Welfare question for libertarians, conservatives

[Zander]

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?

Exactly.

Charity comes from the heart, not the halls of government.

The moment "fraud" begins is the moment the government is involved.

 

[Redfish]

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.

the problem is that dems don't want to give their money, the want the govt to give yours

 

[Rocko]

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.

How do you know I do nothing about it?
So I guess you only believe in redistributing wealth when it comes to children and the handicapped, right?

 

[rightwinger]

They should get EBT cards, but the card should only be good for purchases of rice, potatoes, beans, flour, milk, ground beef, and diapers.

And, if the person is able to work, the welfare should have a stated limit in months. If there are no jobs, then the person has to clean streets, paint public buildings, etc in order to get the EBT card. Either way the welfare ends in X months.

I'm thinking Road Kill, Dumpster passes, moldy bread and rotted veggies

Don't wan't our our poor to enjoy it too much

 

[Rocko]

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.

the problem is that dems don't want to give their money, the want the govt to give yours

I'm not a Dem. And if you were to take a poll of all Republicans, I'm very confident the majority we be in favor of a safety net for people. Eliminating welfare , whether you agree with it or not, is a very extreme idea in this country.

 

[Londoner]

Do you think people who are on welfare should get cash along with food stamps or not?

In another thread I saw that a few conservatives were vehemently giving these people any cash. I was a bit surprised. Personally, I consider myself a compassionate conservative and believe giving people on welfare a modest cash stipend is appropriate. Keep in mind food stamps don't cover some of the basic needs a person may have, such as clothing, laundry money, transportation, haircut, etc..

When there are 3 million people applying for 1 million jobs, than 2 million people will be out of work no matter what they do.

The Reagan family discovered this during the Great Depression when they received assistance along with, eventually, a government job for Reagan's father. FDR's theory was that it was worth it for us, as a nation, to invest in Americans who are trying to find work during a time when there are not enough jobs for all those who want to work. FDR gave the Reagan family a hand during hard times because he had faith in the American People. He didn't want a recessionary or depressionary cycle to destroy a future scientist or president. Indeed, our nation chooses to invest in many things, including over 40 countries. At various times we have poured trillions into Iraq, Syria, Saudi Arabia, Afghanistan, Nicaragua, Mexico, Guatemala, Vietnam, etc.... and we've spent trillions more subsidizing and bailing out private business. Study lobbying - Washington is an ATM for the Free Market, whose wealthiest players have built a lobbying empire of takers who suckle at the taxpayer's teat. Does the GOP know how much big business draws from Government?

FDR was different because he didn't think that America should only subsidize and protect the suppliers. He decided to invest in the common people struggling to find work. And unlike the money we pour into foreign nations or businesses that ship jobs to China, the assistance given to the jobless gets pumped right back into main street stores - so it is one of the few forms of "spending" that is directly stimulative.

Some people think FDR's investment in the Reagan Family during hard times paid off.

(Psst: the large corporations that own over 50% of our politicians don't want to share the taxpayer's wallet with average people who can't afford lobbyists. When did Republican's become so naive about who actually benefits from government assistance? Was it when FOX decided to divert their gaze to starving people on food stamps, living under bridges... so they wouldn't see the trillions we spend in defending private sector oil fields in the Middle East, or the zillions we've given to business in the form of subsidies and bailouts?)

 

[DiamondDave]

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?

With the amount of monies thrown at the 'poverty problem', it should be gone or lessened.. but we have MORE on food stamps, MORE on welfare, MORE on every type of entitlement there is... and the government wants MORE of the earner's money to throw MORE of it at MORE on welfare.... the welfare system does NOT help the poverty situation

Who is should do something are the individuals.. those individuals who are in trouble and need to help themselves.. and those individuals who have the extra and the willingness to give SHOULD (notice I did not say MUST or MUST BE FORCED TO) give to organizations that help the less fortunate, on a voluntary basis

 

[kwc57]

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?

They are provided a free education by the state. The question is why can't they fend for themselves? If we are talking an 80 year old woman in a wheelchair with no living family members, that's one thing. If we are talking a 22 year old man who is healthy and of sound mind, that is another thing. It matters.

 

[DiamondDave]

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.

the problem is that dems don't want to give their money, the want the govt to give yours

I'm not a Dem. And if you were to take a poll of all Republicans, I'm very confident the majority we be in favor of a safety net for people. Eliminating welfare , whether you agree with it or not, is a very extreme idea in this country.

You don't keep fish in a net for months, and you don't keep the trapeze people in the net under the trapeze for extended periods of time

What we have is a safety hammock that is quickly becoming a safety shelter... it started with almost permanent welfare benefits to the lazy and it is continuing with the ever increasing unemployment payment system

 

[American4Americ]

Do you think people who are on welfare should get cash along with food stamps or not?

In another thread I saw that a few conservatives were vehemently giving these people any cash. I was a bit surprised. Personally, I consider myself a compassionate conservative and believe giving people on welfare a modest cash stipend is appropriate. Keep in mind food stamps don't cover some of the basic needs a person may have, such as clothing, laundry money, transportation, haircut, etc..

No welfare. Period. You have to work to eat.

 

[kwc57]

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?

Seriously? You don't know why?

 

[Zander]

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.

How do you know I do nothing about it?
So I guess you only believe in redistributing wealth when it comes to children and the handicapped, right?

I don't know what you are doing, that is why I asked.

Personally, I favor a social safety net- with a lifetime cap on benefits.

Anyone can find themselves in a fix. A job loss, an injury, illness, accidents, etc...A temporary helping hand is a good thing. It's called "Temporary assistance for needy families" (TANF) for a reason- it's temporary.

What I am opposed to is the growing plague of multigenerational dependency. Mothers raise their families in section 8 apartments , feed them with government provided food stamps and welfare. Their children grow up and do the same thing.

It becomes a permanent way of life. TANF is not a lifestyle. It's supposed to be TEMPORARY.

 

[ClosedCaption]

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?

In a society it has to be mandatory. Thats part of being in a society.

What you are talking about is if your neighbors conditions had no effect on you. Everyone lived in their own bubble. Then thats a different story

 

[Claudette]

the problem is that dems don't want to give their money, the want the govt to give yours

I'm not a Dem. And if you were to take a poll of all Republicans, I'm very confident the majority we be in favor of a safety net for people. Eliminating welfare , whether you agree with it or not, is a very extreme idea in this country.

You don't keep fish in a net for months, and you don't keep the trapeze people in the net under the trapeze for extended periods of time

What we have is a safety hammock that is quickly becoming a safety shelter... it started with almost permanent welfare benefits to the lazy and it is continuing with the ever increasing unemployment payment system

Yes. Its become a way of life for loads of folks.

Grandmothers, Mothers, Grandkids all growing up on Welfare.

Why? Because its there and they don't have to put themselves out to provide for themselves. They don't have to do anything but suck up someone elses hard earned money.

Why should they when the taxpayers of America are FORCED to supply them with food, shelter, medical, dental and basically take over all responsibility for their lives.

Might be someones idea of how all those able bodied "poor" should be treated but it sure as hell ain't mine.

 

[TakeAStepBack]

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?

In a society it has to be mandatory. Thats part of being in a society.

What you are talking about is if your neighbors conditions had no effect on you. Everyone lived in their own bubble. Then thats a different story

Predictable. So you think it's morally and ethically right to steal from some people and give it to others? And this is the price of society?

That's the same type of "logic" applied to people who say taxation is the price of living in civilized society. it's a classic case of "WTF is wrong with you?" type thinking.

If theft is necessary as a part of civilized society, then murder is necessary in a peaceful society.

 

[ClosedCaption]

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?

In a society it has to be mandatory. Thats part of being in a society.

What you are talking about is if your neighbors conditions had no effect on you. Everyone lived in their own bubble. Then thats a different story

Predictable. So you think it's morally and ethically right to steal from some people and give it to others? And this is the price of society?

That's the same type of "logic" applied to people who say taxation is the price of living in civilized society. it's a classic case of "WTF is wrong with you?" type thinking.

If theft is necessary as a part of civilized society, then murder is necessary in a peaceful society.

If by steal you mean tax. Then thats the world we live in. I dont think it fair that birds get to fly and I dont. But thats life.

See the problem you have is reality. If you neighbor is struggling his struggle effects you no matter what you do. His house forecloses brings down your property value (things like that)

You want a world where we all have no effect on each other. Sorry but that isnt reality. So whats your solution when voluntary charity wont be enough?

You dont have a solution and thats the problem

 

[hazlnut]

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?

What did we do with them before the federal government started its "benevolence" programs?

Read Charles Dickens.

Debtors Prisons.

Orphanages.

We still let Veterans die homeless in parks -- so we're not as compassionate as we like to think.

 

[TakeAStepBack]

In a society it has to be mandatory. Thats part of being in a society.

What you are talking about is if your neighbors conditions had no effect on you. Everyone lived in their own bubble. Then thats a different story

Predictable. So you think it's morally and ethically right to steal from some people and give it to others? And this is the price of society?

That's the same type of "logic" applied to people who say taxation is the price of living in civilized society. it's a classic case of "WTF is wrong with you?" type thinking.

If theft is necessary as a part of civilized society, then murder is necessary in a peaceful society.

If by steal you mean tax. Then thats the world we live in. I dont think it fair that birds get to fly and I dont. But thats life.

See the problem you have is reality. If you neighbor is struggling his struggle effects you no matter what you do. His house forecloses brings down your property value (things like that)

You want a world where we all have no effect on each other. Sorry but that isnt reality. So whats your solution when voluntary charity wont be enough?

You dont have a solution and thats the problem

There is a big difference between some humans claiming the authority to steal by force adn violence, and birds being able to fly and humans not. It's not even categorically the same. It's another universe entirely comparatively.

So by way of welfare, we can stop house foreclosures, or the other myriad of problems that people face financially? Yeah, no. it hasn't worked yet adn it certainly isnt going to start any time soon. Welfare programs are a failure at producing LESS poverty.

This is the world where my neighbors struggles do not affect me. I have neighbors I've never even met and there is no way their financial woes affect me in any way, shape or form.

You're making false comparisons and utilizing appeal to emotion as a case for theft. There is no reason that any single person should have their property seized and given to someone else. It doesn't promote society and it certainly isn't the moral thing to do.

 

[Bluedog]

The WIC program should be expanded to include items discussed in the OP. Jmo


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

 

[HelenaHandbag]

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

What did we do with them before the federal government started its "benevolence" programs?

Read Charles Dickens.

Debtors Prisons.

Orphanages.

Dickens is fiction, written in the context of Victorian times. No relevance at all to an industrial age economy, let alone the information age.