
Orion said:
And why would I help with something that I don't agree with? Welfare is needed and it has positive results.
I only say this to help but, is it a comprehension issue or do you gloss over my points?
I asked for ideas to reform OR gradually end welfare.
I know from your posts that you see problems in the welfare system so why not provide solutions/reform the system to help the positive results you see.
 
Well, I have learned by debating a long time that sometimes you need to stop the endless cycle and actually get to a solution.
We do the issue no justice by going back and forth like we are.
So, let’s see if we can meet in the middle with solutions.

I only say this to help but, is it a comprehension issue or do you gloss over my points?
I asked for ideas to reform OR gradually end welfare.
I know from your posts that you see problems in the welfare system so why not provide solutions/reform the system to help the positive results you see.

We were debating because there were many points that I disagreed with you on, and by simply glossing over my last post it shows an unwillingness on your part to further the very kind of communication you're talking about. I don't consider it a circular, useless debate to exchange points based on disagreements. That is how you learn.

Solutions can't be arrived at if one or both parties have decided to not listen to the other person. You essentially said that welfare is destructive to society, and I don't agree, yet that disagreement has now been suppressed because you are unwilling to talk about it.

I call BS on your smoke screen. You're just retreating from what I considered an intelligent debate.
 
Last edited:
Orion said:
You're just retreating from what I considered an intelligent debate.
I agree that we were having an intelligent debate and I thank you for that but, I disagree and find our debate has become circular. I see no point on typing out the same points we already typed over and over again, it’s stagnating. I’d rather work on solutions and I have already invited you to meet me in the middle. Let’s see if we can find a common ground on the issue. I am willing to work on it if you would like to or maybe you’d rather keep going in circles than rather work on finding a solution. Maybe it’s easy to debate an issue, point A vs. point B than it is to work on resolving the issue.
So, we can keep rehashing our points or we can actually move on to something more, it’s your choice.
 
I shot someone once when he and his partner tried to mug me. I didn't hate them. It wasn't personal. But if hordes of people who think like Mickey Shane come a looting in my neighborhood, I'd stack em up like cordwood. No hate-just a nasty job that would need to be done. If the poor riot as some libs claim they will, I'd suggest that the number of poor would no longer be statistically relevant in any discussion subseqent to such an uprising.

I shot someone a few years ago in a robbery attempt. I went through three months of hell to avoid going to jail. The pigs tried to tie me to the Latin Kings, MS13 and the Maniac Latin Disciples. When that didnt work they attempted to challenge my citizenship. To this day I still send thank you cards to my lawyer. So yea if someone tries to attack me, pure red hatred takes over in my mind.
 
I agree that we were having an intelligent debate and I thank you for that but, I disagree and find our debate has become circular. I see no point on typing out the same points we already typed over and over again, it’s stagnating. I’d rather work on solutions and I have already invited you to meet me in the middle. Let’s see if we can find a common ground on the issue. I am willing to work on it if you would like to or maybe you’d rather keep going in circles than rather work on finding a solution. Maybe it’s easy to debate an issue, point A vs. point B than it is to work on resolving the issue.
So, we can keep rehashing our points or we can actually move on to something more, it’s your choice.

The choice isn't mine it's yours. But I accept your retreat for what it is. I don't want to find solutions that will help eliminate welfare because that is not a position I believe in. So until you can reconcile that fact we have nothing further to talk about.
 
SO THE BIG QUESTION...

is it unamerican for the federal government to take my money and give it to someone else because they think they are entitled to it.


MY TWO CENTS...

America was partly founded on this idea of "the prusuit for happiness". to me it seems wellfare is more like the "gift of happiness". Is there an excuss to be on wellfare today? I dont understand how someone born and raised in Mexico that doesn't speak english can somehow cross the border illegally and find work to better their families back in Mexico but an American born and raised in this nation some how cant make ends meet. Is the American public making excusses for these people on wellfare, and by giving it to them are we just keeping them content with there current situation. I think so. It seems that a majority of people on wellfare keep repeating the same cycle generatin after generation. There are people getting wellfare that have things like cable TV, cellphones, Internet etc... I'm all about helping someone out, but if im going to give someone a helping hand its going to be on my terms. i want to decide if that person deserves my help, not the government deciding for me.

Let's consider the history.

Welfare System: Information from Answers.com

Welfare from the Colonial Period to the Progressive Era

Treatment of the poor in colonial America was based on the principles set forth in the Elizabethan poor law of 1601. According to this English law, each town or parish was responsible for the care of its own needy. The law distinguished between three categories of the poor: those who were unable to work due to sickness or age, who were to be given material aid; the able-bodied who were unable to find jobs, who were to be provided with work; and the able-bodied but unwilling to work, who were to be instilled with the work ethic. The two important legacies of this law were its stipulation that poor relief is a local responsibility and the burden that it placed on the needy to prove their worthiness for relief.

Operating on the principles of the Elizabethan poor law, American colonial governments took responsibility for providing for the needy in their localities, through socalled "outdoor relief"—material assistance granted on a case-by-case basis. Localities also auctioned off destitute persons to the lowest bidder, who would receive funds in exchange for caring for them. However, because they were seen as drains on government funds, strangers in need were often warned away from towns, even if they were sick or disabled.

Beginning in the late eighteenth century, however, increasing urbanization, immigration, population growth, and unemployment led to a rising poor population and the need for a more systematic approach to welfare. Although outdoor relief continued to be practiced, states and municipalities supported "indoor relief" by building institutions to provide for the permanently poor and to instill the able-bodied with habits of work discipline.

In general, poorhouses were inadequately funded. Moreover, they were often poorly administered, and those who ran them were often corrupt. They lumped together different classes of poor in the same institution: the old, the sick, and the mentally ill were housed with the able-bodied unemployed. Under such circumstances, poor houses were unable to provide adequate care for the needy or instill work habits in the able-bodied. In part, poorhouses were meant to be unpleasant institutions, as the threat of having to live in the poorhouse was intended to deter the poor from idleness. By the beginning of the twentieth century, most poorhouses were transformed into homes for the old-aged who had no one else to care for them.

By the end of the nineteenth century, many European nations were beginning to build a welfare state. A number of American reformers, believing that government welfare would have to be altered to reflect the new hazards of an industrial economy, sought to emulate the European example. While these reformers failed in their efforts to develop European-style provisions for old-age pensions and unemployment insurance, the Progressive Era (1900–1921) did see the early growth of the American welfare system. For example, from 1911 to 1921, forty-two states introduced workmen's compensation legislation, which provided accident insurance to protect workers against job-related injuries.

In the Progressive Era, a powerful network of progressive middle-class women lobbied for mothers' pensions, and thirty-nine states developed mothers' aid programs from 1911 to 1921. Under these programs, states gave money to single mothers to help them defray the costs of raising their children in their own homes. The aid was meant to deter the use of child labor to help raise money for the family and to prevent the institutionalization of poor and fatherless children in orphanages, a common practice in the nineteenth century. However, in order to receive this aid, women had to prove that they were fit mothers with suitable homes. Often, the benefits given were inadequate, and the programs only reached a small portion of those in need—in 1931, only 93,620 of 1.5 million female-headed families received mothers' aid.

Progressives had the most success in instituting programs whose goal was protecting children. In 1912, the federal government established the U.S. Children's Bureau to gather information on the treatment of the nation's children. In 1921, Congress passed the Sheppard-Towner Act, giving matching funds to states to build maternal and child health facilities to fight infant mortality. Despite their accomplishments, Progressives failed to develop an extensive American welfare system—that task was not accomplished until the New Deal.
 
Last edited:
The choice isn't mine it's yours. But I accept your retreat for what it is. I don't want to find solutions that will help eliminate welfare because that is not a position I believe in. So until you can reconcile that fact we have nothing further to talk about.
I suppose it’s a comprehension issue. I am tired of your constant misrepresentation of my points. I never asked you to help eliminate welfare. I have made it very clear what solutions I am talking about. I am tired of your childish comments. If you want to continue this circular debate then we do have nothing more to talk about.
 
I suppose it’s a comprehension issue. I am tired of your constant misrepresentation of my points. I never asked you to help eliminate welfare. I have made it very clear what solutions I am talking about. I am tired of your childish comments. If you want to continue this circular debate then we do have nothing more to talk about.

I think you should let it go now. If you really wish to cease and desist, then do so. Everytime you reply, then so will I.
 
Sorry republicans ... you lose again.
 
Looking at how the pilgrims and the puritans behaved in the early days, I would say that welfare is not un-American. They believed in working hard and changing your own lot, but they also believed in charity. I think today's Americans are much more selfish and complacent than those hard workers from history who had to struggle for their personal freedom in a foreign land, and to carve out a new life for themselves.

I think the right wing would call early Americans "socialist" these days.

The right wing believes in charity. They are much more charitable than the left. The left wants to take money from the haves and give to the have-nots without their permission.
 
Back
Top Bottom