Total Posts:20|Showing Posts:1-20
Jump to topic:

Free Baby Kits

bsh1
Posts: 27,503
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
4/4/2016 3:41:15 AM
Posted: 8 months ago
From the BBC:

"It's a tradition that dates back to the 1930s. Every new mother, regardless of background or income, gets a baby box from the government. The box contains a stash of supplies - bibs, bodysuits, nappies, a sleeping bag, outdoor gear, bathing products - as well as a small mattress. Putting the mattress in the bottom of the box creates the baby's first bed." [http://www.bbc.com...]

Thoughts? I really love this idea.
Live Long and Prosper

I'm a Bish.


"Twilight isn't just about obtuse metaphors between cannibalism and premarital sex, it also teaches us the futility of hope." - Raisor

"[Bsh1] is the Guinan of DDO." - ButterCatX

Follow the DDOlympics
: http://www.debate.org...

Open Debate Topics Project: http://www.debate.org...
PetersSmith
Posts: 5,804
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
4/4/2016 4:29:31 AM
Posted: 8 months ago
At 4/4/2016 3:41:15 AM, bsh1 wrote:
From the BBC:

"It's a tradition that dates back to the 1930s. Every new mother, regardless of background or income, gets a baby box from the government. The box contains a stash of supplies - bibs, bodysuits, nappies, a sleeping bag, outdoor gear, bathing products - as well as a small mattress. Putting the mattress in the bottom of the box creates the baby's first bed." [http://www.bbc.com...]

Thoughts? I really love this idea.

Care package confirmed.
Empress of DDO (also Poll and Forum "Maintenance" Moderator)

"The two most important days in your life is the day you were born, and the day you find out why."
~Mark Twain

"Wow"
-Doge

"Don't believe everything you read on the internet just because there's a picture with a quote next to it."
~Abraham Lincoln

Guide to the Polls Section: http://www.debate.org...
bsh1
Posts: 27,503
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
4/4/2016 4:52:42 AM
Posted: 8 months ago
At 4/4/2016 4:29:31 AM, PetersSmith wrote:
At 4/4/2016 3:41:15 AM, bsh1 wrote:
From the BBC:

"It's a tradition that dates back to the 1930s. Every new mother, regardless of background or income, gets a baby box from the government. The box contains a stash of supplies - bibs, bodysuits, nappies, a sleeping bag, outdoor gear, bathing products - as well as a small mattress. Putting the mattress in the bottom of the box creates the baby's first bed." [http://www.bbc.com...]

Thoughts? I really love this idea.

Care package confirmed.

Lol...I don't quite need one yet...though, this whole concept is a super sweet idea...
Live Long and Prosper

I'm a Bish.


"Twilight isn't just about obtuse metaphors between cannibalism and premarital sex, it also teaches us the futility of hope." - Raisor

"[Bsh1] is the Guinan of DDO." - ButterCatX

Follow the DDOlympics
: http://www.debate.org...

Open Debate Topics Project: http://www.debate.org...
PetersSmith
Posts: 5,804
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
4/4/2016 4:54:18 AM
Posted: 8 months ago
At 4/4/2016 4:52:42 AM, bsh1 wrote:
At 4/4/2016 4:29:31 AM, PetersSmith wrote:
At 4/4/2016 3:41:15 AM, bsh1 wrote:
From the BBC:

"It's a tradition that dates back to the 1930s. Every new mother, regardless of background or income, gets a baby box from the government. The box contains a stash of supplies - bibs, bodysuits, nappies, a sleeping bag, outdoor gear, bathing products - as well as a small mattress. Putting the mattress in the bottom of the box creates the baby's first bed." [http://www.bbc.com...]

Thoughts? I really love this idea.

Care package confirmed.

Lol...I don't quite need one yet...though, this whole concept is a super sweet idea...

We just need those Amazon drones dropping them off and then it'd be the closest thing we'll ever get to the story of where babies come from.
Empress of DDO (also Poll and Forum "Maintenance" Moderator)

"The two most important days in your life is the day you were born, and the day you find out why."
~Mark Twain

"Wow"
-Doge

"Don't believe everything you read on the internet just because there's a picture with a quote next to it."
~Abraham Lincoln

Guide to the Polls Section: http://www.debate.org...
bsh1
Posts: 27,503
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
4/4/2016 4:58:34 AM
Posted: 8 months ago
At 4/4/2016 4:54:18 AM, PetersSmith wrote:
At 4/4/2016 4:52:42 AM, bsh1 wrote:
At 4/4/2016 4:29:31 AM, PetersSmith wrote:
At 4/4/2016 3:41:15 AM, bsh1 wrote:
From the BBC:

"It's a tradition that dates back to the 1930s. Every new mother, regardless of background or income, gets a baby box from the government. The box contains a stash of supplies - bibs, bodysuits, nappies, a sleeping bag, outdoor gear, bathing products - as well as a small mattress. Putting the mattress in the bottom of the box creates the baby's first bed." [http://www.bbc.com...]

Thoughts? I really love this idea.

Care package confirmed.

Lol...I don't quite need one yet...though, this whole concept is a super sweet idea...

We just need those Amazon drones dropping them off and then it'd be the closest thing we'll ever get to the story of where babies come from.

Lol
Live Long and Prosper

I'm a Bish.


"Twilight isn't just about obtuse metaphors between cannibalism and premarital sex, it also teaches us the futility of hope." - Raisor

"[Bsh1] is the Guinan of DDO." - ButterCatX

Follow the DDOlympics
: http://www.debate.org...

Open Debate Topics Project: http://www.debate.org...
Welfare-Worker
Posts: 1,150
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
4/5/2016 1:15:04 PM
Posted: 8 months ago
At 4/4/2016 3:41:15 AM, bsh1 wrote:
From the BBC:

"It's a tradition that dates back to the 1930s. Every new mother, regardless of background or income, gets a baby box from the government. The box contains a stash of supplies - bibs, bodysuits, nappies, a sleeping bag, outdoor gear, bathing products - as well as a small mattress. Putting the mattress in the bottom of the box creates the baby's first bed." [http://www.bbc.com...]

Thoughts? I really love this idea.

Do I think it is a good idea for middle income, childless individuals, to pay taxes so upper middle class parents can get free stuff?
No.

In the USA today, middle class, childless individuals, pay taxes so upper middle class children can get free school lunches, probably snacks as well, maybe even breakfast and lunch as well. If 40 per cent of the families are 'poor', all children qualify for free meals.

Food pantries already offer free formula, disposable diapers, and other baby needs.
The responsibility for the needy should be religious and civic organizations, not taxpayers.
When the "needy" includes all socio-economic groups, regardless of income, society has failed us, not helped us.

Is it a good thing to help poor people provide the basic needs for their infants?
Yes, sure, no objections, let us help them.

Is it a good thing to provide blanket free stuff, baby food included, to irresponsible individuals who can spend $100+ per month for cable TV but don't want to spend their own money on baby food?
Absolutely not, no way, no shape, no how, not now, not ever.

There was a time when middle class folks would not accept a handout meant for the needy. This was very common in the 1930's, across the pond as well as in the colonies.
Different times, different standards.
FaustianJustice
Posts: 6,205
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
4/5/2016 1:47:08 PM
Posted: 8 months ago
At 4/5/2016 1:15:04 PM, Welfare-Worker wrote:
At 4/4/2016 3:41:15 AM, bsh1 wrote:
From the BBC:

"It's a tradition that dates back to the 1930s. Every new mother, regardless of background or income, gets a baby box from the government. The box contains a stash of supplies - bibs, bodysuits, nappies, a sleeping bag, outdoor gear, bathing products - as well as a small mattress. Putting the mattress in the bottom of the box creates the baby's first bed." [http://www.bbc.com...]

Thoughts? I really love this idea.

Do I think it is a good idea for middle income, childless individuals, to pay taxes so upper middle class parents can get free stuff?
No.

In the USA today, middle class, childless individuals, pay taxes so upper middle class children can get free school lunches, probably snacks as well, maybe even breakfast and lunch as well. If 40 per cent of the families are 'poor', all children qualify for free meals.

I also pay taxes so they can run their cars on roads I don't drive on, pay taxes so they can have fires put out that I don't have, and police protection that I don't call! What gives?!!?

Food pantries already offer free formula, disposable diapers, and other baby needs. The responsibility for the needy should be religious and civic organizations, not taxpayers.

Explain why.

When the "needy" includes all socio-economic groups, regardless of income, society has failed us, not helped us.

Sounds to me like we need a better vetting program.

Is it a good thing to help poor people provide the basic needs for their infants?
Yes, sure, no objections, let us help them.

Is it a good thing to provide blanket free stuff, baby food included, to irresponsible individuals who can spend $100+ per month for cable TV but don't want to spend their own money on baby food?
Absolutely not, no way, no shape, no how, not now, not ever.

Like I said, vetting problem.

There was a time when middle class folks would not accept a handout meant for the needy. This was very common in the 1930's, across the pond as well as in the colonies.
Different times, different standards.
Here we have an advocate for Islamic arranged marriages demonstrating that children can consent to sex.
http://www.debate.org...
Welfare-Worker
Posts: 1,150
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
4/6/2016 1:29:52 AM
Posted: 8 months ago
At 4/5/2016 1:47:08 PM, FaustianJustice wrote:
At 4/5/2016 1:15:04 PM, Welfare-Worker wrote:
At 4/4/2016 3:41:15 AM, bsh1 wrote:
From the BBC:

"It's a tradition that dates back to the 1930s. Every new mother, regardless of background or income, gets a baby box from the government. The box contains a stash of supplies - bibs, bodysuits, nappies, a sleeping bag, outdoor gear, bathing products - as well as a small mattress. Putting the mattress in the bottom of the box creates the baby's first bed." [http://www.bbc.com...]

Thoughts? I really love this idea.

Do I think it is a good idea for middle income, childless individuals, to pay taxes so upper middle class parents can get free stuff?
No.

In the USA today, middle class, childless individuals, pay taxes so upper middle class children can get free school lunches, probably snacks as well, maybe even breakfast and lunch as well. If 40 per cent of the families are 'poor', all children qualify for free meals.

I also pay taxes so they can run their cars on roads I don't drive on, pay taxes so they can have fires put out that I don't have, and police protection that I don't call! What gives?!!?

Taxes go towards the general welfare of social needs.
There is an arbitrary limit, that any individual believes is 'just'.
You may feel breast implants are worthy, I may disagree.
You may feel paying for diapers for people with higher income than your own is worthy, I may disagree.
If you consume, goods made or sold by others, you make use of roads, banks, police protection, etc. These things do not benefit one particular person, but society as a group. Diapers benefit one person or family, at the expense of others.
I see a difference, you, it seems, do not.

Food pantries already offer free formula, disposable diapers, and other baby needs. The responsibility for the needy should be religious and civic organizations, not taxpayers.

Explain why.


The welfare of the individuals in society is the responsibility of society, not the government, I would argue.

The welfare of society as a group is the responsibility of government, I would argue.
'Police prosecution' does not mean I have someone at my residence 24x7. It does mean my community should have coverage, 24x7, or thereabouts.

Religion and civic organizations, it would seem, serve a purpose for the common good that is not the responsibility of government.
While government may have a responsibility to meet minimum needs for all citizens, it has no responsibility to provide the same level of free goods and services for those who are not poor, or are only poor because they choose to be that way.

When the "needy" includes all socio-economic groups, regardless of income, society has failed us, not helped us.

Sounds to me like we need a better vetting program.

How so?
Are you suggesting a needs based criteria for distribution of Welfare benefits - as this is contrary to the OP position, as I read it.

Is it a good thing to help poor people provide the basic needs for their infants?
Yes, sure, no objections, let us help them.

Is it a good thing to provide blanket free stuff, baby food included, to irresponsible individuals who can spend $100+ per month for cable TV but don't want to spend their own money on baby food?
Absolutely not, no way, no shape, no how, not now, not ever.

Like I said, vetting problem.
How so?

There was a time when middle class folks would not accept a handout meant for the needy. This was very common in the 1930's, across the pond as well as in the colonies.
Different times, different standards.
FaustianJustice
Posts: 6,205
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
4/6/2016 2:02:13 AM
Posted: 8 months ago
At 4/6/2016 1:29:52 AM, Welfare-Worker wrote:
At 4/5/2016 1:47:08 PM, FaustianJustice wrote:
At 4/5/2016 1:15:04 PM, Welfare-Worker wrote:
At 4/4/2016 3:41:15 AM, bsh1 wrote:
From the BBC:

"It's a tradition that dates back to the 1930s. Every new mother, regardless of background or income, gets a baby box from the government. The box contains a stash of supplies - bibs, bodysuits, nappies, a sleeping bag, outdoor gear, bathing products - as well as a small mattress. Putting the mattress in the bottom of the box creates the baby's first bed." [http://www.bbc.com...]

Thoughts? I really love this idea.

Do I think it is a good idea for middle income, childless individuals, to pay taxes so upper middle class parents can get free stuff?
No.

In the USA today, middle class, childless individuals, pay taxes so upper middle class children can get free school lunches, probably snacks as well, maybe even breakfast and lunch as well. If 40 per cent of the families are 'poor', all children qualify for free meals.

I also pay taxes so they can run their cars on roads I don't drive on, pay taxes so they can have fires put out that I don't have, and police protection that I don't call! What gives?!!?

Taxes go towards the general welfare of social needs.
There is an arbitrary limit, that any individual believes is 'just'.
You may feel breast implants are worthy, I may disagree.

Depends on the situation, doesn't it? ;)

You may feel paying for diapers for people with higher income than your own is worthy, I may disagree.

Sort of depends on what my income is, doesn't it? ;)

If you consume, goods made or sold by others, you make use of roads, banks, police protection, etc. These things do not benefit one particular person, but society as a group. Diapers benefit one person or family, at the expense of others.

So does putting their house out, if its on fire. Or them calling 911.

I see a difference, you, it seems, do not.

Because big picture is not your thing, it seems.

Food pantries already offer free formula, disposable diapers, and other baby needs. The responsibility for the needy should be religious and civic organizations, not taxpayers.

Explain why.


The welfare of the individuals in society is the responsibility of society, not the government, I would argue.

Even though the responsibility of the government is to the general welfare of its people? That is the inherent point of government. Why else would it exist?

The welfare of society as a group is the responsibility of government, I would argue.

And you think this means the government can only make decisions based on a group? How big must this group get before it warrants government attention?

'Police prosecution' does not mean I have someone at my residence 24x7. It does mean my community should have coverage, 24x7, or thereabouts. Religion and civic organizations, it would seem, serve a purpose for the common good that is not the responsibility of government.

They are not beholden to the public or common good though. Government expressly is.

While government may have a responsibility to meet minimum needs for all citizens, it has no responsibility to provide the same level of free goods and services for those who are not poor, or are only poor because they choose to be that way.

Ah, the point. Finally.


When the "needy" includes all socio-economic groups, regardless of income, society has failed us, not helped us.

Sounds to me like we need a better vetting program.

How so?

The system is pretty easy to game when the system itself is deficient in investigation of whom receives benefit, or how said benefit is received.

Are you suggesting a needs based criteria for distribution of Welfare benefits - as this is contrary to the OP position, as I read it.

Two ways of looking at it. Why would those of greater income take such in the first place if they don't need it? You look to government for responsibility, but government derives its motives and morality from the people it governs.


Is it a good thing to help poor people provide the basic needs for their infants?
Yes, sure, no objections, let us help them.

Is it a good thing to provide blanket free stuff, baby food included, to irresponsible individuals who can spend $100+ per month for cable TV but don't want to spend their own money on baby food?
Absolutely not, no way, no shape, no how, not now, not ever.

Like I said, vetting problem.
How so?

See previous.
Here we have an advocate for Islamic arranged marriages demonstrating that children can consent to sex.
http://www.debate.org...
Welfare-Worker
Posts: 1,150
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
4/6/2016 11:40:15 AM
Posted: 8 months ago
At 4/6/2016 2:02:13 AM, FaustianJustice wrote:
At 4/6/2016 1:29:52 AM, Welfare-Worker wrote:
At 4/5/2016 1:47:08 PM, FaustianJustice wrote:
At 4/5/2016 1:15:04 PM, Welfare-Worker wrote:
At 4/4/2016 3:41:15 AM, bsh1 wrote:
From the BBC:

"It's a tradition that dates back to the 1930s. Every new mother, regardless of background or income, gets a baby box from the government. The box contains a stash of supplies - bibs, bodysuits, nappies, a sleeping bag, outdoor gear, bathing products - as well as a small mattress. Putting the mattress in the bottom of the box creates the baby's first bed." [http://www.bbc.com...]

Thoughts? I really love this idea.

Do I think it is a good idea for middle income, childless individuals, to pay taxes so upper middle class parents can get free stuff?
No.

In the USA today, middle class, childless individuals, pay taxes so upper middle class children can get free school lunches, probably snacks as well, maybe even breakfast and lunch as well. If 40 per cent of the families are 'poor', all children qualify for free meals.

I also pay taxes so they can run their cars on roads I don't drive on, pay taxes so they can have fires put out that I don't have, and police protection that I don't call! What gives?!!?

Taxes go towards the general welfare of social needs.
There is an arbitrary limit, that any individual believes is 'just'.
You may feel breast implants are worthy, I may disagree.

Depends on the situation, doesn't it? ;)

Not that I can see.

You may feel paying for diapers for people with higher income than your own is worthy, I may disagree.

Sort of depends on what my income is, doesn't it? ;)

Not that I can see.

If you consume, goods made or sold by others, you make use of roads, banks, police protection, etc. These things do not benefit one particular person, but society as a group. Diapers benefit one person or family, at the expense of others.

So does putting their house out, if its on fire. Or them calling 911.

The mere existence of a fire benefits all, 'just in case...', even if there is never a fire. All benefit, always.

I see a difference, you, it seems, do not.

Because big picture is not your thing, it seems.

The big picture is exactly what I see.

Food pantries already offer free formula, disposable diapers, and other baby needs. The responsibility for the needy should be religious and civic organizations, not taxpayers.

Explain why.


The welfare of the individuals in society is the responsibility of society, not the government, I would argue.

Even though the responsibility of the government is to the general welfare of its people? That is the inherent point of government. Why else would it exist?


'General welfare' means providing group needs, not individual.

The welfare of society as a group is the responsibility of government, I would argue.

And you think this means the government can only make decisions based on a group? How big must this group get before it warrants government attention?

Well, that is a decision the citizens need to decide. It seems to me when most benefit, it is just.

'Police prosecution' does not mean I have someone at my residence 24x7. It does mean my community should have coverage, 24x7, or thereabouts. Religion and civic organizations, it would seem, serve a purpose for the common good that is not the responsibility of government.

They are not beholden to the public or common good though. Government expressly is.

Wrong.
They receive tax exempt status for a reason.
Please explain what that reason is, if not that they provide benefit to taxpayers and citizens.

While government may have a responsibility to meet minimum needs for all citizens, it has no responsibility to provide the same level of free goods and services for those who are not poor, or are only poor because they choose to be that way.

Ah, the point. Finally.


When the "needy" includes all socio-economic groups, regardless of income, society has failed us, not helped us.

Sounds to me like we need a better vetting program.

How so?

The system is pretty easy to game when the system itself is deficient in investigation of whom receives benefit, or how said benefit is received.

Hello!!!
There is absolutely no need to game the system when free stuff is given to "every new mother, regardless of background or income."
This is the problem with the system as it exists.
Many, not all, of the "abuse" that taxpayers think occurs, is actually all according to the rules.
If 40 percent of the families are poor -regardless of reasons - then all children get free school meals and snacks, regardless of background or income.
It does not matter if they are illegal aliens, or if their parents earn $1 million a year, or if the parents are healthy, have 6 kids, and never worked a day in their lives.
Free stuff regardless of background or income, means no need to game the system.
The regulation are so lax, gaming the system (which means following the letter of the law, not the spirit) is easy. More importantly, it cannot be stopped, regardless of oversight, because all rules are being followed.

Families refuse cash assistance (TCA) because rules are strict and they can live just fine with all the other benefits they get for free from programs with lax regulations.

Are you suggesting a needs based criteria for distribution of Welfare benefits - as this is contrary to the OP position, as I read it.

Two ways of looking at it. Why would those of greater income take such in the first place if they don't need it? You look to government for responsibility, but government derives its motives and morality from the people it governs.

Ever hear the expression "greed is good"?
Some people believe that.

If I tell you I am going to take your tax money and buy free stuff for all of your neighbors, and you can get in line right with them, no questions asked, what would the good money manager, who is not greedy at all, just a good money manager, do?

I say many of them, probably most of them, would get in the line for the free stuff they qualify for.
Do you actually believe that if the government gave out free tires for BWMs, rich people with BMWs would not want them? Top quality, no blems, excellent tires for free.
I say some would not, some would.


Is it a good thing to help poor people provide the basic needs for their infants?
Yes, sure, no objections, let us help them.

Is it a good thing to provide blanket free stuff, baby food included, to irresponsible individuals who can spend $100+ per month for cable TV but don't want to spend their own money on baby food?
Absolutely not, no way, no shape, no how, not now, not ever.

Like I said, vetting problem.
How so?

See previous.
Seen and responded.
FaustianJustice
Posts: 6,205
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
4/6/2016 11:53:04 AM
Posted: 8 months ago
From the BBC:

"It's a tradition that dates back to the 1930s. Every new mother, regardless of background or income, gets a baby box from the government. The box contains a stash of supplies - bibs, bodysuits, nappies, a sleeping bag, outdoor gear, bathing products - as well as a small mattress. Putting the mattress in the bottom of the box creates the baby's first bed." [http://www.bbc.com...]

Thoughts? I really love this idea.

Do I think it is a good idea for middle income, childless individuals, to pay taxes so upper middle class parents can get free stuff?
No.

In the USA today, middle class, childless individuals, pay taxes so upper middle class children can get free school lunches, probably snacks as well, maybe even breakfast and lunch as well. If 40 per cent of the families are 'poor', all children qualify for free meals.

I also pay taxes so they can run their cars on roads I don't drive on, pay taxes so they can have fires put out that I don't have, and police protection that I don't call! What gives?!!?

Taxes go towards the general welfare of social needs.
There is an arbitrary limit, that any individual believes is 'just'.
You may feel breast implants are worthy, I may disagree.

Depends on the situation, doesn't it? ;)

Not that I can see.

You may feel paying for diapers for people with higher income than your own is worthy, I may disagree.

Sort of depends on what my income is, doesn't it? ;)

Not that I can see.

If you consume, goods made or sold by others, you make use of roads, banks, police protection, etc. These things do not benefit one particular person, but society as a group. Diapers benefit one person or family, at the expense of others.

So does putting their house out, if its on fire. Or them calling 911.

The mere existence of a fire benefits all, 'just in case...', even if there is never a fire. All benefit, always.

And I would be benefiting from the same programs in which said breast implants or diapers were passed out, should I apply for it. Do you see that, and how it might correlate to other services?

I see a difference, you, it seems, do not.

Because big picture is not your thing, it seems.

The big picture is exactly what I see.
Food pantries already offer free formula, disposable diapers, and other baby needs. The responsibility for the needy should be religious and civic organizations, not taxpayers.

Explain why.


The welfare of the individuals in society is the responsibility of society, not the government, I would argue.

Even though the responsibility of the government is to the general welfare of its people? That is the inherent point of government. Why else would it exist?


'General welfare' means providing group needs, not individual.

The welfare of society as a group is the responsibility of government, I would argue.

And you think this means the government can only make decisions based on a group? How big must this group get before it warrants government attention?

Well, that is a decision the citizens need to decide. It seems to me when most benefit, it is just.

So collectively, large swathes of people engaging in the programs you mentioned above, but dislike would be 'okay'. That seems to be your rationale.

'Police prosecution' does not mean I have someone at my residence 24x7. It does mean my community should have coverage, 24x7, or thereabouts. Religion and civic organizations, it would seem, serve a purpose for the common good that is not the responsibility of government.

They are not beholden to the public or common good though. Government expressly is.

Wrong. They receive tax exempt status for a reason. Please explain what that reason is, if not that they provide benefit to taxpayers and citizens.

Rather, please explain what specifically makes them beholden. You seem to think that because they don't pay monies, its a contract of some variety. Is a church or food pantry required to lend aid?


While government may have a responsibility to meet minimum needs for all citizens, it has no responsibility to provide the same level of free goods and services for those who are not poor, or are only poor because they choose to be that way.

Ah, the point. Finally.


When the "needy" includes all socio-economic groups, regardless of income, society has failed us, not helped us.

Sounds to me like we need a better vetting program.

How so?

The system is pretty easy to game when the system itself is deficient in investigation of whom receives benefit, or how said benefit is received.

Hello!!! There is absolutely no need to game the system when free stuff is given to "every new mother, regardless of background or income." This is the problem with the system as it exists. Many, not all, of the "abuse" that taxpayers think occurs, is actually all according to the rules. If 40 percent of the families are poor -regardless of reasons - then all children get free school meals and snacks, regardless of background or income.

And you don't think a better vetting system, of which different requirements would be inclusive of, would help that?

It does not matter if they are illegal aliens, or if their parents earn $1 million a year, or if the parents are healthy, have 6 kids, and never worked a day in their lives. Free stuff regardless of background or income, means no need to game the system. The regulation are so lax,

'free' stuff means no regulations. Clearly there is a standard, a bench mark.

gaming the system (which means following the letter of the law, not the spirit) is easy.

No kidding, its what you do to clear 'regulations' for 'free things'.

More importantly, it cannot be stopped, regardless of oversight, because all rules are being followed.

And yet there is a spirit of the law, and resources are limited. A vetting system could very well re-prioritize how those resources are distributed.

Families refuse cash assistance (TCA) because rules are strict and they can live just fine with all the other benefits they get for free from programs with lax regulations.

Again, 'regulations' and 'free stuff' is an incongruent term. You are starting to back pedal.

Are you suggesting a needs based criteria for distribution of Welfare benefits - as this is contrary to the OP position, as I read it.

Two ways of looking at it. Why would those of greater income take such in the first place if they don't need it? You look to government for responsibility, but government derives its motives and morality from the people it governs.

Ever hear the expression "greed is good"?

So then the problem is not the government then, is it?
Here we have an advocate for Islamic arranged marriages demonstrating that children can consent to sex.
http://www.debate.org...
Welfare-Worker
Posts: 1,150
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
4/6/2016 12:49:25 PM
Posted: 8 months ago
At 4/6/2016 11:53:04 AM, FaustianJustice wrote:
From the BBC:





In the USA today, middle class, childless individuals, pay taxes so upper middle class children can get free school lunches, probably snacks as well, maybe even breakfast and lunch as well. If 40 per cent of the families are 'poor', all children qualify for free meals.

I also pay taxes so they can run their cars on roads I don't drive on, pay taxes so they can have fires put out that I don't have, and police protection that I

You may feel paying for diapers for people with higher income than your own is worthy, I may disagree.

Sort of depends on what my income is, doesn't it? ;)

Not that I can see.

If you consume, goods made or sold by others, you make use of roads, banks, police protection, etc. These things do not benefit one particular person, but society as a group. Diapers benefit one person or family, at the expense of others.

So does putting their house out, if its on fire. Or them calling 911.

The mere existence of a fire benefits all, 'just in case...', even if there is never a fire. All benefit, always.

And I would be benefiting from the same programs in which said breast implants or diapers were passed out, should I apply for it. Do you see that, and how it might correlate to other services?

I see a difference, you, it seems, do not.

Because big picture is not your thing, it seems.

The big picture is exactly what I see.
Food pantries already offer free formula, disposable diapers, and other baby needs. The responsibility for the needy should be religious and civic organizations, not taxpayers.

Explain why.


The welfare of the individuals in society is the responsibility of society, not the government, I would argue.

Even though the responsibility of the government is to the general welfare of its people? That is the inherent point of government. Why else would it exist?


'General welfare' means providing group needs, not individual.

The welfare of society as a group is the responsibility of government, I would argue.

And you think this means the government can only make decisions based on a group? How big must this group get before it warrants government attention?

Well, that is a decision the citizens need to decide. It seems to me when most benefit, it is just.

So collectively, large swathes of people engaging in the programs you mentioned above, but dislike would be 'okay'. That seems to be your rationale.


Sorry. I do not follow.

'Police prosecution' does not mean I have someone at my residence 24x7. It does mean my community should have coverage, 24x7, or thereabouts. Religion and civic organizations, it would seem, serve a purpose for the common good that is not the responsibility of government.

They are not beholden to the public or common good though. Government expressly is.

Wrong. They receive tax exempt status for a reason. Please explain what that reason is, if not that they provide benefit to taxpayers and citizens.

Rather, please explain what specifically makes them beholden. You seem to think that because they don't pay monies, its a contract of some variety. Is a church or food pantry required to lend aid?

Tax exempt status is given for a reason, you do not seem to deny this.
I ask why this would be, and you have no suggestions.
These are, by definition, charitable organizations.
You explain how charitable organizations do not benefit others, and you are on your way to making a point.


While government may have a responsibility to meet minimum needs for all citizens, it has no responsibility to provide the same level of free goods and services for those who are not poor, or are only poor because they choose to be that way.

Ah, the point. Finally.


When the "needy" includes all socio-economic groups, regardless of income, society has failed us, not helped us.

Sounds to me like we need a better vetting program.

How so?

The system is pretty easy to game when the system itself is deficient in investigation of whom receives benefit, or how said benefit is received.

Hello!!! There is absolutely no need to game the system when free stuff is given to "every new mother, regardless of background or income." This is the problem with the system as it exists. Many, not all, of the "abuse" that taxpayers think occurs, is actually all according to the rules. If 40 percent of the families are poor -regardless of reasons - then all children get free school meals and snacks, regardless of background or income.

And you don't think a better vetting system, of which different requirements would be inclusive of, would help that?

Could I have made it any clearer?????
When the rules say "any person regardless of background or income", no amount of vetting will uncover something in their background that makes them ineligible.
This is black and white, but all you see is gray.

It does not matter if they are illegal aliens, or if their parents earn $1 million a year, or if the parents are healthy, have 6 kids, and never worked a day in their lives. Free stuff regardless of background or income, means no need to game the system. The regulation are so lax,

'free' stuff means no regulations. Clearly there is a standard, a bench mark.

"Free" does not mean no regulations.
I get free chips and salsa when I purchase an entree - that is the regulation for the free stuff.

gaming the system (which means following the letter of the law, not the spirit) is easy.

No kidding, its what you do to clear 'regulations' for 'free things'.

You still do not seem to understand.
Those who game the system change their circumstances so they fit into the regulations to get the free stuff. No one needs to clear the regulations.

More importantly, it cannot be stopped, regardless of oversight, because all rules are being followed.

And yet there is a spirit of the law, and resources are limited. A vetting system could very well re-prioritize how those resources are distributed.

Not when benefits are given regardless of background or income.

Families refuse cash assistance (TCA) because rules are strict and they can live just fine with all the other benefits they get for free from programs with lax regulations.

Again, 'regulations' and 'free stuff' is an incongruent term. You are starting to back pedal.

Look, most of the time (not always), getting the free stuff has one regulation you should be able to understand. You have to request it, you have to apply, you have to ask for it, that is a requirement.
The regulations are clear: "the only requirement is that the person applies." - It actually says that, in some cases.

Are you suggesting a needs based criteria for distribution of Welfare benefits - as this is contrary to the OP position, as I read it.

Two ways of looking at it. Why would those of greater income take such in the first place if they don't need it? You look to government for responsibility, but government derives its motives and morality from the people it governs.

Ever hear the expression "greed is good"?

So then the problem is not the government then, is it?
If the government owns a program, and there are problems, the government owns the problems.
So, no, you are incorrect.
FaustianJustice
Posts: 6,205
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
4/6/2016 1:51:45 PM
Posted: 8 months ago
In the USA today, middle class, childless individuals, pay taxes so upper middle class children can get free school lunches, probably snacks as well, maybe even breakfast and lunch as well. If 40 per cent of the families are 'poor', all children qualify for free meals.

I also pay taxes so they can run their cars on roads I don't drive on, pay taxes so they can have fires put out that I don't have, and police protection that I

You may feel paying for diapers for people with higher income than your own is worthy, I may disagree.

Sort of depends on what my income is, doesn't it? ;)

Not that I can see.

If you consume, goods made or sold by others, you make use of roads, banks, police protection, etc. These things do not benefit one particular person, but society as a group. Diapers benefit one person or family, at the expense of others.

So does putting their house out, if its on fire. Or them calling 911.

The mere existence of a fire benefits all, 'just in case...', even if there is never a fire. All benefit, always.

And I would be benefiting from the same programs in which said breast implants or diapers were passed out, should I apply for it. Do you see that, and how it might correlate to other services?

I see a difference, you, it seems, do not.

Because big picture is not your thing, it seems.

The big picture is exactly what I see.
Food ...taxpayers.

Explain why.


The welfare of the individuals in society is the responsibility of society, not the government, I would argue.

Even though the responsibility of the government is to the general welfare of its people? That is the inherent point of government. Why else would it exist?


'General welfare' means providing group needs, not individual.

The welfare of society as a group is the responsibility of government, I would argue.

And you think this means the government can only make decisions based on a group? How big must this group get before it warrants government attention?

Well, that is a decision the citizens need to decide. It seems to me when most benefit, it is just.

So collectively, large swathes of people engaging in the programs you mentioned above, but dislike would be 'okay'. That seems to be your rationale.


Sorry. I do not follow.


'Police...government.

They are not beholden to the public or common good though. Government expressly is.

Wrong. They receive tax exempt status for a reason. Please explain what that reason is, if not that they provide benefit to taxpayers and citizens.

Rather, please explain what specifically makes them beholden. You seem to think that because they don't pay monies, its a contract of some variety. Is a church or food pantry required to lend aid?

Tax exempt status is given for a reason, you do not seem to deny this.
I ask why this would be, and you have no suggestions.
These are, by definition, charitable organizations.
You explain how charitable organizations do not benefit others, and you are on your way to making a point.

Which was not the point I was making. I am asking what requires the actions you suggest they make. You point to tax exempt status, but I don't see the requirement there.



When the "needy" includes all socio-economic groups, regardless of income, society has failed us, not helped us.

Sounds to me like we need a better vetting program.

How so?

The system is pretty easy to game when the system itself is deficient in investigation of whom receives benefit, or how said benefit is received.

Hello!!! There is absolutely no need to game the system when free stuff is given to "every new mother, regardless of background or income." This is the problem with the system as it exists. Many, not all, of the "abuse" that taxpayers think occurs, is actually all according to the rules. If 40 percent of the families are poor -regardless of reasons - then all children get free school meals and snacks, regardless of background or income.

And you don't think a better vetting system, of which different requirements would be inclusive of, would help that?

Could I have made it any clearer????? When the rules say "any person regardless of background or income", no amount of vetting will uncover something in their background that makes them ineligible. This is black and white, but all you see is gray.

It does not matter if they are illegal aliens, or if their parents earn $1 million a year, or if the parents are healthy, have 6 kids, and never worked a day in their lives. Free stuff regardless of background or income, means no need to game the system. The regulation are so lax,

'free' stuff means no regulations. Clearly there is a standard, a bench mark.

"Free" does not mean no regulations.

without cost or unimpeded are appropriate words when discussing "Free", yes? clearly there is an impediment if there is a regulation.

I get free chips and salsa when I purchase an entree - that is the regulation for the free stuff.

-snicker fit- ah, you are one of "those" consumers. Gotcha.

gaming the system (which means following the letter of the law, not the spirit) is easy.

No kidding, its what you do to clear 'regulations' for 'free things'.

You still do not seem to understand. Those who game the system change their circumstances so they fit into the regulations to get the free stuff. No one needs to clear the regulations.

Then why are they changing their circumstance? Clearly, you and I see "free" as a different prospect.

More importantly, it cannot be stopped, regardless of oversight, because all rules are being followed.

And yet there is a spirit of the law, and resources are limited. A vetting system could very well re-prioritize how those resources are distributed.

Not when benefits are given regardless of background or income.

.. so then why are people "changing their circumstance"?

Families refuse cash assistance (TCA) because rules are strict and they can live just fine with all the other benefits they get for free from programs with lax regulations.

Again, 'regulations' and 'free stuff' is an incongruent term. You are starting to back pedal.

Look, most of the time (not always), getting the free stuff has one regulation you should be able to understand. You have to request it, you have to apply, you have to ask for it, that is a requirement.

Which is why I state you and I see 'free' differently.

The regulations are clear: "the only requirement is that the person applies." - It actually says that, in some cases.
Here we have an advocate for Islamic arranged marriages demonstrating that children can consent to sex.
http://www.debate.org...
Welfare-Worker
Posts: 1,150
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
4/6/2016 3:02:29 PM
Posted: 8 months ago
At 4/6/2016 1:51:45 PM, FaustianJustice wrote:
In the USA today, middle class, childless individuals, pay taxes so upper middle class children can get free school lunches, probably snacks as well, maybe even breakfast and lunch as well. If 40 per cent of the families are 'poor', all children qualify for free meals.

I also pay taxes so they can run their cars on roads I don't drive on, pay taxes so they can have fires put out that I don't have, and police protection that I

You may feel paying for diapers for people with higher income than your own is worthy, I may disagree.

Sort of depends on what my income is, doesn't it? ;)

Not that I can see.


'General welfare' means providing group needs, not individual.

The welfare of society as a group is the responsibility of government, I would argue.

And you think this means the government can only make decisions based on a group? How big must this group get before it warrants government attention?

Well, that is a decision the citizens need to decide. It seems to me when most benefit, it is just.

So collectively, large swathes of people engaging in the programs you mentioned above, but dislike would be 'okay'. That seems to be your rationale.


Sorry. I do not follow.


'Police...government.

They are not beholden to the public or common good though. Government expressly is.

Wrong. They receive tax exempt status for a reason. Please explain what that reason is, if not that they provide benefit to taxpayers and citizens.

Rather, please explain what specifically makes them beholden. You seem to think that because they don't pay monies, its a contract of some variety. Is a church or food pantry required to lend aid?

Tax exempt status is given for a reason, you do not seem to deny this.
I ask why this would be, and you have no suggestions.
These are, by definition, charitable organizations.
You explain how charitable organizations do not benefit others, and you are on your way to making a point.

Which was not the point I was making. I am asking what requires the actions you suggest they make. You point to tax exempt status, but I don't see the requirement there.



When the "needy" includes all socio-economic groups, regardless of income, society has failed us, not helped us.

Sounds to me like we need a better vetting program.

How so?

The system is pretty easy to game when the system itself is deficient in investigation of whom receives benefit, or how said benefit is received.

Hello!!! There is absolutely no need to game the system when free stuff is given to "every new mother, regardless of background or income." This is the problem with the system as it exists. Many, not all, of the "abuse" that taxpayers think occurs, is actually all according to the rules. If 40 percent of the families are poor -regardless of reasons - then all children get free school meals and snacks, regardless of background or income.

And you don't think a better vetting system, of which different requirements would be inclusive of, would help that?

Could I have made it any clearer????? When the rules say "any person regardless of background or income", no amount of vetting will uncover something in their background that makes them ineligible. This is black and white, but all you see is gray.

It does not matter if they are illegal aliens, or if their parents earn $1 million a year, or if the parents are healthy, have 6 kids, and never worked a day in their lives. Free stuff regardless of background or income, means no need to game the system. The regulation are so lax,

'free' stuff means no regulations. Clearly there is a standard, a bench mark.

"Free" does not mean no regulations.

without cost or unimpeded are appropriate words when discussing "Free", yes? clearly there is an impediment if there is a regulation.

Yeah "Sigh your name here."
Draconian rules, obviously meant to impede the greedy.
"Prove your identity." What rubbish.
"Prove your residence." clearly they are just trying to prevent redistribution.
Why don't they just say 'Race a speeding train", or "Leap over a tall building."

I get free chips and salsa when I purchase an entree - that is the regulation for the free stuff.

-snicker fit- ah, you are one of "those" consumers. Gotcha.
And my patronage is greatly appreciated, thank you very much.

gaming the system (which means following the letter of the law, not the spirit) is easy.

No kidding, its what you do to clear 'regulations' for 'free things'.

You still do not seem to understand. Those who game the system change their circumstances so they fit into the regulations to get the free stuff. No one needs to clear the regulations.

Then why are they changing their circumstance? Clearly, you and I see "free" as a different prospect.

More importantly, it cannot be stopped, regardless of oversight, because all rules are being followed.

And yet there is a spirit of the law, and resources are limited. A vetting system could very well re-prioritize how those resources are distributed.

Not when benefits are given regardless of background or income.

.. so then why are people "changing their circumstance"?

Families refuse cash assistance (TCA) because rules are strict and they can live just fine with all the other benefits they get for free from programs with lax regulations.

Again, 'regulations' and 'free stuff' is an incongruent term. You are starting to back pedal.

Look, most of the time (not always), getting the free stuff has one regulation you should be able to understand. You have to request it, you have to apply, you have to ask for it, that is a requirement.

Which is why I state you and I see 'free' differently.

The regulations are clear: "the only requirement is that the person applies." - It actually says that, in some cases.

I think even if you have to put your hand out, it is still free.
You disagree.
I think even if you have to ask for it once a year, it is still free.
You disagree.
I understand.
Blade-of-Truth
Posts: 5,020
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
4/6/2016 5:34:37 PM
Posted: 8 months ago
At 4/4/2016 3:41:15 AM, bsh1 wrote:
From the BBC:

"It's a tradition that dates back to the 1930s. Every new mother, regardless of background or income, gets a baby box from the government. The box contains a stash of supplies - bibs, bodysuits, nappies, a sleeping bag, outdoor gear, bathing products - as well as a small mattress. Putting the mattress in the bottom of the box creates the baby's first bed." [http://www.bbc.com...]

Thoughts? I really love this idea.

Great idea, I like it too.
Debate.org Deputy Vote Moderator
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
DDO Voting Guide: http://www.debate.org...
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
Need a judge on your debate? Nominate me! http://www.debate.org...
Vox_Veritas
Posts: 7,060
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
4/7/2016 1:35:28 AM
Posted: 7 months ago
At 4/5/2016 1:15:04 PM, Welfare-Worker wrote:
At 4/4/2016 3:41:15 AM, bsh1 wrote:
From the BBC:

"It's a tradition that dates back to the 1930s. Every new mother, regardless of background or income, gets a baby box from the government. The box contains a stash of supplies - bibs, bodysuits, nappies, a sleeping bag, outdoor gear, bathing products - as well as a small mattress. Putting the mattress in the bottom of the box creates the baby's first bed." [http://www.bbc.com...]

Thoughts? I really love this idea.

Do I think it is a good idea for middle income, childless individuals, to pay taxes so upper middle class parents can get free stuff?
No.

In the USA today, middle class, childless individuals, pay taxes so upper middle class children can get free school lunches, probably snacks as well, maybe even breakfast and lunch as well. If 40 per cent of the families are 'poor', all children qualify for free meals.

The taxes go into a pool. Regardless of how much you pay into the system (hint: the rich pay most of the bill) you get the same amount. This is a system which benefits the middle and lower class people; if anything, this system is a massive ripoff for the rich, who don't need or generally use such services.

Food pantries already offer free formula, disposable diapers, and other baby needs.
The responsibility for the needy should be religious and civic organizations, not taxpayers.
When the "needy" includes all socio-economic groups, regardless of income, society has failed us, not helped us.

Is it a good thing to help poor people provide the basic needs for their infants?
Yes, sure, no objections, let us help them.

Is it a good thing to provide blanket free stuff, baby food included, to irresponsible individuals who can spend $100+ per month for cable TV but don't want to spend their own money on baby food?
Absolutely not, no way, no shape, no how, not now, not ever.

There was a time when middle class folks would not accept a handout meant for the needy. This was very common in the 1930's, across the pond as well as in the colonies.
Different times, different standards.
Call me Vox, the Resident Contrarian of debate.org.

The DDO Blog:
https://debatedotorg.wordpress.com...

#drinkthecoffeenotthekoolaid
dylancatlow
Posts: 12,241
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
4/7/2016 5:04:17 PM
Posted: 7 months ago
This idea seems really impractical. I mean, what if a mother already has all these things from a previous child, or likes to use a particular brand? I bet a good amount of the time the supplies just go to waste. I think a far more sensible policy would be to subsidize low-income mothers with vouches that could be spent on such items, similar to how food stamps are done.
Welfare-Worker
Posts: 1,150
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
4/7/2016 9:03:54 PM
Posted: 7 months ago
At 4/7/2016 5:04:17 PM, dylancatlow wrote:
This idea seems really impractical. I mean, what if a mother already has all these things from a previous child, or likes to use a particular brand? I bet a good amount of the time the supplies just go to waste. I think a far more sensible policy would be to subsidize low-income mothers with vouches that could be spent on such items, similar to how food stamps are done.

Well, according to some posters, you are just being unreasonable. Not wanting to put words in their mouth, but that is how I see it.
You want to make it only for "low income". And you want to give them vouchers, which are in use for some things (WIC) but some see them as demeaning.

But it is that "low income" hook that many do not like, for a variety of reasons.

Even as late as the 70's children were embarrassed to be on lunch programs, meant for the poor. One way to alleviate this problem is see to it that the majority of the children are getting them. Stigma gone.
So if 40% are poor, just give them to everyone, no application needed. When you go through the line, no payment needed, regardless. The principal's kids get free meals just like everyone else. No questions asked.

We have some such non-food programs now, although some of them are not government administered.
Diapers : http://nationaldiaperbanknetwork.org...

See for more hints: http://baby.lovetoknow.com...

44.9% of all births in the USA were paid for by Medicaid in 2010 - a form of welfare.
More today I expect - half, last I heard.
http://kff.org...

And no encouragement of birth control, the opposite in fact.
Classes and birth control products are fought against, unless you count abstinence as an effective form of birth control.
Deb-8-A-Bull
Posts: 2,181
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
4/8/2016 11:38:41 AM
Posted: 7 months ago
Free baby kits .

I don't think many kids have ever seen knight rider.
But a free baby kit would definitely spike their interests.
Deb-8-A-Bull
Posts: 2,181
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
4/8/2016 11:45:00 AM
Posted: 7 months ago
Free baby kits .
I agree Michael

That sounds cool.
As a young kid I loved knight rider.
I could only imagine how great it would to have a mini version of 1 as a kid.
Good idea.