Scrapping Welfare

  • Thread starter Thread starter IWantGod
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
po18guy said:
Poverty has increased.
Click to expand...
some like to say they have stabilized poverty; but, the numbers are skewed due to abortion,

can you imagine the poverty rate if margaret sanger didn’t start her eugenics program.

anyone read g.k. chesterton on eugenics?
 
po18guy said:
I remember the implementation of the “War on Poverty” in the Johnson administration. Since then, billions have been spent on eradicating poverty.

Poverty has increased.

If a law or program has proved detrimental, should it not be eliminated and replaced?
Click to expand...
Trillions have been spent, not billions.

I still think we need a legit safety net, and jobs, lots of jobs.
Impossible to force people off assistance when there is low demand for their services.
 
If they’re still poor, they’re either going to need higher wages or more welfare. Which is it?

Money for basic living expenses has to come from somewhere.
 
Whoa, not so fast! Where on earth did you get that idea? Medicare, although abused by the unscrupulous, actually provides medical care. I can vouch for that, having been on it since age 60.

The “welfare” programs have increased in spending exponentially while poverty has increased. Something is wrong, it is not? Good intentions only go so far. At some point, those programs have done more harm than good.
 
Margaret Sanger was referred to a a eugenicist, but only the last four letters were correct. Since PP targets minority communities, she was more properly a plain old racist.
 
Increased opportunity. You destroy their human dignity and self-esteem by making/inducing them to be dependent upon continuing government assistance.

The truly needy, mental health patients and the disabled all need a net. The able-bodied who are paid to stay home are the losers.

“Oh, but we need free daycare for the children.” Honestly, they could be raised by wolves and would turn out better in many cases.
 
po18guy said:
Increased opportunity.
Click to expand...
Too vague.

Where will the cold, hard cash to pay living expenses come from? The public or private sector?
po18guy said:
“Oh, but we need free daycare for the children.” Honestly, they could be raised by wolves and would turn out better in many cases.
Click to expand...
Every time someone on CAF replaces facts and data with generalizations or anecdotes, a cute and fuzzy bunny rabbit dies somewhere.

Ready for some data? Childcare in my state costs as much as college tuition. So if you want to see the poor earn their living expenses from jobs, they’re going to need to afford childcare.
 
From YOU! That’s where. Why must it always be someone else? Some agency? Some program?

If you give a person zero reason to be self-motivated, you have created a slave.
 
ucfengr said:
40.png
stinkcat_14:
It is amazing how fast those same conservatives backtrack when you suggest that maybe medicare should be taken care of by private donations.
Click to expand...
Markets work pretty well for everything else…
Click to expand...
It interesting how many so called conservatives become very hypocritical when it comes to Medicare.
 
You know, conservatives, those rascals, pay into it the same or more than you do. If they gave that up, would you then call them stupid? How can anyone who disagrees with you win? The deck is stacked worse than in Las Vegas.

Can we try to keep this a human issue, since politics poisons all discourse. While Medicare is a stingy program that you pay into your entire working life, we are stuck with it. A money pit that provides very little on investment. It does not pay unless it has to. It is always secondary to any other insurance.

By the same token, I receive letters from them advising me to use all of their services. What a dichotomy.

Still, government programs will always have their staunch defenders as, present company excepted, there are those who simply place more faith in government than in God.
 
po18guy said:
You know, conservatives, those rascals, pay into it the same or more than you do.
Click to expand...
Can you provide some evidence that so called conservatives pay at least as much into medicare as I do?
po18guy said:
If they gave that up, would you then call them stupid?
Click to expand...
What are they giving up? Medicare is a welfare program, not a contract. Nobody has a property right to welfare.
po18guy said:
A money pit that provides very little on investment. It does not pay unless it has to. It is always secondary to any other insurance.
Click to expand...
Explain this to me, if Medicare provides very little return on investment, then how come we have to subsidize parts B and D to the tune of $300 billion from general tax revenues? Tell me, why should our children and grandchildren have to pay these medicare parts B and D subsidies? Should it not be the responsibility of the recipient to pay the full premium himself?
 
ucfengr said:
Markets work pretty well for everything else…
Click to expand...
It’s more like “markets work well, except where they don’t.”

The market, by itself, is an uncaring force. If there’s too much of a product and not enough demand, then the prices will fall. They can even fall below where the cost to produce that good is, until the glut is over. In the case of regular commodities, this corrects itself when people stop making that good.

But to the market, labor itself is just another commodity. And if there’s more labor than demand, the rate for labor will fall. But unlike inanimate commodities, people can’t be left to sit on a shelf or thrown out, and we don’t end up with less people needing work because there aren’t jobs out there to support them.
 
how could any Catholic back this? I’m in Scotland and welfare looks after the most vulnerable in our society, removing it would be immoral IMO.
 
taribo said:
how could any Catholic back this? I’m in Scotland and welfare looks after the most vulnerable in our society, removing it would be immoral IMO.
Click to expand...
There is nothing in Catholic teaching that says welfare must be provided by the government. If a society can provide for the poor directly through private contributions there is nothing wrong with that. Whether or not a society can do that is up for debate, however.
 
stinkcat_14 said:
There is nothing in Catholic teaching that says welfare must be provided by the government. If a society can provide for the poor directly through private contributions there is nothing wrong with that. Whether or not a society can do that is up for debate, however.
Click to expand...
Right.

I think a lot of the problem is the fractured state of the church today. Private welfare tends to work best where you have a primary religion that is overseeing and coordinating the distribution, and where the majority of people in that area feel that they need to support that institution. That enables a coordinated welfare effort that is much harder to achieve in a situation where there are multiple institutions that may or may not cooperate, and many people don’t support any institution at all.
 
The million dollar question would be, are private contributions enough?

Will people be generous enough?
 
We must not neglect the most vulnerable of society. However when it becomes a way of life with three or four generations all dependent on welfare, you can see that welfare can become detrimental. Especially with the rising phenomenon of single motherhood.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top