Welcome to City-Data.com Forum!
U.S. CitiesCity-Data Forum Index
Go Back   City-Data Forum > General Forums > Great Debates
 [Register]
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
View detailed profile (Advanced) or search
site with Google Custom Search

Search Forums  (Advanced)
Reply Start New Thread
 
Old 02-04-2011, 09:32 PM
 
Location: Murphy, TX
672 posts, read 3,079,070 times
Reputation: 511

Advertisements

I have been wondering jpw rest of society benefit from giving to poor/needy people? I personally don't see any financial gain at all, in fact the givers are losing money (taxes or donations). In fact, it seems helping poor people stabilize, get an educations, etc would create more competition for your own jobs!

There might be some benefit from reduction of crime. But there are other more cost effective ways to reduce crime instead of giving money towards welfare. For example, have harsher punishment to criminals or deport poor people to labor camps.

The main, if not only, reason I see welfare or charity exists is because of emotional needs of the rest of the society. They don't want see or hear about Americans starving on street or dying of hunger. In fact, they don't want people to have forego education just because they don't have money. All these reasons why welfare was create is because of bleeding hearts who couldn't stand to see other suffer.

It seem as if "better off" part of society pursue welfare even though it actually harms them. For the sake of self preservation it would be logical for the well off part of society to end welfare and charity.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message

 
Old 02-05-2011, 01:09 AM
 
Location: Tujunga
421 posts, read 446,604 times
Reputation: 143
Quote:
Originally Posted by unseengundam View Post
I have been wondering jpw rest of society benefit from giving to poor/needy people? I personally don't see any financial gain at all, in fact the givers are losing money (taxes or donations). In fact, it seems helping poor people stabilize, get an educations, etc would create more competition for your own jobs!

There might be some benefit from reduction of crime. But there are other more cost effective ways to reduce crime instead of giving money towards welfare. For example, have harsher punishment to criminals or deport poor people to labor camps.

The main, if not only, reason I see welfare or charity exists is because of emotional needs of the rest of the society. They don't want see or hear about Americans starving on street or dying of hunger. In fact, they don't want people to have forego education just because they don't have money. All these reasons why welfare was create is because of bleeding hearts who couldn't stand to see other suffer.

It seem as if "better off" part of society pursue welfare even though it actually harms them. For the sake of self preservation it would be logical for the well off part of society to end welfare and charity.

A given society has people, who are potential assets. Clearly, as a group/society we wish to gain a profit on each person. Like any business, there are times when one must invest to gain more profits. The way in which we invest is through education, and health-care.

Education increases the earning ability/ability to contribute to the group of a given individual. Once we have invested thousands on an individual's education it makes sense to keep them healthy, so that they can continue to produce, thus health-care makes sense.

In terms of 'benefits' for the unemployed, it just makes no sense to let our investments go to waste with people dieing/getting ill, so we invest to ensure that they are fed/housed when not employed. Clearly we loose money on some investments, but there is a net gain.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 02-05-2011, 07:57 AM
 
Location: Sango, TN
24,869 posts, read 24,289,843 times
Reputation: 8672
Quote:
Originally Posted by unseengundam View Post
I have been wondering jpw rest of society benefit from giving to poor/needy people? I personally don't see any financial gain at all, in fact the givers are losing money (taxes or donations). In fact, it seems helping poor people stabilize, get an educations, etc would create more competition for your own jobs!

There might be some benefit from reduction of crime. But there are other more cost effective ways to reduce crime instead of giving money towards welfare. For example, have harsher punishment to criminals or deport poor people to labor camps.

The main, if not only, reason I see welfare or charity exists is because of emotional needs of the rest of the society. They don't want see or hear about Americans starving on street or dying of hunger. In fact, they don't want people to have forego education just because they don't have money. All these reasons why welfare was create is because of bleeding hearts who couldn't stand to see other suffer.

It seem as if "better off" part of society pursue welfare even though it actually harms them. For the sake of self preservation it would be logical for the well off part of society to end welfare and charity.
You're assumption is wrong.

New Hampshire has about the lowest cost per inmate ratio in the nation. Thats roughly 28000 dollars. They offer little in the way of educational opportunities and other advancement chances they may have, other states spend more.

On average, most states offer less than 400 dollars a week for welfare. Some states maximum weekly payment is more than others. Wisconsin is around 350, and remember thats the MAXIMUM payment. Most folks don't get anywhere near that.

Even if you average government assistance for a family of four at 500 dollars per week, per year, thats still 26,000 dollars for a family of 4 per year.

The cost of welfare, food stamps, and medicaid are considerably lower than jailing anyone, or deporting them. BTW, where would you deport them to? Most folks who are on government assistance are natural US citizens, its not like other countries just allow you to deport your citizens to another country without their consent.

And if you want to see what happens when a very rich country doesn't take care of its poorest citizens, I suggest you google this subject.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/French_Revolution

So the whole premise of your debate is flawed. Its cheaper, easier, and more economic stimulative to every American to pay for welfare, food stamps, and medicaid for the meekest of American citizens. They spend that money on goods and services, which benefits everyone.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 02-05-2011, 09:31 PM
 
Location: El Paso, TX
3,503 posts, read 4,531,680 times
Reputation: 3026
Quote:
Originally Posted by Memphis1979 View Post
So the whole premise of your debate is flawed. Its cheaper, easier, and more economic stimulative to every American to pay for welfare, food stamps, and medicaid for the meekest of American citizens. They spend that money on goods and services, which benefits everyone.
I do not share you conclusion. There are enough historical examples that socialistic programs in the end bankrupt the system, the Soviet Union being an example. Cuba is another and it looks like Venezuela is on its way. There are european countries that their socialist programs are busting at the seems. People want all these great services for everybody. Eventually the taxpayer cannot pay for those programs. At first people love them but as time goes by and the government realizes it is getting to expensive and the taxpayer cannot support them they start to cut corners and now the people do not like and in many instance they revolt because they do not want to give up what they have.

Look at China. Even though they are mostly socialist country they have seen that capitalism where people are starting to depend less on the government the country is now starting to go up in the economic level.

In the long run it is not cheaper and easier as you claim. Now, I am not saying people should not get help. I am saying that the states can decide how to help their poor, not the federal government. The federal government had specific duties delineated in the Constitution but through the years they have gone away from that criteria and become more socialistic. When the central government starts to take over the duties of the states they have created very wasteful bureaucracies. To me it is like having to pay for bandages for everybody when all that may be needed is a band-aid paid at local level, take care.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 02-06-2011, 08:58 AM
 
Location: Sango, TN
24,869 posts, read 24,289,843 times
Reputation: 8672
Quote:
Originally Posted by elamigo View Post
I do not share you conclusion. There are enough historical examples that socialistic programs in the end bankrupt the system, the Soviet Union being an example. Cuba is another and it looks like Venezuela is on its way. There are european countries that their socialist programs are busting at the seems. People want all these great services for everybody. Eventually the taxpayer cannot pay for those programs. At first people love them but as time goes by and the government realizes it is getting to expensive and the taxpayer cannot support them they start to cut corners and now the people do not like and in many instance they revolt because they do not want to give up what they have.

Look at China. Even though they are mostly socialist country they have seen that capitalism where people are starting to depend less on the government the country is now starting to go up in the economic level.

In the long run it is not cheaper and easier as you claim. Now, I am not saying people should not get help. I am saying that the states can decide how to help their poor, not the federal government. The federal government had specific duties delineated in the Constitution but through the years they have gone away from that criteria and become more socialistic. When the central government starts to take over the duties of the states they have created very wasteful bureaucracies. To me it is like having to pay for bandages for everybody when all that may be needed is a band-aid paid at local level, take care.
1. Comparing communist Russia to the United States is silly.

We have far more of a robust economy, we have far more money, and the problem was that in Russia people only worked as hard as they had to. They had no benefit for harder work, or innovation, or anything like that. That is communism, not socialism.

The United States has been socialist since the great depression. Its worked for us just fine. There are times when we extend into areas that aren't needed, like subsidizing low income home loans. But a social safety net to secure that each and every person gets two meals a day, and a leaky roof over their head isn't asking to much in a country as wealthy as ours.

2. Cuba and Venezuela are different also. Cuba suffers because of the United States embargo. The United States buys over 50% of everything produced in the world, no country can benefit long when we stop all trade with them, unless they have vast domestic oil supplies. Venezuela suffers because of their dictator.

3. China grows for different reasons entirely. They have allowed some business owners to operate outside of government control, but they use the people as slaves essentially. Thats why private business is doing so well there, slave labor.

4. The whole idea that each state should choose its own assistance program is asinine. The homeless would simply move to the state with the best options for them, then that would bankrupt that state.

Poverty is a problem that can only be solved by the federal government for that reason. The federal government has to secure domestic tranquility. If people are hungry enough, and poor enough, they will resort to crime to meet their needs. Thats just human nature. So we can either secure them with 26,000 for each family, each year to make sure that they have their immediate needs meet, or we can keep locking people up for 28,000 or more per person.

You decide.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 02-06-2011, 09:47 AM
 
8,652 posts, read 17,182,476 times
Reputation: 4622
This country has always had its poor... But the difference I see now days is that they seem to think that they are owed a free ride. Now they can even get a free cell phone and paid service!

And I notice that there are more food drives and other types of drives on television for the poor..

Baby stuff drives, people if you can't afford to buy the stuff it takes to raise a baby, don't have it!!!! And I'd bet that the tax payer has already paid for the delivery of the kid!!!

School supply drives...

Thanks for allowing myself and others to support you and your children, it's not enough that we support our own without your help!!
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 02-06-2011, 10:40 AM
 
8,231 posts, read 17,253,014 times
Reputation: 3696
I think that personal charity is a wonderful thing- I give in many ways. I am firmly against government charity in the form of taxes and assistance programs. All that does is perpetuate dependence and takes away self reliance. It's sad- I think of it as abuse.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 02-06-2011, 11:45 AM
 
14,304 posts, read 14,099,588 times
Reputation: 45436
Quote:
I think that personal charity is a wonderful thing- I give in many ways. I am firmly against government charity in the form of taxes and assistance programs. All that does is perpetuate dependence and takes away self reliance. It's sad- I think of it as abuse.

There is no question that some have abused government assistance programs. I personally think that we spend too much subsidizing some groups like unwed mothers.

That being said, the concept of assistance from the state is a good concept. Here is what is wrong with private charity:

1. There is no guarantee that anyone will receive assistance. It is totally dependent on giving. No gifts equal no charity. No charity at its extreme may mean starvation, hunger, and acts of pure desperation like robbery to avoid the aforementioned evils.

2. Private charity always results in a disproportionate burden being placed on some while no burden at all is placed on those who choose not to give.

3. Those who believe only in private charity fail to see social implications to poverty that affect everyone. If my neighbor is broke and desperate he may commit crimes that harm the general public. If he cannot pay to fix his leaky roof or heat his home, he and his children may get sick and pass contagious disease to others in the community. Poor children may be unable to attend school if they do not have adequate clothing. By not going to school, they fail to learn and become productive members of society. This affects the overall economy in an area. If you think this sounds theoretical or esoteric than go to Appalachia sometime and compare it with other sections in this country.

4. As inefficient as bureaucracies can be, only government sometimes has the resources to the deal with a problem like widespread poverty. Even the greatest private charity couldn't do the job that the US Government is capable of.

I am the opposite of you. I don't give much privately, but I uncomplainingly pay a very large income tax every year. I know that my taxes help many poor people and I think that by paying that sum honestly every year that I am being charitable.

When it comes to helping the poor, we shouldn't throw the baby out with the bathwater. Anytime, anywhere money is involved some people will find ways to get something they don't deserve. We do need to stop subsidizing some groups endlessly and focus more on things like job training.

Honestly, America isn't some page out of a bad Ayn Rand novel. Its a real country, with real people who are sometimes down on their luck. Short term assistance for people who want to escape poverty should never be controversial whether it comes from the state or individuals.

Last edited by markg91359; 02-06-2011 at 12:23 PM..
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 02-06-2011, 11:47 AM
 
Location: Texas
44,257 posts, read 64,062,141 times
Reputation: 73913
Quote:
Originally Posted by Memphis1979 View Post
The federal government has to secure domestic tranquility. If people are hungry enough, and poor enough, they will resort to crime to meet their needs. Thats just human nature. So we can either secure them with 26,000 for each family, each year to make sure that they have their immediate needs meet, or we can keep locking people up for 28,000 or more per person.

You decide.
This right here is the truth.

The truth is that we have welfare because the poor are holding us hostage with it - either give us the money, or we'll commit crime.

I'd rather pay the extra and throw their asses in jail. It'd leave a better taste in my mouth.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 02-06-2011, 11:50 AM
 
371 posts, read 391,530 times
Reputation: 185
It's an extremely short sighted and poor plan to hand out money to those that make bad decisions which results in them being poor. There are top notch places that have approached the problem differently and got superb results (more on that later).

If a person chooses to drop out of school it is not the responsibility of hard working people to subsidize them.
If a person chooses to have children they can't afford it is not the responsibility of hard working people to subsidize them.

And don't think for a moment that dumping money into these people will result in returns. It is simple to prove. The cost of public education is $11,000/year. So to educate one child $132,000 by the end of highschool. If they earn $40,000/year immediately after highschool they will pay $5,000/year in income tax. After 26 years they will have offset the cost of their education.

Our system is set up so poorly now that giving money away for nothing is a horrible idea. To subsidize the poor decision makers more with more free programs and more money will result in increased cost and lowered productivity.

Also, the assumption that if welfare isn't given 100% of those people will become felons is a poor one. If those people are just felons, they need to be locked up. But I don't think they all are.

Now for an example of how to fix a bad program like welfare. In the wonderful country of Singapore they offered incentives to poor people for having no kids or stopping after having one. If a couple agreed to this they could get interest free loans to buy a home. Yes it still costs the taxpayer some, but it costs less. Now you encourage people to do the right thing, you save the cost of welfare and education.

Another option is to offer $300 cash or $500/year school vouchers for women that are ages 18-25 to use Norplant. Mostly the poorest women would do this, keeping them off welfare and encouraging responsible child bearing. Unfortunately the liberals have repeatedly stopped this from happening.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.

Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.


Reply
Please update this thread with any new information or opinions. This open thread is still read by thousands of people, so we encourage all additional points of view.

Quick Reply
Message:

Over $104,000 in prizes was already given out to active posters on our forum and additional giveaways are planned!

Go Back   City-Data Forum > General Forums > Great Debates
Similar Threads

All times are GMT -6. The time now is 07:15 PM.

© 2005-2024, Advameg, Inc. · Please obey Forum Rules · Terms of Use and Privacy Policy · Bug Bounty

City-Data.com - Contact Us - Archive 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, 11, 12, 13, 14, 15, 16, 17, 18, 19, 20, 21, 22, 23, 24, 25, 26, 27, 28, 29, 30, 31, 32, 33, 34, 35, 36, 37 - Top