Total Posts:120|Showing Posts:1-30|Last Page
Jump to topic:

The Role of Welfare - why we need it

ErenBalkir
Posts: 157
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
8/28/2015 8:11:36 PM
Posted: 1 year ago
I know a lot of you here dislike the idea of welfare in any form. This is because you feel that those who need it are lazy and just aren't trying hard enough. This is nonsense. The vast majority of those unemployed are either in frictional unemployment, seasonal unemployment, structural unemployment or cyclical unemployment . None of these are as a result of "laziness" or a an unwillingness to work. Therefore those that find themselves falling into one of these 4 categories of unemployment - through no direct fault of their own - should receive support in terms of income and training.

Next are those that work but are still living in poverty as a result of low wages (most of the poor work) . Now the progressive position is to raise the minimum wage. That is bad. Instead I support a system of negative income tax as proposed by the libertarian Milton Friedman (if you disagree with me, u disagree with him ). This ensures that no-one will ever find themselves below a certain level of income.

Now that principle is just like giving a starving person, food, drink and shelter. These add up to a basic income. Therefore we all, to a degree, support the idea of a basic income. The question is how high. I say, in the wealthiest country on earth, you shouldn't live in poverty and so the level will be high enough to ensure that.

A number of you feel that we cannot afford it. If you believed taxing the wealthy slows down growth, lowers investment and messes up incentives, you would be right. There would be no way to fund it. But the truth, that the rich try to hide, is that taxing the wealthy removes money from the economy ( of course ) but it injects it again by giving it to consumers who desperately need to spend it. This GROWS the economy and instead of production being geared towards yachts and jets, it is geared towards housing and food.

Ultimately, our objective in government policy is to improve the standard of living for as many of our citizens as possible ( mainly by increasing income, bu through other social and environmental ways as well) . You libertarians have to admit that not only does the size of the total "pie of wealth" matter, but how it is distributes as well. And the great thing is that it can be done within free market capitalism without disturbing the market. Look to Scandinavia and Switzerland for the future.

I look forward to your responses and please dead with each of my points clearly and head on
ErenBalkir
Posts: 157
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
8/28/2015 8:29:36 PM
Posted: 1 year ago
grey parrot, I give you one quote that I have remembered off by heart. I sums up why charity is a last resort and why government should share in the burden.

"Anticipate charity by preventing poverty." -Maimonides ( a Jewish philosopher )
Lee308
Posts: 53
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
8/28/2015 9:09:46 PM
Posted: 1 year ago
" those who need it are lazy and just aren't trying hard enough"
Yep, that is MOST of welfare in America.

Work, or starve, take your pick !
PS, I was poor as a young man, dug ditches, cut grass, did mechanic work, DID NOT HAVE KIDS.... guess what, I"m ok now.

Yes there is a VERY small minority that are really disabled, thats what churches are for.

STOP ALL WELFARE !!! WORK OR STARVE !

PS, I don't believe in god.
Khaos_Mage
Posts: 23,214
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
8/28/2015 9:29:38 PM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 8/28/2015 8:11:36 PM, ErenBalkir wrote:

I'll respond more in depth later, but can you please define poverty.
My work here is, finally, done.
EndarkenedRationalist
Posts: 14,201
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
8/28/2015 9:30:30 PM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 8/28/2015 8:17:26 PM, Greyparrot wrote:
Sooo, zero mention of private charities.

Not surprising.

Some do good work, especially churches, but overall, they're insufficient to deal with the problem.
Lee308
Posts: 53
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
8/28/2015 9:32:44 PM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 8/28/2015 9:30:30 PM, EndarkenedRationalist wrote:
At 8/28/2015 8:17:26 PM, Greyparrot wrote:
Sooo, zero mention of private charities.

Not surprising.

Some do good work, especially churches, but overall, they're insufficient to deal with the problem.

No, they are in part bringing the problem to the USSA. ALL ILLEGALS NEED TO BE SHIPPED BACK, that will cut welfare 50%!
ErenBalkir
Posts: 157
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
8/28/2015 9:36:39 PM
Posted: 1 year ago
In November 2013 the U.S. Census Bureau said more than 16% of the population lived in poverty. I would aim to eliminate that
Lee308
Posts: 53
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
8/28/2015 9:43:03 PM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 8/28/2015 9:36:39 PM, ErenBalkir wrote:
In November 2013 the U.S. Census Bureau said more than 16% of the population lived in poverty. I would aim to eliminate that

You believe anything the USSA government puts out? Can you say propaganda? LOL, NOTHING the USSA government says is true.

Oh, and Santa Claus is not real, sorry to be the one to tell you that.
ErenBalkir
Posts: 157
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
8/28/2015 9:57:29 PM
Posted: 1 year ago
You believe anything the USSA government puts out? Can you say propaganda? LOL, NOTHING the USSA government says is true.

You really think the United States Census Bureau is propaganda! it is scientific and unbiased. It simply records facts
ErenBalkir
Posts: 157
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
8/28/2015 10:04:14 PM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 8/28/2015 9:29:38 PM, Khaos_Mage wrote:
At 8/28/2015 8:11:36 PM, ErenBalkir wrote:

I'll respond more in depth later, but can you please define poverty.

the poverty level for 2014 was set at $23,850 (total yearly income) for a family of four. This means that if you earn below this amount you are in poverty.
It was defined in 1964 as "lacking the resources to meet the basic needs for healthy living; having insufficient income to provide the food, shelter and clothing needed to preserve health."

There is also a debate about whether poverty should be measured in absolute terms or relative terms. Currently it is absolute
ErenBalkir
Posts: 157
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
8/28/2015 10:08:11 PM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 8/28/2015 8:17:26 PM, Greyparrot wrote:
Sooo, zero mention of private charities.

Not surprising.

Unfortunately it is in human nature to be greedy. Most of us will not want to give to charity willingly, especially the rich. That means government needs to ensure that no-one is left homeless or in poverty by taxing us and giving to those in need
Greyparrot
Posts: 14,250
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
8/28/2015 10:10:38 PM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 8/28/2015 10:08:11 PM, ErenBalkir wrote:
At 8/28/2015 8:17:26 PM, Greyparrot wrote:
Sooo, zero mention of private charities.

Not surprising.

Unfortunately it is in human nature to be greedy. Most of us will not want to give to charity willingly, especially the rich. That means government needs to ensure that no-one is left homeless or in poverty by taxing us and giving to those in need

Don't be ridiculous. The majority of People made a contract with the government to help the disabled, that's not greed.
ErenBalkir
Posts: 157
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
8/28/2015 10:18:26 PM
Posted: 1 year ago
Don't be ridiculous. The majority of People made a contract with the government to help the disabled, that's not greed.

Recently, someone on here said that we should get rid of all welfare and let charities look after those in need such as the disabled. Would you agree with me that peoples charity cannot always be relied upon and that government has to provide help. If you agree then why not take in a step further and say that those in unemployment should get help like in recessions when it isn't their fault that they cannot find work (and again not rely on charity). I would take it even further and say that those in desperate poverty should receive help regardless of if you personally feel they deserve it. They are a human being and we must show at least some compassion
Greyparrot
Posts: 14,250
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
8/28/2015 10:27:31 PM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 8/28/2015 10:18:26 PM, ErenBalkir wrote:
Don't be ridiculous. The majority of People made a contract with the government to help the disabled, that's not greed.

Recently, someone on here said that we should get rid of all welfare and let charities look after those in need such as the disabled. Would you agree with me that peoples charity cannot always be relied upon and that government has to provide help. If you agree then why not take in a step further and say that those in unemployment should get help like in recessions when it isn't their fault that they cannot find work (and again not rely on charity). I would take it even further and say that those in desperate poverty should receive help regardless of if you personally feel they deserve it. They are a human being and we must show at least some compassion

Well others have also said that shifting social responsibility to the government lowers public charity and also a sense of social connection to the world's poor. The problem with government charity is that it rarely discriminates between lazy people and disabled people.

Now, I am all for allowing people to choose to live on the edge and never save a dime if that is what they want out of this short life. I don't see anything morally wrong with people existing in poverty in itself. But when someone really needs a helping hand above the teeming masses, private charities are in a way better position to find and help those people first before the government agencies.
Greyparrot
Posts: 14,250
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
8/28/2015 10:34:40 PM
Posted: 1 year ago
Oh, yes, and define poverty.

Is it an income level(how much do I make)? Is it a lifestyle choice (austerity)? Is it a standard of living(what do I have)? Is it how much money you have in the bank(I like to save for my future)? Can it be some or all of these?

What is poverty to you?
ErenBalkir
Posts: 157
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
8/28/2015 10:34:47 PM
Posted: 1 year ago

Well others have also said that shifting social responsibility to the government lowers public charity and also a sense of social connection to the world's poor. The problem with government charity is that it rarely discriminates between lazy people and disabled people.

Now, I am all for allowing people to choose to live on the edge and never save a dime if that is what they want out of this short life. I don't see anything morally wrong with people existing in poverty in itself. But when someone really needs a helping hand above the teeming masses, private charities are in a way better position to find and help those people first before the government agencies

I really don't understand your policy objectives. I have shown what I want to change and defended them but what is it you want?

And also, those in poverty aren't in poverty because they choose to .All of those in poverty ARE EITHER IN WORK (THE MAJORITY) OR WANT TO. I am simpily saying that even when you work 5 days a week, 9-5 and your family is still in poverty, the government should help "top up" your income. Milton friedman supported this. DO U, OR DO U NOT, SUPPORT MILTON FRIEDMAN (the supposed god of libertarian- ism that you support)
Greyparrot
Posts: 14,250
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
8/28/2015 10:40:03 PM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 8/28/2015 10:34:47 PM, ErenBalkir wrote:

Well others have also said that shifting social responsibility to the government lowers public charity and also a sense of social connection to the world's poor. The problem with government charity is that it rarely discriminates between lazy people and disabled people.

Now, I am all for allowing people to choose to live on the edge and never save a dime if that is what they want out of this short life. I don't see anything morally wrong with people existing in poverty in itself. But when someone really needs a helping hand above the teeming masses, private charities are in a way better position to find and help those people first before the government agencies

I really don't understand your policy objectives. I have shown what I want to change and defended them but what is it you want?

And also, those in poverty aren't in poverty because they choose to .All of those in poverty ARE EITHER IN WORK (THE MAJORITY) OR WANT TO. I am simpily saying that even when you work 5 days a week, 9-5 and your family is still in poverty, the government should help "top up" your income. Milton friedman supported this. DO U, OR DO U NOT, SUPPORT MILTON FRIEDMAN (the supposed god of libertarian- ism that you support)

You really shouldn't use the word "all" unless absolutely necessary. It invites knee-jerk dismissal.

You still haven't defined poverty.
ErenBalkir
Posts: 157
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
8/28/2015 10:41:58 PM
Posted: 1 year ago
You still haven't defined poverty.

Yes I have, look at my earlier posts.

again, do you disagree with Milton Friedman????
Greyparrot
Posts: 14,250
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
8/28/2015 10:42:58 PM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 8/28/2015 10:04:14 PM, ErenBalkir wrote:
At 8/28/2015 9:29:38 PM, Khaos_Mage wrote:
At 8/28/2015 8:11:36 PM, ErenBalkir wrote:

I'll respond more in depth later, but can you please define poverty.

the poverty level for 2014 was set at $23,850 (total yearly income) for a family of four. This means that if you earn below this amount you are in poverty.
It was defined in 1964 as "lacking the resources to meet the basic needs for healthy living; having insufficient income to provide the food, shelter and clothing needed to preserve health."

There is also a debate about whether poverty should be measured in absolute terms or relative terms. Currently it is absolute

Oh sorry I didn't see this, ok.
Greyparrot
Posts: 14,250
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
8/28/2015 10:44:03 PM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 8/28/2015 10:41:58 PM, ErenBalkir wrote:
You still haven't defined poverty.

Yes I have, look at my earlier posts.

again, do you disagree with Milton Friedman????

I do, if he used the word "all"
ErenBalkir
Posts: 157
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
8/28/2015 10:54:03 PM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 8/28/2015 10:44:03 PM, Greyparrot wrote:
At 8/28/2015 10:41:58 PM, ErenBalkir wrote:
You still haven't defined poverty.

Yes I have, look at my earlier posts.

again, do you disagree with Milton Friedman????

I do, if he used the word "all"

I am sorry, u have misunderstood me. Those were my words. The thing that I and Milton Friedman agree on and that u don't is that those who are still in poverty, even though they may work, should receive enough welfare to live on. It is known as negative income tax. From what I understand from your position, you think only the disabled should get welfare
Greyparrot
Posts: 14,250
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
8/28/2015 11:06:09 PM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 8/28/2015 10:54:03 PM, ErenBalkir wrote:
At 8/28/2015 10:44:03 PM, Greyparrot wrote:
At 8/28/2015 10:41:58 PM, ErenBalkir wrote:
You still haven't defined poverty.

Yes I have, look at my earlier posts.

again, do you disagree with Milton Friedman????

I do, if he used the word "all"


I am sorry, u have misunderstood me. Those were my words. The thing that I and Milton Friedman agree on and that u don't is that those who are still in poverty, even though they may work, should receive enough welfare to live on. It is known as negative income tax. From what I understand from your position, you think only the disabled should get welfare

I think the disabled and incompetent should be looked after as wards of the state, so to speak.

Do you think poverty in itself is morally wrong? Would you say that a person who chooses to live in austerity is an evil person and needs "fixing"?

Would choosing to fall behind the Joneses be a scarlet mark against all society stands for?
ErenBalkir
Posts: 157
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
8/28/2015 11:09:08 PM
Posted: 1 year ago
Do you think poverty in itself is morally wrong? Would you say that a person who chooses to live in austerity is an evil person and needs "fixing"?

Would choosing to fall behind the Joneses be a scarlet mark against all society stands for?

Almost all of the poor want to be richer. You seem to think they want to be poor. I am saying it is wrong to let someone live in poverty who doesn't want to. the poor welcome more welfare
Greyparrot
Posts: 14,250
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
8/28/2015 11:11:18 PM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 8/28/2015 11:09:08 PM, ErenBalkir wrote:
Do you think poverty in itself is morally wrong? Would you say that a person who chooses to live in austerity is an evil person and needs "fixing"?

Would choosing to fall behind the Joneses be a scarlet mark against all society stands for?

Almost all of the poor want to be richer. You seem to think they want to be poor. I am saying it is wrong to let someone live in poverty who doesn't want to. the poor welcome more welfare

I don't know what the percentage is, but people do make lifestyle choices, and no matter how insignificant, you MUST respect those choices if you have any conscience or value diversity in lifestyles.
ErenBalkir
Posts: 157
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
8/28/2015 11:18:17 PM
Posted: 1 year ago
it isn't a " lifestyle choice" to be poor ! many do not have high enough wages and they would like more. I would not force them to be richer, just offer them welfare if it is below the poverty threshold. what is wrong about that? please will a conservative please explain it.
Greyparrot
Posts: 14,250
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
8/28/2015 11:21:47 PM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 8/28/2015 11:18:17 PM, ErenBalkir wrote:
it isn't a " lifestyle choice" to be poor ! many do not have high enough wages and they would like more. I would not force them to be richer, just offer them welfare if it is below the poverty threshold. what is wrong about that? please will a conservative please explain it.

Oh really? All the religious sects like Amish (who actually are rich with low incomes because they don't spend anything, but you defined poverty as an income level). Not to mention hordes of volunteers, interns, priests, clergy.

You are being incredibly narcissistic to define what constitutes "enough" for each and every person.
ErenBalkir
Posts: 157
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
8/28/2015 11:27:48 PM
Posted: 1 year ago
would you at least admit that the vast majority of those in poverty don't want to be and work. Would you then admit that they should receive welfare as Milton Friedman and libertarians agree with
Greyparrot
Posts: 14,250
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
8/28/2015 11:32:08 PM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 8/28/2015 11:27:48 PM, ErenBalkir wrote:
would you at least admit that the vast majority of those in poverty don't want to be and work. Would you then admit that they should receive welfare as Milton Friedman and libertarians agree with

Tell me why you think that is so. Also, explain why people stop looking for work as recorded by the government.
Lee308
Posts: 53
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
8/28/2015 11:34:35 PM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 8/28/2015 9:57:29 PM, ErenBalkir wrote:
You believe anything the USSA government puts out? Can you say propaganda? LOL, NOTHING the USSA government says is true.


You really think the United States Census Bureau is propaganda! it is scientific and unbiased. It simply records facts

The USSA gov has no facts, only agenda.
Yes, anything the US census bureau says is propaganda, no doubt.
ANYTHING from the USSA government is propaganda, live it, learn it. Nothing they say is true.