Jessald seems to think that the welfare system goes ONLY to the handicapped and retarded.
In order to be eligible for welfare allowances, and to determine the extent of your benefits, there is a means-based test. There is a certain standard for the following things which the welfare allowance will attempt to pay for including: food, clothing, recreation, personal incidentals, fuel for heating, cooking and water heating, electricity for refrigeration and lights, household supplies, medical chest supplies and shelter.
The amount that will be paid varies greatly depending on location; geography, cost of living and employment/ educational opportunities will all be taken into account. An average amount of food stamps will give a family of four around $500. This amount is subject to alteration based on family size and also if there are any health conditions that must be addressed. On average, a single person household will recieve $200 monthly. Keep in mind though, this can all be very different depending on what state you live in.
Additionally you can expect a cash allowance for financial assistance which is based on several factors. A family of 4 should expect to receive up to $900. A single person's income will be around $300 for the TANF allowance.
These welfare benefits are considered seperate from other benefits such as child care, medical or utility assistance.
It points out that ADDITIONAL shit will be added if there are health issues.
So no, welfare goes to anyone who knows how to apply, not JUST the people who absolutely can't work.
It's good that you did some research, but why didn't you post a link to where you got that info? It makes me wonder if you aren't selectively quoting.
"Eligibility for a Welfare program depends on numerous factors. Eligibility is determined using gross and net income, size of the family, and any crisis situation such as medical emergencies, pregnancy, homelessness or unemployment. A case worker is assigned to those applying for aid. They will gather all the necessary information to determine the amount and type of benefits that an individual is eligible for.
The Federal government provides assistance through TANF (Temporary Assistance for Needy Families). TANF is a grant given to each state to run their own welfare program. To help overcome the former problem of unemployment due to reliance on the welfare system, the TANF grant requires that all recipients of welfare aid must find work within two years of receiving aid, including single parents who are required to work at least 30 hours per week opposed to 35 or 55 required by two parent families. Failure to comply with work requirements could result in loss of benefits."
So you are right that it goes to more than those who strictly can't work, but you are wrong that it goes to "anyone who knows how to apply". It goes to those who can't work as well as to the unemployed (temporarily) and to those who don't make enough to support their families.
I quoted the entire thing... forgot the site, just looked up welfare eligibility and came to a site that was answering on whether you're eligible for welfare.
and look at that, you even said I was right.
and yes, anyone who knows how to apply can get it. it's not well enforced, much like handicap placards and food stamps (well, that's part of welfare, and almost ANYONE can get that).
Take it from a Pirate, this shit is easy to get and is taken advantage USUALLY by those who don't need it at all. And taken advantage A LOT by those who technically aren't eligible.
Fact remains, welfare is taking my money and giving it to poor people. Not really how I like to spend my money. I'm all for charity, but it's usually to Make a Wish or Cancer Research. Not poor people.
A Pirate? What? You illegally distribute copyrighted material? How does that give you authority to comment on welfare fraud?
Welfare fraud is something that we should crack down on. Nobody is going to argue with that. But every system is going to have its imperfections. That doesn't mean we should remove the system entirely.
Taxation is a necessary evil. Charity is insufficient to meet the needs of the disadvantaged.
I don't distribute anything. I merely take. And the point is on how even if you're not qualified for something, it's easy to get it (like handicap placards).
Taxation is a necessary evil in the sense that it provides defense and education, things that EVERYONE needs. Welfare is only for a small proportion of people. It's the providing for freeloaders. So no, there is no real reason to support welfare unless you are an authoritarian who disregards the rights of the individual (which most politicians are).
Some people will die from drug overdose and STDs. Some people will die from AIDS and falling off of a building.
Some people will get shot. Some people will get hit by a car.
Shit happens.
That is no reason to infringe on our civil liberties. As a liberal, I thought you of all people will understand the importance of not limiting liberties for the safety of others (such as unwarranted wiretapping...)
Don't you see though? Making heroin illegal is removing our civil liberties... BE LIBERAL WHERE IT COUNTS GOD DAMN IT!
Taking away a shit load of people's money BY FORCE only to give it to a select few is bad for our civil rights. It's NOT worth the cost. Might as well say that lowering the Speed limit down to 25 mph (since thousands of people will be saved from that) is worth the cost. Sure, just ban cars then, no one will die from traffic homocides.
We can create a Communist regime where everyone will be provided with necessities. There, no one will starve.
Or, we can live in a country where we are INDIVIDUALS who decide on our own lives and no that the cost of freedom is that some will die from some shit. Boohoo, everyone cries, but we are still free.
All comes down to this. Live in darkness or live in danger. I prefer danger.
It's not really about being liberal, it's about respecting civil liberties. Liberals usually tend to respect civil liberties when it comes to drugs, though. But, if you do not, than you are an Authoritarian.
That gray area that YOU are talking about does not protect our civil liberties. Welfare isn't the only thing we need to stop in order to save the PEOPLE'S money, but it is a really good start.
That's why you USE your liberty to make a living doing whatever you want. And I mean whatever you freaking want. People can make a living doing almost anything. Like dissecting wales and studying their insides, or playing saxophone in a band, or writing a book, or digging worms out of the ground. I could go on all day.
The trick is finding something you have a passion for.
If you wan't to make it financially, you have have to work really hard and even suffer a little bit. That's life.
The people who get welfare are mostly the bottom 10% of Americans. They have few skills or talents. They were not raised with ideas like saving money or planning for the future. They are stupid and unambitious. Like it or not, people like this will always exist. They will take any jobs they can get, but when there are no more low skill jobs to go around, or if they cannot make enough to support their family, they will experience levels of suffering that no American should have to face.
Is it right for people to go hungry while guys like Ken Lewis are pulling $20 million a year? Come on.
Is it right for people to go hungry while guys like Ken Lewis are pulling $20 million a year?
Yes, it is. You know why? Because it is wrong for some self rightous mother Fer to tell Ken Lewis what he should do with HIS money. If you are stupid and/or unambitious, you have no right to expect someone else to pay for your ass! How hard is that to understand? If you want to waste your money and time on these people, then go right ahead, but don't bring anyone else down to your level.
You call me self-righteous. But I think a better word is just "righteous". The word "self-righteous" implies that I'm not actually right.
I think you're just a fundamentally bad person. People like you don't see right and wrong, you only see power and weakness. You want to take everything you can and hoard it. You're getting pissed off at me not because you have some ethical disagreement, but because Dad is trying to make you share the candy with your little brother.
Maybe stupid people don't have a divine "right" to other people's money. But that doesn't mean we shouldn't give them a little in cases where they will suffer and die without it. Because allowing human beings to suffer and die is just plain wrong. And again, as I've said over and over, charity is insufficient.
OMG! Not only are you self-righteous but you are also delusional, arrogant and a hypocrite.
1. You are wrong. Who the hell do you think died and made you boss over everyone else with the power to tell them how to spend their money?
2. You see yourself as a father figure?
3. Let me apply your words to you:
I think you're just a fundamentally bad person. People like you don't see right and wrong, you only see power and weakness. You want to take everything you can from one person and give it to another as you see fit.
4. I never said that we shouldn't give them a little in cases where they will suffer and die without it. But I never said that allowing human beings to suffer and die is just plain wrong either. If charity is insufficient, tough! The world's not fair. Grow up and get over it.
1. Nobody made me boss. If I were boss I could just take your money and we wouldn't need to have this debate.
2. No, I see government as the father figure. I see you as a petulant child. (Why do conservatives have so much trouble with analogies?)
3. Lol, classic first grade argument, thanks. Typical Joe. Oh, wait, you added a little twist at the end, lol. Let's see... "...take everything you can" - ah, wrong there. I just want to take a little bit. Just enough to make sure people don't starve. Why are you so eager to have people starve Joe? Could it be that you have sociopathic tendencies? I think it might be.
4. So you agree with a minimal level of welfare? Or are you saying if charity is insufficient then fuck the hungry? If it's the former, then I agree. If it's the latter, then you're going to have supply a better rational then, "the world's not fair". Because the world can be more fair if we choose to make it that way.
2. Yeah well I don't need a daddy. But I can be your daddy :)
3. I'm not eager to have people starve. I'm just eager to kick ass on anyone trying to force their views down my throat. Why don't you come over and try to take a little bit for your stupid pet project and I'LL show you what I mean ;)
4. What I meant was that they should not get free money. They should do something for it.
1-3. Good job confirming my petulant child characterisation.
4. The "free money" kind of welfare only goes to people who can't work: the elderly, disabled, etc. Other kinds of welfare (food stamps, unemployment) require people to do something: work a certain number of hours, find a job within a certain amount of time, etc.
P.S. Were you hitting on me in #2? Sorry, I'm straight. ...don't worry I won't tell ;)
What do you mean by "do something"? Be more specific.
As I've explained a million times already, families have to work a certain number of hours to get stuff like food stamps. Unemployment only lasts for a certain period and you're required to look for a job. Nobody except the elderly and the handicapped gets money for nothing.
If everyone on welfare were suddenly forced to start begging then there would be a huge supply of beggars competing for the tiny amount of available charity. There would not be enough to go around.
Only $15 bucks a day ?.......shit thats pittence for panhandlers here in Aus. A few years back "A currant affair"(?), did a little experiment and put a panhandler to the streets. At the end of the day she had collected over two hundred bucks. Pretty impressive when you think about it. I used to send myself broke just by walking through the church st mall in parramatta , then i wisened up. I did have a nice experience tho....Walking thru the church st mall ,it was a cold winter, it was 6am , i had just left work after being paid , when i was aproached by a man , asking for spare change for a coffee , i only had large notes , but wanting to help this stranger , i suggested he follow me to maccas as i was heading there for coffee myself. We walked to maccas , i ordered a coffee for myself and out of the change , i handed this stranger $10 and told the fellow to get himself breakfast. He was grateful for it and said he would pay me back , some day. I just smiled at him and left , not really giving it another thought. Three weeks later i was walking thru the mall again. Suddenly i was stopped by a familiar face. It was the stranger . He said "Remember me ?" I said "yes , how are you going today ? " He smiled and said "much better thankyou" He then handed me $10. We both smiled , we both parted again . I was amazed.....and felt warm and fuzzy inside.
What you do not realize is that more and more people fraud the welfare system each year. There are many way such as fake address, other peoples kids, and yes under the table jobs. So more or less anybody could get welfare if they really wanted. Except for the upper class but they are corrupt in other ways so...I think we need to do a better job at getting people off welfare and supporting themselves, once on welfare people become lazy.... therefore we are running out of money.
Why can't we just force all welfare recipients to move to the location where they would get the least amount of support? This could save the tax payer a lot of money ;)
I am glad im NOT on welfare....But, after much insistance from my tax paying family, i was on welfare , twice. Some day ,anyone may suddenly need assistance..I do agree that there is a % of people, that abuse the system.The system shouldnt be removed, it just needs to be improved upon.
OH..now that is a long personal story.....but none the less, did they not, in a roundabout way?Like them, I pay my taxes, and joe,if you ever need it, for some unforseen reason, then your welcome to take a %, to help you through your time of need.
Plenty of time for what?,To listen to my life story?,As if id indulge you or some few others here at cd with more of my personal experiences.What?, You seriously think i want to keep banging my head on my keyboard?Why would i dare to think of going too deep, into anything, anymore, here on cd?, Especially after basically, getting told,again and again, that my personal experiences are as good as a fiction novel.
lol.. thats probably the case, as my screen is the only thing giving off light in the house at this time of night...but..i know its the biggest hypocracy ive made here on cd so far..throwin my tanty and etc. Its like a virus in my system.The only effective cure, it seems, is if cd bans me.
Hey you know , all this talk of money , giving taking etc is starting to make me sick. I spent 6 years on the streets when i was young and was homeless for four years after i had a nervous breakdown , 6 and a half years ago. I never mugged or stole and never relied on government assistance during either of these times. I dont believe anyone should be obligated to help anyone else ,unless they are directly responsible for the other persons situation. There is nothing wrong with a helping hand but ultimately it is up to the individual to make a life for themself. When a government assists people , it is never 100% successful. People need to swap shoes to see what really goes on . A lot of times i see people abusing the help they get. Ive seen people want more and more , only to discard the main priorities like bills or providing for their children , in order to buy their "escape from their misery" with drugs or alcohol etc Others , i see really trying to make the most of what help they get , even working multiple jobs just to make ends meet. And then there are those who are that low and lost ,that they wouldnt even know where to start with even beginning to repair their situations. MONEY its another problem , its just a bandaid. Bandaids dont stay stuck forever . People can.
This is exactly why I am an advocate of religion taking over the job of providing welfare.
1. No one is forced to pay anything.
2. All money is voluntarily donated.
3. The amount is determined by the owner of the money, not by anyone else.
4. The person receiving the money would be a member of the church.
5. The person receiving the money would be known to the congregation. If he's a lazy bum or drug user or abusing the help in any way, the congregation would know it and take appropriate action.
6. If the person receiving the help is a "lost soul," then the Church can provide guidance.
If church works for you Joe than thats good. Some churches are ok .But the churches are filthy rich . How much more money do they need? Although i am not completely against your suggestion. I think also that churches and religious sectors should be a leading factor in the provision of welfare. And i agree that no-one should be forced to PAY anything in regards to DONATING. And of course the owner of the money ,should determine the amount ,if they so chose to donate. As far as when i was on the dole for a few months, the only reason my family insisted i go on the dole , was because they figured someone in the family may as well rely on it when in need , as they have always payed their taxes and so have greatly contributed for this option of welfare to exist at all.And myself in most cases prefer to work. I recently got offered an application to go to Canada for the 2010 Winter Olympics , no not as an athlete , as a cleaner. I do some partime event work here in Aus. Because of my fear of flights , i declined the chance to go. But i also do occasional factory work on and off also. Its not so much that i need the money as my hub is a good provider , but more so to keep me from becoming lazy , and to beat boredom from being a housewife. I have done a few courses , but due to a charge of assault on a guard 6 or so years ago, i had to cease my course in nursing mid way through the course.I left scool at 14 and have had a variety of jobs.I have arthritis now but still do what i can. I would rather work anyday over struggling on welfare payments. I dont know how different or alike ,Australia is to America as I dont live in America , and as much as i hear its a beautiful country , and ive met some really cool people from there , i just cant help but feel sad for America. They seem to have a lot of shit on their plate. And they dont seem to know what to do with it. In Australia we have our share of no-hopers . We have our share of lost souls also. Guidance from a church? What sort of guidance ? What church? In Australia i know most churches close at night. They dont even provide 24hour sanctuary.Their assistance , in contributing to welfare ,is largely relied upon by those in society whom are willing to donate to their church charities. Items of all sorts are donated ,including food , accomodation , vouchers , clothing bedding etc The church then sells the donated items back to the public via the volenteer ran thrift shops. Sometimes depending on where the store is located from one suburb to the next , you will find pricing on used donated items ,exceeding prices of somethings that you can get cheaper for brand new ,from a different store. Everyone wants a hand in the cookie jar...it seems. Churches are no different. And may i add not every alcoholic , junkie , lazybum etc is so easy to detect. I know many a priest who cannot detect shit from clay and ive had to guide them. I have had many a good "on the level" convos with people from the various churches also , so i am not against all its eccences. Whoops ive waffled on ........sorry
I kicked a security guard at the childrens hospital , because he made my daughter cry. I received a 18month suspended jail sentence. 6 years later, in the middle of my course to become a nurse , we were about to do our hands on training and had to undergo a police check. Because i was charged for assault in a public place i cannot work at a hospital , school , army etc until the charge is lifted from my file .My class and teacher were disapointed. It was only meant to be five years but it is now going 8 so i plan on checking it out again and if its all clear then i will proceed with the course where i left off.
I know that sounds good and might get them off their but and working, why have that kind of hatred for people on welfare. Some really do need welfare and cant work. What if you happen to be on welfare, what would you do if people thought that way about you?
Yeah the Constitution says promote not provide, but does that somehow translate into providing welfare, in the form of the current social and fiscal aid program run by the government? I don't find any logic in an argument against the welfare system using this phrase from the Constitution. I think this phrase does imply that the government will do what it can to aid the people it governs, so why would that not imply a similar or identical welfare system to aid those who need assistance.
The U.S. welfare system is not making any recipient rich. It is a survival thing. It is imperfect, in need or reform, but very necessary.
I would love to see him run for president. The left wing media wouldn't know what to do. "he's republican, get him!, -wait, he's black we can't get him.."
Perhaps in you own delusional idea of reality, but the real world he would be countered by economists and politicians who understand why providing for those who are unable, for some reason, to support themselves and their family is beneficial to society. In addition, you would hear numerous personal stories of people who worked numerous jobs, yet still needed a little help to feed their kids.
As people who don't need welfare it's easy to argue that those people who need welfare are just freeloaders, but in reality they are people who need a little help to get by.
I'll skip how you didn't rebut his post to something more important:
Do all economists agree with your statement? Sure, there are economists and politicians who agree with you... but are you sure that ALL of them do? I mean, why else would you say "he would be countered by economists and politicians"... wow, great argument. And I guess to rebut your statement I would say "O YEAH, WELL... THEY WOULD BE COUNTERED BY ECONOMISTS AND POLITICIANS TOO, YO!"
I need a car to get to work and the hospital... can the government give me a car to provide me with necessary transportation that helps keep me alive? After all, the bus won't tend to emergencies like my car will. Or, should I work for that car?
Jesus Christ, you just made such an open ended statement with so many bases uncovered that I can't even think straight. God fuckin' damn it, I wanna attack you with SO MANY THINGS but it'll just leave you confused, and if you ever rebut this you'll surely forget (ignore) some of my points and probably just make another off-topic statement.
In this specific post I wasn't talking about "economists", I was talking about the left wing media. And you ignored what I said. I think thats because it made you mad and you couldn't think of a rebuttal but had to say something, so you just changed the subject completely. ...
Yeah but I had already made my actual arguments about the debate subject. That was merely a side note. Which is why I said: "In this specific post I wasn't talking about "economists", I was talking about the left wing media."
And if you are going to directly dispute something, you better stick to the subject of that specific post.
The above is what is in the constitution, however:
-
1) The statement may be translated to the effect of provision.
2) The constitution was made to be altered, as to accomidate for societal change over time. (some would say to perfection)
I have not yet formulated my structure for which welfare should work, so don't expect a solution from me. My opinions change often, and hinder me from taking a consistent perspective to build a plan from.
Actually, it says "promote the general welfare" NOT even "promote for the general welfare". Promote it, meaning more along the lines of: give a man a fish, he'll eat for a day. TEACH a man to fish, and he'll eat for a lifetime.
PROMOTE teaching people how to live the right way, being self-sufficient. not "providing" the general welfare. if a man doesn't work, he doesn't eat, that sort of thing. but that's just me. any "providing" for general welfare should be done by the churches/private sector (given that the individual works a tad for their compensation), NOT the government.
thats not teaching someone to fish, thats teaching them how sit on their rear and have someone give them the bait... and the fishing pole... tying the hook on, baiting the hook... reeling it in... cleaning it for them.
But to promote, you have to provide something, it shouldn't be BLANK of government control, but it shouldn't be infested with it like it is right now. Welfare should be changed somewhat.
I think poor people should find work. I know that sounds hard, especially in times like these, but you could get creative. You could be a forty year old man selling lemonade for all I care, but don't take the money from people who actually earned it, because it's theirs. And people will give the argument "I need it to support my family." Well, why are you having children if you can't afford them? I don't like being forced to pay for people who aren't diligent with their money. They should make it an option, like a charity. That way, people receiving our money would think of it as a gift instead of something in which they're entitled to.
These efforts usually strive to improve the financial situation of people in need but may also strive to improve their employment chances and many other aspects of their lives including sometimes their mental health.
But, this is not what the government is doing, it is in fact the needs of many people waiting for the government to provide to them, but seems nothing is being rewarded by the said welfare.
SO what your saying is that if IIII lawl too much the welfare will not support my l337 h4x0r5 issue....now come on who would want this to be a wotifa to wtf issue....i mean really in 14w1 thwe world was real or was it counter that bitches! booyah shakala
He's complaining about the welfare we have here in America? What a joke. This "entitlement class" he speaks of consists of people who can't work: the handicapped, the elderly, and so on. Does anyone honestly have a better solution?
I support you in that I agree that people who don't need welfare shouldn't get it. But I dispute you, as well, in that it isn't always so obviou as to who needs or does not need welfare. I worked through much of college at FedEx. There I met people who were working two or three jobs, simultaneously. Working the night shift at FedEx (~10PM-3AM), another job during the day, and for some, another on the weekend. And many still needed welfare because they couldn't afford to have a reasonable standard of living or support a family.
So how exactly do you calculate who "needs" welfare?
Theres a difference between the reasonable standard of living and trying to support a family.
I'm 19. It's my dream to start and provide for a family. But I can't afford one yet. So what am I gunna do? I'm going go to try to finish my education and save money first.
"So how exactly do you calculate who "needs" welfare?"
I think that if you are able to work, you don't need welfare.
If you define "need" as make everything easier, then a whole hell of a lot of people need welfare but that's not the case.
As heartless as this sounds a lot of people get into finantual trouble because they don't know what they're doing. We need programs that encourage kids to start working and saving money at a young age. That teach kids how to set a budget and how to save.
Any healthy able person can make it in this country. A student that has to leave school to provide for his family can still eventually make it. Is it fare? No. It will be a lot harder for him. But again and again people make it and inspire others to make it. Difficult doesn't = impossible that is flawed logic.
Theres a difference between the reasonable standard of living and trying to support a family.
I disagree. For most people with families, and this will more than likely include you if and when you have one, a reasonable standard of living necessarily includes supporting the family.
I think that if you are able to work, you don't need welfare.
Not everyone in this country can gain employment with sufficient pay and/or (or not) benefits to live in this country.
We need programs that encourage kids to start working and saving money at a young age...
We certainly do, but in the kind of country we live in, it is difficult and sometimes impossible for some to save money.
Any healthy able person can make it in this country.
"Make it" needs to be qualified. Because the vast majority of people in America and around the world don't "make it".
But again and again people make it and inspire others to make it. Difficult doesn't = impossible that is flawed logic.
And they are always, always, the exception to the rule. That's why they're inspirations.
"For most people with families, and this will more than likely include you if and when you have one, a reasonable standard of living necessarily includes supporting the family."
That's true. All I'm saying, is that if you can't afford a family don't have one yet.
"Not everyone in this country can gain employment with sufficient pay and/or (or not) benefits to live in this country."
Why the hell not?
"in the kind of country we live in, it is difficult and sometimes impossible for some to save money."
People like to throw the words "difficult" and "impossible" right next to each other. Why? I can promise you that the most successful people in this country didn't do that.
Difficult yes. Impossible no.
" "Make it" needs to be qualified. "
I thought it was pretty obvious but I meant: to be financially successful to some extend.
"the vast majority of people in America and around the world don't "make it". "
That's because they think the government can financially take care of them.
"And they are always, always, the exception to the rule."
Exception to the rule? Meaning what, that it's against the odds to defeat poverty? ...
There is so many people on welfare that use there cash to by drugs and food stamps to buy candy and junk or they sell food stamps for cash. We spend to much money help people who could help their-selves but choose not to. We need to root these people out and get them on the right track. I think the human in general should have been giving classes to help learn great decision making skills...(government included). Great choices should have been made from the start of man kind, because not we where placed in a position to be hurt.
What is the problem? According to my observations the only problem being addressed in debates such as this is the problem of the welfare system. If the current welfare system is a solution to poverty then poverty as a problem is solved. But as self-evidently demonstrated by debates of this subject, poverty has not been solved by the welfare system. Moreover, the welfare system has become a problem in and of itself.
Now don’t misunderstand my position. The welfare system of the US is not a solution to poverty, but it certainly is a problem for the welfare of working Americans, i.e. the cost in income taxes. But, simultaneously I concede that charity is a necessary responsibility. My complaint is not predicated upon charity, my complaint is predicated upon some politician or bureaucrat deciding for both you and I how charitable we shall be this tax year and to whom we shall be charitable to this tax year. (I am digressing.)
Back to the question at-hand, how can any person argue that the welfare system is a solution when the welfare system only maintains poverty. The words “The maintenance of poverty” come to my mind when public welfare is mentioned. How can we be so cruel and yet so blind concerning welfare? Well, each man ought to answer that question for himself. What am I alluding to?
Firstly, no man has the right to determine when, how much, and to whom any man is charitable. Secondly, if some politicians or bureaucrats think that they have the authority to determine for myself and 300+million Americans why, when, how much and to whom we shall be charitable then I suggest that they pull their heads out of their asses and stop maintaining poverty. If we are going to suffer the burden of taxation for our charity, which is assumed and governed by politically motivated persons, then I suggest that they stop servicing poverty and start pulling the poor out of poverty. What?
Yes! If someone is dying of thirst shall you give them only enough water to stave off death, or shall you give them enough water so that they are made strong and healthy again so that they too can water not only themselves but other as well? If someone is starving of food, shall we prolong their starvation by bits of food? If someone is overcome by disease shall we nourish the disease or cause health to overcome?
The answers to those questions are not universally applicable to all of the problems that plague humanity. But they certainly hint at a better response to poverty than our current welfare system (problem). Consider the following example as an efficacious use of charity (taxation).
Thanks to the charity of the taxpayers, the federal government is the only employer who seems to be always hiring. Therefore tax dollars most certainly assure the prosperity of the federal government. Why don’t we assert our authority and insist that our charitable taxation dollars are spent for the purpose of pulling the impoverished out of poverty and into prosperity. And then those who are consequently prosperous can afford to pull the impoverished out of poverty and into prosperity as well.
(If anyone feels disposed to disagree then speak your mind.)
I have a terminological disagreement. Though federal entitlement programs might appear (and might be "charitable"), they are not charities. To represent them as such, and to disagree with their utility as such, is to misrepresent an entitlement program. Federal apportioning of tax dollars isn't charity.
So do I. But the "entitlement" in entitlement program ain't got nothing to do with whether people feel like they're owed anything. That's not how the term is used. It's from the classical usage, not the modern one. That is, it's about assurance that citizens and some legal-aliens are guaranteed benefits that they otherwise wouldn't receive in the absence of certain resources.
You can argue that welfare perpetuates poverty and I will agree. And you know, if we chucked deformed babies off of cliffs like the Spartans did, that would be great for the economy.
What I'm saying is that we have to accept the downsides of a minimal level of welfare because no welfare at all is morally unacceptable. Like it or not, we will always have those who cannot provide for themselves or their children for various reasons. Leaving them to die is not an option. Basic welfare isn't supposed to eliminate poverty, it's just supposed to ensure everyone has at least a minimal quality of life.
Charity simply does not generate enough money, and it is naive to think it would. Do you honestly think the wealthiest Americans are going to voluntarily give up 30% of their income?
You suggest helping people help themselves, and this is exactly what American welfare does. We have programs that help people find work. Unemployment benefits require that people find work within a time limit. Longer term welfare require that people work a certain number of hours a week. What more do you want?
Finally, it should be stated that the excessive handouts we had in the past have been reformed to the minimal levels we have today.
So, you simply think we ought to maintain the status quo concerning the public welfare system?
Why are you opposed to an alternative public welfare system that instead of helping the poor be less poor it is salvation for the poor. Will the welfare system I am proposing change the fact that we dislike welfare? Nope! Will the welfare system I am proposing stop poverty? Nope! Will the welfare system I am proposing foster subsistence? (Subsistence: the condition of being or managing to stay alive, especially when there is barely enough food or money for survival.) Nope! What the welfare system could accomplish under my proposal is far less shameful than the current form.
(My proposal doesn’t require any increase in taxation. But it certainly requires a re-prioritization of tax dollars.)
What exactly are you suggesting? All I see are vague values statements buried in loquacious prose. Be more explicit and specific, please. Concision would be nice too.
Edit: Ah, I see you were a bit more specific in your second response to my initial argument. I will respond there.
Jessald is correct, as complex as our welfare system is it is one of, if not the most efficient in the world. Sure, you can find people taking advantage of it in any 1st world country, you can also find people who legitimately deserve it (war vets, public servants, elderly, etc) in 3rd world countries who deserve it and don't get it.
Come up with a better answer and you may have a point. Screaming at reality in blind ignorance of the human condition though will get you no where. End wellfare and we are no longer a 1st world country.
In addition, do you have any idea how many entrepreneurs, CEO's, inventors, etc came from families that could only raise them because they live in a country that takes care of its people? Welfare isn't charity, it's an investment in the future.
I'm all for gettin rid of cheaters and lazy people, but a safety net is essential for us to continue to prosper.
All I can say to that is, "Amen"! Oh how intelligent you are to liefs forever problem, but never to be found solution. I am impressed by your wise and calm dialectic response to the obvious cause to poverty, Oppression.
Helping the poor live long enough to collect the next month's welfare check and consume next months food stamp purchases is nothing more than the tender mercies of cruelty.
Either give them prosperity or shut-down the current welfare system.
Funny, I despise taxation without representation, and yet I am arguing for the prosperity of paupers. Yet, the compassionate liberals insist that subsistence is good for me and the paupers.
Who's cruel and hard-hearted?
I think many people, like yourself, need to put away their antiquated devices for helping the impoverished and think outside of the box!
"Think outside the box", lol. What an excellent solution. Right up their with "shifting the paradigm" and "achieving greater synergy".
What do you mean by "give them prosperity"? We already have ways of pushing and pulling them into becoming productive members of society. Are you suggesting massive increases in welfare spending? Does that not give people a big incentive to sit on their ass and do nothing?
Eliminating welfare spending altogether is also not an option, for reasons I've outlined in my other arguments.
I do of course think real-world systems can always be improved upon, and welfare is no exception. I would welcome any productive, realistic adjustments to the system. But don't give this fantasy land nonsense.
"Think outside the box", lol. What an excellent solution. Right up their with "shifting the paradigm" and "achieving greater synergy".
Actually, it is identical to “Change you can believe in.”
The fact is that under my proposal the welfare system will either add 5 million people to the bourgeois or save 50 million people from proletary within the first year.
Do you like the Obama-esque nature of my arguments on this subject?
Were you equally as critical of Obama’s campaign speeches as you have been of my arguments?
That is enough jesting for now.
If you think what I have submitted is fantastical then you have by prejudice alone formed a conclusion. Instead of asking how exactly I aim to accomplish these goals, you judge my objectives as “fantasy land nonsense”.
Now, what reason would I have to explain the means to my objectives to a person who has clearly demonstrated unrestrained prejudice?
Shall I entrap myself by your prejudice? I do not think so!
Don't be an asshat. Neither of us are running for office. We don't need to play politics here.
I am ready and willing to listen to any suggestions you may have. But it is natural to be skeptical of sweeping change. If your ideas cannot be realistically implemented, then they are not worth much, are they? The task of any who desires change is not only to outline their goals, but to demonstrate that those goals are achievable in the real world.
Anyway, let's hear it. How are you going to achieve these objectives?
Or do you have nothing to back up your populist posturing?
OK, I agree with you 100% except at the very end. That very last sentence should have been, "I don't think so, baby puppy" ;)
OK, as it turns out, that is an obscure reference to a kids movie and I couldn't find it on the internet. I'll have to ask my kids what the name of the movie was when they get home and provide more info later.
Welfare can take a variety of forms, such as monetary payments, subsidies and vouchers, health services, or housing. Welfare can be provided by governments, non-governmental organizations, or a combination of the two. Welfare schemes may be funded directly by governments, or in social insurance models, by the members of the welfare scheme.
What point are you trying to make? None? How about you do what the GOP is doing, coming up with something that WASN'T made in prison. I'm talking about healthcare. Sorry if I am off topic.
Welfare or welfare work consists of actions or procedures — especially on the part of governments and institutions — striving to promote the basic well-being of individuals in need.
I think there family's, friends, or savings should support them. Anyone how hasn't saved for the future is ether a moron or an idiot, and deserves to be homeless. Don't you think it's worth all those hundreds of billions of dollars to have a few homeless moronic idiots?
There are two instances where "the general welfare" is added into the Constitution. The first instance is in the preamble, which is a declarative position of the people. It has no legal bearing beyond a kind of "moral" one.
In the legal documentation (the preamble does not constitute a legal or "Constitutional" position), the Constitution states, in Section 8 of Article 1, that "the Congress shall have Power To lay and collect Taxes, Duties, Imposts and Excises, to pay the debts and provide for the common Defence and general Welfare of the United States;....". So you're right and wrong. And I would add that I think that public health and the ability to survive has at least something to do with the general welfare of the nation. And if it doesn't, then there really isn't such a thing as "general welfare" at all.
I also find it humorous that the guy in the video is complaining about fighting against a tyrannical government while being able to practice his first amendment rights with no threat of government intervention. What kind of tyrannical regime does that?!
I will not dispute your entire argument here since I have a couple of other ones on the other side. I'm merely here to dispute your tyrannical regime statement.
I do not think that the government is INTENTIONALLY tyrannical. They are, by Thomas Jefferson standards at least, tyrannical. If you want me to elaborate on Jefferson's view points, I will.
A tyrannical government can do tyrannical things while not focusing on other things. You can have a first amendment and this guy hasn't been quieted by the government. of course. But the issue isn't on Big Brother trying to keep the truth hidden (like arguments made for 9/11), it's on the ceasing of property. Therefore, whether he is able to speak freely or not is irrelevant to the point he's making. The government, to him, is tyrannical for ceasing private property at what he believes to be a tyrannical fashion (keep in mind, I did not watch the video so if he did mention the first amendment, correct me).
And on a slightly related note, our first amendment has been infringed upon already by government. It is something called censorship which should be illegal under Constitutional law, but since politicians care more about the moral majority than they do about the Founding Fathers (a minority, ironically) they will bring up issues such as "offensive to others" or "focus on the family". Left and Right, censorship is supported by politicians and this is tyrannical.
I think you should watch the video. It's just more unsubstantiated rhetoric. There's no evidence brought to the front that shows that the government in question is tyrannical. It's just assumed.
...it's on the ceasing of property.
Whose property, and what makes the event tyrannical?
Left and Right, censorship is supported by politicians and this is tyrannical.
Ejemplos por favor. Who is being censored?
And people need to stop deifying the founding fathers, pointing to them as if they are some infallible godheads. They lived in a social and political atmosphere that was fundamentally different from the one most people in the world lives in now. Their 18th century opinion isn't necessarily or universally relevant, or even applicable in any case of modern considerations.
FCC regulations when it comes to speech is an attack on freedom of speech.
And property being our money. Our money is our property, and if the government is to cease it for the benefit of a select few (welfare recipients) it would be considered tyrannical (mainly from the Libertarian viewpoint, following Thomas Jefferson and Benjamin Franklin, possibly not John Adams or Alexander Hamilton).
FCC regulations when it comes to speech is an attack on freedom of speech.
What are those regulations that are deemed tyrannical?
And property being our money. Our money is our property, and if the government is to cease it for the benefit of a select few (welfare recipients) it would be considered tyrannical (mainly from the Libertarian viewpoint, following Thomas Jefferson and Benjamin Franklin, possibly not John Adams or Alexander Hamilton).
I think people need to stop deifying the contemporary politicians, pointing to them as if they are some infallible god heads.
Shame on anyone who deifies anyone or anything. But, with respect to opinions on contemporary issues, I'm sticking with contemporary politicians. And I will actively agree or disagree with their opinions. I nor anyone else can do that with a bunch of people whose opinions on things that didn't even exist when they were alive are static and only relevant to constrained and particular issues 300 years-ago.
Yeah..., well..., I'm a believer in the KISS philosophy (Keep It Simple Stupid).
The government gets its power by creating conflict between the citizens and then promising them that they will fix the problem. If the people did not go to the politicians for every little thing and just worked things out among themselves, then we wouldn't need such a bloated government.
Yeah.... well...... , and your good at practising that philosophy,.............................................kiss (keeping it simple stupid):) .................................................................... "The government gets its power by creating conflict between the citizens and then promising them that they will fix the problem. If the people did not go to the politicians for every little thing and just worked things out among themselves, then we wouldn't need such a bloated government." ...........Absolutely truth in this. They stifle progress more than we realize. Like the media , They rely solely on the fact that people forget. This is why there is so much repeat of crappy problems that we have already dealt with over and over, time and time again.
Ah yes, more arguments from the mouths of the selfish. I fervently hope that you one day end up in a position where you need welfare. And then people like yourself will have eliminated and/or lessened it.
i wouldn't consider it the stereotypical selfish i believe you are referring to since i participate in benevolent church ministries and charitable organizations, giving time & money. none of what i have is mine anyway, i am a steward of what God has blessed me with.
i would be just as stereotypical in calling the recipients of welfare selfish because they choose to spend the money they receive on tattoos, cigarettes, and liquor instead of food, etc.
Welfare is one of the simplest of economic policies. While you might not like it because it enables uneducated people to sit on their ass and make babies, stop being jealous it's not that big of a deal. Anyone who gets a welfare check spends that money immediately and generates revenue for whatever product they bought, and sales tax for the state they bought it in. It's not like they won the lotto and are getting a check in the mail and putting it in the bank.
Well then..., why don't we give welfare to the rich instead? Think about it for a second. Not only will they spend that money immediately and generate revenue for whatever product they bought, and sales tax for the state they bought it in but they would also use that money to create jobs like hiring a gardner or maid, etc. which is more beneficial to the economy than simply buying a product. ;)
Thats just flat out wrong. If you wrote that on an economics exam you would get a zero, this isn't an opinion issue. Giving welfare to the rich so they can become richer...is that a serious point? Then they buy a new speed boat or more stock in a company and the rich get richer and the poor get poorer. You can't have uneducated people just starving to death rotting in the ghettos, welfare is meant to get them back on their feet, just like project housing. How they choose to use the money is up to them, if they don't want to better their lives and just sit on 10,000 dollars a year living in hell, so be it; thats just an imperfection of the system. Its not perfect but its better than ideas such as yours where the wealth isn't distributed and then people resort to crime or revolt. You can't just enslave the lower class and expect to live in a civil society.
welfare is meant to get them back on their feet, just like project housing.
That's right, it is. But its current implementation does not work because it does nothing about giving the individuals any incentive to better themselves. The type of help we should be providing would give them incentive to improve themselves, not provide free money for doing nothing.
How is living like shit on 10,000 dollars a year not an incentive to better themselves? I don't think any of them are sitting there like man this is great, we don't have to do shit and we get a check in the mail; life is great. Its more "economical" to just give them money to survive on which they will just feed back into the system, rather than to provide them this magical help you speak of.
You say "The type of help we should be providing would give them incentive to improve themselves"...thats a real nice theory, maybe you'd like to join us in the real world, what exactly are you referring to as the "type" of help we should be providing.
Simple. You tell them that they will get X amount of money for Y amount of time. After that, they either need to have a job or be enrolled in school. If they are enrolled in school they will continue receiving Z amount until they graduate but they have to maintain no less than a C average.
ALternatively you tell them that this is not free money. That they'll have to pay it back. In this scenario they would only get X amount of money for Y amount of time. After that, they are on their own.
You're a fucking moron...how do you not see the horribly obvious flaws in your impossible plan thats unimplementable and would never work.
An intelligent person employs CRITICAL thinking when writing. It shouldn't be the readers job to have to tell you why you're wrong. That just shows your stupid if you can't do it on your own. Now i have to go out of my way to prove you're incompetent. Rather than waste any more time ill just put it in bullet form, since writing a piece on it would just be a huge waste of everyones time.
1) Keep your feelings to yourself, it's not simple so don't try and persuade anybody by just telling them; especially when it's not. We'll be the judge of it's simplicity after we finish reading your explanation.
2) These are uneducated people with uneducated kids and uneducated parents, expecting them to adhere to a formulated plan is TOO MUCH.
3) They get x amount of money for y amount of time...What is x, what is y, where does this money come from. If they are working a job now they must be making more than welfare pays people to sit on their ass, so this would automatically be more expensive than welfare.
4) If we are to have x, y, and z for jobs do we have a little chart with pre determined values for every single job in existence, or is this just a shitty version of Communism and everyone gets paid the same no matter what they do.
5) If you pay people x amount of money for y amount of time, then they just sit on their ass and make money and nothing gets done, NEGATING any incentive to work harder or be more productive.
6) Maintaining a C average might seem easy to you, but in ghetto areas teachers aren't very good/smart, parents likely didn't go to school and the kids likely don't give a shit. Unless Z amount of money is a shit load of money the kids would much rather do what they want then to study. Subsidizing kids to do well in school is retarded...you would have to do it for everyone...TRILLIONS OF DOLLARS YOU STUPID FAGGOT
7) And if they have to pay it back, THEY WOULDN'T DO IT. Who the fuck is going to work for money they will just have to pay back, BUT O WAIT THEY GET AN INCLUDED EDUCATION... WHAT A DEAL. Go into the hood and propose this to the people; you'll just get robbed for the money in your pocket.
And stop giving yourself a "up" vote on your own postings you nerd
What I meant was that if anyone ever needs welfare that the amount of money they can rceive is fixed for a fixed amount of time. But I guess that concept is too hard for you to understand so I wont bother explaining the rest.
BTW, the last thing I need to do is up-vote myself.
"BTW, the last thing I need to do is up-vote myself."----um nobody gets that option , do they ? I mean , call me a moron , but i thought you could only down-vote yourself , and you could do either , up -down-vote anyone else ;)
Technically I can create a new account, login using that new account and up-vote myself. But when you've got almost 10,000 points.... what's a/the point ;)
According to excitableboy (http://www.createdebate.com/user/viewprofile/excitableboy), 20% of all welfare recipients never go on to be "productive members of society." My simple plan would fix this problem because after a certain amount of money has been dispersed to a certain individual after a certain amount of time, the government would ask, "OK, sweet cakes, what have you got to show for all this money we invested in you?" and if the answer is, "Well..., I haven't done jack shit with it except by beer and piss it all away." Then the government would say, "Well..., guess what? We are done wasting our money on you."
Your little plan is retarded and I explained why, I guess you can't read. What happens when someone with 10 kids doesn't have time to work when they are a single mom in the ghetto, they all starve to death or start dealing drugs...nice plan. The government doesn't invest in things, much less it's own people. If 20% never make it does that mean 80% do, thats an extremely high success rate; why would we change it to your awful plan where they are indentured servants. And who keeps track of whether people are working hard or working at all and not just cheating the system. God your an idiot. You hope I learned something? What could I possibly learn from that statement you wrote. And no I didn't bother going to your link, I don't care what someone else has to say; you're supposed to summarize it, not the reader.
If you have a woman with 10 kids (who can't afford them), you take the kids away and put them in an orphanage. What's so hard about that?
As far as "you're supposed to summarize it, not the reader".... spoken like a true liberal. You guys just want to be told what to think. Especially by the government. You are the one who refuses to use his brain and yet you call me a retard? That's comedy man ;)
No, you don't just put a link to something as an argument. And i'm not liberal, proving your theory is unsurprisingly something you pulled out of your ass. Put the kids in an orphanange, then who pays for them there? The government. and we're no better of than we were before. Good job thinking that one out. Any other ideas you'd like for me to tell you why they're in fact stupid.
I see you stopped voting your own arguments, good job listening for once.
I would rather have the government take over the job of instilling good work ethics into those children than allow their parent teach them how to stay on welfare for ever.
And for the last time, shit for brains, I don't waste my time up-voting myself.
So true Joe.......I fell down flat.......i didnt drag my kids through it with me, i gave my parents custody of my children , til i get back on my feet , completely.We live 10 minutes apart and my house overlooks their school. Their is no restrictions of my seeing them .I rebelled at a young age and i fucked my self over for it ....but i love my kids and want them to do better than i did. My folks , work , and look after my kids for me as i wouldnt know how to guide them in things such as schooling ...anyhow what im saying is that people need to stop using their children as a ticket to ride. If this woman with ten kids cared over her own selfish heart, then she would make sure those kids had a better life than hers , even if that meant , giving them up to an organization to ensure them a better chance at a better life . At least the tax-payers money would be better spent , not wasted.
I dont know whats lamer. Joe being a dork for the amusent of your mentality or you lapping up his link like you were thirsty for a different result. Joe may be a computer whiz , but he is no nerd. You however sound like a complete wanker. Why dont you and all the willing , go on you all , take your own money out of your pockets,and give it to the poor hard-done-bys , go on go on, go and help fix all the broken ones. Hey why not go and open your doors to the hard up or homeless , hey go offer them a place to stay , go on , invite them in, feed them , clothe them , bathe them , etc You want to play surrogacy to society go right ahead . I am too busy getting my shit togeather to help anyone get their shit togeather. If you want to play parent to society , then pay for it out of your own pocket. Tax payers already contribute. Its about time some others on welfare did the same.
Welfare can take a variety of forms, such as monetary payments, subsidies and vouchers, health services, or housing. Welfare can be provided by governments, non-governmental organizations, or a combination of the two. Welfare schemes may be funded directly by governments, or in social insurance models, by the members of the welfare scheme.
Promote the general welfare clause is a misinterpreted clause by liberals promoting the expansion of government by suggesting that general welfare means promoting the health, safety, morals, and well-being of the people governed thereunder.
General welfare actually means promoting the freedom, free choice and responsibility of every American within the means of the law.
