VBPRC Debate Club: Topic 2 - Welfare

[RetiredSFC 97]

Originally Posted by VITE1

Too your first statment. " many people don't have family that will or can assist". Why is this? What happend to the families in America since th e1960's? COul dit be that Welfare and other socila programs ahve supplanted family in the support role?

And Business owners, in many case, must have drug testing as part for their employment contract. Either due to Federal law involved in doing business with the Government or for Health insurance reasons. My last three jobs I and everyone else were required to take urine tests

Having any government involvement in any program promotes corruption in the government. Just look at the Welfare system today. It started out as a noble idea and has turned into a gold mine of power for politicians and business.

Government is almost always the problem, very rarely the solution.

Well you're preaching to the choir about the breakup of family. I am constantly pointing that out.

If we had a country like it was 150 years ago and beyond I would agree welfare should not exist. Problem is some of these people couldn't take care of themselves, when they fall on hard times if they wanted to, and most do want to. we're talking about a small percent who actually abuse the system.

If they could go out and hunt and find shelter like they once could, sure stop it. But that's not the world we live in any longer. But I suppose we could make a law that requires famliy to take care of their family.

Drug tests are more about insurance companies than reality and that's why it's entered the workforce.

The arguments have now become.

We got along with charities and family and people fending for themselves for years, so why should we have welfare.

The same argument can also be made for these intrusive drug tests. Now suddenly we just can't do without them? Sorry, I ain't buying that! Alcohol is still the number one abused drug and nothing happens to anyone for having a hangover and ends up hurting themselves or someone else unless it still shows they are legally intoxicated.

It hasn't stopped the corruption in business, the theft from business, or stupid people hurting themselves.

[VITE1]

Originally Posted by Joecooool

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.

Oh great the same old 'There will be blood in the street comment.

What you faile to relaize is that Welfare helped drive buiness out of the USA by taking a hunk of low cost labor out of the market place., It alsoi raised costs soince the landlords and local stores now had cusotmers who had a steady income stream so they could maintian or raise prices.

As to the Charity statement. For two hundred years it worked What happened Before welfare? Were their dead and dying in the street? Where their massive food riots and unemployed battling it out on the streets? I can't recall them?

I do believe that to end it completely will be disastrous. But end it we should. Start a ten year program. Each year cut welfare benefits and funding by 10% for the current level. ( about 70 billion a year) Then for th next 4 years anyone on welfare would be allowed to "Double dip" and work without penalty.

New participants would keep getting less and less. Sooner or later they will stop the cycle of dependency and end up being productive citizens.

Or they die. And thats not a bad deal either.

[RetiredSFC 97]

Originally Posted by VITE1

Oh great the same old 'There will be blood in the street comment.

What you faile to relaize is that Welfare helped drive buiness out of the USA by taking a hunk of low cost labor out of the market place., It alsoi raised costs soince the landlords and local stores now had cusotmers who had a steady income stream so they could maintian or raise prices.

As to the Charity statement. For two hundred years it worked What happened Before welfare? Were their dead and dying in the street? Where their massive food riots and unemployed battling it out on the streets? I can't recall them?

I do believe that to end it completely will be disastrous. But end it we should. Start a ten year program. Each year cut welfare benefits and funding by 10% for the current level. ( about 70 billion a year) Then for th next 4 years anyone on welfare would be allowed to "Double dip" and work without penalty.

New participants would keep getting less and less. Sooner or later they will stop the cycle of dependency and end up being productive citizens.

Or they die. And thats not a bad deal either.

Well you hit another one of usual points here.

With the loss of jobs, and I mean decent jobs, and the influx of illegals we ar paying people to stay home and hiring the illegals to do the work they once did.

Many of these problems are created by both government and those who feel it's important to make more money by offshoring. It's not just government at fault here. I'd like to lay the blame at their feet, but it's not reality. They hold more of the blame, but not all of it.

If we aren't going to create jobs, then we don't have a huge argument for ending welfare imo. Create jobs, bring jobs back, rebuild this country. Then let's end welfare and the illegal problem all at the same time.

Problem is neither side wants to address the issues except for us folks on a car forum.

[VITE1]

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.

Phil,

In Florida they pay taxes on welfare? Please post up a link.

http://www.ehow.com/info_7751311_wel...-taxation.html

And welfare money does not come from unemployment funds. Where do you get that?

Lastly If they are unable to provide for themselves why is it your and my responsibility to provide for them? In almost all cases they failed in some basic way to provide for themselves.

[Joecooool]

Originally Posted by VITE1

Phil,

In Florida they pay taxes on welfare? Please post up a link.

Is Welfare Considered Income for Taxation? | eHow.com

And welfare money does not come from unemployment funds. Where do you get that?

Lastly If they are unable to provide for themselves why is it your and my responsibility to provide for them? In almost all cases they failed in some basic way to provide for themselves.

Unemployment - which is what I specifically referenced - is taxable income.

Tax Topics - Topic 418 Unemployment Compensation

Unemployment checks come from the fees employers pay into the program. http://www.payroll-taxes.com/state-t...-state-tax.htm

Society has made a decision that we need to help these people. Just as we have decided that we need to educate our children, or that we need to build roads and bridges.

Besides, if we don't, I've already outlined what would happen. In the long run, public assistance is far far less expensive that jailing all the people who would resort to stealing to live.

[RetiredSFC 97]

Yes we made a decision to help people who had no avenue on a tempoarary basis.

We never agreed to make it a lifestyle, or receive it because you had a baby out of wedlock. If it went back to it's origins you would solve the illegal problem also. But the dems have been very good at getting votes for welfare and illegals.

That's the bottom line.

[Giraffe (He/Him)]

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?

I'm gonna agree with this wholeheartedly. Does anyone think those Americans are just gonna sit back and say "Oh well?"

[Stangkiller]

Originally Posted by Thomas

I'm gonna agree with this wholeheartedly. Does anyone think those Americans are just gonna sit back and say "Oh well?"

no, they'll start living within their means. Sorry, food stamps and other government living has become more comfortable, more luxurious, and a better standard of living than many hard working Americans living within their means can afford.

[VITE1]

Originally Posted by Joecooool

Unemployment - which is what I specifically referenced - is taxable income.

Tax Topics - Topic 418 Unemployment Compensation

Unemployment checks come from the fees employers pay into the program. Florida State Tax, Florida Unemployment and Payroll Tax | Payroll-Taxes.com

Society has made a decision that we need to help these people. Just as we have decided that we need to educate our children, or that we need to build roads and bridges.

Besides, if we don't, I've already outlined what would happen. In the long run, public assistance is far far less expensive that jailing all the people who would resort to stealing to live.

Your words:

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.

We are talking WELFARE here. Unemplyement has nothng to do with welfare.


Road, Bridges are covered under the Constitution. Education is covered under state constitutions, as is some forms of welfare in a few states.

Society decided along time ago that slavery was a good idea. Welfare is the same. Slavery to the government and needs to be abolished


You keep saying without public assistance the street would be war zones and the jails will be full. But in fact thats an OPINION. The facts are , before welfare and public assonance , crime rates were about the same or lower and the streets, even in the Ghettos, were safe to walk on at night. Your argument is based on fear not reality.

[Giraffe (He/Him)]

no, they'll start living within their means

The food stamp crowd will never do this. You and I possess the brains to not overextend, but do you think the food stamps and other government living has become more comfortable crew even BEGINS to have this mindset? I don't.

[VITE1]

Originally Posted by Thomas

I'm gonna agree with this wholeheartedly. Does anyone think those Americans are just gonna sit back and say "Oh well?"

F**k them. They want to riot in the streets? Let them.I love the fear mongering of the left. "There Will be blood in the streets" Where was all this violence BEFORE welfare?


It will not happen. Oh their will be riots. Break ins will rise. and lots of dead people will start being found in the morning. Mostly the Deadbeats, dropouts, druggie and drunks on welfare.

But most will go out and find a way to stay alive without rioting. Their is always a way.

[VITE1]

Originally Posted by Thomas

The food stamp crowd will never do this. You and I possess the brains to not overextend, but do you think the food stamps and other government living has become more comfortable crew even BEGINS to have this mindset? I don't.

Why does the government tell us not to feed the animals in the wold? Because they will propagate to their food supply.

Yet we provide food stamps to people who only reproduce.

[VITE1]

Originally Posted by TxAg

I disagree


Get a job. Stop spending MY hard earned money on crap they don't need. Find a charity to help.



One single person? No.
Groups of like minded people who can band together? Yep.



1. Then you give them your money. Quit taking mine.
2. End the unions, watch the jobs start to come back.



So work two job. Do what you need to do to provide for your family.
And if they already have a job with benefits, why would they work at McDonalds anyway? That makes zero sense.







Increase the size of gov't indefinitely. I'm shocked.
Forget that!



How about they apply for a job doing that instead of getting a hand out.



Source?



Just me? If I had to yeah I could live just about anything and survive. But that doesn't mean I would STAY in that position for GENERATIONS.



I don't recall anyone saying it was "free" money. It's theft from my paycheck. I'm not talking about ONLY employment. You keep interchanging all welfare with only unemployment.



So? Who cares where it's spent. It's not THEIR money to begin with.



Beer, drugs, sex, iPhones, etc...


Sorry, I don't buy that.



I'll pass on the fear tactics thanks.


Welcome to the current housing landscape.



If money was not being stolen from my paycheck I could give to the charities I feel would do the best at helping those truly in need. The rest of the titsuckers could go pound sand.



100% disagree.

Great post.

[Stangkiller]

Originally Posted by Thomas

The food stamp crowd will never do this. You and I possess the brains to not overextend, but do you think the food stamps and other government living has become more comfortable crew even BEGINS to have this mindset? I don't.

At some point we must pay the consequences for our choices. If not living within their means is their choice, that's fine, but they will suffer accordingly until they can learn to control themselves.

I just can't comprehend ME having to make sacrifices to pay taxes to support those who aren't willing to make sacrifices.

[Sea Six]

Originally Posted by VITE1

Why does the government tell us not to feed the animals in the wold? Because they will procreate to their food supply.

They'll fuck their food supply?

I think you meant to use the word propagate.

[VITE1]

Originally Posted by Sea Six

They'll fuck their food supply?

I think you meant to use the word propagate.

Damn.

[RedLS1GTO]

Originally Posted by Joecooool

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?

$800/month?

If I knew I had to live on it, I absolutely could. I lived off less than that for years while I was in college and yet here I am. To top it off, your math uses almost a 30% tax rate on an annual "income" of $14k. Ummmmm no.

The problem is, we have a society filled with people who can't tell the difference between a WANT and a NEED backed by people willing to keep handing them checks.

As an example, from your own liberal biased source, CNN, numbers show that almost 2/3. That's right, 2 in every 3 "poor" households have MULTIPLE televisions.

Income inequality: Are you poor if you have a flat-screen TV - Aug. 1, 2012

For instance, some 62% of households earning less than $20,000 annually owned between two and four televisions, according to the 2009 Residential Energy Consumption Survey, conducted by the U.S. Energy Information Agency. That compares to 68% of those earning $120,000 or more.

I drove back and forth through some of the worst parts of Louisville over the weekend helping a friend move. Kinda funny that almost every single falling down, dilapidated house had a DirecTV dish out front.

What is considered "poverty" in the United States today has become absolutely asinine. The average "poor" American has more than most of the people on the planet. These people for the vast majority are nowhere close to deprivation, they simply know that the government will keep handing them their check.

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?

Maybe they could sell 1 of their televisions or cut their smart phone data plan.

Do you really think that 45 million people in this country would "go hungry" without food stamps??

[RedLS1GTO]

None of you have enough ammo for the resulting shit storm.

I'd be happy to find out how long 20k+ rounds lasts.

[VITE1]

Originally Posted by RedLS1GTO

$800/month?

If I knew I had to live on it, I absolutely could. I lived off less than that for years while I was in college and yet here I am. To top it off, your math uses almost a 30% tax rate on an annual "income" of $14k. Ummmmm no.

The problem is, we have a society filled with people who can't tell the difference between a WANT and a NEED backed by people willing to keep handing them checks.

As an example, from your own liberal biased source, CNN, numbers show that almost 2/3. That's right, 2 in every 3 "poor" households have MULTIPLE televisions.

Income inequality: Are you poor if you have a flat-screen TV - Aug. 1, 2012



I drove back and forth through some of the worst parts of Louisville over the weekend helping a friend move. Kinda funny that almost every single falling down, dilapidated house had a DirecTV dish out front.

What is considered "poverty" in the United States today has become absolutely asinine. The average "poor" American has more than most of the people on the planet. These people for the vast majority are nowhere close to deprivation, they simply know that the government will keep handing them their check.



Maybe they could sell 1 of their televisions or cut their smart phone data plan.

Do you really think that 45 million people in this country would "go hungry" without food stamps??

From 2004.
Understanding Poverty in America

The following are facts about persons defined as "poor" by the Census Bureau, taken from various government reports:
■Fortysix percent of all poor households actually own their own homes. The average home owned by persons classified as poor by the Census Bureau is a threebedroom house with oneandahalf baths, a garage, and a porch or patio.
■Seventysix percent of poor households have air conditioning. By contrast, 30 years ago, only 36 percent of the entire U.S. population enjoyed air conditioning.
■Only 6 percent of poor households are overcrowded. More than twothirds have more than two rooms per person.
■The average poor American has more living space than the average individual living in Paris, London, Vienna, Athens, and other cities throughout Europe. (These comparisons are to the average citizens in foreign countries, not to those classified as poor.)
■Nearly threequarters of poor households own a car; 30 percent own two or more cars.
■Ninetyseven percent of poor households have a color television; over half own two or more color televisions.
■Seventyeight percent have a VCR or DVD player; 62 percent have cable or satellite TV reception.
■Seventythree percent own microwave ovens, more than half have a stereo, and a third have an automatic dishwasher

.

[Joecooool]

Originally Posted by RedLS1GTO

$800/month?

If I knew I had to live on it, I absolutely could. I lived off less than that for years while I was in college and yet here I am. To top it off, your math uses almost a 30% tax rate on an annual "income" of $14k. Ummmmm no.

The problem is, we have a society filled with people who can't tell the difference between a WANT and a NEED backed by people willing to keep handing them checks.

As an example, from your own liberal biased source, CNN, numbers show that almost 2/3. That's right, 2 in every 3 "poor" households have MULTIPLE televisions.

Income inequality: Are you poor if you have a flat-screen TV - Aug. 1, 2012



I drove back and forth through some of the worst parts of Louisville over the weekend helping a friend move. Kinda funny that almost every single falling down, dilapidated house had a DirecTV dish out front.

What is considered "poverty" in the United States today has become absolutely asinine. The average "poor" American has more than most of the people on the planet. These people for the vast majority are nowhere close to deprivation, they simply know that the government will keep handing them their check.



Maybe they could sell 1 of their televisions or cut their smart phone data plan.

Do you really think that 45 million people in this country would "go hungry" without food stamps??

Originally Posted by VITE1

From 2004.
Understanding Poverty in America
.

How many people owned those things before they fell into poverty?

How many of the home-owning poor are elderly?