• 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!

Welfare: Keep, Reform or End?

Welfare: Keep, Reform or End?

  • Keep it!

    Votes: 15 23.4%
  • Keep it, but it needs SEVERE reform.

    Votes: 33 51.6%
  • End it

    Votes: 9 14.1%
  • Other

    Votes: 7 10.9%

  • Total voters
    64
Please correct me if I'm wrong but that article did not disprove the "myth" of Obamaphones, but merely claimed it started back in the 1980s. If that is the case, I still rest my case. This forum was not a thread to bash Obama, so I don't really care when it originated...that benefit still needs to go.

You're welcome to rest your case. But don't call it an Obamaphone; because it isn't. He didn't start the program nor did he institute the cell phone component.

As for it "still needs to go" -- I disagree. Know what keeps homeless people homeless most of all? No way to get a job -- no way for employers to contact them -- no way for any agency to contact them.

This program is subsidized (not paid in full) through a fee program charged to service providers for that purpose. Taxpayer money is not involved.

Facts are your friend.
 
I have adopted the Dennis Miller view of welfare. I don't mind helping the helpless I just don't give a sh-- about the clueless. If you are able to work then you don't get it. If you're on it, you get drug-screened routinely.

I agree, drug screening is a must, no different than most employers require in this country to hold a job for a paycheck. Why are they any different?
 
Or you could take some time off as a social engineer and put some time in yourself to help others instead of forcing others to with your vote. There's nothing noble about pointing your finger at someone you envy and ordering them to give their money to someone else you pity.

I voted to keep it. If there had been an option for "minor reform" I would have selected that instead.

Now you made several assertions, apparently based on "common knowledge." I'd ask that you back up each of those assertions with some facts. Explain:

1. How it is "WAY too easy to get."
2. Define "many" and then show how there are too "many" on it and which of these "many" are "far from needing it."
3. Define "enough to keep you alive," then show how welfare "pays too much."
4. How "just keeping you alive" serves to help you get OFF welfare.
5. Show that it "lasts too long" for current recipients.
6. How long it is supposed to take to "get back on your feet;" especially if the amounts paid "only keep you alive."
7. How having a limited use cellphone should not be a welfare "perk, when it is necessary for many things, not the least of which is getting a job?

Most employers require a contact number to reach you in order to contact you for interviews, call to come to work, inquire if you are sick, etc. Why should access remain outside the hands of people you want to GET work in order to GET OFF welfare?

Now as a general observation (not focused on the OP) I find it interesting that people want to do away with welfare programs because (short-sightedly) they never think they would ever need it.

Do those of you who believe this honestly think everyone who is on welfare thought they would be needing welfare when they first started out? That the more than 40 million working poor who qualify for Food Stamps thought they would need to rely on food stamps? That Millions of working people would need to depend on Medicaid to cover costs of health care for their children or themselves that their paychecks can't?

Perhaps people should really try to give a little thought to the reasons for the existence of welfare pragrams besides buying into the myth of "lazy welfare mommas" sucking up our tax dollars.
 
Federal Welfare. Should we keep it the way it is, severely reform it or end it completely?

Imo, it needs to be SEVERELY cut back, especially the disability portion of social welfare programs, because there is a great deal of abuse of the system, among that segment. We are going to have enough difficulty paying for the growing percentage of the population just now entering the social security benefit age group.
 
You're welcome to rest your case. But don't call it an Obamaphone; because it isn't. He didn't start the program nor did he institute the cell phone component.

As for it "still needs to go" -- I disagree. Know what keeps homeless people homeless most of all? No way to get a job -- no way for employers to contact them -- no way for any agency to contact them.

This program is subsidized (not paid in full) through a fee program charged to service providers for that purpose. Taxpayer money is not involved.

Facts are your friend.

Fair enough, that was an interesting fact you brought up. Well you learn something new every day. :)

Most welfare recipients are not allowed to hold jobs while they are on welfare, if they were than perhaps your argument would be valid.
 
Let's let the states handle welfare how they see fit. Some states, like Cali and Texas need protections against abuse from illegal aliens, while other states might need protection for seasonal workers as construction and farming halts during winter.
 
What about some kind of community service in exchange for assistance
What about mandatory enrollment in a trade program and tax incentives for businesses that hire from the program
Maybe food pantries where people have credit and actually exchange the credit for food instead of getting the money directly, money would go further

I think the food-stamp program works fairly well as is, though I wouldn't be opposed to limited it along the lines of WIC, where most groceries are eligible but certain foods and beverages (alcohol, for example) are excluded. Food pantries are simply not as efficient .. how much milk is needed from one month to the next for, say, an entire cities' needy? How many eggs? How is that determined? Rather, I think it's preferable to use the existing food distribution networks (groceries) which are pretty efficient at allocating supply to meet demand and are more responsive to shifts in that demand.
 
Let's let the states handle welfare how they see fit. Some states, like Cali and Texas need protections against abuse from illegal aliens, while other states might need protection for seasonal workers as construction and farming halts during winter.

Many of these programs are operated at the state level but funded federally.
 
Maybe you should do away with welfare completely. Start a new program and screen the applicants very closely for eligibility....All applicants must take a drug test when they apply.......Fail it and your out.
 
Fair enough, that was an interesting fact you brought up. Well you learn something new every day. :)

Most welfare recipients are not allowed to hold jobs while they are on welfare, if they were than perhaps your argument would be valid.

My argument is completely valid. Most homeless people aren't on welfare. Homeless people have kids. Kids get sick. Phones get help. It costs you nothing. TANF allows working while receiving welfare. All states offer TANF. DHS: Answers to Your Questions TANF - DHS 4047
 
Well the first liberal has leaped in here to stop all reform. Keep the spending going. Carry on.

The data are for context. Let's not just argue based on stereotypes. I never said I oppose all reform.
 
Or you could take some time off as a social engineer and put some time in yourself to help others instead of forcing others to with your vote. There's nothing noble about pointing your finger at someone you envy and ordering them to give their money to someone else you pity.

LOL It took me a couple of re-reads to figure out what you were trying to say here.

I work and pay my taxes, happy to let some of them be used for social welfare programs. I give blood freely although I've never had to use any. I've volunteered at food lines, serving, cooking and donating food. Now you don't have to do that, you are under no obligation.

Hmmmm.. Can I presume like me that you pay taxes? Now I am sure that there are many things you don't like our government doing they use our taxes to pay for. I know there are some that I don't like.

I bet there are some things you DO support our government paying for though. How about looking at it this way. Instead of thinking of your one-onehundreth of a penny in taxes that might be used for social welfare programs just pretend I paid two-onehundreths because I support them and you paid two-onehundreths to programs you do support?

There you go! Now none of YOUR tax dollars went to a program you don't support. All better now?? LOL :)
 
Last edited:
Maybe you should do away with welfare completely. Start a new program and screen the applicants very closely for eligibility....All applicants must take a drug test when they apply.......Fail it and your out.

And what then for those whose poverty stems from addiction? What about those who smoked a joint a few days ago? They should just be allowed to slip through society's gutters? How about we just randomly drug test everyone ... just stop them on the street, tap them on the shoulder and have them piss in a cup? It's pretty firmly established that nearly all us get government benefits at some time in our lives. Shouldn't we all be subject to more scrutiny, then?
 
anonymous polls suck
 
And what then for those whose poverty stems from addiction? What about those who smoked a joint a few days ago? They should just be allowed to slip through society's gutters? How about we just randomly drug test everyone ... just stop them on the street, tap them on the shoulder and have them piss in a cup? It's pretty firmly established that nearly all us get government benefits at some time in our lives. Shouldn't we all be subject to more scrutiny, then?

If they are truly addicted then they should be helped with treatment........Not free money.
 
Let's let the states handle welfare how they see fit. Some states, like Cali and Texas need protections against abuse from illegal aliens, while other states might need protection for seasonal workers as construction and farming halts during winter.

You mean let the states actually handle something for once? *gasp*

Good idea by the way:)
 
Many of these programs are operated at the state level but funded federally.

Federal funds come with strings. They are state run, but only on the surface.
 
I voted to keep it, but only because I think the basic idea--that human beings who form a society should help each other--is right. I would run things very differently. First, I would make welfare mostly an employer-of-last-resort program. I can think many thousands of tasks that need doing all over the country, and which would generate economic benefit. If you require welfare in my (admittedly imaginary) nation, I will feed and cloth you and your family, and I will provide shelter and medicine. But you should be willing, in turn, to do work. I'll find something for you to do, I assure you. And more importantly, there won't be any stigma attached. You'll have a job, and you'll be producing value for everyone else in society. Now, there are many common-sense caveats. For example, if you're a single woman who is pregnant, or a single mother, you'll get a little more consideration. However, I would make it a crime punishable by a severe sentence for someone to take unfair advantage of this kind of generosity...

Second, I would reprogram education so that we go back to much more conservative models--we should drill students in mathematics and the classics before anything else. While this may seem unrelated, I suspect very strongly that students prepared by such a program will find their own sense of integrity and honor. And when you have a society of people who have integrity and honor, the applicants for welfare will, in 99.99% of the instances, really need help, which they won't use any longer than necessary.

Third, I would also reprogram education so as to make sure that everyone living in the U.S. should think of themselves as being part of a nation. Let's make it so that liberals and conservatives remember one basic fact: that we're a lot more alike than we are different. Ask any liberal and any conservative drawn at random on the street what they would do if they saw a person beating the living crap out of a defenseless infant, and the vast majority would agree that they won't just ignore it. They'll intervene, and/or call the police. I think most of us have forgotten them simple fact that we're generally decent folk, and that, perhaps, we can start there to find common ground. If we can do that, welfare programs will generally be used by people who really need our help, and who have in the past supported themselves, and in the future, will again.
 
Last edited:
I think the states could do a better job by far but the government won't let them.

That is because the "mean" red states would likely make the great loafing class leave to get their "deserved" benefits elsewhere in short order.
 
That is because the "mean" red states would likely make the great loafing class leave to get their "deserved" benefits elsewhere in short order.

That is why you clean up the program.
 
Federal Welfare. Should we keep it the way it is, severely reform it or end it completely?

"Severe" is an interesting adjective to use, but I chose that option, although across the spectrum I am closer to simply ending it than I am to simply keeping it.

Basically, I think social welfare is needed for people who, for some reason or another, can't be their own legal guardians. That is to say, if you've demonstrated an inability to care for yourself such that you need the assistance of society, you will lose some of your legal, financial and other decision-making abilities. Administering this still requires money, thus welfare is still alive and well, it is just attached more judiciously to one's guardianship over oneself. In short, if you're going to become a dependent of society, you should have about the same autonomy as other dependents (e.g. children) do.
 
"Severe" is an interesting adjective to use, but I chose that option, although across the spectrum I am closer to simply ending it than I am to simply keeping it.

Basically, I think social welfare is needed for people who, for some reason or another, can't be their own legal guardians. That is to say, if you've demonstrated an inability to care for yourself such that you need the assistance of society, you will lose some of your legal, financial and other decision-making abilities. Administering this still requires money, thus welfare is still alive and well, it is just attached more judiciously to one's guardianship over oneself. In short, if you're going to become a dependent of society, you should have about the same autonomy as other dependents (e.g. children) do.

Very interesting observation, and a very new one I might add. This one has actually got me thinking. :)
 
Back
Top Bottom