Welfare-Important Issue?

[Machiavelli]

Originally posted by wannabe:
</font><blockquote>quote:</font><hr />Originally posted by Machiavelli:
</font><blockquote>quote:</font><hr />Originally posted by 95fbirdkid:
</font><blockquote>quote:</font><hr />As a member of a civilization you have a social obligation to care for those who are unable to care for themselves.

I shouldnt have that obligation, their problems arnt my fault, i shouldnt be responsible for fixing them. I'm not against helping people, dont get me wrong, I'm against being required to help them.

and I watch cops almost daily ;) </font>[/QUOTE]Some fathers dont think they have an obligation to take care of their children... but they do.
We dont have an obligation to take care of any one person.. but if the more fortunate make some sacrifices to help the less fortunate our society, over all, will be better off. Im not talking about communism - more along the lines of Locke and the Wealth of Nations. You have read that book, I trust... ? </font>[/QUOTE]I agree with 95fbirdkid here. I agree that from a moral standpoint the more fortunate have a responsibility to help out the less fortunate. I don't think that anyone here will argue that one should not give what he can. I think the problem here is that we are REQUIRED by government to give, and that is what bothers most people. That we are required to give and that the amount is set not by us but by government is the problem. Government has no place in forcing charity. John Locke would agree that government cannot force a man to do anything simply because it is moral; it must have a more compelling interest than that. And is there really any need to go to a straw-man argument and get pretentious about who's read what? Let's keep this civil and about this issue. </font>[/QUOTE]On a sidenote: Ive heard the term "straw-man" somewhere before, but I never understood its connotations...?
About moral obligation - I disagree, the moral obligation is not just because it is "right" it is because it will further our society if everyone is as prosperous as possible - and we have a moral obligation to have our society as prosperous as possible.

The sad thing about human nature is that if we did not tax to get welfare, we would not have the society we have - it would be polarized and I believe, we would see the decline of the middle class.

Many conservatives believe that we should allow faith based charities and other social welfare charities to take care of our underprivledged... that is certainly a start... but not enough of the really rich would feel teh need to give, even if the tax burden were relieved... its human nature, its called greed and every person has this imperfection. An interesting tidbit - my parents, who are comfortably in the middle class - gave more as a percentage of income and in total dollars to charity than the Reagans did while R. Reagan was in office. They are certainly not as well off as the Reagans...

We must have some obligation imposed by the government... albeit should be limited.

[95fbirdkid]

I believe, we would see the decline of the middle class.

could you clearify why you belive we would have a decline in the middle class? The middle class does not recieve welfare. I'm not argueing this point persay, I'm intersted in how you came about with that idea.

it will further our society if everyone is as prosperous as possible

I think our society would be better off if everyone worked and supported themselfs, how is society furtherd by supporting the people who dont contribute?

[hawgs]

Machiavelli = Socialist

[wannabe]

On a sidenote: Ive heard the term "straw-man" somewhere before, but I never understood its connotations...?
About moral obligation - I disagree, the moral obligation is not just because it is "right" it is because it will further our society if everyone is as prosperous as possible - and we have a moral obligation to have our society as prosperous as possible.

The sad thing about human nature is that if we did not tax to get welfare, we would not have the society we have - it would be polarized and I believe, we would see the decline of the middle class.

Many conservatives believe that we should allow faith based charities and other social welfare charities to take care of our underprivledged... that is certainly a start... but not enough of the really rich would feel teh need to give, even if the tax burden were relieved... its human nature, its called greed and every person has this imperfection. An interesting tidbit - my parents, who are comfortably in the middle class - gave more as a percentage of income and in total dollars to charity than the Reagans did while R. Reagan was in office. They are certainly not as well off as the Reagans...

We must have some obligation imposed by the government... albeit should be limited.

Straw-man refers to attacking the speaker as opposed to the idea he puts forth; in that case, an attempt to make him appear uneducated and therefore in no position to make a case.

As to the issue at hand, I don't believe that society would be improved by using socialist tactics to make everyone more prosperous. Welfare makes very few people any more prosperous than they were to begin with. What makes people more prosperous is hard work and taking responsibility for one's life. Capitalism is what makes this nation prosperous. Look at what happened to Communism/Socialism... it's virtually nonexistant now and the only reason Communist China can stay afloat is through capitalist activities... with us.

I also disagree that without welfare we would not give charity. You're falling into the trap of assuming that the rich are greedy and discounting the amount that the middle class would give. This nation already gives BILLIONS of dollars a year in charity; what makes you think that giving each person more money would DECREASE the amount we give? And don't get me wrong: there are certainly many greedy people out there who will keep the difference, people of ALL classes. But I believe that the majority of Americans would make up for that difference and that in the long run our society would be helped by being rid of those unwilling to work.

You and I have some middle ground, too. I also believe that welfare has a place in our society, but in a VERY limited capacity. The current system needs drastic reforms before it can be considered a societal good. Right now it drags us down, something I don't think Locke would approve of.

[CAMAROWIDBASS]

I think they should just be extra carefull who gets it.

I know this one girl who lives in a mobile home, the mobile home is pretty old maybe about 30 years or such and its in bad shape. 5 People live there. Girl,mom,aunt,brother, aunts son and these people all live off the govt. None of them have a job nor really want to get a job.

The girl got pregnant and i told her she couldnt afford the child and it might be wiser to abort or give it up for adoption. She then replied ,"Well my aunt gets wellfare for her kid and so will i"

So these people heavily depend on the govt for food, shelter and basic nessecities.

[Machiavelli]

Machiavelli was not nor currently is a socialist.

Next, a successful capitalist society must incorporate some socialist ideals. Its not a matter of full on or full off.

Welfare does not drag our economy or our society down. There are not enough jobs in any economy for everyone - nor is there enough money. There will always be a poor class and there will always be the unemployed - I would much rather do our best to keep them cleaned, clothed, fed and housed than have them running amuck on the streets causing crime... Yes the poor cause crime, but what if there was even a more desperate need? The Thatcher years in the UK is a good example of this - there was an stark increase in crime as government benefits went down...

As for the decline of the middle class - if we eliminated government intervention in our lives, it would polarize our society among the proletariat and the capitalist buisness owner. The Bourgeious (I know i ****ed up the spelling) would be marginalized - it would be split between teh rich and the poor. It would create a far too competative society and not be a comfortable place to live.
Similar to the society the UK and US saw during the industrial revolution... Charles Dickens, anyone?

[wannabe]

Originally posted by Machiavelli:
Machiavelli was nor is a socialist.

Next, a successful capitalist society must incorporate some socialist ideals. Its not a matter of full on or full off.

Welfare does not drag our economy or our society down. There are not enough jobs in any economy for everyone - nor is there enough money. There will always be a poor class and there will always be the unemployed - I would much rather do our best to keep them cleaned, clothed, fed and housed than have them running amuck on the streets causing crime... Yes the poor cause crime, but what if there was even a more desperate need? The Thatcher years in the UK is a good example of this - there was an stark increase in crime as government benefits went down...

As for the decline of the middle class - if we eliminated government intervention in our lives, it would polarize our society among the proletariat and the capitalist buisness owner. The Bourgeious (I know i ****ed up the spelling) would be marginalized - it would be split between teh rich and the poor. It would create a far too competative society and not be a comfortable place to live.
Similar to the society the UK and US saw during the industrial revolution... Charles Dickens, anyone?

I don't think that anyone is arguing that we should just let the poor sit naked and hungry in the street. We just don't believe that welfare is the way to care for them. Welfare does not get anyone skills or a job. What we need is to allow people to keep more of their own money which can then be donated to faith-based or other charitable organizations who work to teach SKILLS and vocations to the poor. The only way to make a poor man wealthier is to teach him a skill. Welfare doesn't do that, it hands him a free check and teaches that not working is rewarded.

[mattsv6]

i am totally for welfare. 110 percent. but i feel that it sometimes doesnt go too the people that need it. look at old dirty bastard. he went too get his welfare check and food stamps with the damn MTV crew. how retarded and ironic is that? and you no what, the old block guy in the broken down house next door sells drugs. he has people in and out of there all day and night. yet i stood behind him in line and the local food mart and watched him but almost 100 dollars in grociries with food stamps. then buy a carton of smokes with a 100 dollar bill. one of many.

seem a little odd?

we dont need change in this area. we just need too be more strict. make it so not every tom dick and harry can go in and suck off of us. just think how much more poor families would benefit if we could keep the money in there hands instead of undeserving ticks that bleed the govt dry.

[mattsv6]

what i mean is that if there is a girl that had a child out of wedlock, and has no father for him. she could benefit for a few years till she can get back on track. after that it is her call on what too do.

a family that loses everything they have n a fire, PRIME CANDIDATE for welfare till everything is ok.

buddy the coke head in the park cant collect because he is a nothing in this world. chose a path of destruction and now he has to live with it. only thing he gets is a 1 way ticket too the rehab for free. other then that. sorry buddy, you lose.

[wannabe]

Originally posted by mattsv6:
what i mean is that if there is a girl that had a child out of wedlock, and has no father for him. she could benefit for a few years till she can get back on track. after that it is her call on what too do.

a family that loses everything they have n a fire, PRIME CANDIDATE for welfare till everything is ok.

buddy the coke head in the park cant collect because he is a nothing in this world. chose a path of destruction and now he has to live with it. only thing he gets is a 1 way ticket too the rehab for free. other then that. sorry buddy, you lose.

I agree about buddy the coke head, but the family that loses everything in a fire has civilian organizations such as the Red Cross (which both my parents work for) to help them through a time such as that. Not government's job.

[Machiavelli]

I think we can all agree that we need meaningful reform of the Welfare system. Not just handing out money aimlessly from a seemingly bottomless pit.

Buddy the Coke head needs to be put in rehab - not jail.
The poor, single mom needs to have birth control given to her so she doesnt have any more kids and training so she can get a real job.
The family who loses everything needs some disaster relief in order to recover.
The unemployed laborer needs to receive unemployment for a limited time while he/she is looking for a job unsuccessfully.

Welfare needs sensible reforms that stop mooching, encourage productivity and decrease crime. Not just cuts here or increases there to try to solve the temporary ebb and flow of public opinion and public funds.

Im sure you guys agree with this - thats why you should seriously consider voting for a "third way" Democrat whom combines some classicaly conservative values such as the ones above with sensible and prudent progressive values. A third way Democrat and Democrat Leadership Council backed candidate, like John F. Kerry.

[95fbirdkid]

Im sure you guys agree with this - thats why you should seriously consider voting for a "third way" Democrat whom combines some classicaly conservative values such as the ones above with sensible and prudent progressive values. A third way Democrat and Democrat Leadership Council backed candidate, like John F. Kerry.

cant we just keep this to a welfare discussion? btw VOTE BUSH

[mattsv6]

as far as disaster relief. i feel it is a form of charity based welfare. politicians could take advice from them on how too make handouts too those who need them. maybe appoint someone too office that has a long standing relationship with the red cross or one of the other modest/giving organizations. that might help point us welfare in the correct direction. this will free up a sizeable portion of the national budget also. could go too many good things.

[Machiavelli]

FEMA?

[98v6]

look at it like this: you pay your debts to society. Poor people don't have money because they haven't benefitted like the rich ****s, and rich people do. It's either labor or money, but the same debt is paid by everyone. And, like some sort of club or something, society takes care of the people who need it. Benefits are reaped by everyone, by the rich because it provides security for their money, and by the poor because it keeps them from starving to death.