Hypersonic
Well-known member
- Joined
- May 28, 2013
- Messages
- 1,379
- Reaction score
- 212
- Gender
- Male
- Political Leaning
- Progressive
And should you choose not to do either, is anyone else obligated to provide for your perceived needs?
I would like to think as a whole, we are obligated to one another to have a functioning society. The function of society depends on each member doing their part to keep the machine called America, functioning. You cannot have a functioning society if a portion of the population isn't being productive or is less productive. We ought to have a system to where we can alleviate the issues effecting people whether its financial or social.
SNAP is what food stamps are now referred to, and you would have qualified for that program before EBT, which is the new name for welfare cash payments...
No. But my point is we have a choice to not work. The result is poverty and homeless. That is what I call absolute freedom of social obligation. The only obligation a homeless person has are biological needs.
Good lord... So if I choose not to be productive, I should expect someone else to do what I'm not willing to do myself? A society cannot survive under that rationale...
If one chooses not to work, there is NO obligation of society...
No. We should definitely employ a system where we inform people who need temporary assistance that the office will assist the person with any social, and financial needs but only temporary until the person can find an adequate job to support themselves. If it's a single parent mom or dad find an adequate job and daycare depending on the age or some living arrangements where the parent can have a suitable roof over their head while the parent works. The issue is to treat the system like a drug and wean the patient off slowly. Nobody especially with a large family of kids gets a job and then their problems on being on welfare are over.
I would like to think as a whole, we are obligated to one another to have a functioning society.
Of course that is an individual decision. What I'm saying is in relation to those that need help. If they don't need help and they choose to then yes you cannot force help upon someone that doesn't want it. I'm mainly focusing on those that need help or in actuality want help.
Maybe I'm a bit old fashioned, but I chose not to have children until I was somewhat assured that I would be able to take care of them, and if there were unforeseen circumstances that might have arisen, I would turn to family before government. I find it interesting that "family" income is taken into account when providing educational aid but is totally ignored in "adult" assistance programs...
Yeah, that argument has been around for a long time..
"But we assure the socialists that we repudiate only forced organization, not natural organization. We repudiate the forms of association that are forced upon us, not free association. We repudiate forced fraternity, not true fraternity. We repudiate the artificial unity that does nothing more than deprive persons of individual responsibility." - Frederic Bastiat
Personally, I have no tolerance for people telling me I have an obligation towards them.
If you can not force someone to accept help then it would follow that you can not force someone to help them.
I would like to think this would be a type of proto-utilitarian attitude.
What kind of welfare do you support?
tax payer funded assistance for the poor(food stamps/snap, WIC, section 8 and etc for the poor.)
corporate welfare(tax breaks, subsidies/grants and etc to companies)
foreign aid(financial aid, military aid and etc to foreign countries.)
other
None of the above.
I support tax payer funded assistance for the poor with some restrictions. I do not support corporate welfare and foreign aid.
Then give us YOUR opinion, not your perception of the Republican Partys opinion.
My opinion doesn't matter. If I was ever elected to office I would stick behind the party. Some people think congress is in chaos now. It would be much worse if all 435 people held firm to their opinion.
vasuderatorrent
P.S. I'll give my opinion later but my point that partisanship adds sanity to our government is the most important thing at this moment in history.
Because only at the federal level do we have the ability to borrow and print all the money we need toWhy does welfare always have to be a federal program?
Why does welfare always have to be a federal program?
I'm not sure when that started in the United States but I'm sure it's here to stay.
vasuderatorrent
What kind of welfare do you support?
tax payer funded assistance for the poor(food stamps/snap, WIC, section 8 and etc for the poor.)
corporate welfare(tax breaks, subsidies/grants and etc to companies)
foreign aid(financial aid, military aid and etc to foreign countries.)
other
None of the above.
I support tax payer funded assistance for the poor with some restrictions. I do not support corporate welfare and foreign aid.
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?