Pages: 1

 

2006-01-26 09:10:08
Giant_Squid500
Member
+5|6889|U.S.A.
I don't know how it is in other countries but here in America, Welfare is a joke and was a mistake.

I think that USA should do away with welfare, or at least limit who its given to.

What Welfare does: Basically welfare makes the people that get it more lazy than they were before. The just sit on there fat asses sucking up the governments money. I mean the government is basically paying them to watch TV. And this is pissing me off, and then these are the same people that complains and says the government doesn't help them or give them enough money.

What Welfare should do: We really need to put a limit on how long you get welfare or what you get it for.  What we need to do with welfare is say, here were (government) gonna pay you so much money every month for you to stay on your feet, however you have 1 year (give or take depending on your situation) to get a job, if you don't have a job by then, well your screwed and theres nothing we can do for you. If we said that, I guarentee you all those lazy bastards on welfare right now would either A) get a job or B) starve.

Yes, there are some people that really do need it, and I think its fine that we help them stay a float, but for the most part welfare just makes people lazy and shoul be done away with.
2006-01-26 09:20:57
Losati
Member
+0|6890|St. Louis, MO
While I'm not the most liberal person when it comes to welfare, I do think a hard cut-off like that is pretty harsh.  Why? Because people will starve.  And I don't think that this country that is supposed to be oh so great and generous and powerful should allow that.

Also, many people on welfare have kids.  And kids of welfare cheats cannot be held accountable for their idiotic and lazy parents' bad decisions.  We can't have starving kids here.

I think the overall benefit of it all is there, even though there are abuses.
2006-01-26 09:30:40
Giant_Squid500
Member
+5|6889|U.S.A.
OK, like I said, there are some people that do need it, such as kids. But im sure most people that got welfare taken away from the WOULD go out and find a job cause they don't want themselves and kids to starve. The people that still don't get a job and have kids, well the kids don't need to be with those parents in the first place cause there probably drug users and/or alcoholics and/or abusive.
2006-01-26 11:23:21
atlvolunteer
PKMMMMMMMMMM
+27|6989|Atlanta, GA USA
I think there is some kind of limitation now, like you have so long to get a job.
Anyway, I watched a show a few years ago (actually, my wife was watching it and I caught a little) about a woman who lived in the inner city in one of the large US cities (don't know which).  SHe was in her 30s I think and had never had a job.  On top of that, her mom and her grandmother had also never had jobs.  If I remember correctly, there were no fathers in the picture.  Can you imagine that?  Three generations of people who had lived on welfare.  This woman was actually trying to get a job, but it was so foreign to her they were giving her training.  Pretty fucked up.
2006-01-26 14:01:00
Agent_Dung_Bomb
Member
+302|6953|Salt Lake City

Clinton did initiate a 3-year maximum on benefits.  There were also some problems that I think have started to be addressed.  One of the problems was that welfare used to have no option where if you got a job that benefits would be reduced, to maintain a certain level, and were just cut off completely once a person was employed.  The problem with this was that often the job paid less than welfare, so there was no incentive to get off welfare.  As I understand it they have changed this to some degree.

But the welfare system, as run for many years, did create multiple generations of families that simply saw life that way, and living on welfare was just the way it was done...this has to stop.  As far as I'm concerned, if some one uses up their entire alotment of welfare and there are kids involved, then the kids to be taken into custody by social services.  Some may say this violates the parent's rights, but I say anyone that would bring their child up with notions about it being a suitable way of life are in fact abusing their kids.
2006-01-26 14:09:00
FeloniousMonk
Member
+0|6953
I would have no problem with supporting those who don't work if the money wasn't coming out of my pocket. Charity should be handled by private, non-profit organizations. There should be zero public wealth redistribution, especially to those who don't work. Welfare is the worst aspect of socialism and it makes me sick to hear about generations of families that are so used to living on welfare that they'll have kids just to get a bigger check.
2006-01-26 14:19:02
Agent_Dung_Bomb
Member
+302|6953|Salt Lake City

FeloniousMonk wrote:

I would have no problem with supporting those who don't work if the money wasn't coming out of my pocket. Charity should be handled by private, non-profit organizations. There should be zero public wealth redistribution, especially to those who don't work. Welfare is the worst aspect of socialism and it makes me sick to hear about generations of families that are so used to living on welfare that they'll have kids just to get a bigger check.
Well, I don't mind that the welfare system exists, but it certainly needs some work.  The wealthiest Americans already get a massive wealth redistribution with our current tax structure.  Some people have said we should do away with the tax code as it is and go with a flat tax on all income, period.  They used to say 10%, but economists have it would need to be close to 15% to maintain sufficient income to the government. 

Have you ever wondered why the wealthiest Americans have never pushed, rallied, and lobbied to get such a flat tax.  Given the initial tax bracket in which they seem to appear, this would be a windfall for them.  In reality, going to such a flat tax would increase their tax burden, substantially on the wealthiest 1%.  That's why we don't have one now, and never will, as long as politics remains a game that requires substantial wealth before you can run, and actually have a chance to win.  We essentially have a government where tax laws are being made by those who are already very wealthy...the proverbial fox guarding the hen house.

Last edited by Agent_Dung_Bomb (2006-01-26 14:20:09)

2006-01-26 14:27:43
FeloniousMonk
Member
+0|6953
to maintain sufficient income to the government.
The problem is that our government is so ridiculously bloated that it requires that much money. Without all the waste in our government we wouldn't need as many taxes in the first place. Just about everything the government does can be handled better by private industry. The federal government's only responsibilites are to regulate interstate commerce, have a standing military for the protection of the nation, and to ensure that no state or municipality violate the Bill of Rights.
2006-01-26 14:31:51
dankassasin42o
Member
+68|6896|Reefersyde, CA
I think those who collect welfare should be deported.  Illegal or not.  They cant afford to live here, they can live else where.   U have 15 beaners living in 1 house all collecting welfare and buying new cars and shit they dont deserve b'cuz their not working for it.
2006-01-26 14:34:20
birdman69
Member
+11|6974|Toronto, Canada
People on welfare should join the army.  They will pay you, clothe you and put a roof over your head.  Most of all, these people will actually be contributing something to their country.  Instead of just taking something.

Anyone agree?
2006-01-26 14:39:12
wannabe_tank_whore
Member
+5|6995

Losati wrote:

While I'm not the most liberal person when it comes to welfare, I do think a hard cut-off like that is pretty harsh.  Why? Because people will starve.  And I don't think that this country that is supposed to be oh so great and generous and powerful should allow that.

Also, many people on welfare have kids.  And kids of welfare cheats cannot be held accountable for their idiotic and lazy parents' bad decisions.  We can't have starving kids here.

I think the overall benefit of it all is there, even though there are abuses.
Think of it as survival of the fittest.  It would prove Darwin's theory.

You fail in school and you will fail in life.
2006-01-26 14:39:39
Erkut.hv
Member
+124|6952|California

dankassasin42o wrote:

I think those who collect welfare should be deported.  Illegal or not.  They cant afford to live here, they can live else where.   U have 15 beaners living in 1 house all collecting welfare and buying new cars and shit they dont deserve b'cuz their not working for it.
Lol, you said beaners. Who the fuck says beaners anymore?

How about all the trailer park motherfuckers on welfare?

I dislike people who abuse welfare, simple as that. A helping hand is one thing, making a living by sitting on your ass and pumping out kids is another.
2006-01-26 14:42:15
FeloniousMonk
Member
+0|6953

dankassasin42o wrote:

I think those who collect welfare should be deported.  Illegal or not.  They cant afford to live here, they can live else where.   U have 15 beaners living in 1 house all collecting welfare and buying new cars and shit they dont deserve b'cuz their not working for it.
Violates the Constitution.

birdman69 wrote:

People on welfare should join the army.  They will pay you, clothe you and put a roof over your head.  Most of all, these people will actually be contributing something to their country.  Instead of just taking something.

Anyone agree?
Violates the Constitution.

wannabe_tank_whore wrote:

Think of it as survival of the fittest.  It would prove Darwin's theory.

You fail in school and you will fail in life.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Survival_of_the_fittest

It would have absolutely nothing at all to do with Darwin's theory. Read a book or two.
2006-01-26 14:46:32
wannabe_tank_whore
Member
+5|6995

Agent_Dung_Bomb wrote:

FeloniousMonk wrote:

I would have no problem with supporting those who don't work if the money wasn't coming out of my pocket. Charity should be handled by private, non-profit organizations. There should be zero public wealth redistribution, especially to those who don't work. Welfare is the worst aspect of socialism and it makes me sick to hear about generations of families that are so used to living on welfare that they'll have kids just to get a bigger check.
Well, I don't mind that the welfare system exists, but it certainly needs some work.  The wealthiest Americans already get a massive wealth redistribution with our current tax structure.  Some people have said we should do away with the tax code as it is and go with a flat tax on all income, period.  They used to say 10%, but economists have it would need to be close to 15% to maintain sufficient income to the government. 

Have you ever wondered why the wealthiest Americans have never pushed, rallied, and lobbied to get such a flat tax.  Given the initial tax bracket in which they seem to appear, this would be a windfall for them.  In reality, going to such a flat tax would increase their tax burden, substantially on the wealthiest 1%.  That's why we don't have one now, and never will, as long as politics remains a game that requires substantial wealth before you can run, and actually have a chance to win.  We essentially have a government where tax laws are being made by those who are already very wealthy...the proverbial fox guarding the hen house.
I don't think you're right on this.  A flat tax would take power away from politicians and give it back to the people.  How many politicians pander to the poor by claiming to raise taxes on the evil rich to pay for their free ride?  Clinton ring a bell?  The rich are envied and sometimes hated... Bill Gates for example.  Taxes are about political power and nothing more.   

I support a fair tax which is a consumption tax - www.fairtax.org.
2006-01-26 14:52:10
wannabe_tank_whore
Member
+5|6995

FeloniousMonk wrote:

wannabe_tank_whore wrote:

Think of it as survival of the fittest.  It would prove Darwin's theory.

You fail in school and you will fail in life.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Survival_of_the_fittest

It would have absolutely nothing at all to do with Darwin's theory. Read a book or two.
Natural selection is survival of the fittest, moron.
2006-01-26 15:03:54
Agent_Dung_Bomb
Member
+302|6953|Salt Lake City

wannabe_tank_whore wrote:

Agent_Dung_Bomb wrote:

FeloniousMonk wrote:

I would have no problem with supporting those who don't work if the money wasn't coming out of my pocket. Charity should be handled by private, non-profit organizations. There should be zero public wealth redistribution, especially to those who don't work. Welfare is the worst aspect of socialism and it makes me sick to hear about generations of families that are so used to living on welfare that they'll have kids just to get a bigger check.
Well, I don't mind that the welfare system exists, but it certainly needs some work.  The wealthiest Americans already get a massive wealth redistribution with our current tax structure.  Some people have said we should do away with the tax code as it is and go with a flat tax on all income, period.  They used to say 10%, but economists have it would need to be close to 15% to maintain sufficient income to the government. 

Have you ever wondered why the wealthiest Americans have never pushed, rallied, and lobbied to get such a flat tax.  Given the initial tax bracket in which they seem to appear, this would be a windfall for them.  In reality, going to such a flat tax would increase their tax burden, substantially on the wealthiest 1%.  That's why we don't have one now, and never will, as long as politics remains a game that requires substantial wealth before you can run, and actually have a chance to win.  We essentially have a government where tax laws are being made by those who are already very wealthy...the proverbial fox guarding the hen house.
I don't think you're right on this.  A flat tax would take power away from politicians and give it back to the people.  How many politicians pander to the poor by claiming to raise taxes on the evil rich to pay for their free ride?  Clinton ring a bell?  The rich are envied and sometimes hated... Bill Gates for example.  Taxes are about political power and nothing more.   

I support a fair tax which is a consumption tax - www.fairtax.org.
I think you misinterpreted my response.  I'm all for a flat tax.  I'm saying that it will never happen under the current structure because of the money required to run a political compaign are substantial, and having connections helps.  If you look at the people in our government, you will find most of them to already be very wealthy and these same people are the ones making the tax laws.  I'm also for removing certain types of taxes and replacing them with a VAT like many other countries use.

As an example, corporate taxes.  Ingersol Rand avoids paying about $40 million in income taxes every year.  They do so under the tax rule of how foreign companies are taxed.  Their CEO, BoD, and everyone else lives here in the US.  The office they work from is located in the US, and they answer to no other office for any decisions, yet they claim the status of foreign company by doing nothing more than maintaining a P.O. box in Bermuda.  Our tax code is riddled with such loopholes that companies and those with the wealth to hire people to show them how to exploit them so they reduce or eliminate much of their tax debt.
2006-01-26 15:06:14
Berserk_Vampire
Banned
+7|6905
Trust me you never want to be on welfare lol (not that i ever was or anything)
2006-01-26 15:08:10
FeloniousMonk
Member
+0|6953

wannabe_tank_whore wrote:

FeloniousMonk wrote:

wannabe_tank_whore wrote:

Think of it as survival of the fittest.  It would prove Darwin's theory.

You fail in school and you will fail in life.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Survival_of_the_fittest

It would have absolutely nothing at all to do with Darwin's theory. Read a book or two.
Natural selection is survival of the fittest, moron.
jesus christ

Read the link I posted. Then read the information about natural selection. They are not the same concept. One is a viable scientific idea, the other is a catch phrase. I'm sure you'll figure out which is which.
2006-01-26 15:19:34
j5f5ff
Member
+11|6967
"Those who want to live, let them fight, and those who do not want to fight in this world of eternal struggle do not deserve to live."   -   Hitler


hopefully, our humanity transcends the harsh reality that is nature.
2006-01-26 21:50:01
Giant_Squid500
Member
+5|6889|U.S.A.

Agent_Dung_Bomb wrote:

Well, I don't mind that the welfare system exists, but it certainly needs some work.  The wealthiest Americans already get a massive wealth redistribution with our current tax structure.  Some people have said we should do away with the tax code as it is and go with a flat tax on all income, period.  They used to say 10%, but economists have it would need to be close to 15% to maintain sufficient income to the government. 

Have you ever wondered why the wealthiest Americans have never pushed, rallied, and lobbied to get such a flat tax.  Given the initial tax bracket in which they seem to appear, this would be a windfall for them.  In reality, going to such a flat tax would increase their tax burden, substantially on the wealthiest 1%.  That's why we don't have one now, and never will, as long as politics remains a game that requires substantial wealth before you can run, and actually have a chance to win.  We essentially have a government where tax laws are being made by those who are already very wealthy...the proverbial fox guarding the hen house.
Basically your saying The Rich get richer and the poor get poorer. Thats how it is here in America and probably how it always will be.

But none the less all I see Welfare doing is making people and even generations of people as mentioned earlier lazier and lazier. If/when the downfall of the US ever happens it will start here.  Something has to be done about this, but its gonna take a "working mans" president or ideal to get it through.
2006-01-27 07:24:45
Agent_Dung_Bomb
Member
+302|6953|Salt Lake City

Giant_Squid500 wrote:

Agent_Dung_Bomb wrote:

Well, I don't mind that the welfare system exists, but it certainly needs some work.  The wealthiest Americans already get a massive wealth redistribution with our current tax structure.  Some people have said we should do away with the tax code as it is and go with a flat tax on all income, period.  They used to say 10%, but economists have it would need to be close to 15% to maintain sufficient income to the government. 

Have you ever wondered why the wealthiest Americans have never pushed, rallied, and lobbied to get such a flat tax.  Given the initial tax bracket in which they seem to appear, this would be a windfall for them.  In reality, going to such a flat tax would increase their tax burden, substantially on the wealthiest 1%.  That's why we don't have one now, and never will, as long as politics remains a game that requires substantial wealth before you can run, and actually have a chance to win.  We essentially have a government where tax laws are being made by those who are already very wealthy...the proverbial fox guarding the hen house.
Basically your saying The Rich get richer and the poor get poorer. Thats how it is here in America and probably how it always will be.

But none the less all I see Welfare doing is making people and even generations of people as mentioned earlier lazier and lazier. If/when the downfall of the US ever happens it will start here.  Something has to be done about this, but its gonna take a "working mans" president or ideal to get it through.
Like I said, the welfare system needs work, and some parts need to be completely overhauled, but it should not be done away with.
2006-01-27 09:19:18
atlvolunteer
PKMMMMMMMMMM
+27|6989|Atlanta, GA USA

wannabe_tank_whore wrote:

I support a fair tax which is a consumption tax - www.fairtax.org.
You beat me to the punch!  I was going to post a link to that.  There is supposedly increased support for the Fairtax, but I doubt the politicians will let it become reality.
Agent_Dung_Bomb: Go to the link above and read about the Fair Tax.  I think it does pretty much what you were saying, except it replaces ALL taxes.
2006-01-27 14:32:08
Bert10099
[]D [] []\/[] []D
+177|6958|United States

Giant_Squid500 wrote:

I don't know how it is in other countries but here in America, Welfare is a joke and was a mistake.

I think that USA should do away with welfare, or at least limit who its given to.

What Welfare does: Basically welfare makes the people that get it more lazy than they were before. The just sit on there fat asses sucking up the governments money. I mean the government is basically paying them to watch TV. And this is pissing me off, and then these are the same people that complains and says the government doesn't help them or give them enough money.

What Welfare should do: We really need to put a limit on how long you get welfare or what you get it for.  What we need to do with welfare is say, here were (government) gonna pay you so much money every month for you to stay on your feet, however you have 1 year (give or take depending on your situation) to get a job, if you don't have a job by then, well your screwed and theres nothing we can do for you. If we said that, I guarentee you all those lazy bastards on welfare right now would either A) get a job or B) starve.

Yes, there are some people that really do need it, and I think its fine that we help them stay a float, but for the most part welfare just makes people lazy and shoul be done away with.
You sir, are 100% correct.

I agree with you so incredibly much.  Welfare is a joke.  Not only do you get "free money", but you get food stamps, free oil heating, free health insurance.  Oh now they have these little debit cards.  That way, every week the government can just transmit the money to your little debit card.

Fuck you lazy bastards.  Fuck those who move into this great country, just to go on welfare.  Fuck, fuck you.

Many years ago, like, 1930, was when welfare was set up correctly.  If you wanted to go on welfare, the city/town would give you a crappy job, such as garbage pick up, city cleaning, etc, THEN give you money.  But nooooo, some dipshit comes in and says "Hey I know, lets just GIVE the people who are on welfare money.  Lets just give them money, and they won't have to do a thing!"  Fuck you, whoever came up with that idea.

I'm done ranting.  I was going to go into greater detail but I knew I wasn't going to survive the flames.
2006-01-27 22:20:34
Giant_Squid500
Member
+5|6889|U.S.A.
You are a good man Bert. I just want to know who can do something about it so I can write them a letter and bitch to them until they see things my way.
2006-01-27 23:37:38
Horseman 77
Banned
+160|7055
as it is now It just dosn't work AT ALL. a total waste of Tax payers money.

 

Pages: 1

Board footer

Privacy Policy - © 2024 Jeff Minard