Why is welfare necessary?

Japan seems to have the right system. Their welfare system's so good people can hide out for a while without even going outside and the middle class is 90% of the country.

 

Here's a serious answer to your question, which I hope will help you.
I am a democrat. I don't beleive in equality. I also don't beleive that any democrat beleives that everyone should have equal means. For all the 'income redistribution' wailing that the right accuses the dems of, there is not a single democrat who believes that everyone should have an equal amount. Not one. No one thinks that Bill Gates should be forced to redistribute the totality of his monies evenly to all Americans until we all have the same amount. Try as you might, you will not find a single one who beleives that.
However, democrats, like Republicans do beleive that the government should help out it's least fortunate citizens. It is just a matter of degree. Despite what a poster said earlier claiming that when he was growing up, there was no government assistance, that just is not true: we have had government assistance to our most vulnerable citizens for centuries. And we beleive in it (even republicans, though certainly most think that it has gone way too far).
So I pay a modest amount every year to the government to, amongst other things, pay for the most vulnerable, and I thnk it is a good idea. I think that as a society it is important to elevate all of society. I see that directly for example when I teach in a trade school with students who for the most part get a government stipend (i live in france now) paid for with my tax money. It pisses me off to no end when some students don't realize where the money is coming from, and don't try hard enough to maximize the gift that they have been given, and inversly, it wams my heart to see those who have taken that gift and use it to turn their lives around, and make a career for themselves.
Now why don't all democrats just give half their paychecks away? Because we are exactly like you. We have our hard earned money, and we'd rather not spend it on other people. We feel it as a moral obligation to pay our taxes for these beneficial programs, but like every one else, we'd rather not do it. I don't 'gladly' pay my taxes, but I pay them knowing what it brings to society, and to myself (I have a very modest income, so I am sure that on the balance I have received more than I have given) and feel that it is a moral obligation.
As inneficient as government can be, I do feel that it is the most efficient way to help those most in need with my modest means. That is in fact my donation. I know that ther will be waste, and I know that ther will be abuse, but honestly I don't know of a more efficient way than that one. I donate my time to an Alzheimer's group in France, and that is my personal contribution, but everyone just donating to their 'special causes' is not a way to efficiently help society in my honest opinion.
The little money I have is better, and more efficiently spent, paying my taxes to help those in need than me going out in the street doling out 100 euro bills to those who seem like they might need it.
Hope this helped.

 

Obviously people in need are not dependent on a political party to give them assistance?

Welfare might be spoken as Fare for the Well-being of those who for whatever reasons cannot provide on their own.

As a country do you just ignore those in need or do you do as much as possible for them?

You surely know there are thousands of charitable organizations across the country providing assistance for the needy?

Trying to make a critical and sensitive issue like this political is an insult to those in need as well as those who provide assistance...

 

This country flourished and prospered before the federal government began to play God. Americans were much more resourceful and self-sustaining. The federal government is only 544 people. They are a system of compromise and not finding and implementing the best solution. Their constitutional duties were designed to be general and few.

I am astonished at why people think the federal government is the best solution to local issues. It is dangerous to give so much power to a few that have a printing press. Our bloated budgets Nd deficits testify to this disaster. History is filled with these bloated empires that collapse.

It is ridiculous to believe that an individuals needs cannot be met first by self-motivation, family, friends, churches, charities or a limited state program.

 

No, as I said, I donate to my local animal shelter and I give change to homeless when I have it. Other than that, I pretty much look out for myself, because there's nobody looking out for me.

I donated to the guy who walked miles to work. I donated to that pizza place. I donated to this site. I bought clothes for a warehouse employee where I work because he had no pants for winter. Sweats, gloves, a hat, over $100 worth of clothes. He was 32, going to school at nights, and working during the day. I have no problem helping him out.

I donate to those I feel deserve a helping hand. I don't donate blindly because not everyone deserves it.

The 21 year old mother of four, what does she deserve? A swift kick in the ass in my opinion. In my opinion, she made her bed, she can lay in it.

 

So what do the four kids deserve?

 

Wouldn't donations of all the Republicans be enough to cover the cost of the military and the "war on terror"?

 

Democrats and Republicans both support charitable and governmental assistance to the poor, and neither alone is sufficient to entirely eliminate poverty.

That is why all advanced nations on earth, the vast majority that reflect their Christian heritage, practice both.

If you wish to follow an alternative paradigm, which other nation out of the roughly 200 would you emulate in the matter?

 

Money is not real.

 

Yep, your indulging your feelings is sure to help those innocent kids.

You underscore the need for governmental assistance as a complement to private charity. It's far less capricious, haphazard, random, and arbitrary.


Neither alone adequately addresses the need to which anyone might fall victim at any time.

There but for fortune ...


.

 

One thing I have not mentioned, which does not qualify as welfare, but as a responsibility of the country is to care for soldiers wounded in battle. Their injuries are our injuries. Beyond these, the federal government has no business in the personal needs of a citizen.

 

In a democracy, the People determine the role of government and, like all other advanced nations, especially those with a strong Chrisitian ethos, they do not allow those in need to suffer and die whilst ignored.

If you are aware of any nation - other than imaginary ones as in the fictional writing of Ayn Rand - that follows your declaration in the matter, what is it?

 

The 20th century is undeniably the American century. That is precisely when the federal government began to play God. You can argue when this country was the most prosperous, or most flourishing. But it will inevitably be in the 20th century, and will coincide with the federal government being at it's most powerful.
I am not arguing that a strong federal government equals a strong country, but I am vehemently disagreeing with your statement.
For information, what years were the most prosperous and flourishing in your mind?

 

I'm sure there are threads concerned with whether Christ was a socialist(which he did not advocate government forced redistribution) you can address this in.

 

So, you know of no real nation in which "the federal government has no business in the personal needs of a citizen"?

I thought your ideal must be an imaginary one, but thought I should ask.

As a pragmatist, I eschew airy-fairy ideological confection and prefer to deal with reality.

 

Why is there welfare?

Because having children starving in front of Wall Street banks is bad for the country's world image.

And if the world stops investing in American our economy will take a far bigger hit than what we are paying in welfare to those who don't deserve it.

Why is there welfare?

Because there are 16 million Americans who have physical and mental disabilities which make them unable or very limited in how the can earn money.

And because it would make America look weak in the eyes of the world to say we don't have enough money to take care of these people.

Why is there Welfare?

Because if church or donation money had be enough to take care of these people, there would never have been a need for the programs in the first place.

And because the measure of a nation is how it treats the least of it's citizens - not it's most powerful.

Do people abuse welfare? Of course. But do we close Wall Street because some there abuse the market?
No. You try to weed out the abusers. Not going to ever be perfect. But I'd rather have some abusers than have to see
a disabled person dying of malnutrition.

 

Liberals are the most generous people on the planet... as long as the funds come from someone elses pocket.

 

Our constitutional principles of small government and property rights fueled our innovation which led to our prosperity. The government jumped into playing God well after the fact. Early socialization did not impede progress, but we are beginning to stumble due to the effects of improper government tampering with our previous principles.

 

The US is where the federal government has no business in the personal needs of its citizens. Personal needs being food, clothing, shelter, healthcare, education and incomes.

The country thrived and prospered before the government usurped state and individuals powers. I could careless about other countries.

 

Rose colored glasses.

Washington marched on US citizens in the Whiskey Rebellion, women had no "individual powers", and the country became great after the government built roads, sea ports, dams and airports that the individual states couldn't afford.

 

Yes, you've opined repeatedly, yet you are impotent when asked to proffer any advanced nation that adopts your indifference to its citizens when they find themselves in need.

Which one that you are willing to endorse thusly ignores the needs of its people?

Name just one. (Aynrandistan doesn't count.)


.

 

it says so in a Bible; that's why--are you protestant or renegade, or something?

 

Game over, libs. Checkmate. Game over.

 

Not at all; the left already knows Capitalism is only useless to the Right.

 

Need is very subjective. You're question is meaningless due to it assumes need that does not exist. Politicians could careless about peoples needs, they care about votes. The few truly needy can be cared for by states and local assistance. Most other countries do not have states.