Welfare and other matters... better delivery system.....

#1
OrangeEmpire

OrangeEmpire

The White Debonair
Joined
Nov 28, 2005
Messages
74,988
Likes
59
#1
I do not think any one truly honestly does not want to help the poor. I believe the major gripe is the delivery system or method.

For me, there is no way the government should be in the business of handing out welfare.

To me the job squarely rests on the shoulders of the local church.

The church left the poor in the 1950's and almost became a social club more than any thing.

Should it be the government handing out welfare?

Should the local church get back into their communities?

Or should it be a mixture of both?

Thoughts?
 
#2
#2
government welfare should have limits.

2 children max, 2 years max, mandatory job training, mandatory financial management training.

the biggest failure of the government run social welfare system is that it places no requirements on the recipients to better themselves. We're seeing three generations of welfare recipients in the same households.
 
#4
#4
I'm all for a social safety net, but the system today has simply become a part of the vote gathering apparatus of the liberals. That's why it's this bastardized beast that is effectively unfixable. It's unfixable because even mentioning an overhaul is inevitably met with cries of racism or elitism. It's now political suicide (which I'm cool with for most politicians, but they just can't seem to agree with me).
 
#5
#5
Welfare is broken. Plain and simple. It should have restrictions and most importantly it should have a time limit or steps.

Second and third generations are viewing welfare as a way of life. That is wrong.

Church and welfare support should be separate.
 
#6
#6
MG1968 said:
government welfare should have limits.

2 children max, 2 years max, mandatory job training, mandatory financial management training.

the biggest failure of the government run social welfare system is that it places no requirements on the recipients to better themselves. We're seeing three generations of welfare recipients in the same households.
Click to expand...


Interesting, Obama wants to tax oil companies that are seeing gross profits, and make auto makers make more fuel efficient cars, and you make a joke that next he is going to say who can and can not own a car, but then you come into this thread and propose we tell people how many children they can and can't have.

Wow.
 
#7
#7
VolzRChamps said:
Interesting, Obama wants to tax oil companies that are seeing gross profits, and make auto makers make more fuel efficient cars, and you make a joke that next he is going to say who can and can not own a car, but then you come into this thread and propose we tell people how many children they can and can't have.

Wow.
Click to expand...
the enormous point you're missing would be that those who are wards of the state should be in position to have much more dictated to them than those who are not wards of the state.

In other words, owning a car is a private venture (and a heavily taxed one at that), while getting free cash from the gov't is in no way a private venture. The two arent even remotely comparable.

Wow, that's a simple difference, but somehow you tried to make them analagous.

The other garbage that Obama's espousing is pure and simple socialism. He has no business dictating the type of cars that people can produce or buy and has even less business meddling any further in the profitability of oil companies.
 
#8
#8
VolzRChamps said:
Interesting, Obama wants to tax oil companies that are seeing gross profits, and make auto makers make more fuel efficient cars, and you make a joke that next he is going to say who can and can not own a car, but then you come into this thread and propose we tell people how many children they can and can't have.

Wow.
Click to expand...
I think the distinction should be made as to telling people how many children they can and can't have. People can have as many children as they want as long as they can afford to feed them. When supporting those children involves government assistance, I can see where it is appropriate to set some limits.
 
#9
#9
VolzRChamps said:
Interesting, Obama wants to tax oil companies that are seeing gross profits, and make auto makers make more fuel efficient cars, and you make a joke that next he is going to say who can and can not own a car, but then you come into this thread and propose we tell people how many children they can and can't have.

Wow.
Click to expand...

If others have to foot the bill for your children I believe that gives people every right to have a say so in your unwarranted benefit. As far as cars go they are a necessity to work and be self sufficient. Having children is not a necessity to live.
 
#10
#10
VolzRChamps said:
Interesting, Obama wants to tax oil companies that are seeing gross profits, and make auto makers make more fuel efficient cars, and you make a joke that next he is going to say who can and can not own a car, but then you come into this thread and propose we tell people how many children they can and can't have.

Wow.
Click to expand...

what makes you think I was joking? Obama is a socialist, and socialists are control freaks. Ok, I'll grant that he's not a true socialist, if he was he wouldn't have bought a 1.9 million dollar mansion (for 1.6 million, thanks to Rezko). But as a neo-socialist, he's just as scary, wanting just enough capitalism to keep the Buffets and Soros' of the country happy.
 
#11
#11
vader said:
I think the distinction should be made as to telling people how many children they can and can't have. People can have as many children as they want as long as they can afford to feed them. When supporting those children involves government assistance, I can see where it is appropriate to setting some limits.
Click to expand...

Exactly. We'll pay you to support 2 max. Have any more and you need to figure out where that money comes from (perfect lead-in for the church)
 
#15
#15
allvol123 said:
Why exactly are we offering that?
Click to expand...

BigPapaVol said:
precisely my question.

For whomever is offering, send me the signup sheet, 'cause I got 2.
Click to expand...

I think pj was further expanding on my first post in this thread. I would impose a two child limit because i don't want the "progressives" to think I'm a cold, heartless conservative bastard (which would be a step in some quarters).
 
#17
#17
MG1968 said:
I think pj was further expanding on my first post in this thread. I would impose a two child limit because i don't want the "progressives" to think I'm a cold, heartless conservative bastard (which would be a step in some quarters).
Click to expand...
oh, I understand what he was talking about, but if that's the starting point of the negotiation, somebody missed the principle of effective anchors in the negotiating process.
 
#19
#19
OrangeEmpire said:
I do not think any one truly honestly does not want to help the poor. I believe the major gripe is the delivery system or method.

For me, there is no way the government should be in the business of handing out welfare.

To me the job squarely rests on the shoulders of the local church.

The church left the poor in the 1950's and almost became a social club more than any thing.

Should it be the government handing out welfare?

Should the local church get back into their communities?

Or should it be a mixture of both?

Thoughts?
Click to expand...

MG1968 said:
government welfare should have limits.

2 children max, 2 years max, mandatory job training, mandatory financial management training.

the biggest failure of the government run social welfare system is that it places no requirements on the recipients to better themselves. We're seeing three generations of welfare recipients in the same households.
Click to expand...


I, despite being cast as a Neo-Socialists, agree 100% with what MG and OE have stated here. There should be a want to, on behalf of the welfare recipients, to better their lives.

The type of gov't spending that I would be in favor of is building up some of these slums and rural areas off the sweat and hard work of welfare recipients. They will learn skills and trades and contribute to their communities and societies, all the while, becoming more economically independent, to the point that 5-8 years down the road, they are self-sufficient.

George Washington Carver and the like had it right back in the 1920's. But the Depression, understandably to an extent, killed the movement.
 
#20
#20
wellway16 said:
I, despite being cast as a Neo-Socialists, agree 100% with what MG and OE have stated here. There should be a want to, on behalf of the welfare recipients, to better their lives.

The type of gov't spending that I would be in favor of is building up some of these slums and rural areas off the sweat and hard work of welfare recipients. They will learn skills and trades and contribute to their communities and societies, all the while, becoming more economically independent, to the point that 5-8 years down the road, they are self-sufficient.

George Washington Carver and the like had it right back in the 1920's. But the Depression, understandably to an extent, killed the movement.
Click to expand...

All that is well and good, but it means nothing without some kind of a value system, where parents teach their kids to be self sufficient etc.
 
#21
#21
MG1968 said:
government welfare should have limits.

2 children max, 2 years max, mandatory job training, mandatory financial management training.

the biggest failure of the government run social welfare system is that it places no requirements on the recipients to better themselves. We're seeing three generations of welfare recipients in the same households.
Click to expand...

Also mandatory drug testing. Failure to comply and you are off the program. Fail the test and the mandatory 48 hr. retest and you are off the program. Go to jail and you are off the program.
 
#22
#22
MG1968 said:
I think pj was further expanding on my first post in this thread. I would impose a two child limit because i don't want the "progressives" to think I'm a cold, heartless conservative bastard (which would be a step in some quarters).
Click to expand...

Correct. Also needing assistance doesn't always happen before they have kids. I'm all for giving someone a hand up as long as they realize there are limits. It should not become a lifestyle
 
#23
#23
utvolpj said:
Correct. Also needing assistance doesn't always happen before they have kids. I'm all for giving someone a hand up as long as they realize there are limits. It should not become a lifestyle
Click to expand...
but starting down the slippery slope is the problem. Once something is free, it doesn't go back to cost without there being some sort of slight.
 
#24
#24
utvolpj said:
Correct. Also needing assistance doesn't always happen before they have kids. I'm all for giving someone a hand up as long as they realize there are limits. It should not become a lifestyle
Click to expand...


That is too vague and in the hands of the government becomes a problem. People need a hand, check with you locals. Not a federal issue.
 
New posts
You must log in or register to reply here.

VN Store



Back
Top