Welfare is Immoral

[Charles_Main]

the only immoral thing here in the list is denying a child a good education. the rest are the responsibility of the parents who had the kids and subjected them to such horrors. Personally, I think people who put kids in such situations should have their kids taken away and then be shot in the head. would solve a lot of problems

Nazi ass

sorry goodwin, doesn't apply. I simply want people to have personal responsbility for their actions and be held accountable for it

So do I but not all parents who find themselves unable to take care of their kids get that way through their own actions alone.

You really want them shot in the head? lol

Another Completely NOT liberation View.

 

[saveliberty]

It is immoral to steal from someone for the support of another.

It is immoral to replace charity with welfare.

It is immoral to make people dependent on another person, group or government.

It is immoral to view people as incapable of gaining skills of self support.

It is immoral to force people into choosing to be dependent, because it pays better than trying.

This is what welfare can do and often does.

 

[Flopper]

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

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

None of those things are more immoral than theft and coercion by a government who deems that it has a right to your personal labor/property for use as it sees fit. As a conscientious human, I may have my own personal obligation, because I believe it's the right thing to do, and I wish to do so, but for a government to force me to fund poor and/or immoral choices of others is an immoral act in and of itself.

If a poor man robs you blind because he needs your money, is he a theif or is he acting in a moral manner? If a government takes my labor and industry to give to a poor man because he needs it, why is that not theivery?

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

It is absolutely legitimate for government to collect taxes which do not benefit all citizens equally. When the federal government spent hundreds of millions aiding communities devastated by Katrina did that benefit all citizens equally? When the feds payed out millions to 911 victims, did that benefit all citizens equally? Of course not. There is always indirect benefits from helping different segments of society.

There are lots of indirect benefits from providing food for the hunger, shelter to those have none, and basic healthcare for everyone. It makes our country a safer and healthier place to live. Societies are not judged by the prosperity of the affluent, but by how they treat their least fortunate. There are many countries in the world where the poor, the aged, the sick, and disabled are left to fend for themselves. I seriously doubt you want to live in one of those countries.

 

[syrenn]

It is absolutely legitimate for government to collect taxes which do not benefit all citizens equally. When the federal government spent hundreds of millions aiding communities devastated by Katrina did that benefit all citizens equally? When the feds payed out millions to 911 victims, did that benefit all citizens equally? Of course not. There is always indirect benefits from helping different segments of society.

There are lots of indirect benefits from providing food for the hunger, shelter to those have none, and basic healthcare for everyone. It makes our country a safer and healthier place to live. Societies are not judged by the prosperity of the affluent, but by how they treat their least fortunate. There are many countries in the world where the poor, the aged, the sick, and disabled are left to fend for themselves. I seriously doubt you want to live in one of those countries.

Agreed. But Katrina was a disaster, not a daily hand out for the scamers. Though i do beleive a good deal of the katrina hand out went to scamers.

Until there are serious reforms to weed out illegals and scamers from the welfare systems i dont care.

 

[Flopper]

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

the only immoral thing here in the list is denying a child a good education. the rest are the responsibility of the parents who had the kids and subjected them to such horrors. Personally, I think people who put kids in such situations should have their kids taken away and then be shot in the head. would solve a lot of problems

Irresponsible parents are probably the most critical social problem the country faces. Seeds of crime, drugs and poverty are planted by the parents.

Dealing with social problems are the most difficult and costly problems the nation faces. It's very short sighted for the Right to believe that somehow these problems will work themselves out if we just ignore them by cutting off funding for the programs that deal with the problems.

 

[syrenn]

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

the only immoral thing here in the list is denying a child a good education. the rest are the responsibility of the parents who had the kids and subjected them to such horrors. Personally, I think people who put kids in such situations should have their kids taken away and then be shot in the head. would solve a lot of problems

Irresponsible parents are probably the most critical social problem the country faces. Seeds of crime, drugs and poverty are planted by the parents.

Dealing with social problems are the most difficult and costly problems the nation faces. It's very short sighted for the Right to believe that somehow these problems will work themselves out if we just ignore them by cutting off funding for the programs that deal with the problems.

Agreed. Abortion sounds like a fine solution to me. So does birth control.

Having programs enables people. Knowing that a check will come enables people. If scamers knew there was no handouts, there would be less of them.

 

[saveliberty]

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

the only immoral thing here in the list is denying a child a good education. the rest are the responsibility of the parents who had the kids and subjected them to such horrors. Personally, I think people who put kids in such situations should have their kids taken away and then be shot in the head. would solve a lot of problems

Irresponsible parents are probably the most critical social problem the country faces. Seeds of crime, drugs and poverty are planted by the parents.

Dealing with social problems are the most difficult and costly problems the nation faces. It's very short sighted for the Right to believe that somehow these problems will work themselves out if we just ignore them by cutting off funding for the programs that deal with the problems.

There are no programs by the government to fix the parent problem.

That would require people to have jobs, so kids could see what sacrifices are made to provide for them.

It would require parents honor their commitment to each other, with divorces requiring fault.

It would mean actively raising the kid instead of letting the TV and X box do it.

It would mean parent showing more respect for teachers, pastors, police officers that are doing their vocations correctly.

It would mean replacing drugged up sports and entertainment heroes with ones who followed the rules.

Throwing money at the problem will not even begin to fix the problem.

 

[The T]

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

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

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

"Every citizen of this country has the potential ability to carve out a decent, comfortable life for himself "


except of course for those people who are unemployed because there aren't enough jobs to go around.

I can imagine a world in the future in which computers, robots, machines do almost all of the work....

resulting in massive unemployment...40%? 50%? 70? 80?...you?

and I don't want 250 million people whining about poverty or demanding that the few extremely wealthy multibillionaires in America who EARNED all of their wealth being forced to pay pennies or nickels just to feed lazy and irresponsible welfare cheats and deadbeats!


America won't be TRULY great until ALL of the wealth is in the hands of a few elitists and everyone else is eating out of garbage cans!

Math isn't my thing, but I am fairly certain that all those "multi billionaires" are paying more than pennies and nickels. BTW - how many "multi billionaires" are there in the U.S.? Four?

I believe in the welfare system as a safety net for those citizens who are the most vulnerable - the elderly, disabled, and children in poverty. I do not agree with supporting able bodied adults who have chosen it as a lifestyle. I would reckon that's about half. **** them. They are thieves.

Having children with no means or desire to properly care for them is immoral.

Crux of the argument. It is a disservice to a society to have children with no visible/tangible means of support, and thus forcing their responsibility upon society.


Sure we all fall upon hard times. [Safety net with no objections from me]But to do it flagranly because you know others will take up the slack [Because Gubmint itself has taught you this]...is just...well...immoral.

When the Safety net becomes a HAMMOCK...there's where my objection lies.

 

[Flopper]

It is absolutely legitimate for government to collect taxes which do not benefit all citizens equally. When the federal government spent hundreds of millions aiding communities devastated by Katrina did that benefit all citizens equally? When the feds payed out millions to 911 victims, did that benefit all citizens equally? Of course not. There is always indirect benefits from helping different segments of society.

There are lots of indirect benefits from providing food for the hunger, shelter to those have none, and basic healthcare for everyone. It makes our country a safer and healthier place to live. Societies are not judged by the prosperity of the affluent, but by how they treat their least fortunate. There are many countries in the world where the poor, the aged, the sick, and disabled are left to fend for themselves. I seriously doubt you want to live in one of those countries.

Agreed. But Katrina was a disaster, not a daily hand out for the scamers. Though i do beleive a good deal of the katrina hand out went to scamers.

Until there are serious reforms to weed out illegals and scamers from the welfare systems i dont care.

There is a lot of money being spent to do exactly what you are suggesting, weeding out scamers. Both my wife and I have done various volunteer work in some pretty poverty stricken neighborhoods. The sad fact is that most of these people who are receiving government assistance in one form or another need it to survive. They are either uneducated, sick, disabled, too old, mentally ill, caring for depends, or on drugs. Even if they had the education or training to get a job, which most don't, they couldn't keep it. The problem is not that they don't want to work. The problem is no one in their right mind is going to hire them into a job that would make them self sufficient. Many that are on welfare do work. However, the jobs are usually part time or temporary and just don't pay enough to support the family.

Now with the recession, we are seeing educated people on government assistance that are capable of holding down a good job but they just can't find enough work to support the family. I know of someone who lost their job about 2 years ago, they went on food stamps and got some assistance for about 6 or 8 months. Then found work and were doing ok for about 6 months. Now they are getting government assistance because they can't find work.

 

[The T]

It is absolutely legitimate for government to collect taxes which do not benefit all citizens equally. When the federal government spent hundreds of millions aiding communities devastated by Katrina did that benefit all citizens equally? When the feds payed out millions to 911 victims, did that benefit all citizens equally? Of course not. There is always indirect benefits from helping different segments of society.

There are lots of indirect benefits from providing food for the hunger, shelter to those have none, and basic healthcare for everyone. It makes our country a safer and healthier place to live. Societies are not judged by the prosperity of the affluent, but by how they treat their least fortunate. There are many countries in the world where the poor, the aged, the sick, and disabled are left to fend for themselves. I seriously doubt you want to live in one of those countries.

Agreed. But Katrina was a disaster, not a daily hand out for the scamers. Though i do beleive a good deal of the katrina hand out went to scamers.

Until there are serious reforms to weed out illegals and scamers from the welfare systems i dont care.

There is a lot of money being spent to do exactly what you are suggesting, weeding out scamers. Both my wife and I have done various volunteer work in some pretty poverty stricken neighborhoods. The sad fact is that most of these people who are receiving government assistance in one form or another need it to survive. They are either uneducated, sick, disabled, too old, mentally ill, caring for depends, or on drugs. Even if they had the education or training to get a job, which most don't, they couldn't keep it. The problem is not that they don't want to work. The problem is no one in their right mind is going to hire them into a job that would make them self sufficient. Many that are on welfare do work. However, the jobs are usually part time or temporary and just don't pay enough to support the family.

Now with the recession, we are seeing educated people on government assistance that are capable of holding down a good job but they just can't find enough work to support the family. I know of someone who lost their job about 2 years ago, they went on food stamps and got some assistance for about 6 or 8 months. Then found work and were doing ok for about 6 months. Now they are getting government assistance because they can't find work.

Nice story...and thanks for your work...seriously.

Doesn't your tale beg...strike that...POINT at where the problem lies?

 

[Lasher]

Seriously, go back to AWE. We don't want your broke ass here.

And you speak for everyone because ....... ?

 

[Lasher]

Da JJJOOOOOSSSSSS must be behind it huh fuckhead!

If you say so.

 

[Lasher]

rightwing nut jobs are not people I looked to for morality.

greedy bastard

So it's greed to want to keep your own property, but not greed to want the government to steal it from others for your benefit?

 

[Flopper]

the only immoral thing here in the list is denying a child a good education. the rest are the responsibility of the parents who had the kids and subjected them to such horrors. Personally, I think people who put kids in such situations should have their kids taken away and then be shot in the head. would solve a lot of problems

Irresponsible parents are probably the most critical social problem the country faces. Seeds of crime, drugs and poverty are planted by the parents.

Dealing with social problems are the most difficult and costly problems the nation faces. It's very short sighted for the Right to believe that somehow these problems will work themselves out if we just ignore them by cutting off funding for the programs that deal with the problems.

There are no programs by the government to fix the parent problem.

That would require people to have jobs, so kids could see what sacrifices are made to provide for them.

It would require parents honor their commitment to each other, with divorces requiring fault.

It would mean actively raising the kid instead of letting the TV and X box do it.

It would mean parent showing more respect for teachers, pastors, police officers that are doing their vocations correctly.

It would mean replacing drugged up sports and entertainment heroes with ones who followed the rules.

Throwing money at the problem will not even begin to fix the problem.

Cutting back federal funds to many of these programs just transfers the costs to the DHS in the states.

 

[Lasher]

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

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

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

"Every citizen of this country has the potential ability to carve out a decent, comfortable life for himself "


except of course for those people who are unemployed because there aren't enough jobs to go around.

So if there aren't enough jobs to go around due to the government's allowing millions of illegal aliens to come here and take their jobs, we who have property must be forced to share it with those who have failed in life?

I can imagine a world in the future in which computers, robots, machines do almost all of the work....

resulting in massive unemployment...40%? 50%? 70? 80?...you?

No, as a matter of fact, I can't envision such a scenario, but if it did occur, what's to keep people from living without all their electronic gadgets, computers, cell phones, video games, tobacco, alcohol, etc., and living off the land by farming and subsisting as we did a hundred years ago? It isn't the government's job to provide work for people. People must learn to provide for themselves. Frontier justice is good.

and I don't want 250 million people whining about poverty or demanding that the few extremely wealthy multibillionaires in America who EARNED all of their wealth being forced to pay pennies or nickels just to feed lazy and irresponsible welfare cheats and deadbeats!

It really doesn't matter what YOU want, pal, what is necessary will happen and you have no control over it. You need to stop listening to all the pseudo-intellectual, socialist liberals who have packed your head with utopian lies and promises and start thinking in realistic terms.


America won't be TRULY great until ALL of the wealth is in the hands of a few elitists and everyone else is eating out of garbage cans.

Why don't you go to some shining, progressive, successful, socialist, collectivist country to live in splendor and forget about America and all her faults? Maybe you would be happy standing in a line for much of your life.

 

[Lasher]

Just about everybody is one pinkslip away from needing a helping hand.

That helping hand is best found at the end of one's own arm, not in the power of government.

 

[Lasher]

It's sort of funny..that one mild post brought every ignorant liberal extremist on the board running.

Allie, I couldn't have put it better myself!

 

[Mr. Peepers]

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

Moron, having a stable, educated and PROSPEROUS populous benefits ALL citizens equally - and produces a strong, stable economy. How was this country doing when we had a growing, prosperous middle class, hmm? We are turning into a third world country... admit it.

 

[Lasher]

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

I haven't seen evidence that the government can or will kill a person for not paying taxes,

lizzie, if one refuses to pay his "fair share" of taxes, the government will send the law out to arrest and incarcerate him, and if he resists the immoral arrest, he will be beaten and taken to a jail to await trial; if he attempts to escape his immoral imprisonment, and is again confronted by the government thugs, he will undoubtedly be shot if he doesn't submit to arrest. I said the ultimate result of not paying taxes could result in death if one remained true to himself.

 

[Lasher]

Immoral nah, often ineffective, inefficient and unconstitutional. Yeah.

Then you must see it as moral for people to use the government as an instrument of plunder to steal some peoples' property for the benefit of other people. Sorry, I don't see it that way, but to each his own.