Welfare question for libertarians, conservatives

[HelenaHandbag]

This whole debate comes down to a very basic question:

Should charity (helping the less fortunate) be mandatory or voluntary?

When the federal govt uses tax money, charity becomes mandatory. Is that right or wrong?

In a society it has to be mandatory. Thats part of being in a society.

What you are talking about is if your neighbors conditions had no effect on you. Everyone lived in their own bubble. Then thats a different story

Pure balderdash.

The "charity" you promote is kleptocracy.

 

[R.D.]

This whole debate comes down to a very basic question:

Should charity (helping the less fortunate) be mandatory or voluntary?

When the federal govt uses tax money, charity becomes mandatory. Is that right or wrong?

In a society it has to be mandatory. Thats part of being in a society.

What you are talking about is if your neighbors conditions had no effect on you. Everyone lived in their own bubble. Then thats a different story

Taxes are not charity and charity cannot be mandatory

When simple definitions are tossed aside for an agenda your entire premise is shoddy

 

[ClosedCaption]

Predictable. So you think it's morally and ethically right to steal from some people and give it to others? And this is the price of society?

That's the same type of "logic" applied to people who say taxation is the price of living in civilized society. it's a classic case of "WTF is wrong with you?" type thinking.

If theft is necessary as a part of civilized society, then murder is necessary in a peaceful society.

If by steal you mean tax. Then thats the world we live in. I dont think it fair that birds get to fly and I dont. But thats life.

See the problem you have is reality. If you neighbor is struggling his struggle effects you no matter what you do. His house forecloses brings down your property value (things like that)

You want a world where we all have no effect on each other. Sorry but that isnt reality. So whats your solution when voluntary charity wont be enough?

You dont have a solution and thats the problem

There is a big difference between some humans claiming the authority to steal by force adn violence, and birds being able to fly and humans not. It's not even categorically the same. It's another universe entirely comparatively.

Dude if it was stealing you really wouldnt be here asking for LESS stealing. Youd be asking for NO stealing...meaning no taxes. But that would just be stupid, so stop it.

So by way of welfare, we can stop house foreclosures, or the other myriad of problems that people face financially? Yeah, no. it hasn't worked yet adn it certainly isnt going to start any time soon. Welfare programs are a failure at producing LESS poverty.

Yes it can, Yes it has happened. It wont stop all instances but I'm sure you know thats not what anyone is talking about so for you to bring it up is perplexing to say the least

This is the world where my neighbors struggles do not affect me. I have neighbors I've never even met and there is no way their financial woes affect me in any way, shape or form.

Just because you say it doesnt make it true. Now you are trying to create an alternate universe where foreclosures dont effect neighbors. Thats funny except fanatsy is the only solution

You're making false comparisons and utilizing appeal to emotion as a case for theft. There is no reason that any single person should have their property seized and given to someone else. It doesn't promote society and it certainly isn't the moral thing to do.

Yes there is its called Taxes. Are you seriously arguing against ALL taxes?

Nope. So you're for "stealing" then?

 

[hazlnut]

What did we do with them before the federal government started its "benevolence" programs?

Read Charles Dickens.

Debtors Prisons.

Orphanages.

Dickens is fiction, written in the context of Victorian times. No relevance at all to an industrial age economy, let alone the information age.

Did you read the question I was answering?

Guess not.


Also, are you saying that in the information age we would be much more efficient in disposing of the dead bodies in the tent camps and shanty towns should we stop all welfare.

 

[ClosedCaption]

This whole debate comes down to a very basic question:

Should charity (helping the less fortunate) be mandatory or voluntary?

When the federal govt uses tax money, charity becomes mandatory. Is that right or wrong?

In a society it has to be mandatory. Thats part of being in a society.

What you are talking about is if your neighbors conditions had no effect on you. Everyone lived in their own bubble. Then thats a different story

Pure balderdash.

The "charity" you promote is kleptocracy.

No its not, now attempt to talk about the charity you promote and how that voluntary charity will keep up with needs.

You cant, you're better at projection. To discuss your own ideas is too hard because first...you have to have some

 

[Clementine]

Do you think people who are on welfare should get cash along with food stamps or not?

In another thread I saw that a few conservatives were vehemently giving these people any cash. I was a bit surprised. Personally, I consider myself a compassionate conservative and believe giving people on welfare a modest cash stipend is appropriate. Keep in mind food stamps don't cover some of the basic needs a person may have, such as clothing, laundry money, transportation, haircut, etc..

Thing is, we need a system that ensures people only spend the money on needs. Clearly, that isn't happening. As it is, people get cash out and we've discovered that it's being taken out in casinos, strip clubs and other places that are just outrageous. I think if people use the money for such stupid things, they need to be monitored and have the amount reduced if they don't need it for necessities. Helping people doesn't mean allowing them to waste money that other people earned the hard way.

EBT cards can be used like debit cards and most clothing stores and barbers accept them. We could offer bus passes for transportation. Allowing a small amount for things like laundry and other things is fine, but allowing an average of $200 per person usually means it's spent as fun money.

Keeping a roof over people's heads, food on the table and clothing is really the only deal. It's expanded each year to include all the things a person could possibly need and it's getting a tad ridiculous.

There are also reports of drug dealers getting welfare.

Maybe the solution is a better screening process for people who apply. And we need better monitoring to see where the money is spent. If a person consistently purchases cigarettes or gets cash out at casinos, it should raise a red flag and the person needs to be called on the carpet to explain why they are blowing money so irresponsibly. If a person regularly spends money on non-essentials and you find that the children aren't getting clothing or healthy meals, it might be time to intervene.

Some people out there really need the money to eat, so why are we placing more burden on tax payers to fund bad habits? Reducing the $80 billion currently spent each year on welfare means better oversight of all programs and making sure the money goes to those who really need it and not those who know how to play the system.

The government send out a grotesque amount of money due to fraud. It's not just welfare, but tax refunds. At what point do we just say enough is enough and take measures to stop the fraud, waste and abuse? Once the money is sent, only a small fraction is ever recovered. We can do better.

We also need to encourage welfare to work so people don't have to depend on tax payers for everything from housing to haircuts.

 

[ClosedCaption]

This whole debate comes down to a very basic question:

Should charity (helping the less fortunate) be mandatory or voluntary?

When the federal govt uses tax money, charity becomes mandatory. Is that right or wrong?

In a society it has to be mandatory. Thats part of being in a society.

What you are talking about is if your neighbors conditions had no effect on you. Everyone lived in their own bubble. Then thats a different story

Taxes are not charity and charity cannot be mandatory

When simple definitions are tossed aside for an agenda your entire premise is shoddy

Did you just learn this? Whyd you think this was important to say out loud when everyone knows this?

 

[HelenaHandbag]

Read Charles Dickens.

Debtors Prisons.

Orphanages.

Dickens is fiction, written in the context of Victorian times. No relevance at all to an industrial age economy, let alone the information age.

Did you read the question I was answering?

Guess not.


Also, are you saying that in the information age we would be much more efficient in disposing of the dead bodies in the tent camps and shanty towns should we stop all welfare.

I reject the absurd proposition that tent camps, shanty towns and stacks of dead bodies would ensue from the abolition of the modern welfare state.

Have you ever tried any angle of argumentation other than ludicrous hyperbole and demagoguery?

 

[R.D.]

In a society it has to be mandatory. Thats part of being in a society.

What you are talking about is if your neighbors conditions had no effect on you. Everyone lived in their own bubble. Then thats a different story

Taxes are not charity and charity cannot be mandatory

When simple definitions are tossed aside for an agenda your entire premise is shoddy

Did you just learn this? Whyd you think this was important to say out loud when everyone knows this?

Because, dingleberry, you said charity has to be mandatory in a society.

 

[Contumacious]

Should welfare recipients receive cash?
..

From a Libertarian standpoint, there should NOT be welfare recipients.

 

[HelenaHandbag]

In a society it has to be mandatory. Thats part of being in a society.

What you are talking about is if your neighbors conditions had no effect on you. Everyone lived in their own bubble. Then thats a different story

Pure balderdash.

The "charity" you promote is kleptocracy.

No its not, now attempt to talk about the charity you promote and how that voluntary charity will keep up with needs.

You cant, you're better at projection. To discuss your own ideas is too hard because first...you have to have some

Voluntary charity keeps up with needs so well that America has to export the excess things that get donated to charities. How is it you think that foreigners end up wearing clothing with logos from losing championship sports teams?

What doesn't work is the kleptocracy that pays the relatively wealthy politicians and bureaucrats first, before any of the remaining welfare state crumbs get distributed to those who supposedly need those resources, more so than those who rightfully earned them.

If it's anyone who had run out of ideas it is the progressive looters like you, who cling to failure as proof that more of the same failed polices are called for.

 

[syrenn]

What are we supposed to do with the people who can't fend for themselves? Let them starve in the street?

What did we do with them before the federal government started its "benevolence" programs?

Different time and irrelevant. The question is what should we do today. If you're a proponent of cutting off all recipients then you're in the extreme minority. I'm advocate of individualism and personal responsibility, but society does have a responsibility to provide some safety nets for the unfortunate. After all this is a civilized society. As a country do you think we'd be better off with people starving in the street?

safety nets.... do not mean cash.
A safety net does not mean....comfort or happiness.
A safety net does not mean... luxuries of any kind
A safety net is not an excuse to abuse the system
A safety net is should not mean a free hand out
A safety net should mean having to hold up your end of the social contract of receiving said safety net.

 

[ClosedCaption]

Pure balderdash.

The "charity" you promote is kleptocracy.

No its not, now attempt to talk about the charity you promote and how that voluntary charity will keep up with needs.

You cant, you're better at projection. To discuss your own ideas is too hard because first...you have to have some

Voluntary charity keeps up with needs so well that America has to export the excess things that get donated to charities. How is it you think that foreigners end up wearing clothing with logos from losing championship sports teams?

What doesn't work is the kleptocracy that pays the relatively wealthy politicians and bureaucrats first, before any of the remaining welfare state crumbs get distributed to those who supposedly need those resources, more so than those who rightfully earned them.

If it's anyone who had run out of ideas it is the progressive looters like you, who cling to failure as proof that more of the same failed polices are called for.

How many times will you avoid the question before you realize you have nothing? What you just said was foreigners have logos and the next paragraph talks about what DOESNT work

We tried that "charity" route before and it didnt work. So how does it work now?

I see you're having a hard time figuring this out. Do you want a day to think about it?

 

[HelenaHandbag]

No its not, now attempt to talk about the charity you promote and how that voluntary charity will keep up with needs.

You cant, you're better at projection. To discuss your own ideas is too hard because first...you have to have some

Voluntary charity keeps up with needs so well that America has to export the excess things that get donated to charities. How is it you think that foreigners end up wearing clothing with logos from losing championship sports teams?

What doesn't work is the kleptocracy that pays the relatively wealthy politicians and bureaucrats first, before any of the remaining welfare state crumbs get distributed to those who supposedly need those resources, more so than those who rightfully earned them.

If it's anyone who had run out of ideas it is the progressive looters like you, who cling to failure as proof that more of the same failed polices are called for.

How many times will you avoid the question before you realize you have nothing? What you just said was foreigners have logos and the next paragraph talks about what DOESNT work

We tried that "charity" route before and it didnt work. So how does it work now?

I see you're having a hard time figuring this out. Do you want a day to think about it?

I'm having no hard time figuring out anything .

When we had strictly private charity, the poverty rate was around 16%. Today, after 50 years of the foolhardy War on Poverty, the poverty rate has not been reduced on iota. Something on the order of $15-$20 trillion of confiscation and redistribution and your results are exactly bupkis.

If anyone can't figure out what an utter failure that their forced "charity" is, it's you.

 

[Contumacious]

We tried that "charity" route before and it didnt work. So how does it work now?

really?

In that case the ONLY choice is to strong-arm taxpayers and producers.

Is your name by any chance Comrade Bill de Blasio ?

.

 

[TakeAStepBack]

If by steal you mean tax. Then thats the world we live in. I dont think it fair that birds get to fly and I dont. But thats life.

See the problem you have is reality. If you neighbor is struggling his struggle effects you no matter what you do. His house forecloses brings down your property value (things like that)

You want a world where we all have no effect on each other. Sorry but that isnt reality. So whats your solution when voluntary charity wont be enough?

You dont have a solution and thats the problem

There is a big difference between some humans claiming the authority to steal by force adn violence, and birds being able to fly and humans not. It's not even categorically the same. It's another universe entirely comparatively.

Dude if it was stealing you really wouldnt be here asking for LESS stealing. Youd be asking for NO stealing...meaning no taxes. But that would just be stupid, so stop it.



Yes it can, Yes it has happened. It wont stop all instances but I'm sure you know thats not what anyone is talking about so for you to bring it up is perplexing to say the least

This is the world where my neighbors struggles do not affect me. I have neighbors I've never even met and there is no way their financial woes affect me in any way, shape or form.

Just because you say it doesnt make it true. Now you are trying to create an alternate universe where foreclosures dont effect neighbors. Thats funny except fanatsy is the only solution

You're making false comparisons and utilizing appeal to emotion as a case for theft. There is no reason that any single person should have their property seized and given to someone else. It doesn't promote society and it certainly isn't the moral thing to do.

Yes there is its called Taxes. Are you seriously arguing against ALL taxes?

Nope. So you're for "stealing" then?

Yes, I'm against all forms of theft, including taxation. The rest of your responses do not have any bearing on reality. You simply claim that welfare does stop SOME instances so it's worth it to you to enforce theft by force so that a few people can have something for nothing.

You can like theft all you want, and clearly you do, but attempting to stamp it as a necessity of society is outright crap.

 

[kwc57]

This whole debate comes down to a very basic question:

Should charity (helping the less fortunate) be mandatory or voluntary?

When the federal govt uses tax money, charity becomes mandatory. Is that right or wrong?

In a society it has to be mandatory. Thats part of being in a society.

What you are talking about is if your neighbors conditions had no effect on you. Everyone lived in their own bubble. Then thats a different story

What about the notion that everyone has to pull their own weight within a society? Shouldn't that be mandatory as well? That is after all.......part of being a society. If you want to provide for those less fortunate than yourself, you can and should do that. If you want to provide for those less fortunate than yourself by helping yourself to my wallet, you really shouldn't do that. I already help people. I don't need the government doing it for me.

 

[ClosedCaption]

Voluntary charity keeps up with needs so well that America has to export the excess things that get donated to charities. How is it you think that foreigners end up wearing clothing with logos from losing championship sports teams?

What doesn't work is the kleptocracy that pays the relatively wealthy politicians and bureaucrats first, before any of the remaining welfare state crumbs get distributed to those who supposedly need those resources, more so than those who rightfully earned them.

If it's anyone who had run out of ideas it is the progressive looters like you, who cling to failure as proof that more of the same failed polices are called for.

How many times will you avoid the question before you realize you have nothing? What you just said was foreigners have logos and the next paragraph talks about what DOESNT work

We tried that "charity" route before and it didnt work. So how does it work now?

I see you're having a hard time figuring this out. Do you want a day to think about it?

I'm having no hard time figuring out anything .

When we had strictly private charity, the poverty rate was around 16%. Today, after 50 years of the foolhardy War on Poverty, the poverty rate has not been reduced on iota. Something on the order of $15-$20 trillion of confiscation and redistribution and your results are exactly bupkis.

If anyone can't figure out what an utter failure that their forced "charity" is, it's you.

Back when we had strickly private charity the black rhino existed today it doesnt. Sweetheart you have to show causation not just state facts and say they have something to do with the other

 

[kwc57]

How many times will you avoid the question before you realize you have nothing? What you just said was foreigners have logos and the next paragraph talks about what DOESNT work

We tried that "charity" route before and it didnt work. So how does it work now?

I see you're having a hard time figuring this out. Do you want a day to think about it?

I'm having no hard time figuring out anything .

When we had strictly private charity, the poverty rate was around 16%. Today, after 50 years of the foolhardy War on Poverty, the poverty rate has not been reduced on iota. Something on the order of $15-$20 trillion of confiscation and redistribution and your results are exactly bupkis.

If anyone can't figure out what an utter failure that their forced "charity" is, it's you.

Back when we had strickly private charity the black rhino existed today it doesnt. Sweetheart you have to show causation not just state facts and say they have something to do with the other

In other words.......you got nothing. Just say so and go shit on a different thread.

 

[HelenaHandbag]

How many times will you avoid the question before you realize you have nothing? What you just said was foreigners have logos and the next paragraph talks about what DOESNT work

We tried that "charity" route before and it didnt work. So how does it work now?

I see you're having a hard time figuring this out. Do you want a day to think about it?

I'm having no hard time figuring out anything .

When we had strictly private charity, the poverty rate was around 16%. Today, after 50 years of the foolhardy War on Poverty, the poverty rate has not been reduced on iota. Something on the order of $15-$20 trillion of confiscation and redistribution and your results are exactly bupkis.

If anyone can't figure out what an utter failure that their forced "charity" is, it's you.

Back when we had strickly private charity the black rhino existed today it doesnt. Sweetheart you have to show causation not just state facts and say they have something to do with the other

What the Sam Hill are you babbling about?