I support welfare, assuming there are protections against people living off of welfare.
It should be a social safety net that people want to get out of and not something people try to live in.
Just like homeless shelters.

One protection Indiana has that I think is (or at least should be common) that you are required, in order to continue recieving a unemployment check, to submit a minimum number of applications each week, which you report and verify to the local government office.

(February 21, 2011 at 6:42 pm)TheDarkestOfAngels Wrote: One protection Indiana has that I think is (or at least should be common) that you are required, in order to continue recieving a unemployment check, to submit a minimum number of applications each week, which you report and verify to the local government office.

Yeah ...we have that here to. Plus one is encouraged to work (volunteer) 20hrs per week, also you are reassessed every 12 weeks.

(February 18, 2011 at 8:27 am)Tiberius Wrote: Governments are there to uphold laws, and protect the rights of the people.

Governments are there only as bodies of organized power. Anarchistic governments ruling by sheer influence/money are unlikely to establish any laws, as law is not necessary to keep order (only power and influence). If a government has no power to uphold whatever laws it chooses to create: only idealists (might) follow the laws. A tyrant's government that keeps order by strangling the freedoms of its populace is likely to establish many laws and keep things running according to them by harshly punishing any that do not comply.

Governments are an organization that requires 'power' and 'influence' to function. They are not there to uphold laws and protect the 'rights of the people', regardless of what they may in fact accomplish.

Quote:They are not there to interfere with the economy and give out money to people.

True. Regardless, they can if they want to.

Quote:If there should be any welfare program, it should be run by a private charity, to ensure that the red tape of bureaucracy stays as far out of the picture as possible.

Too many welfare programs waste money and don't close loopholes because they think they have a neverending supply of cash from the government; this attitude isn't prevalent in the private sector.

Because all welfare programs set up by one business (government) will fail whereas other ones work without any loopholes and flaws? If an attitude of the people running a system is the only problem with a system... then it is salvageable by replacing the people in charge or 'fixing' their attitude.

Red tape is in (just about?) every bureaucracy. Seems to me the deeper issue here is morons running a government, which can be cured by improving educating practices (that have their funding cut just about every year if I am to believe the papers)

So far 86% of the poll supports socialism. Socialism has been demonized so much in America, but how can you support welfare and not socialism? Honestly, some very LOUD MOUTHED greedy people have demonized Socialism by equating it with Soviet Communism, or Communism in general. Yes Communism has Socialism stacked onto it, but lets be honest; Communism is almost always authoritarian, where socialism can be and usually is democratic. 86% of you agree that society should help out those in need, but that help should not be given to freeloaders. I agree.

Im not trying to do an "I GOT YA!" type of thing here. No. I am just trying to point out something that should be obvious. A good society takes care of those who are bad off on bad times.

86% support WELFARE. Welfare is a small portion of 'socialism', to equate the two is plain ridiculous.

How can you support welfare and not socialism? EASY, give broke people money when they need it but don't let them stay on it, job test people on welfare, don't let mothers stay out of work receiving it for 7 years after the birth of their child, don't buy assets and companies, don't mandate insurance, don't put up red tape, don't take away a myriad of personal choices, don't make drug laws, don't require lengthy building consent processes, don't interfere with the economy, don't direct public assets, don't tax precious resources, don't remove the bulk of property rights, don't take control of people's finances regarding health and education etc.

Bad off in bad times =/= Lifestyle welfare (which is a fucking social epidemic).

Welfare and the Right are not mutually exclusive by any means, welfare is a part of most right wing systems to the extent that is deemed necessary; Non parasitic welfare is fine, it's when it becomes a massive debt wrenching burden that things need to change, and FAST.

The GOP are generally assholes and idiots (although this applies more to the voters and the media than the actual politicians who on a whole are proportionately more reasonable than the people they represent - Though some of them too are complete assholes - I'm looking at YOU teabaggers), we all know that, they seem to have no fucking clue what 'socialism' even means, The Dems are centre-right at and slightly authoritarian (slightly less right and slightly less authoritarian than the GOP), they barely even qualify as progressive or liberal, let alone 'socialists', it could be because they lack the balls to do it, but I really think they aren't nearly as ideologically liberal as the voting population thinks they are or wants them to be.

Shame about their fiscal recklessness and tendency to mandate mundanity, because inn terms of social liberties they are the better of the two parties.

(February 23, 2011 at 6:26 am)theVOID Wrote: Shame about their fiscal recklessness and tendency to mandate mundanity, because inn terms of social liberties they are the better of the two parties.

Because it's part of socialism and americans have been indoctrinated to demonize any hint of socialism

(February 18, 2011 at 8:27 am)Tiberius Wrote: Governments are there to uphold laws, and protect the rights of the people. They are not there to interfere with the economy and give out money to people. If there should be any welfare program, it should be run by a private charity, to ensure that the red tape of bureaucracy stays as far out of the picture as possible. Too many welfare programs waste money and don't close loopholes because they think they have a neverending supply of cash from the government; this attitude isn't prevalent in the private sector.

Why do you trust the "private sector" so much? The private sector will abuse everything (as government does) if it's to their benefit, as history shows. That's why we regulate the private sector.

The private sector is not a benign force as libertarians make it out to be...

Back on point: I support welfare for those who need it. A proper system should be put into place for it to work though.

(February 23, 2011 at 2:57 pm)Ashendant Wrote:

(February 23, 2011 at 6:26 am)theVOID Wrote: Shame about their fiscal recklessness and tendency to mandate mundanity, because inn terms of social liberties they are the better of the two parties.

Because it's part of socialism and americans have been indoctrinated to demonize any hint of socialism

I have no clue what you've quoted has to do with your response but...

1) It's NOT part of ANY single political ideology, it's ONE state mechanism that can be adopted to various extents across various systems.

2) No, they already fear Communists from way back so the GOP have an easy time equating social policy with socialism.

(February 23, 2011 at 4:34 pm)HeyItsZeus Wrote: Why do you trust the "private sector" so much? The private sector will abuse everything (as government does) if it's to their benefit, as history shows. That's why we regulate the private sector.

The private sector is not a benign force as libertarians make it out to be...

Back on point: I support welfare for those who need it. A proper system should be put into place for it to work though.

Government WASTES RESOURCES, they're the most inefficient spenders you will EVER find. The private sector isn't supposed to be something to help us all out, it's not a fantasy story, it's just the idea that when people are in charge of their own lives there is more capital available for a society to progress, when people can make their own contracts without the myriad of regulations bogging them down services can be provided cheaper, when the government doesn't direct assets (like giving subsidies for houses) and bail out business (which should have failed for being reckless), guarantee investments (which are supposed to be by their very definition a risk) there is less chance of a financial meltdown.

Rather than letting them get their grubby little paws on everything we should have harsher prison sentences to deter people/organisations from using force, fraud, coercion or neglecting their responsibilities.

(February 23, 2011 at 6:26 am)theVOID Wrote: I have no clue what you've quoted has to do with your response but...

1) It's NOT part of ANY single political ideology, it's ONE state mechanism that can be adopted to various extents across various systems.

2) No, they already fear Communists from way back so the GOP have an easy time equating social policy with socialism.

Sorry i just quoted one part because you're post was rather large
We know it's not like that, but "socialist haters" don't think it's like that

Quote:Government WASTES RESOURCES, they're the most inefficient spenders you will EVER find.

The government has a job and they must do it, and it's dependent on the type of regulation, some are absolutly needed[/quote]

(February 23, 2011 at 8:25 pm)theVOID Wrote: Government WASTES RESOURCES, they're the most inefficient spenders you will EVER find. The private sector isn't supposed to be something to help us all out, it's not a fantasy story, it's just the idea that when people are in charge of their own lives there is more capital available for a society to progress, when people can make their own contracts without the myriad of regulations bogging them down services can be provided cheaper, when the government doesn't direct assets (like giving subsidies for houses) and bail out business (which should have failed for being reckless), guarantee investments (which are supposed to be by their very definition a risk) there is less chance of a financial meltdown.

Rather than letting them get their grubby little paws on everything we should have harsher prison sentences to deter people/organisations from using force, fraud, coercion or neglecting their responsibilities.

Right... right. The government wastes resources.
They spend all of our money on private jets and faulty investments and toxic assets in a gambling attempt to turn this democratic nation into a plutocracy. Totally unlike that one guy - Bernie Maydoff or however you spell his name.