Should State and Federal welfare be eliminated entirely?

The people most likely to die would also be the disabled, ederly, and children.

 

Just wait until you have a stroke or heart attack or are severely disabled by an accident. Then see if you want welfare.

 

It should be a LOAN, not a hand-out, with an interest charge and the expectation of repayment. Those people are the only ones in the country that have to "give back" to society....those, and the maggot Hollyweird "stars", who perform no useful function and produce no useful goods or services.

 

Yes, typically the people who believe ad hominem attacks are valid logical argument fit the description your provide.

No, the Mayor doesn't know anything about Limbaugh's commentary....he has a life, unlike those on the left, who simply repeat what they've heard without question.

No, this is bull(*)(*)(*)(*).

The man who wrote the majority of the Constitution states that there's no provision in it for charity using taxpayer dollars. That's only gibberish to people who believe a constitution is an institution holding convicts.

Since you cannot point to an Amendment authorizing welfare, since the origional Constitution and the Bill of Rights do not allow any sort of entitlement program whatsoever, you're recursive retreat into fantasy is noted as a surrender.

So, where's that Amendment you can't find but you claim allows federal entitlement spending again?

And no, you can do your own internet searches on Monroe. It's a famous quote, easily found. The Mayor isn't especially interested in casting pearls before swine. They only (*)(*)(*)(*) on them.

 

If the taxes go away with them, particularly all income tax on individuals, as well as FICA of course, then... Well, not without organisation to make up for the loss. Can't leave people hanging - many are in genuine need.

- - - Updated - - -

Indeed, there's a darned lot the feds really have no business being involved in, yet they are. And they're causing many more problems than they're solving in the process.

 

Christ, can't pro-capitalists clean up their own mess? The whole point of welfare is to compensate for the poverty cause by capitalism!

Sure, you might say that it isn't capitalism's fault that poverty exists today - perhaps you'll say it's people's own fault that they're in that situation - but i beg to differ! We should have a system that works with humanity, not a (*)(*)(*)(*)ty system that doesn't fit the people!

 

I have an analogous question. In one of the places that I live, there are several stray cats that look pretty skinny. I place food out a couple of times a week. Am I helping these cats become better hunters or am I setting myself as an adoptive parent?

 

Dude, in Sweden everyone is willing and capable of sharing the load. Over here, about a third of the people (mostly blacks and hispanics) are walking, talking (barely) piles of (*)(*)(*)(*) who just want to milk the system.

 

Hmmmm... seems whites are just a big of a problem.

 

Divide by the population of each race and you will have a better perspective. You might erroneously conclude that Camden, NJ is safer than Seattle, WA if you don't adjust for population.

 

You're setting yourself up to be increasing the cat population on your doorstep....all wanting what is easy to get.

 

We could rationalize away all day long.. I don't think alot of blacks or hispanics are directly benefiting from corporate welfare, farm subsidies, no-bid defense contracts, bank bailouts...in short... white welfare. So in the end you tell me who is destroying the U.S faster, Deficit spending by the trillions to enable crony-capitalism, job/industry exportation, special interest unfunded wars, Corporate welfare in over hundred of billion per year... or politically/financially powerless bottom feeders on welfare?

 

You tell me. The numbers that I see are something like 1 trillion for welfare (i.e. Medicaid, welfare, food stamps, public housing, rent assistance, energy assistance, EITC, etc) and 700 billion for corporate subsidies including all military expenditures. If you want to cut both, I'm game. However, one portion shows up to work from 8-5 each day and the other does not. I would rather cut the people that do NOT work before the people that do.

 

Thats fine but dont forget the trillions spent on bank bailouts and the hundreds of billions lost by practically 0% Fed bank lending rates that are decimating the savings of the average american not to mention the erosion of the dollar by inflation that affects the poor much much more negatively than the rich. Its also a real stretch to consider what the real criminals ( the top 1% that got 90% of the income growth in 2012) do as "work" , by that standard all the multimillionaire/billionaire drugcartel bosses in Mexico should not be criminals either... at least their consumer base has to give consent to be fleeced.

You eliminate welfare for the poor in order to eliminate welfare for the lazy and you will hurt this country more than you will help it. You eliminate all corruption at the highest levels in our government whose effect is legislation to the highest bidder. You will also eliminate welfare for the lazy as a result considering that it only exists because somebody is making big money off it ( ever wonder why foodstamps can be used to buy fastfood/junkfood? I'll bet Herman Caine knows) .

 

Agreed. I have nothing to defend those arguments. But now you are going back to the corruption that I have been railing against for years.

 

I cant argue against the corruption you point out in the welfare system either.. in fact I find it just as repulsive for young healthy americans to collect welfare as General Electric not paying any taxes and oil subsidies to U.S companies drilling american oil/gas and selling it to China. It all has got to stop or we will all burn together.

 

I happen to agree with you btw. I am just playing devils advocate.

 

The consequences are pretty straight forward really. A severe spike in crime. Weather that would be a short term spike, or long term depends on who you talk to. But we would certainly need to build more prisons if this were to happen. And since we are moving prisons into the "for proffit" realm, then hey, its good for the economy in several ways!!!!

 

Lets just say for arguments sake, that they would be exempt from this ( children only until their 18'th birthday )

- - - Updated - - -

I agree. I dont personally feel this way ( my post question ) I was just playing devils advocate here.

 

Well, when the welfare program first came out, with reasonable time limits, expectations of recipients, and responsible oversight, it wasn't so bad. I even liked the idea of having a limited safety net for a time, for those who just hard a curve ball thrown their way and needed a little help to get back on their feet. I am not opposed to helping my fellow man.

But now? Welfare queens and state sponsors dope addicts? After seeing the monster that it has become?

This is a fair representation of my thoughts on the matter...

 

Do you know how many science fiction novels deal with the dystopia created by the "mega haves" and the "mega have nots".
Some make Escape from New York look like a picnic.

 

It would help if your fair representation actually contained fair facts. do you have any evidence that the system is so corrupted? How many welfare queens are there? how many drug addicts are there? You wish to condemn the vast majority of the need for the abuses of a few.

Yes, killing them with flame throwers is a very sensible thing to do.

 

Ehhh...you did ask politely. So I'll give just two examples. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=z92plqoP3GE. There are plenty of examples to pick from, just a moment on google confirms what I already know. It is only 2:45 long, and fairly concise and to the point. This is about WIC.

Now to be fair, not all WIC programs operate like this, some are fairly spot on in regards to accountability. But given the history of governmental ineptitude, it is best burning down the house and starting anew to build a system that would be both functional, but sustainable. The current welfare system we have is atrocious.

Second http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=bavou_SEj1E Cue to 2:20. The whole thing is about 10 minutes, 10 long minutes of utter failure. Welfare queen extraordinaire. Social programs helping her out but she still can't get it together. Later, hostilities arise because of it. This one isn't a WIC case obviously, but she has abused social programs ruthlessly. The woman is a living, breathing, and breeding, money pit, a black hole of progress to the human condition. The future of her children looks fairly bleak given their progenitors.

The vast majority? I am having a hard time believing that the vast majority is hitting the ground running and looking hard for work. They should be shedding assets, reducing obligations, and finding a way to pay for things of their own steam. This is a complex problem with many contributing variables. However, the welfare system as it is has not fixed the problem. It has made it worse by removing incentive to work and the generation that results from it is a bunch of entitled brats who think that just because they have pulse they deserve everything without working for it. A nation cannot sustain itself this way. Everybody knows somebody who is a total leech on the system.

Hardly, I rarely advocate the killing of people, but killing the program as it is currently? Oh indeed...perhaps fire is not enough...

 

And here in lies your problem. You are presenting anecdotal evidence that does not answer the question.

It points out a couple of individuals and extrapolating that to some huge percentage of welfare recipients is ridiculous. Its like saying 2 muslims are terrorists, therefore the majority of muslims are terrorist. It does not compute

Your assumption that everyone on welfare should be out earning a living or hunting for a job. Some are the working poor, getting housing assistance and/or food stamps. Some are dysfunctional without skills, with low intelligence and/or a product of an inferior school with limited literacy. Lots of them are single mothers. Lots of them are the famly of an alcoholic/drug addict. There are literally hundreds if not thousands of stories about individusal circumstances.

You speak as the the sums for any individual relying on welfare programs is princely. It is an awfully low standard of living comparatively to the economically independent populations. The fact that american poverty is almost luxury in comparison to say brazilian or congolese or sudanese or indian poverty is irrelevant. Unless you have a plan to ship the american poor to far away places that is.

The department of Health and Human Services, has concluded that in 2005 3.8% of americans were welfare dependent out of a total population living under the poverty line of 15.3%. This is a little dated, but it does provide you with a tad more information wrt long term welfare dependency.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Welfare_dependency

here's some updated stats:
http://http://www.statisticbrain.com/welfare-statistics/

Sorry, I misunderstood, the subject was programs not people.

 

I know they are anecdotal at best, but it does show the problem and how bad it can be. Not everybody has 15 kids and is a prolific leech. But it shows where the money goes in varying degrees.

When taxpayers are forced to cover the inadequacies of others it is wrong. If it is voluntary, than fine. But it doesn't help solve the problem. And if we were to be in this mess, why are their not better safe guards in place? Why is it possible for this to continue for years? People should be hitting the ground looking for additional work. Often times people are in the situation they are in for a reason, you're bringing up anecdotes yourself by bringing up single mothers, dysfunctional families, personal stupidity, or other problems. This is not entirely representative of them either, and it just as accurate as my portrayal. The truth lies somewhere in the middle.

Bottom line is that the gov shouldn't be invovled, and if they are, they should be getting something in return. You want food stamps? Rent assistance? Well there are highways that need to be picked up, graffiti that needs removed. These people should be put to work to compensate for what they are consuming from the producing citizens.

Doing little or nothing, and getting more than you are worth is stealing. There are plenty of people milking the system. It needs to be cracked down on, but all attempts to do so are met with fierce resistance from special interest groups. Remember a while back when it was suggested that a urine sample be done for those getting government assistance? I forget the state, but what is wrong with the idea?

So I read a little of one of your links, nothing personal, but wikipedia is great for things like hard sciences, but for areas of controversy? Not so much. But the other, well I perused it. Interesting stuff. Why should welfare even pay minimum wage? Being paid garbage should be an incentive to get something that pays better.

46,700,000 out of 300 million in the USA are on food stamps. 1 in 6 roughly. The numbers only seem to grow as time marches on, the percentages too. Now obviously economic woes are partly to blame, but the real problem is complacency. People tend to get a little lazy when handouts without work are attached to them. Just like riding horses, they need to work, if you let them sit too long, they resist being ridden again and become nearly worthless, but still consume resources.