CDZ Should Government Benefits be Earned By Able-Bodied Adults?

[WelfareQueen]

Most benefits go to the seniors children and the disabled if you know people who are getting it illegally you should report them

That's been covered extensively in this thread. Read the OP. And yes....I worked in healthcare for years and reported a number of cases of obvious Medicare fraud.

Please read the OP and address the debate questions directly. Your opinion is welcome.

 

[warf]

Helping low income people stay alive or feeding hungry children with tax payers' assistance doesn't bother me.

What does bother me is our tax code that coddles certain rich people with lower taxes on stock speculators, high paid executives and heirs who have money dropped on them that they did nothing to earn.

I also don't like paying the same social security payroll tax as the Koch brothers.

Assisting folks isn't really the question here. The question is should able-bodied adults be required to earn those benefits through work or service?

What are your thoughts on the matter?

There is so much wrong with our unequal distribution of wealth that the question,"should able-bodied adults be required to earn those benefits through work or service?" doesn't seem worthy of contemplation. It seems as important as deciding to line the wastebasket with a paper or plastic bag when the house is on fire.

 

[Luddly Neddite]

Helping low income people stay alive or feeding hungry children with tax payers' assistance doesn't bother me.

What does bother me is our tax code that coddles certain rich people with lower taxes on stock speculators, high paid executives and heirs who have money dropped on them that they did nothing to earn.

I also don't like paying the same social security payroll tax as the Koch brothers.

Assisting folks isn't really the question here. The question is should able-bodied adults be required to earn those benefits through work or service?

What are your thoughts on the matter?

There is so much wrong with our unequal distribution of wealth that the question,"should able-bodied adults be required to earn those benefits through work or service?" doesn't seem worthy of contemplation. It seems as important as deciding to line the wastebasket with a paper or plastic bag when the house is on fire.

Agree.

If we were really concerned about welfare fraud, we would not be taking from the poor and working class to subsidize the wealthy.

And before WQ says this is is off topic, no its not. One of your confused questions seemed to be whether or not welfare, tax subsidies should be earned.

Wealth is not taxed. It should be.

Taxpayers GIVE $10MILLION to Big Oil every single minute of every single day.

Big corp's get millions and millions from the poor and working class.

 

[Luddly Neddite]

Most benefits go to the seniors children and the disabled if you know people who are getting it illegally you should report them

Absolutely true that most benefits go to the elderly, children and disabled, including veterans.

Those are the very people RWs would punish, penalize and hurt.

And of course, they would love to take food away from children at school.

 

[WelfareQueen]

Helping low income people stay alive or feeding hungry children with tax payers' assistance doesn't bother me.

What does bother me is our tax code that coddles certain rich people with lower taxes on stock speculators, high paid executives and heirs who have money dropped on them that they did nothing to earn.

I also don't like paying the same social security payroll tax as the Koch brothers.

Assisting folks isn't really the question here. The question is should able-bodied adults be required to earn those benefits through work or service?

What are your thoughts on the matter?

There is so much wrong with our unequal distribution of wealth that the question,"should able-bodied adults be required to earn those benefits through work or service?" doesn't seem worthy of contemplation. It seems as important as deciding to line the wastebasket with a paper or plastic bag when the house is on fire.

Who decides if wealth is unequal? If you make more money than someone else is that wrong?

Should your wealth be taken away from you as a result?

 

[WelfareQueen]

Most benefits go to the seniors children and the disabled if you know people who are getting it illegally you should report them

Absolutely true that most benefits go to the elderly, children and disabled, including veterans.

Those are the very people RWs would punish, penalize and hurt.

And of course, they would love to take food away from children at school.

Luddy...you said you were gone until tomorrow.....what happened bro?
No more off topic, or you will be asked to leave.

 

[WelfareQueen]

For a reminder...this is the OP. All posters are asked to stay on topic.
Thanks.


The question of distribution of benefits goes to the heart of our American System right now.

President Obama has talked openly about "spreading the wealth around." Basically, his vision of social justice is to take money from those who have earned it....and then giving that money to those who have not earned it....essentially a vast redistribution of wealth where the Government gets to decide who the winners and loser are.

So this begs the question: Should Government benefits be earned?

Is it moral for the Government to take wealth from those who have earned it....and then redistribute that wealth to millions of able-bodied adults who have not earned it?

What is our social obligation (it any) to give wealth to those who have not earned it?

And keep in mind....if you have not worked for something....you have earned nothing....that point cannot be argued.

All clean debate rules apply. No ad hominem attacks. No profanity. No off topic. Any posts of that nature will not be tolerated.

For those of you who support Obama's vision of social justice....please explain why logically and coherently. For those of you who do not....the same rules apply. I appreciate the debate and input.

 

[Luddly Neddite]

For a reminder...this is the OP. All posters are asked to stay on topic.
Thanks.


The question of distribution of benefits goes to the heart of our American System right now.

President Obama has talked openly about "spreading the wealth around." Basically, his vision of social justice is to take money from those who have earned it....and then giving that money to those who have not earned it....essentially a vast redistribution of wealth where the Government gets to decide who the winners and loser are.

So this begs the question: Should Government benefits be earned?

Is it moral for the Government to take wealth from those who have earned it....and then redistribute that wealth to millions of able-bodied adults who have not earned it?

What is our social obligation (it any) to give wealth to those who have not earned it?

And keep in mind....if you have not worked for something....you have earned nothing....that point cannot be argued.

All clean debate rules apply. No ad hominem attacks. No profanity. No off topic. Any posts of that nature will not be tolerated.

For those of you who support Obama's vision of social justice....please explain why logically and coherently. For those of you who do not....the same rules apply. I appreciate the debate and input.

When you say "able bodied", does that include the mentally ill? How about PTSD in vets?

And yes, that's an op topic question.

Gotta go though.

Buh-bye.

 

[WelfareQueen]

CDZ Rules:


No Name Calling Or Putting Down Posters
No Trolling and/or Troll Threads
No Hijacking
No Personal Attacks
No Neg Repping



For a reminder...this is the OP. All posters are asked to stay on topic.
Thanks.


The question of distribution of benefits goes to the heart of our American System right now.

President Obama has talked openly about "spreading the wealth around." Basically, his vision of social justice is to take money from those who have earned it....and then giving that money to those who have not earned it....essentially a vast redistribution of wealth where the Government gets to decide who the winners and loser are.

So this begs the question: Should Government benefits be earned?

Is it moral for the Government to take wealth from those who have earned it....and then redistribute that wealth to millions of able-bodied adults who have not earned it?

What is our social obligation (it any) to give wealth to those who have not earned it?

And keep in mind....if you have not worked for something....you have earned nothing....that point cannot be argued.

All clean debate rules apply. No ad hominem attacks. No profanity. No off topic. Any posts of that nature will not be tolerated.

For those of you who support Obama's vision of social justice....please explain why logically and coherently. For those of you who do not....the same rules apply. I appreciate the debate and input.

 

[RKMBrown]

The question of distribution of benefits goes to the heart of our American System right now.

President Obama has talked openly about "spreading the wealth around." Basically, his vision of social justice is to take money from those who have earned it....and then giving that money to those who have not earned it....essentially a vast redistribution of wealth where the Government gets to decide who the winners and loser are.

So this begs the question: Should Government benefits be earned?

Is it moral for the Government to take wealth from those who have earned it....and then redistribute that wealth to millions of able-bodied adults who have not earned it?

What is our social obligation (it any) to give wealth to those who have not earned it?

And keep in mind....if you have not worked for something....you have earned nothing....that point cannot be argued.

All clean debate rules apply. No ad hominem attacks. No profanity. No off topic. Any posts of that nature will not be tolerated.

For those of you who support Obama's vision of social justice....please explain why logically and coherently. For those of you who do not....the same rules apply. I appreciate the debate and input.

Sherry Foxfyre rightwinger rdean PoliticalChic ClosedCaption

Should Government benefits be earned? No.

Is it moral for the Government to take wealth from those who have earned it....and then redistribute that wealth to millions of able-bodied adults who have not earned it? No.

What is our social obligation (i[f] any) to give wealth to those who have not earned it? The obligation is one of being charitable, to take care of those who can't. However, charity should be voluntary, not forced. The reason it should be voluntary is because forced distribution of funds from peter to paul is theft, not charity. Forced redistribution is akin to killing one person to let another person live. You are really just picking and choosing winners. The role of government is not to pick winners and loosers. There are many alternatives to forced distribution of income and assets to find money for charity. For example, cut taxes and ask for charity. As another example, increase the amount of the tax deduction for charity. Here's how I would do it.. if I earn 10k and I send that 10k to someone else as income then I should not have to pay income tax on that 10k the person that receives it should. Since all of that charity income should be treated as income for those who receive it... why should that same income be taxed twice by the government? My plan makes charity... easy to do since the person providing it is not punished by having to pay taxes on it AMT, SS, or otherwise..

 

[WelfareQueen]

The question of distribution of benefits goes to the heart of our American System right now.

President Obama has talked openly about "spreading the wealth around." Basically, his vision of social justice is to take money from those who have earned it....and then giving that money to those who have not earned it....essentially a vast redistribution of wealth where the Government gets to decide who the winners and loser are.

So this begs the question: Should Government benefits be earned?

Is it moral for the Government to take wealth from those who have earned it....and then redistribute that wealth to millions of able-bodied adults who have not earned it?

What is our social obligation (it any) to give wealth to those who have not earned it?

And keep in mind....if you have not worked for something....you have earned nothing....that point cannot be argued.

All clean debate rules apply. No ad hominem attacks. No profanity. No off topic. Any posts of that nature will not be tolerated.

For those of you who support Obama's vision of social justice....please explain why logically and coherently. For those of you who do not....the same rules apply. I appreciate the debate and input.

Sherry Foxfyre rightwinger rdean PoliticalChic ClosedCaption

Should Government benefits be earned? No.

Is it moral for the Government to take wealth from those who have earned it....and then redistribute that wealth to millions of able-bodied adults who have not earned it? No.

What is our social obligation (i[f] any) to give wealth to those who have not earned it? The obligation is one of being charitable, to take care of those who can't. However, charity should be voluntary, not forced. The reason it should be voluntary is because forced distribution of funds from peter to paul is theft, not charity. Forced redistribution is akin to killing one person to let another person live you are picking and choosing winners. The role of government is not to pick winners and loosers. There are many alternatives to forced distribution of income and assets to find money for charity. For example, cut taxes and ask for charity. As another example, increase the amount of the tax deduction for charity since all of that distribution should be treated as income for those who receive it... why should that same income be taxed twice?

Thank you. Appreciate the post and your thoughts.

 

[danielpalos]

Helping low income people stay alive or feeding hungry children with tax payers' assistance doesn't bother me.

What does bother me is our tax code that coddles certain rich people with lower taxes on stock speculators, high paid executives and heirs who have money dropped on them that they did nothing to earn.

I also don't like paying the same social security payroll tax as the Koch brothers.

Assisting folks isn't really the question here. The question is should able-bodied adults be required to earn those benefits through work or service?

What are your thoughts on the matter?

No, categorically in Any at-will employment State.

 

[BULLDOG]

There is no doubt that the government takes money from those that earn it and give to those that didn't. In light of Citizens United, where corporations are now considered people, they deserve consideration under the outline of the OP questions. Much more is given to corporations than is given to the working poor. Why isn't there as much concern about those unearned benefits being given as there is about helping a struggling family feed their kids?

 

[danielpalos]

The Right only has a problem with Socialism, when it may benefit the least wealthy under our form of Capitalism.

 

[Foxfyre]

Those who support government programs for the poor never want to look at, much less admit the downside of that. Yes, a hungry family can be helped by a government program dispensing money or food or a private charity dispensing money or food, but the effect on that family can be very different depending on the source.

If the government gives the money/food no strings attached and judges the poverty level as the justification for giving it, being poor is transformed into an advantage and entitlement. And it can remove much of the incentive for doing what we have to do to get ourselves out of poverty. Is it true benevolence when 'charity' reduces incentive, increases dependency, and makes poverty so comfortable that it becomes a choice? And also an advantage to politicians who depend on the votes of those receiving government aid.

Then there is the organization that offers food, a bed for the night, or help for a family but expects reciprocation--wash dishes or sweep up or scrub the graffiti off the fence so that there is dignity in receiving assistance. Working with the family to help them clean up, find a job, get off the sauce or drugs, manage their resources more effectively, and develop pride and dignity that they are becoming more self reliant and need less help is true charity. It requires a lot of one on one interaction and a lot of patience and a lot of work because there is usually two steps back for every three steps forward. Success is measured by those who become self sufficient and not by how many are being helped.

Being charitable with somebody else's money is not charity. Being charitable with no concern for the negative consequences of what we do is not charity. And when we hurt people more than we help them, that does move the whole thing into the arena of immorality.

 

[danielpalos]

I am not sure what you mean; we could have solved simple poverty in our republic, yesterday, but for the Right's insistence on morals regarding a work ethic, from the Age of Iron.

 

[Josf]

"For those of you who support Obama's vision of social justice....please explain why logically and coherently. For those of you who do not....the same rules apply. I appreciate the debate and input."

For those who do not agree that crime is government, just because a fellow criminals says so, the logic is coherently explained in many words such as:

"The reason it should be voluntary is because forced distribution of funds from peter to paul is theft, not charity."

A voluntary government was in place. People volunteered to GIVE what they had so as to secure voluntary mutual defense against all enemies of innocent people foreign and domestic, and then the criminals took over.

Obama, or Bush, or Clinton, or whoever is falsely elected as president of counterfeit government, which is crime under the color of law, is a slave trader. That is the vision of all criminals, they enslave people.

Slave traders steal people. Slave traders have a vision all right, and the vision slave traders have is to enslave, or steal, people.

The slave trader sells the slaves to fellow slave traders, and the slaves are made to work, and the work produces something worth stealing, and in order to keep the slave trade going, the visionary slave traders cut fellow slave traders in on a piece of the action.

Welfare, so called, is a transfer of stolen property from the thieves who steal the stolen property, to the recipients of the stolen property.

The logical worst cases of this stolen property (welfare) is the abomination called The Federal Reserve. Coherently a small group of people claim to be lenders of last resort.

Is that coherent?

A small group of people, part of Obama's vision, claim to be lenders of last resort.

Did that reach any coherent brains?

The small group of people called The Federal Reserve lend lies written on pieces of paper, and more lies accounted in digital accounts.

The small group of Obama's vision, and the vision for Jeb, George, and another George Bush, and the Clinton's, known as The Federal Reserve tell the truth when they claim that the people who produce anything worth stealing are backing the good faith and credit of the lenders of last resort.

Is that too complicated to be logically and coherently reasoned out by anyone on this Forum?

OP?

So, in fact, the so called government that is part of Obama's vision is a confidence scheme whereby a few people called The Federal Reserve "borrow" (steal) credit from the people in America who produce anything worth stealing, and then these people spend that "borrowed" (stolen) credit when they claim (falsely) to be lending that stolen property to the false government envisioned by Obama, or Bush, or Clinton, or whoever else shares that vision to be puppet on a criminal string.

When the so called President does not obey the criminal orders without question the so called President is murdered along with anyone else who may be an actual leader of the free world such as Martin Luther King Jr.

Why are you people, all of ya'll, buying into this confidence scheme with wild abandon?

"For those of you who do not....the same rules apply."

Which rules? The rules that dictate blind obedience to falsehood without question? Nazi's were hung by the neck until death for such crimes against humanity. Patriots by the thousands, during the war for independence, were placed on prison ships (concentration camps) to be starved to death in defense of questioning the criminal orders.

The criminals were among us even then, enslaving people, and promising their criminal version of freedom if only the slaves would rise up and revolt against their masters. All the while, as offered by Martin Luther King Jr., all we have to do is wise up and say no more. And proven by his surviving family, we still have trial by jury for our defense right here in these United States of America.

If the idea is to remain truthful, honest, honorable, then why ignore the simple fact that theft, under any false coloring, is still theft, and that means that the one receiving the stolen property is culpable as one of the slave traders.

 

[WelfareQueen]

There is no doubt that the government takes money from those that earn it and give to those that didn't. In light of Citizens United, where corporations are now considered people, they deserve consideration under the outline of the OP questions. Much more is given to corporations than is given to the working poor. Why isn't there as much concern about those unearned benefits being given as there is about helping a struggling family feed their kids?

Off topic with no supporting evidence. Entitlements make up the bulk of Federal spending. Subsidies to Corporations do not remotely approach entitlement spending.

If you are asking if Corporations should receive subsidies....in my opinion no. But your response does not address the parameters of the outlined debate.

 

[WelfareQueen]

The Right only has a problem with Socialism, when it may benefit the least wealthy under our form of Capitalism.

Fallacious argument that is in essence an ad hominem attack. The question has been repeated endlessly. Should Government benefits be earned by able-bodied adults.

If able-bodied adults are given something of value by We the People.... should not We the People demand something in return?

The question is very simple. You can agree or disagree. Whatever your answer, please support the logic of your position. I do not know how to make this any clearer.

 

[WelfareQueen]

I am not sure what you mean; we could have solved simple poverty in our republic, yesterday, but for the Right's insistence on morals regarding a work ethic, from the Age of Iron.

Fact: We have spent trillions on the War on Poverty for the last 50 years. The poverty rate has largely remained unchanged, and during the Obama years poverty has increased.

The problem has never been solved despite the trillions thrown at it. The definition of insanity is continuing to do the same thing over and over with no change in result.

Maybe by demanding work in exchange for Government Benefits the paradigm changes and things get better. Why not try it?