• 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!

Arizona Makes Painful Deficit Cuts, Including Welfare

That's bull**** and you know it.
Actually, no it is not.....but then I really wasn't expecting you to negate my position without...

Are you saying that before the depression America was just a huge ball of fascism in the north and south?
....putting words in my mouth while going down a rabbit hole.
 
Actually, no it is not.....but then I really wasn't expecting you to negate my position without...

....putting words in my mouth while going down a rabbit hole.

False. Advocating for the destruction of welfare cannot be inherently fascist since fascism is built upon huge government control and weakening welfare is built upon slashing government control.
 
Social safety nets should be limited. A reliance on social safety nets (what we have today) is harmful.

There are cases where it is needed and well justified
 
It does actually. Thanks for the answer; now I know.

I was thinking of making my name "USAF" or "Air Force" or something but it just didn't sound good enough. But when I say "luftwaffe" it sounds nice :D

We all got our tastes of course.
 
There are cases where it is needed and well justified

I think the only real concession I could make is social security. However, social security would need massive reforming.

The only good thing about social safety nets is that they encourage people to spend. However, they can and definitely do in many, if not most cases, breed laziness.
 
I think the only real concession I could make is social security. However, social security would need massive reforming.

The only good thing about social safety nets is that they encourage people to spend. However, they can and definitely do in many, if not most cases, breed laziness.

How do you feel about receiving disability? SSI. Ya think that should be tossed out too?
 
I think the only real concession I could make is social security. However, social security would need massive reforming.

The only good thing about social safety nets is that they encourage people to spend. However, they can and definitely do in many, if not most cases, breed laziness.

Let them starve, go hungry, not my type of society. If that is what you believe well I do feel for you.
 
If they'd toss out all the illegal aliens collecting benefits there'd be money for poor CITIZENS.

Well, number one, it won;t last as legislation, and secondly - the illegals come for the job market. There needs to be a moratorium on jobs for those people: citizens first.
 
How do you feel about receiving disability? SSI. Ya think that should be tossed out too?

Disability depends.

The only true grey area is what happens to people who are born with a disability. For that I have no answer.
 
False. Advocating for the destruction of welfare cannot be inherently fascist since fascism is built upon huge government control and weakening welfare is built upon slashing government control.
It does not surprise me in the least that you have no clue as to how the NAZI ideology viewed welfare (the view, in a nutshell, was that the lower classes should be exposed to the most extreme forms of social Darwinism, often with state sponsored culling of that herd).

Further, your "weakening govt control" is false presentation, it is actually just an argument for less govt spending.
 
I think the only real concession I could make is social security. However, social security would need massive reforming.

The only good thing about social safety nets is that they encourage people to spend. However, they can and definitely do in many, if not most cases, breed laziness.
Ah, the "soup kitchens cause depressions" argument. How quaint.
 
It does not surprise me in the least that you have no clue as to how the NAZI ideology viewed welfare (the view, in a nutshell, was that the lower classes should be exposed to the most extreme forms of social Darwinism, often with state sponsored culling of that herd).

Further, your "weakening govt control" is false presentation, it is actually just an argument for less govt spending.

The nazis liked welfare and special treatment for certain classes.

It would be interesting to see how Hitler felt about starving, "aryan" Germans and whether or not he would want to give them any sort of welfare ;)

If slashing welfare truly was fascist, he would leave these Aryans be. I doubt he would ;)
 
It does not surprise me in the least that you have no clue as to how the NAZI ideology viewed welfare (the view, in a nutshell, was that the lower classes should be exposed to the most extreme forms of social Darwinism, often with state sponsored culling of that herd).

Further, your "weakening govt control" is false presentation, it is actually just an argument for less govt spending.

National Socialist People's Welfare - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Lolz. Whatever. Cutting welfare is inherently fascist. PFFFTT.
 
The nazis liked welfare and special treatment for certain classes.
No, the NAZI's did not like supporting the the physically or economically disadvantaged AT ALL. You are once again trying to use weasel worded argument.

It would be interesting to see how Hitler felt about starving, "aryan" Germans and whether or not he would want to give them any sort of welfare ;)

If slashing welfare truly was fascist, he would leave these Aryans be. I doubt he would ;)
But we are not talking about favoring, we are discussing supporting any and all of the disadvantaged in a society, again, it is not a right wing position to support broad based social welfare, nor was it a NAZI position.
 
the problem is, you wrote this:

I don't have an issue of taxpayer money going to courts for whatever the reason. I do have an issue with taxpayer money going directly to people who have done nothing to deserve it.

Try reading.
 
No, the NAZI's did not like supporting the the physically or economically disadvantaged AT ALL. You are once again trying to use weasel worded argument.

But we are not talking about favoring, we are discussing supporting any and all of the disadvantaged in a society, again, it is not a right wing position to support broad based social welfare, nor was it a NAZI position.

False, the nazis did indeed help out some of the economically disadvantaged. The caveat was that they weren't one of what the nazis would deem "inferior" races.
 
I don't have an issue of taxpayer money going to courts for whatever the reason. I do have an issue with taxpayer money going directly to people who have done nothing to deserve it.

Try reading.


What more do I need to read than you didn't want it to be the "taxpayer's{sic} problem". If you don't want that, you shouldn't want it handled in court.
 
National Socialist People's Welfare - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Lolz. Whatever. Cutting welfare is inherently fascist. PFFFTT.
Again, no deeper understanding is shown. It was a racist organization designed to support NAZI supporters of the lower classes, it was not a generalized social welfare program for all German citizens. You can keep playing this game of ignoring the broader NAZI views of removing undesired populations from German society while referencing racist NAZI programs, that is fine with me.
 
Back
Top Bottom