Total Posts:34|Showing Posts:1-30|Last Page
Jump to topic:

Welfare is counterproductive.

Thorae
Posts: 17
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
10/23/2010 3:51:08 PM
Posted: 6 years ago
The government in Denmark has kept records of unemployment benefits and when people transition from government support to having jobs. The unemployment benefits lasted 5 years. What they found out is that people started looking for and finding jobs after 5 years. Since benefits were shown to be the obvious cause of unemployment they then decided to cut benefits to 4 years. What happened? People started looking for and finding jobs after 4 years... There's a clear pattern here.

http://i25.servimg.com...
"Science without religion is lame; religion without science is blind."
-Albert Einstein
PARADIGM_L0ST
Posts: 6,958
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
10/23/2010 3:59:56 PM
Posted: 6 years ago
At 10/23/2010 3:51:08 PM, Thorae wrote:
The government in Denmark has kept records of unemployment benefits and when people transition from government support to having jobs. The unemployment benefits lasted 5 years. What they found out is that people started looking for and finding jobs after 5 years. Since benefits were shown to be the obvious cause of unemployment they then decided to cut benefits to 4 years. What happened? People started looking for and finding jobs after 4 years... There's a clear pattern here.:

You seem genuinely surprised by this.
"Have you ever considered suicide? If not, please do." -- Mouthwash (to Inferno)
Cerebral_Narcissist
Posts: 10,806
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
10/25/2010 1:49:52 AM
Posted: 6 years ago
At 10/23/2010 3:59:56 PM, PARADIGM_L0ST wrote:
At 10/23/2010 3:51:08 PM, Thorae wrote:
The government in Denmark has kept records of unemployment benefits and when people transition from government support to having jobs. The unemployment benefits lasted 5 years. What they found out is that people started looking for and finding jobs after 5 years. Since benefits were shown to be the obvious cause of unemployment they then decided to cut benefits to 4 years. What happened? People started looking for and finding jobs after 4 years... There's a clear pattern here.:

You seem genuinely surprised by this.

Some of us have only recently realised this.
I am voting for Innomen because of his intelligence, common sense, humility and the fact that Juggle appears to listen to him. Any other Presidential style would have a large sub-section of the site up in arms. If I was President I would destroy the site though elitism, others would let it run riot. Innomen represents a middle way that works, neither draconian nor anarchic and that is the only way things can work. Plus he does it all without ego trips.
kelly224
Posts: 952
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
10/25/2010 10:12:39 AM
Posted: 6 years ago
At 10/23/2010 3:51:08 PM, Thorae wrote:
The government in Denmark has kept records of unemployment benefits and when people transition from government support to having jobs. The unemployment benefits lasted 5 years. What they found out is that people started looking for and finding jobs after 5 years. Since benefits were shown to be the obvious cause of unemployment they then decided to cut benefits to 4 years. What happened? People started looking for and finding jobs after 4 years... There's a clear pattern here.

http://i25.servimg.com...

When you stop giving out free lunch, people have no choice but to get up and work.
InsertNameHere
Posts: 15,699
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
10/25/2010 12:31:02 PM
Posted: 6 years ago
One thing that really pisses me off is the fact that some people abuse welfare just to get drug money. So yea, if welfare must exist there should be tighter restrictions on who can receive it.
Kleptin
Posts: 5,095
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
10/25/2010 12:51:11 PM
Posted: 6 years ago
To be honest, the only people who deserve welfare are the people who are being taxed so that undeserving people can get it.
: At 5/2/2010 2:43:54 PM, innomen wrote:
It isn't about finding a theory, philosophy or doctrine and thinking it's the answer, but a practical application of one's experiences that is the answer.

: At 10/28/2010 2:40:07 PM, jharry wrote: I have already been given the greatest Gift that anyone could ever hope for [Life], I would consider myself selfish if I expected anything more.
InsertNameHere
Posts: 15,699
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
10/25/2010 12:52:47 PM
Posted: 6 years ago
At 10/25/2010 12:51:11 PM, Kleptin wrote:
To be honest, the only people who deserve welfare are the people who are being taxed so that undeserving people can get it.

Well they don't really need it so let's scape it altogether. People can go to charity instead.
Kleptin
Posts: 5,095
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
10/25/2010 12:56:42 PM
Posted: 6 years ago
At 10/25/2010 12:52:47 PM, InsertNameHere wrote:
Well they don't really need it so let's scape it altogether. People can go to charity instead.

Pretty much. The vast majority of people getting fed or paid without doing work, don't deserve a dime of it anyway. If charity wants to cover my taxes, that's fine with me, seeing as how charities are tax free anyway.
: At 5/2/2010 2:43:54 PM, innomen wrote:
It isn't about finding a theory, philosophy or doctrine and thinking it's the answer, but a practical application of one's experiences that is the answer.

: At 10/28/2010 2:40:07 PM, jharry wrote: I have already been given the greatest Gift that anyone could ever hope for [Life], I would consider myself selfish if I expected anything more.
Ren
Posts: 7,102
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
10/25/2010 1:04:43 PM
Posted: 6 years ago
I'm curious as to who you guys believe the undeserving majority that receives welfare is.

Like, who are all these people that somehow duped the system and get welfare without needing or "deserving" it?

Should minimum wage be eradicated, too? Social security?
InsertNameHere
Posts: 15,699
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
10/25/2010 1:06:26 PM
Posted: 6 years ago
At 10/25/2010 1:04:43 PM, Ren wrote:
I'm curious as to who you guys believe the undeserving majority that receives welfare is.

Like, who are all these people that somehow duped the system and get welfare without needing or "deserving" it?

Should minimum wage be eradicated, too? Social security?

Minimum wage, yes. Social security, I'm undecided. There still needs to be some form of support for the disabled and children.
Caramel
Posts: 855
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
10/25/2010 1:09:35 PM
Posted: 6 years ago
At 10/25/2010 12:31:02 PM, InsertNameHere wrote:
One thing that really pisses me off is the fact that some people abuse welfare just to get drug money. So yea, if welfare must exist there should be tighter restrictions on who can receive it.

Who cares if it's drug money or not? Is the extra dollar you spend on shampoo to get herbal essence with moisturizing beads as opposed to the generic brand more important than the dollar I spend to get high?
no comment
Kleptin
Posts: 5,095
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
10/25/2010 1:10:39 PM
Posted: 6 years ago
At 10/25/2010 1:04:43 PM, Ren wrote:
I'm curious as to who you guys believe the undeserving majority that receives welfare is.

Like, who are all these people that somehow duped the system and get welfare without needing or "deserving" it?

Should minimum wage be eradicated, too? Social security?

First of all, yes, I think we should abolish social security in favor of lower taxes. We should also eradicate minimum wage.

Second, let's spend a little time on terminology. I'm not saying that people are undeserving of welfare. I'm saying that people shouldn't get money for being poor. They should get money for reasons other than how much money they don't have.
: At 5/2/2010 2:43:54 PM, innomen wrote:
It isn't about finding a theory, philosophy or doctrine and thinking it's the answer, but a practical application of one's experiences that is the answer.

: At 10/28/2010 2:40:07 PM, jharry wrote: I have already been given the greatest Gift that anyone could ever hope for [Life], I would consider myself selfish if I expected anything more.
InsertNameHere
Posts: 15,699
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
10/25/2010 1:13:44 PM
Posted: 6 years ago
At 10/25/2010 1:09:35 PM, Caramel wrote:
At 10/25/2010 12:31:02 PM, InsertNameHere wrote:
One thing that really pisses me off is the fact that some people abuse welfare just to get drug money. So yea, if welfare must exist there should be tighter restrictions on who can receive it.

Who cares if it's drug money or not? Is the extra dollar you spend on shampoo to get herbal essence with moisturizing beads as opposed to the generic brand more important than the dollar I spend to get high?

I care. I don't want my tax dollars going to some idiot lowlife druggie who can't even feed their family because of their habits.
Korashk
Posts: 4,597
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
10/25/2010 1:18:35 PM
Posted: 6 years ago
At 10/25/2010 1:04:43 PM, Ren wrote:
Should minimum wage be eradicated, too?

Yes

Social security?

Privatize the b!tch.
When large numbers of otherwise-law abiding people break specific laws en masse, it's usually a fault that lies with the law. - Unknown
Caramel
Posts: 855
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
10/25/2010 1:19:32 PM
Posted: 6 years ago
Kleptin wrote
They should get money for reasons other than how much money they don't have.

It's just fine if people get money for simply having a lot of money though? Because that's what interest is. If I have $1M and put it in a bank, I will gain interest for absolutely no work. I can just put the money in the savings account and let it make its own money, while the poor must pay me for using it. Yet we are so concerned about the poor getting money for not having any, while no one seems to care that the rich get money just for having it - and a whole heck of a lot more than the poor get! I'm sure someone has done a sociological study on why society beats up the poor and kisses the rich's feet... I'll have to find one and share it.
no comment
Sieben
Posts: 2,736
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
10/25/2010 1:22:29 PM
Posted: 6 years ago
At 10/25/2010 1:19:32 PM, Caramel wrote:

If I have $1M and put it in a bank, I will gain interest for absolutely no work. I can just put the money in the savings account and let it make its own money, while the poor must pay me for using it.

Actually, deferring present consumption so you can invest IS "work", even if it is not the sweat and blood kind of work that is so emotionally evocative.
Things that are so interesting:

http://www.debate.org...
http://www.debate.org...
Caramel
Posts: 855
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
10/25/2010 1:23:28 PM
Posted: 6 years ago
At 10/25/2010 1:13:44 PM, InsertNameHere wrote:
At 10/25/2010 1:09:35 PM, Caramel wrote:
At 10/25/2010 12:31:02 PM, InsertNameHere wrote:
One thing that really pisses me off is the fact that some people abuse welfare just to get drug money. So yea, if welfare must exist there should be tighter restrictions on who can receive it.

Who cares if it's drug money or not? Is the extra dollar you spend on shampoo to get herbal essence with moisturizing beads as opposed to the generic brand more important than the dollar I spend to get high?

I care. I don't want my tax dollars going to some idiot lowlife druggie who can't even feed their family because of their habits.

So your answer is yes?
no comment
Danielle
Posts: 21,330
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
10/25/2010 1:29:45 PM
Posted: 6 years ago
My ex works for FEGS which is this company that basically oversees the welfare system. A few things to keep in mind before posting idiocy about a system you know nothing about...

People who receive welfare have to meet with someone who checks that all the eligibility requirements are met regularly (every 3 months). The requirements include regular check-ups from both a medical and/or psychological doctors proving that there is an actual reason you cannot work. If you stop seeing a shrink or getting the medical help you need, or don't have your doctor's note, or the doctor says you skip appointments, your welfare is cut immediately. If you skip any scheduled appointments with the FEGS representatives, your welfare is cut immediately. As soon as your doctor says you can work (if it's a physical reason), your welfare is cut immediately. Also, they give most people on welfare BARELY any money to survive, let alone buy drugs. Believe me when I say that it's NOT POSSIBLE to sustain a drug habit with welfare money.
President of DDO
Caramel
Posts: 855
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
10/25/2010 1:31:21 PM
Posted: 6 years ago
At 10/25/2010 1:22:29 PM, Sieben wrote:
At 10/25/2010 1:19:32 PM, Caramel wrote:

If I have $1M and put it in a bank, I will gain interest for absolutely no work. I can just put the money in the savings account and let it make its own money, while the poor must pay me for using it.

Actually, deferring present consumption so you can invest IS "work", even if it is not the sweat and blood kind of work that is so emotionally evocative.

Your definition of work is different than mine, although there is no technical standard for the term like there is in physics (force x distance). My definition of work means that we are being productive. Someone is doing their part to produce a good or service to benefit the economy. You no doubt will give value to the administrative mechanisms that are in place simply to justify capitalism (banks, insurance, sales, etc.) that have no inherent value other than mending capitalistic market failures. People get paid for no other reason then the fact that they own land/means of production/wealth. The bank interest example is merely the most obvious and logically paralyzing of the lot, but they are all inequitable ideas that simply haven't been overcome in modern society yet. The day will come.
no comment
Sieben
Posts: 2,736
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
10/25/2010 1:44:36 PM
Posted: 6 years ago
At 10/25/2010 1:31:21 PM, Caramel wrote:
At 10/25/2010 1:22:29 PM, Sieben wrote:
At 10/25/2010 1:19:32 PM, Caramel wrote:

If I have $1M and put it in a bank, I will gain interest for absolutely no work. I can just put the money in the savings account and let it make its own money, while the poor must pay me for using it.

Actually, deferring present consumption so you can invest IS "work", even if it is not the sweat and blood kind of work that is so emotionally evocative.

Your definition of work is different than mine, although there is no technical standard for the term like there is in physics (force x distance). My definition of work means that we are being productive.
Deferring consumption IS productive because you invest it. To see this, consider what the world would be like without oil rigs (investment) if rich people had instead spent their money on hookers (consumption).

Someone is doing their part to produce a good or service to benefit the economy. You no doubt will give value to the administrative mechanisms that are in place simply to justify capitalism (banks, insurance, sales, etc.) that have no inherent value other than mending capitalistic market failures.
The world isn't perfect... People don't have their own capital. They can get it from someone else. Its better than having no capital at all.

People get paid for no other reason then the fact that they own land/means of production/wealth. The bank interest example is merely the most obvious and logically paralyzing of the lot, but they are all inequitable ideas that simply haven't been overcome in modern society yet. The day will come.
Its only paralyzing because you are more interested in figuring out what is the most lefty-hip thing to say. You don't work hard on your ideology. You just say whatever feels good.
Things that are so interesting:

http://www.debate.org...
http://www.debate.org...
Sieben
Posts: 2,736
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
10/25/2010 1:46:50 PM
Posted: 6 years ago
I mean f*ck. When corporations make investment decisions, they impose an internal rate of interest on their projects. Are they charging interest to themselves? Are they exploiting themselves?
Things that are so interesting:

http://www.debate.org...
http://www.debate.org...
Danielle
Posts: 21,330
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
10/25/2010 2:03:33 PM
Posted: 6 years ago
Homeless kids taking baths up in gas station urinals. Sh!t the system can't cure it all. If everybody had a job then stock value's sure to fall. Hundred million neck slashes so these fascists can make sure that their check cashes, let's get massive. Wage struggle as direct classes on just how we're gonna overthrow their b!tch a$ses. Give whiplashes from the force as we make it tight and ignite the flames of taking over daily life. Make it a right to have food, threads and homestead, and Pac Bell won't ever cut your phone dead -- we own it! But these businesses that love paying minimum wage ain't gonna let you take they sh!t unless you're showing the gauge. And if you do it by yourself they're gonna put you in a cage. If you in a rage, please meet me on the same page :P
President of DDO
jharry
Posts: 4,984
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
10/25/2010 2:19:56 PM
Posted: 6 years ago
At 10/25/2010 1:29:45 PM, theLwerd wrote:
My ex works for FEGS which is this company that basically oversees the welfare system. A few things to keep in mind before posting idiocy about a system you know nothing about...

People who receive welfare have to meet with someone who checks that all the eligibility requirements are met regularly (every 3 months). The requirements include regular check-ups from both a medical and/or psychological doctors proving that there is an actual reason you cannot work. If you stop seeing a shrink or getting the medical help you need, or don't have your doctor's note, or the doctor says you skip appointments, your welfare is cut immediately. If you skip any scheduled appointments with the FEGS representatives, your welfare is cut immediately. As soon as your doctor says you can work (if it's a physical reason), your welfare is cut immediately. Also, they give most people on welfare BARELY any money to survive, let alone buy drugs. Believe me when I say that it's NOT POSSIBLE to sustain a drug habit with welfare money.

I think that varies by State, and the program.
In nomine Patris, et Filii, et Spiritus Sancti. Amen
brian_eggleston
Posts: 3,347
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
10/25/2010 2:25:36 PM
Posted: 6 years ago
I agree that people who can but choose not to work should have their benefit payments closely monitored.

But what about someone who has worked and paid tax all their life and who is made redundant through no fault of their own, and together with thousands of other workers, cannot find alternative employment in a small town decimated by the loss of the main employer?

Should they be thrown onto the scrapheap of society? Should they and their families be kicked out onto the cold to fend for themselves while some greedy property developed snaps up their repossessed home at a knockdown price?

Or should they be given financial assistance to help them through the hard times while they get back on their feet?
Visit the burglars' bulletin board: http://www.break-in-news.com...
Cerebral_Narcissist
Posts: 10,806
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
10/25/2010 2:29:35 PM
Posted: 6 years ago
At 10/25/2010 2:25:36 PM, brian_eggleston wrote:
I agree that people who can but choose not to work should have their benefit payments closely monitored.

What? Why should they get benefit payments at all?

But what about someone who has worked and paid tax all their life and who is made redundant through no fault of their own, and together with thousands of other workers, cannot find alternative employment in a small town decimated by the loss of the main employer?

The Government should really return some of that money to help them relocate, or to fund job creation. Or perhaps not take that tax money in the future and permit people to use that money to save and invest.
I am voting for Innomen because of his intelligence, common sense, humility and the fact that Juggle appears to listen to him. Any other Presidential style would have a large sub-section of the site up in arms. If I was President I would destroy the site though elitism, others would let it run riot. Innomen represents a middle way that works, neither draconian nor anarchic and that is the only way things can work. Plus he does it all without ego trips.
brian_eggleston
Posts: 3,347
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
10/25/2010 2:38:05 PM
Posted: 6 years ago
At 10/25/2010 2:29:35 PM, Cerebral_Narcissist wrote:
At 10/25/2010 2:25:36 PM, brian_eggleston wrote:
I agree that people who can but choose not to work should have their benefit payments closely monitored.

What? Why should they get benefit payments at all?

They may have children...

But what about someone who has worked and paid tax all their life and who is made redundant through no fault of their own, and together with thousands of other workers, cannot find alternative employment in a small town decimated by the loss of the main employer?

The Government should really return some of that money to help them relocate, or to fund job creation. Or perhaps not take that tax money in the future and permit people to use that money to save and invest.

I agree, but the Conservatives have axed the spending on job creation projects - at the same time as slashing the welfare budget.

They could have closed the tax loopholes that their filthy rich friends in the City use to squirrel away their incredibly obscene bonuses in order to raise cash, but no, different Tories, same Thatcherite policies.
Visit the burglars' bulletin board: http://www.break-in-news.com...