Advantages

rrfield said:
Since welfare was created, man has also landed on the moon. What's your point?
Click to expand...


What's yours? You think welfare is a good idea, then why don't you explain it's benefits instead of posting this malarky. If there is anyone here lacking a point, it is most definitely you.
 
Professur said:
Funny, up here, not only do you get enough money to raise and house a family, they'll pay your car, and cable TV and Internet are both listed as necessities. You don't just get money, here. There's subsidised housing. Half the rent is paid directly by the gov't.
Click to expand...

Welfare is a provincial responsibility ,so I'm going to assume thats a Quebec only thing in B.C its not that profitible.
 
Gato_Solo said:
What's yours? You think welfare is a good idea, then why don't you explain it's benefits instead of posting this malarky. If there is anyone here lacking a point, it is most definitely you.
Click to expand...

When did I say welfare is good?

Gato_Solo said:
If you're going to quote me, at least get it right.
Click to expand...

Gato_Solo said:
I never said those things, so I guess you need to re-read your posts and mine before you try to lambaste me.
Click to expand...
 
rrfield said:
When did I say welfare is good?
Click to expand...

You didn't, but every post I make against it seems to set you off. Besides. even though I framed my last post as a statement, it was most definitely a question.
 
I don't like welfare but for different reasons... the ppl I have known to be on wellfare don't get off of it not because of laziness but because of stupidity. It's half the time self fullfilling prophecy
gato_solo said:
Once there, their children are raised with it. Then their grandchildren, then their great-grandchildren. Once it travels that far, there is no more self-respect, no more self-esteem, and no more self-reliance.
Click to expand...
its so true. Where ever there is a handout there is abuse of it and then it becomes a learned behavior through the offspring.

To the marriage issue...I don't know where to start but I can say this even without the gay marriage issue...it seems most don't pay attention to their vowes anywaz that would explain the huge increase in divorce rates.
 
Gato, rr seems to have guilty feelings about welfare. It's almost the only time he joins in conversations, to protect it.

If we're gonna give money away I say bring back the WPA
 
Given the options we currently have, sure. I'm not against helping out my fellow citizen. I'd prefer it to be from the private (or personal) sector but if gov't is gonna stick it's fingers in the pie, then let's get something in return.
 
I'd be in favor of that. I'd love to see the following programs: Federal Art Project (hired 5,300 visual artists and related professionals), Federal Music Project (employed around 16,000 musicians at its peak), Federal Theatre Project (12,700 theatre workers), Federal Writers Project (6,686 writers at its peak in April 1936).
 
Gonz said:
Gato, rr seems to have guilty feelings about welfare. It's almost the only time he joins in conversations, to protect it.

If we're gonna give money away I say bring back the WPA
Click to expand...

No guilty feelings. My Mom did what she had to do to feed her kids. If you have a problem with this, take a hike, buddy.

My feelings on America's welfare system - It has good and bad points. It's a safety net for those who have fallen on hard times, however it is setup to allow for abuse and misuse. It needs reforms for sure. I hardly think my possition is very original. I also thing that given the chance, private charities could do a better than than the government in 80% of circumstances.

Gonz, I have a hard time taking anything you say seriously. You claim to be a libertarian (or a libertarian-wannabe) yet you...

1) voted for Nader, the anti-libertarian if there ever was one. If you were making a point by voting for a 3rd party candidate, why didn't you vote for Harry Browne? You live in and I assume are registered to vote in Indiana. The Libertarian Party has ballot access in Indiana! Harry Browne was on the ballot! You didn't even have to write him in!
2) Come down against gay marriage, even though this topic defines what a libertarian believes.

Gato, I originally replied to a post in this thread where you implied that welfare is the root cause for drugs , unwed mothers and violent crime by saying they have a direct correlation. You don't think there may be other factors that have caused these increases besides welfare, do you?

Arguing with right wingers is pointless, I don't know why I even try. Maybe I should give it up for Lent.

rrfield
 
Arguing with right wingers is pointless, I don't know why I even try. Maybe I should give it up for Lent.
Click to expand...

Careful, they'll pull your Liberal in Good Standing card for mentioning Lent on Ash Wednesday & not complaining.

A Libertarian Wannabe...I am now forced to follow party line? HELL NO!
 
Gonz said:
Careful, they'll pull your Liberal in Good Standing card for mentioning Lent on Ash Wednesday & not complaining.

A Libertarian Wannabe...I am now forced to follow party line? HELL NO!
Click to expand...

They can take it away as I'm walking back to my pew after getting my ashes.

Of course you don't have to follow the party line on everything, but geeze, you voted for Nader? I know it doesnt matter because you live in Indiana and the republican is going to get our Electoral College votes no matter what...but Nader???
 
He was and still is the only candidate that actually gave reasons to vote for him. He didn't spend fifty gazillion dollars bashing his opponents.

As far as Gore vs Bush went, it was a toss up on losers. The Libertarian candidate had zero chance so I proudly wasted a vote.
 
A.B.Normal said:
Welfare is a provincial responsibility ,so I'm going to assume thats a Quebec only thing in B.C its not that profitible.
Click to expand...

AB, it's never supposed to be profitable. But with a little work, any welfare system can be profitable.

Example:

A person on welfare picked up a scrap fridge by the curb and took it home. It was a big double door model, top of the line. He then called welfare saying that his fridge was broken. They sent out a repair man for free (necessary repair) to fix it up. Mr. Poor then sold said fridge the next day. Alt. senario is if it's not fixable, he gets a brand spanking new one ... free.

Simple exploits like that are what shoot a charitable system all to hell. And it's not everyone that does it. Most welfare cases are just that. Welfare cases. But enough aren't to spoil the system.
 
Professur said:
Try the Quebec $5/day daycare. You're taxed so heavily to support it, you have to become a 2 ncome family. It's a self perpetuating curse. And it lands kids at their most vunerable and most open to learning right in the gov't's hands.
Click to expand...

Take away $5 dollar a day daycare (BTW, I pay $11, not $5. $5 is only for the provincial government created spaces, only 200 000 or so) and see how fast the welfare rolls rise.


Edited to add: As of Jan 2004, the cost for subsidised daycare has risen to (a recommended) $7 a day
 
What's your point? If you read Gonz's openning post, you just made his point for him.

10 years ago, it didn't exist. Now people are dependant on it. And we can't afford it.

Let's look at it from all sides.

The single mother needs $5/day so that she can work and support her family. It's brought her a better life.
The 2 parent family who has 2 incomes loves it. They don't need it, but it's an encouragement for the second parent to go work, leaving the kids in a stranger's care.
The 2 parent family who tries to live on one income so that their kids can be raised where they should be, in the home by their parents, get's screwed.

So, what have we? Instead of a system that encourages 2 parent families, we've a system that actively punishes anyone trying to raise their kids themselves. Add to that, I lose a tax credit because the missus doesn't work, as well.
 
Professur said:
What's your point? If you read Gonz's openning post, you just made his point for him.

10 years ago, it didn't exist. Now people are dependant on it. And we can't afford it.

Let's look at it from all sides.

The single mother needs $5/day so that she can work and support her family. It's brought her a better life.
The 2 parent family who has 2 incomes loves it. They don't need it, but it's an encouragement for the second parent to go work, leaving the kids in a stranger's care.
The 2 parent family who tries to live on one income so that their kids can be raised where they should be, in the home by their parents, get's screwed.

So, what have we? Instead of a system that encourages 2 parent families, we've a system that actively punishes anyone trying to raise their kids themselves. Add to that, I lose a tax credit because the missus doesn't work, as well.
Click to expand...

I know all the sides prof. Is it the best solution? Not by a long shot. Of couse our lovely provincial government wants to encourage both parents to work. Income means taxes, and they don't exactly have a history of supporting "family values" all that much.

It's bandaid on top of bandaid. My point was that at least this one act of social welfare allows single parents and lower income families to stay off welfare, which is much more detrimental to families than having your kids in daycare IMO. I did not in any way make reference to the reasons why there may be so many single parent families in Quebec, nor did I argue the welfare cause. That fact is that the numbers are there, and $5 a day daycare is the bandaid solution. I would much rather see legislation that would financially encourage stay-at-home parents while still allowing support for those who need it. But this kind of legislation tends to be black and white. Either for all or for none. And being in the place that I am, I'll take option 1.

My secondary point was to say that even at 5 (or 11) dollars a day, it adds up to a significant part of a lower income earners salary, especially for multiple children, and is not the piddly amount you make it out to be.

And how in the heck does that get turned into me making Gonz point about marriage being destroyed by Welfare?? Because if you are making implications because I am a single parent, I would very much like you to please elaborate.

And BTW, unlike double income families, you get the tax credit for claiming your wife as a dependant, do you not?
 
Professur said:
The 2 parent family who has 2 incomes loves it. They don't need it, but it's an encouragement for the second parent to go work, leaving the kids in a stranger's care.
Click to expand...

What if one income ain't enough? Do you allow yourself to lean a little bit on the $5/day daycare so that both parents can work and hopefully make things squeek bye or do you fall back on a single-family income and lean on the far more expensive welfare?

Welfare costs more than $5/day daycare... as I see it, you're saving tax money for every two-parent/1parent family that uses it.

Perhaps if we'd allowed for the sliding scale for richer folx to pay more for daycare, it might have made more sence. There's no need for a family earning $100-125k/year to have $5/day daycare. They should be paying $20+/day and leave the $5/day daycares to those who NEED it.
 
Perhaps if we'd allowed for the sliding scale for richer folx to pay more for daycare, it might have made more sence.
Click to expand...

What happens when "you people" run out of "rich people"? At some point they'll quit working & what will you do then?

Buy your own (fill in the blank)
 
Professur said:
Funny, up here, not only do you get enough money to raise and house a family, they'll pay your car, and cable TV and Internet are both listed as necessities. You don't just get money, here. There's subsidised housing. Half the rent is paid directly by the gov't.
Click to expand...


Looks like Canada's not the worst for it.


- A court has rejected an unemployed man's demand for four government-paid brothel visits a month to ensure his "health and bodily well-being" while his wife is abroad.

The 35-year-old welfare recipient sought about $4,020 Cdn a month to fund the brothel trips, along with eight pornographic videos and transport costs to and from a video store. He sued the state after authorities refused to pay for his Thai wife to fly back to Germany.

A court in the town of Ansbach threw out the claim, saying social security benefits already cover "everyday requirements." It said the man, who was not identified, would appeal - at taxpayer expense.

Amid Chancellor Gerhard Schroeder's drive to broadly trim welfare programs, court decisions in favour of welfare recipients have recently caused an uproar in Germany.

In August, an unemployed Frankfurt man won state-funded treatment with the impotence drug Viagra. Later, another court ruled that German social services must pay a 64-year-old expatriate's $1,250-a-month rent in Miami.

The latter ruling prompted the government to tighten laws on welfare payments abroad and declare that "there will be no more social security under palm trees
Click to expand...


I'm obviously in the wrong line of work. Working, that is.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top