• 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!

What kind of welfare do you support?

What kind of welfare do you support?


  • Total voters
    55
And should you choose not to do either, is anyone else obligated to provide for your perceived needs?

No. But my point is we have a choice to not work. The result is poverty and homeless. That is what I call absolute freedom of social obligation. The only obligation a homeless person has are biological needs.
 
I would like to think as a whole, we are obligated to one another to have a functioning society. The function of society depends on each member doing their part to keep the machine called America, functioning. You cannot have a functioning society if a portion of the population isn't being productive or is less productive. We ought to have a system to where we can alleviate the issues effecting people whether its financial or social.

Good lord... So if I choose not to be productive, I should expect someone else to do what I'm not willing to do myself? A society cannot survive under that rationale...
 
SNAP is what food stamps are now referred to, and you would have qualified for that program before EBT, which is the new name for welfare cash payments...

Interesting well I probably didn't qualify. My EBT consisted of $200 dollars to last me for two months. No GR since I owned a car and the office thought my car could sold for cash to help me out. I shared this story before.
 
No. But my point is we have a choice to not work. The result is poverty and homeless. That is what I call absolute freedom of social obligation. The only obligation a homeless person has are biological needs.

If one chooses not to work, there is NO obligation of society...
 
Good lord... So if I choose not to be productive, I should expect someone else to do what I'm not willing to do myself? A society cannot survive under that rationale...

No. We should definitely employ a system where we inform people who need temporary assistance that the office will assist the person with any social, and financial needs but only temporary until the person can find an adequate job to support themselves. If it's a single parent mom or dad find an adequate job and daycare depending on the age or some living arrangements where the parent can have a suitable roof over their head while the parent works. The issue is to treat the system like a drug and wean the patient off slowly. Nobody especially with a large family of kids gets a job and then their problems on being on welfare are over.
 
If one chooses not to work, there is NO obligation of society...

Of course that is an individual decision. What I'm saying is in relation to those that need help. If they don't need help and they choose to then yes you cannot force help upon someone that doesn't want it. I'm mainly focusing on those that need help or in actuality want help.
 
No. We should definitely employ a system where we inform people who need temporary assistance that the office will assist the person with any social, and financial needs but only temporary until the person can find an adequate job to support themselves. If it's a single parent mom or dad find an adequate job and daycare depending on the age or some living arrangements where the parent can have a suitable roof over their head while the parent works. The issue is to treat the system like a drug and wean the patient off slowly. Nobody especially with a large family of kids gets a job and then their problems on being on welfare are over.

Maybe I'm a bit old fashioned, but I chose not to have children until I was somewhat assured that I would be able to take care of them, and if there were unforeseen circumstances that might have arisen, I would turn to family before government. I find it interesting that "family" income is taken into account when providing educational aid but is totally ignored in "adult" assistance programs...
 
I would like to think as a whole, we are obligated to one another to have a functioning society.

Yeah, that argument has been around for a long time..

"But we assure the socialists that we repudiate only forced organization, not natural organization. We repudiate the forms of association that are forced upon us, not free association. We repudiate forced fraternity, not true fraternity. We repudiate the artificial unity that does nothing more than deprive persons of individual responsibility." - Frederic Bastiat

Personally, I have no tolerance for people telling me I have an obligation towards them.
 
Of course that is an individual decision. What I'm saying is in relation to those that need help. If they don't need help and they choose to then yes you cannot force help upon someone that doesn't want it. I'm mainly focusing on those that need help or in actuality want help.

If you can not force someone to accept help then it would follow that you can not force someone to help them.
 
Maybe I'm a bit old fashioned, but I chose not to have children until I was somewhat assured that I would be able to take care of them, and if there were unforeseen circumstances that might have arisen, I would turn to family before government. I find it interesting that "family" income is taken into account when providing educational aid but is totally ignored in "adult" assistance programs...

Yup. Just like when you fill out the Fafsa...It definitely takes into account how much your family makes.
 
Yeah, that argument has been around for a long time..

"But we assure the socialists that we repudiate only forced organization, not natural organization. We repudiate the forms of association that are forced upon us, not free association. We repudiate forced fraternity, not true fraternity. We repudiate the artificial unity that does nothing more than deprive persons of individual responsibility." - Frederic Bastiat

Personally, I have no tolerance for people telling me I have an obligation towards them.

I would like to think this would be a type of proto-utilitarian attitude.
 
If you can not force someone to accept help then it would follow that you can not force someone to help them.

It's not force it's offering. Just as one chooses to accept an offer of government assistance one can choose to reject it and live as they wish.
 
None of them, it is surprising how many people will go to work when they aren't expecting a check
 
What kind of welfare do you support?

tax payer funded assistance for the poor(food stamps/snap, WIC, section 8 and etc for the poor.)
corporate welfare(tax breaks, subsidies/grants and etc to companies)
foreign aid(financial aid, military aid and etc to foreign countries.)
other
None of the above.



I support tax payer funded assistance for the poor with some restrictions. I do not support corporate welfare and foreign aid.

Any of them under the right circumstances, but consistently only the first.
 
Then give us YOUR opinion, not your perception of the Republican Partys opinion.

My opinion doesn't matter. If I was ever elected to office I would stick behind the party. Some people think congress is in chaos now. It would be much worse if all 435 people held firm to their opinion.

vasuderatorrent

P.S. I'll give my opinion later but my point that partisanship adds sanity to our government is the most important thing at this moment in history.
 
My opinion doesn't matter. If I was ever elected to office I would stick behind the party. Some people think congress is in chaos now. It would be much worse if all 435 people held firm to their opinion.

vasuderatorrent

P.S. I'll give my opinion later but my point that partisanship adds sanity to our government is the most important thing at this moment in history.


The topic is your opinion of welfare.
 
Pay $628 per month to everybody who files a tax return regardless of their income. Make minimum wage $1,256 per month. This gives everybody a minimum standard of living regardless of their laziness but it's half of minimum wage. These are simplistic numbers but everybody should have a minimum standard of living. If you want to use that money to buy food, drugs, a house, a go-cart, lottery tickets or diapers it would be nobody's business. Nobody is in poverty even if they are unable or unwilling to work. (Half of the world's population lives on $2 per day or $730 per year.) The federal government shouldn't be spending any money to prop up higher education either. The federal government should fully fund K-12 education.

Other than that there should be no federal run welfare programs. States and counties are better equipped to target the individual needs of their community. Every community is different.

vasuderatorrent
 
Why does welfare always have to be a federal program?
 
Why does welfare always have to be a federal program?
Because only at the federal level do we have the ability to borrow and print all the money we need to buy those votes spend on welfare.
 
I'm not sure when that started in the United States but I'm sure it's here to stay.

vasuderatorrent

welfare as we know it today started under FDR in the 30's and its was called "relief".

"relief" ended during WWII because it was not needed, but was brought back in the early 60's and the name changed to "welfare".

people associate "welfare" , with general welfare in the constitution, ..however they are ........not the same.
 
What kind of welfare do you support?

tax payer funded assistance for the poor(food stamps/snap, WIC, section 8 and etc for the poor.)
corporate welfare(tax breaks, subsidies/grants and etc to companies)
foreign aid(financial aid, military aid and etc to foreign countries.)
other
None of the above.

I support tax payer funded assistance for the poor with some restrictions. I do not support corporate welfare and foreign aid.

I am fine with helping the poor, though not as broadly as we do now. I support helping those who are truly physically/mentally unable to support themselves.

I do not support corporate welfare of any kind.

I don't like foreign aid, but I understand that it is real-world reality, though I think we should be more discriminating than we are currently.
 
Back
Top Bottom