Welfare question for libertarians, conservatives

[Redfish]

The problem with charitable giving today is that alot of the donations go to wastes of money like this:

Well, to be fare, the government waste's it's fair share.

I agree, but when someone is getting a tax break for donating to build a 100' tall Jesus statue it is not right. That's why that whole arguement about red state cons donating more to charity than the blue staters angers me. Writing off the 200 dollars you donated to carpet the rectory is not charity. Writing off three hundred dollars so someone from your parish can go to Uganda on mission is not charity.

maybe the statue will encourage more people to donate to the church. Maybe the carpet will make more people want to sit in church and put money in the collection plate, I kind of agree with you on Uganda.

 

[Jarhead]

A lot of money is being wasted. Welfare fraud is not even in the top ten.

the fraud in welfare comes nowhere close to the advantages of it.

What bothers me about welfare is how politicians are continually blasting those that pay into the system as "not paying enough"...

When, in fact, the money is COMING from those people and they get absolutely no recognition for it.

Instead, the politicians get the credit.

Hmmm...

I wonder how things would have gone if Obama said...

"the top 1% income earners have carried a vast majority of the burden of helping those in need for many years....and now that we are attempting to recover from a horrible recession that left many people with next to nothing, we need to turn to them and ask them to assist even more"

Instead...

"they don't pay their fair share"

Anyone else see the difference in approach?

 

[Rocko]

Well I don't think there should be welfare recipients, so...

What are we supposed to do with the people who can't fend for themselves? Let them starve in the street?

It depends upon how you define "people who can't fend for themselves".....

I am all for helping children, cripples, and the physically or mentally ill.

I wouldn't let anyone starve in the street, whether I believe they are able bodied or not.

 

[Rocko]

No.

The fraud that goes hand in hand with welfare would skyrocket with cash.

Welfare recipients already get cash.

Then I don't understand your question?

Not that I was aware of.

Do you think it's right that they receive cash.

 

[Redfish]

A lot of money is being wasted. Welfare fraud is not even in the top ten.

the fraud in welfare comes nowhere close to the advantages of it.

What bothers me about welfare is how politicians are continually blasting those that pay into the system as "not paying enough"...

When, in fact, the money is COMING from those people and they get absolutely no recognition for it.

Instead, the politicians get the credit.

Hmmm...

I wonder how things would have gone if Obama said...

"the top 1% income earners have carried a vast majority of the burden of helping those in need for many years....and now that we are attempting to recover from a horrible recession that left many people with next to nothing, we need to turn to them and ask them to assist even more"

Instead...

"they don't pay their fair share"

Anyone else see the difference in approach?

Obama is a marxist collectivist, punishing rich people is part of his agenda---------unless, of course the rich are liberals, can't punish them

 

[R.D.]

Welfare recipients already get cash.

Then I don't understand your question?

Not that I was aware of.

Do you think it's right that they receive cash.

No, I guess I don't.

 

[TakeAStepBack]

What are we supposed to do with the people who can't fend for themselves? Let them starve in the street?

It depends upon how you define "people who can't fend for themselves".....

I am all for helping children, cripples, and the physically or mentally ill.

I wouldn't let anyone starve in the street, whether I believe they are able bodied or not.

And that is your choice. You make a good example and have a good moral compass. This is the only way that helping the poor remains a moral positive. The minute you start stealing from some to give something to others, you've completely changed that dynamic. One from charity, to theft by force for redistribution purposes. There is no moral, or ethical credit in advocating theft by force. Even if you're doing it with the proverbial Robinhood in mind. it's still theft, and therefore, it's wrong.

 

[Zander]

What are we supposed to do with the people who can't fend for themselves? Let them starve in the street?

It depends upon how you define "people who can't fend for themselves".....

I am all for helping children, cripples, and the physically or mentally ill.

I wouldn't let anyone starve in the street, whether I believe they are able bodied or not.

Good for you. What are you doing about it? How much do you personally donate to charity? How many hours a day do you devote to easing the plight of poor starving Americans? have you ever worked with the homeless?

 

[Jarhead]

A lot of money is being wasted. Welfare fraud is not even in the top ten.

the fraud in welfare comes nowhere close to the advantages of it.

What bothers me about welfare is how politicians are continually blasting those that pay into the system as "not paying enough"...

When, in fact, the money is COMING from those people and they get absolutely no recognition for it.

Instead, the politicians get the credit.

Hmmm...

I wonder how things would have gone if Obama said...

"the top 1% income earners have carried a vast majority of the burden of helping those in need for many years....and now that we are attempting to recover from a horrible recession that left many people with next to nothing, we need to turn to them and ask them to assist even more"

Instead...

"they don't pay their fair share"

Anyone else see the difference in approach?

Obama is a marxist collectivist, punishing rich people is part of his agenda---------unless, of course the rich are liberals, can't punish them

it wasn't just Obama. It was the left as a collective.

And to be frank, it was the wrong approach and created even a bigger divide.

I know one thing...

When someone asks for assistance and I give it...and they thank me and ask me for more....I will give it.

But if, instead of thanking me, they said "huh? That's it?"

I would walk the fuck away.

 

[ClosedCaption]

It depends upon how you define "people who can't fend for themselves".....

I am all for helping children, cripples, and the physically or mentally ill.

I wouldn't let anyone starve in the street, whether I believe they are able bodied or not.

Good for you. What are you doing about it? How much do you personally donate to charity? How many hours a day do you devote to easing the plight of poor starving Americans? have you ever worked with the homeless?

Why does any of that matter?

 

[Rocko]

It depends upon how you define "people who can't fend for themselves".....

I am all for helping children, cripples, and the physically or mentally ill.

I wouldn't let anyone starve in the street, whether I believe they are able bodied or not.

And that is your choice. You make a good example and have a good moral compass. This is the only way that helping the poor remains a moral positive. The minute you start stealing from some to give something to others, you've completely changed that dynamic. One from charity, to theft by force for redistribution purposes. There is no moral, or ethical credit in advocating theft by force. Even if you're doing it with the proverbial Robinhood in mind. it's still theft, and therefore, it's wrong.

I just don't think charity alone would sufficiently address the problem the way it needs to be addressed, and the burden on society as a whole would be greater without government intervention.

 

[Claudette]

Well I don't think there should be welfare recipients, so...

What are we supposed to do with the people who can't fend for themselves? Let them starve in the street?

It depends upon how you define "people who can't fend for themselves".....

I am all for helping children, cripples, and the physically or mentally ill.

I have no problem supporting folks who are truly mentally or physically handicaped. Folks who can't fed for themselves.

The able bodies? No way. They can get out and take care of themselves.

 

[Rocko]

It depends upon how you define "people who can't fend for themselves".....

I am all for helping children, cripples, and the physically or mentally ill.

I wouldn't let anyone starve in the street, whether I believe they are able bodied or not.

Good for you. What are you doing about it? How much do you personally donate to charity? How many hours a day do you devote to easing the plight of poor starving Americans? have you ever worked with the homeless?

What are you getting at?

 

[Redfish]

This whole debate comes down to a very basic question:

Should charity (helping the less fortunate) be mandatory or voluntary?

When the federal govt uses tax money, charity becomes mandatory. Is that right or wrong?

 

[Jarhead]

It depends upon how you define "people who can't fend for themselves".....

I am all for helping children, cripples, and the physically or mentally ill.

I wouldn't let anyone starve in the street, whether I believe they are able bodied or not.

Good for you. What are you doing about it? How much do you personally donate to charity? How many hours a day do you devote to easing the plight of poor starving Americans? have you ever worked with the homeless?

I could probably do more. Yes, my family assist at a local "kitchen" on Thanksgiving...sort of a tradition for us....Hours a day? You can count the amount of hours per year on one hand.

As for donations of cash.....could do more....but we give about 10% to charity...not just the poor. We donate to senior centers and other local non profits.

As for tax money?

Dam....after 30+ years of working and earning a generous living...I have given much to the poor I am sure.

 

[TakeAStepBack]

I wouldn't let anyone starve in the street, whether I believe they are able bodied or not.

And that is your choice. You make a good example and have a good moral compass. This is the only way that helping the poor remains a moral positive. The minute you start stealing from some to give something to others, you've completely changed that dynamic. One from charity, to theft by force for redistribution purposes. There is no moral, or ethical credit in advocating theft by force. Even if you're doing it with the proverbial Robinhood in mind. it's still theft, and therefore, it's wrong.

I just don't think charity alone would sufficiently address the problem they way it needs to be addressed, and the burden on society as a whole would be greater without government intervention.

Well, observation has proven that to not be the case. So either you are arguing on behalf of the logical conclusions of welfare programs, or you're arguing from a moral perspective on it. But what we do not have, is a concise obervable example of welfare programs that are 1) workable or 2) a moral positive.

it's neither one of these things.

 

[rightwinger]

A lot of money is being wasted. Welfare fraud is not even in the top ten.

Try tax fraud

 

[Jarhead]

A lot of money is being wasted. Welfare fraud is not even in the top ten.

Try tax fraud

Curious...

Is welfare fraud a federal offense punishable by jail and penalty?

Or is it simply "give the money back" type of offense?

 

[Zander]

I wouldn't let anyone starve in the street, whether I believe they are able bodied or not.

Good for you. What are you doing about it? How much do you personally donate to charity? How many hours a day do you devote to easing the plight of poor starving Americans? have you ever worked with the homeless?

What are you getting at?

I think it's pretty clear what I am getting at. If your heart aches when you see hungry people you should do something about it, not wait for the government to redistribute wealth.

 

[Redfish]

A lot of money is being wasted. Welfare fraud is not even in the top ten.

Try tax fraud

why is tax fraud so prevalent? Because our tax code is so huge and complex that no one can figure it out.

take your tax data to 5 different tax preparers and you will get 5 different answers, and they will be widely different in the amount you owe or are to get back.