Spinoff Thread RE: Welfare

[Amused]

Originally posted by: ironwing

Originally posted by: Amused

All welfare has accomplished are outrageously dangerous public housing ghettos and a sense of entitlement and dependency.

Why did we have public housing ghettos? They exist because we tried to do things on the cheap and we didn't want "those people" living amongst us. Building affordable housing interspersed with higher priced housing was seen as bad for property values.

Building massive high rises with parks and playgrounds is hardly cheap.

 

[mchammer]

The high rises may have bland and not aethetically pleasing, but they couldn't have been that bad provided they were built to code.

 

[Amused]

Originally posted by: mchammer
The high rises may have bland and not aethetically pleasing, but they couldn't have been that bad provided they were built to code.

They didn't start off bad. In fact, most were quite nice when built.

The problem is housing that many people living off the dole in one area and isolating them from the rest of society.

 

[sleuth bandit]

I did NOT say sickness didn't happen. But NO ONE was starving in the US before welfare (unless they had an eating disorder, or were insane... same as today).

Don't believe me, find out for yourself. Go dig up the masses of news articles from the 60s complaining about mass starvation among the poor.

They don't exist.

The great depression caused recorded starvation in cities, uncounted numbers in the rurals/farmlands and the great drought caused mass migration due to the inability grow crops.

 

[Amused]

Originally posted by: sleuth bandit

I did NOT say sickness didn't happen. But NO ONE was starving in the US before welfare (unless they had an eating disorder, or were insane... same as today).

Don't believe me, find out for yourself. Go dig up the masses of news articles from the 60s complaining about mass starvation among the poor.

They don't exist.

The great depression caused recorded starvation in cities, uncounted numbers in the rurals/farmlands and the great drought caused mass migration due to the inability grow crops.

Irrelevant. Not even the government could have fed all the people in the depression, and they tried.

Welfare would not have been able to help during the depression. Welfare was not created for the depression, but to end poverty in our time. It failed.

 

[sleuth bandit]

Originally posted by: Amused

Originally posted by: sleuth bandit

I did NOT say sickness didn't happen. But NO ONE was starving in the US before welfare (unless they had an eating disorder, or were insane... same as today).

Don't believe me, find out for yourself. Go dig up the masses of news articles from the 60s complaining about mass starvation among the poor.

They don't exist.

The great depression caused recorded starvation in cities, uncounted numbers in the rurals/farmlands and the great drought caused mass migration due to the inability grow crops.

Irrelevant. Not even the government could have fed all the people in the depression, and they tried.

Welfare would not have been able to help during the depression. Welfare was not created for the depression, but to end poverty in our time. It failed.

It's perfectly relevant, you said "NO ONE" was starving before welfare. Just pointing out that you were making a sweeping generalization to support your point.

I wasn't linking welfare to the great depression at all, nor was it ever alluded to. Yes the govt. tried to feed everybody during the depression and also created companies in order to create jobs, I know that. Point is, you said no one was ever starving before welfare, when people actually were.

 

[Whisper]

Welfare isn't a great solution, no. But have you thought about what would happen if the system were suddenly (or even gradually) stopped? The "won't" people that you speak of wouldn't be very happy. And while you might not care, think about how they might react. There'd be a lot of pissed off people walking around, many of whom would have no problem with taking the law into their own hands.

While we shouldn't let fear dictate politics, we should remember that these won'ts are still people, too. They might not deserve free money, but they do deserve just as much of a chance as anyone else. And because they've been exposed to learned helplessness for so long, it must be realized that weening people off of welfare would be no easy or quick task.

I do think it should be done, I just have no idea how.

 

[Amused]

Originally posted by: sleuth bandit

Originally posted by: Amused

Originally posted by: sleuth bandit

I did NOT say sickness didn't happen. But NO ONE was starving in the US before welfare (unless they had an eating disorder, or were insane... same as today).

Don't believe me, find out for yourself. Go dig up the masses of news articles from the 60s complaining about mass starvation among the poor.

They don't exist.

The great depression caused recorded starvation in cities, uncounted numbers in the rurals/farmlands and the great drought caused mass migration due to the inability grow crops.

Irrelevant. Not even the government could have fed all the people in the depression, and they tried.

Welfare would not have been able to help during the depression. Welfare was not created for the depression, but to end poverty in our time. It failed.

It's perfectly relevant, you said "NO ONE" was starving before welfare. Just pointing out that you were making a sweeping generalization to support your point.

I wasn't linking welfare to the great depression at all, nor was it ever alluded to. Yes the govt. tried to feed everybody during the depression and also created companies in order to create jobs, I know that. Point is, you said no one was ever starving before welfare, when people actually were.

It is irrelevant because welfare would not have fixed it.

Every time a welfare debate comes up, some brilliant soul brings up the Depression as if it trumps my argument. It does not. People were not starving in the absence of welfare prior to it's inception. That's why it was billed not as poverty relief, but as an end to poverty.

 

[Amused]

Originally posted by: Whisper
Welfare isn't a great solution, no. But have you thought about what would happen if the system were suddenly (or even gradually) stopped? The "won't" people that you speak of wouldn't be very happy. And while you might not care, think about how they might react. There'd be a lot of pissed off people walking around, many of whom would have no problem with taking the law into their own hands.

While we shouldn't let fear dictate politics, we should remember that these won'ts are still people, too. They might not deserve free money, but they do deserve just as much of a chance as anyone else. And because they've been exposed to learned helplessness for so long, it must be realized that weening people off of welfare would be no easy or quick task.

I do think it should be done, I just have no idea how.

Yet, somehow, people got along just fine prior to welfare's creation in the late 60s/early 70s. Amazing, huh?

The "won'ts" deserve nothing they haven't earned.

 

[1EZduzit]

Originally posted by: Amused

Originally posted by: Whisper
Welfare isn't a great solution, no. But have you thought about what would happen if the system were suddenly (or even gradually) stopped? The "won't" people that you speak of wouldn't be very happy. And while you might not care, think about how they might react. There'd be a lot of pissed off people walking around, many of whom would have no problem with taking the law into their own hands.

While we shouldn't let fear dictate politics, we should remember that these won'ts are still people, too. They might not deserve free money, but they do deserve just as much of a chance as anyone else. And because they've been exposed to learned helplessness for so long, it must be realized that weening people off of welfare would be no easy or quick task.

I do think it should be done, I just have no idea how.

Yet, somehow, people got along just fine prior to welfare's creation in the late 60s/early 70s. Amazing, huh?

The "won'ts" deserve nothing they haven't earned.

Crank the clock back a little farther and you'll find people got along without savings accounts, health insurance, retirement programs and all kinds of things. Times have changed.

 

[Lithium381]

Originally posted by: Amused

Originally posted by: Whisper
Welfare isn't a great solution, no. But have you thought about what would happen if the system were suddenly (or even gradually) stopped? The "won't" people that you speak of wouldn't be very happy. And while you might not care, think about how they might react. There'd be a lot of pissed off people walking around, many of whom would have no problem with taking the law into their own hands.

You think they could be bothered to do anything other than sit around and wait for someone to do it for them!?

While we shouldn't let fear dictate politics, we should remember that these won'ts are still people, too. They might not deserve free money, but they do deserve just as much of a chance as anyone else. And because they've been exposed to learned helplessness for so long, it must be realized that weening people off of welfare would be no easy or quick task.

I do think it should be done, I just have no idea how.

Yet, somehow, people got along just fine prior to welfare's creation in the late 60s/early 70s. Amazing, huh?

The "won'ts" deserve nothing they haven't earned.

That bold part sums it up quite well. I hate to bring another aspect into this, but something that came to mind when i thought about how most of these people feel that they are somehow entitled to it, we OWE it to them: Black america....a generalization by far but thats the setiment i encounter....wonder how much of a correlation there is

 

[mchammer]

Originally posted by: Lithium381

Originally posted by: Amused

Originally posted by: Whisper
Welfare isn't a great solution, no. But have you thought about what would happen if the system were suddenly (or even gradually) stopped? The "won't" people that you speak of wouldn't be very happy. And while you might not care, think about how they might react. There'd be a lot of pissed off people walking around, many of whom would have no problem with taking the law into their own hands.

You think they could be bothered to do anything other than sit around and wait for someone to do it for them!?

While we shouldn't let fear dictate politics, we should remember that these won'ts are still people, too. They might not deserve free money, but they do deserve just as much of a chance as anyone else. And because they've been exposed to learned helplessness for so long, it must be realized that weening people off of welfare would be no easy or quick task.

I do think it should be done, I just have no idea how.

Yet, somehow, people got along just fine prior to welfare's creation in the late 60s/early 70s. Amazing, huh?

The "won'ts" deserve nothing they haven't earned.

That bold part sums it up quite well. I hate to bring another aspect into this, but something that came to mind when i thought about how most of these people feel that they are somehow entitled to it, we OWE it to them: Black america....a generalization by far but thats the setiment i encounter....wonder how much of a correlation there is

That's the fault of all these crappy programs. Don't blame them for it.

 

[Amused]

Originally posted by: 1EZduzit

Originally posted by: Amused

Originally posted by: Whisper
Welfare isn't a great solution, no. But have you thought about what would happen if the system were suddenly (or even gradually) stopped? The "won't" people that you speak of wouldn't be very happy. And while you might not care, think about how they might react. There'd be a lot of pissed off people walking around, many of whom would have no problem with taking the law into their own hands.

While we shouldn't let fear dictate politics, we should remember that these won'ts are still people, too. They might not deserve free money, but they do deserve just as much of a chance as anyone else. And because they've been exposed to learned helplessness for so long, it must be realized that weening people off of welfare would be no easy or quick task.

I do think it should be done, I just have no idea how.

Yet, somehow, people got along just fine prior to welfare's creation in the late 60s/early 70s. Amazing, huh?

The "won'ts" deserve nothing they haven't earned.

Crank the clock back a little farther and you'll find people got along without savings accounts, health insurance, retirement programs and all kinds of things. Times have changed.

So, what? We are to become more and more dependent on other people taking care of us? BTW, all the things you listed, people WORK FOR.

Sorry, but furthering the rampant sense of entitlement is NOT progress.

 

[classy]

Originally posted by: Amused
Welfare has built a sense of entitlement.

Before Welfare was started in the late sixties, NO ONE was starving in the streets and the number of "homeless" was far less than it is today. Private charities more than filled the needs of those down on their luck.

It's time to admit that welfare is not only an abject failure, but has had detrimental consequences.

LOL You try real hard to come across as knowledgeable. Since the 20-30s there have been slums, as we call them today ghettos with folks who lived on the street and starved. But back then they were almost all black, unlike today most of the ghettos have poor from all races. You are completely clueless. Welfare does need to be overhauled, seriously overhauled, but welfare is a needed service and does help many hard working folks who hit times of trouble. And folks flap about welfare, but in reality it makes up about 3% of the govenment budget.

 

[Amused]

Originally posted by: classy

Originally posted by: Amused
Welfare has built a sense of entitlement.

Before Welfare was started in the late sixties, NO ONE was starving in the streets and the number of "homeless" was far less than it is today. Private charities more than filled the needs of those down on their luck.

It's time to admit that welfare is not only an abject failure, but has had detrimental consequences.

LOL You try real hard to come across as knowledgeable. Since the 20-30s there have been slums, as we call them today ghettos with folks who lived on the street and starved. But back then they were almost all black, unlike today most of the ghettos have poor from all races. You are completely clueless. Welfare does need to be overhauled, seriously overhauled, but welfare is a needed service and does help many hard working folks who hit times of trouble. And folks flap about welfare, but in reality it makes up about 3% of the govenment budget.

Classy, I never said slums and skid rows did not exist before welfare. And yes, in the past they were even more segregated than today. But no, just as today, there were (in raw numbers, not %s) more poor whites than blacks living in skid rows and slums. It's a matter of shear numbers.

The problem with public housing is that it concentrates all that into a very small, isolated area.

Poor people will always exist. Adding a sense of entitlement does NOTHING to cure that.

How much Welfare takes up in the budget is irrelevant. What it does to people is relevant.

Welfare is NOT needed. It has not ended poverty, and private charity more than filled the needs of those down on their luck prior to Welfare's inception in the late 60s.

 

[tk149]

Originally posted by: classy
folks flap about welfare, but in reality it makes up about 3% of the govenment budget.

Link?

 

[Engineer]

Originally posted by: Fenixgoon
welfare wont be done away with because politicians will lose their jobs.
at this point, i think we need an entirely new congress - its far too inefficient and filled with a bunch of whiny people worrying about the good of a small constituency rather than the health of the entire country

Ding...ding....ding.....we have a winner on this one!!!

Just look at the current spending and tax cutting policies. I love a good tax cut just like the rest of you, but do any of you love the ballooning deficits on borrowed Chinese money? Bribing the people with their own money (and borrowed money too). There are no fiscal conservatives left in DC.

Welfare SHOULD be a last resort for those who need it, and there are legitimate cases. The rest need to get off their ass and get a job. :|

 

[classy]

Originally posted by: Amused

Welfare is NOT needed. It has not ended poverty, and private charity more than filled the needs of those down on their luck prior to Welfare's inception in the late 60s.

See this is the mindset thats out in left field. Welfare was never intended to end poverty. Private charities? I don't know where your getting that stuff from. Maybe when there was only 100 million people in the country, but certianly not now with almost 300 million. The folks who abuse the system may be at most 30%. This idea that someone who gets welfare is lazy is just not true. The push of welfare is this huge money problem is really a lie. I wish welfare was our biggest tax cost, I could only wish. It also depends on what you consider welfare? Is it the money folks get (check every month), or is it food stamps, or subsicized housing?

 

[Ryan]

An interesting thought - most people are all on some kind of government sustinance - whether it be tax breaks, grants, or welfare......it's all sustinance....hmmmmmmm

 

[classy]

The true welfare problem that really takes the tax payers to the cleaners is Corporate Welfare. Now thats a problem. The oil companies this year will make billions, I do mean billions in profits. The entire Presidential Cabinet will be set for life just off this years dividends. Welfare for the poor people a problem? LOL the biggest Sears Sucker Suit lie ever put out.

 

[spidey07]

Originally posted by: classy
The true welfare problem that really takes the tax payers to the cleaners is Corporate Welfare. Now thats a problem. The oil companies this year will make billions, I do mean billions in profits. The entire Presidential Cabinet will be set for life just off this years dividends. Welfare for the poor people a problem? LOL the biggest Sears Sucker Suit lie ever put out.

man, you are really, really out there.

Are we blaming "the corporations" for welfare and poverty?

You know they are all "corporationny", you know...those corporations. They're just so "corporationny" and stuff. Yeah, that's it. The corporations.

 

[Amused]

Originally posted by: classy

Originally posted by: Amused

Welfare is NOT needed. It has not ended poverty, and private charity more than filled the needs of those down on their luck prior to Welfare's inception in the late 60s.

See this is the mindset thats out in left field. Welfare was never intended to end poverty.

LBJ's "Great Society" (the plan that started welfare) was billed as an "end to poverty." Why? Because had they billed it as "relief for poverty" it would have been laughed out of both houses. Relief already existed. No one was starving in the streets and no was was dying of curable diseases.

Private charities? I don't know where your getting that stuff from. Maybe when there was only 100 million people in the country, but certianly not now with almost 300 million.

This makes no sense whatsoever. The size of the country is irrelevant. More people mean more contributers.

That's like saying only small churches with small congregations can make it, because big ones can't be afforded. The larger the population, the larger the donation base.

The folks who abuse the system may be at most 30%. This idea that someone who gets welfare is lazy is just not true. The push of welfare is this huge money problem is really a lie. I wish welfare was our biggest tax cost, I could only wish. It also depends on what you consider welfare? Is it the money folks get (check every month), or is it food stamps, or subsicized housing?

Abuse is irrelevant. Percent of the budget is irrelevant.

What is relevant is the mentality it breeds among ALL people, not just those who benefit and or abuse it. Making the government our nanny breeds a sense of entitlement, and destroys personal responsibility.

And I'm speaking of ALL government welfare programs.

 

[Amused]

Originally posted by: classy
The true welfare problem that really takes the tax payers to the cleaners is Corporate Welfare. Now thats a problem. The oil companies this year will make billions, I do mean billions in profits. The entire Presidential Cabinet will be set for life just off this years dividends. Welfare for the poor people a problem? LOL the biggest Sears Sucker Suit lie ever put out.

Most "corporate welfare" are actually just tax breaks.

And that's a GOOD thing. NOT taxing companies, or lowering their tax burden BENEFITS everyone. You see, companies don't take a profit hit when taxed. They merely pass that cost onto the consumer. Who is hurt most by higher prices? The poor and middle classes.

Business taxes also make our companies less competitive on the world market. Cutting those taxes allows our companies to better compete. This means more jobs in the US.

Finally, fostering business has a near immediate return, and does nothing to build a sense of entitlement or dependency. In fact, quite the opposite.

Taxes on companies are merely a hidden tax on the consumer. Nothing more.

It's sad that so many have fallen for the class envy mentality. So much so, that they shoot themselves in the foot by raising their own tax burden without even knowing it.

 

[classy]

Originally posted by: spidey07

Originally posted by: classy
The true welfare problem that really takes the tax payers to the cleaners is Corporate Welfare. Now thats a problem. The oil companies this year will make billions, I do mean billions in profits. The entire Presidential Cabinet will be set for life just off this years dividends. Welfare for the poor people a problem? LOL the biggest Sears Sucker Suit lie ever put out.

man, you are really, really out there.

Are we blaming "the corporations" for welfare and poverty?

You know they are all "corporationny", you know...those corporations. They're just so "corporationny" and stuff. Yeah, that's it. The corporations.

Let me sum this up. I never said corporations were the blame for welfare. So re-read again. I stress that "social" welfare is not the big problem that so many try to make it out to be.
You and many others will moan and complain like 5 year old kindegarten kids about the 10-15 billion or so given to help take care of "our own" and many who need help only for a short period of time. But say its in the best interest of our country to give couple hundred billion or so away in "tax breaks" to companies who make billion dollar profits. Are you just ignorant or stupid?
Being *ignorant is not knowing the facts and make a decision based on not knowing the facts.
*Stupidity is knowing the facts and just ignoring them because you either benefit or support the very outcome.

*the definitions are according to classy's American Standard Anandtech forum dictionary, not according to Webster's dictionary.

 

[Amused]

Originally posted by: classy
But say its in the best interest of our country to give couple hundred billion or so away in "tax breaks" to companies who make billion dollar profits. Are you just ignorant or stupid?

Classy, they make the same profits whether you tax them as a company, or not. The ONLY difference is, when taxed, they pass that cost on to the consumer. Who is hurt most by a hidden flat consumption tax on everything from food, to clothes? The poor.

Business is what MAKES our country great. Without it, we'd be nothing more than a third world country living in squalor. Anything done to foster business and trade is beneficial to our country and increases quality of life for everyone. Increased incomes mean increased revenues. Hindering business has exactly the opposite effect.

Business owners and investors have their income taxed already. So it's not like no one is paying taxes on the money made. And, again, they (the companies and business owners) do not pay the business taxes, the consumer does.

I am neither stupid, nor ignorant. Quite the contrary. I can see the big picture and not fall for the class envy mentality that you seem to fall for.