Why I Don't Support Welfare

Sadly I think that would turn into something like the current situation regarding drug possession. If we enforced aggressive welfare-violation laws, those who were caught would essentially be in the same shoes as those serving time for drug possession; long, costly (for the rest of us) sentences for a nonviolent offense. And if a high enough percentage of offenders were minorities, well, we all know how that would go.

It's sort of a damned-if-you-do, damned-if-you-don't situation. I mean, if you look back at the drug possession analogy, have the strict laws really been very effective at curbing drug possession and use in America?

 

That is a good point, and one that I have been thinking about a lot lately. The challenge is raising those kids to be good, productive members of society when they are raised in situations that essentially do the opposite.

 

It's not just about the environment/s in which they will have been brought up. They very likely possess faulty genes passed down to them by their dead-beat parents.

 

That is a challenge, but it has been done. Ben Carson comes to mind.

 

So what states do you think should allow welfare, and which states shouldn't?

 

Its not a power delegated to congress. It was always a state and local matter until 1935

Just as predicted in the quote from Crocket

http://humanevents.com/2013/05/29/unsustainable-and-unconstitutional-general-welfare-spending-2/

We have a constitution for a reason

 

Thats up to the states not me. If you favor welfare move to one that has it , if you dont move to one that does not have it. Thats the way it was supposed to be

 

I agree that those who are able-bodied should not receive welfare. The truly handicapped are getting shafted because most of the 'welfare' money goes to those who could work if they wanted to do so.

 

It would also be fair to say that they hold people with your attitude towards them in extreme contempt while you pay their way. You might say they have you over a barrel like it or not.

 

You seem to be crowing about the injustice and unfairness of forcing someone to pay for someone else in the form of taxes.

He's right. People shouldn't have to pay for someone else' livelihood. Especially if that person is able-bodied and able to work. Now people with a disability, that's a different topic altogether.

 

Not crowing, just stating the obvious; human nature is to resent when others condemn you, especially if you feel the circumstances are beyond your control.

The person might be able bodied, but if there are limited number of jobs or the person does not have the intellect to do anything other then manual labor, would you prefer they turn to crime in order to survive? You fail to realize there is a human element involved here among various social issues that are not that easily resolved by just "getting a job".

 

I guess we can perhaps try passing laws that enable people who work full-time hours to make enough money to fully support themselves. Although this is really another topic altogether.

I still think that people who are able to work, should not be on social assistance. The only people who should be on welfare for extended periods of time are the ones with disability. People who are temporarily out of money should only get welfare for a limited period of time.

What is this "human element" you speak of? Can you share it with me.

 

By the human element I mean that some people have serious mental health/personality issues which make them unable to find work; what is to become of them? Do we cast them to the streets and let them put themselves/society in danger? Or do we help to provide for them financially/medically and get them the help/social programs they need to function in society and find viable work? There is no easy answer but I think until they are able to find work, we need to assist them in the meantime. And best case scenario, if they finally get training and there are not jobs to be had, then what?

 

These people qualify as handicapped . We used to put them in state hospitals

 

I could not care less what The Poor™ think of me. Republicans control Congress and the Presidency, so hopefully Welfare Programs get cut.

 

Highly unlikely since they won't want to see a spike in petty crimes nationally and thus an increase in your taxes locally.

 

I care deeply for people in hardship. And do alot of my own free will for others. Ive been down and out. I get it.

But I am also kind of cold hearted. Propping up people like described in the OP does not help the collective. It does not better society. Instead it teaches people to get for nothing and their kids end up learning the same thing. Meaning even more people to take care of that offer nothing to society.

People that are doing well for themselves and want to keep their money set an example for those that are poor off but have the desire to better themselves.

To be cold hearted. If they are unwilling to better themselves then we do not need their DNA in the genepool. It only detracts from what we can become.

 

So you admit the The Poor™ are totally undisciplined?

We can strip criminals of their citizenship and deport them to eliminate costs related to incarceration.

 

No, not all but some.

I believe that would require a change in the US Constitution in order to accomplish that.

 

I can basically agree.

I also want people to succeed and prosper, and I feel the opportunity to do so exists for all of us. The fact one person may have to start with less than another- such as no parental inheritance or a significant one- does not enter into the obligation of the country to be sure all have the chance to make the most of themselves.

However, when we make people dependent in any way, we steal something extremely valuable from them, and that is self-esteem. Even if they have never had it, that act steals the opportunity for them to acquire it. Independence, self-confidence and similar values that make people strong and secure in themselves can't be given or bought, they are things that we must earn from ourselves. We should never encourage any kind of dependency, and we should be cautious about providing anything that enables it.

This is not to say we shouldn't be supportive of our fellow man- just the opposite. It is to say that we must recognize the differences in how and who we help, so that our help is beneficial rather than harmful. To help someone who is trying to do their best but struggling, is to give a hand-up. That will be seen a a gift- a restoration of faith in mankind- and very likely one that will be payed forward by the recipient. To help someone who will avoid trying so long as they can get by on the generosity of others is to give a hand-out. It perpetuates the condition and re-affirms the philosophy of it, embedding it deeper. Thus you create dependency on that generosity. You eliminate the possibility of self-respect, and weaken the person. What's more- they will come to resent the limits that dependence imposes on their lives, and often blame those they depend on. In recent times with the ultra-liberal attitudes being espoused now (ie; Bernie Sanders concepts) they have begun to see the hand-outs as obligations of others rather than gifts- like a payment on an overdue bill that somehow is an entitlement because after all, they exist and someone has more than they do. They surrender totally to dependence and claim it as birthright.

That is a social disease- not support. We do harm when we help people who would choose to do nothing to continue to do nothing and be comfortable with it.

 

Some?

You mean all.

Birth Control or Tattoos...
Birth Control or Tattoos...
Birth Control or Tattoos...

Like "Fish or cut bait" it's not rocket science.

No, it would just take an Act of Congress.

Just think how much better the US would be.

 

You are wrong on both counts.

 

Why? Because you say so?

If The Poor™ can afford beer, dope, tobacco and tattoos, they can certainly afford their own Birth Control.

As far as citizenship, that's the purview of Congress. See Article I Section 8 of the Constitution.

 

That's great, but you're still wrong; I'd suggest you re-read Article I Section 8 of the US Constitution more carefully.