The debate "State funded welfare should be a safety net not a life style" was started by
June 3, 2018, 3:00 pm.
67 people are on the agree side of this discussion, while 6 people are on the disagree side.
That might be enough to see the common perception.
It looks like most of the people in this community are on the agreeing side of this statement.
Matthew354 posted 2 arguments, Nemiroff posted 3 arguments, Carter posted 1 argument to the agreers part.
Matthew354, crusader, chickboy1776, MrShine, Simonderp, Nemiroff, Carter, Andji, ruhanika, EliConservative, SMNR, luljeta101, SaffronSHAM3 and 54 visitors agree.
Saam and 5 visitors disagree.
not when they can go to a trucking company and they pay for the training and cdl test
Do you think people en mass are really choosing mold infested, no heat, worst of everything life? or is this the only option they had in light of shit education, 0 community investment, and all around abandonment by the rest of society?
also considering about half of welfare people are employed, but underpaid. and a significant chunk of the rest involve children, elderly, sick and injured, how many is this "many" really referring to?
wouldnt it make more sense to crack down on abuse instead of blindly cutting funding and hurting many of the people who need it? and is our current system actually helping people get back on their feet or is it just subsidizing underpaid workers who have no future, and more importantly, no opportunity?
i must agree that welfare should be ysed to get people back on their feet when they have fallen and are in need of assistance so that they can reach a level in which they are self sufficient. unfortunately many who receive welfare tend to stay on and use it as a main plan rather than a secondary plan. because of this those who are on welfare are less likely to look for ways to become self sufficient.
their level of education doesnt exactly change the fact that they are working and not living "welfare lifestyle".
as to constitutional trivia, I wasnt aware the bill of rights was a complete and exclusive list of all the rights ever! lower education isnt in there, neither is anything about clean drinking water. should we let our country devolve into a 3rd world nation for the sake of ideology?
personal responsibility cannot be seen without environment. that's like telling the hamster if he runs fast enough he'll escape the wheel. if we had an equal starting point, equal opportunity, then the equal outcomes are entirely the persons fault. but that is not the case isnt it?
I agree, equal outcomes is stupid! but why did republicans suddenly stop talking about awww opportunity equality? I think that is vital to a free market society.
but to get back on topic. doesnt the fact that they are mostly working (and the part that isnt must have at least a significant amount of elderly, children, and handicapped), what part of this group is capable but "living the welfare lifestyle"? what % of the welfare population are you even talking about? 1%? that's scapegoating!
1) High School is not exactly free, you can't return for high school education past a certain age.
2) I would say those who take advantage of scholarships are practical and have initiative. Intelligence comes in many forms. Einstein, famously, could not find his way to his house only a few blocks away from where he worked.
3) I see no reason to reward children for being born to veteran parents. Rewarding veterans with education I can see, but their children should earn it on their own merit.
4) Higher education strengthens people's ability to find jobs, so higher education, in fact, prevents welfare dependency, as well as many other social ills. Its growing more necessary, as well, with how technically complex the world is getting. And we'll want our minds in top condition if we don't want to be made obsolete by a technological singularity.... assuming that's found to be probable.
Fine, I will answer your first question directly. I am totally cynical of most welfare recipients of being employed, with almost 50% of all those employed welfare recipients having less than a high school diploma education; despite high school education being free!
And the affordability of college despite the rent? Every responsible and intelligent high school student would take advantage of scholarships the moment they enter their freshman year in high school, to pay for a huge majority of their higher expenses for higher education (community college and higher education should be earned, not entitled to everyone). Those who have parents that have served their country in either as law enforcement or military are those who truly deserve free education or if they served their country themselves, and there is no reason to be giving higher education for everyone for free.
Now the constitutional question for education, where do you read in the Bill of Rights that says every American citizen has a "right to education" when you called the US education "constitutionally pathetic?" You can't find it, higher education should not and will not be a "right" or an entitlement to every living and breathing individual in the United States when high school is already free. For those who are struggling in high school, should have good family values so they wouldn't end up with a majority welfare recipients, so the solution is not more welfare. The answer to poverty lies in policies with more personally responsible parents that plan their child bearing in a timely matter backed with gold jobs, not more welfare.
gee, I'll gladly answer your question, but are you of the "never play defense" type of "debator" cause you totally just dodged my question by asking a different question....
and how exactly are they supposed to pursue this higher education when they are barely affording rent? if only there was free community college...
also, how do you pursue higher education when your lower education was unconstitutionally pathetic?
if you want people off welfare, you have to provide them a path off welfare. not place extra hurdles that make them lose the jobs they have (for a stupid resume writing or some other workshop) and putting policies that deincentivize work like losing the check you depend on the second you get any income. republicans made those policies... why did they make them so counter productive and stupid?
May I ask you how you feel that most welfare recipients are not actually pursuing higher education, wishing they could, and just stay in their low paid job? If they are not pursuing higher education, that tells me most welfare recipients are not motivated enough to have welfare out of their life style.
If only the Republicans werent constantly trying to cut a hole in the safety net.
may I ask how you feel knowing that most welfare recipients are employed? is this a handout to the poor or yet another subsidy to corporations allowing them to underpay Americans?