• 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!

Should we end welfare?

Should we get rid of welfare?

  • Yes. Nothing wrong with soup kitchens

    Votes: 19 44.2%
  • No. Freebies are great

    Votes: 24 55.8%

  • Total voters
    43
I didn't answer the poll because I feel it was too black and white.
We do have to move away from the unsustainable concept of a "welfare-state", where the state takes on an ever-increasing role in supporting people, creating entitlements and making people dependent on the state.
 
I don't think it matters where you're from...I don't think anybody appreciates slackers who sit around eating Cheetos while you're out working your butt off.

Yes I agree, but the question is how many are actual slackers...

Just going back to the numbers for a second: how many people actually need government handouts because they're poor? I'm not taking about disabled or sick or old people (they are covered under a different program), just how many need goodies for being poor? One in ten at most?

Yes but in the US, that includes food stamps.. which large numbers of middle class, as well as lower class get because there has been no wage growth in the US.

If we spend a trillion dollars a year and one in ten really needs it, that's 100,000 dollars allocated per needy person. That's a lot of money. Since the poor are hardly living the high life, that siggests A.) more people are taking handouts than likely need it, b.). Money is disappearing and c.). Fraud and system abuse are a problem here.

And how many are in A vs B and C... As I said, there has been next to no wage growth in the US for 30+ years, where as prices have gone up.

So I say get rid of it and start fresh. Let the govt open up soup kitchens and housing projects. Let them open up goodwill shops to provide these poor with used clothing. But don't give them a dime of spending money.

So in other words back to before the 1920s?
 
Negative income tax...sounds like communism to me

It is a cheaper way of constructing a net to catch people before they drop out of society. It needs no bureaucracy and is too small to let people stay on dole.
 
no vote
A loaded poll , which MUST BE prohibited !
And, of course, welfare must not be repealed !
But, it probably can be improved. Liberals , get with it, or lose more political power !
 
I'd like to agree with that but esp. in cases like NYC and New York state, that wont work. The poverty-stricken inner city populations...and those affected by them....have much higher numbers proportionally to the rest of the state.

If lots of net taxpayers were to move, NY would have to be less generous to the public teat suckers
 
Yes, handouts by their very nature are harmful to all, but ESPECIALLY HARMFUL TO THE PERSON RECEIVING THE HANDOUT.
 
The single most important thing to do continuously is to strive for the re-building of human dignity .. Most poor have this not , IMO ..
I note that we have misanthropes here (haters of their fellow man) .. at least , that is the impression I receive from the Turtle and others ..
These people can emote a lot but contribute nothing of value .
Love is necessary .
 
The single most important thing to do continuously is to strive for the re-building of human dignity .. Most poor have this not , IMO ..
I note that we have misanthropes here (haters of their fellow man) .. at least , that is the impression I receive from the Turtle and others ..
These people can emote a lot but contribute nothing of value .
Love is necessary .

Love is giving handouts?

Whatever.
 
All too often welfare is about politicians buying "love" for themselves by handing out the taxpayers' money.
 
We have a cultural problem in America, particularly inner city, with people living on public money and not being productive members of society.

Part of the problem is that underclass inner city women begin having babies at age 15. They continue to have babies, with different men, until they have had five or six. These women do not go to school. They do not work. They are not ashamed to live on public money. They plan their entire lives around the expectation that they will always get free money and never have to work.

The inner city men who are part of the problem also do not work. They get social security disability payments for a mental defect or for a vague and invisible physical ailment. They do not pay for anything: not for housing (Grandma lives on welfare and he lives with her), not for food (Grandma and the baby-momma share with him), and not for child support.

I once asked a 19 year old with no job and no schooling from the inner city, "What do you do all day?”

“You know, just chill.” These men live in a culture with no expectations, no demands, and no shame.

Should we change that? Should we get rid of the handouts and end welfare?

Nothing wrong with the old soup kitchen. I don't believe in letting people starve, but let's get rid of food stamps, welfare payments, and other bs government giveaways.

Let's make these people learn personal responsibility


Interesting that you only single out the inner city welfare recipients.
 
The single most important thing to do continuously is to strive for the re-building of human dignity .. Most poor have this not , IMO ..
I note that we have misanthropes here (haters of their fellow man) .. at least , that is the impression I receive from the Turtle and others ..
These people can emote a lot but contribute nothing of value .
Love is necessary .

Agreed. But it is important to note that love does not mean enabling. If you love someone then you will push them to stop making self-destructive decisions, and be willing for them to suffer in order to improve.
 
If lots of net taxpayers were to move, NY would have to be less generous to the public teat suckers
Its this attitude which is a primary cause of the problem !
Unless we have an internet "test bot" here, I know of no solution , a good solution ..
Or, is it only the love from Jesus ?
 
YES, it is ... I think this exposes the hate, the misanthropes ..
The liberals, the progressives must take charge here and come up with solutions ...
 
I'm still waiting for somebody to explain to me what is "progressive" about bankrupting a country.
 
Agreed. But it is important to note that love does not mean enabling. If you love someone then you will push them to stop making self-destructive decisions, and be willing for them to suffer in order to improve.
"tough love "

It may start with the 3 year old , pre-pre school , these children must be saved .. their parents? probably hopeless ..even a return to slavery ... with an option ..
Come to think of it, we all have had to suffer at one time in our history ..watch the old movies .. read a book .. limited value, of course, as the primary characters are the "winners" . Few discuss the losers . For every winner, there is at least one loser , the forgotten man .
 
Welfare should be a transition, not a destination. The recipient should look forward to being off it.
 
Wut. Seriously. What the heck are you talking about?

These inner city people are "unproductive" members of society, because society has failed them at every single twist in their life. Have you ever BEEN to an inner city school, Peter? These are underfunded bare-bone holding tanks. Even kids with a drive towards "personality responsibility" go into these drugged up, gun-filled, poverty-stricken holes in the ground and then are systematically denied every single opportunity that they try pursuing. These students graduate into the world without even the sliver of basic knowledge needed to get a job or even sustain a productive life; and worse off they've learned the lesson that society will never give them the opportunity to succeed, so why the hell should they even try?

... and that's just the beginning of the problem. Inner cities are vastly underfunded by local, state and the federal government. They do not get the time of day, nor the single dollar to keep even the most basic services running. That's hospitals, roads, fire and police protection, community parks and recreation programs, and on and on and on. Our governments take one look at the "lower property value" areas of their communities and laugh at the idea of giving poor people the hundreds of millions that are actually needed to fix them.

So, no. Absolutely no. You're gung-ho "let's learn about personal responsibility" bull****, means that millions of desperate people who DO NOT have the education, who DO NOT have the life-stabilizing capital, who DO NOT even have a starting point, will be suddenly starved of the money that's keeping them alive. You know what happens when that **** hits the fan? Crime. Riots. Civil disobedience. Every social ill that we've reduced to historically low levels in 2015, being immediately shot through the roof and plunking off the moon as it heads for the stars. And all of that, all of that ridiculous dysfunction, crashing right down onto poor Peter Grimm's head ... because neither you nor your family lives in a castle surrounded by a crocodile-filled moat to keep the poor people away, do ya?

Hell to the no.


you make valid points

but....when "we" suggest those kids be allowed to go to charter schools to get out from under that issue....that idea is shot down faster than the ending of welfare

so we have a never ending cycle.....and it is NOT betting better, no matter how much money is thrown at it

so....give me solutions.....real, valid solutions

i am listening
 
I think all welfare should cease. Until each case is reviewed and authorized by a medical professional.

Uhmmmmm....let's see now. Medical professionals per visit can cost anywhere from about 150.00 to 550.00 depending on what kind of medical provider. So how will this work? Who's paying for these medical screening requirements? What are they to look for? Can they assess a person without doing any diagnostic tests?

And given the number of medical professionals per the number of those who would be seen by medical professionals...how many years will pass before all of those folks will be screened?

But given that those who receive any money because of medical reasons - well, eligibility is already based on medical professional diagnosis and treatment plans.

I'm still wondering about what population your talking about. Any random person is receives anything from the government? Or for specific medical reasons via SSI? Who are you talking about?
 
Agreed. But it is important to note that love does not mean enabling. If you love someone then you will push them to stop making self-destructive decisions, and be willing for them to suffer in order to improve.

So what about the solution regarding children and indigent elderly ? Neither population can make changes in their lives in order to enhance their own personal welfare and/or well being.
 
We have a cultural problem in America, particularly inner city, with people living on public money and not being productive members of society.

Part of the problem is that underclass inner city women begin having babies at age 15. They continue to have babies, with different men, until they have had five or six. These women do not go to school. They do not work. They are not ashamed to live on public money. They plan their entire lives around the expectation that they will always get free money and never have to work.

The inner city men who are part of the problem also do not work. They get social security disability payments for a mental defect or for a vague and invisible physical ailment. They do not pay for anything: not for housing (Grandma lives on welfare and he lives with her), not for food (Grandma and the baby-momma share with him), and not for child support.

I once asked a 19 year old with no job and no schooling from the inner city, "What do you do all day?”

“You know, just chill.” These men live in a culture with no expectations, no demands, and no shame.

Should we change that? Should we get rid of the handouts and end welfare?

Nothing wrong with the old soup kitchen. I don't believe in letting people starve, but let's get rid of food stamps, welfare payments, and other bs government giveaways.

Let's make these people learn personal responsibility

Crime is expensive, like 8.8% of the GDP. Welfare is about 2.5%. Small increases in social spending and education pay off huge dividends in crime prevention.
New Crime Study Pegs Cost At $1.7 Trillion Annually
 
Nevermind poor people.

We shan't be hypocrites.

The biggest receiver of welfare are large corporations. Look no further than bailouts.

If you get rid of welfare,mcorporate welfare must go as well.
 
Nevermind poor people.

We shan't be hypocrites.

The biggest receiver of welfare are large corporations. Look no further than bailouts.

If you get rid of welfare,mcorporate welfare must go as well.


So the largest deduction that corporations take is paying for their workers health insurance. You want that eliminated? You want states to stop trying to keep companies like United Tech. from leaving their state? You wanted GM to go under?
 
So the largest deduction that corporations take is paying for their workers health insurance. You want that eliminated? You want states to stop trying to keep companies like United Tech. from leaving their state? You wanted GM to go under?

If it means keeping people and businesses honest and unable to receive free handouts at the expense of everyone then sure.

It'd be scary if GM went under but the market does indeed (and I know this will sound cliche) have built in mechanisms in order to ensure that what goes down must come up. No one should be entitled to economic handouts. Ever.
 
Back
Top Bottom