• 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?

  • Public assistance programs

    Votes: 0 0.0%

  • Total voters
    24
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.

There is literally no reason for anyone to feel attacked by this thread so it’s funny to see so many get immediately defensive.
 
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.

I 100% did not expect this to be such a difficult question to answer. You, yourself, basically tell me it’s a no brainer. You think this is some sort of attack which interesting because I’m pretty sure that you’re one of the ones that have told me that questions don’t equal attack when it’s about religious beliefs.
 
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's false. For decades and decades it's been the M.O. of the political left to promise government handouts in exchange for votes. People on food stamps don't vote Republican. Democrats certainly benefit from "people being on assistance" and while they'll never say it out loud, it's a pretty safe bet they prefer it that way.
 
What do you think? Attaching poll.

Demonstrate how the majority of seniors could pay for their own healthcare in retirement absent Medicare or some sort of heavily subsidized program.
 
That's false. For decades and decades it's been the M.O. of the political left to promise government handouts in exchange for votes. People on food stamps don't vote Republican. Democrats certainly benefit from "people being on assistance" and while they'll never say it out loud, it's a pretty safe bet they prefer it that way.

Those in poverty don't vote period. Seniors, by far the biggest recipient of public assistance programs, more often vote for Republicans than Democrats.
 
Those in poverty don't vote period.

They do vote. Poor Americans just vote less than wealthy Americans.


Seniors, by far the biggest recipient of public assistance programs, more often vote for Republicans than Democrats.

Yes, and Republicans are constantly talking about cutting virtually every kind of public assistance program out there. Republicans aren't buying votes the way Democrats do. Republicans actually want people to be self-sufficient, Democrats do not.

Look at your candidates for 2020. Yang is literally offering to buy votes by putting everyone on welfare. Sanders has a long list of free stuff that he's promising if you vote for him. No Democrat today wants a world where people are financially independent, instead they want a world where everyone is dependent on the state - which is clearly demonstrated by their policy proposals.
 
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.

The right is desperate to maintain the lefty straw man who dreams of free stuff and a life of leisure on the public tit.
They've been pounding the podium with this since Reagan first began making professional embezzlers the face of welfare with his "Welfare Queen" schtick.

If I had a nickel for every DP member who has tried to paint a picture of an imaginary army of welfare queens stocking up on lobster with their EBT cards or food stamps, I'd be rich.
 
In order to internalize the question, I changed "a person" to "you", meaning I was answering which was the better option for me.

Anyone who answers with anything other than "financial self sufficiency" is either lying to conform to political correctness, or thinks it's best for "other" people to be on welfare.
 
Most adults on welfare are the same people who already refused education, when they were children. Most of my siblings "settled" for poverty, starting when they were teens. Why should they get a free second bite at the education apple? or even a third bite? We will always need grunt labor, we should not waste time and money on educating them.
 
They do vote. Poor Americans just vote less than wealthy Americans.




Yes, and Republicans are constantly talking about cutting virtually every kind of public assistance program out there. Republicans aren't buying votes the way Democrats do. Republicans actually want people to be self-sufficient, Democrats do not.

Look at your candidates for 2020. Yang is literally offering to buy votes by putting everyone on welfare. Sanders has a long list of free stuff that he's promising if you vote for him. No Democrat today wants a world where people are financially independent, instead they want a world where everyone is dependent on the state - which is clearly demonstrated by their policy proposals.

Right......

Trump has swore up and down to seniors he isn't going to take a cent of their Social Security and Medicare. Most wealth transfers in this country are not from rich to poor, they are from young to old and from urban areas to rural areas. Moreover, Republicans buy votes all the time with the magical notion that you can have all the same spending, all the same infrastructure, all the same Social Security and Medicare and so on, but you can pay less taxes. It is the very definition of buying votes.
 
Yes, and Republicans are constantly talking about cutting virtually every kind of public assistance program out there. Republicans aren't buying votes the way Democrats do. Republicans actually want people to be self-sufficient, Democrats do not.

The Dems passed wide-ranging Medicare reforms that included savings that were estimated to total nearly $500B over the course of a decade. (In reality, the savings over that period turned out to be north of $900B.)

Those reforms are what the GOP cynically used to claw back power in 2010.

Their strategy was built on it: Ads Use Medicare Cuts as Rallying Point (October 30, 2010)
WASHINGTON — The backdrops differ — a cactus for Arizona, some lovely fall leaves for Pennsylvania — but the message, delivered by a series of nervous-looking older Americans, is uniform: Democratic Congressional candidates voted for billions of dollars in cuts to Medicare (or, if they were not in office, would have) and let their constituents down.

From Florida to California, one of the most prevalent political advertisements this year accuses Democrats of slashing $500 billion from Medicare, the government health care program for the elderly, as part of the health care law passed by Congress last spring. Dozens of candidates have felt the heat.

And it worked: Greedy Geezers? (November 22, 2010)
In the 2006 midterm election, seniors split their vote evenly between House Democrats and Republicans. This time [2010], they went for Republicans by a twenty-one-point margin. The impact of that swing was magnified by the fact that seniors, always pretty reliable midterm voters, were particularly fired up: nearly a quarter of the votes cast were from people over sixty-five. The election has been termed the “revolt of the middle class.” But it might more accurately be called the revolt of the retired.

Why were seniors so furious with the Democrats? ... The real sticking point was health-care reform, which the elderly didn’t like from the start. While the Affordable Care Act was being debated, most seniors opposed it, and even after the law was passed Gallup found that sixty per cent of them thought it was bad. You sometimes hear (generally from Republicans) that the health-care bill is wildly unpopular. The truth is that, in every age group but one—seniors—a plurality of voters want to keep the bill intact.

Misinformation about “death panels” and so on had something to do with seniors’ hostility. But the real reason is that it feels to them as if health-care reform will come at their expense, since the new law will slow the growth in Medicare spending over the next decade. It won’t actually cut current spending, as Republicans claimed in campaign ads, but between now and 2019 total Medicare outlays will be half a trillion dollars less than previously projected. Never mind that this number includes cost savings from more efficient care, or that the bill has a host of provisions that benefit seniors—most notably the closing of the infamous drug-benefit “doughnut hole,” which had left people responsible for thousands of dollars in prescription-drug costs. The idea that the government might try to restrain Medicare spending was enough to turn seniors against the bill.

The GOP talks about reforming entitlements, the Dems do it and face the heat when the GOP attacks them for it.
 
We know about reliance upon socialism and social programs from every socialist country in the world. This is the story of Venezuela and their people believing what the Democratic Party promises to do - take from the rich and give it to the poor. The result is people starving and fleeing hunger on a mass scale. If you wish you lived in Cuba rather than the USA, vote Democratic.
 
What do you think? Attaching poll.

I think it is a dumb question.

Many people cannot be self sufficient, as you call it, in our economic system weather it be from health, or disposition.
 
We know about reliance upon socialism and social programs from every socialist country in the world. This is the story of Venezuela and their people believing what the Democratic Party promises to do - take from the rich and give it to the poor. The result is people starving and fleeing hunger on a mass scale. If you wish you lived in Cuba rather than the USA, vote Democratic.

This statement is born of ignorance. It implies that the problems in Venezuela stem from socialism. It also implies that Democrats support socialism. Both are lies used by propagandists.

Venezuela's problem is that they have a strongman as a leader not the economic model invoked.

And, the DEms do not advocate for a socialistic economy anymore than the TRumpets advance truth.
 
The second option is supposed to be for those who don't have the first.
 
Back
Top Bottom