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

[iamwhatiseem]

Yes and no.
The order in which someone in need should receive relief in troubled times is:

1) Family
2) Friends
3) Charities
4) Local Community
5) Federal Government

Unfortunately...especially with President Giveaway in office, we have this:

1) Federal Government
2) Federal Government
3) Federal Government
4) Local Community
5) Federal Government

 

[Sonny Clark]

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

Serious Questions:

(1) When we build mosques on foreign soil, is that money earned by the ones getting the mosques?
(2) When we supply weapons to drug lords and terrorists, do they earn the money to pay for them?
(3) When we pay bribes to North Korea and Iran, do they earn the money we give them?
(4) When we give enormous subsidies to rich farmers and big oil, do they earn that money?
(5) When we pay for the care and support of illegal immigrants, do they earn that money?
(6) When we send untold $Billions in the name of foreign aid to foreign governments, do they earn that money?
(7) When we subsidize Brazilian corn crops and protect the opium crops in Afghanistan, do they earn that money?
(8) When we pay ridiculous perks and benefits to members of Congress, do they earn that money?
(9) When we pay for Mrs. Obama's lavish vacations and White House parties, does she earn that money?
(10) When we award no-bid contracts to corporations such as Halliburton, is that money earned?

So, American CITIZENS who receive some form of government assistance due to various reasons, should be forced to earn what they get from our government? In other words, the mentally challenged, the little children, and the elderly, should have to work for their assistance as long as they're "abled bodied"?

And, what do you have to say about your hard earned tax dollars spent on the 10 items that I have listed above? Are you opposed to the items I listed, the same as you're opposed to those receiving some form of government assistance getting "free" money and benefits?

There are many things the Government spends money on that I disagree with....including many of the things you listed above.

And I believe I made a clear distinction when I said able-bodied adults. Able-bodied adults do not include children. They do not include those who are mentally disabled as I have stated. And they do not include the elderly who paid into social security.

Children are NOT abled bodied? The mentally challenged are NOT abled bodied? And, the elderly who are abled bodied should not have to earn their assistance? So, you disagree with a lot of spending, but you find helping American citizens the most disgusting of all? Do you have plans to complain about the spending of tax dollars on the items I listed, or are going to stop with just complaining about American citizens receiving some form of government assistance? Helping the less fortunate, the poor, and the needy is what really disgust you the most? Out of all the waste and abuse of tax dollars, government assistance for American citizens really gets you fired up enough to post a piece about it?

I have explained able-bodied adult multiple times. It is extremely clear.

If you would like to start another thread about wasteful Government spending please feel free....but here....you are off topic.

No, I'm very much on topic. Your post is clearly about tax dollars being spent on those that might be able to work and support themselves. I have mentioned those that receive tax dollars that can support themselves, yet receive tax dollars the same as those receiving from government assistance programs. It's the same taxes, same tax dollars, and those dollars all come from the same place, the American taxpayers. The only difference is that those receiving tax dollars through government assistance programs are little children, the disabled, the handicapped, the elderly, the disabled Vets, and the mentally challenged. But, the money we give to foreign governments, to rich farmers, to big oil, and to drug lords and terrorists, also comes from the tax dollars paid by hard working American taxpayers. So, what's the difference in the two?

We freely give to those that can support themselves which are not poor, disabled, hungry, homeless and less fortunate in foreign countries, but to you, it's different when we give to American citizens that are poor and hungry. Where do you see justification in that? You don't feel bad criticizing Americans and not criticizing non-Americans? You are selective in your criticism when it comes to how tax dollars are spent, wasted, and given away?

 

[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

Serious Questions:

(1) When we build mosques on foreign soil, is that money earned by the ones getting the mosques?
(2) When we supply weapons to drug lords and terrorists, do they earn the money to pay for them?
(3) When we pay bribes to North Korea and Iran, do they earn the money we give them?
(4) When we give enormous subsidies to rich farmers and big oil, do they earn that money?
(5) When we pay for the care and support of illegal immigrants, do they earn that money?
(6) When we send untold $Billions in the name of foreign aid to foreign governments, do they earn that money?
(7) When we subsidize Brazilian corn crops and protect the opium crops in Afghanistan, do they earn that money?
(8) When we pay ridiculous perks and benefits to members of Congress, do they earn that money?
(9) When we pay for Mrs. Obama's lavish vacations and White House parties, does she earn that money?
(10) When we award no-bid contracts to corporations such as Halliburton, is that money earned?

So, American CITIZENS who receive some form of government assistance due to various reasons, should be forced to earn what they get from our government? In other words, the mentally challenged, the little children, and the elderly, should have to work for their assistance as long as they're "abled bodied"?

And, what do you have to say about your hard earned tax dollars spent on the 10 items that I have listed above? Are you opposed to the items I listed, the same as you're opposed to those receiving some form of government assistance getting "free" money and benefits?

There are many things the Government spends money on that I disagree with....including many of the things you listed above.

And I believe I made a clear distinction when I said able-bodied adults. Able-bodied adults do not include children. They do not include those who are mentally disabled as I have stated. And they do not include the elderly who paid into social security.

Children are NOT abled bodied? The mentally challenged are NOT abled bodied? And, the elderly who are abled bodied should not have to earn their assistance? So, you disagree with a lot of spending, but you find helping American citizens the most disgusting of all? Do you have plans to complain about the spending of tax dollars on the items I listed, or are going to stop with just complaining about American citizens receiving some form of government assistance? Helping the less fortunate, the poor, and the needy is what really disgust you the most? Out of all the waste and abuse of tax dollars, government assistance for American citizens really gets you fired up enough to post a piece about it?

I have explained able-bodied adult multiple times. It is extremely clear.

If you would like to start another thread about wasteful Government spending please feel free....but here....you are off topic.

No, I'm very much on topic. Your post is clearly about tax dollars being spent on those that might be able to work and support themselves. I have mentioned those that receive tax dollars that can support themselves, yet receive tax dollars the same as those receiving from government assistance programs. It's the same taxes, same tax dollars, and those dollars all come from the same place, the American taxpayers. The only difference is that those receiving tax dollars through government assistance programs are little children, the disabled, the handicapped, the elderly, the disabled Vets, and the mentally challenged. But, the money we give to foreign governments, to rich farmers, to big oil, and to drug lords and terrorists, also comes from the tax dollars paid by hard working American taxpayers. So, what's the difference in the two?

We freely give to those that can support themselves which are not poor, disabled, hungry, homeless and less fortunate in foreign countries, but to you, it's different when we give to American citizens that are poor and hungry. Where do you see justification in that? You don't feel bad criticizing Americans and not criticizing non-Americans? You are selective in your criticism when it comes to how tax dollars are spent, wasted, and given away?

Last response.

I have already agreed many tax dollars are wasted. My topic questions are very specific. Either stay on topic or leave.

 

[iamwhatiseem]

No, I'm very much on topic. Your post is clearly about tax dollars being spent on those that might be able to work and support themselves. I have mentioned those that receive tax dollars that can support themselves, yet receive tax dollars the same as those receiving from government assistance programs. It's the same taxes, same tax dollars, and those dollars all come from the same place, the American taxpayers. The only difference is that those receiving tax dollars through government assistance programs are little children, the disabled, the handicapped, the elderly, the disabled Vets, and the mentally challenged. But, the money we give to foreign governments, to rich farmers, to big oil, and to drug lords and terrorists, also comes from the tax dollars paid by hard working American taxpayers. So, what's the difference in the two?

We freely give to those that can support themselves which are not poor, disabled, hungry, homeless and less fortunate in foreign countries, but to you, it's different when we give to American citizens that are poor and hungry. Where do you see justification in that? You don't feel bad criticizing Americans and not criticizing non-Americans? You are selective in your criticism when it comes to how tax dollars are spent, wasted, and given away?

Two things...

1) What is it about "able bodied" that you don't understand?
2) Corporate windfall and paybacks in my opinion, is even worse than permanent welfare without strings attached...but...like the OP has stated...that is another topic.

 

[WelfareQueen]

I don't anyone is arguing the Government doesn't waste money. I also don't think too many people supported the bank bailouts (me included).

But all of that is completely off topic. Here are the debate questions again.

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?

 

[Sonny Clark]

Serious Questions:

(1) When we build mosques on foreign soil, is that money earned by the ones getting the mosques?
(2) When we supply weapons to drug lords and terrorists, do they earn the money to pay for them?
(3) When we pay bribes to North Korea and Iran, do they earn the money we give them?
(4) When we give enormous subsidies to rich farmers and big oil, do they earn that money?
(5) When we pay for the care and support of illegal immigrants, do they earn that money?
(6) When we send untold $Billions in the name of foreign aid to foreign governments, do they earn that money?
(7) When we subsidize Brazilian corn crops and protect the opium crops in Afghanistan, do they earn that money?
(8) When we pay ridiculous perks and benefits to members of Congress, do they earn that money?
(9) When we pay for Mrs. Obama's lavish vacations and White House parties, does she earn that money?
(10) When we award no-bid contracts to corporations such as Halliburton, is that money earned?

So, American CITIZENS who receive some form of government assistance due to various reasons, should be forced to earn what they get from our government? In other words, the mentally challenged, the little children, and the elderly, should have to work for their assistance as long as they're "abled bodied"?

And, what do you have to say about your hard earned tax dollars spent on the 10 items that I have listed above? Are you opposed to the items I listed, the same as you're opposed to those receiving some form of government assistance getting "free" money and benefits?

There are many things the Government spends money on that I disagree with....including many of the things you listed above.

And I believe I made a clear distinction when I said able-bodied adults. Able-bodied adults do not include children. They do not include those who are mentally disabled as I have stated. And they do not include the elderly who paid into social security.

Children are NOT abled bodied? The mentally challenged are NOT abled bodied? And, the elderly who are abled bodied should not have to earn their assistance? So, you disagree with a lot of spending, but you find helping American citizens the most disgusting of all? Do you have plans to complain about the spending of tax dollars on the items I listed, or are going to stop with just complaining about American citizens receiving some form of government assistance? Helping the less fortunate, the poor, and the needy is what really disgust you the most? Out of all the waste and abuse of tax dollars, government assistance for American citizens really gets you fired up enough to post a piece about it?

I have explained able-bodied adult multiple times. It is extremely clear.

If you would like to start another thread about wasteful Government spending please feel free....but here....you are off topic.

No, I'm very much on topic. Your post is clearly about tax dollars being spent on those that might be able to work and support themselves. I have mentioned those that receive tax dollars that can support themselves, yet receive tax dollars the same as those receiving from government assistance programs. It's the same taxes, same tax dollars, and those dollars all come from the same place, the American taxpayers. The only difference is that those receiving tax dollars through government assistance programs are little children, the disabled, the handicapped, the elderly, the disabled Vets, and the mentally challenged. But, the money we give to foreign governments, to rich farmers, to big oil, and to drug lords and terrorists, also comes from the tax dollars paid by hard working American taxpayers. So, what's the difference in the two?

We freely give to those that can support themselves which are not poor, disabled, hungry, homeless and less fortunate in foreign countries, but to you, it's different when we give to American citizens that are poor and hungry. Where do you see justification in that? You don't feel bad criticizing Americans and not criticizing non-Americans? You are selective in your criticism when it comes to how tax dollars are spent, wasted, and given away?

Last response.

I have already agreed many tax dollars are wasted. My topic questions are very specific. Either stay on topic or leave.

Contact one of the mods, or contact site admin and have then throw me out. Where did I get off topic? The topic was tax dollars going to those that you believe are abled bodied and can support themselves. Read the header to your post. What does your header say? My comments were clearly concerning tax dollars going to those that are abled bodied, can support themselves, yet also receive tax dollars. So, where am I off topic?

 

[LoneLaugher]

Read this book.

Home-- Peter D. Kiernan

 

[Josf]

"Should Government benefits be earned?"

In context: the criminal government should not exist at all. It is criminal. If the government were not criminal then the government would only get whatever is earned morally by the people running the government. If the people running the government do anything they should not do, such as enslave people, then those people running the government earn themselves a trial by jury where they earn whatever the whole country, represented by the jury, consider to be an appropriate penalty for having perpetrated the crime of doing what they should not do when hired as the people who run the government.

1. If you are speaking about the criminal government, a.k.a. Barry Soetero, a.k.a. Barack Hussein Obama, then you are speaking about a criminal version of government, or organized crime under the color of law, and they Will enslave people, because that is what they think they should do, and if you think otherwise, then rule of law might be a worthy investment of your time, so that you earn the benefits of moral government.

2. If you are speaking about true rule of law, or government that is based upon fact finding and morality, then government should be against criminal versions of government not helping the criminals cover up their crimes with these false claims that credit those criminals with any legitimacy whatsoever.

 

[iamwhatiseem]

Read this book.

Home-- Peter D. Kiernan

which has what to do with the topic?

 

[LoneLaugher]

Read this book.

Home-- Peter D. Kiernan

which has what to do with the topic?

Everything.

 

[WelfareQueen]

Read this book.

Home-- Peter D. Kiernan

It looks interesting. The middle class is in decline...no question. Real income has declined in America every year since 1999, and has accelerated over the last 6 years.

But that doesn't address the topic questions. Your opinion is welcome. The topic questions again:

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?

 

[LoneLaugher]

Read this book.

Home-- Peter D. Kiernan

It looks interesting. The middle class is in decline...no question. Real income has declined in America every year since 1999, and has accelerated over the last 6 years.

But that doesn't address the topic questions. Your opinion is welcome. The topic questions again:

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?

There are not millions of able bodied adults who don't earn (it). Are there?

 

[WelfareQueen]

Read this book.

Home-- Peter D. Kiernan

It looks interesting. The middle class is in decline...no question. Real income has declined in America every year since 1999, and has accelerated over the last 6 years.

But that doesn't address the topic questions. Your opinion is welcome. The topic questions again:

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?

There are not millions of able bodied adults who don't earn (it). Are there?

You must not have worked in social welfare. I have. The answer is yes. Massive numbers.

The questions again.


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?

 

[Darkwind]

Repeating the topic 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?​

In my never to be considered humble opinion, the only valid and/or legal government benefits that can be earned are via those who work doing the essential functions of government. And those should be entitled only to benefits earned while working and should not extend beyond a person's tenure working for government. Toward that end, those working in government should contribute to their own retirement and health plans, etc. and that should not be a responsibility of the taxpayer.

And yes, it is immoral for the government to forcibly take property from those who earned it and give it to those who did not earn it. In any other scenario, we would call that theft.

A moral people does take care of the helpless among us, but the only moral way that is done is via mutually agreed social contract or voluntary charity.

Thank you. I agree. The moral argument is key, because many will say....

"From each according to his ability, to each according to his need."

Of course, Karl Marx made that statement and it is at the heart of current social justice movement in America. Is it moral to take from those with ability and a work ethic and give to those without ability or a work ethic?

As to your point about the truly needy.....I also feel strongly that those who are truly unable to work or have severe disabilities need to be helped by a compassionate society (e.g. those with Downs Syndrome as an example).

But I will say, when I worked for County Government many years ago there was a center for Mentally Disabled folks where they worked. I can say almost without except the MR folks I talked to were very proud of their work and efforts to be productive. I think a basic human need is to be productive. I believe it is immoral when Government disempowers people so that they are incentivized to be less productive.

I was blessed with position and opportunity to be one of the leaders to put together a domestic violence association years ago. We conducted a county wide survey of all persons who would possibly be involved in such cases--medical, law enforcement, etc.--to determine the scope of the problem. The results were significant.

We then solicited private donations but also went to the city and county where, after a number of widely publicized and very public hearings, we were granted land with rent free and tax free status and support of civil servants including the police so long as it was used for the purpose of ministering to victims of domestic violence. After a couple of years of harboring victims in private homes we were able to construct and professionally staff a permanent shelter.

We had full community approval and support including many unpaid volunteers but also ready and willing assistance from the police, the court system, and the medical community. It was a beautiful blend of social contract utilizing government services and private involvement to take care of some of the most helpless among us. It was effective, efficient, and dealt with all aspects of the problem including getting help for the offenders as well as protection for the victims.

In my opinion, that is how a moral society takes care of those unable to take care of themselves. Big expensive authoritarian one-size-fits-all government programs confiscate precious resources, siphon off huge chunks of them to feed an ever growing bureaucracy, and accomplishes little for those they are supposed to help. Plus they create permanent dependencies where our program was organized so that it did not.

American government was originally designed to enable the people, not take the place of what the people should be doing for themselves and others.

To follow the PC way and to reiterate to those who don't seem to get that you can question and oppose government intervention without having a war on something........ Shelters and programs for victims of domestic violence are worthwhile and useful programs. Having said that...

Here is where the problem begins.

In times of plenty, when government has enough receipts to further this kind of private/public altruism, these organizations and programs promote a sense of community and give real and valued aid to those who are suffering. The same can be said about programs that help the needy meet a shortage of housing, or food, or transportation when they find they have too much month at the end of their income.

However, these programs tend to grow concrete foundations, and these foundations are pillars of greed in some cases, but they are buried deep in government; right to the very bedrock. This poses a problem when times become lean and government is now forced to prioritize which programs need to continue, and which programs need to be set aside (even if its only until times are better).

That does not happen in the happy world of utopian love and buttercups.

To the liberal, more specifically, the progressive, having to set aside these programs threatens their Avenue to power and wealth. For let's face it, he who can expand government largess controls a significant amount of power and wealth.

So, that start-up that provides a valued service to battered women and others who suffer domestic abuse, grows into an organization that provides more and more resources to this group of needy Americans; and as you stated, begins to get help from local, then state, then federal governments. In the minds of these people, they have now become essential and when times are hard, they demand...note the term...demand...that instead of their funding getting cut or eliminated, that the taxpayers now be forced to continue funding their programs, even if that means increasing the burden upon them.

None of this is really news in today's government expanding left.

However, I am not without offering a solution to these kinds of problems, because programs and resources such as the one you describe are worthy of a caring society. That solution is this.

When a need is identified (such as you did with domestic violence), and times are well enough that government can help get a startup like this going, they should.

This help should come with a requirement though.

That requirement should be that non-profit or not, the business plan and model that is submitted to government for funding MUST include a plan to make the organization self-sustaining within a five to eight-year window and that after that time, regardless of success or failure, all taxpayer funding would end.

If the organization is short or needs a bit more time to make itself viable, then they should be permitted to take out a low-interest loan (and be given a priority so that they can go to the front of the line) to bridge whatever shortfalls exist. However, this too should be of limited duration and should end at the end of the tenth year anniversary of the organization. After that, they must acquire financing in the same manner as all businesses.

At that time, you little organization will either stand or fall on its own merits and is subject to the risks and environment that any business is subject to.

I would add that a non-profit tax status would be, in effect, for organizations that provide charitable work of this nature.

 

[WelfareQueen]

^^^^^^Well stated. Thank you.

 

[LoneLaugher]

Read this book.

Home-- Peter D. Kiernan

It looks interesting. The middle class is in decline...no question. Real income has declined in America every year since 1999, and has accelerated over the last 6 years.

But that doesn't address the topic questions. Your opinion is welcome. The topic questions again:

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?

There are not millions of able bodied adults who don't earn (it). Are there?

You must not have worked in social welfare. I have. The answer is yes. Massive numbers.

The questions again.


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?

How many?

 

[Sherry]

Reasonable people from both sides tend to agree that there needs to be welfare reform, but there is no quick fix. Most of us recognize that we can't continue down the current path and expect to have the means to continue to assist the people most in need. Attempting to turn it into a class warfare issue, again is most destructive to those in need.

When we are truly invested, then it's more likely to be a positive outcome for the community. If people are conditioned to be offered and accepting an easy path, why blame them for taking it. Ultimately though, it is demoralizing to the individual and sets a poor example to those who are part of that environment. For example, if mom and/or dad have to at some point donate their resources, such as their time to the community, for receiving assistance, then the kids see the value on all sides.

Legislating morality does not work out well, whether it's abortion or tax-payer provided benefits, there will be people who do not approve. The governments job is to be the least intrusive as possible in the lives of ALL citizens, and nobody should be penalized by the laws in relation to their status.

 

[Foxfyre]

There are many things the Government spends money on that I disagree with....including many of the things you listed above.

And I believe I made a clear distinction when I said able-bodied adults. Able-bodied adults do not include children. They do not include those who are mentally disabled as I have stated. And they do not include the elderly who paid into social security.

Children are NOT abled bodied? The mentally challenged are NOT abled bodied? And, the elderly who are abled bodied should not have to earn their assistance? So, you disagree with a lot of spending, but you find helping American citizens the most disgusting of all? Do you have plans to complain about the spending of tax dollars on the items I listed, or are going to stop with just complaining about American citizens receiving some form of government assistance? Helping the less fortunate, the poor, and the needy is what really disgust you the most? Out of all the waste and abuse of tax dollars, government assistance for American citizens really gets you fired up enough to post a piece about it?

I have explained able-bodied adult multiple times. It is extremely clear.

If you would like to start another thread about wasteful Government spending please feel free....but here....you are off topic.

No, I'm very much on topic. Your post is clearly about tax dollars being spent on those that might be able to work and support themselves. I have mentioned those that receive tax dollars that can support themselves, yet receive tax dollars the same as those receiving from government assistance programs. It's the same taxes, same tax dollars, and those dollars all come from the same place, the American taxpayers. The only difference is that those receiving tax dollars through government assistance programs are little children, the disabled, the handicapped, the elderly, the disabled Vets, and the mentally challenged. But, the money we give to foreign governments, to rich farmers, to big oil, and to drug lords and terrorists, also comes from the tax dollars paid by hard working American taxpayers. So, what's the difference in the two?

We freely give to those that can support themselves which are not poor, disabled, hungry, homeless and less fortunate in foreign countries, but to you, it's different when we give to American citizens that are poor and hungry. Where do you see justification in that? You don't feel bad criticizing Americans and not criticizing non-Americans? You are selective in your criticism when it comes to how tax dollars are spent, wasted, and given away?

Last response.

I have already agreed many tax dollars are wasted. My topic questions are very specific. Either stay on topic or leave.

Contact one of the mods, or contact site admin and have then throw me out. Where did I get off topic? The topic was tax dollars going to those that you believe are abled bodied and can support themselves. Read the header to your post. What does your header say? My comments were clearly concerning tax dollars going to those that are abled bodied, can support themselves, yet also receive tax dollars. So, where am I off topic?

Repeating the topic 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?​

In my never to be considered humble opinion, the only valid and/or legal government benefits that can be earned are via those who work doing the essential functions of government. And those should be entitled only to benefits earned while working and should not extend beyond a person's tenure working for government. Toward that end, those working in government should contribute to their own retirement and health plans, etc. and that should not be a responsibility of the taxpayer.

And yes, it is immoral for the government to forcibly take property from those who earned it and give it to those who did not earn it. In any other scenario, we would call that theft.

A moral people does take care of the helpless among us, but the only moral way that is done is via mutually agreed social contract or voluntary charity.

Thank you. I agree. The moral argument is key, because many will say....

"From each according to his ability, to each according to his need."

Of course, Karl Marx made that statement and it is at the heart of current social justice movement in America. Is it moral to take from those with ability and a work ethic and give to those without ability or a work ethic?

As to your point about the truly needy.....I also feel strongly that those who are truly unable to work or have severe disabilities need to be helped by a compassionate society (e.g. those with Downs Syndrome as an example).

But I will say, when I worked for County Government many years ago there was a center for Mentally Disabled folks where they worked. I can say almost without except the MR folks I talked to were very proud of their work and efforts to be productive. I think a basic human need is to be productive. I believe it is immoral when Government disempowers people so that they are incentivized to be less productive.

I was blessed with position and opportunity to be one of the leaders to put together a domestic violence association years ago. We conducted a county wide survey of all persons who would possibly be involved in such cases--medical, law enforcement, etc.--to determine the scope of the problem. The results were significant.

We then solicited private donations but also went to the city and county where, after a number of widely publicized and very public hearings, we were granted land with rent free and tax free status and support of civil servants including the police so long as it was used for the purpose of ministering to victims of domestic violence. After a couple of years of harboring victims in private homes we were able to construct and professionally staff a permanent shelter.

We had full community approval and support including many unpaid volunteers but also ready and willing assistance from the police, the court system, and the medical community. It was a beautiful blend of social contract utilizing government services and private involvement to take care of some of the most helpless among us. It was effective, efficient, and dealt with all aspects of the problem including getting help for the offenders as well as protection for the victims.

In my opinion, that is how a moral society takes care of those unable to take care of themselves. Big expensive authoritarian one-size-fits-all government programs confiscate precious resources, siphon off huge chunks of them to feed an ever growing bureaucracy, and accomplishes little for those they are supposed to help. Plus they create permanent dependencies where our program was organized so that it did not.

American government was originally designed to enable the people, not take the place of what the people should be doing for themselves and others.

To follow the PC way and to reiterate to those who don't seem to get that you can question and oppose government intervention without having a war on something........ Shelters and programs for victims of domestic violence are worthwhile and useful programs. Having said that...

Here is where the problem begins.

In times of plenty, when government has enough receipts to further this kind of private/public altruism, these organizations and programs promote a sense of community and give real and valued aid to those who are suffering. The same can be said about programs that help the needy meet a shortage of housing, or food, or transportation when they find they have too much month at the end of their income.

However, these programs tend to grow concrete foundations, and these foundations are pillars of greed in some cases, but they are buried deep in government; right to the very bedrock. This poses a problem when times become lean and government is now forced to prioritize which programs need to continue, and which programs need to be set aside (even if its only until times are better).

That does not happen in the happy world of utopian love and buttercups.

To the liberal, more specifically, the progressive, having to set aside these programs threatens their Avenue to power and wealth. For let's face it, he who can expand government largess controls a significant amount of power and wealth.

So, that start-up that provides a valued service to battered women and others who suffer domestic abuse, grows into an organization that provides more and more resources to this group of needy Americans; and as you stated, begins to get help from local, then state, then federal governments. In the minds of these people, they have now become essential and when times are hard, they demand...note the term...demand...that instead of their funding getting cut or eliminated, that the taxpayers now be forced to continue funding their programs, even if that means increasing the burden upon them.

None of this is really news in today's government expanding left.

However, I am not without offering a solution to these kinds of problems, because programs and resources such as the one you describe are worthy of a caring society. That solution is this.

When a need is identified (such as you did with domestic violence), and times are well enough that government can help get a startup like this going, they should.

This help should come with a requirement though.

That requirement should be that non-profit or not, the business plan and model that is submitted to government for funding MUST include a plan to make the organization self-sustaining within a five to eight-year window and that after that time, regardless of success or failure, all taxpayer funding would end.

If the organization is short or needs a bit more time to make itself viable, then they should be permitted to take out a low-interest loan (and be given a priority so that they can go to the front of the line) to bridge whatever shortfalls exist. However, this too should be of limited duration and should end at the end of the tenth year anniversary of the organization. After that, they must acquire financing in the same manner as all businesses.

At that time, you little organization will either stand or fall on its own merits and is subject to the risks and environment that any business is subject to.

I would add that a non-profit tax status would be, in effect, for organizations the provide charitable work of this nature.

Oh we made sure we had our not-for-profit status along with making sure that we had a citizen board of directors setting policy and a qualified private sector professional staff delivering the programs and doing the administrative necessities. This was not to be and is still not a government agency even though it was practical, even necessary, to work hand and hand with the local government. The only federal involvement is what little federal money is funneled to the local United Way who provided a sizable chunk of the necessary funding once we were up and running. The agency has now been going well over three decades and is still doing what it was chartered to do. And I would guess it does it with a small fraction of the amount the federal government would deem necessary to provide the same level of services.

 

[LoneLaugher]

The GOP Reaganomics policies have led us to where we are now. There is a massive lack of opportunity. We need to fix that. It costs money.

Unlike the nutters who have dished on this subject for eons.....I believe that all Americans are industrious and desirous of a good job.....and a life of dignity and prosperity.

Education.....education....education. Adequate nutrition from day one. Health care.....especially preventive care. Clean water and clean air. Safe streets. Mobility..........mass transportation. Access to the internet and modern communications technology for all from day one.

It all costs money. And it is worth it.

 

[Darkwind]

Children are NOT abled bodied? The mentally challenged are NOT abled bodied? And, the elderly who are abled bodied should not have to earn their assistance? So, you disagree with a lot of spending, but you find helping American citizens the most disgusting of all? Do you have plans to complain about the spending of tax dollars on the items I listed, or are going to stop with just complaining about American citizens receiving some form of government assistance? Helping the less fortunate, the poor, and the needy is what really disgust you the most? Out of all the waste and abuse of tax dollars, government assistance for American citizens really gets you fired up enough to post a piece about it?

I have explained able-bodied adult multiple times. It is extremely clear.

If you would like to start another thread about wasteful Government spending please feel free....but here....you are off topic.

No, I'm very much on topic. Your post is clearly about tax dollars being spent on those that might be able to work and support themselves. I have mentioned those that receive tax dollars that can support themselves, yet receive tax dollars the same as those receiving from government assistance programs. It's the same taxes, same tax dollars, and those dollars all come from the same place, the American taxpayers. The only difference is that those receiving tax dollars through government assistance programs are little children, the disabled, the handicapped, the elderly, the disabled Vets, and the mentally challenged. But, the money we give to foreign governments, to rich farmers, to big oil, and to drug lords and terrorists, also comes from the tax dollars paid by hard working American taxpayers. So, what's the difference in the two?

We freely give to those that can support themselves which are not poor, disabled, hungry, homeless and less fortunate in foreign countries, but to you, it's different when we give to American citizens that are poor and hungry. Where do you see justification in that? You don't feel bad criticizing Americans and not criticizing non-Americans? You are selective in your criticism when it comes to how tax dollars are spent, wasted, and given away?

Last response.

I have already agreed many tax dollars are wasted. My topic questions are very specific. Either stay on topic or leave.

Contact one of the mods, or contact site admin and have then throw me out. Where did I get off topic? The topic was tax dollars going to those that you believe are abled bodied and can support themselves. Read the header to your post. What does your header say? My comments were clearly concerning tax dollars going to those that are abled bodied, can support themselves, yet also receive tax dollars. So, where am I off topic?

Repeating the topic 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?​

In my never to be considered humble opinion, the only valid and/or legal government benefits that can be earned are via those who work doing the essential functions of government. And those should be entitled only to benefits earned while working and should not extend beyond a person's tenure working for government. Toward that end, those working in government should contribute to their own retirement and health plans, etc. and that should not be a responsibility of the taxpayer.

And yes, it is immoral for the government to forcibly take property from those who earned it and give it to those who did not earn it. In any other scenario, we would call that theft.

A moral people does take care of the helpless among us, but the only moral way that is done is via mutually agreed social contract or voluntary charity.

Thank you. I agree. The moral argument is key, because many will say....

"From each according to his ability, to each according to his need."

Of course, Karl Marx made that statement and it is at the heart of current social justice movement in America. Is it moral to take from those with ability and a work ethic and give to those without ability or a work ethic?

As to your point about the truly needy.....I also feel strongly that those who are truly unable to work or have severe disabilities need to be helped by a compassionate society (e.g. those with Downs Syndrome as an example).

But I will say, when I worked for County Government many years ago there was a center for Mentally Disabled folks where they worked. I can say almost without except the MR folks I talked to were very proud of their work and efforts to be productive. I think a basic human need is to be productive. I believe it is immoral when Government disempowers people so that they are incentivized to be less productive.

I was blessed with position and opportunity to be one of the leaders to put together a domestic violence association years ago. We conducted a county wide survey of all persons who would possibly be involved in such cases--medical, law enforcement, etc.--to determine the scope of the problem. The results were significant.

We then solicited private donations but also went to the city and county where, after a number of widely publicized and very public hearings, we were granted land with rent free and tax free status and support of civil servants including the police so long as it was used for the purpose of ministering to victims of domestic violence. After a couple of years of harboring victims in private homes we were able to construct and professionally staff a permanent shelter.

We had full community approval and support including many unpaid volunteers but also ready and willing assistance from the police, the court system, and the medical community. It was a beautiful blend of social contract utilizing government services and private involvement to take care of some of the most helpless among us. It was effective, efficient, and dealt with all aspects of the problem including getting help for the offenders as well as protection for the victims.

In my opinion, that is how a moral society takes care of those unable to take care of themselves. Big expensive authoritarian one-size-fits-all government programs confiscate precious resources, siphon off huge chunks of them to feed an ever growing bureaucracy, and accomplishes little for those they are supposed to help. Plus they create permanent dependencies where our program was organized so that it did not.

American government was originally designed to enable the people, not take the place of what the people should be doing for themselves and others.

To follow the PC way and to reiterate to those who don't seem to get that you can question and oppose government intervention without having a war on something........ Shelters and programs for victims of domestic violence are worthwhile and useful programs. Having said that...

Here is where the problem begins.

In times of plenty, when government has enough receipts to further this kind of private/public altruism, these organizations and programs promote a sense of community and give real and valued aid to those who are suffering. The same can be said about programs that help the needy meet a shortage of housing, or food, or transportation when they find they have too much month at the end of their income.

However, these programs tend to grow concrete foundations, and these foundations are pillars of greed in some cases, but they are buried deep in government; right to the very bedrock. This poses a problem when times become lean and government is now forced to prioritize which programs need to continue, and which programs need to be set aside (even if its only until times are better).

That does not happen in the happy world of utopian love and buttercups.

To the liberal, more specifically, the progressive, having to set aside these programs threatens their Avenue to power and wealth. For let's face it, he who can expand government largess controls a significant amount of power and wealth.

So, that start-up that provides a valued service to battered women and others who suffer domestic abuse, grows into an organization that provides more and more resources to this group of needy Americans; and as you stated, begins to get help from local, then state, then federal governments. In the minds of these people, they have now become essential and when times are hard, they demand...note the term...demand...that instead of their funding getting cut or eliminated, that the taxpayers now be forced to continue funding their programs, even if that means increasing the burden upon them.

None of this is really news in today's government expanding left.

However, I am not without offering a solution to these kinds of problems, because programs and resources such as the one you describe are worthy of a caring society. That solution is this.

When a need is identified (such as you did with domestic violence), and times are well enough that government can help get a startup like this going, they should.

This help should come with a requirement though.

That requirement should be that non-profit or not, the business plan and model that is submitted to government for funding MUST include a plan to make the organization self-sustaining within a five to eight-year window and that after that time, regardless of success or failure, all taxpayer funding would end.

If the organization is short or needs a bit more time to make itself viable, then they should be permitted to take out a low-interest loan (and be given a priority so that they can go to the front of the line) to bridge whatever shortfalls exist. However, this too should be of limited duration and should end at the end of the tenth year anniversary of the organization. After that, they must acquire financing in the same manner as all businesses.

At that time, you little organization will either stand or fall on its own merits and is subject to the risks and environment that any business is subject to.

I would add that a non-profit tax status would be, in effect, for organizations the provide charitable work of this nature.

Oh we made sure we had our not-for-profit status along with making sure that we had a citizen board of directors setting policy and a qualified private sector professional staff delivering the programs and doing the administrative necessities. This was not to be and is still not a government agency even though it was practical, even necessary, to work hand and hand with the local government. The only federal involvement is what little federal money is funneled to the local United Way who provided a sizable chunk of the necessary funding once we were up and running. The agency has now been going well over three decades and is still doing what it was chartered to do. And I would guess it does it with a small fraction of the amount the federal government would deem necessary to provide the same level of services.

Yes, but the point I was trying to make is that in order for government largess to be viable, it MUST require that those who receive it become self-sustaining within a specific time frame so that in lean times, if they do receive government aid, it will not be a problem to stop funding them.

And to address the OP's debate item about people...the same should be done for those who receive government aid for their own personal life.

They should be required to perform a service to the community in which they live in order to receive benefits.
They should be required to further their education to provide themselves with a valued skill that can be used in the private sector.
They should be limited to the amount of time and frequency in which they can take government aid.

Of course, the exceptions are for people who, through no fault of their own, are physically or mentally unable to care for themselves.