How Welfare should be according to Anti-Welfareists

Post Reply New Topic

As conservatives and libertarians seem to think that the market is an all knowing, all good force in the universe that could only solve all the world's problems if allowed to operate unrestrained, while government is the source of all evil, I think I have a point in lumping the two together.

You mean avoid the question... You just reapeated the same thing I questioned in less words...how is that an answer?, anyways let me specify, what happens when the private charity and family members CANNOT provide the needed help?

For instance I don't see family and private charity being a viable replacement for Medicaid for instance.


....still waiting for a real answer.

I don't think conservatives or libertarians believe that. Well, maybe some idealists do. But it's projecting extremism. Saying that liberals think that the government is an all knowing, all good force in the universe that could solve all the world's problems if allowed to operate unrestrained, while the market is the source of all evil is no more true than the converse.

For libertarians, we generally feel that the market is better at solving problems than central planning. It's not a matter of good versus evil. It's a matter of which is better than the other. The anti-government rhetoric usually comes in the form of accusations hurled at the libertarians around here, not from them.

I'm not understanding what you're asking for here. Your question seems to be eliciting the obvious. It help isn't provided, help isn't received. What happens if government cannot provide the needed help? What happens if all the hospitals in the US suddenly explode? What happens if 90% of the population turns into zombies? What's your point?

My point is there is nothing to suggest charity and peoples families would provide an effective social safety network. What we currently have is flawed in some ways and could use improvement but it would be much worse if it was simply left up to charity and peoples families....we would be seeing quite a few dead people on the streets.

If the government cannot provide all the needed help there is charity and peoples families to supplement that, makes more sense then cutting off all government aid to the poor in the hopes that charity and peoples families will be able to replace it. Besides if the government has no responsibility to help the poor then they become even more far removed from the citizens they are supposed to represent.

Last edited by Sweetleaf on 27 Feb 2014, 5:19 pm, edited 2 times in total.

No, I'm done with the conversation because you have yet to produce a shred of factual evidence to back up any claims that you've made. It has absolutely nothing to do with state doctrine, it's called walking away from a dipwad that spews sh*t out of their mouth, not knowing jack about the reality of the situation that they're "fighting" against. When you post, all we see is "yack yack yack yack yack" and so on and so forth, and frankly I'm tired of reading all of the bullsh*t that you produce so readily. You have yet to produce a single fact and yet you expect people to continue an argument with you, and when they don't, you obviously resort to this tactic to keep said argument going.
You don't know sh*t about what my "moral code" is, so why don't you leave the obvious personal attacks where they belong, which happens to be up your *ss. The fact that you would even take the conversation to that level proves just how insanely immature you are. And you have the audacity to question my moral code? Well, that's ok, you can act like an *ss all you want to me, but in the end, people will see you for what you really are and your credibility will surmount to zilch, assuming it hasn't already.
[sarcasm=begin]
"Oh, this jaden guy is walking away from the conversation, that's ok, I'll just question his sense of morality while bolstering my own as being superior."
[sarcasm=end]
Want some free advice? Leave it alone.

That was a rather emotional outburst.

You accused me of rambling nonsense. I'm expressing my opinions. How is that any different than what anyone else does here? The only facts you've presented have been some numbers for what people generally get in welfare payments. I presented a link with federal budget appropriations and a number that is easily confirmed as the private charity amount for 2012. What facts are you talking about?

I make no claim that my morality is superior to yours, just that it's different. You somehow expect me to embrace your values when you don't even respect that I have my own.

You're condemning me for identifying your moral code, which is clearly apparent in this discussion, while at the same time suggesting that I don't know anything about the reality of what I'm fighting against when you have no idea what I've experienced.

In response to your first post in this thread... you are a number when it comes to the government, just like the rest of us. Those who give to private charities are the ones considering people who are struggling to survive.

Without government intervention, businesses could continue to make shoddy and dangerous products, by underpaid workers working under dangerous conditions. Nor would segregation of Jim Crow have ended without the feds stepping in. Sure, the government is not the center of all good in the universe, but to say that it doesn't serve a useful purpose, or that the free market is the better answer in all things is just wrong. In fact, free, responsible government works very well, along with regulated capitalism.

The competitive behavior markets create necesitate government and fiat currency to prevent fraud and increase stibility. You are critisizing government while ignoring the woes of an economic system that needs it. Private charities have verticle structures too. They can be every bit as buerocratic as the state. Central planning is a large part of capitalism, and markets depend on nanny states.

[youtube]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ZRkzG0XX5hg[/youtube]

Last edited by RushKing on 27 Feb 2014, 7:55 pm, edited 7 times in total.

I told you to leave it alone, but as predicted you see fit to continue pointless debate. Fine. Here's my final thought on the matter.

1. & 2. Correction, you're expressing your opinions as if they were facts and are pushing them, expecting people here to blindly follow your trail of very thinly laid out pixie sprinkles, and when they don't and instead challenge your way of thinking, giving you reasons why they are doing so, you lay down more sprinkles (all of which has been plainly and repeatedly deflected with alternative solutions that you have ignored), and when that fails and people leave the conversation, you resort to saying that it has something to do with their "morality" or "willingness to challenge the state doctrine". Of course you don't stop to think for a second that it may just be the fact that people are done listening to someone who's ignoring them. That is how you've conducted yourself here today, in this topic.
No sir, or madam, you have it backwards. We all respect that you have your opinion and what we've so far seen of your values, we don't agree with them, but we still respect that you have them. All you've done is ignored ours completely. Furthermore, if you were not asserting that your morality was indeed higher than mine, you would not have bothered to mention moral code in the first place. It was such an obvious attempt at continuing the argument that it's just sad. Now, when backed into a corner, you've resorted again to argue pointlessly about character.
Continuing on 1:
The facts I'm talking about, are ones that I've stated that you have been lacking, before, when I asked numerous questions, all of which were ignored in addition to the post itself, by you, in an attempt instead to start this argument.

You haven't cited any evidence whatsoever that this program would be even as good as governmental assistance, nor have you shown anything to suggest that the government would even be worse than what you're proposing. The only thing you've been able to show is what a private charity supposedly was able to raise 2 years ago, a number reaching decent odds yes, but in relation to the amount needed to sustain benefits for a nation, completely inadequate is putting it nicely, snowball's chance in h*ll is probably more accurate. You'd be lucky to be able to provide for 1/10 of the total welfare recipients with even half of their current benefits, your charity money wouldn't even put a dent in it. And you expect us to believe that's a better option? Come on! Even your own supposed numbers show how bad of an idea it is!

3. No-one's condemning you, so you can throw that out the window right now. In fact I resent the accusation.
You don't know what I've experienced either, and frankly, our personal experiences do not supercede the facts of the matter, and are therefore completely irrelevant to whether or not your proposal is a good idea.
Furthermore, you cannot possibly tell me with a straight face, that you're seeing the same numbers that you yourself have put up as examples, and still are coming to the conclusion that this private charity is going to be able to raise the vast amounts required to run welfare. If you look at the numbers and consider the time spent by said charity, gathering the amount of money that said charity gathered, and compared it to what is necessary to run welfare services to millions of people (again, a quote from your own source), to which according to both your charity number and the link you provided beforehand, the charity in 2012 would've been lacking billions of dollars that would have been necessary to run these services. Anyone can see with their own eyes, the very large gap in funds there.

4. Those who give to private charities are obviously being suckered in by people who paint their lips with good intentions. Again, the following is to be brought up:

Any private charity that would run a system with the scale that welfare requires, would need large amounts of money to continue running, that would be millions of dollars coming out of an already deficient fund.
People who are for anti-welfare systems lack the necessary data, funds, and means to justify, support, and conclude a campaign to make such a program to exist, period. It's just not doable, and the fact that you and others push for it so much, seems to indicate an obvious lack in thinking of the needs of the people because knowing the truth of the matter, that truth being that there are insufficient funds to pull it off, would inevitably allow them to conclude that it's not a risk that people can take. At any one point millions of people would have zero money to live on. Better for the government? Sure. Better for the people? Not even close.

Last edited by Jaden on 27 Feb 2014, 10:04 pm, edited 1 time in total.

Maybe, but now that you've tagged me as someone who rarely (if ever) uses any actual facts and relies almost entirely on rote statements, emoticons, thinly veiled hate-speech, ignoring any facts that they don't like, personal insults, and changing the focus of the discussion you as an individual can't expect much more out of me. I would hate to disappoint you by falling short of the above.


http://www.wrongplanet.net/postp5921700.html

It was just one of many times that I've bragged about the liberals that I've pwn3d here. Those who've been here two or three years are all too familiar with my handiwork. I was actually naughtier back then.

how much of that was sent to other nations, such as helping feed kids in Africa. How much was spent on organization cost or fancy things for them. There's one charity where they pay their CEO millions and millions, where the bulk of their money goes to paying employees.

now deduct all that and consider this. Often times then not the people who get government welfare also use those charities also. they offer things like helping to pay power, water, gas, sewage, etc. Things the government doesn't. As is those charities can't afford to help all the people and must limit their numbers each month. so they can't even afford to help all the people already getting help and you expect them to cover what they already do and what the government does.

where do you think the poor people will go, yes some will die. others will be on the street robing you and breaking into your house, the police will be underfunded in your world(even as is they wouldn't be able to control it) Next thing you know your place of work is destroyed in a arson fire and now you're one of the poor people. Most people will do whatever is needed to survive. Do you want to have them as criminals rather then people on welfare trying to just live while working to get off of it?

so you can what? have multiple cars and houses, tons of HD TVs. How much money do you need?
also people are selfish and greedy and no way would most people give to the poor willingly rather then sticking it in gold or putting in a safe. Lots of people simply enjoy having tons of money and flaunting it.

I wouldn't be on welfare if i had any other choice. I would much rather be self sufficient and able to store stuff for emergencies and if i was , having been on welfare, I'd give back to the poor. I also wouldn't waste my money on having multiplies of stuff, so wasteful. or having things just for looks instead of uses.

get rid of welfare, better plan for what happen in Ukraine times 100 million, plan to have massive riots in every city across the nation, with a police force just out matched, plan for the military to go AWOL(sorry but they lost their welfare and are attempting to feed the family, maybe that highly trained group attacking your house is them?) to that point what about the police on welfare, guess they gone too. But you want the gov and nation gone yes?

people went crazy over a $10 in food stamps and you propose to close the whole system and expect the country not to collapse lol Its sad how many people rely on the system, but its true. Maybe if we stopped sending billions of dollars to other nations and instead focused on feeding our poor, and fixing our economy instead of others we could start seeing the return of a powerful great United States.