• 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?

  • tax payer funded assistance for the poor(food stamps/snap, WIC, section 8 and etc.)

    Votes: 35 63.6%

  • corporate welfare(tax breaks, subsidies/grants and ect.)

    Votes: 5 9.1%

  • foreign aid(financial aid, military aid and etc.)

    Votes: 17 30.9%

  • other

    Votes: 12 21.8%

  • None of the above.

    Votes: 14 25.5%
  • Total voters
    55
If you are upright and 98.6, two arms two legs two eyes and a fair IQ, Zero assistance.
Get fired, laid off, company closes. You get 6 weeks un employment. Period.
Too many kids, well YOU made them. Not me.
I know too many people right now sitting at home on their asses collecting a check for aches and sprains that 99% of us just shake off and deal with.
I have had two knee ops. Still work. Arthrites in both hands, still work. Sleep issues, still work. Nerve damage in one foot, still work.
Billions are being bled out for BS ailments. Draining our country dry.
 
RabidAlpaca said:
I picked only welfare for the poor, and it should be limited and under strict quid-pro-quo conditions. It should be a net, not a hammock.
Click to expand...

I agree with this one. And I also included foreign where the need is great, and we can help.
 
Poll is a little broad. Lumping every tax break, grant, and subsidy into one category makes it hard for me to answer. I don't think we need to give billions of dollars to oil companies but that doesn't mean I'm categorically against subsidies. I think we grossly overspend when it comes to government contracts of any nature, but that doesn't mean I think we should eliminate those contracts entirely.

Foreign aid in the form of food is a tad different from foreign aid in the form of bombs.

I support assistance for the poor, but I think we can do it better than we do now.
 
Helix said:
yeah, i used to be a libertarian; i remember that one.
Click to expand...

It's good to be reminded that people do grow out of that phase sometimes. Highfive buddy.
 
In a general sense, I have no issue with any of them.

The issue, as it is with so many ideas, is that they get stretched FAR too much and to FAR too great of a degree.

The problem is that in a world of grey, people tend to try to pull things as far into the black as possible which causes the reaction to be to pull it back into the white as much as possible. If it'd just stay in the grey there'd be no issue, but that never happens.

That's what makes these things such a delicate issue. None of those things are inherently bad, but ALL of them can become out of control and troubling.

One must look at the Goal, the Cost, the Benefit, and the Government Responsibility in my mind.

Is it something the government is tasked to do? If yes...

What is the Cost?

What is the Benefit?

What is the Goal? And does this best accomplish it?

Whether or not it's "Good" or "Noble" or "Decent" to do is irrelevant to me. You'll run around FOREVER and spend every dollar we have trying to do "good". That's not the governments purpose. The hope is that what the government does IS good, but "Doing Good" can not be the overriding factor.
 
I only support it for the poor and then, only on a very limited basis, with the exception of those who are permanently disabled or not mentally able to perform useful work. Otherwise, it should only be a short-term safety net that catches people when they fall and puts them back on their feet, whether they want it to or not.
 
Helix said:
yeah, i used to be a libertarian; i remember that one.
Click to expand...

It's just playing pretend to tax corporations. The only entity that can ever pay taxes is people, so as he said you might as well just tax people. Of course, the income is already taxed individually.
 
I feel people on walfare that can work should take care of orther welfare children in childcare for that welfare check and others can do some jobs that don't need a lot of education for the gov. for their welfare check..at minium wages or for the wage that job demands...no illegal parents should not get anything from the government...the law should be changed that one parent must be a citizen of the united states for the child to be a citizen extremely simple and fair
 
CRUE CAB said:
If you are upright and 98.6, two arms two legs two eyes and a fair IQ, Zero assistance.
Get fired, laid off, company closes. You get 6 weeks un employment. Period.
Too many kids, well YOU made them. Not me.
I know too many people right now sitting at home on their asses collecting a check for aches and sprains that 99% of us just shake off and deal with.
I have had two knee ops. Still work. Arthrites in both hands, still work. Sleep issues, still work. Nerve damage in one foot, still work.
Billions are being bled out for BS ailments. Draining our country dry.
Click to expand...

While I liked what you have said, I have to take you to task for over generalizing. My sister fits all of the bolded criteria, but because of back issues she is incapable of lifting over 15lb. Well at least if she wants to keep her 2 legs working. She at least is working at getting her Master's so that she can get a good paying job, unlike many others on Disability.

Deuce said:
I think we grossly overspend when it comes to government contracts of any nature, but that doesn't mean I think we should eliminate those contracts entirely.
Click to expand...

We also shouldn't just take the lowest bid either. Quality should be weighed with cost.
 
Cephus said:
I only support it for the poor and then, only on a very limited basis, with the exception of those who are permanently disabled or not mentally able to perform useful work. Otherwise, it should only be a short-term safety net that catches people when they fall and puts them back on their feet, whether they want it to or not.
Click to expand...

Is justice found by making the state charitable? Is it not true that everyone will have good reasons that they should in turn be provided benefits from the state? Do you know why we are at the point we are? Because these kind of policies make everyone into petitioners and they will in turn get benefits at the expense of everyone else.

It's absolute foolishness to think you can demand the state owe substance and well being to one group and not every other group. It's absolute foolishness to think the state will be generous and charitable towards one group and no one else. There is a reason the welfare state has never been limited to only those in the most need of assistance.
 
Last edited:
Deuce said:
Foreign aid in the form of food is a tad different from foreign aid in the form of bombs.
Click to expand...

It's born from the same idea. That it's the duty of the state to provide for the subsistence and well-being of the people and the world. How do you provide for the well-being of the world if you don't help them militarily?
 
jonny5 said:
I dont support any form of federal welfare, as its unconsitutional and inefficient. I might support some tax funded local assistance for my community under the right circumstances.
Click to expand...

I am inline with this, however state government can also give assistance to the people of their state, well as local, but federal ...no, its not a delegated power of government.
 
Some of all 3 is good. A minimal safety net is necessary. Some subsidies need to exist for products that create positive externalities. Some foreign is necessary, especially in unstable regions.

Most of all 3 needs to be cut.
 
Gipper said:
Some of all 3 is good. A minimal safety net is necessary. Some subsidies need to exist for products that create positive externalities. Some foreign is necessary, especially in unstable regions.

Most of all 3 needs to be cut.
Click to expand...

Why is a minimal safety net necessary? If we are going to provide subsidies for products that create positive externalities than why not tax products that cause negative externalities? Does the former not go hand in hand with the later? Why do we need to provide foreign aid to other countries? What benefit do we get out of it? Do I get any services in return for it?
 
jamesrage said:
What kind of welfare do you support?
Click to expand...

Here is a better question: What kind of welfare does the Republican Party support?

H.J.Res.72 Honoring Our Promise to America's Veteran's Bill (0 republicans against)

H.J.Res.70 Open Our National Parks and Museums Bill (1 republican against)

H.J.Res.73 Research For Life Saving Cures Bill (1 republican against)

H.R.3230 Pay Our Guard and Reserve Act (0 Republican against)

H.J.Res.85 National Emergency and Disaster Recovery Bill (0 Republicans against)

H.J.Res 75 Nutrition Assistance for Low-Income Women and Children Bill (0 republicans against)

H.R.3223 Federal Employee Retroactive Pay Fairness Act (0 Republicans against)

H.J.Res.77 Food & Drug Safety Bill (1 Republican against)

H.J.Res.84 Head Start For Low-Income Children Bill (2 Republicans against)

H.J.Res.89 Federal Worker Pay Fairness Bill (0 Republicans against)

H.J. Res.91 Honoring the Families of Fallen Soldiers Bill (0 Republicans against)

Actions speak louder than words.

vasuderatorrent
 
Henrin said:
Why is a minimal safety net necessary?
Click to expand...

I'm not totally heartless.

If we are going to provide subsidies for products that create positive externalities than why not tax products that cause negative externalities? Does the former not go hand in hand with the later?
Click to expand...

No, because Pigouvian taxes are still restrictive to many levels. You may not ban cigarettes, but if you tax them to the point that they're 15 bucks a pack, you've essentially outlawed them. Subsidizing should be to encourage certain good actions, but nothing should be used to forbid bad ones.

Why do we need to provide foreign aid to other countries? What benefit do we get out of it? Do I get any services in return for it?
Click to expand...

Middle East stability and cheap oil.
 
I think that Social welfare should definitely be a work/trade/school system. There should be some sort of system in place to both limit it and balance it to encourage people on it that getting a job is better than living off the welfare for long periods of time. It should definitely include ensuring people are earning their assistance, through working, going to school, proving that they are trying to do more to improve their own situation.

I think that some corporate benefits should be given, particularly for actually ensuring that jobs are kept in the actual US and employees are treated fairly, especially in relation to those at the top of the corporation. (No huge bonuses while their employees don't even have healthcare and/or paid a living wage.) Doing things to improve the community and environment, even at some cost to them would be good reason to give them tax breaks too.

I think some foreign aid is necessary. It will benefit us in the long run, such as ensuring shipping lanes stay open and helping with natural disasters or people trying to do another country's people harm when they can't help themselves. But these things should be done carefully, with a lot of thought to the consequences of us helping.
 
I support welfare for the old and the sick. The young and the healthy need to get their asses up off the couch and get a job.
 
Gipper said:
I'm not totally heartless.
Click to expand...

So for no good reason then.

No, because Pigouvian taxes are still restrictive to many levels. You may not ban cigarettes, but if you tax them to the point that they're 15 bucks a pack, you've essentially outlawed them. Subsidizing should be to encourage certain good actions, but nothing should be used to forbid bad ones.
Click to expand...

If providing subsidies to positive externalities is for the benefit of the economy and the people then one could argue in turn that taxing negative externalities is a benefit for the economy and the people as it will cause that externality to decrease and thus lower it's negative impact.

Middle East stability and cheap oil.
Click to expand...

Neither of which has worked out all that well. People have to be willing to be peaceful, just like they have to be ready for a certain kind of governance over another. Besides, foreign aid keeps the Middle East unstable.
 
Last edited:
vasuderatorrent said:
Here is a better question: What kind of welfare does the Republican Party support?

H.J.Res.72 Honoring Our Promise to America's Veteran's Bill (0 republicans against)

H.J.Res.70 Open Our National Parks and Museums Bill (1 republican against)

H.J.Res.73 Research For Life Saving Cures Bill (1 republican against)

H.R.3230 Pay Our Guard and Reserve Act (0 Republican against)

H.J.Res.85 National Emergency and Disaster Recovery Bill (0 Republicans against)

H.J.Res 75 Nutrition Assistance for Low-Income Women and Children Bill (0 republicans against)

H.R.3223 Federal Employee Retroactive Pay Fairness Act (0 Republicans against)

H.J.Res.77 Food & Drug Safety Bill (1 Republican against)

H.J.Res.84 Head Start For Low-Income Children Bill (2 Republicans against)

H.J.Res.89 Federal Worker Pay Fairness Bill (0 Republicans against)

H.J. Res.91 Honoring the Families of Fallen Soldiers Bill (0 Republicans against)

Actions speak louder than words.

vasuderatorrent
Click to expand...

I fail to understand the point of this post. You provide no context to these bills with regards to the thread topic. Nor do you provide any reference to your numbers. As far as I know all this is made up. For that matter I can't tell if you are attempting to put a positive or negative spin on Republicans.
 
maquiscat said:
I fail to understand the point of this post.
Click to expand...

My point is that Republicans aren't anarchist not even tea party republicans. I apologize for not making that clear. Republicans aren't anarchist not even the tea party republicans. Just in case I wasn't clear the first two times: Republicans aren't anarchist not even tea party republicans.


Below is a list of things that Republicans actually did instead of what they say in front of a camera. This is what they really did show their support for:

The republicans in congress almost unanimously support Head Start for Low-Income Children.
The republicans in congress unanimously support funding for America's Veteran's.
The republicans in congress almost unanimously support Opening our National Parks and Museums.
The republicans in congress almost unanimously support funding research for life saving cures.
The republicans in congress unanimously support paying our guard and reservist.
The republicans in congress unanimously support funding for national emergency and disaster recovery.
The republicans in congress unanimously support nutrition assistance for low-income women and children. (This is also known as food stamps and WIC.)
The republicans in congress almost unanimously support funding for the food & drug safety.
The republicans and democrats in congress and the senate unanimously support funding for families of fallen soldiers.

Again. My point is that Republicans are not anarchist not even tea party republicans.

vasuderatorrent
 
maquiscat said:
You provide no context to these bills with regards to the thread topic. Nor do you provide any reference to your numbers.
Click to expand...

If the post gets too long nobody will read it. How long do you want it to be?

vasuderatorrent
 
vasuderatorrent said:
My point is that Republicans aren't anarchist not even tea party republicans. I apologize for not making that clear. Republicans aren't anarchist not even the tea party republicans. Just in case I wasn't clear the first two times: Republicans aren't anarchist not even tea party republicans.


Below is a list of things that Republicans actually did instead of what they say in front of a camera. This is what they really did show their support for:

The republicans in congress almost unanimously support Head Start for Low-Income Children.
The republicans in congress unanimously support funding for America's Veteran's.
The republicans in congress almost unanimously support Opening our National Parks and Museums.
The republicans in congress almost unanimously support funding research for life saving cures.
The republicans in congress unanimously support paying our guard and reservist.
The republicans in congress unanimously support funding for national emergency and disaster recovery.
The republicans in congress unanimously support nutrition assistance for low-income women and children. (This is also known as food stamps and WIC.)
The republicans in congress almost unanimously support funding for the food & drug safety.
The republicans and democrats in congress and the senate unanimously support funding for families of fallen soldiers.

Again. My point is that Republicans are not anarchist not even tea party republicans.

vasuderatorrent
Click to expand...

I can support none of those things and still not be an anarchist.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom