Scrapping Welfare

  • Thread starter Thread starter IWantGod
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
Theo520 said:
I’ve also supported welfare with work, so we can accommodate those with lower skill levels receiving aid and still obtaining productive work.
Click to expand...
Goodwill Industries does that fairly well right now. I am sure that they have G$, but the concept is good.
 
DarkLight said:
I understand the concern with a permanent sub-class. My concern is that many plans to replace it seem to assume that if you just yank welfare they’ll go out and find well-paying jobs. The point many of us are making is that doesn’t really address those who are working or seeking work, but still don’t make enough to meet their own needs.
Click to expand...
you don’t seem to want to address this permanent subculture that is decimating the family. this is what your government welfare has accomplished. continuing welfare as it is today will continue the decline of the family.
 
upant said:
you don’t seem to want to address this permanent subculture that is decimating the family. this is what your government welfare has accomplished. continuing welfare as it is today will continue the decline of the family.
Click to expand...
Ok, I see this a lot, and I’m not sure where the “decimating the family” stuff is coming from. I haven’t seen any evidence that widespread single motherhood is being chosen to maximize welfare (and looking at my own liberal state, there’s almost no actual cash assistance you can get for children). If anything, the only major change I see is that the poor tend to use birth control less - it’s not like people who are better off don’t sleep around, they just resort to birth control and abortions.

Anyway, the point I was making with that post was that I’m open to a plan to replace it, but I don’t think replacing it with punitive measures is going to help. I haven’t really heard a plan that doesn’t seem to assume that if you just stopped providing welfare people would find better jobs. I’m not convinced that’s the case - especially given the number of people who are working or looking for work. Especially since retail is pretty much its own motivation to find another job.
 
po18guy said:
Rhetorical questions: Do we presume to be smarter than those who are climbing the ladder beneath us? Go back 100, 200 years. Were there piles of dead corpses in the streets? After all, there were no welfare programs back then. How to explain…

Our government “charity” has produced a generation of dependents. Has such a created class accomplished any of the great advancements in history?
Click to expand...
Yes, we should bring back local community run workhouses to take care of the poor. We can feed them a little gruel when they get hungry. And we can bring back debtors prisons, too. 😉
 
Last edited:
Of course ALL WELFARE/FOOD STAMPS/MEDICARE etc should be abolished as all these programs are paid for thru involuntary servitude, that is, slavery. The 13th amendment to the US Constitution abolished slavery, i.e., involuntary servitude though the US Gov’t (SCOTUS) later made “exceptions” (surprise!) for it such as the draft (1918) to force able bodied young men to fight overseas NOT in the defense of their country. When one is taxed on his private wealth/labor by the federal gov’t at the point of a gun, this is off-plantation slavery. This is how all of these entitlement programs are paid for. As another poster pointed out charity is voluntary, not obligatory. If one of the 50 states wants to act thusly one can leave that state relatively easily whereas to leave this country has a much higher degree of complexity and difficulty. Plus it is easier to change a state law vs. a federal law.
 
Plus welfare/aid to families with dependent children is scandalous as it rewards evil behavior (fornication). Then the children grow up without a father and numerous studies confirm that boys growing up in broken homes without a father to love/discipline them are at much higher risk of committing crime. This is not really rocket science. This is why fornication is a mortal sin because besides being offensive to God it is bad for individuals and society.
 
What does fornication have to do with wellfare?

And do you think that children without fathers will grow up better if they also don’t have any health care because we’ve abolished Medicaid? And maybe you think they’ll grow up better being hungry and malnourished, too, because we’ve abolished food stamps.
 
“Thorolfr said:
What does fornication have to do with wellfare?
+++ A lot. The federal program Aid to Families with Dependent Children by definition means a single parent household receiving the aid. The vast majority of these situations is a single mother who was never married to a man. This program, however, effectively replaces the male husband with the government as the husband taking care of the mother and babies. If one wants more of something subsidize it, if one wants less of something tax it (or penalize it some other way) and the incidence will decrease. This is, in large part, why blacks’ illegitimacy rate has sky rocketed from around 25% 50 yrs ago to 70% today (whites from 5% to 25%). Illegitimacy by definition means birth to parents not married to each other or in the US today a single mom with dad not around too much or else no federal benefit. This sky rocketing illegitimacy rate obviously reflects an increase in fornication which the woman has an incentive to commit as she will be financially rewarded. Add in the fact of a religious/cultural attitude of the Protestant religion that it is not essential to keep the commandments to be saved (just accept Jesus as your personal Lord and Saviour) and you’ve got the perfect mixture for large scale societal pathology. This is quite evident in ALL the major inner cities of this country.

And do you think that children without fathers will grow up better if they also don’t have any health care because we’ve abolished Medicaid?
+++ Children (and adults) were not dying in the streets prior to Medicaid (and food stamps) in the early to mid 1960‘s. Churches, Christian hospital, doctors worked pro bono for the poor back then. Not as much now due to Uncle Sugar Daddy stepping in. Besides, as mentioned above, Medicaid’s money comes from productive citizens at the point of a gun, in other words - tyranny. Also a violation of the 7th Commandment - Thou shalt not steal.

And maybe you think they’ll grow up better being hungry and malnourished, too, because we’ve abolished food stamps.
+++ Please see above response.
Click to expand...
 
Last edited:
CD45 said:
I’ve noticed some posters suggesting we should “kick the government out” and let the churches run our welfare programs. 90 percent of funding for our local Catholic Charities comes from federal and state sources. Only 2 percent comes from the Catholic Church. Our Catholic Charities budget is 31 million this year. Filling that 90 percent funding gap with bake sales and Bingo would be quite interesting.
Click to expand...
I’m quite curious what they are spending that much on in your local community.

I expect with less outside funding, they’d focus in on what really matters, and use a lot more volunteer help.
 
Last edited:
JOE_OBERR said:
A lot. The federal program Aid to Families with Dependent Children by definition means a single parent household receiving the aid. The vast majority of these situations is a single mother who was never married to a man. This program, however, effectively replaces the male husband with the government as the husband taking care of the mother and babies. If one wants more of something subsidize it, if one wants less of something tax it (or penalize it some other way) and the incidence will decrease. This is, in large part, why blacks’ illegitimacy rate has sky rocketed from around 25% 50 yrs ago to 70% today (whites from 5% to 25%). Illegitimacy by definition means birth to parents not married to each other or in the US today a single mom with dad not around too much or else no federal benefit. This sky rocketing illegitimacy rate obviously reflects an increase in fornication which the woman has an incentive to commit as she will be financially rewarded. Add in the fact of a religious/cultural attitude of the Protestant religion that it is not essential to keep the commandments to be saved (just accept Jesus as your personal Lord and Saviour) and you’ve got the perfect mixture for large scale societal pathology. This is quite evident in ALL the major inner cities of this country.
Click to expand...
First of all, do you think that these absentee fathers are going to suddenly come back and support their families if there were no welfare? And is it the fault of the children that their fathers are absent and that their mothers are not able to provide for them? Should they also be punished by being denied health care and food? And what makes you think that only Protestants are on welfare?
JOE_OBERR said:
Children (and adults) were not dying in the streets prior to Medicaid (and food stamps) in the early to mid 1960‘s. Churches, Christian hospital, doctors worked pro bono for the poor back then. Not as much now due to Uncle Sugar Daddy stepping in. Besides, as mentioned above, Medicaid’s money comes from productive citizens at the point of a gun, in other words - tyranny. Also a violation of the 7th Commandment - Thou shalt not steal.
Click to expand...
People weren’t dying on the streets, but life expectancy in the US in 1960 was 69.7 years whereas now it’s 78.7. That means that people in the US now are living 9 years longer on average, and at least part of that is because people now have better medical care than what they did back then and Medicare and Medicaid are a big part of that. Medical care has changed quite a lot since the 1950s and 1960s and is much better now. And it also costs significantly more than what it did then, too, including the costs for medications.

How are churches, Catholic hospitals and doctors going to pay for these much more expensive health care costs for poor people if there were no government programs to pay the costs?
 
Last edited:
JOE_OBERR said:
The federal program Aid to Families with Dependent Children by definition means a single parent household receiving the aid.
Click to expand...
That program doesn’t even exist by that name anymore. That hasn’t existed since 1996, and it wasn’t just for single parent families, either. No idea why you’d think that.
JOE_OBERR said:
Children (and adults) were not dying in the streets prior to Medicaid (and food stamps) in the early to mid 1960‘s.
Click to expand...
They’re not dying in the streets now, either. Good grief.
JOE_OBERR said:
Medicaid’s money comes from productive citizens at the point of a gun, in other words - tyranny.
Click to expand...
Then get off the grid and don’t pay taxes, then, since taxes are administered by a tyrannical government.
 
All too often, I find myself talking in circles with conservatives.

“Those poor people need to get a job and get off welfare.”
“They can’t go to work without subsidized childcare. Childcare is too expensive.”
“Then they should stay at home with the kids.”
“They can’t. They’re poor. They need money.”
 
Thorolfr said:
First of all, do you think that these absentee fathers are going to suddenly come back and support their families if there were no welfare? And is it the fault of the children that their fathers are absent and that their mothers are not able to provide for them? Should they also be punished by being denied health care and food? And what makes you think that only Protestants are on welfare?
Click to expand...
It would be a shift in culture, back to what we had before. Some men would step up of their own initiative and in other cases the mother would initiate bringing the father or a new parent back into the equation. It would probably have a greater impact on new relationships and how they are managed I expect.

Where the father doesn’t provide and the mother is also unable, the answer is obvious. The rights of the child outweigh the right of the mother to be an inept parent, the children should be removed until the time that the mother can be a functional parent, or the children should be adopted.

Even a below average foster home is far better than being with a parent who is incapable of actually being a parent. This ‘model’ behavior is teaching them the completely wrong lessons on being an adult.
 
Last edited:
Could it be that your arguments are circular?

You certainly cannot think that the current welfare system is just fine and needs no improvement except for massive influxes of cash?

That has been the progressive solution for 50+ years.

Good intentions? Probably.

Dismal results? Definitely.

I see no charity.
 
blackforest said:
All too often, I find myself talking in circles with conservatives.

“Those poor people need to get a job and get off welfare.”
“They can’t go to work without subsidized childcare. Childcare is too expensive.”
“Then they should stay at home with the kids.”
“They can’t. They’re poor. They need money.”
Click to expand...
maybe it’s your comprehension that’s the issue.

They do need to get to work, and in most cases affordable child care options can be arranged, though not 5 star.

Even if the net income is small, there is immense personal value for the mother to at least have part time work that teaches/maintains skills she will need when her kids are older and she has more time for employment.

My comments about being a stay at home mom were specific to a two parent home, where one would be working full time. If a single mom intends to be both breadwinner and parent, then she needs to fill both roles to some extent. The Govt makes a poor substitute for the sole breadwinner.
 
Last edited:
po18guy said:
Could it be that your arguments are circular?
Click to expand...
Which one?

No, the current welfare system could use a lot of improvement. TANF isn’t set to weather economic recession well, as the block grant funding hasn’t accounted for inflation, and a lot of these programs are overly paternalistic and disempowering.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top