Im not ar a computer right now so no drawn out responses. What I will say is that it has been proven on several occasions that removing the safety net forces people to take care of themselves.
Sent from my DROIDX using Tapatalk
Im not ar a computer right now so no drawn out responses. What I will say is that it has been proven on several occasions that removing the safety net forces people to take care of themselves.
Sent from my DROIDX using Tapatalk
No study needed. If someone isn't taking care of you then by definition, you are forced to take care of yourself. The question is, what is the best arrangement for society? A non exhaustive list of pros and cons may look as follows:Originally Posted by BanginJimmy
Possible Pros of Welfare:
Moral imperative to help those who can not help themselves
Encourages entreprenurial risk taking
Decreases desire (need?) for theft
Possible Cons of Welfare:
Requires taxation to fund
Discourages working
Decreases self reliance
The pros and cons on a welfare system must be weighed to determine if or how to implement a welfare system. That is a difficut task because it depends on assumptions, personal ethics, and imperfect science. There will never be complete consensus on such a topic but I hope we can at least agree that weighing pros and cons differently doesn't necessarily make either of us lazy, mean, stupid, etc.
CANNOT is the imperative word. I have no problems helping those that are simply incapable of helping themselves. I have a very long list of problems helping those that are simply too lazy to work or those who made continuous bad choices that left them unhirable.
This simply isnt true. You may find failed entrepreneurs that that end up on welfare roles, but you will not find a meaningful number of those that struck out on their own BECAUSE of the welfare safety net.
There is absolutely no evidence to back this up.
We are in agreement here.
Welfare is a difficult subject because there is an obvious need for it. The only real question is whether it should be a temporary safety net or a career path.
I have a hard time believing that there is a significant portion of the population who gets excited about helping lazy people or people who continually make bad choices. Who do you think is arguing we should actively try and support such behavior?
And if you asked skydivers why they jump out of planes they would say because of the thrill or feeling of freedom but it's hard to argue they would still do it if parachutes didn't exist. People are motivated by success not failure but that doesn't mean the consquences of failure don't matter.
Btw, there is a significant number of people who say they would try to start their own business but they are afraid of losing their health insurance from their company. Certainly having food to eat and shelter is at least as important as health insurance.
Nor is there evidence to show that it doesnt. It's a philosophical argument for the most part. That's why I labeled these as a "possible" pros and cons. Full facts are not available on most of these items.
I don't think that is the question at all. I don't know anyone who thinks it should be a career path. At most, the so called "career path" aspect of it is considered an unfortunate byproduct. Who wouldn't love for every single able person to take care of themselves financially and contribute to society? If you think the argument is between responsible tax paying citizens and lazy, greedy, leeches, you are wrong.
Every politician who speaks out against welfare reforms, SS reforms, Medicare reforms. In my eyes, these are one in the same. A govt safety net that is being used by those that do not qualify, should not qualify, or simply dont need it to continue their lifestyle.
I've laid out what I would do with welfare, as far as I know, I agree with Paul Ryan's medicare plan, and If you would like, I can lay out a few things that I would do with SS if I had that power.
This is probably the worst analogy I have ever heard.
I agree.
Because health care costs are so high you are right, health insurance is just as important as food and shelter.
Politicians looking for votes have turned welfare into a career. There is no mechanism to help them get off welfare. There is no penalty, in fact there is a reward, for having additional kids while already on welfare. There is not even a way to make sure people on welfare are hirable because they dont do simple things like a drug test.
This is too much of a blanket statement. It depends on the details of the reforms. Some reforms may be a good idea, others are not. But I hope you don't immediately condemn someone just for speaking out against any reform regardless of their reasons for doing so. Also "should not qualify" is a matter of opinion.
Welfare was already off topic enough, let's not get into social security too.
Well if you are gonna accuse me of making terrible analogies you could at least explain why? Point is simple, someone says they started a business to make more money doesn't mean having a safety net is not also a piece of the puzzle.
And yet you stated having a safety net is not related to encouraging entrepreneurial risk taking.
Ah the coveted broke, lazy people demographic. If there is one thing welfare queens do besides sit on their ass and collect government checks, its voting.
Saying that paying for kids is a reward is one sided. Having a kid is not simply fun or easy. Even if you take the cynical view and say that the only reason for having a kid is to get more money from the government, is it acceptable to do nothing to try and help that child?
Also on drug testing. In theory sounds great but you need numbers to make it convincing. How much would the testing cost taxpayers? Would it be a net cost or a net savings? What percentage of welfare recipients are drug users? How often would it be done? Is it one strike and you are out forever? Would it actually stop anyone from using drugs? We can't make every policy on principal alone. We need real data to validate the consquences.
Posting Permissions
Reply With Quote