Do we need Government welfare, food stamp... programs?

[ok doser]

Do we need Government welfare, food stamp... programs?

"The modern conservative is engaged in one of man's oldest exercises in moral philosophy; that is, the search for a superior moral justification for selfishness."
- John Kenneth Galbraith

https://www.brainyquote.com/quotes/john_kenneth_galbraith_107301

The modern liberal has discovered the way to beat one of man's oldest exercises in moral philosophy; that is, by claiming moral superiority by masking their selfishness in their quest to spend other people's money

 

[Arthur Brain]

So therefore they shouldn't try to work at all?

Maybe they just haven't realized they have a marketable skill, but they haven't put the effort into finding out...

This is about the only comment you make in this post that makes a fair point (in the main). Most people, outside of those with severe mental illness or learning disabilities have skills in some area or can train.

Which is where family, friends, neighbors, and the church step in.

No need for the government to do it.

And what of those that don't have family and friends? Seriously, how many times do this have to be explained to you? Not everybody has those JR and what makes you think that someone's neighbour, even if willing, has the finances to help out? They might only have enough to take care of their needs or that of their families or might be in dire financial straights themselves. Churches already do what they can to help those on the poorer end of the scale. There's one at the end of my street that runs a coffee morning and a food bank twice a week although like all food banks they're reliant on donations. If benefits were scrapped there is no feasible way whatsoever that they could help all of those out of work or too sick to work, no way at all.

There are plenty of jobs where one can work from home and make a living.

A guy I know is disabled (He lives in Norway, btw, not the US), and instead of slacking off, he's decided to livestream himself playing video games to earn money, something I've always wanted to do but have never had the time due to work.

Not everyone is computer literate or have the luxury of owning a computer to start with. Some people suffer from physical disabilities where just using a computer would be out of the question as well. I'm a home carer and one of my clients has the utmost difficulty in simply moving about and needs help to walk, putting back into his chair and into bed along with other things.

Such as?

And why couldn't they seek the support of their family, friends, neighbors, and the church? Why should they rely on the government?

Acute depression, social anxiety, agoraphobia, schizophrenia etc...

And again, not everybody has the support of family, friends, neighbours who can aid etc.

No one should get welfare.

Of course they should.

 

[JudgeRightly]

This is about the only comment you make in this post that makes a fair point (in the main). Most people, outside of those with severe mental illness or learning disabilities have skills in some area or can train.

:thumb:

And what of those that don't have family and friends? Seriously, how many times do this have to be explained to you? Not everybody has those JR

That's why I didn't just say "family and friends".

:duh:

and what makes you think that someone's neighbour, even if willing, has the finances to help out?

So you do agree that everyone has neighbors? Good. Then that takes care of that problem.

You're assuming current economical conditions, rather than economical conditions of a society that does not give out welfare checks.

Take away all the socialist programs, and people will make nearly double the amount they currently make.

They might only have enough to take care of their needs or that of their families or might be in dire financial straights themselves.[?QUOTE]

A neighbor does have the right to refuse, you know... and people have more than one neighbor they can ask...

Churches already do what they can to help those on the poorer end of the scale. There's one at the end of my street that runs a coffee morning and a food bank twice a week although like all food banks they're reliant on donations.

Good for them. :thumb:

If benefits were scrapped there is no feasible way whatsoever that they could help all of those out of work or too sick to work, no way at all.

You just said:

"if welfare programs for individuals were scrapped, churches wouldn't be able to help"

Why not? Why couldn't the church team up with neighbors, family, and friends (assuming there are) to help out?

Wouldn't that be the loving thing to do? Instead of letting those poor, poor people starve?

Not everyone is computer literate or have the luxury of owning a computer to start with. Some people suffer from physical disabilities where just using a computer would be out of the question as well.

Considering that I was just using streaming as a single example, and not a recommendation for everyone, I don't see your point.

I'm a home carer and one of my clients has the utmost difficulty in simply moving about and needs help to walk, putting back into his chair and into bed along with other things.

And? Is there anything that he likes to do? Or have the welfare programs robbed him of his desire to be productive?

Acute depression, social anxiety, agoraphobia, schizophrenia etc...

All treatable, should the one who has them seek help.

And again, not everybody has the support of family, friends, neighbours who can aid etc.

And what percentage of the population have a) no family, b) no friends, c) no neighbors, AND d) no church nearby, that could help them?

I would imagine that that percentage is extremely small, in which case, extrapolating those situations to all of society is not only bad science (small sample size to begin with), it's also unrealistic.

Of course they should.

Right, because you say so.

 

[Arthur Brain]

That's why I didn't just say "family and friends".

:duh:

No, you seem to think that most people have a neighbour who is financially able and willing to help them out...

lain:

So you do agree that everyone has neighbors? Good. Then that takes care of that problem.

You're assuming current economical conditions, rather than economical conditions of a society that does not give out welfare checks.

Take away all the socialist programs, and people will make nearly double the amount they currently make.

Most people do but many don't have much to do with them and your latter is just yet another flight of fancy of yours. If you think that welfare/benefits costs people 50% of their wages then that's just bizarre. Even, say, that it were the case, what makes you think that someone's neighbour would be willing to financially aid someone who couldn't work on a regular and continual basis just because they lived next door to them? Many wouldn't.

They might only have enough to take care of their needs or that of their families or might be in dire financial straights themselves.

A neighbor does have the right to refuse, you know... and people have more than one neighbor they can ask...

Of course they do, and plenty would. Plenty would also feel uncomfortable asking for help as well because not all people who are out of work are in such a position because they don't want a job JR. In case you hadn't noticed there's a lot of competition for jobs. So much for neighbours being an effective solution for those in need.

Good for them. :thumb:

Yes, it is good for them and a lot of those who work in food banks don't get paid for their efforts either. They'd balk at what you propose because they'd know just how much poverty for people at the lower end of the scale would increase if all safety nets were removed. They wouldn't be able to cope.

You just said:

"if welfare programs for individuals were scrapped, churches wouldn't be able to help"

Why not? Why couldn't the church team up with neighbors, family, and friends (assuming there are) to help out?

How would that happen exactly? Do you think most towns, villages and suburbs are made up of societies where everyone in the street knows each other and go visiting for tea and biscuits and everyone attends church? You wouldn't have a clue about what it can be like to live on a council estate or a run down set of flats.

Wouldn't that be the loving thing to do? Instead of letting those poor, poor people starve?

The loving thing to do would be to make sure there's a safety net for the less well off in society so that that doesn't happen, the very thing you want to get rid of.

Considering that I was just using streaming as a single example, and not a recommendation for everyone, I don't see your point.

What other options would you suggest for someone with crippling physical disability to do as a job to work from home?

And? Is there anything that he likes to do? Or have the welfare programs robbed him of his desire to be productive?

Of course there is but most of it he's not able to due to his disability. Your last was completely unnecessary as he was a former worker before he was struck with his condition that rendered him unable to work. You have absolutely no idea.

All treatable, should the one who has them seek help.

Spoken like someone who obviously has no personal experience with anything of the sort otherwise you couldn't possibly be so ignorant or flippant as to how debilitating such conditions can be, even with help.

And what percentage of the population have a) no family, b) no friends, c) no neighbors, AND d) no church nearby, that could help them?

Homeless people for a start. There's charities that try to reach those in such a position as it is but it's not enough to help everybody. That's with safety nets in place...

I would imagine that that percentage is extremely small, in which case, extrapolating those situations to all of society is not only bad science (small sample size to begin with), it's also unrealistic.

JR, you imagine all sorts of things that are unrealistic and untenable in practice, like getting rid of speed limits would improve road safety etc. So you talking about "bad science" is more than a little ironic.

Right, because you say so.

Because common sense says so, at least for any civilization that cares a whit for the poor in it.

 

[ok doser]

Because common sense says so, at least for any civilization that cares a whit for the poor in it.

turns out Singapore cared enough to implement a system that worked:

Singapore: A Fascinating Alternative To The Welfare State


Lee Kuan Yew, the first prime minister of Singapore, died last week at age 91. Almost every obituary has remarked on the radical transition his leadership heralded. As John Fund wrote at National Review:

By embracing free trade, capital formation, vigorous meritocratic education, low taxes, and a reliable judicial system, Lee raised the per capita income of his country from $500 a year to some $52,000 a year today. That’s 50 percent higher than that of Britain, the colonial power that ruled Singapore for 150 years. Its average annual growth rate has averaged 7 percent since the 1970s.

Part of the reason for Singapore’s remarkable climb up the international income ladder is bread and butter capitalism. The Fraser nstitute’s Freedom of the World report lists Singapore as the second freest economy in the world -- right behind Hong Kong. As Frasier scholars have demonstrated year after year, economic growth and free markets go hand and hand.

But Singapore has done something even more remarkable than its economic accomplishments. It has built an alternative to the European style welfare state. Think of all the reasons why people turn to government in other developed countries: retirement income, housing, education, medical care etc. In Singapore people are required to save to take care of these needs themselves.

At times the forced saving rate has been as high as 50% of income. Today, employees under 50 years of age must set aside 20% of their wages and employers must contribute another 16%. These funds go into accounts where they grow through time until specific needs arise. For example, one of the uses for these savings is housing. About 90% of Singapore households are home owners – the highest rate of home ownership in the world.

more: https://www.forbes.com/sites/johngo...lternative-to-the-welfare-state/#4e1764f276c0

 

[JudgeRightly]

No, you seem to think that most people have a neighbour who is financially able and willing to help them out...

lain:

How would they know if they never ask?

Most people do but many don't have much to do with them

So therefore they shouldn't seek help when in need? :think:

and your latter is just yet another flight of fancy of yours.

:blabla:

If you think that welfare/benefits costs people 50% of their wages then that's just bizarre.

I think that if the government were smaller and only provided good infrastructure and protected its citizens from crime, and nothing more, that people's wages would double.

Even, say, that it were the case, what makes you think that someone's neighbour would be willing to financially aid someone who couldn't work on a regular and continual basis just because they lived next door to them? Many wouldn't.

You can't compel charity. The government's welfare programs is an attempt to do just that.

Of course they do, and plenty would. Plenty would also feel uncomfortable asking for help as well because

Hunger is a very strong motivator.

It motivates people to either eat or seek help.

What was that verse again?

"If a man does not work, he shall not eat?"

not all people who are out of work are in such a position because they don't want a job JR.

You're right, most of the people on it can work, and refuse to, or they do work, and instead of working harder to earn more money, they take the easy way and receive of other people's hard earned money, taken by the government through welfare programs.

Thank you for proving my point.

In case you hadn't noticed there's a lot of competition for jobs. So much for neighbours being an effective solution for those in need.

And? So what?

Competition is a GOOD thing.

And you seem to think that people are only mouths to feed, rather than people with the potential to produce.

What I mean by that is that you think that people can only either find a company to work for or starve. But that's not the case.

People can also start their own businesses (or, rather, they could if it weren't so difficult to do so due to government regulations).

Yes, it is good for them and a lot of those who work in food banks don't get paid for their efforts either. They'd balk at what you propose because they'd know just how much poverty for people at the lower end of the scale would increase if all safety nets were removed. They wouldn't be able to cope.

:think:

You know what they should do? Tell the people who come to them for food to help them out, and they'll get paid in extra food.

That would easily solve that problem.

How would that happen exactly? Do you think most towns, villages and suburbs are made up of societies where everyone in the street knows each other and go visiting for tea and biscuits and everyone attends church?

I'm sure someone could figure out a way.

You see, unlike you, I actually think that people can use the brains they were given to overcome challenges, rather than being mindless idiots living off the government's teat.

You wouldn't have a clue about what it can be like to live on a council estate or a run down set of flats.

Poverty is the result of crime.

Establish good laws, crime goes down, and poverty decreases.

The loving thing to do would be to make sure there's a safety net for the less well off in society so that that doesn't happen, the very thing you want to get rid of.

No, the loving thing to do is not to enable people to be lazy, to not work as hard as they possibly can, but to tell them that if they don't work, then they shall not eat.

What other options would you suggest for someone with crippling physical disability to do as a job to work from home?

Any job that wouldn't be hindered by their crippling physical disability.

Of course there is

Such as?

but most of it he's not able to due to his disability.

Well, it's not like I would know considering you haven't told us what he would like to do.

Your last was completely unnecessary as he was a former worker before he was struck with his condition that rendered him unable to work.

So he's been encouraged to never work again?

You have absolutely no idea.

Duh, that's why I'm asking.

Spoken like someone who obviously has no personal experience with anything of the sort otherwise you couldn't possibly be so ignorant or flippant as to how debilitating such conditions can be, even with help.

So are you asserting that none of those are treatable?

Because my assertion was that they were treatable... which means that people who have those can still, with help, be productive members of society.

Homeless people for a start.

Which brings us back to the age-old question:

"Who is my neighbor?"

Jesus answered that.

There's charities that try to reach those in such a position as it is but it's not enough to help everybody.

And other people won't help because they think the government will help them, so instead of wanting to help, they just see them as a burden on society.

That's with safety nets in place...

The safety nets are part of the problem here, not the solution.

JR, you imagine all sorts of things that are unrealistic and untenable in practice,

Saying it doesn't make it so.

like getting rid of speed limits would improve road safety etc.

Red herring.

Stay on topic.

So you talking about "bad science" is more than a little ironic.

Says the person who's using a small sample size to try to extrapolate to the whole...

Because common sense says so, at least for any civilization that cares a whit for the poor in it.

Fallacy.

Appeal to common sense.

Also known as "Divine fallacy" and "Argument from incredulity."

Try making an argument WITHOUT using a logical fallacy.

 

[Arthur Brain]

How would they know if they never ask?

With you, that would seem to be their only option. So what if their neighbour(s) say no and not to bother them again. What then? Given that some people suffer from anxiety disorders also then what should they do JR. Just curl up and not bother anybody? Die and decrease the surplus population and save the taxpayers some money?

So therefore they shouldn't seek help when in need? :think:

See above.

:blabla:

Grow up.

I think that if the government were smaller and only provided good infrastructure and protected its citizens from crime, and nothing more, that people's wages would double.

Based on what?

You can't compel charity. The government's welfare programs is an attempt to do just that.

Well, of course you can't and nobody is arguing that you can. Charities exist while welfare/benefits are in place because even with those safety nets in place there's still people who fall through them and even those who are on the lower end of the scale still need additional help.

Hunger is a very strong motivator.

It motivates people to either eat or seek help.

What was that verse again?

"If a man does not work, he shall not eat?"

Oh, that verse you continually take out of context and apply it to anyone in the present who is out of work no matter what? Have you ever been completely down on your luck JR? Ever been in a position where there isn't a bean in the house and you've no family, friends or neighbour to beg for help? Was Lazarus just some lazy bum when he asked for scraps of food from the rich man's table?

You're right, most of the people on it can work, and refuse to, or they do work, and instead of working harder to earn more money, they take the easy way and receive of other people's hard earned money, taken by the government through welfare programs.

Thank you for proving my point.

Oh, aren't you the high and mighty one, able to judge most people as to why they aren't working or aren't working more as you see fit? You see into people's hearts do you?

And? So what?

Competition is a GOOD thing.

And you seem to think that people are only mouths to feed, rather than people with the potential to produce.

What I mean by that is that you think that people can only either find a company to work for or starve. But that's not the case.

People can also start their own businesses (or, rather, they could if it weren't so difficult to do so due to government regulations).

It's not a good thing if you're stipulating that the only income a person can have is if they have a job. Also, I see people as people, human beings, not commodities that only deserve to have some sustenance if they're in work. If you think starting your own business is easy as an option then you haven't got a clue, again.

You know what they should do? Tell the people who come to them for food to help them out, and they'll get paid in extra food.

What? You're arguing that volunteers at food banks should ask for additional volunteers who are coming to them for help to volunteer and that will result in extra food??! Can you seriously not see the glaring lack of logic going on here?

That would easily solve that problem.

Um, no JR, it wouldn't. If you do away with safety nets then you only increase the numbers of people needing food. Considering it's reliant on donations then asking people to volunteer isn't going to increase the volume of food, it's only going to the volume of people needing it.

I'm sure someone could figure out a way.

You see, unlike you, I actually think that people can use the brains they were given to overcome challenges, rather than being mindless idiots living off the government's teat.

Well, it sure ain't you is it? You'd rather people starve and live in poverty than allow a safety net so that for the most part that doesn't happen. You do realize that such also helps those who have worked and are struck down with illness or are made redundant through no fault of their own, right?

Poverty is the result of crime.

Establish good laws, crime goes down, and poverty decreases.

Expand. What crime is it that allows people to wallow in poverty to start with?

:think:

No, the loving thing to do is not to enable people to be lazy, to not work as hard as they possibly can, but to tell them that if they don't work, then they shall not eat.

No, the loving thing to do is to support people to do what they can without threats of starvation.

Any job that wouldn't be hindered by their crippling physical disability.

What if there isn't one? What then?

Such as?

Sailing and boat repair. He ain't in a position to ever be able to move without assistance even at home.

Well, it's not like I would know considering you haven't told us what he would like to do.

Well, you've just been told above. This person won't be able to take care of intimate toiletry habits without assistance for the rest of his life so any other questions?

So he's been encouraged to never work again?

It's not an option. Do you ever think about stuff that doesn't fit in with your perceptions or for that matter, people? Tell me JR, how would you feel if you were disabled and were reliant on others to the point where you couldn't wipe your own backside? That's not being crude at all either.

Duh, that's why I'm asking.

It's what you shouldn't even need to ask.

So are you asserting that none of those are treatable?

Because my assertion was that they were treatable... which means that people who have those can still, with help, be productive members of society.

No, some of those conditions can be treatable but not in all cases and some people will not be able to hold down a job because of them, even with help. So what of those?

Which brings us back to the age-old question:

"Who is my neighbor?"

Jesus answered that.

Yes, the parable of the good Samaritan for starters. You don't reflect anything like that because you argue effectively that Lazarus deserved nothing from the likes of the rich man because he was out of work. Else what? He was begging for food and got none. He was covered in sores but there must have been some sort of job he could have done to earn his keep, right?

And other people won't help because they think the government will help them, so instead of wanting to help, they just see them as a burden on society.

Only those on their little moral high horse.

The safety nets are part of the problem here, not the solution.

Um, no. Even with them in place there's still those who fall through the gaps.

Saying it doesn't make it so.



Red herring.

Stay on topic.

In essence, it is on topic. You make all blithe assertions that simply don't hold up and don't even deserve scrutiny because they're ridiculous.

Says the person who's using a small sample size to try to extrapolate to the whole...

Wow, wonderful soundbite again there JR. What's it supposed to signify?

Fallacy.



Appeal to common sense.

Also known as "Divine fallacy" and "Argument from incredulity."

Try making an argument WITHOUT using a logical fallacy.

I did, you just seem to want to use the word "fallacy" a lot without addressing it. You take away a safety net for the poor in society and you increase the number of those who'd end up being part of it.