Welfare

[spookyturtle 9,466]

Of course they shouldn't. Hand outs sound good when people are down and out for sure but look at the other side. Oftentimes people become down and out because of their own irresponisble behavior. If there were no hand outs to begin with then people would be more apt to take stock in their behaviors and act accordingly. If the penalty was no one will be there for when they screw up then they will use the adage, "save for a rainy day" and think more about if their actions would be negative. If there was a handout always then that thinking will be more skewed toward, "this is probably going to hurt me but what the hell I have the government to fall back on."

Even if everyone is responsible, and determined to work, there will never be jobs for everyone.

If you were responsible and determined you would be working. Right?

Thats not the point. If we took laziness out of the equation. There is still no way every can be employed and make a living where they would be free of government assistance. Part of it is just due supply and demand across different occupations. But part of it is due to the nature of a capitalist economic systems. If you make less than everyone else, you will be poor no matter how much you make.

Go talk to someone that lived through the depression then get back to me! I will put this as simply as possible. If big daddy gov. is BROKE then how the ** you gonna get assistance. Cali is cuttin off ppl right and left! There aint no fvckin money! So you best be savin the pennies! SHEESH!

Your dealer takes food stamps?

[Heracles 417]

That's nice in theory, but the reality is, not every parent does promote education. So, should we let another generation perpetuate the same .. or should we try to break the cycle so future generations may believe in the power of education from the get go?

I have to agree and disagree. I think there is an excessive push in America for people to go to school. Why not promote a trade or starting your own business too? The current system unknowingly makes kids think that they either get an education or they are losers. Whereas, it should promote a range of options. After all, when you look at lot of people that are wealthy, or even those housewives shows, you will find that not to many of them hold degrees.

An example of this involves one of my cousins in Aus who actually dropped out to pursue a trade: (Bricklaying business)

• Owns two homes - worth about $600K each
• Beach house - worth about $750K
• Holiday house abroad - $350K
• Two boats - $150K each
• Three cars paid off - about $50K each
• I can only imagine how much cash he has.

Paid for it all outright. In the US this guy would be considered a dropout loser. Yet how many college educated Americans have anywhere near that and are debt free too? He started from zero; as in no trust fund or handout from mommy and daddy.

Edited September 18, 2009 by Booyah!

[Pinocchio Liberal 268]

Of course they shouldn't. Hand outs sound good when people are down and out for sure but look at the other side. Oftentimes people become down and out because of their own irresponisble behavior. If there were no hand outs to begin with then people would be more apt to take stock in their behaviors and act accordingly. If the penalty was no one will be there for when they screw up then they will use the adage, "save for a rainy day" and think more about if their actions would be negative. If there was a handout always then that thinking will be more skewed toward, "this is probably going to hurt me but what the hell I have the government to fall back on."

Even if everyone is responsible, and determined to work, there will never be jobs for everyone.

If you were responsible and determined you would be working. Right?

Thats not the point. If we took laziness out of the equation. There is still no way every can be employed and make a living where they would be free of government assistance. Part of it is just due supply and demand across different occupations. But part of it is due to the nature of a capitalist economic systems. If you make less than everyone else, you will be poor no matter how much you make.

Go talk to someone that lived through the depression then get back to me! I will put this as simply as possible. If big daddy gov. is BROKE then how the ** you gonna get assistance. Cali is cuttin off ppl right and left! There aint no fvckin money! So you best be savin the pennies! SHEESH!

Your dealer takes food stamps?

What? you gotta a card reader in the crack of yo a$$?

[Teacher Mark 53]

That's nice in theory, but the reality is, not every parent does promote education. So, should we let another generation perpetuate the same .. or should we try to break the cycle so future generations may believe in the power of education from the get go?

I have to agree and disagree. I think there is an excessive push in America for people to go to school. Why not promote a trade or starting your own business too? The current system unknowingly makes kids think that they either get an education or they are losers. Whereas, it should promote a range of options. After all, when you look at lot of people that are wealthy, or even those housewives shows, you will find that not to many of them hold degrees.

An example of this involves one of my cousins in Aus who actually dropped out to pursue a trade: (Bricklaying business)

• Owns two homes - worth about $600K each
• Beach house - worth about $750K
• Holiday house abroad - $350K
• Two boats - $150K each
• Three cars paid off - about $50K each
• I can only imagine how much cash he has.

Paid for it all outright. In the US this guy would be considered a dropout loser. Yet how many college educated Americans have anywhere near that and are debt free too? He started from zero; as in no trust fund or handout from mommy and daddy.

I'll upgrade you to an A-. I took away a few points because you mentioned Australia.

I'll post my view and some of the student responses later.

Thanks everybody.

[zqt3344 21]

Yes they should help and anyone that gets this help must submit to drug testing, get neutered so they can no longer reproduce and be a burden on society and have their spawn roaming around this fine country ruining it!

I'm organizing my first debate and I've chose welfare as the topic. The question is very simple: "Should the Government provide financial assistance to the poor?" "Why or why not?" I'd like to hear what you think.

[AlHayatZween 2]

Are you really doing a debate? For real life or just VJ life?

IMHO, i think there are instances where welfare is good if it helps people who are legitimately down & out get back on their feet.

i agree that the current system is not working and riddled with fraud...

i also agree that there should be drug testing and job training/placement requirements and services... and that there should be some way to make it temporary especially if recipients are physically & emotionally able to work.

[Pinocchio Liberal 268]

Are you really doing a debate? For real life or just VJ life?

IMHO, i think there are instances where welfare is good if it helps people who are legitimately down & out get back on their feet.

i agree that the current system is not working and riddled with fraud...

i also agree that there should be drug testing and job training/placement requirements and services... and that there should be some way to make it temporary especially if recipients are physically & emotionally able to work.

Agreed! But what usually happens is ppl get on it and stay on it like crack! We all see it and we all know it. It was meant to be a temporary thing but now its a life style.

[Der Bücherwurm 1]

In a way people don't really have a choice but to provide financial assistance to the poor. Either you pay money to the govt. so they can dispense aid to the poor or you have the poor breaking into your home, stealing all your cash and valuables and possibly deciding to take the opportunity to shoot you and/or rape your wife and teenage daughter while they're there. I'd much rather pay the govt. than pay with my life.

[Teacher Mark 53]

Are you really doing a debate? For real life or just VJ life?

IMHO, i think there are instances where welfare is good if it helps people who are legitimately down & out get back on their feet.

i agree that the current system is not working and riddled with fraud...

i also agree that there should be drug testing and job training/placement requirements and services... and that there should be some way to make it temporary especially if recipients are physically & emotionally able to work.

Yes, they are classroom debates. I teach English in Vietnam.

The best response today was "If we don't help them then they will burn the city down."

Edited September 18, 2009 by Mr. Saigon

[NickD 203]

As JFK said, don't ask what your country can do for you, ask what you can do for your country. Never did have to ask, been told what to do, and my relationship with the US government has been one of take, take, take, so I don't even know what welfare is.

Didn't even have a moment to think how I could serve my country shortly after high school, was drafted, was told either to show up or would be arrested. Feel I served my country well and was told about GI benefits, but when I applied, said no, my records were burnt in St. Louis, had to pay for my education. Had two tax audits so far, didn't find anything wrong, but cost me a small fortune to hire a tax attorney as they have eleven thousand pages of laws with no time to learn them all. Met a nice woman in a foreign country, and was treated like a criminal trying to commit fraud.

When times got tough and they did, I had no say that my country would import cheap stuff from a foreign country that took my job away, had to change my line of work to make ends meet. Had to tell my kids, no Santa Clause this year on several Christmas's, had to scrape every penny we had to pay a huge property tax bill. Had to tell my kids, if we don't pay that, would take our house away and throw us out in the street. Lot of it was so the city could put some fancy artwork in front of city hall, that comes first.

While serving in the military, met civilians driving fancy cars and wearing expensive suits working for government contractors, most were not even as smart or as conscience was what I was, but they were on the other side of the fence.

Long time ago, quit buying anything on time, one really good way to get screwed, if didn't have the cash to pay for it, screw it. And whatever you did buy, piece of #######, would be long gone while you still had to make payments on it. But not good having money in the bank either when the inflation rate is greater than the interest rate, then they have the nerve to make you pay extra taxes on that interest.

So tell me about welfare, are people actually getting money from the government for doing nothing? Heard enough about women coming to Milwaukee being paid to have babies from many different fathers. Always felt an obligation to keep track of my kids and make sure they had a good education that I paid for.

Seems like we have a government that screws those that try to earn their own way and rewards the lazy, that doesn't seem right. Sure see the lazy whenever I go into a government office sitting behind a desk doing nothing. Wonder if they feel guilty, I couldn't do that, would be bored to death.

[Niels Bohr 72]

Knowing well how poverty affects the way corruption works, I'd say places in Indo-China region needs welfare most.

The story goes, the Western countries used foreign labor as reported by the Federal Government for goods from these countries because they are cheap. Why is there forced child labor? Poverty! The children need money to help their family. They cannot attend school. If they did, who is going to help with getting money for food. Sure, the parents will. However, the parents themselves don't earn enough themselves to even support themselves. It's a group effort.

The reason why the poverty in those areas is high would probably be their monetary inflation percentage. And, that the western societies prefer to hire them to produce clothes. For example, India or Bangladesh. Check the suits, clothes that are over $100 in cost at the clothing store. It'll say it's from these regions. How much is each one worth in India or Bangladesh? $5, take a few.

Welfare is important to keep the standards high for these countries. For those who visited these countries, you notice how filthy they are. (No offense to those who live there, but, you know that it's not quite the same as the US or Europe)

[SMR 368]

The problem with welfare is that most people who are middle class and paying taxes aren't out of the rat-race either. I work 40 hours a week and come home in the evenings most nights to take care of other problems that arise at home. If I'm lucky I have some time to spend with my wife and a little money left over to spend on her.

Time is money. And taxing people more to pay for welfare is the direct equivalent of forcing working middle-class people, who don't have much time anyways, as we all know, to spend a good portion of their time each week supporting other people. Is that really fair?

In response to those who argue that capitalism will never create jobs for everyone, it's true. But your argument is narrow. The reality is that a capitalist economy can grow to support any number of people. It's just that a certain percentage of unemployment is required for economic growth. If that doesn't make sense, consider how hard it would be to open a business in an economy with 0% unemployment. How are you going to hire people?

Thus, I understand that there are always going to be some people out of work. But those people just need to adapt and work hard to find a new job. Maybe they need to learn a new skill and take a job that makes less money than they did before.

It isn't that I don't believe in helping the poor. In reality, I give a significant portion of my income to charity. But welfare is the government extorting money from some people and giving it to other people. In addition to the fact that the federal government is constitutionally not authorized to do this (read the 10th amendment), this also contradicts my values system.

[Ling Ling 22]

The problem with welfare is that most people who are middle class and paying taxes aren't out of the rat-race either. I work 40 hours a week and come home in the evenings most nights to take care of other problems that arise at home. If I'm lucky I have some time to spend with my wife and a little money left over to spend on her.

Time is money. And taxing people more to pay for welfare is the direct equivalent of forcing working middle-class people, who don't have much time anyways, as we all know, to spend a good portion of their time each week supporting other people. Is that really fair?

In response to those who argue that capitalism will never create jobs for everyone, it's true. But your argument is narrow. The reality is that a capitalist economy can grow to support any number of people. It's just that a certain percentage of unemployment is required for economic growth. If that doesn't make sense, consider how hard it would be to open a business in an economy with 0% unemployment. How are you going to hire people?

Thus, I understand that there are always going to be some people out of work. But those people just need to adapt and work hard to find a new job. Maybe they need to learn a new skill and take a job that makes less money than they did before.

It isn't that I don't believe in helping the poor. In reality, I give a significant portion of my income to charity. But welfare is the government extorting money from some people and giving it to other people. In addition to the fact that the federal government is constitutionally not authorized to do this (read the 10th amendment), this also contradicts my values system.

Totally agree with everything you said there.

However, since we do have this f'd up system in place, I think at a minimum, if you're on Welfare.

1. Mandatory drug testing.

2. Mandatory community service (even if you're disabled, you can do something).

3. No checks mailed, unless you're on some sort of machine....goes along with the drug testing.

4. If you have a child, mandatory reversible sterilization. If you can't support one kid, you can't support two.

More directly to the question...in it's current form, I believe welfare has an adverse effect on the recipients, as well as creating an undue burden on those that foot the bill.

The system needs a major overhaul, so that it is NOT as attractive, and so that there is actually a path to being self sufficient, rather than a path that leads to generations of families being supported by the working class.

[one...two...tree 2,762]

I think there is some truth in the argument that hand outs can become a crutch to people. But welfare and self sufficiency aren't necessarily tied together as Dan has said earlier. There will always be people who fall through the cracks - a mother who must choose between putting up with an abusive husband or having to live in her car with her small children, a recent widower living on Social Security and unable to care for himself, an old woman who is mentally ill. We have an obligation to take care of those who cannot take care of themselves, regardless of the reasons why they can't. That doesn't mean we have to just let people abuse charity. It just means that you feed and clothe them first and then deal with the how and why afterward.

Edited September 18, 2009 by Col. 'Bat' Guano

[Trumplestiltskin 5,791]

People clearly shouldn't be reliant on welfare, but neither should you be faced with the situation of being left homeless, bankrupt and without medical care on the turn of a die.

Welfare should be a buffer to ensure a minimum standard of living until people can improve their circumstances. The suggestion that the welfare system is subject to endemic abuse isn't accurate imo.

Edited September 18, 2009 by Private Pike