Why is welfare necessary?

Follow me here... I've made this point here on PF before and never got a straight answer, so I'll ask again in its own thread...

If Democrats were so willing to take care of their fellow man, why is tax money used to pay for welfare? Wouldn't the donations of all the democrats all over be enough to cover the cost of all the social problems?

After all, they're so into helping their fellow man and want everyone to be equal, you would think the donations from all the democrat voters across the country donating their paychecks to help the needy would cover the cost.

Where's the donations?

 

Oh! Oh! I can answer this one! It's because despite their howls about how the nation as a unit owes it to (fill-in-the-blank) to pay for things out of the general tax base it's really comes down to ideologically based political control lusted after by the both the behind the scenes snotballs (Socialist and Marxist radicals) and leadership manipulating veritable HORDES of non-thinking but all emoting useful and clueless leftwing idiots rather than actually improving the lot in life of hordes of permanent minority voters who have become utterly dependent on endless handouts from increasingly ANGRY taxpayers who are tired of getting ripped off by those . . . snotball ocialist and Marxist radicals and Dem Party leadership . . . . and it becomes an endlessly renewing political circle of the ideologically-based living-dead . . . by . . . the . . . Left.

Oh and also because anyone who's ever studied group psychology knows that large masses of people placed on the handout system never EVER as a people eschew the habits that being endlessly handed everything causes in the first place and so a non-ending cycle of handouts coupled to an utter refusal to alter culturally ingrained habits CAUSED by those handouts requires a permanent payout system from taxpayers . . . since it is actually designed to never end.

Now what do I win? Where in the hell is my patented no-prize?

 

Welfare is used to create a depended on government for everything class of dumb people that can be counted on to vote themselves other peoples money every two to four years.

It's all sold under the faux "compassion" lie of course.

With today's dumb, uninformed (damn near autistic) average voter, the Democratic party has it easier then ever before. Having near full control of the media, Hollywood included doesn't hurt them either.

 

Perhaps today as so many people have become depended on it. When I grew up there was really no welfare from the government unless one wants to count social security which I don't. There were a host of charity organizations which collected clothes, food, what have you and gave them to the poor. Neighbors and family helped those out who came upon hard times. People would donate their time, energy, money and other stuff to help the less fortunate on their own.

Today a lot of those organizations which helped others have gone by the board replaced government programs. Today, the government confiscate that help in form of taxes instead of people helping people. Today instead of a neighbor bring over supper to a family on hard times or a box of clothes or can goods, that neighbor just sends the individual down to the nearest government office.

As for donations and helping hands from people to people, forget it. A lot of those who use to donate of their own time, energy, stuff, money now see no need. Government has replaced family, neighbors, church and school can and clothes drives. Government has replaced the will and want to take care of fellow human beings, replaced the individual givings and donations with taxing people and using other peoples money to help those in need. Using the power of government to collect money from other people makes a lot of these folks feel good, they helped. But most wouldn't donate two cents of their own money or spend a day collecting cans or clothes or fix a meal to give to a hard up neighbor.

 

The general tax paying population should be responsible to provide aid to THOSE WHO TRULY NEED IT. Regardless of their politics. Many groups do donate and assist the truly needy. Who cares which way they lean politically?

 

Well, as always with government programs. We are getting the worse outcome. We have hoards collecting benefits and no clue who the truly needy are. As time goes on, we are creating a truly needy class because they are being trained away from self-reliance. Thanks to your "taxpayers responsibility" nonsense.

 

Thank you , but it is not nonsense. The failing here is as you stated. Cleaning up the rolls and making efforts to define and identify the ones really in need. And provide motivation to get past the need for getting that aid. That does not preclude the fact that we are all responsible to fund the aid system. Don't belittle me about it, call your congress-person and tell them to do their (*)(*)(*)(*)ing job.

Our community (church based) provides aid when we can. We don't ask them if they are democrat or republican, and they don't ask us either.

 

The federal government is not capable of efficiently providing welfare. Welfare is and should be a local issue. It also has to be voluntary in order to find the truly needy. Program qualifications can and will be circumvented. People need the motivation to self-sustain. Without this important element, you cannot know the truly needy.

 

Well like me some worked and are no longer employable so need some help. Others need some support for a time. But there was always some form of government welfare even in the Colonial Period.

Public hospitals, orphanages, alms houses, money to widows and needy people directly and other support. And families were expected to help take care of their elderly and disabled first. Would trade welfare for a parental support law making children take care of elderly parents sufficiently along with Social Security?

 

Its SUPPOSED to be for those who are unable to take care of themselves and have no one. That has been corrupted and expanded to include irresponsible and lazy people who want to be taken care of. Able bodied people should NOT be on welfare, or least limited to short time before they get on their feet. Then again, that's what unemployment payments are for, but you're supposed to pay into the system first before collecting from it.

 

I agree and social security was never suppose to be what it is. It was a safety net. Now countless people rely on it for retirement only to find out that it is not near enough.

 

Taking another stab at answering this Opening Post topic; MAKING non leftists pay against their will for the support of leftist ideology makes leftists feeeeeeeeeeeeeel good in a vindictive manner. Making people do things against their will is pretty nearly the definition of a leftist. But it also harks to your unspoken point, making the UNENDING flow of monies come out of the taxpayers' fund rather than digging deeeeeeeeeeeeeeeep into their own gated community legacy trust fund liberal pockets to pay for things is a classic example of hypocrisy. Better!

 

Yes, it was only suppose to supplement one's retirement. Not be the sole source of retirement income.

 

But what I'm saying is, if over half this country who voted voted Democrat, and democrats believe in equality for all (I'm assuming that they do), then how is it that their donations don't cover the cost?

I mean, how many democrat voters do you know donating half or nearly all their salary to help those in need? Equality right?

Or is it only equality when its someone else's money?

See I don't pretend that everyone is equal in this world. There are smart people, dumb people, skinny people, fat people, rich and poor, black and white and brown and tan or whatever, but I think no matter what, you can achieve anything if you're willing to sacrifice. Anything. You could be the poorest, dumbest kid in your class, but if you went to the library every day after class and studied and studied and studied, you could be anything you want.

But people aren't willing to make the sacrifices. They aren't. Too lazy. Don't care. Whatever.

But if the liberal mind believes in equality, why isn't there billions and billions donated to welfare every year? Why do you determine that maybe $1000 is enough of a donation, but not $10,000? Equality right? Help a guy out and donate half your pay to him. He deserves that money too.

I just don't understand why there are social programs when there doesn't have to be.

It only leads me to believe that people demand equality only if they don't have to make the sacrifice.

 

Only the right appeals to ignorance of economics and morals, at the same time. The left already knows private charity can only cover multitudes of sins, not solve for official poverty.

 

And why not?

How much did you donate to the general welfare fund last year?

Myself? I donate $50 to my local animal shelter every month, and throw some change to homeless every now and then. Do I feel bad about not donating more? No. Its my money, I earned it (several times over really but you take what you can get).

But you don't think if every democrat voter donated half their pay, that wouldn't cover welfare? I think it would.

Oh and I donated to this forum, obviously.

 

how much is the right making us lose on Commerce at our borders?

 

I don't know why tax dollars are used to pay $100 billion a year in Corporate welfare. But I'm pretty sure it's not just Democrats who are to blame.

 

Which type of corporate welfare? Do you mean the type where we allow corporations to keep their own money? Democrats HATE that type. Or are you talking about the type where we shovel boat loads of taxpayer cash into private coffers in order to pick winners and losers, because Democrats are all about that...

 

Welfare, is a social safety net.

Its there to make sure people have food, clothes, shelter, healthcare, when times are tough.

what kind of society has no safety net? a very selfish one.

 

Welfare recipients should be made to work construction or retail or restaurant jobs in exchange for the money. It would give them job experience and those companies could hire them if an opening came up.

 

so rather than paying people a fair wage with benefits and health insurance, we should give those jobs to Welfare recipients???? looks like a great way to stop paying minimum wage. looks like a great way to turn low-skilled jobs into all Welfare people, and put everyone else out of work.

 

I'm talking about the $100 billion per year in subsidies paid to businesses by the federal government, per a 2012 study by the CATO Institute, perpetuated by both parties.

 

SS retirement pension is plenty if you aint lazy/inept. Since you don't have to work, you aint tied to any one place, so you aint subject to heat or cold. Simply move twice a year, like the birds do. There's literally a million square miles out west where you can park your little camper/rv/van for $15 per year. So rent and utilities are not part of your expenses. You can get back and forth on a mountain bike or 125cc just fine, costing almost nothing and it's easy to do a week's worth of shopping and errand running in one day. If you go into town twice per week, you can sell your plasma for 3k per year. Food stamps will feed you if you're not a twit and if you want fresh stuff, nobody will care if you have small livestock, fish, hunt or even have a little garden on your "mining claim' on BLM land.

Satellite phone and internet run well under $100 per month these days, and GPS-locator beacons call for help at the touch of a button. Unlike living in a lot of cities, you're free to have your pistol AND your autorifle handy when you live like this.

 

I agree there would be limits on some Welfare.

TANF has a 5 year lifetime limit.

But WIC, Section 8, and SNAP have no lifetime limits set by the Federal govt., but individual states might.

I think all social benefits should have a lifetime limit, and mandate that folks to go job training and try to find work, unless they can't work.