How Welfare should be according to Anti-Welfareists

Post Reply New Topic

You do realize that every penny of government spending goes into the pockets of the people, don't you? The money isn't being sent out into the ocean and dumped into the Marianas Trench.

For failure to pay your taxes, you get fined, not thrown in prison. It actually takes quite a lot over a long period of time before prison is even a legal possibility.



If all government contributions were strictly voluntary, do you really think we would still have a government?



That number is taken from tax records, which means it includes money that people gave to their churches, of which a large portion is not spent on actual charity.

So if you are an atheist with no family, you'd probably be pretty screwed.

Yes, I know they have to show proof of income. As I said before, I have no issues with people in need getting assistance for the duration of their hardship. My problem is with slackers and malingerers who even in the best of economic times arent working and who only make a token effort if any to gain and keep employment.
That's why it would be a difficult task to weed them out since it takes more than income verification. Really, my position on public assistance won't get any kinder than this and, as a heartless conservative, there is plenty of room for my position to become more austere.

1. If being thrown in jail is "violence" then not paying your taxes is "sedition". Do you not see how ridiculous it sounds? ...No, I suppose not, because if you did then this point wouldn't even have to be made.

2. People who are stuck at home, with no mode of transportation, no-one they can rely on, who can't work for whatever reason... need I go on listing yet more reasons that people DO need government welfare programs?

3. That's called "it's federal law, so get over it because everyone is forced to pay taxes. boo... frickidy... hoo...", that's the way our economy works, the government gets a percentage so it can do it's bull and (normally) maintain the economy through regulated trade. Don't like it? Tough sh*t, we all have to deal with it. Go complain about federal tax instead of ranting here and saying that welfare would be in better hands if it were run by private socials, when the sad fact is, you've yet to demonstrate any definitive facts to support that opinion.

4. That statement doesn't prove anything, and it certainly doesn't debunk what I've stated by any stretch of the imagination. You haven't cited any data to back up your claims, nor that the amount you claim had been raised privately was anywhere near the amount you specified here, nor that the amount specified would cover all expenses when it came to welfare needs (which I highly doubt). Not even to mention the fact that we don't even know what that supposed money was used for. For all we know, half of all the money raised by kind-hearted people might be pocketed for future campaigning funds. Furthermore, if the amount were as you claimed, why are people still in dire straights? If people have money to give, don't you think the economy could've slightly recovered by now? Afterall, if the money really is in the community, why not have a fundraiser to recover america's crappy economic system? Or even better, why don't you raise money to replace the money you claim is being lost by the welfare system? Or one to replace your tax dollars, since you're so heartbroken over having to follow federal law? Afterall, isn't that what charity is, giving to those in need? If the money is truly in the community to raise such a high figure, why bother with complaining about welfare at all? Why not use that money to sustain you and other like-minded people in your own little program and see how long that lasts? Do yourself a favor and walk a mile in the shoes that house the toes that you're stepping on.

As for me, I'm done with this conversation because all you're doing is rambling nonsense with no facts whatsoever, while complaining about being forced to pay federal taxes, which you'd have to pay either way because they support more than just a few programs, those other programs wouldn't disappear just because one of them were placed under social control.

I meant if there were a no questions asked enrolment office, not that there are any.

I do agree with that philosophy in principle, but unfortunately there isn't anything realistically measurable that would provide a proof of need other than income short of creating tens (or possibly hundreds) of thousands of new government employees. I'll agree that it is quite possible for someone to be a slacker just to collect government benefits, but government benefits are not very much, so most people receiving them are already motivated to improve their barely scraping by lifestyle. Food assistance for a family of four isn't enough to feed an individual. Welfare (which pays squat compared even to a part time minimum wage job) has a 5 year lifetime cap. Disability claims are very difficult to get approved, with plenty of legitimately disabled people being denied for not having enough proof.

The only thing I can see that would make a significant impact is enforcing prior limitations on unemployment compensation, but even that is a tricky situation. I think that extensions should not be automatic, and that household incomes should be taken into account the way other government aid programs do, rather than compensation based on their salaries at the high point of the economy.

In that extremely unlikely scenario, then there would absolutely be a mass wave of new sign-ups. As it stands now, if you are someone too lazy to bother looking for a job, how likely is it that you are going to go through the time consuming, overly-complicated proccess of getting your benefits to begin with?

Personally, I feel that this is one of the cases where inefficient government bureaucracy actually reduces fraud.

lol I never thought of it that way, but I suppose that could happen

Guy at the back of the line: "Ugh, screw this... I'm going home" lol

Think about it from my perspective, though. I see two political parties that are both trying to force their morality on the public. The only difference from my point of view is which morality they are trying to force on us, whether it's social contract or religious dogma.

/\ This was a clarification of this \/


I’m kind of surprised you’d reply to me on any subject since, according to you, I rarely (if ever) use any actual facts and rely almost entirely on rote statements, emoticons, thinly veiled hate-speech, ignoring any facts that I don't like, personal insults, and changing the focus of the discussion.

Paying someone to do unproductive bureaucracy is essentially throwing it away. It's going into the pockets of people who haven't produced anything. There is a lot of unproductive bureaucracy in government.

I imagine not, which leads me to the conclusion that government isn't the best way to get things done.

There are charity organizations that don't require a belief system. I was providing examples. It was not an inclusive list.

You're done with this conversation because you're unwilling to challenge the state doctrine. You're in good company, though... most people here subscribe to your moral code.

That has never stopped me from responding to you before. There are actually issues where I agree with you from a philosophical standpoint, but differ widely in pragmatic and realistic possibility. And you should really put that quote into context by quoting the post I was responding to.