The argument for Government sponsored welfare, to aid the poor and needy Options

[sadolakced acid]

Alright, so. Government sponsored welfare. government give jobs and food, money, etc. to people who are too poor, etc.

some say it'd be good

some say it's thier fault they're poor

some say leave it to religious institutes...

etc.

discuss.

[innovation]

justin is awesome.

"i promise i'm not intimidating as i seem"
haha! 'tis true.

</irrelevance>

[Mulder]

^please dont spam.

and i think it would be good.

ill edit later with good reasons. but basically, the goverment takes responsibility for all of its citizens and tries to take care of them the best they can.


sounds good to me.

[fameONE]

I've been poor. I've been on welfare. I've been in a living situation where, even with government aid, my entire family questioned how we were going to eat our next meal.

Religious institutions shouldn't aid the poor simply because I don't see how its their place to help the people of our country, espacially with all of the different sects of Christianity out there.

The government owes it to its people to render aid. If you can "help" out families in Iraq, you can damn sure put food on the table of a man with 10 kids and who works a blue collar job.

[sadolakced acid]

and of course, there is the arguement that the government could provide welfare by donating to religious charities. some of which require you to "accept jesus christ as your lord and savior" before they'll give you help.

[fameONE]

and of course, there is the arguement that the government could provide welfare by donating to religious charities.  some of which require you to "accept jesus christ as your lord and savior"  before they'll give you help.

I've been down that road. No offense to any Christians here, but it wasn't for me. And by being oppressed to a given religion, I'd rather bungee jump with a chord that too long.

[*disco infiltrator*]

I've been poor. I've been on welfare. I've been in a living situation where, even with government aid, my entire family questioned how we were going to eat our next meal.

Religious institutions shouldn't aid the poor simply because I don't see how its their place to help the people of our country, espacially with all of the different sects of Christianity out there.

The government owes it to its people to render aid. If you can "help" out families in Iraq, you can damn sure put food on the table of a man with 10 kids and who works a blue collar job.

Why did the guy have 10 kids in the first place, when he couldn't afford them?..

[fameONE]

Why did the guy have 10 kids in the first place, when he couldn't afford them?..

It is possible to have an assload of children and get social security, but thats beside the point.

How can you question a married couple why they're having kids?

[*disco infiltrator*]

Well if you can't afford something, why would you have it? Why would they keep pumping so many kids out if they may not even be able to keep them alive? That's completely illogical.

[HuGzNKissEs]

^ I have to agree w/ disco on that one

[fameONE]

Well if you can't afford something, why would you have it? Why would they keep pumping so many kids out if they may not even be able to keep them alive? That's completely illogical.

Do you think you're parents were being logical when they made you?

[*disco infiltrator*]

Well, they were planning on it. I wasn't accidental. They had the money to afford a kid and they said, "Hey, let's have a kid! I want to make a family!" They were already married, so there was nothing to really stop them; nothing limiting what they could provide for me to give me a nice life. So, yes, I would say it was pretty logical to have me at the time they did, with careful planning and recognizing what a kid will need and such.

[illumineering]

Well if you can't afford something, why would you have it? Why would they keep pumping so many kids out if they may not even be able to keep them alive? That's completely illogical.

Don't be so quick to judge when you have absolutely no idea about the experiences of others. You're fortunate that life hasn't challenged you the way it has others. Everyone needs help from time to time in life. When you find yourself needing support in one way or another, remember your "logical" perspective.

[sadolakced acid]

they may have been wrong in having 10 kids, but that does not mean they should nto be helped.

[*disco infiltrator*]

Well no, it doesn't mean they shouldn't be helped, but no one would need to be helped if they didn't have 10 kids they couldn't afford. 90% of the time, when people need help, they got themselves into that situation because they did stupid things and messed up their life.

Don't be so quick to judge when you have absolutely no idea about the experiences of others. You're fortunate that life hasn't challenged you the way it has others. Everyone needs help from time to time in life. When you find yourself needing support in one way or another, remember your "logical" perspective.

Having 10 kids is very easily preventable. I don't believe I ever said they shouldn't be helped. But seriously, people shouldn't have 10 kids when they barely have the money to support themselves. They wouldn't be in that situation if they had thought things through.

[Tribal J_Rome]

Well no, it doesn't mean they shouldn't be helped, but no one would need to be helped if they didn't have 10 kids they couldn't afford. 90% of the time, when people need help, they got themselves into that situation because they did stupid things and messed up their life.
Having 10 kids is very easily preventable. I don't believe I ever said they shouldn't be helped. But seriously, people shouldn't have 10 kids when they barely have the money to support themselves. They wouldn't be in that situation if they had thought things through.

well now ur strayin into another topic cuz the point was whether the government should help them or not, not whether they should have had 10 babies or not. and in that case, i agree with brandonsaunders. if the government has the billions of dollars to go help families in iraq for the past years, they should be able to help out their own country. we form the government, the government doesn't form us.

[*disco infiltrator*]

In all fairness, those in third world countries are a hell of a lot worse off than anyone in this country, and they didn't get themselves into that situation themselves. Their government did, by not helping them.

There's a reason our country is the richest. It's because we DO help people, but not everyone in our country is going to be well-to-do. It's impossibile. There's going to be poor people, and I've seen people get themselves out of that situation, so others can too.

[*Libertie*]

The welfare system has the potential to be so much better, but it always seems like the wrong people are being helped and the people who need it don't know how to ask for it.

When my dad applied for SSI he was denied the first time and had to get a lawyer. This is the case for most SSI applications, but the thing is he shouldn't have been approved. This was his excuse to stop working and pretend to be sick for a few years, while continuing to clog his arteries and smoke until his lungs finally did give out on him.

I know this has been discussed, but sometimes it seems to me like people are having kids simply to GET government money. I don't know. I'm sure it's a tough decision for the people who have to judge these cases, and they don't always know the full stories. I just wish it could be fair every time.

By the way, I'm speaking as someone who would not have eaten as a child if it wasn't for WIC and food stamps. So don't think I'm against welfare. Why were my parents too poor to feed their children? The fact that they spent entire paychecks on pot is beside the point.

My point is that it may not be fair, and some parents may not deserve help, but the children shouldn't be punished.

=======

Oh, and sort of on a tangent but still in line with the first post: If anyone would like to see what some of the so-called government jobs accomplish, they should drive on the roads in Oklahoma. :P

[fameONE]

In all fairness, those in third world countries are a hell of a lot worse off than anyone in this country, and they didn't get themselves into that situation themselves. Their government did, by not helping them.

There's a reason our country is the richest. It's because we DO help people, but not everyone in our country is going to be well-to-do. It's impossibile. There's going to be poor people, and I've seen people get themselves out of that situation, so others can too.

What's the point of helping another country when your own people are still in need?

[*disco infiltrator*]

Because there's no way everyone in our society could be well-off. It wouldn't even work, much less be feasible. They get help. However, they are not dying, and can go get food with food stamps. Those in third world countries can't even do that. When a majority of our population is so much far better off than they are, it seems sensible to give them a leg up.

[fameONE]

Because there's no way everyone in our society could be well-off. It wouldn't even work, much less be feasible. They get help. However, they are not dying, and can go get food with food stamps. Those in third world countries can't even do that. When a majority of our population is so much far better off than they are, it seems sensible to give them a leg up.

You still avoided my question, Sammi. You'd be surprised how easily and often someone applying for Social Security or federal aid gets declined. Even if you qualify, there aren't any promises. Which brings me back to my question before....

It also helps understanding if you've been in such a situation.

[*disco infiltrator*]

People are declined when they are not so far down that they can't get them out of the situation themselves. People can't just turn to the government for money and a leg up whenever they have any troubles. Sometimes you have to work hard and budget and get through some crap to get back on your feet.

You have been in the situation, no? And you got out, right?

[fameONE]

People are declined when they are not so far down that they can't get them out of the situation themselves. People can't just turn to the government for money and a leg up whenever they have any troubles. Sometimes you have to work hard and budget and get through some crap to get back on your feet.

You have been in the situation, no? And you got out, right?

And whats your proof or reasoning for the claim? Personal experience?

The reason why my family was able to get out of a rough situation was because we were able to get help from other family members, not because of the government.

Which still leaves an issue of 'the government not doing its job to aid the needy' unresolved.

[sharpandcuddly]

my momma was a social worker.
she got women OFF of welfare, because once you were on it, it was so crazy. you couldnt get a job that payed very much or it would be cut.
and we lived on welfare for years.
we still went hungry, without food and decent clothing or a place to live.
i cant count the times we've had to spend our nights in churches or motels.
we live in a section 8 house now, and our money comes from my moms foodstamps and disability check.
for five people, she gets 300 a month for food.
if you can go to the store and get 450 meals [breakfast lunch and dinner for FIVE relatives, and usually about 5 other people whos families are drug addicts or dead who stay here] for 300 dollars, you let me know.
and she gets 400 to pay her bills.
you cant invest it, you cant buy anything with it.
government funding could do ALOT more.
instead of them living in mansions, why dont they get houses for the homeless?
instead of buying five turkeys for thanksgiving, why dont they give four of those to shelters?
i mean, come on.

[sharpandcuddly]

In all fairness, those in third world countries are a hell of a lot worse off than anyone in this country, and they didn't get themselves into that situation themselves. Their government did, by not helping them.

There's a reason our country is the richest. It's because we DO help people, but not everyone in our country is going to be well-to-do. It's impossibile. There's going to be poor people, and I've seen people get themselves out of that situation, so others can too.

okay, um, our country is the richest?
excuse me, what are you smoking?
our country is the MOST in debt, definatly not the richest.
a dollar here is worth like 60 cent in Canada.

and also, you cant ALWAYS get off of it.
My momma cant walk on her own, cant use the bathroom on her own, and shes the one raising four people. No one will hire her with a decent enough paycheck, and if she does get a job, our government money gets cut off and we STILL go hungry. I I live off of ramen noodles and free school food, cause thats all we can afford. I wear my sisters handmedowns, I ride a bus to and from school, the only time I EVER get to go out shopping or see a movie or go somewhere is when someone else pays for me. not to mention, my momma is so kind that she takes in all the other kids whos parents are missing or drug addicts. how about your leg gets crushed into over 40 pieces, you have four kids to take care off, plus the neighboring kids with no families, on 300 dollars of food stamps? you cant even buy womanly products like pads with foodstamps!

[innovation]

okay, um, our country is the richest?
excuse me, what are you smoking?
our country is the MOST in debt, definatly not the richest.
a dollar here is worth like 60 cent in Canada.

Well, the U.S. is definitely one of the richest nations, according to income and living standards.

And yes, I believe that government-sponsored welfare is necessary, although it should probably be more proactive. I'm not so familiar with how welfare in this nation works (ahh *ashamed of my own ignorance*), but I think that the government should also invest in other institutions, such as job training, counseling, teen centers, educational programs, and alternative schools. In order to develop a comprehensive program, the government needs greater collaboration with other social institutions (i.e. schools and organizations). And no, I don't think that welfare should be transferred completely to faith-based organizations. Of course, these organizations are valuable, but there are many public institutions that should be involved, as well.

For developing nations, Sammi, 'tis true that their governments often cannot afford to aid their citizens with welfare. However, NGO and microcredit programs have proven effective in increasing self-sufficiency within these nations. Honestly, the progress made through microfinance organizations has been phenomenal. We need to expand these programs in developing nations, while addressing other issues, such as corruption, armed conflict, disease, geography, gender discrimination, etc., all of which contribute to poverty in some way.

[*mipadi*]

a dollar here is worth like 60 cent in Canada.

Ohter way around—$1.00 in the US is worth $1.37 in Canada; $1.00 in Canada is worth 73¢ in the US.

[*disco infiltrator*]

^ Mmmyea..I believe the only currency worth more than the dollar is the Euro, and that's a pretty recent development.

[ComradeRed]

First, I'd like to point out that you guys have some interesting monetary theories. The nominal value of your currency doesn't matter--America would be just as rich if the dollar was worth 100 Euros as if it was worth 1/100th of a Euro. The value of money just depends on how much is in circulation--it doesn't measure the actual productivity of the economy. Think about it this way, a Mountain is the same height no matter if it is measured in meters or feet. Similarly, an economy is the same in productivity no matter if it is measured in currency with high or low nominal values.

Religious institutions shouldn't aid the poor simply because I don't see how its their place to help the people of our country, espacially with all of the different sects of Christianity out there.

But we should help the poor! Jesus said so!

The government owes it to its people to render aid. If you can "help" out families in Iraq, you can damn sure put food on the table of a man with 10 kids and who works a blue collar job.

I'm going to quote ex-Congressman Davy Crockett on this: "What is worse, it [taxes] presses upon him without his knowledge where the weight centers. So you see, that while you are contributing to relieve one, you are drawing it from thousands who are even worse off than he. If you had the right to give anything, the amount was simply a matter of discretion with you, and you had as much right to give $20,000,000 as $20,000. If you have the right to give at all; and as the Constitution neither defines charity nor stipulates the amount, you are at liberty to give to any and everything which you may believe, or profess to believe, is a charity and to any amount you may think proper. You will very easily perceive what a wide door this would open for fraud and corruption and favoritism, on the one hand, and for robbing the people on the other."

The reason that welfare isn't in the Constitution is because the Founding Fathers realized that the government had no place robbing Peter to pay Paul and that it only opened it up to a torrent of abuses, especially under an income tax, which creates deadweight loss (for every dollar that goes to the government, more than a dollar is taken from the economy since people work less as the income tax increases reducing productivity--think about it, if the income tax was 100%, would anyone work?)

But if we must help the poor, the way to do it is through the Earned Income Tax Credit, by which you pay a "negative" income tax if you make a low income. This is a good idea, because people still have an incentive to work.

Sharpandcuddly, if you can't afford food but you can afford Internet, there's a problem.

Brandon, WHY does the government have a job to aid the needy? The US Government was founded on the Constitution and on the principles of the Declaration of Independence--neither of these says or even remotely implies that the government should help the needy. It seems that "Government should provide charity" has become a mantra as of late, but when you think about it, it doesn't really have a mantra in law or even in morality--every cent the government gives to the someone is forcibly extracted from someone else.

If you're interested in the whole Crockett Speech that explains the immorality of welfare, it's at http://www.house.gov/paul/nytg.htm

[lavadrugs]

I feel that it's our goverment's job to helpthe needy. Relgious places don't have enough money to do it alone just thinking about a child starving in america the richest country on the earth should be enough to make u think again

[ComradeRed]

Why is it the business of an Indiana factory worker that a child in the LA ghetto is hungry? Do we have a legal obligation to make sure that no children go hungry in Iraq or Bangaldesh? If not, what makes the child in LA superior? And if so, why?

Our government was not made to help the needy; it was made to create a system in which the needy could help themselves. When the government gives to people, it takes just as much from other people, and then some.

[sharpandcuddly]

Sharpandcuddly, if you can't afford food but you can afford Internet, there's a problem.

I agree completely. My mother would rather have the internet so she can keep herself entertained than buy food for her kids. :3

[*disco infiltrator*]

You're a year younger than I am. Go babysit someone and get yourself some money if your mom's so insane. In a year, you can get a real job. Do something about it. Instead of sitting on the computer telling us about it, help yourself out.

I have a friend who's mom is really just...crazy. She has no idea what she's doing, no idea how to raise kids...If he wants to have any money for anything, or if he wants food, he has to work for it himself or borrow from others. That's the way it works.

Instead of complaining, do something to fix it.

[fameONE]

Brandon, WHY does the government have a job to aid the needy? The US Government was founded on the Constitution and on the principles of the Declaration of Independence--neither of these says or even remotely implies that the government should help the needy. It seems that "Government should provide charity" has become a mantra as of late, but when you think about it, it doesn't really have a mantra in law or even in morality--every cent the government gives to the someone is forcibly extracted from someone else.

The government really isn't obligated to do so. And if there were no welfare program in place, I'm sure people would find a way to put food on the table (legally or illegally). However, if the government can "aid" peoples of other countries, then they sure as hell can "aid" their own.