Welfare is Immoral

[chanel]

Can someone explain this to me? How poor is poor?

In 2008, the poverty level stood at $22,025 for a family of four, based on an official government calculation that includes only cash income before tax deductions. It excludes capital gains or accumulated wealth. It does not factor in noncash government aid such as tax credits or food stamps, which have surged to record levels in recent years under the federal stimulus program.

http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2010/09/11/poverty-track-post-record-gain-obamas-watch/

I realize it would be difficult to raise a family on $22K. But it says that doesn't include "non cash govt. assistance" Wouldn't that include food, rental assistance and Medicaid? Add college tuition to that, and the "poor" might be living a hell of a lot better than the middle class. Am I wrong?

 

[NYcarbineer]

It is immoral for a government to tell its most productive people that they must give up part of their lives and property for the benefit of other people who don't have as many resources as those of us who have worked hard and made successful lives for ourselves just because those others have refused to avail themselves of all the benefits this great country has offered them in the way of education, freedom to pursue their dreams, etc.

Charity is intrinsically a voluntary thing, not something forced on us at the point of a gun by government thugs who have the authority to ultimately kill us for resisting their theft of our property. Taking one man's hard-earned money against his will for the benefit of another man's welfare is definitely not charity, it is the crime of robbery that is dictated by an arrogant and tyrannical government.

Every citizen of this country has the potential ability to carve out a decent, comfortable life for himself by utilizing all the facilities offered up by the benevolence of the productive, taxpaying workers who are forced to subsidize the educational, medical, legal, and other needs of the underclasses who refuse to take responsibility for their own lives as long as they don't have to due to our rulers providing them with all they need and want by stealing from us.

Your premise is comprehensively fallacious.

We have a democratic, representative government. The PEOPLE decide who represents them. Those elected representatives may choose to help the poor. They have been given that authority via the democratic process that put them in power.

If a democratic government helping the poor is immoral, then democratic government is immoral, because democratic government is the vehicle by which that help is effected.

You could as easily claim that defense spending is immoral, because not everyone wants to do it, but the government 'forces' them to.

 

[Lasher]

It's immoral to allow a child to go hungry in a country that spends a billion/yr to dispose of excess food.
It's immoral to deny life saving healthcare to the poor because no matter how hard they work they can never afford those services.
It's immoral to deny a good education to a child who's only mistake was to be born into a poor family.
It's immoral to have a family living in cardboard box when millions of homes sit vacant.

And most of all, it is immoral to deny the most basic services to the poor in order to cut taxes for the wealthy.

The wealthy pay far more in income taxes than any other group percentagewise, and the bottom 50% of wage earners pay no taxes at all, in fact they are given tax refunds that they never paid in to the system. When the productive people of this country get enough of the government's stealing and robbing them, "Atlas Shrugged" will seem like a plea for a welfare state. It is sad that those most needy of the economic lessons in that book are unable to read and comprehend it. The dependent, weak, useless people who rely on others to support them should all be so ashamed of their lifestyles that they would be motivated to better their conditions, but it simply isn't in their make-up to do so.

The bottom 50% in this country don't have any money to pay taxes thanks the 20 years economic policy that has pushed them in poverty.

Do you have any proof whatsoever of that?

 

[Lasher]

There is a legitimate role for government in collecting taxes which benefit all citizens equally. There is not a legitimate role for it to collect taxes to redistribute in order to equalize individuals. Government should exist to make and enforce laws which insure a civil society and provide for defense of the homeland.

The redistribution of wealth serves two important public benefits. Those that have their base survival needs met are less likely to cause social unrest, increasing security. The consolidation of power in the form of money can usurp the power of government, making it in government's best interest to not allow such power to accumulate indefinitely.

So you feel that to make criminals obey our laws, we must pay them? That makes less sense than paying farmers not to raise crops. As for the other so-called "purpose," that is just nonsense, and you must know it.

 

[blu]

Can someone explain this to me? How poor is poor?

In 2008, the poverty level stood at $22,025 for a family of four, based on an official government calculation that includes only cash income before tax deductions. It excludes capital gains or accumulated wealth. It does not factor in noncash government aid such as tax credits or food stamps, which have surged to record levels in recent years under the federal stimulus program.

FOXNews.com - U.S. Poverty on Track to Post Record Gain Under Obama's Watch

I realize it would be difficult to raise a family on $22K. But it says that doesn't include "non cash govt. assistance" Wouldn't that include food, rental assistance and Medicaid? Add college tuition to that, and the "poor" might be living a hell of a lot better than the middle class. Am I wrong?

yes you are wrong

 

[Lasher]

It is immoral for a government to tell its most productive people that they must give up part of their lives and property for the benefit of other people who don't have as many resources as those of us who have worked hard and made successful lives for ourselves just because those others have refused to avail themselves of all the benefits this great country has offered them in the way of education, freedom to pursue their dreams, etc.

Charity is intrinsically a voluntary thing, not something forced on us at the point of a gun by government thugs who have the authority to ultimately kill us for resisting their theft of our property. Taking one man's hard-earned money against his will for the benefit of another man's welfare is definitely not charity, it is the crime of robbery that is dictated by an arrogant and tyrannical government.

Every citizen of this country has the potential ability to carve out a decent, comfortable life for himself by utilizing all the facilities offered up by the benevolence of the productive, taxpaying workers who are forced to subsidize the educational, medical, legal, and other needs of the underclasses who refuse to take responsibility for their own lives as long as they don't have to due to our rulers providing them with all they need and want by stealing from us.

Your premise is comprehensively fallacious.

No it isn't, not at all, you just don't have the proper mind-set to understand the basic facts of life. Your beliefs are undoubtedly clouded by the mess of pottage that your socialist instructors have embedded into your head, and I refer to all those liberal, ex-hippie members of the teachers' unions who once lay about on the streets of San Francisco's Haight-Ashbury section smoking all sorts of things that cloud minds.

We have a democratic, representative government.

No we don't, we have a representative republican form of government. A democratic form of government is just about the worst type we could possibly have, and if you read enough, or even observed this government, you would know why.

The PEOPLE decide who represents them. Those elected representatives may choose to help the poor. They have been given that authority via the democratic process that put them in power.

But if those representatives DON"T choose to "help the poor" (read: dole out tax money to loafers), then you have a little hissy-fit and demand that we string 'em up. The fact is that we are all bound by the Constitution, as much as some of you socialists hate it, so good luck with your little revolution.

If a democratic government helping the poor is immoral, then democratic government is immoral, because democratic government is the vehicle by which that help is effected.

You keep calling the robbery of the productive segment of society "helping the poor," which is just another way of rationalizing criminal activities.

You could as easily claim that defense spending is immoral, because not everyone wants to do it, but the government 'forces' them to.

You could definitely "claim' that defense spending is immoral, but you would certainly look like a fool, wouldn't you?

 

[California Girl]

Isn't it interesting that we will bitch and moan in a thread about whether welfare is immoral, but I start a thread about an actual solution and, apart from a couple, the rest of you don't bother with that thread - I guess it's easier to bitch than it is to look at solutions.

 

[Lasher]

Isn't it interesting that we will bitch and moan in a thread about whether welfare is immoral, but I start a thread about an actual solution and, apart from a couple, the rest of you don't bother with that thread - I guess it's easier to bitch than it is to look at solutions.

Mus' be.

 

[editec]

It is immoral for a government to tell its most productive people that they must give up part of their lives and property for the benefit of other people who don't have as many resources as those of us who have worked hard and made successful lives for ourselves just because those others have refused to avail themselves of all the benefits this great country has offered them in the way of education, freedom to pursue their dreams, etc.

Charity is intrinsically a voluntary thing, not something forced on us at the point of a gun by government thugs who have the authority to ultimately kill us for resisting their theft of our property. Taking one man's hard-earned money against his will for the benefit of another man's welfare is definitely not charity, it is the crime of robbery that is dictated by an arrogant and tyrannical government.

Every citizen of this country has the potential ability to carve out a decent, comfortable life for himself by utilizing all the facilities offered up by the benevolence of the productive, taxpaying workers who are forced to subsidize the educational, medical, legal, and other needs of the underclasses who refuse to take responsibility for their own lives as long as they don't have to due to our rulers providing them with all they need and want by stealing from us.

Is it also immoral for the most productive citizens to have to support a military they might not want to support?

 

[Flopper]

Can someone explain this to me? How poor is poor?

In 2008, the poverty level stood at $22,025 for a family of four, based on an official government calculation that includes only cash income before tax deductions. It excludes capital gains or accumulated wealth. It does not factor in noncash government aid such as tax credits or food stamps, which have surged to record levels in recent years under the federal stimulus program.

FOXNews.com - U.S. Poverty on Track to Post Record Gain Under Obama's Watch

I realize it would be difficult to raise a family on $22K. But it says that doesn't include "non cash govt. assistance" Wouldn't that include food, rental assistance and Medicaid? Add college tuition to that, and the "poor" might be living a hell of a lot better than the middle class. Am I wrong?

Yes, you're wrong. If you should spent one night in the projects in my town, I think you would change your mind.

 

[Shadow]

That is assuming they enforce those rules. I can tell you for a fact that they do not in the state of NM,probably in a lot of other states as well. I rec'd help paying for daycare for one year and when I re applied the case worker actually told me I made too much money to quailify due to getting a yearly raise in pay ($12.00 too much to be exact). Then proceeded to show me how to cheat the system if I wanted to ( I did not). A) Work 2 hrs less a week (or have my boss fudge my pay stubs) OR B) have another child.

We were also required to take manditory child care classes on saturdays (which no one ever followed up on....ever...and no one attended anyway so they were eventually cancelled). And if you were a full time student you were supposed to provide proof...again... case workers never followed up on this either. Basically in this state they do get a free ride...unless they are honest and don't cheat the system that is.

The sad thing is that as you are someone speaking from the inside, know one will listen to you about what is really happening and what is the truth.

That is because they just don't care.

 

[chanel]

We don't have projects here. Section 8 housing includes decent homes in the suburbs. Until they wreck them that is.

 

[The T]

We don't have projects here. Section 8 housing includes decent homes in the suburbs. Until they wreck them that is.

There are many around my neck of the woods that used to be nice places...they are now borded up and 'No Tresspassing" signs abound.

When people are given things 'just because'? The meaning is lost...and they abuse the hell out of it on our dime.

It has to cease.

 

[Lasher]

It is immoral for a government to tell its most productive people that they must give up part of their lives and property for the benefit of other people who don't have as many resources as those of us who have worked hard and made successful lives for ourselves just because those others have refused to avail themselves of all the benefits this great country has offered them in the way of education, freedom to pursue their dreams, etc.

Charity is intrinsically a voluntary thing, not something forced on us at the point of a gun by government thugs who have the authority to ultimately kill us for resisting their theft of our property. Taking one man's hard-earned money against his will for the benefit of another man's welfare is definitely not charity, it is the crime of robbery that is dictated by an arrogant and tyrannical government.

Every citizen of this country has the potential ability to carve out a decent, comfortable life for himself by utilizing all the facilities offered up by the benevolence of the productive, taxpaying workers who are forced to subsidize the educational, medical, legal, and other needs of the underclasses who refuse to take responsibility for their own lives as long as they don't have to due to our rulers providing them with all they need and want by stealing from us.

Is it also immoral for the most productive citizens to have to support a military they might not want to support?

Au contraire, mon ami, the military is about the most necessary expenditure we have to meet with our taxes. It is the basis of our freedom to come on the internet and squall about the "evil rich" who are starving the people to death because they won't create enough jobs for everyone who wants a cool sinecure to supplement his welfare check. Without the military, we would be at the mercy of the Huns who would enslave us, so that makes it our greatest expense and friend. Ask any socialist.

 

[NYcarbineer]

[Au contraire, mon ami, the military is about the most necessary expenditure we have to meet with our taxes. .

That's an unwarranted assumption on your part.

 

[NYcarbineer]

It is immoral for a government to tell its most productive people that they must give up part of their lives and property for the benefit of other people who don't have as many resources as those of us who have worked hard and made successful lives for ourselves just because those others have refused to avail themselves of all the benefits this great country has offered them in the way of education, freedom to pursue their dreams, etc.

Charity is intrinsically a voluntary thing, not something forced on us at the point of a gun by government thugs who have the authority to ultimately kill us for resisting their theft of our property. Taking one man's hard-earned money against his will for the benefit of another man's welfare is definitely not charity, it is the crime of robbery that is dictated by an arrogant and tyrannical government.

Every citizen of this country has the potential ability to carve out a decent, comfortable life for himself by utilizing all the facilities offered up by the benevolence of the productive, taxpaying workers who are forced to subsidize the educational, medical, legal, and other needs of the underclasses who refuse to take responsibility for their own lives as long as they don't have to due to our rulers providing them with all they need and want by stealing from us.

Your premise is comprehensively fallacious.

No it isn't, not at all, you just don't have the proper mind-set to understand the basic facts of life. Your beliefs are undoubtedly clouded by the mess of pottage that your socialist instructors have embedded into your head, and I refer to all those liberal, ex-hippie members of the teachers' unions who once lay about on the streets of San Francisco's Haight-Ashbury section smoking all sorts of things that cloud minds.

We have a democratic, representative government.

No we don't, we have a representative republican form of government. A democratic form of government is just about the worst type we could possibly have, and if you read enough, or even observed this government, you would know why.

The PEOPLE decide who represents them. Those elected representatives may choose to help the poor. They have been given that authority via the democratic process that put them in power.

But if those representatives DON"T choose to "help the poor" (read: dole out tax money to loafers), then you have a little hissy-fit and demand that we string 'em up. The fact is that we are all bound by the Constitution, as much as some of you socialists hate it, so good luck with your little revolution.

If a democratic government helping the poor is immoral, then democratic government is immoral, because democratic government is the vehicle by which that help is effected.

You keep calling the robbery of the productive segment of society "helping the poor," which is just another way of rationalizing criminal activities.

You could as easily claim that defense spending is immoral, because not everyone wants to do it, but the government 'forces' them to.

You could definitely "claim' that defense spending is immoral, but you would certainly look like a fool, wouldn't you?

So you dispute the fact that our representatives are democratically elected?

lol. where did this guy come from?

 

[saveliberty]

[Au contraire, mon ami, the military is about the most necessary expenditure we have to meet with our taxes. .

That's an unwarranted assumption on your part.

It has a strong Constitutional basis actually. As near as I can tell lasher has some educational background in government. You, on the other hand, seem to want to make things up as you go and ignore the constructs of our political process.

 

[lizzie]

The redistribution of wealth serves two important public benefits. Those that have their base survival needs met are less likely to cause social unrest, increasing security. The consolidation of power in the form of money can usurp the power of government, making it in government's best interest to not allow such power to accumulate indefinitely.

That is the coercion and bribery I was referring to. Laws are made to maintain security and a civil society. Paying people off to keep them from acting like animals doesn't work. If it did, we wouldn't see the high crime rates we have and the inner city gangs and rotting conditions.

 

[syrenn]

The redistribution of wealth serves two important public benefits. Those that have their base survival needs met are less likely to cause social unrest, increasing security. The consolidation of power in the form of money can usurp the power of government, making it in government's best interest to not allow such power to accumulate indefinitely.

That is the coercion and bribery I was referring to. Laws are made to maintain security and a civil society. Paying people off to keep them from acting like animals doesn't work. If it did, we wouldn't see the high crime rates we have and the inner city gangs and rotting conditions.

I toally agree

 

[Charles_Main]

The redistribution of wealth serves two important public benefits. Those that have their base survival needs met are less likely to cause social unrest, increasing security. The consolidation of power in the form of money can usurp the power of government, making it in government's best interest to not allow such power to accumulate indefinitely.

That is the coercion and bribery I was referring to. Laws are made to maintain security and a civil society. Paying people off to keep them from acting like animals doesn't work. If it did, we wouldn't see the high crime rates we have and the inner city gangs and rotting conditions.

I toally agree

Yep. It will only encourage them to ask for more, and get mad if you do not deliver it.