Should people have a right to welfare?

Thanks for agreeing with me at least partially.

 

The system seems much better then in USA.

 

I am not sure you can see that a person is not disabled by just talking to them. They may have severe Depression.

 

Scandinavia

 

1450 USD in per month then minus 200 USD for my rich Money so it is around 1250 USD of rich pocket talk.

 

After paying $750 a month for rent alone, that leaves $125 a week for the rest of the bills.

What's the earning cap on the Welfare receipient's?

 

Nice to live in Sweden and we are richer than Norway and Poland in national debt.

 

Poor people needs Money too.

 

In USA many disabled people receive prison instead of help.

 

than* (again)

Why don't you learn? I'm genuinely curious. It's really easy.

 

Thanks. Better be corrected on forum than in a serious work.

Once all mental disability is cured then welfare can be cut back.

 

I don't think we should be giving people too much money for having a mental illness or being disabled because that is a lot of people. We really don't have the money for a big welfare state right now. Our economy is weak and our deficit and debt is high. We need to be focusing on balancing the budget.

 

Really?

http://www.breitbart.com/london/201...-swedish-teen-leave-male-friend-brain-damage/
African Migrants Brutally Rape Swedish Teen, Leave Male Friend with Brain Damage

https://www.nytimes.com/2017/04/10/world/europe/sweden-terror-attack.html?_r=0
Sweden Mourns Stockholm Attack Victims; Suspect Is Formally Identified


Is this the sign of a place with no social discord, everyone is living in utopia?

 

Crime happens in Scandinavia, but at least disabled people are helped there.

 

The true unemployment rate as measured by the U6 report of the Dept. of Labor is currently 8.9%: https://www.bls.gov/news.release/empsit.t15.htm

The U3 report is the old, pre-Great Recession report. The "new normal" of the world has changed....

If you have worked the required amount, you qualify for unemployment benefits. If you have not, you don't qualify for unemployment benefits.
Welfare? It should only be given to those who cannot (CANNOT) support themselves, and to NO ONE else at all. That about cover it...?

 

I am not going to disagree with the U6 standard. But at the same time I ask how you define those who can't support themselves?

I ask because those that belong to the GOP complain about welfare while also saying the unemployment rate is really high. So where are all those people going to get job's from then and if not all people even able to work are able to find employment in the private sector then should they get welfare until they do or should only the cream of the crop have the right to life?

I am not a liberal, but I am strongly against letting poor people die just because someone doesn't want the government to borrow a cent to keep them alive.

 

No - they shouldn't have a right to it. The whole idea of guaranteed welfare is based on an obvious misconception, displayed by the false dichotomy thay we can either guarantee them that or let them starve.

Inherent in such a line of thinking is the belief that if the state will not do x then it will not be done. Does anyone really imagine that a country that has the threshhold of support for guaranteed welfare (51%+ public support) has no citizens who would help their starving neighbors?

 

People who have debilitating birth defects, horrible ongoing diseases, crippling injuries, and things like that should be provided with government welfare -- perhaps for their entire lives! Although such claims should be rigorously verified initially and reviewed throughout the time period that the welfare is provided, in most cases these people should be given welfare by the government, as I said -- because they cannot support themselves.

For others, the social conventions that have applied to mankind since we first appeared on this planet should apply. Provide for your own support, work for your own money, make your own goals and achieve them. In a free society, the basic idea is that people can do whatever they want in life, so long as it is legal.

Again, those who are "out of work" because they believe that there is nothing 'suitable' in the job market can draw on earned unemployment benefits. They and their former employers have paid to make certain that the unemployed have this earned benefit. If the benefits expire and the person still is "out of work" because they believe that there is nothing 'suitable', then they need to hit a big lottery, get married to someone who has relative wealth, or make some other arrangements. It is NOT the responsibility of a government based on a free-market economy to support people who can work but will not....

 

. You are the same guy that on another thread who condemned those who did not distinguish between 'all or nothing'. If government is stealing when it taxes, then it is always stealing when it taxes, whether it is a city, state or federal government. It is always stealing when it taxes even if it is for services like police, justice and fire. Change your argument or admit that you are ok with some stealing but not other stealing, depending on what the thief intends to do with your stolen money, . I am sick and tired of paying for a fire department than has never put out my cigarette butt in 30 years. I say govt should stop stealing from me to put out other peoples fires. I have not ever been in a law suit, nor defended one, but I am paying for everyone else to get their disputes settled. Govt should not take my money so you and your neighbor can hash our that tree problem between you two or that dog bite your pitt bull gave someone else's yorkie.

We both have the right to move outside any governmental jurisdiction if we don't like their tax rates or their policies or think that they are stealing our 'property' to give to someone else. Your remedy is to pack up your boxes and get the hell out of that govt''s reach.

 

In a large forum such as this, its hard to see everything. I have argued before that many services such as fire, water, sewer, electricity, can and are provided quite adequately without govt involvement. Many communities outside of cities have citizen owned and run non-profit co-ops to provide water, sewer, and electricity, fire departments are staffed by trained volunteers and the dept is funded through residents (not local govt, but residents) budget approvals, local roads and common areas are maintained by tax service units setup by the community.

The federal govt should handle a few tasks which are clearly more appropriate to a federal approach - such as taking the lead in national defense. But the feds have no business being involved in 90% of what they currently control.

 

The Founders' didn't offer welfare. They lived and led by example, no reason we shouldn't live by the examples they set. I don't really care what lesser nations do, as its their own business...