• 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 reject the "ONLY NECESSITIES" part of the proposal.

First, it's just cruel to dictate that THOSE PEOPLE don't deserve a nice thing now and again. They can buy those things "with their own cash?" If they had an awful lot of cash to spare, they wouldn't need help in the first place. It also doesn't appropriately account for the fact that sometimes those niceties are cheaper than you think. Manager's specials on steaks sometimes get you meat that's cheaper than frozen chicken strips or ground beef. SNAP already has a lot of restrictions on it. We don't need to devolve it to "you get two bowls of gruel a day and be happy!"

I believe the people who say that don't really believe it. They're just throwing a bone out there to minimize criticism of their stern beliefs. When pressed they feel that all these people's money is from a handout, hence it's their money to dictate.
 
I reject the "ONLY NECESSITIES" part of the proposal.

First, it's just cruel to dictate that THOSE PEOPLE don't deserve a nice thing now and again. They can buy those things "with their own cash?" If they had an awful lot of cash to spare, they wouldn't need help in the first place. It also doesn't appropriately account for the fact that sometimes those niceties are cheaper than you think. Manager's specials on steaks sometimes get you meat that's cheaper than frozen chicken strips or ground beef. SNAP already has a lot of restrictions on it. We don't need to devolve it to "you get two bowls of gruel a day and be happy!"

I specifically didnt limit amount of food but no way should I be buying 'nice things' for others. If you want them, earn them. For kid's special occasions, there are lots of community and church-funded things that offer presents, parties, etc. It takes my 'nice things' from me to pay for theirs. No. It's an incentive...if you want potato chips and cant afford them, then that's an incentive to do something about it.
 
I believe the people who say that don't really believe it. They're just throwing a bone out there to minimize criticism of their stern beliefs. When pressed they feel that all these people's money is from a handout, hence it's their money to dictate.

If it's not a necessity and they cant afford it...what's the big deal? There are loads of things I want and cant 'buy it with my own cash.' Paying for it for someone else means it's even less likely that I can and I earned my $.
 
We already take away "welfare" after a certain period of time, GED or not. :confused:

There is always some type of public assistance for those that apply, esp. those with kids.
 
Yes, but quite honestly does our perceived social responsibility to provide food & shelter for our fellow Americans specify that one gets their own place? I don't believe it does (IMHO).

Many people do not share a 'perceived social responsibility to provide food and shelter for our fellow Americans.'

But as I wrote, the govt isnt in the position to demand people share housing, they may provide 'shelters' but those arent permanent residences and the govt's reach doesnt extend to creating communes. People may choose to do so, and some do. More likely, the $$ is spent with other family members to share a dwelling.
 
If it's not a necessity and they cant afford it...what's the big deal? There are loads of things I want and cant 'buy it with my own cash.' Paying for it for someone else means it's even less likely that I can and I earned my $.
If you have $X in cash in your pocket it's your's to decide what you spend it on. Provided said cash was gained legally it's nobody else's business.
 
If you have $X in cash in your pocket it's your's to decide what you spend it on. Provided said cash was gained legally it's nobody else's business.

Well I was talking more about food stamps assistance, EBT cards. Those are already regulated somewhat anyway. The state could also make sure the funds for their rent went directly to their mortgage or landlord, direct deposit. Same for daycare. Then it's up to them to make their car payments, kids clothes, potato chips, etc.
 
Actually, I did reference the wiki article last night (scanning & speed-reading).

Here's what I found:

+++

"In a negative income tax system, people earning a certain income level would owe no taxes; those earning more than that would pay a proportion of their income above that level; and those below that level would receive a payment of a proportion of their shortfall, which is the amount their income falls below that level."

+++

So a specific income level is picked, and unless that income level is exceeded the person has no incentive to work.

If we pick $7K/yr as the guaranteed level, there's absolutely no reason for my H.S. Senior (now turned 18) to work his usual $3,500/yr fast-food job (true example) - he can stay home & study harder or goof off and still receive the same $7K.

Individuals will forgo any traceable income or job, unless it pays reasonably well in excess of $7K. See the problem here? It *is* income tested in actuality. And has the same disincentives as other means-tested systems.

Unless, I'm misunderstanding something? (I may have).

Where negative taxes were trytried there is in fact a certain fall off of work. But as the $ 3.500 minus a small tax in your example would increase the student's income to over $ 10.000 he would have the incentive that any worker has to put in extra effort for more pay.
 
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

I am wondering how much of this you just pulled out of thin air. The vast majority of people on welfare are not women who had a baby at 15 and then continue to have babies with different men until they've had 5 or 6. I am willing to wager that makes us less than 1% of the welfare population.

As for whether or not they work, you are just making assumptions based on your own ignorance.
In fact, among poor people who are neither kids, elderly, nor disabled, half (49%) worked in 2012, when the unemployment rate was 8.1%. If you take out those who didn’t work because they were going to school, 57% worked (i.e., among poor, non-disabled adults, 18-64, not in school, 57% worked).

Digging a bit deeper in these numbers, of the 46 million poor people in 2012, about 20 million (43%) were kids (35%) or elderlies (8%). The other 26 million poor were 18-64. Of those, about 11 million worked and 16 million did not work (rounding screws up the totals a bit).

However, of those non-working 16 million adults, 5 million did not work due to illness or disability. So, of the about 21 million, non-disabled poor adults, half worked (and another 3 million did not work because they were in school).

the numbers above, which are the only numbers i was able to pull up pretty quickly show that the majority of people are trying, or cannot try. Of course there are some who abuse the system, but it is not as common as people who don't bother looking into things believe.

Let's make these people learn personal responsibility

You don't know these people. You don't know what they are going through, what they trying to do, or anything else. You are just making ignorant assumptions. Most people are trying to do better. Go to any inner city, spend some time there. You will see countless people going to work, albeit part time, and for ****ty wages. Not enough to get them off of welfare. Even more people trying to find work who can't, as least partly, due to our poor education systems.

And what exactly do you think is going to happen if we did get rid of welfare? If we did decide people who are barely scraping by have too much and we need to take more from them because ignorant people looking down from their pedestals decided they have too much? Chances are they aren't going to just crawl into a corner and die quietly as you are probably hoping for.
 
Why just welfare that goes to people in the inner city? What about the rest of the welfare?

They like corporate welfare and foreign aid. So I doubt they are concerned about those forms of welfare.
 
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

1. Soup kitchens ARE welfare.

2. Most states don't give money to people without children (any welfare $ is for children).

3. Most states confine welfare $ to people with children for a limited period of time, and usually require some form of job training or something along those lines.


Because some people abuse the system is no reason to deny others who are truly needy the assistance they need during hard times. That's the kind of country we are: a civilized one.

If you want to take away welfare from someone who doesn't need it, take away corporate welfare. Exxon sometimes pays no income taxes in America at all. Exxon doesn't need that welfare. And we the taxpayers spend a lot more on corporate welfare than helping the homeless.
 
1. Soup kitchens ARE welfare.

2. Most states don't give money to people without children (any welfare $ is for children).

3. Most states confine welfare $ to people with children for a limited period of time, and usually require some form of job training or something along those lines.


Because some people abuse the system is no reason to deny others who are truly needy the assistance they need during hard times. That's the kind of country we are: a civilized one.

If you want to take away welfare from someone who doesn't need it, take away corporate welfare. Exxon sometimes pays no income taxes in America at all. Exxon doesn't need that welfare. And we the taxpayers spend a lot more on corporate welfare than helping the homeless.

Exxon isn't a person.

I don't think corporations should pay any tax at all, because they're not people.

Exxon is an entity, and a very good one. It employs nearly 100,000 people, and it provides much-needed oil and gas to the world, which we all know we need.

If you took away the tax on Exxon, how many more people could they afford to hire? Probably a lot... because the managers could run the company more efficiently without cash being siphoned off by the government.
 
I would rather not have welfare. Who are we kidding, our gov't isn't going to reform welfare to any semblance of an efficient program meant to stimulate personal progress. Besides, how many people starved to death before welfare? You know what people did do? They loved each other much more because they had to rely on one another. If you were in need, you received a loving gift, not a cold, faceless entitlement.
 
I think all welfare should cease. Until each case is reviewed and authorized by a medical professional.

If only we could get medical professionals to certify banks, Wall Street, pharmaceuticals, the sugar industry and such as sick then we might get Congress to actually to stop enabling them.
 
If you took away the tax on Exxon, how many more people could they afford to hire? Probably a lot... because the managers could run the company more efficiently without cash being siphoned off by the government.

If it takes fully staffed 50 people to run an oilrig why would they hire any more people even with tax cuts? It just doesn't make sense to hire more.

FYI legally corporations do have personhood.

Corporate personhood - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
 
If it takes fully staffed 50 people to run an oilrig why would they hire any more people even with tax cuts? It just doesn't make sense to hire more.

FYI legally corporations do have personhood.

Corporate personhood - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Greetings, winston53660. :2wave:

That's a very good question! :thumbs: What we need is a lot more real job openings that pay decent wages, period, because that growth has been anemic, sorry to say!
 
How about ending unwinnable wars that drag on forever , Iraq , Afghanistan ring a bell? OR BETTER YET don't start stupid wars in the 1st place..

Im glad the War in Iraq was a HUGE FAILURE:applaud, oh yea throw Nam in there also, simply because i said it would and you Gopers wanted the ACA to fail, American Imperialism not so mighty anymore ay??:2wave:

I thought all of you Repugs, Tea Maggots were against BIG GOVERNMENT?? if so why do you want to stop gay marriage, Women from getting abortions, starting wars you can't win, throwing folks in prison for Weed??

How about ending Corporate welfare??? the reason so many are on welfare is because of **** companies like Wal Fart that pay beans, folks go to the safety net mostly from the working poor to subsidize income just to live..

Go ahead end welfare and see what happens?? most of the folks who receive welfare are white Women, of course many in the redneck states like Mississippi, that means more white babies, kids will die from sickness, starvation, mal nutrition, i don't have a problem with that, as long as you are all for it, your just killing more future Repug voters..

Funny how voters in the South have been voting for the Repukes for 40+ years now, and your STILL the poorest part of the country, with the shortest life span, and most lack insurance because your states didn't expand medicaid..

Glad to see you all are still voting for the same slime that is killing you off..
 
How about ending unwinnable wars that drag on forever , Iraq , Afghanistan ring a bell? OR BETTER YET don't start stupid wars in the 1st place..

Im glad the War in Iraq was a HUGE FAILURE:applaud, oh yea throw Nam in there also, simply because i said it would and you Gopers wanted the ACA to fail, American Imperialism not so mighty anymore ay??:2wave:

I thought all of you Repugs, Tea Maggots were against BIG GOVERNMENT?? if so why do you want to stop gay marriage, Women from getting abortions, starting wars you can't win, throwing folks in prison for Weed??

How about ending Corporate welfare??? the reason so many are on welfare is because of **** companies like Wal Fart that pay beans, folks go to the safety net mostly from the working poor to subsidize income just to live..

Go ahead end welfare and see what happens?? most of the folks who receive welfare are white Women, of course many in the redneck states like Mississippi, that means more white babies, kids will die from sickness, starvation, mal nutrition, i don't have a problem with that, as long as you are all for it, your just killing more future Repug voters..

Funny how voters in the South have been voting for the Repukes for 40+ years now, and your STILL the poorest part of the country, with the shortest life span, and most lack insurance because your states didn't expand medicaid..

Glad to see you all are still voting for the same slime that is killing you off..

I hope you feel better now.
 
If you took away the tax on Exxon, how many more people could they afford to hire? Probably a lot... because the managers could run the company more efficiently without cash being siphoned off by the government.

Its not really a question of how many could they hire, its how many would they?

But even more importantly, why shouldn't they pay taxes?
 
I'm for ending welfare completely only because I think it would force America to actually deal with issues it hides via welfare.

That said, ending welfare would massively "Finish Off" Rural Poor White America just as it would Inner City Poor Black/Hispanic America.


The US would become a much more dangerous place and crime would essentially hit South American levels. What nobody really likes to talk about is Welfare is, much like abortion, "Basic Societal Crime Prevention 101". Without Welfare you remove a large, unemployable (for all sorts of reasons) segment of the population from even basic economic participation in society. Welfare is paying someone to not steal. Nobody likes to go into that truth because it's ugly. Yet you remove welfare and crime goes up. All welfare has ever been in any society is a plug to stop the unemployable from robbing the employed. Take that plug away and the inevitable will occur.
 
I'm for ending welfare completely only because I think it would force America to actually deal with issues it hides via welfare.

That said, ending welfare would massively "Finish Off" Rural Poor White America just as it would Inner City Poor Black/Hispanic America.


The US would become a much more dangerous place and crime would essentially hit South American levels. What nobody really likes to talk about is Welfare is, much like abortion, "Basic Societal Crime Prevention 101". Without Welfare you remove a large, unemployable (for all sorts of reasons) segment of the population from even basic economic participation in society. Welfare is paying someone to not steal. Nobody likes to go into that truth because it's ugly. Yet you remove welfare and crime goes up. All welfare has ever been in any society is a plug to stop the unemployable from robbing the employed. Take that plug away and the inevitable will occur.

And you would like to see this happen why? Welfare is the hallmark of civilized, first world society.

I would rather see "welfare" more pro-actively combat poverty. Such as subsidies for higher education (or more subsidies, at least). Healthcare reform (Obamacare does too little, America's healthcare is one of the most expensive in the world and these issues haven't been addressed). Investment in communities, in the form of jobs to fix our crumbling infrastructure. Children should never have to worry about eating or having a roof over their heads, period. But they also shouldn't be used as anchors either.

These issues are far too complex to address, and will continue to be.
 
And you would like to see this happen why? Welfare is the hallmark of civilized, first world society.

I would rather see "welfare" more pro-actively combat poverty. Such as subsidies for higher education (or more subsidies, at least). Healthcare reform (Obamacare does too little, America's healthcare is one of the most expensive in the world and these issues haven't been addressed). Investment in communities, in the form of jobs to fix our crumbling infrastructure. Children should never have to worry about eating or having a roof over their heads, period. But they also shouldn't be used as anchors either.

These issues are far too complex to address, and will continue to be.


But look at your post. "Welfare subsidies for higher education"? It's totally out there. Upper class mysticism stuff.

Sir.. the average welfare person often just barely passed high school if at all, often they are HS dropouts. Even if they did pass HS they usually barely did and that was more thanks to their teachers "pushing them through and making a 50 and 70". These people are nowhere near capable of "higher education". Most can't spell or read beyond a 7th grade level.



You're paying people to not rob the guy in the Lexus, in the Mercedes. That's what Welfare is (harsh but true). There simply aren't enough jobs. I'd just like welfare to be done away with mostly because I'd find the ensuing chaos amusing and frankly it is "sanctioned theft" essentially taking from one set of citizens and giving their money to another set.


Welfare ultimately doesn't help the people it is given to because it can't. It just furthers their hopelessness.
 
Last edited:
Thank you!

As for seniors, a single-payer health system would take care of their medical (as of now they already have single-payer, anyway - AKA Soc Sec), but the modest GBI I envision would likely be below the current individual max SS payment - that might be problematic, and I can't see having a GBI so high that some might see it as an opportunity to go through life on permanent vacation from day one.

Too high of a GBI risks inflationary and/or debt problems, but we have had 2-3 generations now where the elderly have held their children's generations hostage and raided the treasury for personal benefit. As we speak, people are now paying more into these programs than they will receive from them, whereas when the programs started, they were getting $7-8 out of the programs for every dollar they put in. These programs create social decay.
 
Back
Top Bottom