Topic: welfare is deforming children (Read 9973 times)

I guess fast food is deforming people much more than welfare, and I would not call fast food wellfare

More than welfare what is deforming people is McDonals and chipstons of and sugar in whatever they drink.

And you can keep the balance.

FRom my point of view the name of this topic is abcolutly true.
I have lots of examples when after graduating you let go from your famil house. You face with such kinds of conditioind wich make you brain works and start to earn money by youself

All charity and welfare is suppression without exchange.  A man who receives without giving back quickly loses his self worth.  Sure, help them out, but find what they can offer you.  People aren't cogs that just need spun up.  There are deeper psychological issues that need consideration.

What's your stance on unemployment?

Yes.


Charity.


If you want to give your money away then you're welcome to do so. I'm all for charity. In fact, I would donate to a charity that had certain requirements, such as working at a job, going to school, etc.

If we give money to low birth weight babies, mothers will smoke because it will earn them more money?  Do you really think this is how people who receive welfare think?

What's the alternative to a welfare safety net?  People bootstraping their way into a job with 9%+ unemployeement and a down economy?  Should they just give up and die/be homeless?

Of all of the things the government spends their money on, I would much rather pay and extra $200 in taxes to feed poor Americans than 50%+ of my tax money going towards bombing other countries.

which does absolutely nothing to support your initial contention:


it only makes the case (that is, makes it further: it is a fact long known) that poor people smoke more, and smoking is a difficult addiction (by many accounts, the most difficult) to break.

you get all your news and opinions from fox, don't you?

That's up for debate.  the constitutional signatories were hardly a unified ideological group and had varying interpretations of the document, such as the loose interpretation from hamilton and adams, versus the strict interpretation by madison and jefferson.

The United States was founded on the idea that the Federal Government should do very little in our country. The Founding Fathers opposed greatly large government spending project, save for the creation of a National Military. That is it. In fact, for the first hundred years of our country, they opposed almost every spending project on the Federal Scale, because it made no sense, and in no way was within the bounds of the United States Constitution. It was not until the Progressives took power in the early 20th century that massive spending projects were created. People like FDR, Theodore Roosevelt, Woodrow Wilson drastically expanded the Federal Government's power to suddenly be the supporter of the poor and needy. Not as a way to help said poor, but as a way to gain control of power in the United States. They do not care about the low class, or the needy. They only want to bring people under their wing and gain control. It is all a sham. After all, the number one recipient of welfare are minorities in this country (not racist, it's a fact). All these progressive presidents were racists, activly working against giving blacks freedoms, and treating them racially inferior to them. They do not care, they are only trying to gain power.


Citations avail. upon request.

Some people just have no idea about the magnitude of educational disparity in this county.  A high school near me regularly graduates students who can't read past a 6th grade level.  No child left behind has made things worse.  The county recently removed F's from the grading scale.  Failing is no longer possible, but that's just a technacality since previously when a teacher felt a student should be failed, the principal would give them a choice between passing the student and losing their job.  Tying funding to pass/fail rates has just decoupled those rates from educational success.

@bitcoin2cash: Oh, sorry, I mistook you for a different user. So many people around, I should keep better track!



A discussion on this will dance around the definition of "theft". If all types of taxes are theft, we leave the commonly accepted terminology, but this seems to be the definition at hand. Let's take a clear example. IMO, those are situations in which a Tragedy of the Commons eradicates an entire system unless it changes rules.

Say, a medium-sized comet is known to just barely get close enough to hit the Earth, and someone finds a way to divert it for an operation that costs 10^12 €. I think the correct course of action is to cut a suitable fraction of all productivity on the planet and use it to divert the comet.

Now, this would mean forcefully taking the money from those who try to avoid paying, hoping that others will do so first. But otherwise, the system punishes those saving the Earth by giving them a disadvantage, which I find an unacceptable result.

Can you give some examples of types of scenarios when theft is morally acceptable?

I haven't used that word in this thread.

It hardly ever is, that's why I'm more of a Libertarian than a Liberal.

However, what you accused "Liberals" of doesn't even sound Liberal. Maybe you refer to a certain party, such as Japan's LDP, which is Liberal only in name?

Arbitrary redistribution of money is what I know as "left" politics, with communism being the extreme branch of it. More state power, a large set of rules on who gets money or support, those are the properties of such politics. Together with "right" politics, which have society set cultural norms, one gets a 2D map of political orientation, with anarchism being the origin and the Nazis quite far away from it. I'd find myself at ~10% "left" and almost zero "right". (Yes, it's not very intuitive to have left orthogonal to right, but I didn't name those political orientations! *shrugs*)

Anyways, it's common to call the direction away from those "left" or "right" politics Liberal. That's why quite some people might be confused at that post from earlier.

Spartans thrown their defect children's in the sea. That was, no doubt, make the survives children's  very healthy.
What do you suggest? How we should behave ?
How we should interfere in these ?

How is theft ever fair? How is theft ever necessary unless you're starving?

I consider myself a Liberal (or Libertarian, depending on context), and I have no idea what you are talking about. The Principle of Liberty does not concern giving free money to anyone. People can do that if they want to, but that's their choice, not a collective liberal idea.

I don't know what definition you use, but over here, liberals oppose arbitrary wealth redistribution by the state unless it is considered fair and necessary.

Some of it, perhaps, but all of it? I find that unlikely.