Welfare

[AmyNation]

Charities are great, however there simply isn't enough charities to assist all those in need in our country. Have you ever donated time at a food bank? I have, when times are hardest, people donate less.

 

[Oddball]

LOL, it's funny that you would say the same thing that I was thinking about. What's the motivation for someone whose job depends on a big government program to get people off of that big government program? This is across the board with various programs and the political parties that implement and control them.

Maybe they can give bonuses to case workers who keep their "clients" off of welfare, employed, and paying back their "benefits".

Well, at least you're thinking...I'm impressed....And you know I don't impress easily.

Or how 'bout we double the deductibility for every charitable contribution over $10,000...Then triple it when the contribution exceeds $100,000...Then quadruple it when the contribution exceeds $1,000,000...And on up....???

That would work well in a good economy.

That would work well in a shit economy....In a good economy organizations like Goodwill, Salvation Army, Red Cross, Shriner's, etcetera, would most likely stockpile funding....They haven't been around as long as they have been by being poor managers.

 

[Avorysuds]

Fact is welfare has failed on every measurable level to produce the results it claimed it would have. There really is no debate to be had. Subsidize what you want more of, if you want more poor people then give more welfare, what do ya know, we subsidized the problem (poor people) and now we are bankrupted with record amounts of poor.

 

[hortysir]

There is no private charity in this country with the reach and financial backing to help as many people as the U.S. Government can and does.

Is welfare necessary? Depends. Would you like a weaker economy and higher crime?

When is the last time you went looking for a private charity for help?

Demand creates jobs, right?


If more people went to private charities BEFORE going to the government, I'd be willing to bet that they would suddenly be very easy to find

 

[Two Thumbs]

So the answer is

"because Id rather whine about the other guy and assume most people are just lazy fucks, then hold an honest discussion where we exchange ideas about a serious issue"

K thanks for clearing that up.

no retard, that is not the case.

You asked the dumbest question and got a polite response.

soo

I was down and out and I can tell you right now, of all the people in my housing block that were on an array of assistance, we were the only ones to get off.

our neighbor had been on it for 20 years

 

[Jackson]

It's not temporary for the bureaucrats....What's their motivation for seeing to it that nobody becomes dependent upon their welfare state opiate?

LOL, it's funny that you would say the same thing that I was thinking about. What's the motivation for someone whose job depends on a big government program to get people off of that big government program? This is across the board with various programs and the political parties that implement and control them.

Maybe they can give bonuses to case workers who keep their "clients" off of welfare, employed, and paying back their "benefits".

Well, at least you're thinking...I'm impressed....And you know I don't impress easily.

Or how 'bout we double the deductibility for every charitable contribution over $10,000...Then triple it when the contribution exceeds $100,000...Then quadruple it when the contribution exceeds $1,000,000...And on up....???

Privatization of Welfare Services:
A Review of the Literature

This is about it still being a federal program, but serviced by private firms. Still interesting . Less fraud and more effective.

Privatization of Welfare Services: A Review of the Literature: Main Page


I think it still could be done with Community Efforts like the Red Cross and Tax Incentives if done the right way.

 

[Paulie]

Originally it was a hand up. Quickly became a political tool to ensure voter dependence.

End story.

It wasn't even ORIGINALLY a hand up. Ask LBJ.

 

[hortysir]

There is no private charity in this country with the reach and financial backing to help as many people as the U.S. Government can and does.

Bullshit.

The federal gubmint has no backing without expropriating from we the people first.

Is welfare necessary? Depends. Would you like a weaker economy and higher crime?

Straw man sophistry.

Name a charity that could do it better.

Explain to us what happens when a man loses his job, can't provide for his family and gets no help. What would he do?

Move in with family.
There's help available

 

[hortysir]

Originally it was a hand up. Quickly became a political tool to ensure voter dependence.

End story.

And those responsible for implementing these entitlement programs are quick to raise their hand for recognition.
"Hey!! It was us that extended UE benefits, remember?!"

 

[DontBeStupid]

Bullshit.

The federal gubmint has no backing without expropriating from we the people first.


Straw man sophistry.

Name a charity that could do it better.

Explain to us what happens when a man loses his job, can't provide for his family and gets no help. What would he do?

Move in with family.
There's help available

Laughable.

You all claim people should go to charities and yet none of you can name one that could provide the level of help the U.S. Government does.

 

[hortysir]

There will always be a precent of people who will be unproductive leeches on society. There is no where in the world you can go where you won't see that. The question of welfare is two fold, those( and it is a majority) who need it for hard times, and those that use it to leech off of.

I do think, some states have better welfare laws than others, that reform is important and we should learn what works and what doesn't and implement accordingly.

As to the second, you can't force people to work or be productive. The options are very limited with these people. We either house them and keep them out of the way, or let them fend for themselves and accept the inevitable spike in crime they create.

But to reward them for being unproductive seems ludicrous.
"House them" in jail when they decide to turn to crime

 

[Paulie]

Name a charity that could do it better.

Explain to us what happens when a man loses his job, can't provide for his family and gets no help. What would he do?

Move in with family.
There's help available

Laughable.

You all claim people should go to charities and yet none of you can name one that could provide the level of help the U.S. Government does.

How about, ALL OF THEM COMBINED, as well as any new ones that spring up willing to help?

It's ridiculous to pin the responsibility of helping tens of millions of Americans to just one organization.

 

[hortysir]

The most efficient way to halt a crime epidemic in its tracks is extending the death penalty to all crimes against persons. If that doesn't work well enough, extend it to crimes against persona and/or property.

BUT no appeals - gallows right outside each courtroom.

I've imagined a witness stand connected to current.
When the guilty verdict is read, the switch is thrown

 

[hortysir]

Generational welfare is what breeds the worst entitlement attitude...there must be incentives not to become dependent on any sort of charity, and it mostly comes from parents and society setting a standard for having a strong work ethic. I do believe in a limited safety net provided by the government.

That's what makes me scratch my head about these "people" I know that feel so entitled.
"They" didn't learn it from me

 

[hortysir]

Is government-run welfare really necessary? Probably.

Can private charities do a better job of taking care of the less fortunate? Doubtful

Is it better to give a man a fish to hold him over until he can afford steak, or to teach him how to fish? Why not do both?

As to your poll question, it depends on the individual, as everything does.

I know you're critical of faith-based organizations, Ravi, but not all charities are such.
Don't doubt man's compassion for others.

 

[DontBeStupid]

Move in with family.
There's help available

Laughable.

You all claim people should go to charities and yet none of you can name one that could provide the level of help the U.S. Government does.

How about, ALL OF THEM COMBINED, as well as any new ones that spring up willing to help?

It's ridiculous to pin the responsibility of helping tens of millions of Americans to just one organization.

New ones? Really? So we should do away with welfare and when, if, new charities pop up they can handle the burden?

Well that's rock solid economics.

 

[hortysir]

I refuse to take part in the poll because it really is to generic. What all of you and your uppity remarks and higher than thou attitudes never ever comment on is the government giving money to corporations. They get hand outs! So this is quite a phoney poll.
But good try.
NOT

Is government-run welfare really necessary?

Can private charities do a better job of taking care of the less fortunate?

Is it better to give a man a fish to hold him over until he can afford steak, or to teach him how to fish?

Corporate "welfare" can be addressed in a Tax Law thread.

What of your neighbor, or yourself, that finds them self out of work and no food in the fridge???
Why should they, automatically, go to their Uncle for help?

 

[Paulie]

Laughable.

You all claim people should go to charities and yet none of you can name one that could provide the level of help the U.S. Government does.

How about, ALL OF THEM COMBINED, as well as any new ones that spring up willing to help?

It's ridiculous to pin the responsibility of helping tens of millions of Americans to just one organization.

New ones? Really? So we should do away with welfare and when, if, new charities pop up they can handle the burden?

Well that's rock solid economics.

The fact that you think it's solely about economics is your main problem.

 

[hortysir]

It was intended as a hand up. A temporary hand up when times got rough but it turned into a way of life. That's where things went wrong. Obama made it worse by taking the provision of working for the hand up out of the equation.

Congress has to step in and make it turn into what was the original idea. Two years of a hand up while folks got back on their feet, but worked or went back to school to make themselves marketable again.

We can't go on subsidizing half the poplulation.

The bolded is the biggest bastardization of the system in history.
We have went and removed any incentive to be productive.

 

[Oddball]

Name a charity that could do it better.

Explain to us what happens when a man loses his job, can't provide for his family and gets no help. What would he do?

Move in with family.
There's help available

Laughable.

You all claim people should go to charities and yet none of you can name one that could provide the level of help the U.S. Government does.

And you remain mired in the hallucination that there needs to be a singular national charity.

Take your own advice and don't be stupid.