• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every person's position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!

Do entitlements help the poor get out of poverty?


You have no idea re my position on Bush, the GOP and TARP. But keep blathering on...you havent been right on anything yet. Dont break your streak.
 
AdamT said:
It's a different story if you have little mouths to feed, a mortgage, credit card payments, and all the rest.
Click to expand...

These financial liabilities are rooted in the individual's choice to sign up for them. It is a risk. No one except the risk taker should face his consequences for him.
 
Neomalthusian said:
These financial liabilities are rooted in the individual's choice to sign up for them. It is a risk. No one except the risk taker should face his consequences for him.
Click to expand...

Really? You think it would be good policy to discourage people from buying houses and cars and purchasing consumer goods and from having children? I think that would be much more costly in economic terms than pittance we pay for social insurance.
 
AdamT said:
Really? You think it would be good policy to discourage people from buying houses and cars and purchasing consumer goods and from having children?
Click to expand...

People should be discouraged from accumulating debts they won't be able to pay. But this discouragement originates from the naturally painful state of default that debtors need to anticipate and assess before they go into debt. My statement--that we should not just foot the difference between what they acquire and what they actually afford--is not really ME doing the discouraging of their acquisitive behavior. It's just protecting my property from other people's acquisitiveness.

I think that would be much more costly in economic terms than pittance we pay for social insurance.
Click to expand...

There is nothing ultimately more economically costly than socializing all the consequences of people's individual mistakes/creating moral hazards/distorting risk.
 
Last edited:
ender1 said:
The rich do not pay SS. The poor do not pay SS. If, for the last several decades, we have taxed the middle class ONLY then stop taking SS and give the $ back. Otherwise its just a special tax on working class Americans.
Click to expand...

THAT'S ALL IT'S BEEN FOR DECADES. the house of cards, will soon crash
 
U.S. Socialist. said:
Yes and capitalism doesn't at all encourage greed or avarice does it?
Click to expand...
America is the most philanthropic of nations.

We are individuals, have individual rights. When collectivism has been tried, it fails under the weight of corruption and inefficiency. It's why social programs fail miserably.

Yes, handicapped and mentally retarded or severely handicapped people require our assistance. For that I have no qualms, but we don't have a safety net, we have a hammock.

The money the government has spent on their war on poverty has been wasted and made problems worse, not better. It has created a mentality within some in America that they are entitled to the wealth of others. It's sad.

.
 
Last edited:
VanceMack said:
You show an apple to dumptruck comparison, then spin off on some rant about corporate welfare. Take your whiny corporate welfare bull**** up w/ Obama and GE.
Click to expand...

Y'know, if that was me that wrote that, I would have a PM in my box with a "warning."
 
Captain America said:
Y'know, if that was me that wrote that, I would have a PM in my box with a "warning."
Click to expand...

Why? It was a direct response to a direct response. But if I am in a conversation actually WITH you I will be mindful of your delicate sensitivity.
 
MrVicchio said:
SS Has unfunded liabilities of 66Trillion, how the **** are we gonna pay for that huh?
Click to expand...

by raising the contribution ceiling, which should have already been raised to match inflation.
 

Of course people should be discouraged from borrowing money that they can't repay. That's what banks are supposed to do. But sometimes unanticipated sh*t happens that prevent people from being able to meet obligations that were reasonable when contracted. That's why we have a safety net. That's also why we need stricter banking and derivatives regulation.
 
AdamT said:
Of course people should be discouraged from borrowing money that they can't repay. That's what banks are supposed to do.
Click to expand...

For their own reasons, yes, but they are only half of the agreement. It is not solely the bank's responsibility (or the government's, for that matter) to protect people from their own shortsightedness or to negate the painful consequences thereof. However I make no excuses for the big banking schemes and so I agree with that sentiment. I find a lot of that stuff to just be a variation of fraud, which is already illegal, just poorly enforced. But that doesn't make anyone and everyone with kids who is over his head in mortgage and other bills a victim.

Everyone is affected by hard economic times, and some might seem more deserving of help than others, but that does not make it a legitimate function of government to look around and reallocate public monies where it sees fit. When conservatives say government should not be in the charity business, that's what they mean, and liberals can't seem to wrap their heads around that concept. Nothing makes charity a legitimate government function.
 
Last edited:
AdamT said:
Really? You think it would be good policy to discourage people from buying houses and cars and purchasing consumer goods and from having children? I think that would be much more costly in economic terms than pittance we pay for social insurance.
Click to expand...

Do you hear yourself?

I have a great idea...you...people like you...take your profits...your income...and put them in a nice open transparent bank account so that you can take care of everyone elses house payments. Buy them cars. Give them money simply to exist. YOU pay for it. And hey...dont worry...by all accounts there are plenty of like minded socialists so you should have NO PROBLEM paying for everyone. Dont expect the government to seize other peoples assets to do your bidding...put some muscle behind that hustle. You say it...LIVE it. Dont drop a dime in the Salvation Army basket...LIVE as you profess to believe. Spend your entire life working to provide for people that dont and wont.

What world do you people live on?
 

We people live on the planet earth, where decent human beings are generally expected to care about the less fortunate and not spend 100% of their time selfishly looking out for No. 1. I'm not a religious person myself, but I believe there was a gentleman who lived several thousand years ago who had something to say on this subject.
 
TurtleDude said:
I find those who are fans of the inheritance tax to have issues
Click to expand...
Do you find that those who are NOT fans of the inheritance tax to have no issues?


'cause I find that a lot of people who say things like that tend to have noses.

I am not saying that you in particular have a nose or anything. But I am just describing my personal experience and wondering out loud if you were one of "those people."

I mean I wouldn't directly say that you have a nose, cause I might run a foul of the rules of the board. But launching a backhanded dig at you by saying that you remind me of certain people I have known who have noses, (just one apiece) is prob'ly a safe move.

Not that having a nose, (or not), has any bearing whatsoever on the debate at hand. I mean we all know that an argument stands or falls on its own merits. I'd be a silly old fart if I thought otherwise or tried to use poisoning the well as a debate tactic.
So, I am not going to say that having a nose, (or not w/e the case may be), has any bearing on the legitimacy of you argument. But it is something that I think about and felt compelled to share.
 

I'm not trying to be a hard arse on this (because I am really not a hard arse), but people really should have an emergency fund. Just saving $100 a week for a year or two can result in enough cash to cover things like layoffs or a few months out of work or a car repair. I don't have a lot of sympathy for people who's financial situation is wrecked due to diviorce - thats something that is within their control. I suspect that if we didn't have safety nets that people would be more willing to be responsible with their money because they wouldn't have much of an option. Of course some financial education in high school wouldn't hurt either (like in the 9th grade before they start dropping out of school).

As far as medical bills, I have proposed a solution on DP and other forums and even to a US Congressman. For some reason they don't listen to me - the congressman said that my idea was too "bold". I think that it was really just to "simple" for him to understand.
 
AdamT said:
Really? You think it would be good policy to discourage people from buying houses and cars and purchasing consumer goods and from having children? I think that would be much more costly in economic terms than pittance we pay for social insurance.
Click to expand...

They shouldn't be discouraged from buying anything that they can afford. If they are poor, most likely they can't afford those things, and people certainly shouldn't have children if they can't afford them.
 
U.S. Socialist. said:
You think people choose to be poor?
Click to expand...
Many people do - perhaps not in so many words, but in the choices they make that lead them down that path.
When you decide to become a meth addict, you most liley have thown away your chance at long-term prospoerity.

Not everyone can afford to college. Not everyone has the opportunity or desire to go to college
Click to expand...
In this day and age, the only people who do not have this opportunity are those who have not demonstrated the faculties necessary to get in.
There will always be a number of these people - nothing can be done about it.
And, if you choose to not go to college, you have chosen to throw your opportunity away.

Those people have a right to a good job and good life.
Click to expand...
Having a right to (x) does not euquate to an entitlement to have others provide you the means necessary to exercise your right to (x).

Meanwhile the vaunted "job creators" are busy creating jobs in China,
Click to expand...
Welcome to the global labor market.
:shrug:
 

That doesn't include the "live to together but unmarried" and reported as a single parent household, to receive benefits.

Or the people who straight up lie on their application for benefit forms.
Very little of that fraud is pursued.
 

I do agree about having stricter banking and derivative regulatons. I don't know so much about the sh*t happens thing though. Yes, sh*t happens all too often, even the best plans can be devistated, but I thought we were talking about welfare, not the government paying our morgages. I'd seriously doubt that many welfare recipients have morgages.
 

No, I don't think many currently have mortgages. That was just an analogy. But responsible people do end up on government assistance as a result of layoffs and serious medical problems (mental and/or physical). That's what it's there for -- to help people get back on their feet.
 
AdamT said:
We people live on the planet earth, where decent human beings are generally expected to care about the less fortunate and not spend 100% of their time selfishly looking out for No. 1...
Click to expand...

It's odd, I feel like I totally agree with that statement. Yet I don't think that being a "decent human being" and "caring about the less fortunate" neccesatates giving others money. It's not always selfish to look out for No. 1. If everyone looked out for themselves and our family and our coworkers/neighbors/churchmates, in such a manner that they didn't harm others, then everyone would be looked out for and we wouldn't have a need for charity.

Charity should be voluntary, personal, and rare. It shouldn't be ran by the government and it shouldn't even be ran by professional charity corporations (like the United Way). If you have as much as you need, and you see more meet or hear about someone who has truely fallen into hard times, then by all means, help them out.

The largest reason that we have the poor is because thats the lifestyle that they prefer - its a lifestyle in exchange for not having to work much tradeoff. If people choose that, then it's not right of me to interfere.

The largest reason that we have the "working poor" and "lower middleclass" isn't because the government doesn't give them enough, it's because they have a lack of power. There's a direct relationship between power an income and it is exponential. The working poor don't have much power to negotiate better wages, they don't have much power to turn down a job while waiting for a better one, and they rarely get the opportunity to set their own salaries. Welfare does nothing to correct this issue. I do believe there are solutions to solve the plight of the working poor, but welfare is not one of them.

Poor people just mostly need to start looking out for themselves, and if that requires getting a job, then so be it. We have a culture of professional poor people. People who have that profession and the lifestyle that accompanies it have it largely by choice. If it requires living in a shack with no utilities then that must be the life style that they prefer, otherwise they would live a different lifestyle.
 

What the heck is a "nose"? You mean like one stuck up in the air?

Regardless, "those people" who prefer to have no inheritance tax are typically those who prefer to live off of someone elses wealth than to have to create wealth themselves. They feel entitled, just like much of the welfare class does. There's no difference.
 

Well, I would say that it's precisely the role of government to provide for the general welfare, including providing a safety net.

The reason we have poor people is not because most poor people are lazy. We have poor people because, in a capitalist society, there is a wide range of jobs which command a wide range of salaries. Do you think that everyone who works at a low paying job is lazy? What do you think would happen if we could wave a wand and suddenly make NO ONE lazy? Would the now industrious and energetic people who clean our bathrooms start earning $100k a year? Or would we simply have no more bathroom cleaners? Would the fry cook at McBurgers be given a $30k/yr. raise, or would we simply have no more fry cooks, because only lazy people are fry cooks are there are no more lazy people?

No, for our society to function properly we need to have people at all levels of the pay scale. It may make you feel better about yourself to deride those at the low end, but it doesn't make them any less necessary.
 
AdamT said:
Well, I would say that it's precisely the role of government to provide for the general welfare, including providing a safety net.
Click to expand...
Government exists to protect your right to life, liberty and property, not force others to provide you with means to exercise them.
 
Last edited:
AdamT said:
We people live on the planet earth, where decent human beings are generally expected to care about the less fortunate...
Click to expand...

And this general expectation should remain a general expectation, not a requirement of the law. When we governmentalize compassion and goodwill, the compassion and goodwill fade and people actually do stop caring about the less fortunate eventually. Caring about the less fortunate becomes someone else's job, and nothing more than a tax to the producers. When they need more, the visceral reaction becomes "I'm already taxed up the wazoo for that, buzz off." It's the DHHS' job to "care about the less fortunate" now, and my only job therefore is to make money that the government can confiscate for its supposedly good motives (of course, buying votes is part of the agenda). It's no longer personal, but mandatory, and free men and women tend not to like a bunch of mandates hanging over their head from an authority figure, with no actual guarantee of return or clear terms to the always lofty and fluid "social contract."

Liberals want a parental relationship to emerge when free legal adults begin to suffer. The sufferer, by virtue of the fact he is suffering, becomes the dependent child who is entitled to getting his needs met. The taxpayer becomes the daddy who brings home the bacon. Government the mommy who feeds it to the little ones. It's not entirely surprising that this schema is applied to situations in which a person suffers. Our individual families have this general structure, stereotypically speaking. But that doesn't mean it works at all levels.
 
Last edited:
You must log in or register to reply here.
Menu
Log in
Register
Cookies are required to use this site. You must accept them to continue using the site. Learn more…