• 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!

Welfare for the Poor

Should the poor be given free money?

  • Total voters
    34

Dav

DP Veteran
Joined
Mar 7, 2009
Messages
5,536
Reaction score
1,813
Location
Virginia
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Libertarian - Right
So I was doing research on the War on Poverty and wondered what everyone thought of welfare, always a divisive issue.

I suck at opening posts, so just discuss already.


EDIT: I am referring specifically to government programs here, not charities. Just wanted to make that clear.
 
Last edited:
They should be given money only if I or other people choose to give it to them. I don't want other people deciding what I have to do with my money.
 
phattonez said:
They should be given money only if I or other people choose to give it to them. I don't want other people deciding what I have to do with my money.
Click to expand...

Do you want no government at all, then? Or at least no taxes at all?
 
Dav said:
Do you want no government at all, then? Or at least no taxes at all?
Click to expand...

I only want to pay taxes that go toward protection from intimidation. So I only want to pay a flat rate sales tax.
 
I would need to see in what amounts, who exactly it went to, and how exactly it was spent.

I do not have a problem with something like unemployment benefits, but people should not be relying on government handouts for their livelihood for extended periods of time, unless there is some serious special circumstance.
 
Should have other options.

Yes by those who choose to give.

Yes by those who choose to take money from others and then give to the poor.

The no's are fine.
 
Agnapostate said:
The economic irrationality of that is obvious, considering the existence of diminishing marginal utility.
Click to expand...

The economic irrationality of your position is obvious, considering the existence of ethics.
 
There's a need to challenge the prevailing misconceptions about the welfare state and its role in the capitalist economy, which is often incorrectly regarded as an insertion of "socialism." What needs to be realized is that welfare provisions are far more than a matter of "the poor are starving; let's SAVE them!" and actually play an integral role in efficiency maximization in the capitalist economy. For example, we could refer to Headey et al.'s Is There a Trade-Off Between Economic Efficiency and a Generous Welfare State? A Comparison of Best Cases of `The Three Worlds of Welfare Capitalism’. Consider the abstract:


It's not just a matter of not losing efficiency either, but also gaining efficiency, since unemployment is a form of static inefficiency, though it's not typically conceptualized in such terms.
 
I have no problem with welfare as long as it is used only as a helping hand and not as some means for someone to avoid getting a job. Since welfare is supposed to be a helping there should be some program that helps those on welfare get jobs or get a trade school education in case picking fruits and vegetables or a job at McDonalds can not help provide a means of financial self sufficiency that is able to provide for the family. There should be no extra money for someone popping out an extra child, if that person can not afford to take of that extra child then that individual should either give that child to a relative or give it up for adoption(the state or a nice married couple can take care of that child). I have known people in the past who used welfare as a means to avoid getting a job. There should also be some stipulations for being on welfare such as drug test, no cigarettes and no alcohol because after all if you do not have the ability to provide for yourself and kids then you have absolutely no business doing any recreational drug regardless if it is illegal or legal. There should be no simply just handing someone a check to do what ever the hell they want with it. IF your welfare benefits are to be used to pay bills then that money should be wired straight from the tax payers to the utility companies and if you need food it should be in the form of a access card requiring ID to be used with it.
 
Last edited:
Agnapostate said:
There's a need to challenge the prevailing misconceptions about the welfare state and its role in the capitalist economy,
Click to expand...

See, there's your first and most important problem. A welfare state cannot exist in a capitalist economy. Once you have a welfare state, you no longer have a capitalist economy, unless you change your definition of capitalism.
 
phattonez said:
See, there's your first and most important problem. A welfare state cannot exist in a capitalist economy. Once you have a welfare state, you no longer have a capitalist economy, unless you change your definition of capitalism.
Click to expand...

That's an extremely comical remark. Capitalism necessitates the private ownership of the means of production, market exchange as the primary means of resource allocation, and the existence of wage labor. That you consider the introduction of a substantial welfare state to be an introduction of "socialism" or some other nonsense and a counterproductive force in the capitalist economy rather than a productive one is simply evidence that you're over-reliant on the latest blog post on mises.org, not that it's anything near an economically rational position.
 

I didn't claim that it's counterproductive (though I do believe it is). All I said is that it cannot be a part of a capitalist economy.

Btw, quit trolling.
 
phattonez said:
I didn't claim that it's counterproductive (though I do believe it is). All I said is that it cannot be a part of a capitalist economy.

Btw, quit trolling.
Click to expand...

Thoroughly explaining the role of the welfare state in the capitalist economy and linking to supporting empirical research isn't trolling; dropping one-liners without supporting arguments or evidence is.
 
You're not debunking my claim that the existence of a welfare state automatically invalidates the claim that you have a capitalist economy.
 
My money should not be given out to others without my permission. But here is where I am REALLY angry. We can have a debate about whether or not we should be forced to help out the poor, but helping out the rich? We are being forced to do this too. Look at all the bailouts, and look at all the rich people who made out like bandits because of it. While we can have an honest debate about helping the poor, giving money to the rich is just damn immoral, no matter which side of the fence you sit on in this debate. It is absolutely sickening.
 
Last edited:
I cannot lay my finger on that article of the Constitution, that allows the government to spend from the public treasury for the sake of charity.


Welfare, if done at all, should be done at the state level. The Fedgov has no such mandate, no such authority.

If done at the State level, assuming the State Constitution allows or mandates such a thing, and the People of the State want it done, I personally would support it only under the following conditions:

1. Subsistence payments to those who are verifiably disabled and literally unable to support themselves. This would include the very elderly and Social Insecurity would be subsumed into this State program, and ended at the Fed level.
2. A temporary helping-hand... we'll give you enough to barely live on and help you get job retraining at tech college for two years, so that you can get on your feet and be self-supporting...but we will do this only ONCE in a lifetime for any given individual, after that you're on your own.
 
phattonez said:
You're not debunking my claim that the existence of a welfare state automatically invalidates the claim that you have a capitalist economy.
Click to expand...

Every existing capitalist economy has utilized state protectionism and interventionism to some degree, with all remaining fundamentally capitalist if the three aforementioned elements were intact. That you have a utopian fantasy about the theoretical abstraction of a capitalist "free market" does nothing to alter this, and if you want to maintain that capitalism has never existed, feel free to do so.
 
Agnapostate said:
The economic irrationality of that is obvious, considering the existence of diminishing marginal utility.
Click to expand...

You're sound like a true economist.

phattonez said:
You're not debunking my claim that the existence of a welfare state automatically invalidates the claim that you have a capitalist economy.
Click to expand...

Actually he thoroughly debunked your claim.


:yt

Like he said, capitalism revolved around the idea of resource allocation. Creating a safety net for those below the poverty line isn't automatically a socialist idea - especially when it's incorporated in a capitalist nation.
 
Goshin said:
I cannot lay my finger on that article of the Constitution, that allows the government to spend from the public treasury for the sake of charity.
Click to expand...

The establishment of federal welfare programs is neither opposed to the original intent of the Founding Fathers nor an addition of a new doctrine entirely unconsidered by them. They had an interest in promoting equality (or at least equity), but simply did not envision the detriment that large-scale industrialization (combined with the utilization of wage labor and the extraction of surplus value), would pose to that end. Had they been completely aware of it, they would have advocated federal welfare programs themselves. For instance, we can look to Alexander Hamilton's Reports of the Secretary of the Treasury on the Subject of Manufactures for an illustration of the manner in which they realized that government intervention (namely through the protection of infant industries), is able to uphold economic stability.

We might also look to the additional factor of there being a compelling government interest in upholding economic stability, and the role of welfare in maintaining the physical efficiency of the workforce and therefore sustaining capitalism.
 

Then I guess that there has never been a capitalist nation.

Sanitas said:
Like he said, capitalism revolved around the idea of resource allocation. Creating a safety net for those below the poverty line isn't automatically a socialist idea - especially when it's incorporated in a capitalist nation.
Click to expand...

So the government deciding where resources should be allocated instead of private interests is a capitalist notion? Crazy, I thought it was the exact opposite.
 
Goshin said:
I cannot lay my finger on that article of the Constitution, that allows the government to spend from the public treasury for the sake of charity.
Click to expand...

Can't money be spent from the public treasury on whatever the hell Congress wants? I mean, the Constitution mentions that Congress can spend money, but it doesn't give any limits to what Congress can spend money on, as far as I know.
 
phattonez said:
Then I guess that there has never been a capitalist nation.
Click to expand...

Then it sounds like you have little basis for claiming that the existing technology of the developed world was created by capitalism, as rightists are prone to do. What hasn't existed and will never exist is your "pure capitalism." Real capitalism has and continues to exist and malfunction in a large variety of ways, however.

phattonez said:
So the government deciding where resources should be allocated instead of private interests is a capitalist notion? Crazy, I thought it was the exact opposite.
Click to expand...

No one referred to government dictate as an example of traditional capitalism. It's true that the same hierarchical framework that capitalism involves is restored in such an arrangement, with an oligopolistic arrangement of an elite few resource controllers determining how they will be allocated in both instances. But we would better label a command economy "state capitalist" in nature and make the necessary distinction.
 
Dav said:
Can't money be spent from the public treasury on whatever the hell Congress wants? I mean, the Constitution mentions that Congress can spend money, but it doesn't give any limits to what Congress can spend money on, as far as I know.
Click to expand...

Congress thinks it can spend money on whatever it wants...or more like pretends it can.

The Founders and most of our early Presidents didn't think so.

See Article I Section 8.
 
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…