Americans don't support strong programs to help the needy because they believe they help "Ratchet People"

[JakeWIlls92]

Is that true?

 

[1srelluc]

Are podcasts and one line quips all this site is being reduced to?

The world wonders....

 

[TNHarley]

Are podcasts and one line quips all this site is being reduced to?

The world wonders....

Its probably just you. Seems to be your schtick. Just go around and ***** about others threads.

 

[progressive hunter]

Is that true?

we disagree with it for the same reason you dont feed bears in the wild,,

they become dependent and hostile if you stop feeding them,,

 

[1srelluc]

Its probably just you. Seems to be your schtick. Just go around and ***** about others threads.

I started a thread on it, feel free to comment there.

To me podcasts are just dumbing down and dividing America.

 

[the watcher]

I speak for myself, and it's my opinion that people that have to work for a living don't support strong and endless payouts to most "needy" people because 1) a lot of them aren't actually poor, they just don't want to put any effort or have the patience to succeed 2) these people don't appreciate that it is given to help them they see it as owed to them 3) it creates dependence that is hard to dispel and impossible to wean them off of it 4) it doesn't do what you think it does 5) it generates a mood of helplessness in the recipient and this turns into hate for those that try to help.

 

[The Sage of Main Street]

The world wonders....

The Hole Whirled Wanders

 

[1srelluc]

The Hole Whirled Wanders

The world wonders - Wikipedia

en.wikipedia.org

 

[Midnight FM]

Is that true?

The mindset you're referring to is stupid. Helping the needy should take priority over worrying whether or not someone will take advantage of the system. Just as how the law should prioritize preventing innocent people from being wrongfully convicted over worrying about whether a guilty person will occasionally escape legal justice (and the idea that merely escaping legal justice, means that a person won't have to worry about society's wrath isn't true to begin with, such as in the case of Casey Anthony).

 

[Midnight FM]

we disagree with it for the same reason you dont feed bears in the wild,,

they become dependent and hostile if you stop feeding them,,

It's irrelevant, since there's no way to quantify who "these people" are, and helping the needy is more important than worrying about whether a minority of individuals take advantage of the system.

If we use the Bible, as an example, God was willing to spare Sodom and Gomorrah if 10 good men could be found there.

If you're worried about "dependency", then you should support making it legal to kill babies (before or after birth), since they make up a considerable portion of those who qualify as "dependent".

 

[Monoculturalist]

It's irrelevant, since there's no way to quantify who "these people" are, and helping the needy is more important than worrying about whether a minority of individuals take advantage of the system.

If we use the Bible, as an example, God was willing to spare Sodom and Gomorrah if 10 good men could be found there.

If you're worried about "dependency", then you should support making it legal to kill babies (before or after birth), since they make up a considerable portion of those who qualify as "dependent".

A lot of strawmen in one post here...

It's easy to come up with criteria for whether someone is gaming the system or not.

The Sodom and Gomorrah reference doesn't hold much relevance because we're not discussing whether or not to decimate a city. We're deciding whether or not to coerce society into funding the livelihood of others.

When it comes to dependency, most people bring it up in reference to able bodied adults, not infants. While it is true that things like SNAP are used to support families with children, that can be covered by voluntary programs like charity rather than coerced systems involving taxation.

 

[Monoculturalist]

The mindset you're referring to is stupid. Helping the needy should take priority over worrying whether or not someone will take advantage of the system. Just as how the law should prioritize preventing innocent people from being wrongfully convicted over worrying about whether a guilty person will occasionally escape legal justice (and the idea that merely escaping legal justice, means that a person won't have to worry about society's wrath isn't true to begin with, such as in the case of Casey Anthony).

The realm of law overall fits what you are saying, but this doesn't really apply to the welfare state, since that wasn't even something delineated in the Constitution. The welfare state is an entirely optional part of government, and the results of this part of our government have been rather disappointing when considering how much it costs and how much better charities cover the burden of need.

 

[Midnight FM]

A lot of strawmen in one post here...

It's easy to come up with criteria for whether someone is gaming the system or not.

The Sodom and Gomorrah reference doesn't hold much relevance because we're not discussing whether or not to decimate a city. We're deciding whether or not to coerce society into funding the livelihood of others.

The Constitution protects such coercion. You're going to be coerced into funding something whether you like it or not. Whether it be billion dollar corporate subsidies and military expenditures, or the well-being of poor people. So prioritizing the well-being of the poor should take priority over the former.

When it comes to dependency, most people bring it up in reference to able bodied adults, not infants.

Society as a whole isn't affected by whether or not a minority of people become "dependent", something which is rather subjective to begin with. They should be more concerned about banks becoming "dependent" on taxpayer subsidies.

Society already "depends" on many subsidized institutions, such as fire and police departments. I rarely see anyone object to such things, but when poor people are on the line, I tend to hear a lot of griping and whining by people who favor emotion over reason.

While it is true that things like SNAP are used to support families with children, that can be covered by voluntary programs like charity rather than coerced systems involving taxation.

Right, and if you want a war to be fought, no one is forcing you not to higher your own private military contractors. Or if you need police protection, no one is stopping you from hiring your own security guards.

 

[Midnight FM]

The realm of law overall fits what you are saying, but this doesn't really apply to the welfare state, since that wasn't even something delineated in the Constitution.

My understanding is that most welfare programs fall under the state, rather than the federal level. Regardless, the Constitution gives a broad allowance for the funding of general welfare.

The entire state is funded through taxation, so if this is some "taxation is theft gripe" (which it isn't, under the law presently and historically), then you would have to support anarchy (which is entirely unrealistic, and would merely result in some forcing their will on others, or the creation of a de facto "state" if you will). If not, then you're selectively complaining about "coercion' being used to fund the poor, but not the wealthy, which shows some rather misplaced priorities.

The welfare state is an entirely optional part of government, and the results of this part of our government have been rather disappointing when considering how much it costs and how much better charities cover the burden of need.

I'm more concerned about the costs incurred to bail out banks or fund unnecessary wars.

 

[Monoculturalist]

The Constitution protects such coercion. You're going to be coerced into funding something whether you like it or not. Whether it be billion dollar corporate subsidies and military expenditures, or the well-being of poor people. So prioritizing the well-being of the poor should take priority over the former.

I'd prefer we did neither.

Society as a whole isn't affected by whether or not a minority of people become "dependent", something which is rather subjective to begin with. They should be more concerned about banks becoming "dependent" on taxpayer subsidies.

Again, I'm against bailouts of all kinds, banks or otherwise.

Society already "depends" on many subsidized institutions, such as fire and police departments. I rarely see anyone object to such things, but when poor people are on the line, I tend to hear a lot of griping and whining by people who favor emotion over reason.

Both could be handled better by the private sector. Still, police do fall under basic Constitutional duties, and fire departments don't tend to be particularly burdensome when it comes to costs, unlike the welfare state.

Right, and if you want a war to be fought, no one is forcing you not to higher your own private military contractors. Or if you need police protection, no one is stopping you from hiring your own security guards.

If I had lower taxes, I might just do that. Things being as they currently are, I'd rather not have to fund an expansive welfare state in addition to the various bureaucracies in government I'm already forced to fund.

 

[Monoculturalist]

My understanding is that most welfare programs fall under the state, rather than the federal level. Regardless, the Constitution gives a broad allowance for the funding of general welfare.

The entire state is funded through taxation, so if this is some "taxation is theft gripe" (which it isn't, under the law presently and historically), then you would have to support anarchy (which is entirely unrealistic, and would merely result in some forcing their will on others, or the creation of a de facto "state" if you will). If not, then you're selectively complaining about "coercion' being used to fund the poor, but not the wealthy, which shows some rather misplaced priorities.

I'm more concerned about the costs incurred to bail out banks or fund unnecessary wars.

I'm concerned about both. This thread is specifically about welfare, which is why my posts were about that. I respond to threads about war and banks as well.

I do lean anarcho-capitalist to an extent, so I don't particularly care for taxation in general, but I'd just like to limit taxes and spending overall. The more the government spends, the less value my money has. Inflation itself drives a lot of poverty as well.

 

[IM2]

It is my opinion, backed by historical fact, that right wing whites really need to be quiet about things like this because of the amount of help they have received from the government.

 

[Monoculturalist]

It is my opinion, backed by historical fact, that right wing whites really need to be quiet about things like this because of the amount of help they have received from the government.

If we're going down that road, black dependence on welfare spending has to be discussed as well.

 

[IM2]

If we're going down that road, black dependence on welfare spending has to be discussed as well.

Like I said, whites should be quiet about this kind of thing because whites are the ones dependent on welfare. Welfare for the poor and corporate welfare.

 

[Monoculturalist]

Like I said, whites should be quiet about this kind of thing because whites are the ones dependent on welfare. Welfare for the poor and corporate welfare.

Sure, some whites are, but that doesn't mean all are, just like it doesn't mean all blacks are either.

I'm all for ending welfare of both types, with a few exceptions involving people who truly can't support themselves (like with orphanages and such).