Should We Take Care of the Poor?

Good, that's a bad theory. But are you really answering my question of what do we do when a person hits your limit of 2 years without change, by saying that's when we do welfare reform? What's the reform... extending the limit?




​

 

Yes so you should not use it as in

You cut their benefit as we do before, why should we continue to support able bodied people beyond two years? Why should we continue simply because they refuse to do what needs to be done in order to get back in the workforce? Why do they have an unlimited claim on the labor, income and wealth of others.​

 

I didn't use it. I suggested going ahead adding it to the process. I only pointed out it doesn't allow you to stop welfare after two years. If someone still hasn't found a job after that time you are faced with exactly the same problem you had initially: do nothing or do something.

People living decades on welfare isn't right. They shouldn't do that. They don't have any claim to charity. But, unless we are willing to deal with the chaos that occurs when they get desperate, it's going to keep happening. Best we can do is reduce it.

And you can get tough about it on a forum and claim we'll just close the tap. But not when that guy is standing in the snow with seven kids around him. It sucks. He's put us in a lousy place. He probably is abusing the situation. We'll give him charity anyway.



​

 

the problem is the corporations are taking more of the pie, the American workers are getting less

some whites will blame black, some blacks will blame whites, but the real issue is greedy corps

 

Here in Vancouver, Canada, houses are very expensive. The house we currently live in is assessed to be over one million dollars. If it weren't for my parents (they own the house and allow me to live in it), I'd probably be on the street or in a shelter (which is on the same level as being homeless).

Agreed.

 

There are lots of places that are quite expensive to live in. It's nice that your parents allow you to live with them as an adult, but is there some reason you can't afford a place of your own within your budget?

 

Chalk one up for the adults in the room!

 

Yes, there is, however it's personal so I won't get into it. Also, I might have exaggerated a bit when I said I might have been homeless. Technically I AM financially able to rent a place for myself, however that would place many hardships on me.

Anyway, my point is, when someone is homeless, it's not necessarily always his fault. There could be other, external reasons.

 

republicans want to take away all help, lower the min wage, ship jobs overseas, tax cuts for the rich.... ect.... seems they really care about the poor

 

Yep. Pre-Trump Republican and Democrat parties both did. I am thrilled Trump destroyed them both. Too bad you still support the old Democratic party, its corruption, elitism, pro-1% policies and total disregard for the interests of the American people.

 

Trump just promoted his daughters goods... made overseas? or made in USA?

.

 

Indeed, the economic climate needs to be completely overhauled to make it attractive again to manufacture in the US. The libs and the Republican establishment were staunchly pro-outsourcing, pro-globalist, pro-multinationals while Trump was elected on his pro-jobs, anti-outsourcing, anti-stupid trade deal platform.

 

I have always hated this logic. It's simply not valid. You can point to specific things that corporations do that is unethical and short sighted, but ultimately this type of argument is just dogma. Corporations are run by people, many people, who are merely acting on behalf of other people. Many of them allow you to share in their profits by being public, and they only have power in courts and lobbies. The rich may have more power than the poor, but the poor are in far greater number, and that gives them power over the few. It will always be this way. Those at top are almost always corrupt in some way, and only by exerting immense power over them through democracy, journalism, and regulation will we ever control them. In this country we have all three, and those three are very strong.

 

still waiting for Trump to address foreign outsourcing....

 

The rich have completely corrupted both political parties and the media, turning them into Corporate party #1, Corporate party #2 and corporate media. The numerical advantage of the poor and the middle class has been rendered completely useless, given that they don't have a choice and no one represents their interests....

That's of course until Trump showed up. Whether he can succeed in his campaign promise to represent the interests of regular American people remains to be seen but he is the only chance for the foreseeable future.

 

Fact. There are not enough charitable hearts to meet the demand. So a modern civilization that has poverty should provide for the poor, and distributing some of the tax revenue to do that is the intelligent way to address poverty. But one must have a efficient and intelligence driven system in order to do this. There are several causes for poverty, and how we would address each group would different, designed to minimize poverty.


So for those in poverty who are able to work, our society would provide public sector employment as FDR did, which provides the basic essentials of life in America. Food, clothing, housing. In exchange for WORK. No freebies so you can sit on your arse, or lay up some bed copulating, making more babies you have no intention of supporting.

The next group, so truly sick or disabled, unable to work in any available job, would be provided with the 3 basic essentials, plus healthcare, and a stipend for the quality of life.

But no welfare system can ever be sustained if you have an open borders free trade globalism scheme created by a small group of very rich elites to enrich themselves to the max by slave wages. This scheme has increased poverty numbers, is rubbing out the middle, and is driving up debt to historical levels. You cannot minimize poverty with such an economic model. You have to go back to what the founders set up, protecting your own nation and people from slave labor elsewhere.

 

Fact, charitable institutions won't compete with govt programs to aid the poor. Instead, they'll give their money for other causes, like the arts and historic preservation. Once the govt steps out, churches and philanthropic groups will step up... but not before.

Remember, there was no such thing as welfare during the great depression. Americans helped each other survive. What a concept, huh?

 

I don't know about a moral or ethical obligation, but we definitely have an aesthetic one. Frozen corpses littering the sidewalk are unsightly.

But how does this desire to help the poor square with your insistence that merit should be rewarded?

 

You are suggesting that our social safety net was built without there being a reason for it and displacing support that was adequate. You can't support that.

Charitable institutions such as Catholic Charities do great work, but they aren't anywhere nearly large enough to replace what we see as important - and they never were.

The nature of our need for support has changed over time. For just one example, at one time families stayed in one place and provided what amounted to a support network. Today, families are not like that. As we moved to where we are today, we found SS necessary (for example) - a need that was not being addressed by any other method and far outside the scope of charities of the time (or today).

Charitable organizations that existed simply didn't keep up with the need. And, to now say that charities WOULD keep up with need flies in the face of our experience.

 

Are you really having this much difficulty reading what I posted? I can't be more clear. Like we did before you put work requirements and after two year if you are able bodied you get cut off, it is not an endless stream.

- - - Updated - - -

Invest in the corporation and you will get what it is you are looking for, employees are employees, expenses they have not claim to the profits of the company. If THEY want to share in the profits then they can invest their money into the corporation.​

 

you have to pay a wage that leaves a employee with money to invest

 

And Democrats have nothing to offer but specious hyperbole.

 

Employees have to aquire the skills and education and experience for themselves to make themselves worth it. Why do you think the piece of the pie should just be handed to them. Make yourself worth it.

 

If it weren't for the safety net programs the Democrats have put into place and defended...

...the United States would be a third world country!

The Dems may have their faults...but compared with the alternatives...they are like knights in shining armor.

 

If you are a Christian, read your Bible and follow its instructions re the poor.