Welfare

Welfare...
Is it a legitimate function of the government to take away the wealth that YOU created and hand it over to someone that's done nothing to earn it? Should those that achieve be punished by being forced to pay the way for those that didn't?

Discuss...

>>40

Did you ever stop to think that some people need that money from welfare to get them through tough times? Being on welfare isn't exactly glamorous. Jesus, you make it sound like the welfare system provides a free mansion to every lazy nigger on the street.

To repeat the sentiments of an earlier poster, would you rather be robbed for your wallet or pay a small tax for people who didn't get the same breaks as you? If you want, think of it as a crime/homelessness reduction tax.

>Should those that achieve be punished by being forced to pay the way for those that didn't?

Since when is paying taxes a punishment? Unless you're being unfairly taxed, taxation is the government's only means of social upkeep. People without money, like it or not, are a part of society. Sure, there are people who abuse the system, but should we abolish the whole thing just because of those few? Should New York get rid of the Metro because a few kids jumped a turnstile?

>>40
Yeah, that's what you pay taxes for, you dense dolt. You're really good at missing the point, aren't you?

hay guyz, my arguments suck lol so ill just ignore thinks i dont liek

>>41
Should those that achieve be punished by being forced to pay the way for those that didn't?

Since when is paying taxes[...]

He said that he is being punished for having to paying the welfare recipients.

>>41
Tough times LOL.  Save money ignorant asshole! 

Most decent people wouldn't start commiting crime if they suddenly became poor.  The people who do commit crime "just because they're poor" are probably idiots and misfits who got fired for the same reason they're now breaking and entering and what not.

I think stupidity causes both crime and poverty; I don't think poverty causes crime.

>>44
To clarify, yes poverty causes crime in some cases, because if stupid people had a ton of money, they wouldn't need to commit crimes. 

But still, my point is that smart people who are poor find a way out of it without getting themselves thrown in the metal clink.

>>41
I'd buy the whole "It isn't glamorous" thing if they didn't so horribly spend the money they're given.  I work at wal-mart, and you can always tell when someone is going to pay with food stamps because they get tons of fatty shit; frozen burrios and egg rolls seem to make up their diets, and they seem to drink nothing but coke, because they always come through with like 50 bottles of them, the expensive brand name stuff too.  Tons and tons of candy, like four boxes of twinkies.  Why are we buying them comfort food?  We're paying for their heart attacks so that they can burden the economy with their health expenses!

In contrast, a normal person gets a loaf of bread, some sandwich makings, dried beans and rice, maybe some sausage; you know, good wholesome food that doesn't cost too much.

I'd say if we're going to do welfare, we should do it more along the lines of WIC tenders; very specific nutritious food that they have to get, like, for example, a gallon of milk and two bags of beans or rice.  Maybe some meat, but not much at all.

But then again, you whiny liberal assholes get mad when we tell them what to get, maybe because making them eat rice would make them "feel bad".  That's a good thing!  It encourages them to get off their asses and GET A FUCKING JOB SO YOU CAN SPEND YOUR OWN MONEY ON HO-HOS!

>>46
Shows why I hate stupid people.  They become poor and then can't figure out why.  They stay poor and can't figure out why.  They are only creatures of their urges, living one day to the next rooting around in the mud for the next bit of refuse.  And they watch Fox.

>>46
The majority of people who end up on welfare don't stay there long, at least where I live. It's a safety net, not a way of life. Given the choice between living on piss and actually earning money so they can live somewhere decent and afford a few luxuries, guess what most people do?

It's easy to point to the worst abuses and scream "destroy it with fire", but then I guess we should get rid of police too, because there are some corrupt ones. Let's get rid of cars because of the Yugo, kill all humans because of tyrants, etc.

Egads, man.

>>48
Why is it that EVERY SINGLE ONE of these people are exactly the same in my case?   NONE of them use the money responsably to maybe, I dunno, LAST A WHOLE MONTH?  I never see people who don't look like they came straight out of a trailer use food stamps at wal-mart.

>>49
Sorry for my habit of constantly using so many addendums to my posts, but I think there are some good people who use welfare as a safety net.  Only thing is, they don't stay on welfare long enough to become the majority.  And probably, people that able, fore-thinking, and smart, could have gotten by without it. 

I have a whole lot of anger at these people, lot of bias, because they're usually the ones who pitch a fit and call the manager in my line if something goes wrong (have I mentioned I work at wal-mart?).  There is a consistent pattern, from my point of view, of the dumbfucks making life hard for everyone else.  I really really hate stupid people.

And when we feed them, it just keeps them poor; they never have any incentive to get off of welfare, they just get so fat that they can't work anymore then draw social security (don't scoff; I've seen it happen).

My issue isn't neccesarily with welfare.  It's the fact that we even need it.   That humanity can be so pathetic.  I look at these people, and feel pity, I really do.  But I don't think that feeding them unconditionally is helping them.  I actually think, now this is going to sound horrible, that letting them raise kids who can grow up to be just like them is unfair to the kids.  

It's just impetus for me to get off my ass and get my education so I can be one of the giving, infinitely kind souls with tons of money like you.

>>50
you are an overly emotional radical right winger

seriously, cut down on the crack

That humanity can be so pathetic.

Congratulations, emo kid. You figured it out.

You still want to throw out a system because of a minority? Maybe instead of getting rid of it you'd be better off reforming it a little? Australia does quite well in getting people back working, you know? We're more generous than US of A too.

Actually, fat food and numerous shit is a general sickness of that country, and it's spreading like a disease elsewhere. If you're in the US, just acknowledge your entire society is warped.

>>52
My point was that it's not a minority, it's the majority  Read correctly, plz

and it's the dumber people who are getting fatter, not the professionals who make a lot of money.  They can afford the education which prevents them from letting themselves go in such a way.

>>50
Ideally, everyone would be willing and able to work, and earn their own living.  Unfortunately, people have this annoying tendancy to be 'human beings' which makes them imperfect.  There's people who are lazy, undisciplined, and just plain stupid.  It's part of the package.

If people were smart enough to manage on their own, there'd be no real need for government.  The government is essentially there to prevent society from crumbling around itself, even when it's populated by imperfect people.  Some measure must be taken to ensure that these people have the basic human rights of life and etcetera that all other people do.  The alternative is to let the government decide which 'people' are worth keeping around, and which 'people' should be exterminated.  Not a good direction to go.

>>54
But chances are it's probably the future.

>>54
But chances are it's probably the future.

>>56
Barring the possibility that we go into space and spread out like crazy. 

>>53
Oh, I did, but I think you missed the point. Just because it's a majority in your area doesn't mean that's the case for the entire nation. For all we know you live next to a trailer park in the middle of the South.

They can afford the education which prevents them from letting themselves go in such a way.

Education which isn't free. Me? I'm completing my second degree, the work that awaits me in my field is $80,000 at start, and my skills are in high demand. But guess what? I was born into poverty. How did I scratch my way out? Oh, that's right...

So, you'll pay for welfare, or you'll pay for free education. You can't have it both ways, because eventually you'll end up with a mob of uneducated poor fools who still recognize that violence can achieve things.

And then what?

>>56
Chances are they'll resort to controlling birth before something like extermination. It's a lot safer, you know?

>>59
controlling birth and extermination are much the same thing, except the first generation gets off lucky.

>>60
Only on the most abstract level.

Or do you think gunning screaming people down is equivalent to putting <insert method of controlling procreation>?

>>61
IT'S THE SAME THING

>>61
IT'S THE SAME THING!

>>58
In your case, it was a good investiment.  In the vast majority of cases, you're paying to further someone as a burden on society.

I don't really buy that you wouldn't exist today if it weren't for welfare. 

BTW, if you robbed someone like you say you would have, you would have been thrown in jail where you belonged.  You seem to act like there would have been some justice in the act.  You would just be a common criminal, and worthy of nothing more than being locked away. 

However, I bet you wouldn't have been that stupid, you seem like a bright guy.  I bet you would have gotten a job in a warehouse or a car wash and paid your own way thorough, with HARD WORK, not FREE MONEY.

>>65
You'd be surprised what you're capable of when you're pressed against the wall.  Humans are scrappier than you give them credit for; whether that scrappiness translates into criminal activity or hard work determines your value as a human. 

>>65
Why yes, I would have robbed you. Here, let me make it simple for you. Either I:
a) Commit a crime and live, or
b) Don't commit a crime, and die.

I don't give two shits about morality, justice, or some other faggotry when it's my life on the line. I'll do what I have to in order to survive, including becoming a criminal.

BTW, do you know how much money it costs to keep criminals in prison? Why not just give them a few scraps so those who have a few moral fibers don't have to make that unfortunate decision?

I bet you would have gotten a job in a warehouse or a car wash and paid your own way thorough, with HARD WORK, not FREE MONEY.

Oh, that's true too. But what if there aren't any jobs out there? You know, major recession and all that? And if all the unemployed are on the verge of dropping dead from hunger, wouldn't they have all tied up the grunt work already? There's only so much to go around.

Welfare is called a "social safety net" for a reason. If it wasn't there we might end up with people earning $1 an hour out of pure desperation, particularly since capitalism is a race to the bottom. Hey, the guy's desperate, we're doing him a favour!

Somehow that sort of degradation is a bit repulsive to me. It would also horribly skew our markets.

I doubt that happened in austrailia, dude. 

BTW, it's called social darwinisim.  I don't claim not to be a jerk.

>>69

Good thing we don't let you run our country.

>>69

Social Darwinism is pseudo-science. You might as well be bragging about your mastery of astrology or alchemy.

>>70

You don't? Fuck, where do you live, I need to go there!

>>68
Outside of a vast recession, in which we would need to use government powers to get the country back together and producing again, Welfare is a bad idea.  It makes otherwise capable people who fall through the cracks become dependent upon the government to provide for them.

Because such people literally become "depressed," they may not want to do anything outside of eat and sleep.  In a good economy, one can always find at least a stopgap job until they get a better one. Your mother fits this description, I think. (yo' momma lol)

dependent upon the government to provide for them.

Again, only some. Visit good ol' Oz sometime, and see how it should be done.

In any case, what do you propose we do? Let's say Welfare really was this horrible thing. Should we just cut off welfare and let chips fall where they may? Have you considered the ramifications of that?

Perhaps welfare isn't just a system of catching those who stumbled, but also a system of keeping a large pool of potential malcontents... uh, "content" enough they don't get ideas?

>a system of keeping a large pool of potential malcontents... uh, "content" enough they don't get ideas?

HAHAHAHAAH oh wow.

I love Australia.

The US used to have more of a welfare system but they cut down on it because of the very problem you are describing.

Not. If that was all, they'd have put some reforms in.

The government doesn't care what poor people do, as long as they don't get in the way. The game of politics considers them numbers on a sideline, and little else.

>>76
Truth. 

>>75
Yes, now the US has a pretty good welfare system IMO.  The best possible one I could think of, keeps us from looking like dicks to the rest of the world while costing only a small amount of money to run (comparitively). 

>>73
It's pretty naive to think that poor people on welfare will start a revolution in this current political climate...  Maybe if our police or military was weaker, but today, whenever there's a riot it's put down pretty easily.  Plus, most people have jobs.

I'd say don't get rid of welfare immediately, but phase it out, and drop taxes at the same time.


And Ozzy Kid, Why couldn't your mother work and collect welfare at the same time?  Is there some law against it?  Because it happens all the time in the US.

It's pretty naive to think that poor people on welfare will start a revolution in this current political climate...

No, they won't, because they have no reason to. We're paying them. Furthermore, I never said it would come to revolution. Revolution is probably worst-case scenario, but there are many others, all of them quite undesirable.

I'd say don't get rid of welfare immediately, but phase it out, and drop taxes at the same time.

Your government is already bleeding because of people constantly saying taxes should be dropped. That huge debt you have? The one that's constantly growing? That's because your government doesn't have enough tax money to cover all the expenses. Even if you cut off your war efforts and welfare, dropping taxes is stupid because you're already living beyond your means. The US has one of the lowest tax rates in the world, what more do you want?

Why couldn't your mother work and collect welfare at the same time?

I've mentioned the reasons above (age and me). And she did, in fact, work (she taught music part-time). Stop assuming you know what was going on. Furthermore, quit attacking my mom, it's beyond pathetic. This is far, far lower than any ad hominem. Do you really have so little shame?

I could bring your mother into the discussion too, but that's irrelevant, isn't it?

||Furthermore, I never said it would come to revolution.
That's what we pay police for.

||Your government is already bleeding because of people constantly saying taxes should be dropped.

Actually, it's because Bush is an idiot, but that's another debate.  Under Clinton (god rest his glorious soul) we had a surplus.

||I've mentioned the reasons above (age and me).

Shut the <I>fuck</I> up.  You brought her into the conversation. I never insulted her at all, I was just asking why if she collected welfare she didn't work (which you say she did, and at a very cushy job if you ask me...  sounds lazy to me.  Get a job as a cashier somewhere).  Why couldn't she work full time or get another job?  That's only 40 hours a week in my country.  If she wasn't making enough, she'd still have gotten on welfare right?

*braces for TEACHING MUSIC ISN'T EASY retort*



What it all comes down to is that your mother COULD have worked (at something that's not a hobby for most people anyway).  But she didn't.  And I don't respect her for that.  That's all there is to it.  And that colors YOUR character here.

BTW, it's not ad-hominem because her decisions are central to the argument.  You made it that way when you brought her into the argument early on.  This is why you don't put your personal business on an open forum and then get mad when someone talks about it.  It's bad form internet dude.