• 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!
  • Welcome to our archives. No new posts are allowed here.

Should Poverty Programs Extend to the Upper-Class?

Read the intro and vote accordingly

  • Total voters
    15
A

aquapub

DP Veteran
Joined
Apr 16, 2005
Messages
7,317
Reaction score
344
Location
America (A.K.A., a red state)
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Conservative
SCHIP is thinly-veiled Socialism. It was supposed to be about insuring poor kids-which was already completely outside the role of the federal government. What Democrats are proposing with SCHIP is not about the poor at all. It's about enacting Socialism through deceptive means, since liberals cannot win the argument on honest terms.

Wealthy could get health benefits*--*The Washington Times, America's Newspaper

"Thousands of families who earn enough to pay a tax designed for wealthy Americans also would be eligible for government-subsidized health care for low-income children if proposals in the Democrat-controlled Congress become law.

In New York, almost 15,000 families who pay the alternative minimum tax would be covered under the healthcare program if the state's plan to increase eligibility to those earning four times the poverty level — $83,000 for a family of four — is approved..."
 
Last edited:
No, poverty programs should not extend to the upper class, because it wastes money. We can help everyone obtain health insurance without throwing money away on things like this, when it can be better spent elsewhere.
 
If they are one mostly paying into it shouldn't they be entitled to these programs that they fund
 
Yes. There is enough fraud, illegal and misuse of this kind of Socialism anyway. If nobody is willing to secure the system and make it work, might well make it work against it's original purpose. Then they would really have to get serious about reform.
 
It is a strange situation because I think people with that many children should be allowed that benefit, but I also think that people should not be encouraged to have that many children to get the benefit.
 
I'm maybee just a socials swed but anyway isn't it a fact that all children born in USA is american citizen and that they can't choose who their parents are (if you not belive in some form of extremist hinduism. So yes you can blame the parents and promote responsible parenthood. But then the child is born it's right as an American citizen should be proteted that includes healthcare. Else you saying that some Americans should be punished not for being lazy or doing mistakes but from the fact that they are born with the wrong parents.
 
Actually the "give it to everyone" approach solves a few problems in the current implementation.

For example consider poverty programs that phase out as income increases. Because they phase out, there's an incentive to stay below those income levels which really defeats the whole purpose. If you don't phase it out that incentive vanishes.

You also have people who cheat the system -- they'll make most of their money "under the table" in order to obtain the poverty benefits while earning too much to do so legitimately. Creating a situation where one person who is more deserving of the benefits receives none while another who could do without receives them.

Yes, the downside is cost, obviously if you expanded welfare benefits to everyone the tax bill for it would go way up, but to some extent it's not such a big issue because people would just get their own money back. Even so, if it's a progressive tax like most it would probably disproportionately affect the wealthy, in that the increase in taxes they pay wouldn't cover the benefits they receive.

So it's not all bad and not all good. Overall I think it's a decent idea just because you no longer have a disincentive to increase earnings which should hopefully reduce the number in poverty. Just depends on how the tax to support expanded coverage is created and what the program is as to whether it makes sense.
 
I think government programs should exist to help people who can't help themselves. If you can take care of yourself you should. Why should my children pay for Senator Kennedy's liver transplant with Medicare? Why should my children buy someone's prozac so they can leave more money to their children?

I'm not a socialist but I would prefer seeing a better job done of helping those who can't, as opposed to won't, help themselves and quit buying votes with public money.
 
We've had poverty programs extending to the upper class for years. Medicare and Social security. I agree it is riduculous for the Govt to pay $22,000 a year to Warren Buffet.
 
Iriemon said:
I agree it is riduculous for the Govt to pay $22,000 a year to Warren Buffet.
Click to expand...


WTF??!!! Are you serious? One of the richest men in America gets an extra $22,000 a year from the Government? How the hell doest that work out? As for poverty programs, they should be cut from those who wont help themselves (ie people that work under the table) and only for those who cant help themselves (ie the disabled). The welfare system in this country is completely FUBRA and should be scraped and redone if not gotten rid of all together.
 

I agree!

.....
 
Just curious. How are people who are "working under the table" not helping themselves?
 
I agree it is riduculous for the Govt to pay $22,000 a year to Warren Buffet.
Click to expand...

Heh heh. Maybe we should get rid of social security. I say it was a bad idea.
 
People who are earning four times the poverty level do not need benefits designed for those who are not evening making poverty level wages.

Warren Buffett and Corporate America do not need welfare. The federal government needs to put a stop to allowing wealthy people from raping the public.

If a taxpayer earns less than $25,000 per year, they should qualify for government subsidized healthcare. Period.
 
Warren Buffett and Corporate America do not need welfare.
Click to expand...

He isn't getting welfare, he is getting social security. Which makes sense, since he paid for social security.

The federal government needs to put a stop to allowing wealthy people from raping the public.
Click to expand...

And while they are at it, they can put a stop to allowing poor people to rape the public as well.

Here's a concept, lets not have any programs that rape the public, and just let people make what they earn.
 
With this administration they already do. Their goal is to only have poverty programs for their rich cronies. This is fascism and they love fascism. If you give food to the hungry, that is socialism and they hate socialism, because it take funds away from the Bush's buddies.
 
Panache said:
Heh heh. Maybe we should get rid of social security. I say it was a bad idea.
Click to expand...

I agree. It should be replaced with a needs based system that is funded in a real, not imaginary, separate system.
 
Panache said:
He isn't getting welfare, he is getting social security. Which makes sense, since he paid for social security.
Click to expand...

Makes no sense at all for me, unless you are arguing for entitlements based on taxes.

And while they are at it, they can put a stop to allowing poor people to rape the public as well.

Here's a concept, lets not have any programs that rape the public, and just let people make what they earn.
Click to expand...

Rape is illegal in all states, to my understanding.
 
Makes no sense at all for me, unless you are arguing for entitlements based on taxes.
Click to expand...

I might be inclined to argue for entitlement based on taxes, but I am not in this case. I am just saying that our silly SS program that is currently in existence is not designed as a welfare program to "help out the little guy." It is a system that is simply designed to waste peoples money. Everyone puts a dollar in and gets a dime back.
 
Panache said:
He isn't getting welfare, he is getting social security. Which makes sense, since he paid for social security.
Click to expand...

Not really. That defeats the whole purpose of social security (a safety net for old age). I agree that it's a stupid program and should be phased out, but giving SS money to people who don't need it just wastes money.

Sorry, but at this point, simply having paid into SS is not a sufficient justification for getting SS checks. The program is insolvent, and some group of people will be a net loser no matter HOW we divvy up the cash.
 

http://www.debatepolitics.com/628413-post18.html
 
Well, it does kinda make more sense that the people who paid the most money into a stupid system should be the ones who benefit the most from the stupid system.
 
“If a taxpayer earns less than $25,000 per year, they should qualify for government subsidized healthcare. Period.” - Vader

But what if that person has made all the wrong choices. Instead of going to school they got involved with drugs or got pregnant and have found themselves in a position that they cannot support themselves.

Why should I be forced to support this person?

“It should be replaced with a needs based system that is funded in a real, not imaginary, separate system.” – Ireimon

Who decides the needs?

Why can’t I simply keep the money I’ve earned?

Anyway, here are a few facts about this country’s poor:

“The following are facts about persons defined as “poor” by the Census Bureau, taken from a variety of government reports:

- 46 percent of all poor households actually own their own homes. The average home owned by persons classified as poor by the Census Bureau is a three-bedroom house with one-and-a-half baths, a garage, and a porch or patio.

- 80 percent of poor households have air conditioning. By contrast, in 1970, only 36 percent of the entire U.S. population enjoyed air conditioning.

- Only six percent of poor households are overcrowded; two thirds have more than two rooms per person.

- The typical poor American has more living space than the average individual living in Paris, London, Vienna, Athens, and other cities throughout Europe. (These comparisons are to the average citizens in foreign countries, not to those classified as poor.)

- Nearly three quarters of poor households own a car; 31 percent own two or more cars.

- 97 percent of poor households have a color television; over half own two or more color televisions.

- 78 percent have a VCR or DVD player.

- 62 percent have cable or satellite TV reception.

- 89 percent own microwave ovens, more than half have a stereo, and a more than a third have an automatic dishwasher.

As a group, America’s poor are far from being chronically undernourished. The average consumption of protein, vitamins, and minerals is virtually the same for poor and middle-class children and, in most cases, is well above recommended norms. Poor children actually consume more meat than do higher-income children and have average protein intakes 100-percent above recommended levels. Most poor children today are, in fact, super-nourished and grow up to be, on average, one inch taller and ten pounds heavier than the GIs who stormed the beaches of Normandy in World War II.” – Robert Rector

Robert Rector on Poverty on National Review Online

When all is said and done, I pay way too much in taxes (freakin’-half!) and to be forced to pay for someone else’s healthcare is unforgivable.
 
Yes, if the upper-class meets the requirements of "poverty" as defined by the program.
 
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…