• 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!

Is wellfare today un-American?

Wellfare... Is it un-American

  • Total voters
    59
chevydriver1123 said:
Welfare at the federal level is unconstitutional but at the state level its legal but still a horrible idea.
Click to expand...

The mobs of the homeless unemployed Romans burned the place to the ground.
 
Welfare is important for the greater good of society. I have known people who truly benefitted from it in a time of need. I also know some who rode the system and took advantage. As much as I dislike the freeloaders, I still think it's an important system that needs to be in place. I have no children, but my taxes pay for their education. I have no problem with that because I see the value in having an educated society. And a housed and fed one too. Without it, society as we know it would be much different, IMO. And not for the better.
 
megaprogman said:
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).
Click to expand...




We have an authentic American culture. how does that restrict your freedoms?
 
chevydriver1123 said:
Ok?...and?
Click to expand...

It could happen here if we allow our population to become millions of people with nothing. The millions of Romans with nothing decided that the few wealthy Romans really didn't need anything either. So they destroyed the empire. History tends to repeat unless there are means with which to alter the circumstances.
 
Reverend_Hellh0und said:
We have an authentic American culture. how does that restrict your freedoms?
Click to expand...

If anything is the authentic "American culture" it is that this country is a melting pot of different cultures, and to the best of our abilities, we accept people for who they are, and welcome them here with open arms.
 
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.
 
Orion said:
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.
Click to expand...

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
 
TurtleDude said:
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
Click to expand...

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.
 
Orion said:
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.
Click to expand...

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
 
TurtleDude said:
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.
Click to expand...

In other words you use a popularized buzz word that you have no historical basis for. I have a pretty clear idea of what you know based on the kinds of arguments you tend to make and the media catch phrases you tend to employ.


TurtleDude said:
2) the main purpose of welfare-socialism is to gain political power.
Click to expand...

No the main reason is to provide for those who are not in a position to provide for themselves. A society with no safety net begins to have other related social problems, which is why developed nations take steps to ensure that things never deteriorate so steeply.

TurtleDude said:
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
Click to expand...

Welfare-socialism isn't a term I recognize as someone who as studied politics. Do us all a favor and stop watching Glenn Beck. I know he sounds like an academic professor to you but the garbage you are spewing is really ruining your credibility.

TurtleDude said:
3) libs have argued for ending or at least reducing tax credits for charitable contributions which would make charity more expensive
Click to expand...

Your use of the word "libs" is quite telling of the angle you're trying to pitch. Are you aware that classical conservatives also support some measure of welfare in order to ensure economic capacity?

I guess you wouldn't know that because you're not a real conservative.

TurtleDude said:
so you are wrong

deal with it
Click to expand...

I better call my therapist right away. :roll:
 
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
 
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?
 
TurtleDude said:
1) I used the term welfare socialism- I cannot help it you are not aware of what that means
Click to expand...

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.

TurtleDude said:
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.
Click to expand...

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.

TurtleDude said:
I guess being a Canadian you have a special insight into what really motivates our wealthy welfare socialists.
Click to expand...

Given that you don't even know what socialism is, I'm hardly surprised by your ignorance of Canadian politics.

TurtleDude said:
3) what is a real conservative? if your knowledge of conservative mirrors your ignorance on welfare-socialism this should be a good laugh
Click to expand...

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 said:
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.
Click to expand...

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
 
peepnklown said:
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?
Click to expand...

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. 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.

Don't even bother twisting the things I'm saying to make it seem like I am stealing from you. I have been to countries that don't have welfare of any kind, and they are not the utopias that conservatives paint it to be. The ride by the seat of their pants conservatives that are starting to emerge from Fox News culture aren't capable of thinking beyond one or two degrees. They want to get rid of welfare even though they don't know what that would look like or mean for society; they have no idea what it is they're asking for and most have no real basis for asking for it. This is why welfare is not going to end.

The only difference is that Republicans will downplay the necessity of welfare and advocate cuts in order to get votes, while Dems will do the opposite. In reality, welfare programs tend to remain rather static. I mean, how few voters actually research government spending to see if their vote is going towards a candidate that is truly changing things? Not many.
 
TurtleDude said:
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
Click to expand...

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.
 
Orion said:
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.
Click to expand...

If I promise to miss you will you just go away?

your definitions are not gospel and you have posted nothing that indicates you really have any grounds to pretend superior knowledge

I know plenty of conservatives who think welfare does nothing but encourage the spread of dependency. People become dependent on that system which is what those who created intended all along. true, under current situations an abrupt end of all government enforced handouts would cause massive turmoil. HOwever, if we never had this nonsense to start with, the country would be much better off.
 
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.
 
Last edited:
Aunt Spiker said:
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.
Click to expand...

If people on government assisted welfare were not allowed to vote, this would prevent most of the nonsense. Since they can, it creates an abusive situation where one set of politicians (the ones who do not represent the producers and creators of wealth) pander to and expand the welfare class

that is why the situation is so bad. People don't gain political power and the wealth that comes from it (look at the kennedys and the gores) by encouraging private charity. They gain political power by using the wealth of some to buy the votes of the many
 
The right to vote is an inalienable part of the constitution, so have fun enjoying that pipe dream.

Taking away their right to vote because they are poor is not going to change their poverty. The only way to change poverty is to increase social mobility, and that does not necessarily involve throwing money at people. Money is fine but actual programs with dedicated and experienced workers are what is needed. It's kind of like how we donate billions to foreign aid each year but there is still a serious lack in foreign aid workers to carry out infrastructure projects.

Money is not a universal solution. There still has to be the human component and if that is lacking then no amount of money will create change.
 
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.
Click to expand...
There is no way a welfare system can sustain the welfare needs of society, thus this point is kind of moot.
Each individual is responsible for their savings and spending, not you, not I and especially not the state.
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.
Click to expand...
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:
Don't even bother twisting the things I'm saying to make it seem like I am stealing from you.
Click to expand...
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.

The state has already won; they got you believing you need them.
Welfare is not only wrong but, it makes things worse.
 
Last edited:
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom