VBPRC Debate Club: Topic 2 - Welfare
 

Wait for it....


Wait for it....


GO

End it at the federal level.

If individual states want to adopt such measures like our current federal welfare is doing that will bankrupt them, so be it. Otherwise let charities take the burden. I suspect that if private charities were the only means of helping those who truly need help, those charities would do a much better job of excluding those able to work from getting their dollars and man hours Of assistance than the federal government has done.

Also, allowing some states to entirely opt out of any form of welfare assistance would result in their deadbeats leaving those states in DROVES. This would be a good thing for those states.

I suppose if it were left up to individual states, those that did opt to keep some form of welfare going would adopt a wide variety of approaches and implement them. It wouldn't take but a few years to see what works and what doesn't... and other states can pick and choose from others' successes and failures.

very good points. I do think there needs to be some sort of a safety net, but very temporary and it should come with some requirements and restrictions. Temporary to me means 3-6 months max. And by requirements I mean drug testing, actively searching for a job and can prove it, either some community service or agreement to payback just like a student loan ( can't bankrupt out form under).

I can certainly appreciate the sentiment here, and you have some good points. I do wonder whether you support this position in cases of the truly disabled, orphans, elderly, etc.

End it at the federal level. Let the states and private charities take care of those truly in need.

I disagree on any "Safety net" I am not opposed to the principle but the execution will always fail.

When you have a "Safety net" administered by government you will alway have a corruption of the system. Government is Always about more power. Giving them any money and they turn it into a power base.

Charity handled at the local level by those who know the recipients , while having it's own set of problems, is a more effective and more stabilizing influence.

Government programs are not the solution. They are the problem.

Many years ago, When Clinton was in office, I was asked by my business partners in Taiwan to explain welfare in the USA. All had been to school in the USA and had a hard time wrapping their head around it.

After explaining it I was asked "What about their parents? Why did they not take care of them? Friend? Neighbors?

When I explained that they did not help They looked at me and said " In Taiwan if your Family, Friend and Neighbors don't want to help you then you are not worth it and should die."

And this includes state government.

I don't think most charities know their recipients do they?

I agree with the six month maximum, and drug testing. And if you think having another kid is a way to collect more money? You'd be rong.

Furthermore, leaving it to the individual states has issues. Minnesota is a fairly liberal state. If Minnesota adopt's more generous welfare benefits than Texas for instance, guess where they will all be migrating to?

Let them Migrate to Minnesota. Look at NY which has a mandatory Welfare clause in it's constitution. They keep piling in to get theirs. Sooner or later they will go broke.

In the past in the USA local charities knew their cases. They set standards of behavior that make everyone understand that their are rules that need to be followed and if you do not follow the rules you are out of the society.

When whole towns in the mid west were destroyed in tornado's other towns came to help. When asked why they said "Next time it could be us".

Thats Charity.

Everyone ALWAYS acts in their own self interest. Mother Teresa down to a Street Whore. Make people understand their own future is at stake and watch how much they help their neighbors.

Screw that noise, I live in Minnesota, thats why I used it as an example. :D

Either vote the SOB's out or vote with your feet. I did the latter with NY in 1995. Moved to NH. I watched as the Welfare families of NY City migrated to LI NY after the Early 1980's State Supreme court ruling that Welfare Benefits were portable within the state. It destroyed the community I knew and replaced with with scum and liberals.

I'm doing my part on the voting thing. The relocation option isn't one. I have elderly parents, blah blah blah.

I know how you feel. My Father, FIL and step mother were In their 70's when we left.

But looking back my kids are better off and that was my number one responsibility.

Father is 81, mother is 77. No kids of my own to be concerned about.

I find it amazing that, without that one guy here, we all can have an actual civilized conversation... dare I even call it an actual debate?

What I'm wondering is, why doesn't he show his presence in them? Is it simply too difficult to engage in critical thinking and use it to form intelligent comments which are actually on the topic of discussion?

Most of us agreed to keep it civil in these threads, and I think most of us are men or our words.

I think the states should administer it. I do agree with a safety net as many people don't have family that will or can assist. But I also believe family should take care of family first when possible.

But it should be limited with requirements attached. No I do not believe in drug testing to recieve it. I am always for freedom and will always hold the position that if are to live amongst each other then we shouldn't set rules for others just because we may have a belief.

Most people on welfare are not drug addicts. Sure some are but so are some business owners. Should government do drug tests on business owners before they get a business license?

it's a slippery slope so be careful how you answer.

back to the topic.

By the time you administer welfare from a federal level, too much money is lost in administrative costs and the feds use it as noose in far too many instances. states are either independent or they aren't, can't have it both ways.

The thought of simply ending welfare for the millions of Americans currently on it will not work.

There would be blood on the streets if the money dried up. You have 45 million Americans on food stamps alone. What do you think would happen if 1/6th of the US population suddenly went hungry?

None of you have enough ammo for the resulting shit storm. Arresting them would be even worse, then you would have to pay to incarcerate them.

I would be in favor of allowing welfare to go on for up to two years. There are millions of highly skilled Americans who's jobs have been exported and they simply can not find employment. The "go work at McDonalds" solution is not an option for most of them as they couldn't even begin to pay their financial obligations, and they would lose their benefits - which are worth more - if they took a job like that. Plus what 25 year old fast food manager is going to hire a guy in his 50's when he has 18 year old hotties applying for the same job?

After the two years of welfare pass, I would then support a reduced amount indefinitely provided the person receiving the benefits works for the government in some capacity. Be it cleaning parks and highways or other positions where non skilled labor is needed.

I also don't believe most Americans understand how much money welfare recipients actually received. Take Florida for example, the maximum unemployment benefit one can receive per week is $275. After taxes, you are lucky to clear $200.

Could you live on that?

Its not free money either. When you worked your employer paid into an unemployment fund. So even though it is state managed and allocated, the money these people are getting is paid by the companies employing people in the state.

There are also secondary issues with ending public assistance that are rarely discussed. The money given to these people simply doesn't evaporate, it is spent in their communities. They buy food, clothing, pay rent, utilities etc. There are millions of people employed now who would lose their jobs if those using government assistance no longer had any money.

And if you think it wouldn't affect you, consider what your house would be worth if 1/6th of your neighbors could no longer afford their homes. Houses would be repo'ed or sold at fire sale priced which would in turn depreciate your residence considerably as well.

And as for relying on charities, they can't handle all the people that need help today even with government assistance still in place. The idea of them suddenly being able to pick up the slack is unrealistic.