Replace all welfare and benefits programs with single stipend?

[SpatiallyAware]

Okay, so you want to punish children for the mistakes of their parents. That sounds like a great idea.

It's the only way to slow down the handout train. The current system rewards people having babies who should not be having babies.

It's a lesser of two evils situation. Cut off the foot to save the leg.

 

[brandonb]

Okay, so you want to punish children for the mistakes of their parents. That sounds like a great idea.

Ahh the tired "Can't you think of the children???!?" response. These are the same round and round discussions people been having for decades.

Listen. I understand you want people on government assistance. I understand you want handouts for every body within our borders. There is always someone in need you want to use in your stupid ass arguments. Nobody is willing to make the hard choice in which we know society needs. That's fine. The gravy train will dry up. You can only give so much until the givers run out of funds because society has trained everybody to be takers and will consume until there is nothing left to consume. Every generation more people get on government assistance. Nobody is getting off it.

Once you realize that this cycle can't continue forever and this pattern can't sustain itself indefinitely, these discussions go nowhere. You will always pull the "children" or "grandma" card. You know, both of those will be in a lot more punishment when the middle class is gone, and the rich move to a new country.

 

[poofyhairguy]

Okay, so you want to punish children for the mistakes of their parents. That sounds like a great idea.

Isn't that a fact of life? "Sins of the father" and all?

For thousands of years humanity existed in a way where mistakes of the parents were felt by the whole family. In Roman times this lead to a strong family structure with the father as an almost dictator of family business. It was seen as a natural part of life. In Asian cultures, the family name as defined by parents and grandparents and ancestors before them were ritually thanked by grateful children.

Now suddenly children no longer pay for the mistakes of parents just because?

I am sure you are for an estate tax as well, since you seem to want to disconnect the decisions (good or bad) that connect children from parents.

Hell maybe all children should be forced to be put up for adoption and then babies are assigned to parents at random. That way children of a stable middle class married household don't have an advantage over children from a second generation teenage mother. Because disconnecting the advantages connected to positive decisions people make to benefit their future offspring sounds like a great idea.

 

[fskimospy]

Isn't that a fact of life? "Sins of the father" and all?

For thousands of years humanity existed in a way where mistakes of the parents were felt by the whole family. In Roman times this lead to a strong family structure with the father as an almost dictator of family business. It was seen as a natural part of life. In Asian cultures, the family name as defined by parents and grandparents and ancestors before them were ritually thanked by grateful children.

Now suddenly children no longer pay for the mistakes of parents just because?

The Romans and Chinese also practiced widespread infanticide, yet now I want to live in a society that doesn't do it just because.

People doing bad things in the past is no excuse for doing bad things now.

I am sure you are for an estate tax as well, since you seem to want to disconnect the decisions (good or bad) that connect children from parents.

I am very much for an estate tax.

Hell maybe all children should be forced to be put up for adoption and then babies are assigned to parents at random. That way children of a stable middle class married household don't have an advantage over children from a second generation teenage mother. Because disconnecting the advantages connected to positive decisions people make to benefit their future offspring sounds like a great idea.

I don't really think this merits a response.

 

[poofyhairguy]

The Romans and Chinese also practiced widespread infanticide, yet now I want to live in a society that doesn't do it just because.

People doing bad things in the past is no excuse for doing bad things now.

Agreed. The question is if disconnecting good decisions from offspring outcomes is a good thing.


Let me just ask you directly to avoid picking a million examples:

WHEN, in your opinion, should people be forced to pay or really sacrifice for their poor decisions? Or do you believe in true equality of outcomes?

 

[fskimospy]

Agreed. The question is if disconnecting good decisions from offspring outcomes is a good thing.

Let me just ask you directly to avoid picking a million examples:

WHEN, in your opinion, should people be forced to pay or really sacrifice for their poor decisions? Or do you believe in true equality of outcomes?

People should be forced to pay for poor decisions that they make, not poor decisions someone else made. That being said, I am not willing to live in a country where we allow people to fall below a certain minimum threshold of well-being, regardless of how poor their decisions are.

Where I live there is a lot of poverty and I used to work in Spanish Harlem, which is also exceedingly poor. I frequently see posts here on what a sweet deal being poor is. I invite anyone who think so to visit these neighborhoods and tell me how great they have it.

 

[Jay5]

Okay, so you want to punish children for the mistakes of their parents. That sounds like a great idea.

location:new york

lol,turn off your liberal news channels and maybe you'll see how lazy and worthless to society the majority of the deadbeats on welfare are

perhaps maybe if they'd stop blaming the white man on there problems and moved out of there crime ridden slums,maybe they wouldnt be on welfare in the first place

 

[fskimospy]

location:new york

lol,turn off your liberal news channels and maybe you'll see how lazy and worthless to society the majority of the deadbeats on welfare are

I don't watch TV news and I bet I've met a lot more people on SNAP and welfare than you have.

 

[Jay5]

I don't watch TV news and I bet I've met a lot more people on SNAP and welfare than you have.

fine,keep supporting the deadbeats then.eventually it wont matter anyway,obama seems to think the money for there welfare just pops out of thin air,as long as the jobs keep going away and closing.eventually your going to end up with more takers then makers,then well no more freebies for the welfare trash

 

[fskimospy]

fine,keep supporting the deadbeats then.eventually it wont matter anyway,obama seems to think the money for there welfare just pops out of thin air,as long as the jobs keep going away and closing.eventually your going to end up with more takers then makers,then well no more freebies for the welfare trash

i wouldnt expect a liberal trash from new york(im assuming you are,since you support people on welfare)to understand what im saying though,with your mental disorder and all

Your post is like something that someone could make out of ultra right wing refrigerator magnet poetry. It's just a random collection of commonly used ultra right phrases.

I'm interested to hear where you're from, by the way.

 

[Jay5]

I'm interested to hear where you're from, by the way.

well its obvious im not from some liberal dump like new york thats for damn sure

either way,im done arguing with you.theres no point in arguing with idiots,you'll see eventually sooner or later what happens when your goverment would rather support the deadbeats on welfare then the working class

 

[fskimospy]

well its obvious im not from some liberal dump like new york thats for damn sure

either way,im done arguing with you.theres no point in arguing with idiots

I'm genuinely curious where you're from.

 

[poofyhairguy]

People should be forced to pay for poor decisions that they make, not poor decisions someone else made.

Ok, humanity has never naturally existed in that state but I appreciate your consistency.

That being said, I am not willing to live in a country where we allow people to fall below a certain minimum threshold of well-being, regardless of how poor their decisions are.

Why should Americans have a minimum threshold just because they are Americans?

I mean, there are a lot of decent people all over the world that kill themselves to get to a point below what you probably feel should be the American floor.

Why should failures in our country be subsidized by success instead of directing those resources toward those who could be greater success with access to resources in other countries? I mean, we are all people right? Seems pretty ethnocentric to say that just because people were born on this side of an imaginary line their quality of life has a floor that is higher than most of the world.

I don't want to speak for you so I look forward to a response, but I will say TO ME it seems selfish as well. Instead of wanting resources to go to where they help humanity the most, you want resources to ensure that your environment never has pockets of hardship that you have to see and feel guilty about.

I want a floor, but not because I feel bad for the poor or I want to avoid poverty. I want a floor because that is the path to societal stability and consistent economic growth.

Where I live there is a lot of poverty and I used to work in Spanish Harlem, which is also exceedingly poor. I frequently see posts here on what a sweet deal being poor is. I invite anyone who think so to visit these neighborhoods and tell me how great they have it.

I don't think anyone here really wants to be poor. The issue is if we have a floor, there will be some people in society that simply would be below that floor. Everyone who is below the floor can't contribute enough to society to be rewarded will simply take what the floor provides rather than work for themselves.

Therefore if your floor is too high, then too much of society that otherwise would be productive and busy and simply living off the dole- which directly relates to problems with crime and drugs when these people with maximum resources (for their life) and tons of time get bored.

Honestly I agree with you we should have a floor, but not one we just give to everyone.

I think we should have a floor in wages, and in productivity. If you have a full time job working x amount of hours for a real company and you can prove it, then you should make so much money. I think as a society we agree on this kind of floor, as it is a minimum wage.

But to have a floor for doing nothing? All that leads to is a chunk of America that has little skin in the game of economic growth, which is the engine that allows us to dream of luxuries like a floor.

 

[fskimospy]

Ok, humanity has never naturally existed in that state but I appreciate your consistency.

Doesn't matter to me how humanity has naturally existed.

Why should Americans have a minimum threshold just because they are Americans?

I mean, there are a lot of decent people all over the world that kill themselves to get to a point below what you probably feel should be the American floor.

Why should failures in our country be subsidized by success instead of directing those resources toward those who could be greater success with access to resources in other countries? I mean, we are all people right? Seems pretty ethnocentric to say that just because people were born on this side of an imaginary line their quality of life has a floor that is higher than most of the world.

I don't want to speak for you so I look forward to a response, but I will say TO ME it seems selfish as well. Instead of wanting resources to go to where they help humanity the most, you want resources to ensure that your environment never has pockets of hardship that you have to see and feel guilty about.

I want a floor, but not because I feel bad for the poor or I want to avoid poverty. I want a floor because that is the path to societal stability and consistent economic growth.

I'm not a global citizen and our first duty is to other Americans. Additionally, as you mention lowering economic inequality improves growth and stability.

I don't think anyone here really wants to be poor. The issue is if we have a floor, there will be some people in society that simply would be below that floor. Everyone who is below the floor can't contribute enough to society to be rewarded will simply take what the floor provides rather than work for themselves.

Therefore if your floor is too high, then too much of society that otherwise would be productive and busy and simply living off the dole- which directly relates to problems with crime and drugs when these people with maximum resources (for their life) and tons of time get bored.

Honestly I agree with you we should have a floor, but not one we just give to everyone.

I think we should have a floor in wages, and in productivity. If you have a full time job working x amount of hours for a real company and you can prove it, then you should make so much money. I think as a society we agree on this kind of floor, as it is a minimum wage.

But to have a floor for doing nothing? All that leads to is a chunk of America that has little skin in the game of economic growth, which is the engine that allows us to dream of luxuries like a floor.

While it is true that a social safety net provides disincentives for work, most empirical analysis of their effects shows them to be modest. It's a cost I'm willing to accept.

 

[Dr. Detroit]

What does America spend on programs to get the poor out of poverty each year?

I remember reading a study years ago that said the Govt spends close to one million dollars per year for every person in poverty. You have so many bureaucratic laden programs that cost a fortune from an administrative point of view - an entire industry of people to help other people and the reality is it has done nothing.

We create more programs which creates more jobs for the bureaucracy but effectively does nothing to cure the issue of poverty.

Can we take that money and create a National income for all?

And yes, we are effectively paying a bribe to these folks to keep them from robbing us.

 

[poofyhairguy]

Doesn't matter to me how humanity has naturally existed.

It should. It shows you how we are wired.

I'm not a global citizen and our first duty is to other Americans. Additionally, as you mention lowering economic inequality improves growth and stability.

I don't feel like I have a duty to other Americans. In the 21st century my life is increasingly enriched by non-Americans.

I think it is a smart policy to ensure a floor for productive people to prevent instability, but I think any floor needs to come from the head not the heart. As is "what is the minimum we can give those in America who can't compete globally that will keep them from rioting in the streets?"

While it is true that a social safety net provides disincentives for work, most empirical analysis of their effects shows them to be modest. It's a cost I'm willing to accept.

Are you the one paying the bill for this cost you are willing to accept? If not, how can you accept the cost?

I feel like from my perspective the rich have a real reason to have a floor, if simply to prevent the loss of value in their assets that would occur with large scale social unrest in America. You can put in one column how much they would lose if the stock market crashed due to rioting, and in another column how much they have to spend to prevent rioting. If the first column total is larger than the second column, you have some ROI to sell to the group that actually pays these bills.

That makes sense to me. Just spending some else's money to feel better about myself doesn't.

 

[fskimospy]

It should. It shows you how we are wired.

There are plenty of things humanity has done throughout history that are terrible things for us. Just because we are wired a certain way doesn't mean that's the way we should strive to structure our society.

I don't feel like I have a duty to other Americans. In the 21st century my life is increasingly enriched by non-Americans.

I think it is a smart policy to ensure a floor for productive people to prevent instability, but I think any floor needs to come from the head not the heart. As is "what is the minimum we can give those in America who can't compete globally that will keep them from rioting in the streets?"

That's fine, you asked why I felt this way though. You are free to vote and advocate for other things.

Are you the one paying the bill for this cost you are willing to accept? If not, how can you accept the cost?

I feel like from my perspective the rich have a real reason to have a floor, if simply to prevent the loss of value in their assets that would occur with large scale social unrest in America. You can put in one column how much they would lose if the stock market crashed due to rioting, and in another column how much they have to spend to prevent rioting. If the first column total is larger than the second column, you have some ROI to sell to the group that actually pays these bills.

That makes sense to me. Just spending some else's money to feel better about myself doesn't.

I pay more in taxes than I get in services so yes, I am in part paying the bill for this cost.

 

[poofyhairguy]

You are free to vote and advocate for other things.

You too, thank you for the honest discussion.

 

[BoberFett]

People should be forced to pay for poor decisions that they make, not poor decisions someone else made. That being said, I am not willing to live in a country where we allow people to fall below a certain minimum threshold of well-being, regardless of how poor their decisions are.

Where I live there is a lot of poverty and I used to work in Spanish Harlem, which is also exceedingly poor. I frequently see posts here on what a sweet deal being poor is. I invite anyone who think so to visit these neighborhoods and tell me how great they have it.

If you look at it as a value equation, then somebody providing absolutely nothing to society and receiving benefits that allow them to live even meager lives, they could be viewed in the same category as CEOs.

Consumed From Society / Value To Society = Consumption To Value Ratio

Welfare recipient: $10,000 / 1 = 10,000

Middle class blue collar worker: $30,000 / 100 = 300

Middle class white collar worker: $80,000 / 200 = 400

Fortune 500 CEO: $20,000,000 / 1000 = 20,000

Obviously these numbers are pulled out of my ass, but you get the point I'm trying to make. If we're talking about getting back from society what you put in, wards of the state who do nothing but consume have nothing to complain about.

 

[werepossum]

Agreed. The question is if disconnecting good decisions from offspring outcomes is a good thing.


Let me just ask you directly to avoid picking a million examples:

WHEN, in your opinion, should people be forced to pay or really sacrifice for their poor decisions? Or do you believe in true equality of outcomes?

A good point, and good questions. We gave up punishing children for their parents debts; now one side wants to prevent children from suffering because of their parents' bad life decisions. Not a bad goal - setting aside their even more strident demands that children not benefit from their parents' good life decisions - but to what degree is this destructive of our society by removing the need and rewards for making good life decisions?

The counterpoint is that children who grow up suffering for their parents' bad life decisions have less chance of growing up to be people who make good life decisions, so even setting aside the humanity this is not a simple, cut-and-dried question.

 

[Slew Foot]

replace all of the payments with a stipend. either in the form of a job, or a bullet to the head.

 

[zinfamous]

This is all based on the assumption that most people are rational and have self control. If all benefits were paid out as lump sum cash most of the money would be spent on drugs, cars, and cloths.

So you're saying it makes them participating members of the economy?

:hmm:

 

[unokitty]

If you look at it as a value equation, then somebody providing absolutely nothing to society and receiving benefits that allow them to live even meager lives...

Another view of the current welfare system. This one from inside of it...

My Neighborhood Makes It Easier to Get Pregnant Than To Go To College

If I were to get pregnant, I would know just where to go for help: the local offices of Women, Infants, and Children (WIC), the federally funded food and nutrition program; Planned Parenthood; and the Family Resource Center... But finding local resources to pursue higher education is harder. As one of the few community college students living in Watts, I can’t find a place to print out an essay or get college-related advice.

When I ran into a friend who grew up in the same low-income housing development as I did, she said there was an easier way than to struggle through college. “You should get pregnant,” she told me. “Girl, the government will take care of you, trust me.”

... Shanice Joseph is a sociology student at Long Beach City College and a member of Intersections South LA Reporter Corps, a program of USC Annenberg School for Communication & Journalism that trains young adults to report on their own communities. She wrote this story...

Interesting essay. Lots and lots of governments support for single mothers in Watts... Support for single females that want to go to college and better themselves? Not so much...

Make anyone else wonder why all of the Social Justice Warriors are so proud of providing so much support for young single mothers and so little support for young single females that would rather go to college than become single mothers?

Uno

 

[BoberFett]

Another view of the current welfare system. This one from inside of it...

My Neighborhood Makes It Easier to Get Pregnant Than To Go To College
Interesting essay. Lots and lots of governments support for single mothers in Watts... Support for single females that want to go to college and better themselves? Not so much...

Make anyone else wonder why all of the Social Justice Warriors are so proud of providing so much support for young single mothers and so little support for young single females that would rather go to college than become single mothers?

Uno

You get more of what you subsidize.

 

[Zaap]

So you're saying it makes them participating members of the economy?

:hmm:

No I think he's saying he doesn't want to subsidize other people's drug, booze and gambling habits so that someone else can snarkily pretend that's the same as participating in the economy by carrying one's own weight in it.

That's my problem with the idea too. Too many people (especially spoiled pricks in this country) are just shamelessly ruthless exploiters to a level that most people can't quite grasp.