• 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!

Would you support such a law?

Is the Welfare State described a good idea for USA?

  • Yes.

    Votes: 7 13.5%

  • Somewhat.

    Votes: 12 23.1%

  • No.

    Votes: 33 63.5%
  • Total voters
    52
AlbqOwl said:
A moral society allows people liberty to organize themselves into a society that is best for them and allows the individual as much liberty as possible--short of violating the rights and well being of others--to do what is best for that individual. A moral society does not force people into involuntary servitude to others.
Click to expand...

Tap dance around my point all you like. You aren't very good at it.
 
DifferentDrummr said:
Tap dance around my point all you like. You aren't very good at it.
Click to expand...

I tap danced around nothing. I spoke to your point quite clearly I believe. You seem to be advocating that government should force Peter to support Paul if Paul cannot do that for himself. I say a moral society might take care of Paul, but it will do so voluntarily and not because it was forced by some authority to do so.
 
TurtleDude said:
how many threads are you going to start up here that almost immediately become a fluffing of Scandinavian welfare-socialism

how about an amendment that says "your existence is not grounds for other people to be taxed to support you"?
Click to expand...

Spot on!

SCitizen said:
Extremely cruel.
Click to expand...

NO!!!!! :2mad: Cruel is me paying for the support of loser, deabeat, POS!

Welfare needs to have very tight strings attached and an End Date within a year. Most people, don't deserve to be on it!
 
TurtleDude said:
how many threads are you going to start up here that almost immediately become a fluffing of Scandinavian welfare-socialism

how about an amendment that says "your existence is not grounds for other people to be taxed to support you"?
Click to expand...

Agreed!

MaggieD said:
We already provide housing and food. Medical care as well. As to the spending money, our system must supply that in one way or another since welfare recipients have flat screens, clothing and furniture.

Jail? Please support your statement that our hails have Dorsey conditions than most other countries. Personally, I'm in no mood to insist we have the BEST. They're adequate. Don't like 'em? Don't break the ****ing law.
Click to expand...

YES!!!

SCitizen said:
Sadly nothing. But in Scandinavia everyone has to pay taxes to support people with disabilities.
Click to expand...

Remind me to never go there to live....what a bunch of crap!
Like Germany has Public TV....and everyone gets taxed $18 a month for it, whether they watch it or not! More Crap!
 
AlbqOwl said:
I tap danced around nothing. I spoke to your point quite clearly I believe. You seem to be advocating that government should force Peter to support Paul if Paul cannot do that for himself. I say a moral society might take care of Paul, but it will do so voluntarily and not because it was forced by some authority to do so.
Click to expand...

You did everything but address my point, dear. For starters, I made no mention of government action whatsoever, so your attempted recovery here is nothing but a non-sequitur. I said only that a moral society would support those who are unable to support themselves, even if only temporarily.
 
DifferentDrummr said:
You did everything but address my point, dear. For starters, I made no mention of government action whatsoever, so your attempted recovery here is nothing but a non-sequitur. I said only that a moral society would support those who are unable to support themselves, even if only temporarily.
Click to expand...

Yes you did by inference when you said and I quote you verbatim: "A moral society would not let people work long hours and still not even earn enough to support themselves with safe shelter and nutritious food." The operative word here is LET. Who will see to it that the person does not have to work long hours and receives sufficient nutritious food and shelter if it is not presumed that the government will do that? Who determines what are long hours? Or nutritious food for that matter? Those of us who started out with nothing and worked our way out of poverty via minimum wage jobs and taking work wherever we could find it--sometimes working two or more jobs when we had to. We were not hurt in the least by that and all of us who were left alone to do what we needed to do in order to get ahead did get ahead. None of us worry about having a roof over our head or plenty of food these days.

Per my sig line, the rest of Ben Franklin's comments that accompanied that quote were along the lines of his observation in societies in which the poor were given more assistance. And of course there are exceptions, but in most cases the more the people were provided for, the less they did to provide for themselves. And thus most remained in poverty. The less the people are provided for, the more they provided for themselves and the more they prospered. There is a very good lesson in that teaching.
 
AlbqOwl said:
Yes you did by inference when you said and I quote you verbatim: "A moral society would not let people work long hours and still not even earn enough to support themselves with safe shelter and nutritious food." The operative word here is LET. Who will see to it that the person does not have to work long hours and receives sufficient nutritious food and shelter if it is not presumed that the government will do that? Who determines what are long hours? Or nutritious food for that matter?
Click to expand...

I implied (not inferred) no such thing. Societies can either let things happen or prevent them from happening, with or without government fiat. So let's not jump to conclusions.
 
Master PO said:
because people are self serving, its human nature in man, man will to as little to nothing if he is able to get a share.
Click to expand...

But most non-disabled Scandinavians do work, and disabled ones work within their ability.
 
Master PO said:
people are self serving, its part of being human and if a person can receive the same share than another person by doing less they will do it.
Click to expand...

The Wellfare benefit is not as big as average salary, but it is sufficient.
 
DA60 said:
I would say a free public transit pass, free wifi and $100/month is fine (and even that might be a tad too much).

All inmates in every prison should ALWAYS be in solitary. I have served time (very short term - been pardoned) and the absolute WORST thing to do to inmates is to put them with other inmates. They don't learn rehabilitation - they learn how to be better criminals.
I generally agree with the OP - though I would tone it down a tad.
Click to expand...

Thank you for understanding me -- most Americans do not!
 
SCitizen said:
Thank you for understanding me -- most Americans do not!
Click to expand...

I do believe that the government should provide the basics of existence to all it's citizens.

No one should ever worry about having adequate shelter, food or basic medical/dental.
 
DA60 said:
I do believe that the government should provide the basics of existence to all it's citizens.

No one should ever worry about having adequate shelter, food or basic medical/dental.
Click to expand...

That is the next frontier of Human Rights -- already reality in Scandinavia and Canada.
 
SCitizen said:
That is the next frontier of Human Rights -- already reality in Scandinavia and Canada.
Click to expand...

Yup...my mother was Canadian.

They take care of their poor FAR better then they do in America. Though it varies from province to province.
 
The government should provide only civic services. Anything else is the free market's job.
 
DA60 said:
They take care of their poor FAR better then they do in America. Though it varies from province to province.
Click to expand...

USA has one of the worst Human Rights records.
 
The Mark said:
How many personal expenses could you possibly have if you housing, food, and medical care is free? Not to mention education.
Click to expand...

They left out the drugs.
 
4442182.jpg
 
MaggieD said:
As to the spending money, our system must supply that in one way or another since welfare recipients have flat screens, clothing and furniture.
Click to expand...

The only problem with metrics like this is there are so many ways welfare recipients can obtain this stuff. Gifting is the first and most obvious. Then there are thrift stores. We have LCD TV's come through and sell the, for as low as $25 depending on the size. And we get end of line salvage from retail stores (but otherwise new), that we typically sell for half MSRP. Not necessarily half of what the lowest price the store tried to sell it for. And there are people throwing away good stuff, that the welfare person might be salvaging for themselves. So possession of these things do not necessarily mean that the individual is doing better, or gaming the system.
 
maquiscat said:
The only problem with metrics like this is there are so many ways welfare recipients can obtain this stuff. Gifting is the first and most obvious. Then there are thrift stores. We have LCD TV's come through and sell the, for as low as $25 depending on the size. And we get end of line salvage from retail stores (but otherwise new), that we typically sell for half MSRP. Not necessarily half of what the lowest price the store tried to sell it for. And there are people throwing away good stuff, that the welfare person might be salvaging for themselves. So possession of these things do not necessarily mean that the individual is doing better, or gaming the system.
Click to expand...

Used items can be obtained quite inexpensively.
 
SCitizen said:
Used items can be obtained quite inexpensively.
Click to expand...

Which was my point. Having a 360 or X1 or PS4, or a plasma or LCD tv or any number of "big ticket" items, is not necessarily a measure of whether a person needs the welfare system or not. Mind you that is only under the premise of what the line for getting the welfare is, not any premise of whether we should even have a welfare system or not.
 
maquiscat said:
Which was my point. Having a 360 or X1 or PS4, or a plasma or LCD tv or any number of "big ticket" items, is not necessarily a measure of whether a person needs the welfare system or not.
Click to expand...

I agree 100%. Some good electronics is very inexpensive. Like Amazon Fire -- $50.
 
And all you have to pay for yourself is entertainment. Is that about right?
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom