First  Prev  1  2  3  4  5  6  7  8  9  10  11  12  13  14  15  Next  Last
Is Welfare A Bad Thing? Can People Get Decent Paying Jobs If They Want To?
11497 cr points
Send Message: Send PM GB Post
Offline
Posted 3/20/15

DarkFrostX wrote:


Makes sense, but as you say, it is down to personal philosophy,

Most of what you wrote is very opinionated, and most people can not tell me logically why greed is a bad thing, nor can they use economics to prove their point with out violating another economic school of thought.

Humans are naturally greedy, we all have committed some kind of greed before, even if we did not notice it.

I understand the kind of world people want, but for the most part, it's fantasy.


This sounds as though you don't want to first establish a basis for 'tell me logically'. If you want some 'god given greed is universally evil because so says the universe' then no, that isn't possible, but nothing could be a 'bad thing' by such a grand scale because ultimately humans are kinda irrelevant to nature.

When talking about ethics and morality in a society, it's generally wise to provide a framework. You've been given multiple frameworks, and rejected them out of hand without really explaining what you are using as a standard for evaluating 'good and bad' in the first place.

Is your evaluation of 'moral good and bad' based entirely on economic arguments, and so if you heard an argument which doesn't violate some set 'economic school of thought' you've adopted, would you find 'greed bad' by that standard? Or do you use other standards for evaluating if something is 'good or bad'?

I've got quite a few reasons why I call 'greed' bad, and can mostly pick and choose from a number of different lines of argument. But they don't mean much if no standard is allowed to be established.
3910 cr points
Send Message: Send PM GB Post
26 / M / Pandemonium
Offline
Posted 3/20/15

DarkFrostX
Makes sense, but as you say, it is down to personal philosophy,

Most of what you wrote is very opinionated, and most people can not tell me logically why greed is a bad thing
, nor can they use economics to prove their point with out violating another economic school of thought.

Humans are naturally greedy, we all have committed some kind of greed before, even if we did not notice it.

I understand the kind of world people want, but for the most part, it's fantasy.


But then again, that is the case for most things. Even with things such as murder.
It all depends on one's personal philosophy and ideals for how people and society should be.
The only real difference is that murder is more extreme than greed is.

The logic lies in that compassion to our fellow humans and helping each other makes society as a whole a better place for as many people as possible. Same as human rights.

And yes. Greed is something that lies naturally for many. But the thing is, that we have evolved far enough to take control over ourselves. To not be slaves to the reptile brain.
As such, just as we should (imo) make efforts to not give in to our tendencies to be ignorant, narrow-minded and xenophobic, we should also make efforts to not give in to (or at least generally not live by) our tendencies towards greed and selfishness.

And it's not a fantasy. Many people try to live by it as much as possible. Me included.
It's not an unreachable goal. It's not unrealistic. Some countries, like the scandinavian ones for instance, have come quite far, proving that it is in fact a goal that can be reached.
And the fact that it IS a goal that is achievable is part of what makes me despise the people who work against it so immensely.
9200 cr points
Send Message: Send PM GB Post
35 / M
Offline
Posted 3/20/15

DarkFrostX wrote:


kingjonnyoftown wrote:

Everyone deserves the means to live their life. Current means/eligibility tested welfare systems need to be replaced with an unconditional minimum income for everyone. As technology advances, there are going to be less and less jobs. Already there are lots of people wasting their lives away in jobs that could be replaced by machines, or just not done at all. These jobs only still exist because of the outdated idea that everyone should have to earn a living by generating profit, and that the only worthwhile activity is activity that generates profit.

An unconditional minimum income would eradicate poverty, cost less than current welfare systems, improve public mental and physical health, and when it's been tested in the past, it even decreases unemployment, since more people can afford to work less hours. Every time it's been tested, it's also caused economic growth in general, by increasing everyone's spending power.

Libertarians and other conservatives are petty, greedy children who have obviously lived incredibly sheltered lives, and their wilful ignorance is holding back the advancement of civilisation.


Someone has yet to explain to me how greed is a bad thing? why are people pushing their morality on to other people?

Is keeping what I earn and spending it on what I want such a bad thing?

Advancement of civilization? that's subjective, some view advancements in many different lights, there is no "advancement" it's all opinionated.


Your greed versus mine. Who will kill who over the last silver coin?
209 cr points
Send Message: Send PM GB Post
29 / Albuquerque,NM
Offline
Posted 3/20/15
LOL NOOOO!O

Is wellfare and social security the same?

16295 cr points
Send Message: Send PM GB Post
24 / M / Midland, Texas
Offline
Posted 3/20/15

Syndicaidramon wrote:


DarkFrostX
Makes sense, but as you say, it is down to personal philosophy,

Most of what you wrote is very opinionated, and most people can not tell me logically why greed is a bad thing
, nor can they use economics to prove their point with out violating another economic school of thought.

Humans are naturally greedy, we all have committed some kind of greed before, even if we did not notice it.

I understand the kind of world people want, but for the most part, it's fantasy.


But then again, that is the case for most things. Even with things such as murder.
It all depends on one's personal philosophy and ideals for how people and society should be.
The only real difference is that murder is more extreme than greed is.

The logic lies in that compassion to our fellow humans and helping each other makes society as a whole a better place for as many people as possible. Same as human rights.

And yes. Greed is something that lies naturally for many. But the thing is, that we have evolved far enough to take control over ourselves. To not be slaves to the reptile brain.
As such, just as we should (imo) make efforts to not give in to our tendencies to be ignorant, narrow-minded and xenophobic, we should also make efforts to not give in to (or at least generally not live by) our tendencies towards greed and selfishness.

And it's not a fantasy. Many people try to live by it as much as possible. Me included.
It's not an unreachable goal. It's not unrealistic. Some countries, like the scandinavian ones for instance, have come quite far, proving that it is in fact a goal that can be reached.
And the fact that it IS a goal that is achievable is part of what makes me despise the people who work against it so immensely.



However, the mindsets of the people in the Scandinavian countries are different from those in America. The demographics are quite different there as well combined with the fact that the ideologies that the people share are different as well. The reason for this, according to friends I have over there, is that the vision the majority of people have for the future of their country's are more similar than the ones in America.

It is a goal that is achievable, but only when a result is envisioned by a majority of the populace and it isn't abused like it is in America. Another words depending on the people within the country, it can be achievable but, you will have your answer as to whether the end result (i.e. only temporarily taking welfare and getting a job as fast as possible) is actually going to play out and have a positive impact for the country's future. This is something that some people in America lack, self reflection and dedication to self sufficiency. Until this mindset can be changed it is an achievable goal, but not practical to pursue for the future of the country itself.
21606 cr points
Send Message: Send PM GB Post
23 / M / Hell
Offline
Posted 3/20/15 , edited 3/20/15

staphen wrote:


DarkFrostX wrote:

Someone has yet to explain to me how greed is a bad thing? why are people pushing their morality on to other people?

Is keeping what I earn and spending it on what I want such a bad thing?

Advancement of civilization? that's subjective, some view advancements in many different lights, there is no "advancement" it's all opinionated.


I've never liked the argument that I, as an individual citizen, should be allowed to choose which of the government's programs I pay for. Once you've paid your taxes, that money is paid to the government. It is no longer yours. What you, as an individual, would have spent it on is no longer relevant.

When considering how a government should be spending its money, you should be weighing the benefits and deficits that certain types of spending have on society. Much like how I think Crunchyroll should be spending its money in order to continue bringing me the latest in anime, I would prefer that my government spend its money in order to continue providing services that help protect the citizens who live here.

Arguments like, "You can't tell me why greed is a bad thing, therefore it must be okay for me to think that we should do away with welfare," ignore the basic premise. You haven't been able to prove that welfare is bad for society. You're the one pushing your morality onto the government and, by extension, the people who live with you in your society.


I'll be honest, I have no idea what the hell you're ranting about.
The government was elected by us, if they spent money on a program that was doing something ethically disgusting and illegal, would you also deem that as irrelevant because it's now the government's money and they can do what they want with it? does that diminish the fact that it was us "individuals" laboring that allowed for those taxes to be payed in the first place?
Also, who cares that you view it as irrelevant, that's your' opinion, as it is mines that we shouldn't be paying for such programs that has failed to provide us with their intended purposes.

A

rguments like, "You can't tell me why greed is a bad thing, therefore it must be okay for me to think that we should do away with welfare," ignore the basic premise. You haven't been able to prove that welfare is bad for society. You're the one pushing your morality onto the government and, by extension, the people who live with you in your society


How the hell am I pushing anything on the government and society if it's the government that is taking my earnings (by force) and doing what ever the hell they want with it? seriously? this paragraph is rather insulting and condescending, "I can't prove welfare is bad for society?" right... here is the thing, you and every bleeding heart up to this point has also failed to prove how welfare is "good" for society, at least without injecting some form of morality (which is subjective) in to it. The "War On Poverty" has yet to sing a victory song, and at the rate it's going, it never will.



When considering how a government should be spending its money, you should be weighing the benefits and deficits that certain types of spending have on society. Much like how I think Crunchyroll should be spending its money in order to continue bringing me the latest in anime, I would prefer that my government spend its money in order to continue providing services that help protect the citizens who live here.


Um, that's what I'm doing? as I've said before, I don't think it should be spent on failed/failing programs? hello?! Chrunchyoll is a terrible example, Crunchyroll is a private company getting direct cash from us "individuals", if they screw up their services, I can easily drop them and look for someone else (free market). Welfare Programs I have no choice but to pay for them because the government says so.

You made a bold claim about me pushing my morality on the government, and you have failed to provide evidence of that, I'm not fighting for welfare programs to be over turned, nor am I active in any political foundations that seeks to do so, I'm just some guy on a forum, who probably got way to deep in to this pointless topic.

The question that the OP ask was "Is Welfare A Bad Thing? Can People Get Decent Paying Jobs If They Want To?"

While I failed to answer the question correctly, No where in my original rant was I forcing my beliefs on to others.
I simply said "I didn't care about people I didn't/don't know", then the Kumbaya liberals jumped all up and down my ass, for saying that, while ironically forcing their beliefs on to me, and yes they are "beliefs" because no one here can explain to me using "empirical evidence" as to why me being greedy (what the conversation was about anyways) and wanting to keep most of what I earn is negatively effecting anyone other than them and their holier than thou inflated egos.

Posted 3/20/15

santesyu wrote:

LOL NOOOO!O

Is wellfare and social security the same?





I don't want to step in that land mine.
3910 cr points
Send Message: Send PM GB Post
26 / M / Pandemonium
Offline
Posted 3/20/15 , edited 3/20/15

archersea9 wrote:


Syndicaidramon wrote:


DarkFrostX
Makes sense, but as you say, it is down to personal philosophy,

Most of what you wrote is very opinionated, and most people can not tell me logically why greed is a bad thing
, nor can they use economics to prove their point with out violating another economic school of thought.

Humans are naturally greedy, we all have committed some kind of greed before, even if we did not notice it.

I understand the kind of world people want, but for the most part, it's fantasy.


But then again, that is the case for most things. Even with things such as murder.
It all depends on one's personal philosophy and ideals for how people and society should be.
The only real difference is that murder is more extreme than greed is.

The logic lies in that compassion to our fellow humans and helping each other makes society as a whole a better place for as many people as possible. Same as human rights.

And yes. Greed is something that lies naturally for many. But the thing is, that we have evolved far enough to take control over ourselves. To not be slaves to the reptile brain.
As such, just as we should (imo) make efforts to not give in to our tendencies to be ignorant, narrow-minded and xenophobic, we should also make efforts to not give in to (or at least generally not live by) our tendencies towards greed and selfishness.

And it's not a fantasy. Many people try to live by it as much as possible. Me included.
It's not an unreachable goal. It's not unrealistic. Some countries, like the scandinavian ones for instance, have come quite far, proving that it is in fact a goal that can be reached.
And the fact that it IS a goal that is achievable is part of what makes me despise the people who work against it so immensely.



However, the mindsets of the people in the Scandinavian countries are different from those in America. The demographics are quite different there as well combined with the fact that the ideologies that the people share are different as well. The reason for this, according to friends I have over there, is that the vision the majority of people have for the future of their country's are more similar than the ones in America.

It is a goal that is achievable, but only when a result is envisioned by a majority of the populace and it isn't abused like it is in America. Another words depending on the people within the country, it can be achievable but, you will have your answer as to whether the end result (i.e. only temporarily taking welfare and getting a job as fast as possible) is actually going to play out and have a positive impact for the country's future. This is something that some people in America lack, self reflection and dedication to self sufficiency. Until this mindset can be changed it is an achievable goal, but not practical to pursue for the future of the country itself.



Indeed. I forget that the US is so different from Scandinavia sometimes. But yeah, it is very different. Especially in the mindset of the general populace.
Which is why I'm so thankful that I live in Scandinavia rather than the US. Especially considering the long list of medical issues that my family has faced.

I can say without a doubt that if me and my family had lived in the US, we would've been bankrupt long ago. My sister would've been dead for sure, and I would at best have been stuck in a job I hated with severe depression. Though quite possibly dead, considering my recent health issues.
This is why I consider the lack of welfare and universal healthcare to be akin to social darwinism. Because there are many people and families who really, really need it and who will have their lives destroyed or even ended if they don't have access to it. And we are one of those.

But none of that is the case. Instead, I have a fairly good life. I have had so far, and seemingly, the future is looking not so dark either. And all of that I owe to the fact that I am lucky enough to live in a country that values the lives of people and overall happiness of the population at large more than the greed of the individual.
Posted 3/20/15
Like I say I am staying away from what is what and what is not. I hear enough fighting has it is on YouTube, I don't need a memo.
21606 cr points
Send Message: Send PM GB Post
23 / M / Hell
Offline
Posted 3/20/15 , edited 3/20/15

Syndicaidramon wrote:


DarkFrostX
Makes sense, but as you say, it is down to personal philosophy,

Most of what you wrote is very opinionated, and most people can not tell me logically why greed is a bad thing
, nor can they use economics to prove their point with out violating another economic school of thought.

Humans are naturally greedy, we all have committed some kind of greed before, even if we did not notice it.

I understand the kind of world people want, but for the most part, it's fantasy.


But then again, that is the case for most things. Even with things such as murder.
It all depends on one's personal philosophy and ideals for how people and society should be.
The only real difference is that murder is more extreme than greed is.

The logic lies in that compassion to our fellow humans and helping each other makes society as a whole a better place for as many people as possible. Same as human rights.

And yes. Greed is something that lies naturally for many. But the thing is, that we have evolved far enough to take control over ourselves. To not be slaves to the reptile brain.
As such, just as we should (imo) make efforts to not give in to our tendencies to be ignorant, narrow-minded and xenophobic, we should also make efforts to not give in to (or at least generally not live by) our tendencies towards greed and selfishness.

And it's not a fantasy. Many people try to live by it as much as possible. Me included.
It's not an unreachable goal. It's not unrealistic. Some countries, like the scandinavian ones for instance, have come quite far, proving that it is in fact a goal that can be reached.
And the fact that it IS a goal that is achievable is part of what makes me despise the people who work against it so immensely.


It is a fantasy in my opinion, and no, it is not going to ever be fully achievable, doesn't matter the country either, and unless you brainwash everyone (like what was done in the movie Equilibrium) so that all of the populace can agree, LOL! Without that, Not going to happen! People couldn't even agree on the color of a freaking dress the other day on the internet, hell! you and I can't even agree with each other on greed. I disagree with the Kumbaya world that lots of people foolishly believe in (in my opinion), as long as we have humans, there will never be full agreements, that's why we (in 2015) still have racist, homophobes, sexist, Xenophobes, ect...

This world you speak of exist in the minds, and in the minds only.

I don't view the world as you do, that rift alone is enough to tear your dream apart, but if you want to dream, then by all means, don't let anyone stop you. You are in a different country than I am, and probably grew up in a different environment than I have, we don't think a like most likely because of that.

So I'll end this conversation with a cliche.

Let's agree to disagree. Good day.
3910 cr points
Send Message: Send PM GB Post
26 / M / Pandemonium
Offline
Posted 3/20/15 , edited 3/20/15

DarkFrostX wrote:

It is a fantasy in my opinion, and no, it is not going to ever be fully achievable, doesn't matter the country either, and unless you brainwash everyone (like what was done in the movie Equilibrium) so that all of the populace can agree, LOL! Without that, Not going to happen! People couldn't even agree on the color of a freaking dress the other day on the internet, hell! you and I can't even agree with each other on greed. I disagree with the Kumbaya world that lots of people foolishly believe in (in my opinion), as long as we have humans, there will never be full agreements, that's why we (in 2015) still have racist, homophobes, sexist, Xenophobes, ect...

This world you speak of exist in the minds, and in the minds only.

I don't view the world as you do, that rift alone is enough to tear your dream apart, but if you want to dream, then by all means, don't let anyone stop you. You are in a different country than I am, and probably grew up in a different environment than I have, we don't think a like most likely because of that.

So I'll end this conversation with a cliche.

Let's agree to disagree. Good day.



Indeed there will never be full unity. However, a small minority will rarely, if ever, dictate lawmaking. Which is why slavery is no longer legal for instance. And if a big enough part of the population agrees with something, it will become the norm. As it has in large part in scandinavia, at least to a certain degree. Certainly a lot more than in the US.

If you were to be an american who supported people like Mitt Romney and his ilk, who want to remove universal healthcare and welfare so that they can earn more than the already far too much money that they already have, and you were to visit Scandinavia -- you'd be wise to keep that to yourself lest you'd want to be met with ice cold stares by everyone who overheard you.
You'd be considered as a massive douchebag, almost universally, and you would be hard pressed to find anyone who sympathize with you.

In regards to the dress... come on now. Surely you understand that what was a matter of visual perception that could vary depending on what screen/monitor it was viewed upon is not comparable to an ideological issue. Don't be foolish.

And sure. We still have racists/sexists/homophobes/xenophobes today. But there are also far fewer of them compared to the overall population than before. And as enlightenment and education continues to spread, those numbers will continue to dwindle.
So to say that it will never, ever happen is rather short-sighted, and the way I interprate it, more a result of your own personal bias rather than anything else.

Like I said, the minority will not determine big factors like economic models. Not in a democracy anyway. Which is why your solitary rift will not make any difference. You would not last two seconds in scandinavian politics, because you would not have the general public on your side. As such you would be powerless. And as long as the general populace is on the side of caring about the population at large rather than the selfish individuals, you will lose.

I would agree to disagree and part peacefully if I didn't despise your position -- the position that would leave people to die so that you could make a little more money -- so immensely.
You may disagree with me if you want, and that's fine. That's your right.
But as with racists, homophobes, sexists, etc. I will still resent you for holding these beliefs. Because quite frankly, you're not much better than either of those types of people.

You are, at the end of the day, a social darwinist.
61159 cr points
Send Message: Send PM GB Post
27 / M
Offline
Posted 3/20/15

DarkFrostX wrote:

I'll be honest, I have no idea what the hell you're ranting about.
The government was elected by us, if they spent money on a program that was doing something ethically disgusting and illegal, would you also deem that as irrelevant because it's now the government's money and they can do what they want with it? does that diminish the fact that it was us "individuals" laboring that allowed for those taxes to be payed in the first place?
Also, who cares that you view it as irrelevant, that's your' opinion, as it is mines that we shouldn't be paying for such programs that has failed to provide us with their intended purposes.


I don't think I need to tell you since you admitted it yourself in your first sentence, but you pretty much missed the point. If the government spent their money on a program that was doing something ethically disgusting and illegal, then it can be argued that the program is detrimental to society. Are you saying that it's ethically disgusting and illegal to be providing welfare to citizens who can't afford to make a living?


How the hell am I pushing anything on the government and society if it's the government that is taking my earnings (by force) and doing what ever the hell they want with it? seriously? this paragraph is rather insulting and condescending, "I can't prove welfare is bad for society?" right... here is the thing, you and every bleeding heart up to this point has also failed to prove how welfare is "good" for society, at least without injecting some form of morality (which is subjective) in to it. The "War On Poverty" has yet to sing a victory song, and at the rate it's going, it never will.


The government provides services that are meant to be used by its citizens. Society in this case is the group of people who are governed. By participating as a member of society, you are making use of and benefiting from government programs and services whether you like it or not. It's the nature of the beast. Hell, even the currency you claim ownership on is provided to you by a system that is regulated by the government. Taxes are your payment for services rendered by the government. If you don't want to pay them to your government, then YOU are the one that is stealing. If choice is what you're after, there are at least as many governments as there are countries in the world.

As for whether I am able to prove that welfare is good for society, the answer is no. I have neither the depth of knowledge nor the expertise concerning the welfare system to offer a valuable argument in welfare's defense. Rather my point was that you aren't providing a valuable argument against welfare. Turning this around on me doesn't help your case.


Um, that's what I'm doing? as I've said before, I don't think it should be spent on failed/failing programs? hello?! Chrunchyoll is a terrible example, Crunchyroll is a private company getting direct cash from us "individuals", if they screw up their services, I can easily drop them and look for someone else (free market). Welfare Programs I have no choice but to pay for them because the government says so.

You made a bold claim about me pushing my morality on the government, and you have failed to provide evidence of that, I'm not fighting for welfare programs to be over turned, nor am I active in any political foundations that seeks to do so, I'm just some guy on a forum, who probably got way to deep in to this pointless topic.

The question that the OP ask was "Is Welfare A Bad Thing? Can People Get Decent Paying Jobs If They Want To?"

While I failed to answer the question correctly, No where in my original rant was I forcing my beliefs on to others.
I simply said "I didn't care about people I didn't/don't know", then the Kumbaya liberals jumped all up and down my ass, for saying that, while ironically forcing their beliefs on to me, and yes they are "beliefs" because no one here can explain to me using "empirical evidence" as to why me being greedy (what the conversation was about anyways) and wanting to keep most of what I earn is negatively effecting anyone other than them and their holier than thou inflated egos.


By asserting that you should be able to pick and choose what government programs you pay for, you are rejecting the premise that the government should be promoting a healthy society. Given that the government provides services to not only you, but also everyone in your society, any decisions made about government spending should be made while considering the effect that decision has on them AND you. Otherwise, you will only be pushing your own personal, individual, selfish, and greedy morals onto the government. Greed should be very obviously incompatible with government policies.
19574 cr points
Send Message: Send PM GB Post
23 / M / missouri
Offline
Posted 3/20/15
Welfare is not bad it is however not fare ether. It helps people who are poor survive and increases there chances of getting better jobs considerably.

The issue is, low paying jobs go to low skilled workers. Those workers at low skilled jobs are usually never taught valuable skills, because it costs time and money that businesses don't want to spend, when they can find someone who went to college and paid for there own training. So that person ends up working at (insert big corporation here) for 10 years and never learns to do anything they couldn't do when they were a child.

Welfare in essence is just a mandatory minimum wage that calculates how many kids you have and your disabilities. If an employer doesn't pay you what the government thinks is liveable instead of saying you have to let them work more or give them a raise they give tax money to the individual. Welfare abuse is simply tax fraud and I think it should be punished as such.
31839 cr points
Send Message: Send PM GB Post
Offline
Posted 3/20/15 , edited 3/20/15

PeripheralVisionary wrote:

I overheard a classmate of mine saying welfare was a bad thing, so now I'm confuddled.
its not a bad thing for people that really needs it like disabled people and the like.there are people that clearly dont need it and you can see it when they have goldteeth,pretty cars and clothes.if you know what i mean? as a matter of fact,this is one of the little things that makes america great because there's help for those that are infirm and fatherless.some conservatives wants to scrap this program in favor of balancing the budget or whatever but the moment this country ceases to help the truly needy thats the moment that it will cease to be great



21448 cr points
Send Message: Send PM GB Post
46 / M / Between yesterday...
Offline
Posted 3/21/15

IngramIV wrote:

If anyone state here that "From each according to his ability, to each according to his need" Marxism maxim is wrong.
Lets remember that property is the base of the modern freedom. and welfare can only exist like a base of early adoption of people getting in the cycle of economics.


Can't own property if you can't find a job, can't own property if you are homeless, the list goes on, property has little to do with actually freedom it is a the window dressing of success in life success comes from work. Now than if you are unable to work do to any number of reasons biggest being disability to the economy being in the crappier. How are you free?

Freedom is the ability to be treat as an equal in your society to have a voice in how you are governed. The Constitution only refers to due process under the law when it comes to property. Which granted may look like it is part of freedom but that only deals with how the government can take it from you if you have committed a crime.

The first poor house in Washington DC was established in 1806 it was established by the federal government to take care of those who were unable to cope with society for varies reasons. James Madison first veto was to stop the government from give funds to a church to fill the role of providing welfare he felt and rightly so that it was the governments job to take care of folks. He was the primary writer of the Constitution. Thomas Paine in Agrarian Justice set out how to establish what we call Social Security. So many of the founding fathers wanted governments role to be one that helped those in need.

Social Security Insurance is insurance against old age and disability the reason this program was created was to deal with an actual problem society faced old folks going bust when they can no longer work and what little savings they had drying up leaving them with nothing. Same went for those that were disabled at the time, so this actually helps folks keep their homes and put food on the table and buy property.

Medicare is old folks insurance for medical it was created because no public insurance company want to insure old people, it was really bad folks were getting wiped out because of one illness that or dieing because they couldn't get treatment no insurance all out of pocket. It is actually designed to have th e age dropped so we could include more people in it and at some point have all citizens covered under it the tax on it would be about 7% about 3% more than what you pay right now for it.

Medicaid is health insurance for folks how are dead broke they still need coverage and health-care as well and it is better than them dieing in the street or going further into debt.

Private charity isn't able to do it! There are to many people in this country now, so we as a country need to step up to help those who don't have the ability to get the leg up they need. Private charity doesn't have the money and in cases where it is from the a church shouldn't be funded by the government to provide the service it should be done by the government. James Madison would freak if he saw what we are doing now.

Things that should be covered by the government.
1. Education K through University we loose a huge competitive edge in business because of how we make people pay for education, at one point in time it was so cheap it may as well have been free and guess what we did great because of this, highest levels of education in the history of the country.
2. Health insurance everyone needs it don't lie everyone gets hurt at some point and needs to go to the doctor. The I will pay for it out of pocket group have no idea what it really cost for some stuff it gets pricey fast. Appendix's one in four people will need it removed fifty grand just to start not counting complications.

Help when needed
Welfare food on the table roof over the head basic needs. Social Security is not welfare.
Unemployment insurance you get laid off fired for no fault of your own contract expires hey it helps.
Food stamps everyone needs to eat the amount of actually fraud in this program is at 1.3 percent roughly.

Now the economics of it.
Friedman would state if the problem with the poor was a lack of money the government should give them some. His view was a negative income tax wow this is really socialistic. You get a credit based on how much you earned per month. This is part of the idea behind the fair tax. Won't debate that here if you want to start a thread, I will happily show why it is bunk there.

Keynes was of the same mind set and went a little further the government should employ people during economic down turns didn't matter what they did just as long as they were doing something. This why Roosevelt has so many public works projects going on during the great depression. And why the economy started moving again during down turns the government should be the spender of last resort. WW2 was nothing but government spending which helped a lot sure we didn't get damage like Europe, but what got the economy going was everyone spending money. We then setup positive feed back loops cheap education good trade policies higher taxes on the rich to make sure they pay their fair share. The economy went like gang busters everyone did better.

The reason both men put this idea forward was because both understood a basic fact about how economies work. They work by folks spending money the more money those at the bottom have in their pocket the more they are able to spend the more property they can own. They move up in society they become more equal you add in cheap or free education and this becomes a positive feedback loop. the more people spend and the better educations they get the better jobs they can get the more money they get it just builds on itself. Rich don't spend enough there aren't enough of them to actually move the economy. Jobs are only created when demand for products increases, why would you hire someone if there isn't any demand for the goods.

But this means you have to have sane trade policies and a fair labor market. Unions help with this yes they have a bad rap but guess hat they are democracy in the work place. The level the power between the employees and the employer this is good because some bosses can be total tools. unions also improve the prevailing wages in the states they are in they raise the wage floor for the job market. The real reason business likes right to work is it lets them cut wages over time. So yeah right to work for less look it up you will be shocked.

In closing if someone say welfare isn't good they aren't thinking for themselves. They haven't imagined themselves unemployed or disabled or even old. But these things happen and they government should be there with a hand up to help you back on your feet or if you can't get back on your feet to make sure you don't live on the streets and die in the gutter.

Don't believe me watch "Income Inequality for All" great little movie that makes this topic easy to understand, I strongly recommend it to everyone even if you agree with me.
First  Prev  1  2  3  4  5  6  7  8  9  10  11  12  13  14  15  Next  Last
You must be logged in to post.