Why is welfare moral?

You see this type of post again and again. Welfare is welfare. And hand out is a hand out. It's never okay. No one in this thread has argued to defend welfare for the rich.

Again. Let me repeat myself.

The definition of slavery is simple. You work, I eat. The definition of the welfare state is "You work, I eat."

Now if you are left of center, you do not have a leg to stand on. This nonsense about social justice is bull. You advocate legalized slavery.

 

Well I've been to and lived in countries where they just let the blind, the disabled, their veterans and so on, just die in the streets. I like America better.

 

Sorry you can't dumb it down like that. The definition of parenting is also "you work, I eat."

 

The power to Tax is delegated to our elected representatives to provide for the general welfare; the general welfare requires income transfers.

 

Got it backwards, that better describes the child than the parent. One difference between a parent and a slave is the parent voluntarily accepted that responsibility.​

 

Why is welfare moral? Hmmmmm..
Because fat cats get it and want to keep it coming?

 

Great. So according to your logic, if we get rid of welfare for fat cats, then we can get rid of welfare for everyone. At least I have one vote for the elimination of the welfare state.

 

The first question to ask is "what is morality?" You cannot judge what is moral without first understanding the concept.

 

Because the alternative (ignore poverty) is immoral.

 

This is merely a description of the reality we face, not a moral justification.

 

All of the fat cat perks too. No help for the poor, then there ought not be ANY help for the rich (that includes ALL tax perks).

 

over generalizing and no thats not the definition.

 

Fair enough. But it speaks to our collective morality, since it's written into our laws. It's also part of our American culture; for example: Shane stumbles into town, broke and bleeding. So he's rushed to Doc's, while the town's prettiest blonde brings him lunch, under a lovely flower-print napkin. When he's healthier, the town chips in, and before we know it, Shane's wearing some pretty snappy fashion for the period, and sporting a nice side arm, for whatever reason. Seems the town just felt that someone down on their luck needed to be lifted up. Then the unexpected: bad guys roll into town. And Shane saves the town. Moral of the story? Build people up in our town, and the town gets better. Ditto in countries.

Thus, it's moral, because it's what we believe, in America. Even the most tax-averse / Libertarian / right-wing conservative believe it too. They do not say let the poor suffer and die of starvation, with rare exception; they say leave it to individuals, faith-based groups, or whatever. So that's recognizing the moral imperitive, albeit meeting it via other means than Federal Government.

 

No help for the poor, means the poor would have to pay their own way -- the fed government spends $12,000 per person annually. You start asking every family to pay that and we could do without all other tax perks. If you can't make that happen, you should stop complaining about the guy paying for your ride paying only ten times what you put in instead of eleven.​

 

Everyone ignores some poverty. There are folks with less than you suffering for that lack, you're not bailing them out.​

 

That seems to a common problem among the right; they can't tell the difference between a welfare-state and a warfare-state, is it a coincidence that our elected representatives also can't tell the difference between the common defense and the common offense, either.

- - - Updated - - -

I look at it from the opposite point of view and in that alternative; corporate welfare has even paid multimillion dollar bonuses as a privilege and immunity in our republic. Solving simple poverty could be viewed as a privilege and immunity in modern times as well.

 

I have no idea what you're trying to say.​

 

Here is the simplified version.

 

You understand that only means a state can't discriminates against a U.S. citizen visiting their state based on what state they call home?​

 

Possibly not, but two immorals do make one moral. When you forcibly take the fruits on one person's labor and redistribute it to yourself and the shareholders, that ain't particularly moral, either.

 

It also means the federal Government isn't supposed to "pick and choose" which federal doctrines to faithfully execute.

 

Perhaps not. And indeed I've passed by a beggar while having disposable cash in my pocket, and haven't helped. So while we can debate whether or not I was being immoral in doing so, indeed, I would have been moral to help.

So yeah; I'm capable of immorality. But that does not justify immorality nor make it more moral.

 

Some people are born to be on welfare. Taking it away from them will make them attack you, destabilize your society and therefore you and your means to be a taxpayer, increase poverty, social unrest and corruption. Welfare is a necessity.

 

I find it amusing to hear liberals today speak about legislating morality such as this. It was not too long ago that the GOP was in power as they walked around nervously regarding overturning Roe vs. Wade saying that government should not be in the business of legislating morality. LOL.

 

If we are all immoral, it makes applying that qualification to your neighbor meaningless.​