• 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!

Helping the Needy and the Poor

Where do you draw the line? Who would you help? You can choose more than one


  • Total voters
    53
You have plenty of time though. Do you donate that?

Too busy investing in his own education for his own needs, who the hell has time for other people in reality? Much easier to just talk the talk right? Surely he can vote for someone elses "time" to be spent on serving others right? Power to the people! (My power over other people of course)
 
No its simply not theft. Theft is the act of taking something unlawfully. The law states that the legislature has the right to implement taxes..


Its not theft!



It is on.



Live "comfortably"? You mean giving them food stamps and some form of basic medical care? That sounds "real comfortable". Its called living in a civilized society.



No its not. Its simply not theft because its not unlawful.

Legalizing theft does not change the nature of what it is.
 
Too busy investing in his own education for his own needs, who the hell has time for other people in reality? Much easier to just talk the talk right? Surely he can vote for someone elses "time" to be spent on serving others right? Power to the people! (My power over other people of course)

Most people just talk the talk on many things in their life be it a desire to help the needy or whatever else they're acting high and mighty on. Most people are frauds in some way or another.

Btw, the definition lizzie was using he even listed but he was unaware of it. :lamo
 
Last edited:
What would this country look like if government direct aid/checks/etc. to individuals was strictly forbidden, and all forms welfare had to be an investment in the overall community, such as school funding, housing redevelopment, jobs training, hospitals, roads, and public works? Tax dollars are extracted from everyone, so why should they be directed at individuals?

That is the exact point I have been making for years. Government monies should be spent to benefit everyone in society equally. To do otherwise, is to encourage voting based on corrupt personal gains.
 
Most people just talk the talk on many things in their life be it a desire to help the needy or whatever else they're acting high and mighty on. Most people are frauds in some way or another.

Sadly, I was the same though. I didn't know my head from my ass (in hindsight). It's like knowing the future and being powerless to stop it. Which is a little frustrating. The old "how do you convince someone with words when it likely requires experience for most people to understand"? I don't know! Being middle aged though, and having given my 20 healthiest, youngest years in serving the marketplace, I dont' care as much as I use to. I don't suffer such fools in my private life, I suppose it's only at tax time that they get me!
 
No i do not. Point being?

You don't pay in much with taxes.
You don't donate time or money to causes you support.

You think there is no point to that? That's disturbing.
 
IMO, if more rich people gave more of their money to charities and more of said money to AMERICAN charities, people like President Obama and Elizabeth Warren wouldn't have a leg to stand on with their "spread the wealth" rhetoric. As it is, when people like Mitt Romney are installing car elevators in their summer home and people like Joe Biden give NO MONEY to charity, it allows socialistic idiots to spew forth socialistic garbage. I dont' agree that gov't should take our money but I also don't agree with people hoarding their money and not helping fellow citizens out. To Romney's defense, he is at least very charitable. Biden has given an average of $369 to charity, annually, over the past decade. What a friggin dirtbag man. How can this guy stand up in front of people and say the absolute CRAP that he does when he helps NO ONE!!! I disagree with President Obama's policies, but at least he gives some money to charity.
Biden gave average of $369 to charity a year - ABC News
 
No i do not. Point being?

You appear to have time to give since you post here regularly. Unless I am to believe you are supposed to be doing something else and in that case I want to know why you aren't doing it and instead posting here.
 
You're a college student right? So should every student in your class be given at least a B no matter what? Even the ones who don't show up to class the entire semester?

and his grade should be reduced to keep the bell curve even, at that.
 
IMO, if more rich people gave more of their money to charities and more of said money to AMERICAN charities, people like President Obama and Elizabeth Warren wouldn't have a leg to stand on with their "spread the wealth" rhetoric.

In reality, they don't have a leg to stand on regardless. They advocate that people should be forced to give via taxation, but fail to uphold the rights of people to keep what they have earned by their own labor, so they support legalized theft, as long as that theft is buying the things that they themselves deem worthy.
 
IMO, if more rich people gave more of their money to charities and more of said money to AMERICAN charities, people like President Obama and Elizabeth Warren wouldn't have a leg to stand on with their "spread the wealth" rhetoric. As it is, when people like Mitt Romney are installing car elevators in their summer home and people like Joe Biden give NO MONEY to charity, it allows socialistic idiots to spew forth socialistic garbage. I dont' agree that gov't should take our money but I also don't agree with people hoarding their money and not helping fellow citizens out. To Romney's defense, he is at least very charitable. Biden has given an average of $369 to charity, annually, over the past decade. What a friggin dirtbag man. How can this guy stand up in front of people and say the absolute CRAP that he does when he helps NO ONE!!! I disagree with President Obama's policies, but at least he gives some money to charity.
Biden gave average of $369 to charity a year - ABC News

Yes, I am self quoting. Further on Joe Dirt Biden. The nerve of the guy to stand up in front of people and say crap like "they gonna put you back in chains" and "they don't understand us" AND HE GIVES $369 A YEAR TO CHARITY!!! That isn't even a MONTHLY car payment on a decent car! That's what I spend every 6 months on satellite!! This guy is living in a mansion, taking a salary from taxpayers, making money off of "memoirs" (who knew he could remember anything?), and he can't even donate a measely $100 a month to a charity. Heck, you can give $369 annually if you just throw $10 in a St Jude's can at the counter at WalMart everytime you visit. I'd bet that a lot of us spend that on tips to waiters annually. $369 won't even get you hotel fare for a week at Disney. Alright, I'm done. It's just infuriates me at how hypocritical politicians are when they threaten to take our hard earned money to give to the needy when they don't donate themselves. I guess Joe Dirt Biden figures he already "serves" the public, what more do they want?
 
What would this country look like if government direct aid/checks/etc. to individuals was strictly forbidden, and all forms welfare had to be an investment in the overall community, such as school funding, housing redevelopment, jobs training, hospitals, roads, and public works? Tax dollars are extracted from everyone, so why should they be directed at individuals? It could be directed at the poor and disabled communities, and provide jobs to the unemployed, but could only be a benefactor of everyone rather than individual checks? I'd argue we'd be alot better off by investing in the overall development of everyone, except the moochers like op discusses wouldn't be able to simply game the system for their own selfish benefit.

Good point. If I understand there history Americans were in fact starving to death and dropping like flies during the Dust Bowl when there was no safety net.

Interestingly, many of the rich get the hook up all day long but that's never thought of as being on the dole and they of all people don't need it to live. The corn industry gets paid not to grow corn. The oil industry gets subsidies as rich as they are, not to mention the cost of posting military personnel in "strategic" geographic regions to protect our 'vital interests'. Meanwhile we label single moms and and their children as freeloaders but are totally cool with handing millionaires government money, not to mention endless loopholes in the tax code. Interesting way of looking at government handouts.
 
Good point. If I understand there history Americans were in fact starving to death and dropping like flies during the Dust Bowl when there was no safety net.

Interestingly, many of the rich get the hook up all day long but that's never thought of as being on the dole and they of all people don't need it to live. The corn industry gets paid not to grow corn. The oil industry gets subsidies as rich as they are, not to mention the cost of posting military personnel in "strategic" geographic regions to protect our 'vital interests'. Meanwhile we label single moms and and their children as freeloaders but are totally cool with handing millionaires government money, not to mention endless loopholes in the tax code. Interesting way of looking at government handouts.

I hate corporations getting subsidies as much as anyone. What the hell makes one corporation think they deserve to get a tax break that isn't available to another?

Now, going back to the Dust Bowl is quite extreme of you. You do realize that was a time of extreme drought, (partially man-made drought at that) in the middle of extreme hardship. So what did we do? FDR told the farmers to slaughter their pigs and burn their crops so prices would rise.

But its not like Americans are starving. Actually, with an obesity rate of 30% and climbing, I'd argue quite the contrary. But, the subsidies to big corn and big agriculture, which were started by FDR mind you, do play a role.
 
In reality, they don't have a leg to stand on regardless. They advocate that people should be forced to give via taxation, but fail to uphold the rights of people to keep what they have earned by their own labor, so they support legalized theft, as long as that theft is buying the things that they themselves deem worthy.

I agree. It doesn't really matter if they give more than anyone else or less than anyone else because what they support is where the problem actually lies and not really if they give or not. Still, I think its worth noting that many of these people that support such things do not give their money or their time to anyone that might need it.
 
I agree. It doesn't really matter if they give more than anyone else or less than anyone else because what they support is where the problem actually lies and not really if they give or not. Still, I think its worth noting that many of these people that support such things do not give their money or their time to anyone that might need it.

No doubt, it's worth noting, as it seems those who are screaming the loudest that they need more taxes, are the ones who give less of their own money. It's easy to tell everyone else to give, but not so easy to put your money where your mouth is.
 
...that's not really "the top". The point was more to demonstrate that the systems' ability to curb fraud was negligable, and that the cost of fraud was indeed significant.

The Recession ended in June of 2009; but the numbers of on SNAP are up 46% since Obama took office. You're going to have to color me pretty skeptical that there hasn't been a push to put as many people as possible in the position of receiving government benefit, regardless of whether or not they absolutely needed it.

System wide, many people are indeed trapped against the welfare cliffs that have been described. Why would you work harder or longer if doing so would mean a reduction in income?

The Recession ended for business. For those on main street the recession is still alive and kickin'. Wages across the board are being reduced while companies are making record profits, and holding onto them. You have business' asking workers to work more hours and perform harder work for the same pay, which is only beneficial to the business'.

Point being, the reason you have so many on benefit programs is because business simply refuse to hire people when they found out they can ask one person to do the work of two or three, and those people will do it gladly for fear of losing the job that they do have.
 
The Recession ended for business. For those on main street the recession is still alive and kickin'. Wages across the board are being reduced while companies are making record profits, and holding onto them. You have business' asking workers to work more hours and perform harder work for the same pay, which is only beneficial to the business'.

Point being, the reason you have so many on benefit programs is because business simply refuse to hire people when they found out they can ask one person to do the work of two or three, and those people will do it gladly for fear of losing the job that they do have.

My uncle (who is a small business owner) will be astonished to hear it. He's just been keeping the thing above water. And a majority of small business owners say that they would not open their businesses today, and would be unable to succeed if they tried - they might be surprised to hear this as well. The vast majority of businesses live on main street, after all, not wall street.

We have been adding jobs (the President and his supporters so eagerly rush to point out) for some time now. Yet the number of those on assistance keeps increasing as well.....
 
*off topic* Love your byline, CPWILL. *back to topic*
 
As a Christian, I am personally commanded to help all those who are in need, in so far as I am able, and I take joy in being able to do this. I believe the church, and all charitable individuals generally, ought to be on the forefront of fighting poverty and helping the poor and disenfranchised.

However, I don't believe the federal government should in any way be involved in 'helping' the poor. The purpose of the government is to uphold and defend individual rights, not to hand out entitlements or put itself in charge of charity. Free market capitalism with a minute government is the best kind of society we can have, but it absolutely requires high moral character and a charitable spirit among all the people in order to work.

I do believe that if we got rid of the income tax and corporate tax, we would see a massive increase in charitable giving from all layers of society, to the point where we could gradually phase out entitlement programs; leaving charity to churches and individuals where it belongs.
 
As a Christian, I am personally commanded to help all those who are in need, in so far as I am able, and I take joy in being able to do this. I believe the church, and all charitable individuals generally, ought to be on the forefront of fighting poverty and helping the poor and disenfranchised.

However, I don't believe the federal government should in any way be involved in 'helping' the poor. The purpose of the government is to uphold and defend individual rights, not to hand out entitlements or put itself in charge of charity. Free market capitalism with a minute government is the best kind of society we can have, but it absolutely requires high moral character and a charitable spirit among all the people in order to work.

I do believe that if we got rid of the income tax and corporate tax, we would see a massive increase in charitable giving from all layers of society, to the point where we could gradually phase out entitlement programs; leaving charity to churches and individuals where it belongs.

It really behooves the excessively wealthy to charitably donate. Once you get to the point where you have so much money you can't even figure out a way to spend it, it becomes naturally motivating to give it back, and not in a pointless way, but in a way that will be meaningful and empower others. That's why you don't see big charities just spraying cash on the streets in poor areas. That's pointless, in fact it might even be harmful, ultimately.

Warren Buffett has promised to charitably donate a crazy high percentage of his personal wealth. That's fantastic. That does not mean we should expect the exact same of all rich people and threaten them with confiscation. Let charity be a thoughtful, purposeful, voluntary thing. That's the spirit of giving, and givers will do a way better job giving to meaningful causes than a government bureaucracy that is constantly wanting to please voters and cronies and pay people just to shut them up and let them suffer more quietly.

It's in the best interest of the fabulously rich to be philanthropic. Few of them want to be hated and envied. They stand to gain very little by hoarding it all and hiding from the masses, so they will be philanthropic. But a government which promises to be philanthropic on their behalves will cause them to seize up and be less inclined to give in the first place, because they're too busy trying to hang on to what's being threatened.
 
Seems to me:

1: You should help whoever you feel is in need of your help
2: Let others make the same decision for themselves.

In other words: Dont presume to force your morality on me.
 
I voted for all of them, because in some cases, those external signs are really a sign of something that does require help or treatment. I wouldn't write any of those reasons off at face value.
 
A friend of mine has an older son 40 something to be exact. He is on SSI. He is too drepressed to deal with a job or to deal with life in general. He is not too depressed to buy a car. He is not too depressed to buy a boat. He is not too depressed too move from Idaho to South Carolina....all by his little 0l' self. He is not too depressed to go fishing all day and water sking all summer. His 73 old mother works to help support him.... This are the ones that drive Republicans crazy.

I will gladly, gladly, gladly give you a helping hand when you are truely needy, help you get on your feet, make sure you are clothed and do not go hungry. I draw the line at helping you when you sit on your butt all day and fish!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

WE DO NOT want the needy thrown off welfare, we want the bums like the one above thrown off welfare




As a Chaosian, I oppose any actions by government that would interfere with culling the herd of the useless and stupid.

They can get a job, or convince their family or friends or church to support them, or otherwise fend for themselves, or steal and get shot dead by an outraged homeowner, that's their problem... and that's Chaos!! :)
 
Back
Top Bottom