• 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!

Financial self sufficiency or public assistance programs, which is more beneficial to a person?

Financial self sufficiency or public assistance programs, which is more beneficial to a person?

  • Financial self sufficiency

    Votes: 14 58.3%

  • Public assistance programs

    Votes: 0 0.0%

  • I don’t like either of the first two poll options

    Votes: 10 41.7%
  • Total voters
    24
X Factor

X Factor

Anti-Socialist
Dungeon Master
DP Veteran
Joined
Dec 1, 2010
Messages
61,694
Reaction score
32,331
Location
El Paso Strong
Gender
Undisclosed
Political Leaning
Conservative
What do you think? Attaching poll.
 
This isn't an either or. Almost everybody wants to be financially self-sufficient, but tens of millions of Americans live in abject poverty, often temporarily, and the richest country in the history of the planet shouldn't have tens of millions of starving, desperate people. Public assistance programs should be there to catch someone when they fall with the intent of helping them back to the point of being financially self-sufficient. No significant number of poor people are just leaning back and enjoying the sweet ride, rather they're normal, working class families that work multiple jobs and much harder than I do and can barely keep it together. We can do better than this.
 
Which is better (or more beneficial) on an individual basis depends on many factors. If one expects their household income to increase based on their household size increasing then public assistance is likely to be their choice. After all, one can be self-sufficient alone and yet still unable to support three additional people on the same income which allowed them to be self-sufficient.

Being self-sufficient also requires a person to have personal savings/investments able to carry them through any times of serious illness/injury, disability and old age. What is best for most individuals is likely to be a combination of the two rather than an either/or situation.
 
RabidAlpaca said:
This isn't an either or. Almost everybody wants to be financially self-sufficient, but tens of millions of Americans live in abject poverty, often temporarily, and the richest country in the history of the planet shouldn't have tens of millions of starving, desperate people. Public assistance programs should be there to catch someone when they fall with the intent of helping them back to the point of being financially self-sufficient. No significant number of poor people are just leaning back and enjoying the sweet ride, rather they're normal, working class families that work multiple jobs and much harder than I do and can barely keep it together. We can do better than this.
Click to expand...

So if the goal is financial self sufficiency, that would indicate an understanding that self sufficiency is more beneficial. Why the hesitation is acknowledging that? My question has nothing to do with doing away with government programs or even saying they’re bad or that we shouldn’t have them.
 
X Factor said:
So if the goal is financial self sufficiency, that would indicate an understanding that self sufficiency is more beneficial. Why the hesitation is acknowledging that? My question has nothing to do with doing away with government programs or even saying they’re bad or that we shouldn’t have them.
Click to expand...

Because there's literally nobody on either side of the aisle who thinks people being on assistance is better than them being self-sufficient. Nobody. That you would even make a poll about it suggests you think it's an actually debated issue, it's not.
 
RabidAlpaca said:
Because there's literally nobody on either side of the aisle who thinks people being on assistance is better than them being self-sufficient. Nobody. That you would even make a poll about it suggests you think it's an actually debated issue, it's not.
Click to expand...

If that were true, everyone would be equally at ease answering the question I asked but that is clearly not the case.
 
RabidAlpaca said:
Because there's literally nobody on either side of the aisle who thinks people being on assistance is better than them being self-sufficient. Nobody. That you would even make a poll about it suggests you think it's an actually debated issue, it's not.
Click to expand...

Here is a question for you, RabidAlpaca: How is it treated in Germany? What is the impetus for people who are on social safety programs to find ways to get back to work, beyond social pressure? Is there any kind of cutoff date for those rare few who are perceived to be malingering on the public dole but are able-bodied and able-minded?

How is a social safety net created without producing a permanent underclass stuck in economic purgatory as we seem to have in the United States, or, as it seems, other European nations such as Great Britain.
 
Last edited:
X Factor said:
If that were true, everyone would be equally at ease answering the question I asked but that is clearly not the case.
Click to expand...

It is the case, you just don't like the answer. Most people voted that you made a dumbass poll, and you did. Your obvious insinuation is that "the left" thinks it's better to have people on welfare than being self-sufficient, yet you can't point to a single real human being that believes that. It's hard to watch a thread fail this fast this hard.

Felis Leo said:
Here is a question for you, RabidAlpaca: How is it treated in Germany? What is the impetus for people who are on social safety programs to find ways to get back to work, beyond social pressure? Is there any kind of cutoff date for those rare few who are perceived to be malingering on the public doll but are able-bodied and able-minded?
Click to expand...

People on welfare have to meet with a social worker regularly to apply for jobs, get signed up for free training or schooling so that they can get jobs, or coached in other ways to get back employed. Germany has a retardedly low employment rate, so the vast, vast majority of people on German welfare work at least one full time job. It also helps that all medical everything is covered for everybody for life, so it's not even a consideration. Personally I think they've created a very humane way of reducing poverty and getting people back to work while preventing it from becoming a hammock. The lack of desperate, hungry people reflects in our exceptionally low crime rates.
 
Last edited:
RabidAlpaca said:
People on welfare have to meet with a social worker regularly to apply for jobs, get signed up for free training or schooling so that they can get jobs, or coached in other ways to get back employed. Germany has a retardedly low employment rate, so the vast, vast majority of people on German welfare work at least one full time job. It also helps that all medical everything is covered for everybody for life, so it's not even a consideration. Personally I think they've created a very humane way of reducing poverty and getting people back to work while preventing it from becoming a hammock. The lack of desperate, hungry people reflects in our exceptionally low crime rates.
Click to expand...

It sounds perfectly good to me as well, RabidAlpaca. But I must follow up and ask: What happens to those who have tried to treat it like a hammock? Again, discounting the infirm and mentally/physically disabled, how does Germany treat those rare public aid beneficiaries who do not apply themselves and look for work but take benefits off the public dole?
 
Felis Leo said:
It sounds perfectly good to me as well, RabidAlpaca. But I must follow up and ask: What happens to those who have tried to treat it like a hammock? Again, discounting the infirm and mentally/physically disabled, how does Germany treat those rare public aid beneficiaries who do not apply themselves and look for work but take benefits off the public dole?
Click to expand...

I honestly don't know all the intricate details, but I do believe they still have to continue meeting a social worker and showing some kind of minimal effort. Seeing as how medical isn't part of welfare, it's actually not that much money. It's calculated per person in the family and ranges from about 200-400 euro a piece. This is essentially food and a little more. Frankly I'm not worried about the people that make a hammock out of it. It's not at all luxurious, there's tremendous social stigma, and it's probably about 1% of the population. Morally, even if someone says they absolutely won't work, I don't think we should let him starve. He obviously doesn't deserve much more than that though.
 
RabidAlpaca said:
It is the case, you just don't like the answer. Most people voted that you made a dumbass poll, and you did. Your obvious insinuation is that "the left" thinks it's better to have people on welfare than being self-sufficient, yet you can't point to a single real human being that believes that. It's hard to watch a thread fail this fast this hard.
Click to expand...

I can point to those who can’t bring themselves to choose that option even while being assured that everyone agrees the first option is what, basically, everyone believes.
 
Other.


The ability to BE financially self sufficient.
 
X Factor said:
I can point to those who can’t bring themselves to choose that option even while being assured that everyone agrees the first option is what, basically, everyone believes.
Click to expand...

So in face of your poll and thread flopping and your complete inability to point to a single human being that thinks people being on welfare is better than being self-sufficient, you've just decided everyone must secretly want that but be too afraid to tell you. :lamo This really is the quality we've come to expect from you, X.
 
Any public assistance programs should include/provide education, training , and/or networking opportunities to make someone financially self sufficient.
 
RabidAlpaca said:
So in face of your poll and thread flopping and your complete inability to point to a single human being that thinks people being on welfare is better than being self-sufficient, you've just decided everyone must secretly want that but be too afraid to tell you. :lamo This really is the quality we've come to expect from you, X.
Click to expand...

This looks to me like part of the basic straw liberal that so many conservatives believe actually exists. The straw liberal thinks that being on welfare is a desirable choice for some people. The straw liberal thinks that abortion is desirable, like a fashion accessory or a boob enhancement. The straw liberal wants open borders because it's part of the evil liberal plot to wrest political power away from virtuous Republicans.
 
X Factor said:
What do you think? Attaching poll.
Click to expand...

Obviously, if people could, they would be self sufficient. WTF kind of stupid poll question is this?

More honest would be asking: "Which do you prefer for you and your children, hunger and homelessness or financial assistance?"
 
ChezC3 said:
Any public assistance programs should include/provide education, training , and/or networking opportunities to make someone financially self sufficient.
Click to expand...

Congrats. Your catching up. You just described the Families First program that replaced traditional welfare about 20 years ago.
 
bearpoker said:
Congrats. Your catching up. You just described the Families First program that replaced traditional welfare about 20 years ago.
Click to expand...

:roll:

Yep, real winner that one turned out to be...
 
If you don't get some training and acquire some marketable skills, and are therefore doomed to low paying jobs competing with low cost immigrant labor, then of course you're better off depending on government to meet your needs. You'll get a better deal that way. And government checks are more dependable at that level. Medicaid, for example, is a pretty good deal; everything covered, eye care, dental, drugs, and no co-pay, no maximum, no monthly premiums. Much better than even Medicare.

But if you can't bear the thought of being a loser dependent on handouts from the government, then you're better off improving your skills so you can make a decent living at a better paying job. I personally know many people who took government aid for a while to get that training and then went into the workforce and made something of themselves. They wouldn't accept minimum wage jobs as a career choice. They wanted more out of life. All depends on the person, and what they're willing to settle for.
 
Phys251 said:
False choice. Prosperous societies need both.
Click to expand...
Excellent response. Spot on. Self-sufficiency, IMHO, should be the primary goal and assistance programs should be structured to reach that goal, with the understanding that not everyone will be able to attain full self-sufficiency.
 
X Factor said:
So if the goal is financial self sufficiency, that would indicate an understanding that self sufficiency is more beneficial. Why the hesitation is acknowledging that? My question has nothing to do with doing away with government programs or even saying they’re bad or that we shouldn’t have them.
Click to expand...

If someone does not come from financial self-sufficiency (extreme poverty, alcoholic/drug abusing parent, etc), or comes from foster homes...what is the foundation from which they can achieve financial self-sufficiency? AFAIK, only from other govt-sponsored programs. (loans, scholarships, subsidies, etc).

I guess there are some private and religious charities....
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom