• 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
SSI is insurance. He EARNED it.

The supreme court disagress with you. They consider it charity. Otherwise it would be unconstitutional. Thats why it is a tax as well.
 
Good point. What ever happened to the 'compassionate' that was suppose to be paired with 'conservative'? It seems that is now a foreign concept which is totally disdained by the right.

Apparently actually having some basis for argument is a concept completely lost on leftist shills.
 
yeah, they conviently forget that in their platforms.

I just hope some day that they might regain their souls which they sold out for
personal greed.


Fueling someone's addiction is not compassion. What is compassionate is donating to places that feed, house,clothe and aid the homeless.
 
Personally, To me, government is not a tool to help people, it is the law of the land and is their to enforce freedoms.

We the People of the United States, in Order to form a more perfect Union, establish Justice, insure domestic Tranquility, provide for the common defense, promote the general Welfare, and secure the Blessings of Liberty to ourselves and our Posterity, do ordain and establish this Constitution for the United States of America.
..........
 
..........

was I referring to what the preamble of the constitution thought about it? and "promote the general Welfare" can pretty much be interpreted anyway you want it to by the standards most interpret the constitution as.
 
Fueling someone's addiction is not compassion. What is compassionate is donating to places that feed, house,clothe and aid the homeless.

I never heard that at the republican convention or from rush limbaugh.
 
..........

The Preamble establishes the why, not the how.

With respect to the words general welfare, I have always regarded them as qualified by the detail of powers connected with them. To take them in a literal and unlimited sense would be a metamorphosis of the Constitution into a character which there is a host of proofs was not contemplated by its creators. - James Madison
 
How come there is an not an option for none?
 
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
Short post, got to go, but: I know someone on SSI. He has a cyst on his brain since birth. I have taken him to Social Security administration several times. I also know someone that has a ‘personality defect’ as far as I’m concerned, he gets help too. Help doesn’t help him, it mostly abuses the helper; and I think that genetically this is the way he is. So one I think needs and deserves help and the other not so much. One because the help helps him, the other because you can’t really help him.
If you haven’t you should go to, visit, your Department of Economic Security to see who is there. One thing that is disturbing at first is to see people, mostly blacks, wearing new clothes with the tags still on them (preserved) because it’s the style It is clear form a ‘normal’ persons POV stupid behavior, but it’s culturally required. Stupid culture too.
A real problem is how do you set standards that work and establish a process to apply the standards accurately. I’m been involved in correcting documentation on one that is deserving that Social Security had no way of fixing. It took several visits and visits to his doctor etc. So the deserving person can’t get help w/o an advocate; but some non-deserving people can. How much money do you want to spend to get it done correctly a higher percentage of the time?
 
A bad day fishing is better than a good day of work.
 
Civilized society as a whole.

The problem is, it doesn't stay civilized once people have decided that they have a right to the property of others, and once that property becomes in short supply, as always happens as a matter of increased demand by those who desire to take advantage of the good will of others, unrest starts to rear its ugly head. It's what we are currently seeing in some of the European countries, and it is what we will eventually see here. Personal charity is fine and good. Forced charity leads to chaos, because it is coerced theft.
 
The problem is, it doesn't stay civilized once people have decided that they have a right to the property of others, and once that property becomes in short supply, as always happens as a matter of increased demand by those who desire to take advantage of the good will of others, unrest starts to rear its ugly head. It's what we are currently seeing in some of the European countries, and it is what we will eventually see here. Personal charity is fine and good. Forced charity leads to chaos, because it is coerced theft.

Uhhh how is this at all equate to people paying taxes that help the poor? No one is advocating that people take your car, or people take your home etc and give it to someone who is impoverished...
 
Uhhh how is this at all equate to people paying taxes that help the poor? No one is advocating that people take your car, or people take your home etc and give it to someone who is impoverished...

It equates, because as society changes, and more individuals become the recipient of taxpayer funds, and increased demand is put on the taxpayer, who also has finite resources at his disposal, resources become strained with a decreasing supply.
 
It equates, because as society changes, and more individuals become the recipient of taxpayer funds, and increased demand is put on the taxpayer, who also has finite resources at his disposal, resources become strained with a decreasing supply.

Ok. But that does not equate to people wanting to take your property. It equates to possibly higher taxes on part of the society.
 
Ok. But that does not equate to people wanting to take your property. It equates to possibly higher taxes on part of the society.

Yes, it does equate to people wanting to take my property. HIgher taxes is taking of my property.
 
Yes, it does equate to people wanting to take my property. HIgher taxes is taking of my property.

You ignore democratic consent. Taxation are not decrees imposed by a faceless government. Instead they are imposed by a democratic elected government that are dues we pay in exchange for basic membership in a society and access to services they offer. Saying that of course elected govs can spend our tax dollars unwisely and you have every right to speak out against that.
Also a more basic argument can be made because the strict definitional answer to the question is, no, becuase, taxes are not by definition theft', because taxes are not illegal and the definition of theft includes illegality.
Legislatures are legal and legislatures have the power to levy taxes
 
You ignore democratic consent. Taxation are not decrees imposed by a faceless government. Instead they are imposed by a democratic elected government that are dues we pay in exchange for basic membership in a society and access to services they offer. Saying that of course elected govs can spend our tax dollars unwisely and you have every right to speak out against that.
Also a more basic argument can be made because the strict definitional answer to the question is, no, becuase, taxes are not by definition theft', because taxes are not illegal and the definition of theft includes illegality.
Legislatures are legal and legislatures have the power to levy taxes

And you ignore the fact that taxation is theft of property, as it most definitely is. Just because society decides that taxes may be taken from some, for redistribution based on need, it does not change the fact that it is taking the property of one person, for the benefit of another, and theft is wrong, no matter how you want to justify it.

Turn on your imagination for just a minute to think about something.

Let's say that we have 100 individuals, and five of them are needy, so that society of 100 individuals decides that the 95 of them who are managing to eek out a living, should be required to pay for the other 5 to live comfortably. That's not too much of an issue in that circumstance.

Now, pretend it is 10 years later, and there has been a recession, in which 20 percent of those individuals have lost their jobs. Society still believes that those who are making an adequate living should provide for the 20 percent who have fallen on hard times. That's still acceptable to most of the people in that society.

Now, pretend it is another 10 years down the road, and the recession has continued, and 50 percent of that society is not working, either because they can't find another job, or have found that living off the goodwill of others is pretty damn appealing. Those who are paying the bills are seeing their own disposable income shrinking, through no fault of their own, but the society demands that they keep supporting the society anyway.

This is theft, no matter how you want to slice it and dice it, regardless of what the reasons are, and regardless of who demands it.
 
And you ignore the fact that taxation is theft of property, as it most definitely is.
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..

Just because society decides that taxes may be taken from some, for redistribution based on need, it does not change the fact that it is taking the property of one person, for the benefit of another, and theft is wrong, no matter how you want to justify it.
Its not theft!


Turn on your imagination for just a minute to think about something.
It is on.


Let's say that we have 100 individuals, and five of them are needy, so that society of 100 individuals decides that the 95 of them who are managing to eek out a living, should be required to pay for the other 5 to live comfortably. That's not too much of an issue in that circumstance.
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.

Now, pretend it is 10 years later, and there has been a recession, in which 20 percent of those individuals have lost their jobs. Society still believes that those who are making an adequate living should provide for the 20 percent who have fallen on hard times. That's still acceptable to most of the people in that society.

Now, pretend it is another 10 years down the road, and the recession has continued, and 50 percent of that society is not working, either because they can't find another job, or have found that living off the goodwill of others is pretty damn appealing. Those who are paying the bills are seeing their own disposable income shrinking, through no fault of their own, but the society demands that they keep supporting the society anyway.

This is theft, no matter how you want to slice it and dice it, regardless of what the reasons are, and regardless of who demands it.

No its not. Its simply not theft because its not unlawful.
 
I think we should support the poor no matter what. (Yes even the "lazy" ones who choose not to get a job)

So how much do you give to lazy poor people?
 
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..

The word theft is not soley dependent on legally. Look up the word sometime and you will see it proper to use it in the way she is.
 
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.

Actually the forced taking of property and the giving it to another is the exact opposite of civilized. If you want civilized you have to stop inflicting violence on people to help others.
 
The word theft is not soley dependent on legally. Look up the word sometime and you will see it proper to use it in the way she is.

Uhh "theft": The action or crime of stealing
illegal taking of another person's property without that person's freely-given consent.
The act of stealing property
The unlawful taking of another's property with the intent to permanently deprive the owner of its use or possession.
Unlawful taking of money, securities, or other property to the deprivation of the insured; includes burglary, robbery. See also Burglary; Robbery.
The act of stealing; specifically, the felonious taking and removing of personal property, with an intent to deprive the rightful owner of the same

"Steal": Take (another person's property) without permission or legal right and without intending to return it


So tell me are you just gonna redefine a word?
 
Back
Top Bottom