Dismiss Notice

Welcome To CK5!

Registering is free and easy! Hope to see you on the forums soon.

Score a FREE t-shirt and membership sticker when you sign up for a Premium Membership and choose the recurring plan.

Welfare

Discussion in 'The Lounge' started by newyorkin, Nov 16, 2005.

?

Should welfare be changed?

Poll closed Nov 26, 2005.
  1. Yes, revise the rules and scutinize the applicants much more

    44 vote(s)
    64.7%
  2. No, eliminate it altogether.

    20 vote(s)
    29.4%
  3. Welfare is fine as is.

    2 vote(s)
    2.9%
  4. I'm naked and on welfare

    2 vote(s)
    2.9%
  1. newyorkin

    newyorkin 1 ton status

    Joined:
    May 8, 2001
    Posts:
    16,555
    Likes Received:
    157
    Location:
    Los Estados Unitos
    Pardon this un-thought-out, spur of the moment thought...


    Would a welfare system be acceptable to the society overall if it supported only those that were incapable of supporting themselves?


    For example...
    Joe goes to work every day as a retail warehouse worker.
    He has no health insurance because if he payed for health insurance, he wouldn't eat.
    He has no wife or children, but he hopes to one day.
    As he's walking to work, he's the victim of a hit and run accident. The driver was clearly at fault, but is never found, therefore no lawsuit or insurance claim can be filed against them.

    Joe's paralyzed now, and can no longer do the only work he was able to get in his life. He wants to, he's just not physcially capable of it any more.
    He still needs to eat and pay rent, and now on top of that, he will have many medical bills to pay, with little hope of receiving the best treatment available.

    Joe's last hope for keeping a roof over his head and food in his belly (at least sometimes) is hoping the government can subsidize the rest of his life.

    Should Joe receive enough monthly cash via welfare to pay his rent and put a little food on his table?
    What if he had a wife and kid?



    On the other hand, take Joanne. She grew up in the ghetto, and was thrown out of her house at 18 by her crackhead mother. She moved in with a drug dealer, got pregnant, and had kids. She left the drug dealer and she also seems to keep getting pregnant without knowing who the fathers are.
    She's asked the government to pay her rent and grocery bill...

    Should she receive the monthly survival cash?
     
  2. Desert Rat

    Desert Rat Fetch the comfy chair

    Joined:
    Oct 19, 2002
    Posts:
    16,250
    Likes Received:
    3
    Location:
    Tri-Valley, NorCal
    Personally, I think neither should receive government money. I think faith based organizations, non-governmental organizations, and family should be the support network for people in dire circumstances. The expansion of welfare is an step by step direction towards socialism. This is a philosophical arguement though since most modern societies have chosen to redistribute wealth at some degree or another. Theoretically, those who do well should show compassion and help those who despite their best efforts can't keep up. In reality though, these systems tend to be subjective, corrupt, and foster a dependence on the government that might not be there if that system wasn't available, such as your second scenario. I think it is a Catch-22. If you have no system, the truely needy suffer. If you have a system, it is exploited by those who are too lazy to accept personal responsibility.
     
  3. Z3PR

    Z3PR Banned

    Joined:
    Mar 30, 2002
    Posts:
    19,217
    Likes Received:
    0
    Location:
    Everywhere
    Ofcorse Joe needs help. and as far as Joanne, she may have made bad choices, but the children shouldn't be made too suffer. That's a hard one.
     
  4. Chaddy

    Chaddy 1/2 ton status GMOTM Winner

    Joined:
    May 23, 2005
    Posts:
    4,110
    Likes Received:
    2
    Location:
    Salt Lake City,Utah
    If your paralized then sure. If your an idiot and make bad choices then no. She should be given a hysterectomy and the kids should be adopted
     
  5. tiger9297

    tiger9297 1/2 ton status

    Joined:
    Jul 23, 2004
    Posts:
    1,205
    Likes Received:
    0
    Location:
    Tupelo, Mississippi
    I agree. It is NOT the government's role to support people no matter what the need. There are plenty of organizations out there to help those who are truly in need. In addition these organizations typically are much smaller and are able to put the proper checks in place to see that their beneficiaries are deserving. If the government can provide everything you need, it can also take it away!
     
  6. Desert Rat

    Desert Rat Fetch the comfy chair

    Joined:
    Oct 19, 2002
    Posts:
    16,250
    Likes Received:
    3
    Location:
    Tri-Valley, NorCal
    Or, essentially buy your vote. It is no coincidence that the party of choice for the poor is the one who advocates big taxes, big government, and big handouts. Talk about moral corruption, forcing a person to choose between their morals or their wallet. I've never understood how the so called representatives of the "oppressed" like Jesse Jackson and the like can continue to foster a system that is just another form of slavery or addiction. These folks get just enough money to get by, but never enough to actually be successfull. As a result, you remove any motivation to really limber up the joints and sprint. Necessity has always been the mother of invention and sometimes the best comes out of people when the chips are down. But, if you can just get by on the govt. dole, then why challenge yourself? In theory, welfare is supposed to be a temporary safety net that allows a person to only fall so far. In reality, it perpetuates an under class that will never succeed. All people need a motivator. When you give somebody something free, and follow it up with a constant mantra that they deserve more and would recieve it accept for the "man" discriminating and holding you down, you do a tremendous disservice to that person, or group of people.
     
  7. firefighter184

    firefighter184 1/2 ton status

    Joined:
    Apr 5, 2003
    Posts:
    2,763
    Likes Received:
    0
    Location:
    The Barrio
    I am all for cutting welfare costs via euthanasia and chemical castration of those who have 42 babies on crack, and/or refuse to work. Then we could actually take care of the Joes of the world and lose no sleep over the cracked out whores. I would also eliminate ALL social programs and medical funding for illegals. The only medical funding available to illegals would be chemical sterilization to prevent rat-like reproduction.
     
  8. Chaddy

    Chaddy 1/2 ton status GMOTM Winner

    Joined:
    May 23, 2005
    Posts:
    4,110
    Likes Received:
    2
    Location:
    Salt Lake City,Utah
    :haha: :haha: :haha: Im with you on that!! :haha: :haha:
     
  9. newyorkin

    newyorkin 1 ton status

    Joined:
    May 8, 2001
    Posts:
    16,555
    Likes Received:
    157
    Location:
    Los Estados Unitos
    I think I agree that welfare should probably be eliminated.

    It's a very tough call, though.

    I think the framers of the constitution felt the same. I read something a while back, might've been by Madison, about how he didn't think federal funds should be used even to rebuild natural disaster areas. I think his opinion was that it changed the role of government too much, and created a constituency that always expected the government to bail them out.


    It would be nice to see a well regulated welfare system that actually took care of those that needed it rather than chose it, but with the point of corruption, manipulation, and dependence, plus the fact that it's not the purpose of government to be a charity, I don't think it should be continued either.
     
  10. tiger9297

    tiger9297 1/2 ton status

    Joined:
    Jul 23, 2004
    Posts:
    1,205
    Likes Received:
    0
    Location:
    Tupelo, Mississippi
    People forget that the intention of the founding fathers was to create a FREE country. That means FREE from government intervention, as much as possible. Yes, they understood that a government was essential, but in their minds it was more of a necessary evil. They wanted the people of this country to live their lives without the government being in their face all the time. They wanted a government that was as "invisible" as it could be. I believe we have gotten away from that pattern of thinking. People will gladly surrender their rights for a handout or some kind of regulation.

    Prime example: Seat belt laws. If I don't wear my seat belt I do not infringe on anyone's rights, and the only risk is to myself. I think people should wear their seat belts, and I do wear mine. However, it is not the role of government to make laws that force people to do this. I don't want to surrender my rights to see the government force people to wear a seatbelt, even though I agree with it. Where is that in the Constitution?

    Another example: Logging. There are those that would try to keep you from harvesting timber on your own land. Now, I'm an avid hunter and I hate to see hundreds of acres clear cut for monetary purpose. However, I would rather see that, than have the government take away the rights of property owners to do what they wish with their own land.

    In my opinion we are really not FREE any more.

    "Freedom can be achieved, but it can never be regained once it is lost"
     
  11. gjk5

    gjk5 3/4 ton status

    Joined:
    Mar 17, 2004
    Posts:
    5,312
    Likes Received:
    0
    Location:
    Grand Junction, CO
    Handicapped people do not get welfare, they get disability. That's just fine with me. People who are perfectly capable of earning an income and don't piss me off, there's no excuse for that.

    I think mandatory temporary chemical sterilization for those on assistance, if you can't support yourself you have no right to bring another person into this world.


    To take even a step further, since we have pretty much eliminated natural selection; I propose birth licensing. You must prove that you can support yourself and your family and maybe even take an IQ test so stupid people don't procreate. (this should cut the birth rate by about 80% the first year).



    And as far as firefighter184's suggestion, that's just crazy. Illegals need medical care, how's Juan gonna do my lawn with a broken leg? :haha:
     
  12. cbbr

    cbbr 1 ton status GMOTM Winner

    Joined:
    Jul 17, 2004
    Posts:
    14,681
    Likes Received:
    0
    Location:
    High velocity, Low altitude

    Works for China......
     
  13. gjk5

    gjk5 3/4 ton status

    Joined:
    Mar 17, 2004
    Posts:
    5,312
    Likes Received:
    0
    Location:
    Grand Junction, CO
    Yeah, but I don't want to limit people to on. Have as many as you want if you are a productive member of society.
     
  14. cbbr

    cbbr 1 ton status GMOTM Winner

    Joined:
    Jul 17, 2004
    Posts:
    14,681
    Likes Received:
    0
    Location:
    High velocity, Low altitude
    In theory, I don't disagree with you. I have very few core rules that I am hard and fast on - one is that children didn't generally cause the problem and should be protected. I really wish that stupid MF'ers would not have kids that they cannot take care of.

    I suppose that my problem with the idea is it's practical application. how do you determine who is (and will remain) "productive" and how do you determine whether a person is productive enough or has the potential and current work ethic to have one, or one more, child. Lots of hard working people don't make enough money to really be able to care for a child (again a sliding standard).
     
  15. Leper

    Leper 1/2 ton status

    Joined:
    Feb 18, 2005
    Posts:
    4,437
    Likes Received:
    0
    Location:
    Dallas Baby!!!!
    Get rid of welfare. Git rid of medical assistance for illegals.
    If you need help, you can depend on your friends and family. If you are an a$$clown who has no friends, that is not my problem. If you don't pay taxes and things to the government, don't expect help from it. We need to bring back natural selection and go back to hanging criminals. If people can no longer use a child as an excuse not to be productive, mabey, just mabey, they would get off of their butt and get a job.
    I can say these things, so can you. I was homeless once upon a time. I found a bed, I found a meal, I found a shower, and I found a job. With help from friends and family. I did not give up. I am not lazy. I worked with broken bones, I didn't work fast, but I worked.
    With the possible exception of being paralyzed, anyone can find a job.
     
  16. gjk5

    gjk5 3/4 ton status

    Joined:
    Mar 17, 2004
    Posts:
    5,312
    Likes Received:
    0
    Location:
    Grand Junction, CO


    In theory I don't disagree with myself either, in practice none of this is possible. It sounds really good when I write it out but there is no way any of my suggestions would actually work, for exactly the reasons you cited and then some.




    Hey, eugenics sounded like a really good idea too, until Goering, Mengele and the rest of those good old boys tried to apply it. :dunno:
     
  17. Resurrection_Joe

    Resurrection_Joe 1 ton status

    Joined:
    Jan 9, 2002
    Posts:
    17,372
    Likes Received:
    0
    Location:
    Gettysburg, SD
    Send Joe to church, deport or kill the rest

    I like it when churches help out on the ground, makes me almost want to go



    EDIT



    Of course, what in a person decides if they are going to depend on help lazily or use it in shame to pull themselves up? Who can't wash dishes and get a bare home with heat and eat bologna sandwiches? People who don't want to.
     
  18. beater_k20

    beater_k20 Banned

    Joined:
    Dec 9, 2003
    Posts:
    10,276
    Likes Received:
    0
    Location:
    Elkhart, IN
    no, in a situation like that, if she's not responsible enough to even know who the father of her children is, then chances are she's not responsible enough to have the children. there are plenty of families out there who want children, but cannot physically have them. hence, the children do not suffer, they are actually benefitted.
     
  19. newyorkin

    newyorkin 1 ton status

    Joined:
    May 8, 2001
    Posts:
    16,555
    Likes Received:
    157
    Location:
    Los Estados Unitos
    Disclaimer:

    The people are completely fictitious... They have faces in my head, but that's only because I wrote that on the train while looking at people standing on other platforms... :rotfl:
     
  20. B_to_C

    B_to_C 1/2 ton status Author

    Joined:
    Jan 15, 2003
    Posts:
    1,861
    Likes Received:
    1
    Location:
    In Government Housing
    I would have never been born :(

    I grew up on welfare ( back when I was a wee little kid) and lived in public housing until I went to college...

    My mother bought her first house three years ago, after living for over 20 years in fedderally subsidized housing. I remember as a kid, her working three jobs and still not having dinner some nights. She worked her ass off her entire life to riase her three kids all by herself, and yes sumetimes the government had to help her so that we could stay together as a family and get through it.

    I am now in college, well on my way to becoming a "productive member of society" My mother is still working her butt off, and will until the day she dies.

    ;)
     

Share This Page