• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every persons 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: Keep, Reform or End?

Welfare: Keep, Reform or End?

  • Keep it!

    Votes: 15 23.4%
  • Keep it, but it needs SEVERE reform.

    Votes: 33 51.6%
  • End it

    Votes: 9 14.1%
  • Other

    Votes: 7 10.9%

  • Total voters
    64

John Liberty

Banned
Joined
Jun 30, 2013
Messages
275
Reaction score
72
Location
Ask the NSA
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Libertarian
Federal Welfare. Should we keep it the way it is, severely reform it or end it completely?
 

John Liberty

Banned
Joined
Jun 30, 2013
Messages
275
Reaction score
72
Location
Ask the NSA
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Libertarian
I say we severely reform it. I'm all for helping people out...when they NEED it.

Some issues with our current state of welfare:
-Welfare is way too easy to get. There are too many people that are far from needing welfare.

-Welfare pays too much. Welfare is supposed to be just enough to keep you alive, welfare is not supposed to be comfortable! If it's comfortable than where is the initiative to go out and work?

-Welfare lasts too long. Welfare should be there just enough to help you get back on your feet.

-The "Obamaphone" welfare program gets its own section. There are a lot of things wrong with people getting phones from welfare programs. If you can't figure out why, then you will never get it.
 

JC Callender

DP Veteran
Joined
Jan 26, 2013
Messages
6,477
Reaction score
3,269
Location
Metro Detroit
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Undisclosed
I say end it and let social organizations, charities, families, and friends help those in need. Our government is too big now to enforce any serious reform.
 
Last edited:

Gipper

Banned
DP Veteran
Joined
Feb 6, 2008
Messages
25,120
Reaction score
7,658
Location
Theoretical Physics Lab
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Libertarian - Right
You can't end it. That would result in a revolution-sized riot, and it'd be from the part of the populace that has guns and would use them.

I definitely don't want to keep it as-is. It's led to entitlement beyond belief.

I've been a loud proponent for welfare reform. Ideally it a) would last no more than 6 months, b) require its recipients to be gainfully employed, or assigned public service employment at a bare minimum of wage, c) would be discontinued if a random drug test was ever failed, and d) would mandate birth control be required for any female recipient.

There are many other things I would changed, but I touched upon some of the larger ones.
 

jamesrage

DP Veteran
Joined
Jul 31, 2005
Messages
34,511
Reaction score
16,300
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Slightly Conservative
Federal Welfare. Should we keep it the way it is, severely reform it or end it completely?
Keep it but reform it.


1.Make phasing from welfare to job a lot easier.One of the problems people have is that once they even start doing even a little bit of work they are immediately cut off.

2.Foodstamps should be similar to the wic voucher program.In the wic voucher program the vouchers tell you what you can get and when you can get it.

3.A nutritionist should determine what each family needs and those vouchers reflect that.

4.A state issued ID or driver's license should be required to use WIC,foodstamps or any other tax payer funded assistance.

5.Instead of giving cash to the recipient for rent and utilities, the rent and utility payments will be wired to land lord's account and utility companies.

6.Welfare recipients will either be issued bus passes in which they must show a state issued ID or driver's license or if they drive a car they will be issued a gas card which they must show a state issued driver's license and only will be issued enough gas to go to school,work,grocery store and or pick up kids from school.

7.Additional welfare/foodstamps will not be granted for any additional kids the recipient has while on welfare/foodstamps.

8.Able bodied people will either work,or to trade school in order to get welfare/foodstamps or they will be on work details to clean up trash, or mow lawns on public property until they get a job.

9.Foodstamps will not pay for any name brand foods,luxury foods(sushi, lobster, expensive cuts of meat, or any other luxury foods) energy drinks, sugary drinks, cookies, cakes, candies, or any other junk food.
 

Gipper

Banned
DP Veteran
Joined
Feb 6, 2008
Messages
25,120
Reaction score
7,658
Location
Theoretical Physics Lab
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Libertarian - Right
Keep it but reform it.


1.Make phasing from welfare to job a lot easier.One of the problems people have is that once they even start doing even a little bit of work they are immediately cut off.

2.Foodstamps should be similar to the wic voucher program.In the wic voucher program the vouchers tell you what you can get and when you can get it.

3.A nutritionist should determine what each family needs and those vouchers reflect that.

4.A state issued ID or driver's license should be required to use WIC,foodstamps or any other tax payer funded assistance.

5.Instead of giving cash to the recipient for rent and utilities, the rent and utility payments will be wired to land lord's account and utility companies.

6.Welfare recipients will either be issued bus passes in which they must show a state issued ID or driver's license or if they drive a car they will be issued a gas card which they must show a state issued driver's license and only will be issued enough gas to go to school,work,grocery store and or pick up kids from school.

7.Additional welfare/foodstamps will not be granted for any additional kids the recipient has while on welfare/foodstamps.

8.Able bodied people will either work,or to trade school in order to get welfare/foodstamps or they will be on work details to clean up trash, or mow lawns on public property until they get a job.

9.Foodstamps will not pay for any name brand foods,luxury foods(sushi, lobster, expensive cuts of meat, or any other luxury foods) energy drinks, sugary drinks, cookies, cakes, candies, or any other junk food.
Excellent post. I agree, and you've really hit over some very major points, as well as elaborated nicely. 10/10
 

GhostlyJoe

DP Veteran
Joined
Nov 20, 2009
Messages
4,220
Reaction score
2,316
Location
here
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Slightly Liberal
This thread needs perspective. Here's an interesting look at government benefits as a whole. Welfare, meaning direct cash paymet, in 2011, went to about 7% of households:

More here

And some general stats about welfare specifically

Welfare is a very small expenditure, relative to other federal entitlements, and is only short-term assistance for a big majority of recipients. I'm not sure we need to come down hard on the poorest. The biggest beneficiary of government spending, after all, are the elderly and and the middle class. And if you start to add in tax benefits, well, I guess we all suckle at the government teet at one time or another .. should we all be forced to mow lawns and not eat Twinkies?
 

specklebang

Discount Philosopher
DP Veteran
Joined
Jan 13, 2012
Messages
11,524
Reaction score
6,769
Location
Las Vegas
Gender
Undisclosed
Political Leaning
Other
Keep it but reform it.


1.Make phasing from welfare to job a lot easier.One of the problems people have is that once they even start doing even a little bit of work they are immediately cut off.

2.Foodstamps should be similar to the wic voucher program.In the wic voucher program the vouchers tell you what you can get and when you can get it.

3.A nutritionist should determine what each family needs and those vouchers reflect that.

4.A state issued ID or driver's license should be required to use WIC,foodstamps or any other tax payer funded assistance.

5.Instead of giving cash to the recipient for rent and utilities, the rent and utility payments will be wired to land lord's account and utility companies.

6.Welfare recipients will either be issued bus passes in which they must show a state issued ID or driver's license or if they drive a car they will be issued a gas card which they must show a state issued driver's license and only will be issued enough gas to go to school,work,grocery store and or pick up kids from school.

7.Additional welfare/foodstamps will not be granted for any additional kids the recipient has while on welfare/foodstamps.

8.Able bodied people will either work,or to trade school in order to get welfare/foodstamps or they will be on work details to clean up trash, or mow lawns on public property until they get a job.

9.Foodstamps will not pay for any name brand foods,luxury foods(sushi, lobster, expensive cuts of meat, or any other luxury foods) energy drinks, sugary drinks, cookies, cakes, candies, or any other junk food.
Actually, I came here to make a snarky remark about increasing welfare but I like your post because it's so reasonable (other than the nutritionist bureaucracy).

I think that while welfare needs cleaning up (your suggestions √) so nothing is stolen, we should recognize that we do have a welfare class of unemployable people and that it isn't only ones taking advantage. Automation has eliminated many strong back weak mind jobs and we will never see full employment again. So, some people must live on the dole.

Ragefare©. :)
 

JC Callender

DP Veteran
Joined
Jan 26, 2013
Messages
6,477
Reaction score
3,269
Location
Metro Detroit
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Undisclosed
What would you consider full employment and when did automation put an end to that?

Actually, I came here to make a snarky remark about increasing welfare but I like your post because it's so reasonable (other than the nutritionist bureaucracy).

I think that while welfare needs cleaning up (your suggestions √) so nothing is stolen, we should recognize that we do have a welfare class of unemployable people and that it isn't only ones taking advantage. Automation has eliminated many strong back weak mind jobs and we will never see full employment again. So, some people must live on the dole.

Ragefare©. :)
 

ttwtt78640

Sometimes wrong
DP Veteran
Joined
May 22, 2012
Messages
66,926
Reaction score
37,998
Location
Uhland, Texas
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Libertarian
Make it a one time deal (keeping biometeric data of the recipient to assure that no repeat is possible) and of a fixed amount calculated at 2080 (40 hours for 52 weeks) times the federal hourly minimum wage. No tests, qualifications or any other "strings" - beyond what liberals want for voting. U.S. tourism will boom! Better secure the border first. ;)
 

opendebate

Banned
DP Veteran
Joined
Jun 25, 2013
Messages
7,317
Reaction score
2,926
Gender
Female
Political Leaning
Progressive
What about some kind of community service in exchange for assistance
What about mandatory enrollment in a trade program and tax incentives for businesses that hire from the program
Maybe food pantries where people have credit and actually exchange the credit for food instead of getting the money directly, money would go further
 
Last edited:

Captain Adverse

Classical Liberal Sage
DP Veteran
Joined
Jun 22, 2013
Messages
15,465
Reaction score
20,323
Location
Mid-West USA
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Libertarian - Left
I say we severely reform it. I'm all for helping people out...when they NEED it.

Some issues with our current state of welfare:
-Welfare is way too easy to get. There are too many people that are far from needing welfare.

-Welfare pays too much. Welfare is supposed to be just enough to keep you alive, welfare is not supposed to be comfortable! If it's comfortable than where is the initiative to go out and work?

-Welfare lasts too long. Welfare should be there just enough to help you get back on your feet.

-The "Obamaphone" welfare program gets its own section. There are a lot of things wrong with people getting phones from welfare programs. If you can't figure out why, then you will never get it.
I voted to keep it. If there had been an option for "minor reform" I would have selected that instead.

Now you made several assertions, apparently based on "common knowledge." I'd ask that you back up each of those assertions with some facts. Explain:

1. How it is "WAY too easy to get."
2. Define "many" and then show how there are too "many" on it and which of these "many" are "far from needing it."
3. Define "enough to keep you alive," then show how welfare "pays too much."
4. How "just keeping you alive" serves to help you get OFF welfare.
5. Show that it "lasts too long" for current recipients.
6. How long it is supposed to take to "get back on your feet;" especially if the amounts paid "only keep you alive."
7. How having a limited use cellphone should not be a welfare "perk, when it is necessary for many things, not the least of which is getting a job?

Most employers require a contact number to reach you in order to contact you for interviews, call to come to work, inquire if you are sick, etc. Why should access remain outside the hands of people you want to GET work in order to GET OFF welfare?

Now as a general observation (not focused on the OP) I find it interesting that people want to do away with welfare programs because (short-sightedly) they never think they would ever need it.

Do those of you who believe this honestly think everyone who is on welfare thought they would be needing welfare when they first started out? That the more than 40 million working poor who qualify for Food Stamps thought they would need to rely on food stamps? That Millions of working people would need to depend on Medicaid to cover costs of health care for their children or themselves that their paychecks can't?

Perhaps people should really try to give a little thought to the reasons for the existence of welfare pragrams besides buying into the myth of "lazy welfare mommas" sucking up our tax dollars.
 
Last edited:

American

Constitutionalist
Bartender
Supporting Member
Monthly Subscriber
DP Veteran
Joined
Mar 11, 2006
Messages
88,882
Reaction score
27,947
Location
SE Virginia
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Conservative
This thread needs perspective. Here's an interesting look at government benefits as a whole. Welfare, meaning direct cash paymet, in 2011, went to about 7% of households:

More here

And some general stats about welfare specifically

Welfare is a very small expenditure, relative to other federal entitlements, and is only short-term assistance for a big majority of recipients. I'm not sure we need to come down hard on the poorest. The biggest beneficiary of government spending, after all, are the elderly and and the middle class. And if you start to add in tax benefits, well, I guess we all suckle at the government teet at one time or another .. should we all be forced to mow lawns and not eat Twinkies?
Well the first liberal has leaped in here to stop all reform. Keep the spending going. Carry on.
 

opendebate

Banned
DP Veteran
Joined
Jun 25, 2013
Messages
7,317
Reaction score
2,926
Gender
Female
Political Leaning
Progressive
Well the first liberal has leaped in here to stop all reform. Keep the spending going. Carry on.
Did you even consider looking at what he posted?
 

opendebate

Banned
DP Veteran
Joined
Jun 25, 2013
Messages
7,317
Reaction score
2,926
Gender
Female
Political Leaning
Progressive
Well the first liberal has leaped in here to stop all reform. Keep the spending going. Carry on.
Thank you for posting this. I was going to comment something similar. People really do have misunderstandings about welfare. Especially recent changes, many under Clinton, and how many families have had to turn to assistance since the recent economic crash
 

specklebang

Discount Philosopher
DP Veteran
Joined
Jan 13, 2012
Messages
11,524
Reaction score
6,769
Location
Las Vegas
Gender
Undisclosed
Political Leaning
Other
What would you consider full employment and when did automation put an end to that?
Full employment is when everybody has a job. Automation (and other factors) have been eating away at this for the last 30 years or so. When there is a job for everyone within their skills and the only ones not working are because they are too old, weak, dysfunctional, disabled.

These replaced millions of workers and enabled us to hire overseas labor which is much cheaper.

imgres.jpeg
imgres-1.jpgimgres-2.jpeg
 

The Baron

Knight in Shining Armor
DP Veteran
Joined
May 24, 2007
Messages
2,883
Reaction score
821
Location
Somewhere in Dixie
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Libertarian
Federal Welfare. Should we keep it the way it is, severely reform it or end it completely?
I have adopted the Dennis Miller view of welfare. I don't mind helping the helpless I just don't give a sh-- about the clueless. If you are able to work then you don't get it. If you're on it, you get drug-screened routinely.
 

MaggieD

Supporting Member
Monthly Subscriber
DP Veteran
Joined
Jul 9, 2010
Messages
43,244
Reaction score
44,659
Location
Chicago Area
Gender
Female
Political Leaning
Moderate
I say we severely reform it. I'm all for helping people out...when they NEED it.

Some issues with our current state of welfare:
-Welfare is way too easy to get. There are too many people that are far from needing welfare.

-Welfare pays too much. Welfare is supposed to be just enough to keep you alive, welfare is not supposed to be comfortable! If it's comfortable than where is the initiative to go out and work?

-Welfare lasts too long. Welfare should be there just enough to help you get back on your feet.

-The "Obamaphone" welfare program gets its own section. There are a lot of things wrong with people getting phones from welfare programs. If you can't figure out why, then you will never get it.
The "Obamaphone" is a myth. It was initiated in 1984 and known as the Lifeline Program. The first cellphone component of Lifeline was initiated in 2008 under George Bush. snopes.com: Free 'ObamaPhones' for Welfare Recipients
 

JC Callender

DP Veteran
Joined
Jan 26, 2013
Messages
6,477
Reaction score
3,269
Location
Metro Detroit
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Undisclosed
There has never been or never will be full employment, but I would say 4.4% is pretty low, and we had that back in 2007. Michigan, a very automated state, had a 3.4% unemployment rate in early 2000.

Full employment is when everybody has a job. Automation (and other factors) have been eating away at this for the last 30 years or so. When there is a job for everyone within their skills and the only ones not working are because they are too old, weak, dysfunctional, disabled.

These replaced millions of workers and enabled us to hire overseas labor which is much cheaper.

View attachment 67152629
View attachment 67152630View attachment 67152631
 

Navy Pride

DP Veteran
Joined
Jul 11, 2005
Messages
39,883
Reaction score
3,070
Location
Pacific NW
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Very Conservative
Make it a one time deal (keeping biometeric data of the recipient to assure that no repeat is possible) and of a fixed amount calculated at 2080 (40 hours for 52 weeks) times the federal hourly minimum wage. No tests, qualifications or any other "strings" - beyond what liberals want for voting. U.S. tourism will boom! Better secure the border first. ;)
Keep it but restrict it to people that actually need it..........Under Obama it has become totally out of control especially food stamps.
 

John Liberty

Banned
Joined
Jun 30, 2013
Messages
275
Reaction score
72
Location
Ask the NSA
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Libertarian
The "Obamaphone" is a myth. It was initiated in 1984 and known as the Lifeline Program. The first cellphone component of Lifeline was initiated in 2008 under George Bush. snopes.com: Free 'ObamaPhones' for Welfare Recipients
Please correct me if I'm wrong but that article did not disprove the "myth" of Obamaphones, but merely claimed it started back in the 1980s. If that is the case, I still rest my case. This forum was not a thread to bash Obama, so I don't really care when it originated...that benefit still needs to go.
 

Navy Pride

DP Veteran
Joined
Jul 11, 2005
Messages
39,883
Reaction score
3,070
Location
Pacific NW
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Very Conservative
Full employment is when everybody has a job. Automation (and other factors) have been eating away at this for the last 30 years or so. When there is a job for everyone within their skills and the only ones not working are because they are too old, weak, dysfunctional, disabled.

These replaced millions of workers and enabled us to hire overseas labor which is much cheaper.

View attachment 67152629
View attachment 67152630View attachment 67152631
There has never been and ever be full employment. Get unemployment down to around 4%.
 

Born Free

DP Veteran
Joined
Sep 21, 2011
Messages
9,161
Reaction score
2,142
Location
Sonny and Nice
Gender
Undisclosed
Political Leaning
Conservative
Thank you for posting this. I was going to comment something similar. People really do have misunderstandings about welfare. Especially recent changes, many under Clinton, and how many families have had to turn to assistance since the recent economic crash
How many people has to turn to assistance is not the question, but how it is administered. Welfare needs serious reform, it should not be a permanent solution for the needy to live on, but one that encourages back to work incentives that a person would rather get off Welfare than stay on it. I think you are saying the same thing.
 

Smeagol

DP Veteran
Joined
Jun 14, 2012
Messages
4,147
Reaction score
1,694
Gender
Undisclosed
Political Leaning
Undisclosed
- Incentivize 2 parent homes, which might include treating one stay at home parent as eligible if total household income is below a certain level as if she were single.

- Incentivize kids making good grades in school and staying out of legal trouble such as Christmas bonuses for welfare families where kids make good grades and have clean records. Partial bonuses for former thug families but have tuned over a new leaf.

- Require some work, volunteerism or education/vocational training.

- Recipients banned from purchasing alcohol or tobacco while on welfare. In my state underage drivers are given a drivers liscence with a color that tells adult beverage merchants they are underage and may not buy alcohol or tobacco. Give welfare recipients that same color ID.

- Restrict food stamp purchases to healthy options. No sugar, sugary food, fatty food, cooking oil or non-whole grains or their products.
 

ttwtt78640

Sometimes wrong
DP Veteran
Joined
May 22, 2012
Messages
66,926
Reaction score
37,998
Location
Uhland, Texas
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Libertarian
Keep it but restrict it to people that actually need it..........Under Obama it has become totally out of control especially food stamps.
Why? If it is a right then it should be available to all citizens, and equally. Why reward only economic failure? If you subsidize something (out of wedlock childbirth to a HS drop-out), then you tend to get more of it. If you tax something (earning a decent wage) then you tend to get less of it. ;)
 
Top Bottom