• 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!

What conditions would place on receiving government assistance?

What conditions for government assistance/welfare?


  • Total voters
    19
no because you don't "own" it...the bank does.




neither did I, maybe they were just giving me a hard time because I was a white guy. probably should've sent my wife down to apply and had her carry the kids with her.

yeah, but your equity in your home is an asset.
 
um....able minded and bodied people without children don't get welfare........or are you forgetting that?

what does that have to do with anything? If you are a POS single mom with 7 freakin kids living on welfare and you are too lazy/stubborned/stupid to comply then yes...as harsh as it may be, you need to ****ing starve and your kids need to go into fostercare...they'd probably be better off.
 
yeah, but your equity in your home is an asset.

hey, I didn't make the rule...I just got shafted by it. and as I said, it is/was a distinct possibilty that they were making the whole damn thing up just to deny me service because I was a young white guy. All I know is what the two ladies and the food stamp office told me.
 
hey, I didn't make the rule...I just got shafted by it. and as I said, it is/was a distinct possibilty that they were making the whole damn thing up just to deny me service because I was a young white guy. All I know is what the two ladies and the food stamp office told me.

i'm not denying it happened....calm down. you didn't even have a home at that point.
 
what does that have to do with anything? If you are a POS single mom with 7 freakin kids living on welfare and you are too lazy/stubborned/stupid to comply then yes...as harsh as it may be, you need to ****ing starve and your kids need to go into fostercare...they'd probably be better off.

i wonder what percentage of moms on welfare have 7 kids?
 
i wonder what percentage of moms on welfare have 7 kids?


again it is irrelevent. the question was: what to do with those who would refuse to comply with these hypothetical restrictions on getting welfare. hypothetically, those getting welfare should either comply with any requirements or lose the benefits and if that leads to suffering and or death then it is their own damn fault for not complying

you are the one who threw in the red herring of able bodied people without kids don't get welfare.
 
again it is irrelevent. the question was: what to do with those who would refuse to comply with these hypothetical restrictions on getting welfare. hypothetically, those getting welfare should either comply with any requirements or lose the benefits and if that leads to suffering and or death then it is their own damn fault for not complying

you are the one who threw in the red herring of able bodied people without kids don't get welfare.

ok....half the people who receive "welfare" are elderly or disabled. the other half are families headed by single parents. i am not arguing that we don't need reform, i am arguing that moms on welfare aren't necessarily pieces of ****, as you so eloquently put. there are many way to look at reform, letting people starve isn't on my list.
 
OK, then, I'll have to answer my own question.

You can't allow people to starve amidst plenty, as they won't comply with that, either. They will find a way, which is more than likely to included stealing or other illegal activities. Further, allowing children to starve because of the irresponsibility of their parents is immoral, and not going to be supported by anyone.

So, instead of the stick, think of the carrot. People who work should have more and better than people who don't. Those in training to work should have more and better than those who don't try.

There is a place for the stick, too, as people who will not get off of drugs and take care of themselves and their children should lose those children, at least temporarily. Raising children to fend for themselves in the street as some do is not helping anyone.
 
ok....half the people who receive "welfare" are elderly or disabled. the other half are families headed by single parents. i am not arguing that we don't need reform, i am arguing that moms on welfare aren't necessarily pieces of ****, as you so eloquently put. there are many way to look at reform, letting people starve isn't on my list.

if they refuse to comply with a few basic simple restriction...then letting them starve should be on the list. If they can't be bothered to take any action on their own behalf, they don't deserve to live.

I would have as much sympathy for them as I would for a guy who starves to death in a room full of food because he was too lazy to pick up a can opener.
 
Last edited:
if they refuse to comply with a few basic simple restriction...then letting them starve should be on the list. If they can't be bothered to take any action on their own behalf, they don't deserve to live.

thanks, god.
 
thanks, god.

so where would you draw the line? would you buy the food and deliver it to them? would you go and cook for them? would you serve them? would you put the freakin spoon into their mouth for them? where would you draw the line at holding people responsible for their own well being?
 
here...I will give you this check but you have to go out and look for a job

I don't want to have to look for a job

well, sorry I can't give you the check.


what is the freakin problem with that scenario?
 
so where would you draw the line? would you go and cook for them? would you serve them? would you put the freakin spoon into their mouth for them? where would you draw the line at holding people responsible for their own well being?

actually i do serve them. it's called a soup kitchen. i don't worry about why the people are there.

putting more kids in a broken foster care system isn't the amswer. the answer is to change the culture. most states have workfare programs, and some have time limits for welfare recipients. but to expect that everyone can find a job in this economy is nuts. it won't happen.
 
thanks, god.
Yes - because expecting people to take even the most minimum of responsibility for themselves is just too much.
 
actually i do serve them. it's called a soup kitchen. i don't worry about why the people are there.

putting more kids in a broken foster care system isn't the amswer. the answer is to change the culture. most states have workfare programs, and some have time limits for welfare recipients. but to expect that everyone can find a job in this economy is nuts. it won't happen.


isn't one of the requirements of your soup kitchen that they actually come to the soup kitchen?

no one is saying you have to have a job...simply that you be actively looking for one. is that too freakin much to ask? that you make some small pathetic attempt to help yourself?
 
isn't one of the requirements of your soup kitchen that they actually come to the soup kitchen?

no one is saying you have to have a job...simply that you be actively looking for one. is that too freakin much to ask? that you make some small pathetic attempt to help yourself?

ok.....i can agree with that one restriction.
 
actually i do serve them. it's called a soup kitchen. i don't worry about why the people are there.

putting more kids in a broken foster care system isn't the amswer. the answer is to change the culture. most states have workfare programs, and some have time limits for welfare recipients. but to expect that everyone can find a job in this economy is nuts. it won't happen.

See, I agree with this. That is mainly why I think that there should be acceptable tradeoff time for things like community service and/or school, in place of work or applying for work. There is not necessarily going to be jobs or enough good paying jobs that people are qualified for in the area, and it is not reasonable to consider that everyone of the people who are on Welfare can afford to leave the area they are in. There are some people who simply can't move. And so if there are other options available, then they are still helping in the overall community. They are getting the money anyway, so I say make them work in some way, shape or form for it.

Some of the community service type projects that they could do implement that might help people overall could include child care education/certification, then some of the people on Welfare could be looking after other recipients' children so that those other recipients can more easily find jobs and/or work. Another could be helping to improve local community centers, schools, and playgrounds, which could help their community to be safer and better places to live. Some of the jobs could work with what skills the people have. With the current unemployment situation, there certainly could be people with job experience that could help others improve their own lives, including financial specialists, people who could teach others some skills they have such as typing and trade jobs, lawyers/legal experts, teachers that could be tutors for underpriveleged children, and trade skilled people who could be helping others with personal fix-up jobs that may improve their own lives, including automotive repairs, household repairs, and counselors. I'm sure there are also plenty of other things that people working together could improve for each other, and therefore, hopefully, help to make other people who are having hard times better in their own situations and more productive members of society.
 
See, I agree with this. That is mainly why I think that there should be acceptable tradeoff time for things like community service and/or school, in place of work or applying for work. There is not necessarily going to be jobs or enough good paying jobs that people are qualified for in the area, and it is not reasonable to consider that everyone of the people who are on Welfare can afford to leave the area they are in. There are some people who simply can't move. And so if there are other options available, then they are still helping in the overall community. They are getting the money anyway, so I say make them work in some way, shape or form for it.

Some of the community service type projects that they could do implement that might help people overall could include child care education/certification, then some of the people on Welfare could be looking after other recipients' children so that those other recipients can more easily find jobs and/or work. Another could be helping to improve local community centers, schools, and playgrounds, which could help their community to be safer and better places to live. Some of the jobs could work with what skills the people have. With the current unemployment situation, there certainly could be people with job experience that could help others improve their own lives, including financial specialists, people who could teach others some skills they have such as typing and trade jobs, lawyers/legal experts, teachers that could be tutors for underpriveleged children, and trade skilled people who could be helping others with personal fix-up jobs that may improve their own lives, including automotive repairs, household repairs, and counselors. I'm sure there are also plenty of other things that people working together could improve for each other, and therefore, hopefully, help to make other people who are having hard times better in their own situations and more productive members of society.

I can agree with that. my only problem is with those who insist on getting a free ride.

if you are sitting in govt housing that my taxes pay for, eating food bought with food stamps that my taxes pay for, receiving medical care that my taxes pay for...then you have no right to say a damn thing to me when I complain about having to pay taxes.
 
I can agree with that. my only problem is with those who insist on getting a free ride.

if you are sitting in govt housing that my taxes pay for, eating food bought with food stamps that my taxes pay for, receiving medical care that my taxes pay for...then you have no right to say a damn thing to me when I complain about having to pay taxes.

I agree completely. I don't think that it is fair to allow children to starve for their parents being lazy or greedy, but I don't believe that most on welfare are actually lazy or greedy. I think there are a lot who want to work but find themselves in situations where they can't find work that they can do due to lack of money, transportation, childcare, phone, skills, or just that the job wouldn't cover their needs completely. I think it is important to accept that realistically, especially in our current economy, that not everyone will be able to find suitable work for them, so they need to have alternatives to they still can get assistance as long as they are doing something worthwhile to earn it.

I also know what you were talking about with owning a car being a hindrance to receiving assistance. This is probably one of the main things that prevented my parents from getting the assistance that we probably could have used for a little while while I was growing up, despite both my parents working or going to school. In NC, at least it used to be, having assets over a certain amount (even if such assets couldn't really be disposed of for that amount realistically or easily) could prevent a person from getting certain assistance.
 
No voting in federal elections while you are on the dole
 
Back
Top Bottom