Welfare has a good intention by nature. It is one of the most important things we have to keep in modern societies where everyone is responsible for his well-being. Its sounds contradictory here but in fact welfare is the excellent complement to this belief in self-reliance. While we are encouraged to be responsible for ourselves, unfortunately our society doesn't work in the ideal way that if one works hard he will succeed. There are always limitations to our success that we have no control over. We need welfare to help people who have tried their best but still get stuck in poverty. At this point it is meaningless to blame the individual because it"s not his fault and it's about survival and basic needs. Welfare is the convenient way to solve these problems before we have a good way to fix the system.
Good welfare guarantees a basic life-style for everyone, which also stabilizes the society and reduces risk factors. One of the benefits is reduction of crime rate.
If there is any problem with welfare, it's not because welfare is bad, but because of the poor way it is arranged and conducted.
I do not believe in welfare because it is not up to the government to tell people who they have to give their money to. I would prefer all the money go to the military then what would go to welfare.
Are you against tax? Taxation is basically the government telling you to give money it. If you simply don't like the governement telling you who you should give money to, than no matter how the government spend the money, you will not like it because it does not ask your permission before it spend the taxed money. You have no voice over how it spend but to pay taxes according to the law.
You prefer all the money going to the military but not to welfare, so in fact it is not that you dislike government telling you who you should give money to, but that you dislike welfare. Therefore your very first argument is invalid.
(I'm not going into military since it is not the topic here)
Welfare is like feeding wild animals you keep giving them money they wont go working for it. Some people on welfare don't deserve free money.
Yes it's true that some don't deserve, but some do. What about the people in need? You can't get rid of welfare because there are some people who don't deserve. Again it is not the problem of welfare per se, but the problem of it's actualization, the policies and implementation of welfare. The welfare systems can be improved to reduce waste.
My dad used to say nothing in life is free except welfare and hate.
Welfare is not free. People on welfare did contribute to society before they get on welfare. Chances are that they did pay taxes before that as well.
Think about the criteria of welfare. Poverty is the obvious one. Who are the people in poverty? Unemployed, working-class people, single moms, etc. The unemployed are employed before. Single moms are great people who work and take care of their kids at the same time. A lot of them have low-paying menial jobs. Don't tell me that they deserve poverty because they choose low-paying jobs. These jobs, no matter who are doing them, have to be filled by some people. Would engineers, doctors and bank managers take them? No! Working class people contribute to societies in the way that these engineers, doctors, and bank managers don't and won't. We are just helping people who are having a hard time. But I agree that there should be more effective ways to determine whether the person on welfare fit the criteria anymore after a period of time.
Even welfare has economic values. Let say I get $1000 from the government this month, I will SPEND the money. I use the money to buy stuff, pay my rent, etc. Public homeless shelter has employees. These are job positions.
And welfare doesn't mean everything. Not many people can depend totally on welfare for everything.
Bottom line its not the governments job to give people money and take it from others. There are good people who will give to charities.
You can't depend only on these good people who give to charities. These deeds can not be compared to government welfare in terms of geographic scale, efficiency, and management. And it has totally different meaning behind. Private charity makes welfare a charity, a donation from the richer to the poorer. Public welfare elevates that. It promotes the idea that we ought to help each other through hard times because we are in the same countries. The point is not whether or not it is the government job, but that we should help the people of our countries when necessary.
Also on average more Republicans Donate money then Democrats.
Lol good to hear that Republicans! No I'm neither Republican or Democrats. I lean to Democrats more but I don't want to limit myself to either parties
Well my point was giving it to a person or non government organization like what Obamas doing with Big Bird.
catholicConservative20 forfeited this round.
Again you can’t depend on the good people donating to private charity. Of course it’s very generous for them to do so, but we can’t just rely on them. A national welfare system is necessary because it makes sure that those who are in need get helped. Private charity and public welfare have two different meanings. Private charity is just charity. Public welfare is grand. We should care about and help each other because we are fellows living in the same country. It gives a sense of duty. It promotes compassion. Anyone who value compassion should support public welfare, whether or not you are going to donate to private charity. The following expresses my point exactly:
“The worst thing Ronald Reagan did was to make the denial of compassion respectable. He said you’ve worked hard, you’ve made your money, you shouldn’t have to feel guilty about refusing to throw it away on people who choose to be homeless and who choose not to work. That’s what he said. He said it with an elegance and kind of a benign aspect that disguised it’s harshness.” –Mario Cuomo, governor, New York 1982-95, from The Century of The Self
Let’s put aside this ideal and ideology and talk about the practical side. Public welfare has its practical benefit. By economically helping people in hardship, you make the society more stable, thus reducing risk factors and crime rate and other possible complications. Even though there are “crackheads who shouldn’t have children in the first place,” the fact is that the children are already there. It does help to blame the parents. The more important thing is securing the children, who are innocent. Feeding them, putting them to school, and all that will help preventing them loitering on the street and using drugs and preventing them from becoming the next generation of crackheads. It’s true that welfare is not always that effective, but it reduces the risk. Of course we hate those who stick to welfare forever but all these problems can be solved by modifying the system, but we should not eliminate welfare
catholicConservative20 forfeited this round.
I think the debate is over?