• 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

jamesrage

DP Veteran
Joined
Jul 31, 2005
Messages
36,705
Reaction score
17,867
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Slightly Conservative
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.
 
Last edited:
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. It should be based on how much you've paid into it. So for instance, if you've worked many years and paid into the system, you get a longer, higher pay-out if and when you collect unemployment.

I don't think it should go to people who year after year refuse to help themselves.

And as far as corporate welfare goes: hell-to-the-NO.
 
What kind of welfare do you support?

tax payer funded assistance for the poor(food stamps/snap, WIC, section 8 and etc.)
corporate welfare(tax breaks, subsidies/grants and ect.)
foreign aid(financial aid, military aid and etc.)
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.

In order that I might better answer the poll, would you share your definition of corporate welfare ( examples may help )

Good morn, sir

Thom Paine
 
What kind of welfare do you support?

tax payer funded assistance for the poor(food stamps/snap, WIC, section 8 and etc.)
corporate welfare(tax breaks, subsidies/grants and ect.)
foreign aid(financial aid, military aid and etc.)
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 looked at negative income tax systems and they seem to make sense, if they are well constructed. That way you avoid all the bureaucracy otherwise associated with social programs.
 
It depends on what you mean. What's it for? Who/what is it given to? In conjunction with what else? Under what circumstance?

I can think of approaches to welfare I would support for any of these. I can think of approaches to welfare I wouldn't support for any of these.
 
Ultimately I believe that government should never give any money out that is not in exchange for services rendered or goods received. That said, there are things that I would be willing to allow.

Tax payer funded assistance is allowable, however, I do not support the structure of the current systems. For the most part they do not encourage the removal of the individual from the system nor are they structured such that the individual is weaned off the system instead of being cut off abruptly once a certain line is crossed. That is before you even look at the inefficiency of the "red tape"

Subsidies and grants are right out, and tax breaks could really end up on what one considers a "tax break". Like many things these days, those opposed to something will apply labels that may not be exactly right or wrong. Of course I recognize that all taxes that are applied to businesses are then passed on either to the consumer or in the form of a loss of some part to the employees, so I honestly don't think that businesses should be taxed, thus rendering the issue of tax breaks moot.

Foreign aid is rather tricky and very individualistic. I would say that military aid, be it for military or disaster relief purposes, would be preferable over straight financial. If at all financial should only come after any civilian efforts, and even then needs to be considered very carefully. Certainly if we find that any aid we send is not reaching those intended or is not used for the intended purposes, we should cease it.
 
I only favor outright welfare payments to any person not physically or mentally proven to be not capable of work. That is an act of compassion and we cannot let people starve or die through no fault of their own.
 
I only favor outright welfare payments to any person not physically or mentally proven to be not capable of work. That is an act of compassion and we cannot let people starve or die through no fault of their own.

I agree. I wouldn't have taken you for being against abortion.
 
I support tax payer funded assistance for the poor(food stamps/snap, WIC, section 8 and etc.) However they system needs heavily reformed. I do not believe in giving hand outs to any able bodied person but I do believe in giving persons the opportunity to help themselves. Many aspects of our current system gives little motivation for people to reach beyond the role of government assistance recipient.
 
Civic welfare. I'm not sure if I agree with all the examples you listed under welfare for the poor; where i come from it's civic welfare.
Unemployment benefits, pensions, social security that sort of thing.

If you consider other expenditures under welfare, like maternity leave and free education and free healthcare then I support those too under certain conditions (like universal healthcare =/= obamacare).
 
While I totally agree that our gov't should provide welfare for the poor, I believe it should be much more restrictive than it is. I heard, from Judge Judy no less, a great idea for it. She stated that parents who receive welfare should be required to ensure their child is attending school everyday. Not passing or anything like that. Just attending. School systems would simply be required to keep a database of attendance. The military already has the system in place with our "Morning Report" system. Any service's version would do. Of course, I'm sure some politician would find a way to benefit a key supporter and create a multimillion dollar system of reporting for this.:roll: Some would say that is big gov't intrusion. So be it. At least we would be assure that parents aren't ignoring their children and having more and more of them for the check.
The fact that EBT cards, depending upon the state, can be used to indirectly purchase beer/tobacco, draw out "ATM" fees, etc is ridiculous. EBT cards should be restricted for use at grocery stores to purchase approved groceries. Many will say that doing that makes it inconvenient for the user. Yes, it does. While I don't believe people should be punished for being poor, I also believe that the people who pay the taxes being used to fund welfare have a stake in the "game" too. We should be assured that the money we pay towards welfare is in fact being used for it's intended purpose.
 
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 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.
 
I support the social safety nets. Everything else, not so much. As for corporate welfare, we should just cut the corporate rate significantly and collect it from every business.
 
Any civilized society will always assist its poorest members. Ideally, it should be done through private and communal channels (charities and churches, etc), but as long as involuntary taxes are being extracted anyway, this ought to be the primary expenditure target. Of course, it has to be designed in a way that avoids perverse incentives and waste, and of course that's not how it is designed now.

The "corporate welfare", on the other hand, is inexcusable. It distorts the markets and breeds corruption. Government interference in economic decision-making must be kept to the absolute possible minimum.

With foreign aid, "it depends". Helping victims of an earthquake, or delivering food to some people starving because of a drought? Absolutely.
Subsidizing a lesser-evil (?) government in some distant land, in a situation we do not begin to understand? No. (Although, to be honest, our foreign aid is such a small part of the budget, it should not even be on the list).
 
What kind of welfare do you support?

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

Domestically, I'm generally against welfare that is designed to be permanent except when the reasons are permanent conditions such as disabilities. Concurrent with the assistance should be education, job training and entrepreneur training. These educational options should be made available via online/homeschooling for moms of children under age 6. I support equivalent per captita funding for privately operated non-profit organizations through the faith and community based initiative that offer help to the needy giving recipients a choice. For example, give people living in the projects to choice to have a Habitat for Humanity home with government grants offered to Habitat for every family they help that doesn't choose to stay in the projects. Allow community food banks and organic farming co-ops to compete with the food stamp program with equivalent per capita funding. All welfare recipients relinquish certain rights until they're no longer on welfare including no alcohol, no sugar and sugary food, no fatty food or cooking oil and no cable TV at tax-payer expense. Bonuses at Christmas for being married, nobody in the home getting in trouble with the law and kids making good grades in school all, of which costs the tax-payers less over the long term.

Corporate; I'm okay with low interest loans. The Bush and Obama auto loans to GM and Chrysler should not be labeled Marxist (while conveniently leaving Bush's name out for dishonest partisan political reasons) while we give loans every day of the week to new business start-ups under the Small Business Administration. I'm okay with grants if national security is a factor or to aid a corporation in scientific research in something related to national security.

Foreign aid; I'm okay with it. My only problem is our support for the continuance of the petroleum monopoly. Its a dangerous state of affairs when we continue to put all of our transportation energy eggs in the petroleum basket. I consider military deployment just as much a foreign aid expense as direct cash payments. We'd be in a much better place IMHO, if for every electric car recharging station an American business installs, the government gives them a grant to put up another one spending maybe just 10% of what we've paid to defend Saudi Arabia, Iraq and Kuwait over the years so that dictators can continue to control our economy.

I think non-profits doing work in foreign countries should be included in the foreign aid budget and treated as private ambassadors of the United States with maybe some State Department training. Mercy Ships for example, is doing a great job and probably a better than at helping people that giving cash to a corrupt third world government is able to do.

https://www.mercyships.org/home/
Africa Mercy: Hospital of hope - 60 Minutes - CBS News
 
Last edited:
Our states EBT system was down this week and on the news this morning they interviewed a woman who was extremely put out by it. She was in her twenties and very overweight, which made me wonder why she needed help with food in the first place. Now I am all for children getting fed but what's the point if the mother is eating it all?

Someone here ( and I can't remember who - sorry!) mentioned in another thread, the idea of making food stamps like WIC, where you get a check and can get specific foods and amounts which will assist you and keep you properly fed. Food stamps should be just that - an assistance not just a blank check to buy all kinds of crap.

Section 8 is a freaking joke. I don't even want to get started on that.
 
It depends on what you mean. What's it for? Who/what is it given to? In conjunction with what else? Under what circumstance?

I can think of approaches to welfare I would support for any of these. I can think of approaches to welfare I wouldn't support for any of these.

This. It's all about the how and the why, not who is getting it.
 
"Try to imagine a regulation of labor imposed by force that is not a violation of liberty; a transfer of wealth imposed by force that is not a violation of property. If you cannot reconcile these contradictions, then you must conclude that the law cannot organize labor and industry without organizing injustice." - Frédéric Bastiat

It is not possible to demand that the state be generous, charitable, involved in everything, devoted to everybody; ...that it should intervene directly to relieve all suffering, satisfy and anticipate all wants, furnish capital to all enterprises, enlightenment to all minds, balm for all wounds, and asylums for all the unfortunate and still protect the rights of people.

If you were to limit it to only certain avenues to relieve certain hardships, or support for certain business ventures you would still fail to support the rights of people with such views and or actions.
 
Our states EBT system was down this week and on the news this morning they interviewed a woman who was extremely put out by it. She was in her twenties and very overweight, which made me wonder why she needed help with food in the first place. Now I am all for children getting fed but what's the point if the mother is eating it all?

Someone here ( and I can't remember who - sorry!) mentioned in another thread, the idea of making food stamps like WIC, where you get a check and can get specific foods and amounts which will assist you and keep you properly fed. Food stamps should be just that - an assistance not just a blank check to buy all kinds of crap.

Section 8 is a freaking joke. I don't even want to get started on that.

Section 8, BTW is a form of corporate welfare. Yes, the poor get a cheaper place to live but its the landlord who gets the government check. I'm okay with it but lets all be honest about it and not bash poor single moms who would otherwise be homeless as "gaming of the system."
 
I support the social safety nets. Everything else, not so much. As for corporate welfare, we should just cut the corporate rate significantly and collect it from every business.

Business just passes it down in sales. So might as well get rid of the biz tax and collect it all from individuals.
 
I'm okay with it but lets all be honest about it and not bash poor single moms who would otherwise be homeless as "gaming of the system."


I wasn't talking about them, it's the system. My husband does drywall work for the city and it's mostly section 8 housing. They get these nice houses and completely destroy them and there is no consequence for it, they just order all new appliances and redo the house once they move out. Complete waste of money and they should be held to some degree to take care of the housing they are getting.

And btw the people I know on section 8 are not all poor single moms. A couple of them are going to school and do need help, but most have a working boyfriend that doesn't live with them and don't work because they get everything paid for them.
 
I wasn't talking about them, it's the system. My husband does drywall work for the city and it's mostly section 8 housing. They get these nice houses and completely destroy them and there is no consequence for it, they just order all new appliances and redo the house once they move out. Complete waste of money and they should be held to some degree to take care of the housing they are getting.

And btw the people I know on section 8 are not all poor single moms. A couple of them are going to school and do need help, but most have a working boyfriend that doesn't live with them and don't work because they get everything paid for them.

Wow. I tend to think people generally don't value things they didn't invest in. This is one of the reasons I like Habitat for humanity. The residents have to attend and pass classes on household budgeting (I think) and personally put in sweat equity helping to build their home or somebody else's. Not only do they care more about it because they put in a lot of time clearing land, nailing up studs, hanging doors, laying tile and carpet, painting walls and laying sod; but if or rather when something needs repair they are more likely qualified to fix it because they had some good training when the house was being built. Then they have a no interest mortgage for ten years to pay, albeit low since since there's no interest, much of the building materials and sometimes land was donated and much of the labor costs were eliminated by volunteers and Habitat homeowners. And guess what happens if on very rare occasions they refuse to pay their mortgage? They get foreclosed on and the home is fixed up and given to a different Habitat recipient.

I have a friend who got a Habitat home. A nice three bedroom, two bath with a yard in a low crime area. He wasn't penalized for being married to the mother of his little girl. The only other stipulation is he could never sell it on the open market, only back to Habitat, since many of the materials donated where from the commercial real estate industry and it wouldn't be fair to compete with them. He could have rented out however. He ended up selling it when he got a super 6 figure job offer in marketing for a top professional sports team out of state that I'll keep nameless.
 
Business just passes it down in sales. So might as well get rid of the biz tax and collect it all from individuals.

I'd support a rate lower than anything in Europe. To make up the difference, we could tax investment income as income above a certain cap.
 
I'd support a rate lower than anything in Europe. To make up the difference, we could tax investment income as income above a certain cap.

There's no difference to make up. If you eliminate corporate tax, prices will go down, income will go up, and income tax will go up.
 
There's no difference to make up. If you eliminate corporate tax, prices will go down, income will go up, and income tax will go up.

yeah, i used to be a libertarian; i remember that one.
 
Back
Top Bottom