• 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

Peter Grimm

Banned
DP Veteran
Joined
Dec 13, 2011
Messages
10,348
Reaction score
2,426
Location
The anals of history
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Progressive
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
 
There are ways to structure social safety nets that mitigate or minimize the damage that you are describing. Get rid of welfare? No, but reform it, sharply, to at least stop punishing good decisions and rewarding bad ones.
 
Why just welfare that goes to people in the inner city? What about the rest of the welfare?
 
I think all welfare should cease. Until each case is reviewed and authorized by a medical professional.
 
There are ways to structure social safety nets that mitigate or minimize the damage that you are describing. Get rid of welfare? No, but reform it, sharply, to at least stop punishing good decisions and rewarding bad ones.

What value does welfare add that can't be met with soup kitchens, homeless shelters, and giveaways of essentials like used clothing?

Our safety nets are bloated and only encourage dependence
 
There are ways to structure social safety nets that mitigate or minimize the damage that you are describing. Get rid of welfare? No, but reform it, sharply, to at least stop punishing good decisions and rewarding bad ones.

what he said

and it should be a state power not federal
 
Let's make these people learn personal responsibility
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.
 
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

Define welfare first... because there is a lot of it around.
 
It needs some very serious reforming, but do away with it altogether? No.

I also think it needs to a state issue, not federal.
 
It needs some very serious reforming, but do away with it altogether? No.

I also think it needs to a state issue, not federal.

which is what the founders intended. If a state is too generous, it will learn that quickly as too many teat sucklers will migrate to that state and it will go bankrupt. so its self policing
 
The only people I support getting welfare without some form of work or service in return are persons who are so otherwise disabled that it makes such work or service virtually impossible. Everyone else has some value and can expect to receive financial support in return for work or their service. Government programs to accomplish and achieve this are right and proper.
 
The only people I support getting welfare without some form of work or service in return are persons who are so otherwise disabled that it makes such work or service virtually impossible. Everyone else has some value and can expect to receive financial support in return for work or their service. Government programs to accomplish and achieve this are right and proper.

Indeed. I agree. I also agree that it should be a state controlled and funded issue, and not a federal one.
 
No.

The primary problem in social safety net is design. Designing these programs to incentivize work while not tugging the rug from underneath them is very difficult. Work should always continue on that.
 
Indeed. I agree. I also agree that it should be a state controlled and funded issue, and not a federal one.

If it is a state program that is handing out the welfare or support benefits, I have no problem with the state being in charge and funding it. If it is a federal program that is handing out the welfare or support benefits, I have no problem with the feds being in charge and funding it. I also would support joint coordinated state/federal programs in these same areas if both found it beneficial to their interests and those of the people.
 
What value does welfare add that can't be met with soup kitchens, homeless shelters, and giveaways of essentials like used clothing?

Because the problem of homelessness and poverty are on a scale magnitudes larger than such voluntary organizations are equipped to handle. There is nowhere near enough spare change to bring the poor up.
 
no, we should not end welfare.
 
Yes, I support ending welfare, but that will never happen. People spending their own time and money to help others is something most people believe can't possibly meet the need to any suitable level. I frankly think that is selling the human race short and is intellectually lazy.
 
Define welfare first... because there is a lot of it around.

I would love to Pete, but in the U.S. today, there are more than 80 federal means-tested welfare programs that provide cash, food, housing, medical care, and social services to low-income residents. Too many to go through each one.

An October 2012 report by the nonpartisan Congressional Research Service indicates that as of 2011, federal spending on these programs had reached $746 billion per year—more than expenditures for Medicare ($480 billion), Social Security ($725 billion), or the military ($540 billion). In addition, state contributions into federal welfare programs amounted to $201 billion annually, while independent state programs contributed another $9 billion. All told, means-tested welfare spending from federal and state sources (combined) was $956 billion.

Divide that by the entire population of the U.S., and you get nearly 10,000 dollars per person
 
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.

Society has failed them, or have they failed society?

You say inner city schools are underfunded, but actually the department of education statistics show that inner city schools receive more funding than anyone else. Likewise, we spend more tax dollars propping up inner city neighborhoods than anywhere else.


At some point, you have to take responsibility for yourself. These girls having babies at 15, that has nothing to do with dollars spent. The boys who would rather hang out by 7-11 than go to class has nothing to do with dollars spent.

As for your argument that these ppl will riot and cause a stir, I'm sure you're right. I'm just not afraid one bit. These inner city poor will cave in at the first sign of strength and opposition, just like they did in Baltimore. They were all talk, until the police force was heightened and then these people quit and went home.

Quitting and taking the easy road is what these people do, that's why they're poor to begin with. So I'm not worried one bit about riots.
 
Because the problem of homelessness and poverty are on a scale magnitudes larger than such voluntary organizations are equipped to handle. There is nowhere near enough spare change to bring the poor up.

Why not have govt funded soup kitchens and homeless shelters and goodwill giveaways in place of just sending out welfare checks?
 
There are ways to structure social safety nets that mitigate or minimize the damage that you are describing. Get rid of welfare? No, but reform it, sharply, to at least stop punishing good decisions and rewarding bad ones.

I think we need to move towards a negative income tax, which would still need a good design, but would do a good deed in reducing bureaucracy.
 
How about we just fix the system that creates a need for so many on welfare? Maybe equalize our education system and fund all of our schools well so kids have a better opportunity to break the cycle and get out of these sh*tty neighborhoods.
 
How about we just fix the system that creates a need for so many on welfare? Maybe equalize our education system and fund all of our schools well so kids have a better opportunity to break the cycle and get out of these sh*tty neighborhoods.

Because there is no "just" behind any of it. Poverty is a multi-systemic experience.

Welfare reform is just one small component to a greater societal issue, and we have difficulty with doing that correctly.

Each component is being worked or or advocated for to better work the poor, and there is enormous political tugging toward what that better is. This means even *if* we have a clue as to what works (and often we don't have that certainty among researchers, let alone lawmakers and the public at large), there is usually no agreement on action when it gets outside the all-too-certain researchers. Then after that implementation runs into an unknown quantity of issues.
 
How about we just fix the system that creates a need for so many on welfare? Maybe equalize our education system and fund all of our schools well so kids have a better opportunity to break the cycle and get out of these sh*tty neighborhoods.

We already fund our schools. And our inner cities. The problem is too many inner city kids are not well behaved, don't have pride or work ethic, and would rather make babies or "chill" and do drugs than graduate and make something of themselves.

That's not my problem or yours.
 
Why not have govt funded soup kitchens and homeless shelters and goodwill giveaways in place of just sending out welfare checks?

Because that would be far less efficient. It would be a huge waste of money compared to what we do now.
 
Back
Top Bottom