• 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
So you are going to pay them in commodities, not cash? That would cause massive dependence.




Really, you're going to ask people to fast? You realize that is unhealthy, right?



If you want people to volunteer their time than why not just do it without government? You realize people volunteer their time everyday, right?



I see, so you will provide them everything they need while they go to college on the public dime. That way once they get out of school they will no longer be dependent on you. Is that the idea? This wouldn't really eliminate any of the cost, but simply move it. It's not really a great idea.

You miss the mark on all your points. The Mormon welfare plan requires healthy people to work in the welfare system to receive benefits and instead of giving them cash where they may buy alcohol, drugs, or blow it gambling they are paid according to their needs in canned food, clothing, etc out of the bishop's warehouse all commodities created within the welfare system. This structure would significantly cut the amount of people receiving benefits ie drastically reduce corruption. The truly needy would only use it. As far as fasting, fasting two meals a month for a healthy person is not unhealthy but you likely just reaching to make an argument I think. If you understood my virtual university concept you would see it wouldn't cost taxpayers anything and it basically makes world class education and job training free or super cheap to the masses. So it does just the opposite of what you suggest, that is why I mention it would allow elimination of student grants because you can get a world class education by sitting in your bedroom in front of TV and xbox remote in your hand and download for like $.99 interactive virtual courses that are better courses than you get at an Ivy League school.
 
Last edited:
The only thing I might support would be cheap food like powdered milk/eggs and canned fruits and vegetables. Other than that, we can take care of each other as we did before big government.
 
I think we all need to rid ourselves of calling it "handouts" because it negates the moral action behind what we do upon reflecting the millions of impoverished people we want to help. Imagine someone in your family told you constantly "hey I gave you a hand out," as opposed to saying "my intent is trying to help you rise above your economical problems." There are those who take advantage of the system and those that utilize it, but most people are focused on the people who take advantage as opposed to the ones that don't. Folks here are acting like your money individually, is funding social programs. Your money alone couldn't fund a YMCA, let alone the entire welfare program. We often times put too much importance on what we contribute with our paychecks.
 
If you understood my virtual university concept you would see it wouldn't cost taxpayers anything and it basically makes world class education and job training free or super cheap to the masses. So it does just the opposite of what you suggest, that is why I mention it would allow elimination of student grants because you can get a world class education by sitting in your bedroom in front of TV and xbox remote in your hand and download for like $.99 interactive virtual courses that are better courses than you get at an Ivy League school.

You need to show some stats on this. It still has to be paid for somehow. Web hosting isn't free.
 
The only thing I might support would be cheap food like powdered milk/eggs and canned fruits and vegetables. Other than that, we can take care of each other as we did before big government.

good idea, then what do you do about those that are allergic to milk and eggs?
 
I think we all need to rid ourselves of calling it "handouts" because it negates the moral action behind what we do upon reflecting the millions of impoverished people we want to help. Imagine someone in your family told you constantly "hey I gave you a hand out," as opposed to saying "my intent is trying to help you rise above your economical problems." There are those who take advantage of the system and those that utilize it, but most people are focused on the people who take advantage as opposed to the ones that don't. Folks here are acting like your money individually, is funding social programs. Your money alone couldn't fund a YMCA, let alone the entire welfare program. We often times put too much importance on what we contribute with our paychecks.

When by law government takes the result of productivity by one individual and subsequently gives to another due to their lack thereof, that is a handout...
 
good idea, then what do you do about those that are allergic to milk and eggs?

Give them fruits, vegetables, peanut butter, block cheese, or any of the other cheap, bulk food in black and white labels that used to be supplied by our government for welfare.
 
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 type that is a hand up and none that is a hand out. I know that is more of a slogan, but it sums up my feelings pretty well.
 
You need to show some stats on this. It still has to be paid for somehow. Web hosting isn't free.

The way I see it being set up is for someone like Google and say Xbox being civic minded and getting behind it, giving a platform that pretty much guarantees high traffic as an incentive for educational /video game type companies, universities, not for profit organizations like Khan Academy to create amazing courses and charge something like $ .99 a download. So say a company creates an amazing course with a 10 million budget and is downloaded several million times a year globally at $.99 per download, year after year, that is a very profitable and at same time gives world class education easily accessed to the masses at a fraction of what it costs if they say went to Harvard to get the course. What I imagine is for there to be a link to the virtual university in a very visible area on everyone's Google home page and for people to enter the VirtualU on the tv through xbox like you would Netflix or Hula.
 
When by law government takes the result of productivity by one individual and subsequently gives to another due to their lack thereof, that is a handout...

You don't see that my taxes, Jose taxes, Michael's taxes, and all other taxes collectively contribute. I didn't give Susie who is on welfare my money. The state did. I may have contributed through taxes but I didn't directly give Susie a handout.
 
I think we all need to rid ourselves of calling it "handouts" because it negates the moral action behind what we do upon reflecting the millions of impoverished people we want to help. Imagine someone in your family told you constantly "hey I gave you a hand out," as opposed to saying "my intent is trying to help you rise above your economical problems." There are those who take advantage of the system and those that utilize it, but most people are focused on the people who take advantage as opposed to the ones that don't. Folks here are acting like your money individually, is funding social programs. Your money alone couldn't fund a YMCA, let alone the entire welfare program. We often times put too much importance on what we contribute with our paychecks.

How is forcing someone else to provide for another person they don't know a moral action? If someone chooses of their own volition to help someone in need, then it's a moral action.

And if you're really grateful of the "moral actions" we're taking by providing for the poor through welfare, you should respect the individual amount each of us are forced to give through our taxes instead of downplaying it.
 
Give them fruits, vegetables, peanut butter, block cheese, or any of the other cheap, bulk food in black and white labels that used to be supplied by our government for welfare.

You are not answering the problem. Block cheese (dairy) peanut butter and the like could contain allergens. What would be your alternative to control the possibility that families may contract an allergy from government supplied food?
 
You don't see that my taxes, Jose taxes, Michael's taxes, and all other taxes collectively contribute. I didn't give Susie who is on welfare my money. The state did. I may have contributed through taxes but I didn't directly give Susie a handout.

You were forced to provide a portion of your productive output so that someone else could determine who is more worthy of receiving it more than you do...
 
You are not answering the problem. Block cheese (dairy) peanut butter and the like could contain allergens. What would be your alternative to control the possibility that families may contract an allergy from government supplied food?

Are they allergic to fruit and vegetables as well, because that's what they'll be eating as a supplement to what they already have. This welfare food isn't meant to feed an entire family long term, it's meant as a short term supplement.
 
Nothing for no one. Let me quote Thoreau on this

There is no odor so bad as that which arises from goodness tainted. It is human, it is divine, carrion. If I knew for a certainty that a man was coming to my house with the conscious design of doing me good, I should run for my life, as from that dry and parching wind of the African deserts called the simoom, which fills the mouth and nose and ears and eyes with dust till you are suffocated, for fear that I should get some of his good done to me — some of its virus mingled with my blood. No — in this case I would rather suffer evil the natural way. A man is not a good man to me because he will feed me if I should be starving, or warm me if I should be freezing, or pull me out of a ditch if I should ever fall into one. I can find you a Newfoundland dog that will do as much. Philanthropy is not love for one's fellow-man in the broadest sense. Howard (9) was no doubt an exceedingly kind and worthy man in his way, and has his reward; but, comparatively speaking, what are a hundred Howards to us, if their philanthropy do not help us in our best estate, when we are most worthy to be helped? I never heard of a philanthropic meeting in which it was sincerely proposed to do any good to me, or the like of me.
Be sure that you give the poor the aid they most need, though it be your example which leaves them far behind. If you give money, spend yourself with it, and do not merely abandon it to them. We make curious mistakes sometimes. Often the poor man is not so cold and hungry as he is dirty and ragged and gross. It is partly his taste, and not merely his misfortune. If you give him money, he will perhaps buy more rags with it. I was wont to pity the clumsy Irish laborers who cut ice on the pond, in such mean and ragged clothes, while I shivered in my more tidy and somewhat more fashionable garments, till, one bitter cold day, one who had slipped into the water came to my house to warm him, and I saw him strip off three pairs of pants and two pairs of stockings ere he got down to the skin, though they were dirty and ragged enough, it is true, and that he could afford to refuse the extra garments which I offered him, he had so many intra ones. This ducking was the very thing he needed. Then I began to pity myself, and I saw that it would be a greater charity to bestow on me a flannel shirt than a whole slop-shop on him. There are a thousand hacking at the branches of evil to one who is striking at the root, and it may be that he who bestows the largest amount of time and money on the needy is doing the most by his mode of life to produce that misery which he strives in vain to relieve. It is the pious slave-breeder devoting the proceeds of every tenth slave to buy a Sunday's liberty for the rest. Some show their kindness to the poor by employing them in their kitchens. Would they not be kinder if they employed themselves there? You boast of spending a tenth part of your income in charity; maybe you should spend the nine tenths so, and done with it. Society recovers only a tenth part of the property then. Is this owing to the generosity of him in whose possession it is found, or to the remissness of the officers of justice?
 
Are they allergic to fruit and vegetables as well, because that's what they'll be eating as a supplement to what they already have. This welfare food isn't meant to feed an entire family long term, it's meant as a short term supplement.

I know. I was on welfare. This is why the government doesn't "give you food" because that would create a storm of lawsuits. Hence is why they create the Electronic Benefit Transfer which allows families the limited freedom to supply themselves with the necessary foods. Some families are allergic to fruits and vegetables. Myself I'm allergic to bananas for some reason the result are hives within my mouth and extreme itchiness.
 
You were forced to provide a portion of your productive output so that someone else could determine who is more worthy of receiving it more than you do...

I've been down this debate before. I'm not forced to do anything. I know plenty of folks who went homeless because they didn't want any social and financial obligations
 
I know. I was on welfare. This is why the government doesn't "give you food" because that would create a storm of lawsuits. Hence is why they create the Electronic Benefit Transfer which allows families the limited freedom to supply themselves with the necessary foods. Some families are allergic to fruits and vegetables. Myself I'm allergic to bananas for some reason the result are hives within my mouth and extreme itchiness.

EBT is a much different program than SNAP which is the food assistance program. You should know that...
 
I know. I was on welfare. This is why the government doesn't "give you food" because that would create a storm of lawsuits. Hence is why they create the Electronic Benefit Transfer which allows families the limited freedom to supply themselves with the necessary foods. Some families are allergic to fruits and vegetables. Myself I'm allergic to bananas for some reason the result are hives within my mouth and extreme itchiness.

If you're allergic to everything, what are you going to buy with the card?

Too many scams associated with other forms of welfare. People got by fine before welfare, didn't they?
 
I've been down this debate before. I'm not forced to do anything. I know plenty of folks who went homeless because they didn't want any social and financial obligations

LOL, you're a hoot. If you choose to support yourself and your family through earning income, you most certainly are forced to pay taxes used to provide living assistance to others...
 
How is forcing someone else to provide for another person they don't know a moral action? If someone chooses of their own volition to help someone in need, then it's a moral action.

And if you're really grateful of the "moral actions" we're taking by providing for the poor through welfare, you should respect the individual amount each of us are forced to give through our taxes instead of downplaying it.

Nobody is forced. Nobody forces you to own a private or corporate business or force you to hold a minimum wage job.
 
Nobody is forced. Nobody forces you to own a private or corporate business or force you to hold a minimum wage job.

And should you choose not to do either, is anyone else obligated to provide for your perceived needs?
 
EBT is a much different program than SNAP which is the food assistance program. You should know that...

Yeah well I am not too familiar with SNAP since I was laid off I only qualified for EBT. I didn't even qualify for GR since I was too honest in my application.
 
And should you choose not to do either, is anyone else obligated to provide for your perceived 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.
 
Yeah well I am not too familiar with SNAP since I was laid off I only qualified for EBT. I didn't even qualify for GR since I was too honest in my application.

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...
 
Back
Top Bottom