Welcome to ASFN Fan Forums! We're glad to have you here. Please feel free to browse the forum. We'd like to invite you to join our community; doing so will enable you to view additional forums and post with our other members.
Registered Members don't see these ads. Register now it's free!
View Poll Results: Should welfare programs stay or go?
Stay!
11
32.35%
Stay...but, I reserve the right to complain about them to no end.
First let me say I think that something needs to be done to help those people that need it. A safety net to prevent people from starving or dying from exposure is completely reasonable.
However, government welfare doesn't do much but promote dependency and unemployment. I am sure there are some successful stories but the unintended consequences are clear at this point.
Not to mention the questionable morality of taking someone's legally earned money to distribute to someone else.
The aftermath of diasasters has shown that, given a clear need, people are more than willing to give their money voluntarily.
__________________
“votes are collared under democracy, not by talking sense but by talking nonsense.” ~H. L. Mencken
The aftermath of diasasters has shown that, given a clear need, people are more than willing to give their money voluntarily.
I think that's true when the suffering is broadcast on the TV day and night. But out of sight out of mind. I'm not convinced people would give money voluntarily day in and day out to help the disadvantaged they don't see. I'm not convinced corporations would continually donate millions without tax breaks.
I think that's true when the suffering is broadcast on the TV day and night. But out of sight out of mind. I'm not convinced people would give money voluntarily day in and day out to help the disadvantaged they don't see. I'm not convinced corporations would continually donate millions without tax breaks.
The point is it is up to all of us. It always has been.
However, when people think that the government will take care of it they are less likely to give. Government tends to cause as much or more problems than they solve.
People are generous when given the opportunity.
As far as corporations go, if it is important to their customers it is important to them. Wal-Mart gave 20 million in cash right away, more than anyone else. They didn't do it for tax breaks. They did it so they would look good to their customers and to convince people to shop there.
Civil society has proven to be a much more powerful force for helping people than government managed re-distribution programs.
__________________
“votes are collared under democracy, not by talking sense but by talking nonsense.” ~H. L. Mencken
I think that's true when the suffering is broadcast on the TV day and night. But out of sight out of mind. I'm not convinced people would give money voluntarily day in and day out to help the disadvantaged they don't see. I'm not convinced corporations would continually donate millions without tax breaks.
Absolutely correct.
On my way to work the other day I was listening to the radio and the host was posing the question of "why can we not be as generous with others that are in need like we are with the ones who were hit by the huricane".
Because, they play it on the news 24-7. If the media gave as much attention to the average joe who has a family of 5, living paycheck to paycheck who lost his job then there would be those who would help out. But, there is nothing exciting about that. The reason the media is constantly focused on NO is because of what happened and I am not refering to the storm. It is because those people were poor and left behind. But, those people were poor a week before the huricane hit. What changed? Did the American people get a conscience suddenly? I don't think so. I think people are willing to help if they are aware of the need as we are in the NO case.
Now, there are those who do give day in and day out. These people are primarily of faith and are doing the work of caring for the poor because they are instructed to do so in scripture and they are trying to live a life obediant to that calling. However, most people regardless of faith would help out if it there was more awareness. However, maybe that awareness would bring a numbness as well.
Just my thoughts
__________________
The greatest lies are told before a marriage, after a hunt and during an election - Count Bismark
If the media gave as much attention to the average joe who has a family of 5, living paycheck to paycheck who lost his job then there would be those who would help out.
Hey I think you're on to something Red! We should start a cable channel for the needy. We can call it "Face The DoNation" or something like that.
Yes - something needs to be done about corporate welfare, which costs more money than the worthy social welfare programs.
Good point Jon, but while we label it "corporate welfare" I challenge you to find one government benefit for corporations that is actually titled welfare.
Subsidies, tax loopholes, price controls, and tariffs are for more expensive (in dollars) to society than government welfare programs and are contrary to a free market. A free market that benefits consumers I might add.
However, welfare programs carry a much higher human cost of dependence, apathy, and unemployment.
__________________
“votes are collared under democracy, not by talking sense but by talking nonsense.” ~H. L. Mencken
Go, especially for those people who are second and third generation welfare receipients. Helping people is one thing, but paying them to stay on welfare is quite another.
If you're going to have it, limit it to a certain period and make job training mandatory so that the people receiving it can eventually help themselves. We keep talking about how the Mexicans are coming into the US to take jobs Americans don't want. Why not let the welfare receipients do this work and then supplement their income until they can get better jobs.
__________________
“So I became a newspaperman. I hated to do it but I couldn’t find honest employment.” —Mark Twain
Question for those who are in a position to hire: If a job applicant has been on welfare (especially for a lenghthy period of time), does that weigh (conscienly or subconscenciely) negatively in your hiring decision?
Location: on the run from johnny law... ain't no trip to cleveland
Posts: 9,352
A$FN: 1,000
Quote:
Originally Posted by Dback Jon
Question for those who are in a position to hire: If a job applicant has been on welfare (especially for a lenghthy period of time), does that weigh (conscienly or subconscenciely) negatively in your hiring decision?
i was a hiring manager at my old job, and the only thing that reflected negatively on a prospective hire to me was how they presented themselves. personally, i think if someone came in and was polite, personally well-kept, respectful etc. and i found out they were on welfare, i think i would think more of them for coming in and making the effort to support themselves.
Location: on the run from johnny law... ain't no trip to cleveland
Posts: 9,352
A$FN: 1,000
Quote:
Originally Posted by nidan
Only in the face of disaster not on an ongoing basis. The fact that a lot here want to end wekfare shows that.
the only real succes in combatting poverty will come from the private sector. government cannot fix that problem. it has to be people helping other people. the perfect example is the katrina disaster. who is it that stepped up to the plate and really helped out? the private companies giving millions, and the average citizens and churches donating and volunteering en masse. people may not be as generous as they need to be when not reminded, but that doesn't mean that welfare is the answer.
Cosmic Defender Champion!
OR 
Linear Mode
