- Joined
- May 30, 2007
- Messages
- 9,595
- Reaction score
- 2,739
- Gender
- Male
- Political Leaning
- Libertarian
Welfare at the federal level is unconstitutional but at the state level its legal but still a horrible idea.
Welfare at the federal level is unconstitutional but at the state level its legal but still a horrible idea.
Welfare at the federal level is unconstitutional but at the state level its legal but still a horrible idea.
The mobs of the homeless unemployed Romans burned the place to the ground.
As far as I can tell, there is no such thing as "american." We are all individuals here and should act as such. The idea of an authentic american culture personally pisses me off because such a thing, if enforced, would restrict my freedoms and suggests a top down approach to life (people must be made to conform to some culture) instead of a bottom up (people decide for themselves and act accordingly).
Ok?...and?
We have an authentic American culture. how does that restrict your freedoms?
The mobs of the homeless unemployed Romans burned the place to the ground.
Looking at how the pilgrims and the puritans behaved in the early days, I would say that welfare is not un-American. They believed in working hard and changing your own lot, but they also believed in charity. I think today's Americans are much more selfish and complacent than those hard workers from history who had to struggle for their personal freedom in a foreign land, and to carve out a new life for themselves.
I think the right wing would call early Americans "socialist" these days.
charity is very different than government enforced welfare where politicians push it to gain power and wealth
those who most want welfare socialism tend to be those trying to thwart or eliminate private charity
First of all you don't know what the word socialism is. Study history.
Second, if people were truly charitable like the people of the early days, welfare would not be required. I have heard the argument that people should just donate to charities at will, but it's not enough, and in your rich country people should not be dying on the streets from starvation.
I agree that social programs are abused by politicians to get political points, but the programs are very much needed. Just because you are disconnected from the needs of the less fortunate of your society - and you obviously are, because if you genuinely knew how bad things can get you would not be arguing against welfare - does not mean that the problems do not exist or are being exaggerated.
Charity and welfare exist simultaneously. It is not one or the other, so your claim is bunk.
1) you have no clue what I know so stuff the attitude. SOcialism has many meanings these days and I use the one that is commony accepted.
2) the main purpose of welfare-socialism is to gain political power.
There are politicians who cater to those who produce and create wealth and then there are poltiicians who desire power and wealth and try to gain that by catering to those who want the wealth others produce. that avenue is welfare-socialism
3) libs have argued for ending or at least reducing tax credits for charitable contributions which would make charity more expensive
so you are wrong
deal with it
1) I used the term welfare socialism- I cannot help it you are not aware of what that means
2) You can believe that dems want to help the poor. I believe the rich dems claim that but in reality want to keep people dependent on the government and addicted to voting for dem politicians. I don't believe uber rich dems like Kerry really care about the poor. Rich dem charitable contributions are rather poor compared to similarly situated Republicans.
I guess being a Canadian you have a special insight into what really motivates our wealthy welfare socialists.
3) what is a real conservative? if your knowledge of conservative mirrors your ignorance on welfare-socialism this should be a good laugh
The term is social welfare, not welfare-socialism. The two have different meanings. If you wish to remain intentionally obtuse and cling to what your god Glenn Beck says, then that's your business, but stop trying to pass it off like it's an intellectual or academic term because it's not. It's just a term that some pundits say. If you want to have a proper debate with the grown ups, use grown up words.
As I said in my original post, I do not deny that politicians use welfare promises to gain leeway with constituents; I am arguing against the notion that welfare is unnecessary. You are looking strictly at how the politicians are using the system to milk their campaigns when that is not what I'm talking about at all.
Given that you don't even know what socialism is, I'm hardly surprised by your ignorance of Canadian politics.
A real conservative looks at how to balance the finances in a realistic way. Only attacking social programs, especially during a period of economic hard times, is foolhardy. You're also only targetting Democrats, which is completely off base. The over spending in government has spanned multiple administrations and is a bipartisan issue, yet you continue to paint the picture of Democrat complicity. A real conservative would be looking at fiscal moderation without playing partisan pissing contests like a hack who gets all of his information from Glenn Beck.
You know nothing about the economy or how it works. You've demonstrated this not only in this thread but in many others. Welfare isn't going anywhere because any sane fiscal conservative would know that it is needed in order to temper economic fluctuations. But you aren't a real conservative. You pitch all the typical talking points of the pundits who are just there for shock value and to gain ratings by rotting your brain, but you don't demonstrate that you actually know how things work at a policy level; so please do us all a favor and stop being a pretender.
Orion,
Socialism does include cooperative management of allocation of resources and of course cooperative management means state management even if the state claims to be of the people or public/common. Welfare is one big allocation of resources thus; I think Turtle has a good point.
Charity by classification is not forced upon the individual or group, it is given freely thus, welfare is not charity. It’s a forced allocation of resources hidden by the illusion of charity. If you think people should not be dying on the streets from starvation then you help them. If you need help then you (by non force) gather others to join you. It’s not right to go next door with a weapon and demand charity.
Welfare is used by the state to keep people in control and always in need of the state, it’s that simple.
It’s easy to allow the state to do the forced collecting for you, than you doing it yourself, eh?
welfare socialism is a term that has been around for ages
and your pretense of knowing more than I do is just absolutely hilarious
No one appointed you the lord high keeper of defintions and I think you are just making up stuff
a.k.a I can't refute your points so I'm going to stick to the ad homs.
That's seriously all you have to say after reading my entire response about the nature of fiscal conservativism?
You are a waste of time and energy.
Don't go netrage on us, all of you . . . behave. (just a joke - I'm not moderating)
I agree with both of you on the entire issue. Odd, yeah? You both are right to a degree.
So - what would be the ideal solution? *A* system of something is necessary - but our system isn't working. Because without any sort of help to people we'd be like China - some very well off and many many suffering and dirt poor. Good ole Hoover-towns everywhere.
I think we all agree that:
1) Charity doesn't provide enough to help people live what everyone considers to be a 'reasonable' form of existence.
2) Too much welfare can be a bad thing because it discourages people from being self sufficient and it
3) People need to be completely or semi-self sufficient
4) Sometimes it's necessary to guide people and help people *until* they can be self-sufficient.
So - the issue should be about semantics and who says what about what - it's *what's wrong* and *how can we fix it*
So - what's wrong . . . and how can we fix it.
There is no way a welfare system can sustain the welfare needs of society, thus this point is kind of moot.Orion said:There is no way that charities can sustain the welfare needs of society, especially given the current consumer era where no one is saving and everyone is spending; not only that, people are spending money that they don't even have.
Well, I never said they would, I said it is wrong for you or the state to force me to give. The Salvation Army pulled in about 26 million alone in 2009 by contributions and that is just one charity group and people would not donate enough, eh?Orion said:What makes you think people would donate on a large scale in order to thwart extreme poverity and create a system for upward social mobility? It simply can't happen.
It’s not a twist, if I gave to charity by myself well, that is my choice but, when you have government force my hand then it’s stealing. I also never claimed a state without welfare would be a utopia. There is a better way, and maybe one day you’ll see.Orion said:Don't even bother twisting the things I'm saying to make it seem like I am stealing from you.