Total Posts:76|Showing Posts:1-30|Last Page
Jump to topic:

Why are we still Pro-Welfare?

tajshar2k
Posts: 2,385
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
3/24/2016 12:50:55 AM
Posted: 8 months ago
Seriously why? We have continued to increase spending, but the results are getting worse. People like Bernie Sanders want to expand on it, but I don't see any logic in it, look at it's history.

I'm not saying we get rid of welfare, but we need some reform. Neither side is really talking about it, but blames each other.
"In Guns We Trust" Tajshar2k
nonwo
Posts: 100
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
3/24/2016 1:16:29 AM
Posted: 8 months ago
At 3/24/2016 12:50:55 AM, tajshar2k wrote:
Seriously why? We have continued to increase spending, but the results are getting worse. People like Bernie Sanders want to expand on it, but I don't see any logic in it, look at it's history.

I'm not saying we get rid of welfare, but we need some reform. Neither side is really talking about it, but blames each other. : :

Every society since man existed has has welfare in it. Welfare is usually considered to women and children but during economic hard times like a bad harvest, etc. then men also become welfare recipients.

There are always lazy people in every society who will not work so instead of watching these people die, they are given food or money to buy food so they don't die. Some people are made to pity these lazy ones.
TBR
Posts: 9,991
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
3/24/2016 1:16:40 AM
Posted: 8 months ago
At 3/24/2016 12:50:55 AM, tajshar2k wrote:
Seriously why? We have continued to increase spending, but the results are getting worse. People like Bernie Sanders want to expand on it, but I don't see any logic in it, look at it's history.

I'm not saying we get rid of welfare, but we need some reform. Neither side is really talking about it, but blames each other.

No real problems with welfare. What is your issue with it?
tajshar2k
Posts: 2,385
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
3/24/2016 1:30:39 AM
Posted: 8 months ago
At 3/24/2016 1:16:40 AM, TBR wrote:
At 3/24/2016 12:50:55 AM, tajshar2k wrote:
Seriously why? We have continued to increase spending, but the results are getting worse. People like Bernie Sanders want to expand on it, but I don't see any logic in it, look at it's history.

I'm not saying we get rid of welfare, but we need some reform. Neither side is really talking about it, but blames each other.

No real problems with welfare. What is your issue with it?

There are real problems with it. Spending is increasing, yet people are still going into poverty. What makes you think there isn't a problem. The welfare system is pretty much a failure.
"In Guns We Trust" Tajshar2k
tajshar2k
Posts: 2,385
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
3/24/2016 1:31:28 AM
Posted: 8 months ago
At 3/24/2016 1:16:29 AM, nonwo wrote:
At 3/24/2016 12:50:55 AM, tajshar2k wrote:
Seriously why? We have continued to increase spending, but the results are getting worse. People like Bernie Sanders want to expand on it, but I don't see any logic in it, look at it's history.

I'm not saying we get rid of welfare, but we need some reform. Neither side is really talking about it, but blames each other. : :

Every society since man existed has has welfare in it. Welfare is usually considered to women and children but during economic hard times like a bad harvest, etc. then men also become welfare recipients.

There are always lazy people in every society who will not work so instead of watching these people die, they are given food or money to buy food so they don't die. Some people are made to pity these lazy ones.

I Know, I'm not pro for abolishing it, pro for reforming it.
"In Guns We Trust" Tajshar2k
tajshar2k
Posts: 2,385
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
3/24/2016 1:33:00 AM
Posted: 8 months ago
At 3/24/2016 1:16:40 AM, TBR wrote:
At 3/24/2016 12:50:55 AM, tajshar2k wrote:
Seriously why? We have continued to increase spending, but the results are getting worse. People like Bernie Sanders want to expand on it, but I don't see any logic in it, look at it's history.

I'm not saying we get rid of welfare, but we need some reform. Neither side is really talking about it, but blames each other.

No real problems with welfare. What is your issue with it?

If you wonder if I have solutions, I do think a negative income tax or a Basic Income can serve this function. Set a apt minimum income (say 15k) and make sure every citizen has enough money to buy food shelter and water. With our spending we can afford to give every poor person 20k. Get rid of wasteful government beauacracies.
"In Guns We Trust" Tajshar2k
nonwo
Posts: 100
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
3/24/2016 1:43:27 AM
Posted: 8 months ago
At 3/24/2016 1:31:28 AM, tajshar2k wrote:
At 3/24/2016 1:16:29 AM, nonwo wrote:
At 3/24/2016 12:50:55 AM, tajshar2k wrote:
Seriously why? We have continued to increase spending, but the results are getting worse. People like Bernie Sanders want to expand on it, but I don't see any logic in it, look at it's history.

I'm not saying we get rid of welfare, but we need some reform. Neither side is really talking about it, but blames each other. : :

Every society since man existed has has welfare in it. Welfare is usually considered to women and children but during economic hard times like a bad harvest, etc. then men also become welfare recipients.

There are always lazy people in every society who will not work so instead of watching these people die, they are given food or money to buy food so they don't die. Some people are made to pity these lazy ones.

I Know, I'm not pro for abolishing it, pro for reforming it. : :

First of all, The U.S. has to stop allowing all the good paying jobs from corporations moving to other countries to do their manufacturing and escaping high taxes. If this continues, more people will be without jobs every year.

If we can keep businesses from leaving the U.S., then it will be easier to pay for all the welfare. Many welfare recipients today are addicted to drugs or alcohol. Once they've been fired from a job for their addictions, it's almost impossible for them to get another job of the same pay. They usually end up at those part time jobs that pay very little so they get discouraged and quit looking for work.

Many welfare recipients teach their children how to get on welfare as they grow up so this also contributes to the large welfare bill the U.S. pays out every year. Instead of teaching these children to go out and get good paying jobs or starting their own businesses, they are collecting benefits right after high school or even before.
tajshar2k
Posts: 2,385
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
3/24/2016 1:48:28 AM
Posted: 8 months ago
At 3/24/2016 1:43:27 AM, nonwo wrote:
At 3/24/2016 1:31:28 AM, tajshar2k wrote:
At 3/24/2016 1:16:29 AM, nonwo wrote:
At 3/24/2016 12:50:55 AM, tajshar2k wrote:
Seriously why? We have continued to increase spending, but the results are getting worse. People like Bernie Sanders want to expand on it, but I don't see any logic in it, look at it's history.

I'm not saying we get rid of welfare, but we need some reform. Neither side is really talking about it, but blames each other. : :

Every society since man existed has has welfare in it. Welfare is usually considered to women and children but during economic hard times like a bad harvest, etc. then men also become welfare recipients.

There are always lazy people in every society who will not work so instead of watching these people die, they are given food or money to buy food so they don't die. Some people are made to pity these lazy ones.

I Know, I'm not pro for abolishing it, pro for reforming it. : :

First of all, The U.S. has to stop allowing all the good paying jobs from corporations moving to other countries to do their manufacturing and escaping high taxes. If this continues, more people will be without jobs every year.

You do realize this is never going to happen right? If the U.S imposes tariffs, another foreign company will just take over, and people will have jobs regardless. The whole jobs loss is a lie. Employment rates have generally been rising. Besides, we dont want people to keep doing labor jobs, because technology will replace them soon.

If we can keep businesses from leaving the U.S., then it will be easier to pay for all the welfare. Many welfare recipients today are addicted to drugs or alcohol. Once they've been fired from a job for their addictions, it's almost impossible for them to get another job of the same pay. They usually end up at those part time jobs that pay very little so they get discouraged and quit looking for work.

We already have enough to pay for welfare. The problem isn't money, it's the system. We can give every poor person 20k with a Basic income.


Many welfare recipients teach their children how to get on welfare as they grow up so this also contributes to the large welfare bill the U.S. pays out every year. Instead of teaching these children to go out and get good paying jobs or starting their own businesses, they are collecting benefits right after high school or even before.

I agree.
"In Guns We Trust" Tajshar2k
tajshar2k
Posts: 2,385
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
3/24/2016 1:48:53 AM
Posted: 8 months ago
At 3/24/2016 1:48:28 AM, tajshar2k wrote:
At 3/24/2016 1:43:27 AM, nonwo wrote:
At 3/24/2016 1:31:28 AM, tajshar2k wrote:
At 3/24/2016 1:16:29 AM, nonwo wrote:
At 3/24/2016 12:50:55 AM, tajshar2k wrote:
Seriously why? We have continued to increase spending, but the results are getting worse. People like Bernie Sanders want to expand on it, but I don't see any logic in it, look at it's history.

I'm not saying we get rid of welfare, but we need some reform. Neither side is really talking about it, but blames each other. : :

Every society since man existed has has welfare in it. Welfare is usually considered to women and children but during economic hard times like a bad harvest, etc. then men also become welfare recipients.

There are always lazy people in every society who will not work so instead of watching these people die, they are given food or money to buy food so they don't die. Some people are made to pity these lazy ones.

I Know, I'm not pro for abolishing it, pro for reforming it. : :

First of all, The U.S. has to stop allowing all the good paying jobs from corporations moving to other countries to do their manufacturing and escaping high taxes. If this continues, more people will be without jobs every year.

You do realize this is never going to happen right? If the U.S imposes tariffs, another foreign company will just take over, and people will lose jobs regardless. The whole jobs loss is a lie. Employment rates have generally been rising. Besides, we dont want people to keep doing labor jobs, because technology will replace them soon.

If we can keep businesses from leaving the U.S., then it will be easier to pay for all the welfare. Many welfare recipients today are addicted to drugs or alcohol. Once they've been fired from a job for their addictions, it's almost impossible for them to get another job of the same pay. They usually end up at those part time jobs that pay very little so they get discouraged and quit looking for work.

We already have enough to pay for welfare. The problem isn't money, it's the system. We can give every poor person 20k with a Basic income.


Many welfare recipients teach their children how to get on welfare as they grow up so this also contributes to the large welfare bill the U.S. pays out every year. Instead of teaching these children to go out and get good paying jobs or starting their own businesses, they are collecting benefits right after high school or even before.

I agree.
"In Guns We Trust" Tajshar2k
nonwo
Posts: 100
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
3/24/2016 2:13:34 AM
Posted: 8 months ago
At 3/24/2016 1:48:28 AM, tajshar2k wrote:
At 3/24/2016 1:43:27 AM, nonwo wrote:
At 3/24/2016 1:31:28 AM, tajshar2k wrote:
At 3/24/2016 1:16:29 AM, nonwo wrote:
At 3/24/2016 12:50:55 AM, tajshar2k wrote:
Seriously why? We have continued to increase spending, but the results are getting worse. People like Bernie Sanders want to expand on it, but I don't see any logic in it, look at it's history.

I'm not saying we get rid of welfare, but we need some reform. Neither side is really talking about it, but blames each other. : :

Every society since man existed has has welfare in it. Welfare is usually considered to women and children but during economic hard times like a bad harvest, etc. then men also become welfare recipients.

There are always lazy people in every society who will not work so instead of watching these people die, they are given food or money to buy food so they don't die. Some people are made to pity these lazy ones.

I Know, I'm not pro for abolishing it, pro for reforming it. : :

First of all, The U.S. has to stop allowing all the good paying jobs from corporations moving to other countries to do their manufacturing and escaping high taxes. If this continues, more people will be without jobs every year.

You do realize this is never going to happen right? If the U.S imposes tariffs, another foreign company will just take over, and people will have jobs regardless. The whole jobs loss is a lie. Employment rates have generally been rising. Besides, we dont want people to keep doing labor jobs, because technology will replace them soon.

Who doesn't want U.S. citizens doing labor jobs? This is the one of the lies that politicians and the rich people who support them have been telling us. We all thought that we would be the information society and the other countries would produce the labor. This has proven to be false since these information companies are also leaving the U.S. to find cheaper labor.

If we can keep businesses from leaving the U.S., then it will be easier to pay for all the welfare. Many welfare recipients today are addicted to drugs or alcohol. Once they've been fired from a job for their addictions, it's almost impossible for them to get another job of the same pay. They usually end up at those part time jobs that pay very little so they get discouraged and quit looking for work.

We already have enough to pay for welfare. The problem isn't money, it's the system. We can give every poor person 20k with a Basic income.

Welfare recipients will always find ways to get enough money and food to keep living so it makes no difference what kind of system is in place. Some of them will steal, prostitute themselves, panhandle, or whatever it takes to keep living. Systems are used to dignify these people so that they don't have to live those kinds of lifestyles.

Many welfare recipients teach their children how to get on welfare as they grow up so this also contributes to the large welfare bill the U.S. pays out every year. Instead of teaching these children to go out and get good paying jobs or starting their own businesses, they are collecting benefits right after high school or even before.

I agree.
Dilara
Posts: 661
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
3/24/2016 3:16:34 AM
Posted: 8 months ago
At 3/24/2016 12:50:55 AM, tajshar2k wrote:
Seriously why? We have continued to increase spending, but the results are getting worse. People like Bernie Sanders want to expand on it, but I don't see any logic in it, look at it's history.

I'm not saying we get rid of welfare, but we need some reform. Neither side is really talking about it, but blames each other.
We should only give it to people who need it and not allow people who don't need it to choose it as a career.
ColeTrain
Posts: 4,325
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
3/24/2016 3:26:16 AM
Posted: 8 months ago
At 3/24/2016 12:50:55 AM, tajshar2k wrote:
Seriously why? We have continued to increase spending, but the results are getting worse. People like Bernie Sanders want to expand on it, but I don't see any logic in it, look at it's history.

I'm not saying we get rid of welfare, but we need some reform. Neither side is really talking about it, but blames each other.

[http://www.debate.org...]
Plz read and respond to this.
"The right to 360 noscope noobs shall not be infringed!!!" -- tajshar2k
"So, to start off, I've never committed suicide." -- Vaarka
"I eat glue." -- brontoraptor
"I mean, at this rate, I'd argue for a ham sandwich presidency." -- ResponsiblyIrresponsible
"Overthrow Assad, heil jihad." -- 16kadams when trolling in hangout
"Hillary Clinton is not my favorite person ... and her campaign is as inspiring as a bowl of cottage cheese." -- YYW
Contra
Posts: 3,941
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
3/24/2016 3:33:58 AM
Posted: 8 months ago
At 3/24/2016 1:33:00 AM, tajshar2k wrote:
At 3/24/2016 1:16:40 AM, TBR wrote:
At 3/24/2016 12:50:55 AM, tajshar2k wrote:
Seriously why? We have continued to increase spending, but the results are getting worse. People like Bernie Sanders want to expand on it, but I don't see any logic in it, look at it's history.

I'm not saying we get rid of welfare, but we need some reform. Neither side is really talking about it, but blames each other.

No real problems with welfare. What is your issue with it?

If you wonder if I have solutions, I do think a negative income tax or a Basic Income can serve this function. Set a apt minimum income (say 15k) and make sure every citizen has enough money to buy food shelter and water. With our spending we can afford to give every poor person 20k. Get rid of wasteful government beauacracies.

I agree with your concern completely. Your proposal of a NIT is an appealing idea, absolutely. I just am worried about people living off the system, you know. But then again, it would benefit people who are investing in their education and their human capital (*cough* college students...).

There are two other ideas that I like as well. One is the idea of a "flex-fund", where all welfare spending (not entitlements through) is consolidated into one funding stream and given to the individual states, so the states can form their own welfare programs. This will lead to better outcomes, but it still leaves a lot of bureaucracy at the state level. Another idea is the concept of wage subsidies. Both of these ideas could fit together too.

I don't think it's optimal to have the federal government have its own array of programs like SNAP, Medicaid, HUD, TANF, etc. If we say the federal gov't has to cover everybody's fundamental needs, it will lead to a vast welfare bureaucracy like the one we have now. I prefer one of the simpler approaches like your idea or one of those I posited.
"The solution [for Republicans] is to admit that Bush was a bad president, stop this racist homophobic stuff, stop trying to give most of the tax cuts to the rich, propose a real alternative to Obamacare that actually works, and propose smart free market solutions to our economic problems." - Distraff

"Americans are better off in a dynamic, free-enterprise-based economy that fosters economic growth, opportunity and upward mobility." - Paul Ryan
themightyindividual
Posts: 98
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
3/24/2016 6:52:17 AM
Posted: 8 months ago
Because the left has created an army if voters who are dependent on government handouts and will vote for anyone that promises to continue this large-scale mafia operation.
Greyparrot
Posts: 14,325
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
3/24/2016 11:03:25 AM
Posted: 8 months ago
At 3/24/2016 1:30:39 AM, tajshar2k wrote:
At 3/24/2016 1:16:40 AM, TBR wrote:
At 3/24/2016 12:50:55 AM, tajshar2k wrote:
Seriously why? We have continued to increase spending, but the results are getting worse. People like Bernie Sanders want to expand on it, but I don't see any logic in it, look at it's history.

I'm not saying we get rid of welfare, but we need some reform. Neither side is really talking about it, but blames each other.

No real problems with welfare. What is your issue with it?


There are real problems with it. Spending is increasing, yet people are still going into poverty. What makes you think there isn't a problem. The welfare system is pretty much a failure.

How are you so sure welfare is causing poverty?

There are other factors such as, lack of jobs due to the side effects of minimum wage, unions, employer funded Obamacare, non-competitive regulations, bad tax law, etc.

Failing education reasons such as common core, teacher unions, no child left behind, refusal to privatize very bad public schools in the poorest neighborhoods, and a general lack of accountability of public schools.

Racial and class social divisions under the guise of "diversity" ensuring there will always be a dominant "other" class over a unified American class.

I mean there's plenty of reasons for rising poverty levels...
Contra
Posts: 3,941
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
3/24/2016 6:33:44 PM
Posted: 8 months ago
At 3/24/2016 11:03:25 AM, Greyparrot wrote:
At 3/24/2016 1:30:39 AM, tajshar2k wrote:
At 3/24/2016 1:16:40 AM, TBR wrote:
At 3/24/2016 12:50:55 AM, tajshar2k wrote:
Seriously why? We have continued to increase spending, but the results are getting worse. People like Bernie Sanders want to expand on it, but I don't see any logic in it, look at it's history.

I'm not saying we get rid of welfare, but we need some reform. Neither side is really talking about it, but blames each other.

No real problems with welfare. What is your issue with it?


There are real problems with it. Spending is increasing, yet people are still going into poverty. What makes you think there isn't a problem. The welfare system is pretty much a failure.

How are you so sure welfare is causing poverty?

There are other factors such as, lack of jobs due to the side effects of minimum wage, unions, employer funded Obamacare, non-competitive regulations, bad tax law, etc.

I substantially agree with you here. The government is distorting the marketplace and preventing full employment (although we're getting close to it).

Failing education reasons such as common core, teacher unions, no child left behind, refusal to privatize very bad public schools in the poorest neighborhoods, and a general lack of accountability of public schools.

I agree with you here as well (K12 education was questionable before Common Core, though).

However, poverty is also caused by other factors that we can't ignore -- largely caused by government intervention like you described -- but also by the transforming economy. People haven't adapted well to globalization. Heavy industry has been replaced by high tech manufacturing and low paying service jobs, as well as college educated white-collar workers. People, especially in areas that have struggled with poverty for decades like Detroit, have failed to adapt appropriately because the lack the skills and education. And the idea of pouring billions into K12 schools hasn't worked.

Ipso facto, we agree.

Racial and class social divisions under the guise of "diversity" ensuring there will always be a dominant "other" class over a unified American class.

I mean there's plenty of reasons for rising poverty levels...
"The solution [for Republicans] is to admit that Bush was a bad president, stop this racist homophobic stuff, stop trying to give most of the tax cuts to the rich, propose a real alternative to Obamacare that actually works, and propose smart free market solutions to our economic problems." - Distraff

"Americans are better off in a dynamic, free-enterprise-based economy that fosters economic growth, opportunity and upward mobility." - Paul Ryan
lamerde
Posts: 1,416
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
3/24/2016 6:51:44 PM
Posted: 8 months ago
At 3/24/2016 1:30:39 AM, tajshar2k wrote:

There are real problems with it. Spending is increasing, yet people are still going into poverty. What makes you think there isn't a problem. The welfare system is pretty much a failure.

Why is the problem with the welfare system, and not employers such as Walmart who are basically subsidized by the government because they don't pay their employees a liveable wage?
Why I ignore YYW:
http://www.debate.org...
http://www.debate.org...
Calling someone a bitch multiple times while claiming you're taking the high road is an art form, I suppose: http://www.debate.org...
Objectivity
Posts: 1,073
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
3/24/2016 7:41:20 PM
Posted: 8 months ago
At 3/24/2016 6:51:44 PM, lamerde wrote:
At 3/24/2016 1:30:39 AM, tajshar2k wrote:

There are real problems with it. Spending is increasing, yet people are still going into poverty. What makes you think there isn't a problem. The welfare system is pretty much a failure.

Why is the problem with the welfare system, and not employers such as Walmart who are basically subsidized by the government because they don't pay their employees a liveable wage?

Why is it the obligation of employers to pay a "living wage" (completely subjective). Additionally, is a living wage the bare minimum to survive or is it living comfortably? You could survive on the current federal minimum wage, not comfortably, but you could.
TBR
Posts: 9,991
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
3/24/2016 8:47:08 PM
Posted: 8 months ago
At 3/24/2016 7:41:20 PM, Objectivity wrote:
At 3/24/2016 6:51:44 PM, lamerde wrote:
At 3/24/2016 1:30:39 AM, tajshar2k wrote:

There are real problems with it. Spending is increasing, yet people are still going into poverty. What makes you think there isn't a problem. The welfare system is pretty much a failure.

Why is the problem with the welfare system, and not employers such as Walmart who are basically subsidized by the government because they don't pay their employees a liveable wage?


Why is it the obligation of employers to pay a "living wage" (completely subjective). Additionally, is a living wage the bare minimum to survive or is it living comfortably? You could survive on the current federal minimum wage, not comfortably, but you could.

I know where you are coming from, but there IS an obligation. By virtue of our society allowing a corporation to operate, they (the fake person - co) must operate within whatever bounds we set. Not long ago, corporations had to prove they were a benefit for the society.
Greyparrot
Posts: 14,325
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
3/24/2016 9:54:50 PM
Posted: 8 months ago
At 3/24/2016 7:41:20 PM, Objectivity wrote:
At 3/24/2016 6:51:44 PM, lamerde wrote:
At 3/24/2016 1:30:39 AM, tajshar2k wrote:

There are real problems with it. Spending is increasing, yet people are still going into poverty. What makes you think there isn't a problem. The welfare system is pretty much a failure.

Why is the problem with the welfare system, and not employers such as Walmart who are basically subsidized by the government because they don't pay their employees a liveable wage?


Why is it the obligation of employers to pay a "living wage" (completely subjective). Additionally, is a living wage the bare minimum to survive or is it living comfortably? You could survive on the current federal minimum wage, not comfortably, but you could.

More to the point, on what moral basis would you strike training jobs with training wages down as illegal? Teens and the uneducated deserve a chance to get job experience. What high moral ground do you stand on to bitchslap these poor people down?

Not everyone is going to be able to qualify for these few "living wage" jobs. The ones that don't; sorry? Here's an unemployment check because we made all other jobs illegal? Unacceptable.
bhakun
Posts: 231
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
3/25/2016 12:57:52 AM
Posted: 8 months ago
The welfare system is a great example of how capitalism is failing.

There are hard-working people that still have to rely on the government just to survive. The problem is not in welfare but with the system itself that has forced welfare to be necessary.
"We must rapidly begin the shift from a "thing-oriented" society to a "person-oriented" society. When machines and computers, profit motives and property rights are considered more important than people, the giant triplets of racism, materialism, and militarism are incapable of being conquered." -MLK Jr
Greyparrot
Posts: 14,325
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
3/25/2016 12:59:11 AM
Posted: 8 months ago
At 3/25/2016 12:57:52 AM, bhakun wrote:
The welfare system is a great example of how capitalism is failing.

There are hard-working people that still have to rely on the government just to survive. The problem is not in welfare but with the system itself that has forced welfare to be necessary.

Is it capitalism's fault that capitalists can't create enough jobs?
bhakun
Posts: 231
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
3/25/2016 1:02:48 AM
Posted: 8 months ago
At 3/25/2016 12:59:11 AM, Greyparrot wrote:
At 3/25/2016 12:57:52 AM, bhakun wrote:
The welfare system is a great example of how capitalism is failing.

There are hard-working people that still have to rely on the government just to survive. The problem is not in welfare but with the system itself that has forced welfare to be necessary.

Is it capitalism's fault that capitalists can't create enough jobs?

Yes.

Jobs exist in every society. There is always something to do. Food to grow, roads to fix, schools to build, children to educate. However, because many of these jobs do not turn a profit, no one bothers to fund them. Capitalists dont create enough jobs, much less decent paying jobs, because it doesn't make them money.
"We must rapidly begin the shift from a "thing-oriented" society to a "person-oriented" society. When machines and computers, profit motives and property rights are considered more important than people, the giant triplets of racism, materialism, and militarism are incapable of being conquered." -MLK Jr
Greyparrot
Posts: 14,325
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
3/25/2016 1:05:15 AM
Posted: 8 months ago
At 3/25/2016 1:02:48 AM, bhakun wrote:
At 3/25/2016 12:59:11 AM, Greyparrot wrote:
At 3/25/2016 12:57:52 AM, bhakun wrote:
The welfare system is a great example of how capitalism is failing.

There are hard-working people that still have to rely on the government just to survive. The problem is not in welfare but with the system itself that has forced welfare to be necessary.

Is it capitalism's fault that capitalists can't create enough jobs?

Yes.

Jobs exist in every society. There is always something to do. Food to grow, roads to fix, schools to build, children to educate. However, because many of these jobs do not turn a profit, no one bothers to fund them. Capitalists dont create enough jobs, much less decent paying jobs, because it doesn't make them money.

Looks like another brick-puncher economy advocate. You and brendan will make a nice pair.
bhakun
Posts: 231
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
3/25/2016 1:07:08 AM
Posted: 8 months ago
At 3/25/2016 1:05:15 AM, Greyparrot wrote:
At 3/25/2016 1:02:48 AM, bhakun wrote:
At 3/25/2016 12:59:11 AM, Greyparrot wrote:
At 3/25/2016 12:57:52 AM, bhakun wrote:
The welfare system is a great example of how capitalism is failing.

There are hard-working people that still have to rely on the government just to survive. The problem is not in welfare but with the system itself that has forced welfare to be necessary.

Is it capitalism's fault that capitalists can't create enough jobs?

Yes.

Jobs exist in every society. There is always something to do. Food to grow, roads to fix, schools to build, children to educate. However, because many of these jobs do not turn a profit, no one bothers to fund them. Capitalists dont create enough jobs, much less decent paying jobs, because it doesn't make them money.

Looks like another brick-puncher economy advocate. You and brendan will make a nice pair.

Great argument, 10/10.
"We must rapidly begin the shift from a "thing-oriented" society to a "person-oriented" society. When machines and computers, profit motives and property rights are considered more important than people, the giant triplets of racism, materialism, and militarism are incapable of being conquered." -MLK Jr
Objectivity
Posts: 1,073
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
3/25/2016 1:00:13 PM
Posted: 8 months ago
At 3/24/2016 8:47:08 PM, TBR wrote:
At 3/24/2016 7:41:20 PM, Objectivity wrote:
At 3/24/2016 6:51:44 PM, lamerde wrote:
At 3/24/2016 1:30:39 AM, tajshar2k wrote:

There are real problems with it. Spending is increasing, yet people are still going into poverty. What makes you think there isn't a problem. The welfare system is pretty much a failure.

Why is the problem with the welfare system, and not employers such as Walmart who are basically subsidized by the government because they don't pay their employees a liveable wage?


Why is it the obligation of employers to pay a "living wage" (completely subjective). Additionally, is a living wage the bare minimum to survive or is it living comfortably? You could survive on the current federal minimum wage, not comfortably, but you could.

I know where you are coming from, but there IS an obligation. By virtue of our society allowing a corporation to operate, they (the fake person - co) must operate within whatever bounds we set. Not long ago, corporations had to prove they were a benefit for the society.

All a corporation is is a group of people acting as one entity.. why do they need permission to do that? Or why should they at the very least. Also, a living wage wouldn't just apply to corporations (unless you think it should..?). Also if the current minimum wage isn't enough to live on, what is a "living wage"? Are you saying I couldn't survive on the current minimum wage, or just that I couldn't comfortably?
TBR
Posts: 9,991
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
3/25/2016 3:07:21 PM
Posted: 8 months ago
At 3/25/2016 1:00:13 PM, Objectivity wrote:
At 3/24/2016 8:47:08 PM, TBR wrote:
At 3/24/2016 7:41:20 PM, Objectivity wrote:
At 3/24/2016 6:51:44 PM, lamerde wrote:
At 3/24/2016 1:30:39 AM, tajshar2k wrote:

There are real problems with it. Spending is increasing, yet people are still going into poverty. What makes you think there isn't a problem. The welfare system is pretty much a failure.

Why is the problem with the welfare system, and not employers such as Walmart who are basically subsidized by the government because they don't pay their employees a liveable wage?


Why is it the obligation of employers to pay a "living wage" (completely subjective). Additionally, is a living wage the bare minimum to survive or is it living comfortably? You could survive on the current federal minimum wage, not comfortably, but you could.

I know where you are coming from, but there IS an obligation. By virtue of our society allowing a corporation to operate, they (the fake person - co) must operate within whatever bounds we set. Not long ago, corporations had to prove they were a benefit for the society.

All a corporation is is a group of people acting as one entity.. why do they need permission to do that? Or why should they at the very least. Also, a living wage wouldn't just apply to corporations (unless you think it should..?). Also if the current minimum wage isn't enough to live on, what is a "living wage"? Are you saying I couldn't survive on the current minimum wage, or just that I couldn't comfortably?

"All a corporation is is a group of people acting as one entity." with permission of the society they operate.

Look. Every person who is REAL must operate within the society in accordance with law, whatever they may be. So to must the factious person, the corporation. If the laws are set to allow the society to function well, there should be no complaining about how terrible it is to make a corporation operate with the interest of its fellow real people in-mind.
TBR
Posts: 9,991
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
3/25/2016 3:10:27 PM
Posted: 8 months ago
At 3/25/2016 1:00:13 PM, Objectivity wrote:
At 3/24/2016 8:47:08 PM, TBR wrote:
At 3/24/2016 7:41:20 PM, Objectivity wrote:
At 3/24/2016 6:51:44 PM, lamerde wrote:
At 3/24/2016 1:30:39 AM, tajshar2k wrote:

There are real problems with it. Spending is increasing, yet people are still going into poverty. What makes you think there isn't a problem. The welfare system is pretty much a failure.

Why is the problem with the welfare system, and not employers such as Walmart who are basically subsidized by the government because they don't pay their employees a liveable wage?


Why is it the obligation of employers to pay a "living wage" (completely subjective). Additionally, is a living wage the bare minimum to survive or is it living comfortably? You could survive on the current federal minimum wage, not comfortably, but you could.

I know where you are coming from, but there IS an obligation. By virtue of our society allowing a corporation to operate, they (the fake person - co) must operate within whatever bounds we set. Not long ago, corporations had to prove they were a benefit for the society.

All a corporation is is a group of people acting as one entity.. why do they need permission to do that? Or why should they at the very least. Also, a living wage wouldn't just apply to corporations (unless you think it should..?). Also if the current minimum wage isn't enough to live on, what is a "living wage"? Are you saying I couldn't survive on the current minimum wage, or just that I couldn't comfortably?

To answer the question "is it a living wage" you tell me. Fed it like 7.25 ~15k annually (doubtful with how corporations today operate under 30hr/week). Lets say rent is 1,000-1,200/month. There you go, you MIGHT just keep a roof over your head with nothing to eat or no cloths.
tajshar2k
Posts: 2,385
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
3/25/2016 3:12:50 PM
Posted: 8 months ago
At 3/24/2016 6:51:44 PM, lamerde wrote:
At 3/24/2016 1:30:39 AM, tajshar2k wrote:

There are real problems with it. Spending is increasing, yet people are still going into poverty. What makes you think there isn't a problem. The welfare system is pretty much a failure.

Why is the problem with the welfare system, and not employers such as Walmart who are basically subsidized by the government because they don't pay their employees a liveable wage?

This argument is just a fallacy. This discussion has nothing to do with Walmart.
"In Guns We Trust" Tajshar2k
Objectivity
Posts: 1,073
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
3/25/2016 3:16:26 PM
Posted: 8 months ago
At 3/25/2016 3:10:27 PM, TBR wrote:
At 3/25/2016 1:00:13 PM, Objectivity wrote:
At 3/24/2016 8:47:08 PM, TBR wrote:
At 3/24/2016 7:41:20 PM, Objectivity wrote:
At 3/24/2016 6:51:44 PM, lamerde wrote:
At 3/24/2016 1:30:39 AM, tajshar2k wrote:

There are real problems with it. Spending is increasing, yet people are still going into poverty. What makes you think there isn't a problem. The welfare system is pretty much a failure.

Why is the problem with the welfare system, and not employers such as Walmart who are basically subsidized by the government because they don't pay their employees a liveable wage?


Why is it the obligation of employers to pay a "living wage" (completely subjective). Additionally, is a living wage the bare minimum to survive or is it living comfortably? You could survive on the current federal minimum wage, not comfortably, but you could.

I know where you are coming from, but there IS an obligation. By virtue of our society allowing a corporation to operate, they (the fake person - co) must operate within whatever bounds we set. Not long ago, corporations had to prove they were a benefit for the society.

All a corporation is is a group of people acting as one entity.. why do they need permission to do that? Or why should they at the very least. Also, a living wage wouldn't just apply to corporations (unless you think it should..?). Also if the current minimum wage isn't enough to live on, what is a "living wage"? Are you saying I couldn't survive on the current minimum wage, or just that I couldn't comfortably?

To answer the question "is it a living wage" you tell me. Fed it like 7.25 ~15k annually (doubtful with how corporations today operate under 30hr/week). Lets say rent is 1,000-1,200/month. There you go, you MIGHT just keep a roof over your head with nothing to eat or no cloths.

rent 1,000-2,000 a month?.... maybe if you live in the heart of a metropolitan area, which people making the minimum wage wouldn't anyways. i live in the midwest in a big city where the cost of living is pretty moderate, and if you are living at the bare minimum you could probably find a place for $500 a month, if you have a roommate and split that cost, $250 a month.