Welfare

What is the Role of Welfare

  • A hand UP

    Votes: 9 20.0%
  • A hand OUT

    Votes: 1 2.2%
  • A Viscious Cycle that breeds dependency

    Votes: 19 42.2%
  • Private Charities can do it better

    Votes: 4 8.9%
  • Necessary to Civilization

    Votes: 12 26.7%

  • Total voters
    45
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.

Why would it NOT be about economics??

A man without a job does not contribute to demand in the economy. He can't provide for his family or himself. He will do what he can to get by, and hopefully that's mowing lawns, but more often than not it's criminal in nature. This is not good for the economy or the country but yet none of you will even acknowledge this as a possibility!

We could pay for prisons or food stamps and all things being equal, I choose food stamps.
 
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.

Why would it NOT be about economics??

A man without a job does not contribute to demand in the economy. He can't provide for his family or himself. He will do what he can to get by, and hopefully that's mowing lawns, but more often than not it's criminal in nature. This is not good for the economy or the country but yet none of you will even acknowledge this as a possibility!

We could pay for prisons or food stamps and all things being equal, I choose food stamps.

I didn't say it wouldn't be about economics. Don't be stupid.
 
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?

What are people supposed to do without government welfare? Depend on charity? It isn't enough to help significantly. I have long been an advocate (and it's fallen on deaf ears) during campaigns I've worked for, at other times writing to my representatives, etc. for much better and more effective welfare to work programs. I should also be for children of people on welfare, teaching them work ethic and how to develop an entrepreneurial attitude, how to obtain training, set goals, etc. But most programs are ineffective. However, we would have huge drags on our economy and our infrastructure and more. Any of the people who oppose welfare or think it is a viscious cycle have any solutions?

That is our fundamental difference.
You put too much burden on what is supposed to be a limited government.
It is only their job to PROMOTE the general welfare. NOT Provide.

Like I said in an earlier post, if people went more often to private charities for help BEFORE filling out a form with a governmental bureaucracy we would start to see a lot more private sources.
 
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.

We could pay for prisons or food stamps and all things being equal, I choose food stamps.

This right here is where you thinking is seriously flawed. You see it in black or white. Either we throw people a bone or they starve and riot.

You don't see it from the perspective that it's a mindset at this point and beyond just the economics of it, there's a whole attitude that needs to be adjusted because there are people that are literally jumping into the system simply because it's easier than working.
 
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.

How much time and money have you donated to the poor in the last year?
In my experience, those who claim Conservatives are all greedy bastards the loudest, give the least of their own free will.
 
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?

It should be a temporary hand up for the people who are in need of temporary assistance to get their lives back on track or on track. I think that the whole program of welfare should be geared to wean people off of it and and even have them pay back the benefits they received at a very low payment and interest rate (1%) after they get on track.

It hadn't occurred to me to require repayment.
In FL that's what they do with 'welfare' (AFDC) when a parent needs to draw cash benefits while the other is in jail or otherwise not reachable for child support. FL makes them pay it back.
:thup:
 
It should be a temporary hand up for the people who are in need of temporary assistance to get their lives back on track or on track. I think that the whole program of welfare should be geared to wean people off of it and and even have them pay back the benefits they received at a very low payment and interest rate (1%) after they get on track.
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".

Government isn't built that way, tho.
They need to drain every dollar of their budget so that they get an even bigger budget allowance next year.....
:eusa_shhh:
 
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?

It was just supposed to get us through the Depression, but then dems used it as a tool to keep people dependent on them.

I can't tell you how many times I've heard people say; Don't vot rep or they will take your money away.

Meaning that the gop will starve you by making you get a job.


hell, why work when;

you get food, cloths, shelter, transportation and education for free

:confused:


[ame="http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=p-Zi0GQyoGg&feature=fvwrel"]Its Friday, you aint got no job... - YouTube[/ame]


Someone, here, just a day or two ago was talking about how a friend of theirs was voting to re-elect Obama because he extended his UE benefits.

The height of dependency voting
:thup:
 
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 dont believe in the death penalty, it's the epitome of big goverment, plus it's not cost effective.

I just jumped into this thread, but I have to disagree with both of you. First off, the death penalty is extremely cost effective.....especially if you take it to the extreme that Henry does.....the death penalty for virtually every crime and gallows outside of each courtroom.

The problem with Henry's viewpoint is that, for all of it's cost effectiveness, it really doesn't bode well for our society. I know that a lot of people of the Conservative persuasion prefer to see things in a very black/white/right/wrong manner. But the real truth is that the crime rate is very much tied to poverty and the desperation that results.

Once you tackle the root of the problem,....poverty....the symptoms....crime....will take care of itself. Does that mean there will be no crime? No, not at all. But it will drop precipitously and it will be much easier to distinguish. between the true criminals and the folks that have been pushed into desperate actions.
 
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?

People talk about it alllllllll the time... Republicans in power give more and Democrats in power give more.


"... never ever comment on is the government giving money to corporations. They get hand outs! So this is quite a phoney poll."


or that the same corporations have lowered individuals incomes and standards of living by sending work overseas and are responsible by their actions for the unemployed seeking welfare -

when welfare is the effect of business decisions it is inappropriate for charities to then support the contrived system they themselves would be contributing to.
 
Is government-run welfare really necessary?

There is a common misconception as to what constitutes ‘welfare’ or those receiving public assistance.

For the most part citizens receiving public assistance are the elderly, disabled, and children. Still more receive assistance as low-income working families. Those not employed are required to job search, perform community service, or be enrolled in a training program as a condition of on-going eligibility.

Public assistance is necessary as a temporary benefit for families where a job loss occurs through no fault of the working adult or adults, such as a layoff, injury, or illness.

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

No. Private, non-profit entities lack the resources or policy knowledge necessary to administer state and federal programs adequately. In situations where a non-profit does administer a government program, such as Goodwill Industries with regard to job placement and training, those services can only be provided with comprehensive Federal funding.

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?
The problem is that although most public assistance programs require and provide education and training designed to get people off of public assistance and become self-sufficient, such as the Workforce Investment Act (‘WIA’), many of these programs are under-funded or not funded at all.

Often this is the result of budget restraints realized by state and local governments, sometimes this is the consequence of politicians hostile to these programs for partisan reasons.

But the laws, policies, and programs are in place designed to retrain displaced workers and return them to the workforce – that these programs aren’t being utilized is not the fault of those receiving public assistance, but the fault of politicians and voters unwilling to fund and support them.
 
The fact that you think it's solely about economics is your main problem.

We could pay for prisons or food stamps and all things being equal, I choose food stamps.

This right here is where you thinking is seriously flawed. You see it in black or white. Either we throw people a bone or they starve and riot.

You don't see it from the perspective that it's a mindset at this point and beyond just the economics of it, there's a whole attitude that needs to be adjusted because there are people that are literally jumping into the system simply because it's easier than working.

And there will ALWAYS be people who jump in to a system if they think they can game the system. To get rid of the system simply to go after those people is naive and petty and amazing short sighted.
 
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.

That is an amazing link, Jackson.
:clap2:

Thanks
 

Forum List

Back
Top