Is Welfare a Right?

[coadie]

Originally Posted by Aquila

It's not a right by any means... but in a civil Christian society that can provide welfare, it is a blessing for many.

Or one could see it as a right. Even the Law gave the poor the right to glean.

Gleaning is work.
Too much like picking up aluminum cans.

We are not in a Christian civil society. OWS reports support my observation.

[Jermyn Davidson]

Originally Posted by Digging4Truth

It's not a right nor should it be an expectation. And... if a civil christian society wants to provide assistance for people then let it provide it as they are able and desire to do so. But leave the government out of it.

It's good government to make sure that the citizens are taken care of.

We don't have to enable life-long welfare recipients, but a country as wealthy as America should not leave any of her citizens hungry or without adequate health care.

The government is there for the people, not the people for the government.

[Digging4Truth]

Originally Posted by Jermyn Davidson

It's good government to make sure that the citizens are taken care of.

We don't have to enable life-long welfare recipients, but a country as wealthy as America should not leave any of her citizens hungry or without adequate health care.

The government is there for the people, not the people for the government.

There's no reason in even dealing with the rest of the post as I see a fundamental difference in our thinking which forms the basis for the way we would feel about the rest.

Greatly in debt does not equal rich. We are a country in phenomenal debt that is at a level sufficient to sink our economy and the dollar completely. We are tinkering on the edge of complete financial failure.

That is not rich in my books. That is living above ones mean and appearing rich.

[Jay]

Machiavelli stated that it was not at all feasible or desirable for a government to provide for its citizens. A government that does so must eventually raise taxes, cut services, or both which leads to the inevitable down fall of said government. We can see that this has happened so often within the last 40 years that it is nearly impossible to keep track of.

[jfrog]

Ever wonder if people asked the same question about Education? Ever wonder if people asked the same question about freedom of speech? Ever wonder if people asked the same question about countless other rights that we deem as apparent and undeniable?

My question is: what morally depraved people would rather see people starve and freeze to death than to see the abuse of a welfare system? It's one thing if such a system cannot be financed It's another if it can be financed and we as a nation choose not to. I think the question shouldn't be whether it's their right to have a welfare system.. Instead I think the question should be whether its our moral duty to provide such a system... and I think the answer to that question is a resounding yes!

[Jay]

Originally Posted by jfrog

Ever wonder if people asked the same question about Education? Ever wonder if people asked the same question about freedom of speech? Ever wonder if people asked the same question about countless other rights that we deem as apparent and undeniable?

My question is: what morally depraved people would rather see people starve and freeze to death than to see the abuse of a welfare system? It's one thing if such a system cannot be financed It's another if it can be financed and we as a nation choose not to. I think the question shouldn't be whether it's their right to have a welfare system.. Instead I think the question should be whether its our moral duty to provide such a system... and I think the answer to that question is a resounding yes!

You are making a fallacious argument. Nobody has made an argument for allowing people to die in the streets from lack of food, shelter, or warmth. The basic argument is that at the very least it is not a problem for the United States government to handle. We have seen what it has brought us since its inception. We now have higher poverty rates, more single parent families, more irresponsible parents, more drugs, more depressed, suicidal, and murderous children larger slums, deeper debt.

And what did we get in for the other side of the bargain?

Affordable healthcare, not on this planet. Better jobs, in our dreams. Better education, not here. Greater compassion for the truly poor, not really. More generosity, you must be joking.

The advent of our welfare state has destroyed everything that we had worked so hard to build. In fact, we keep adding to the welfare roles. Tarp was welfare for failing businesses. The 'bailout' was welfare for failing banks. That 'loan' to the care manufacturers was a giant welfare check. It is time to end the welfare state, pluck it up by its greedy, sinful, wicked, and immoral roots and cast in the pig sty of historically failed ideas.

[jfrog]

Originally Posted by Jay

You are making a fallacious argument. Nobody has made an argument for allowing people to die in the streets from lack of food, shelter, or warmth. The basic argument is that at the very least it is not a problem for the United States government to handle. We have seen what it has brought us since its inception. We now have higher poverty rates, more single parent families, more irresponsible parents, more drugs, more depressed, suicidal, and murderous children larger slums, deeper debt.

And what did we get in for the other side of the bargain?

Affordable healthcare, not on this planet. Better jobs, in our dreams. Better education, not here. Greater compassion for the truly poor, not really. More generosity, you must be joking.

The advent of our welfare state has destroyed everything that we had worked so hard to build. In fact, we keep adding to the welfare roles. Tarp was welfare for failing businesses. The 'bailout' was welfare for failing banks. That 'loan' to the care manufacturers was a giant welfare check. It is time to end the welfare state, pluck it up by its greedy, sinful, wicked, and immoral roots and cast in the pig sty of historically failed ideas.

We have people dying on the streets with welfare... how many more would there be without it?

[BeenThinkin]

Ah! What's good for the goose is good for the gander.

Nearly 50 % of the population pay no taxes. So isn't it only fair that the rest of us, (those who pay) should have the same privilege of not paying. Let's all get off taxes and eventually on welfare and then let's see who pays the bill!

BT

[Jay]

Originally Posted by BeenThinkin

Ah! What's good for the goose is good for the gander.

Nearly 50 % of the population pay no taxes. So isn't it only fair that the rest of us, (those who pay) should have the same privilege of not paying. Let's all get off taxes and eventually on welfare and then let's see who pays the bill!

BT

I love that tic bit. I have to agree that it does not make any sense at all the way things are currently set up. However, I lose nearly 1/5 or so of what I make through the year, and I am supposed to be happy when I only get about 1/4 of that back. State income taxes, federal income taxes, Social Security, Medicare and Medicaid are keeping me from getting ahead. If I was taxed at a flat five percent of my income by both the federal and state levels, with nothing extra, I would come out ahead in the short and long run.

[jfrog]

Originally Posted by Jay

I love that tic bit. I have to agree that it does not make any sense at all the way things are currently set up. However, I lose nearly 1/5 or so of what I make through the year, and I am supposed to be happy when I only get about 1/4 of that back. State income taxes, federal income taxes, Social Security, Medicare and Medicaid are keeping me from getting ahead. If I was taxed at a flat five percent of my income by both the federal and state levels, with nothing extra, I would come out ahead in the short and long run.

And that's the problem with those screaming no welfare. It all comes back to this comment right here and this comment is about greed pure and simple. I can understand there's problems with the system. I can understand it might cause some bad things like laziness for some. But when the argument shifts from that to I want more money I just can't see the moral compass being in favor of your arguments anymore.