Welfare

[Professur]

Remind me not to get on your bad side.

BTW, not to throw Jer a rope, but your step-dad would be receiving a disability pension. Not welfare. IHMO a person injured fulfilling his obligations to society by working should receive all the help we can give him.



but sadly, a 400# man also qualifies for disability.

 

[Ardsgaine]

ugh... i expect you're perfectly happy with the idea of poor people not being able to go to university because they can't pay as well...

Yes, I am. That is, I would be happy with a privatized university system where people are expected to pay their own way and any scholarship money comes from private sources.

i'm out of this thread

Ah... so you're so horrified by the immorality of suggesting that people should be self-supporting that you're going to stomp out of the thread, eh? Or is it because you don't care to stay and have to actually think about the assumptions underlying your position?

Here we are at the nexus where conservatives and liberals meet: blind acceptance of the morality of altruism.

 

[Jeslek]

ugh... i expect you're perfectly happy with the idea of poor people not being able to go to university because they can't pay as well...

Yes. Universities aren't charities. If you want a free education, sign up in the military and they will gladly provide it to you in exchange for a few years service. Or, get a bursary from a company that will pay for your studies provided you work for them for the first X years after you graduate. Or, get a scholarship. Or, go to a charity. It is not the government's job to steal from the rich to give to the poor. You do that through charities. I am more than happy to donate to charities.

And, I'm unsure where this poor people not being able to go to university comes from. I am not rich. I am a poor student. I pay for everything myself. How? By working. Get a job, make some money, and get an education. Society doesn't owe it to you to get you through college. I certainly don't expect the government to pay for my tertiary education. Nor do I expect my parents or society in general.

... ... ...

RL, your stepfather's actions are very commendable. And he seems like a nice guy, and I'm really sorry to hear what has happened.

My stepdad couldn't control these events. He was doing his job, as always, to the best of his ability. He wasn't looking after himself. He was putting others first, as always.

Would you care to respond, Jerrek?

We are now discussing disability insurance, not regular welfare right? Regardless of that, I stated up there: If you are on welfare you should not be allowed to procreate because you have demonstrated you do you not even have the ability to take care of yourself (regardless if it is because of your own laziness or because of a situation you couldn't control). The second part is perfectly true. Someone in a freak accident that has a disability cannot take care of himself. Now although it is unfortunate, you are still talking about taking money from the rich who earned it fair and square and distributing it to people who did not work for it.

But coming back to the original point, if your stepfather can't support himself and is on welfare (regardless of whether it is a good thing or a bad thing), how will he go about supporting children? Is it morally and ethically right to bring children into this world, knowing you can't support them and that other people will have to pay the bills for your actions?

I don't think so.

Or are you just going to let it go and start another gloriously unintelligent thread such as "so guys, would you mind another guy going down on you?"...

I'm unsure what you mean by this. I didn't force you to read and respond to that thread. If you want to bitch about it, go to someone that cares.

 

[Jeslek]

IHMO a person injured fulfilling his obligations to society by working should receive all the help we can give him.

I think I agree with that.

 

[Ardsgaine]

BTW, not to throw Jer a rope, but your step-dad would be receiving a disability pension.

That's a pretty strong rope.

 

[Shadowfax]

your narrow mindness on this subject is overwhelming me, jerrek. how the hell can you judge these people so hard? they may not receive money from the government, and they may not procreate? gimme a break man.
that's harsh. really harsh.

why should we be satisfied with a world where there is such big difference between rich and poor? why the FUCK would anyone buy 15 cars for example, while other people are starving to death?

i'm not poor. not at all. but i DO pay quite some money to support people who can't support themselves. why? because they weren't as fortunate as i am, to be born in a rich society, and to have the opportunity to go to college and get a decent job.

If you are on welfare you should not be allowed to procreate because you have demonstrated you do you not even have the ability to take care of yourself (regardless if it is because of your own laziness or because of a situation you couldn't control).

how the fuck can you say such thing? if YOU were in a bloody car accident, and and up in a wheelchair, with no ability to use your legs or arms, and you were no longer able to fullfill your job, and would have to cut back drastically on your pretty life, you'd be GLAD to receive some money.
you say you are a poor student. perhaps you don't have much money, but by saying you are a poor student only shows you don't have the slightest idea of what being poor really is. that's quite remarkable, since you've been to one of the most poor countries in the world.

i'm not even going to bother myself by trying to explain this to you. it's hopeless anyway. i hope you're happy with your pathetic selfish life.

 

[Ardsgaine]

And how long do you think it'll be before honest, down on their luck people turn to crime just to survive.

In a capitalist society, honest people do not have to resort to crime just to survive.

 

[Ardsgaine]

they may not receive money from the government, and they may not procreate? gimme a break man.

He didn't say that. He said if they receive money from the government, they shouldn't be having anymore children.

I'm the one who said they shouldn't receive money at all. No one wants to argue with me though.

 

[Ardsgaine]

i hope you're happy with your pathetic selfish life.

I'm quite happy with mine.

 

[Jeslek]

BTW, not to throw Jer a rope, but your step-dad would be receiving a disability pension.

That's a pretty strong rope.

I saw it before he posted it

your narrow mindness on this subject is overwhelming me, jerrek

Now I'm narrow minded because I don't share your opinion?

how the hell can you judge these people so hard?

That isn't judgment. I'm making a statement that I do not support any form of socialism where you steal from hard working citizens to give to the poor people, whether they are too lazy to work or whether they just can't because of a situation out of their control. Remember, the government FORCES people to do that. I give away 10% of my income to charities. I do not mind helping people. But you cannot force people to help other people.

why should we be satisfied with a world where there is such big difference between rich and poor?

Because one might work 60 - 70 hour weeks and one might sit on the street and do nothing.

why the FUCK would anyone buy 15 cars for example, while other people are starving to death?

Maybe because he is a car designer and wants to examine all 15 cars? Maybe because he publishes articles concerning cars? Maybe for pleasure? Regardless of what it is, IT IS HIS CHOICE because it is HIS MONEY. By your argument, YOU can decide whether someone is sufficiently well off to be stolen from. So, suppose someone with 15 cars live on your street. Does that give you the right to steal from him, whether it be a car or a hubcap? NO. You CANNOT think you have the right to spend other people's money. It is theirs to do with how they see fit.

Do you think I would spend millions on myself? No. I'm not that type of person. If I made millions, a lot of it would go to other people. Make no mistake, I will live comfortably, but I will decide ON MY OWN who I want to support.

i'm not poor. not at all. but i DO pay quite some money to support people who can't support themselves. why? because they weren't as fortunate as i am, to be born in a rich society, and to have the opportunity to go to college and get a decent job.

Being rich is NOT a prerequisite to go to college OR get a decent job. I'm sorry, but it just isn't.

if YOU were in a bloody car accident, and and up in a wheelchair, with no ability to use your legs or arms, and you were no longer able to fullfill your job, and would have to cut back drastically on your pretty life, you'd be GLAD to receive some money.

True, but I will accept insurance money. Not money stolen from people that work hard. I might even accept charity if I really need it, but I would NOT expect everyone in society to suddenly feel sorry for ME because of MY badluck. I just don't see myself as important enough.

you say you are a poor student.

Yes.

perhaps you don't have much money, but by saying you are a poor student only shows you don't have the slightest idea of what being poor really is.

Poor in Canada. THINK. I compare myself to my peers. My society. I don't live in Africa, so I don't think in terms of them. And before you attack me on that, why don't YOU send 99% of your money to Africa to support a few hundred people? Even just 50 cents a day can make a difference.

that's quite remarkable, since you've been to one of the most poor countries in the world.

And?

i hope you're happy with your pathetic selfish life.

Who is the judge now? Selfish? I don't think of myself as selfish. But since you don't give 99% of your money away either, well, I'm not going to call you selfish.

And yes, thanks, I'm rather content with my life except that I don't make enough money just yet. Need to work harder.

No one wants to argue with me though

Because you're right

 

[freako104]

im against welafare since many of the people on welfare as jerrek said dont work for themselves. i have known many people who were poor(my exs mom was a single parent living paycheck to paycheck life screwed her over)and though i love and support them, id like to think she deserves better. but she has a priblem in keeping the job. that said people like that i do feel sorry for to an extent but i dont want them to have kids if they cant support them.i wouldnt call them any kind of blemish on society but i would like welfare to end because there is a better life than that.

 

[outside looking in]

I have a couple of questions for the liberal minded of you:

Why do you associate not supporting governmental social programs for welfare and such with a lack of a social or moral conscience?

People, like myself, who are against large social programs and would rather see a flat tax with large reductions in welfare, can still donate money to charitable organizations.

And, more importantly, given the above, why do you assume the government is the most qualified and most efficient organization to distribute the "excess of the riches" to the poor and needy?

Hasn't it been shown that capitalism is a more successful economical model in general than extreme socialism (communism)? Hasn't competition greatly improved most all aspects of our economy (and, recent examples of allowing competition in the telco industry perfectly illustrate this)? Wouldn't it be logical then that competition among social programs and charitable organizations would lead to improved efficiency and success?

For example, if one private organization demonstrated that the people it helped actually became educated and subsequently received steady jobs and pulled themselves out of their seemingly inescapable dilemma through the aid of said organization, don't you think more people would be inclined to donate money to them as opposed to an organization that operates more like the government does now, which hands out cash for babies and the people it "helps" often trade food stamps for drugs?

I agree with liberals on many fronts, but economics and social programs is definitely not one of them.

 

[Ardsgaine]

Selfish? I don't think of myself as selfish.

/me is selfish because he places his own happiness first.

 

[dan]

i'm out of this thread

Ah... so you're so horrified by the immorality of suggesting that people should be self-supporting that you're going to stomp out of the thread, eh? Or is it because you don't care to stay and have to actually think about the assumptions underlying your position?

Here we are at the nexus where conservatives and liberals meet: blind acceptance of the morality of altruism.

no, i'm fine with my assumptions, just as you are. i know you're wrong, you know i'm wrong. we could stay and argue the point all night long, but it won't really serve any purpose other than to get us both annoyed at each other.

 

[Jeslek]

Selfish? I don't think of myself as selfish.

* Ardsgaine is selfish because he places his own happiness first.

I suppose that is selfishness too. Beh. Then I am selfish in that respect. I care for my own happiness and my own life more than other's. In GENERAL.

 

[Shadowfax]

Selfish? I don't think of myself as selfish.

* Ardsgaine is selfish because he places his own happiness first.

you know that's not what i meant. there is a significant difference difference between having no welfare at ALL and giving 99% of your belongings away.
saying there shouldn't be no welfare even for people who have ended up in a situation where they can't even support themselves anymore, out of their hands IS selfish. perhaps you don't think of it that way, fine with me.
but then again, selfish is defined differently by different people.


just like nambit, i'm out of this thread. NOT because i can't handle it, but because i know when discussing is useless. and i'm not waisting time on discussing things where the outcome is already determined.

let's agree on disagreeing.

 

[outside looking in]

Don't everyone leave just yet... I'd like to hear some responses to my questions.

 

[Ardsgaine]

saying there shouldn't be no welfare even for people who have ended up in a situation where they can't even support themselves anymore, out of their hands IS selfish. perhaps you don't think of it that way, fine with me.
but then again, selfish is defined differently by different people.

I know it's selfish. I'm okay with that...

 

[Jeslek]

saying there shouldn't be no welfare even for people who have ended up in a situation where they can't even support themselves anymore, out of their hands IS selfish. perhaps you don't think of it that way, fine with me.
but then again, selfish is defined differently by different people.

I know it's selfish. I'm okay with that...

Me too.

 

[outside looking in]

Here's my recently drafted suggestion for a competitive free-market welfare/social program:

A flat income tax for everyone (though not really crucial for my social program system), with the government deciding what portion of that tax should be appropriated for social programs (they do this anyway right now, except for the flat tax part). That portion of your taxes is yours to give to whatever charities you deem appropriate, so long as you provide complete receipt records for your tax filing. If you don't want to choose, that money goes to the government, which has a small committee set up to evaluate the effectiveness of the current privatized charities and drafts a distribution plan among the most effective on a year to year basis. In this way, the government would still retain control over where some of the money goes, since some people would be too lazy to do it themselves, and more importantly it maintains competition. And, the government would also retain a large influence simply because the committee report would likely be a large factor in many people's decision as to where they should donate their money.

And, with just a little thought put into the system, I'm sure a way could be worked out whereby people who are in need based on either their own medical conditions or income level, and would be affected more by a flat tax, could donate their money in such a way that it directly helped them, whether by receiving a voucher to use that money towards their own education or medical bills, or some slightly more complex system.