Jump to content

Welfare should be elmiinated


Argus

Recommended Posts

I'd be surprised if you had children....they are hardwork and time consuming.

Yep, they are, but we shouldn't be paying parents to take care of their own children. What lunacy. If this hardworking mother of 3 wants government funds to get by, then she should have no problem with drug, alcohol and tobacco testing. As a society, we need to make sure that taxpayer money isn't going to the purchase of illegal drugs, cigarettes and/or beer and alcohol. Because that's not what the money is intended for.

Edited by Shady
Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Replies 288
  • Created
  • Last Reply

Top Posters In This Topic

Yep, they are, but we shouldn't be paying parents to take care of their own children. What lunacy. If this hardworking mother of 3 wants government funds to get by, then she should have no problem with drug, alcohol and tobacco testing. As a society, we need to make sure that taxpayer money isn't going to the purchase of illegal drugs, cigarettes and/or beer and alcohol. Because that's not what the money is intended for.

If you have children then you should be receiving the Child Care benefit, which is a payment by the government to you to help raise your children. I don't suppose you know anyone who is giving that payment back or not deducting the child credit from your income tax?

http://www.cra-arc.gc.ca/bnfts/uccb-puge/menu-eng.html

http://www.rev.gov.on.ca/en/credit/occs/index.html

http://www.cra-arc.gc.ca/bnfts/ncb-eng.html

If those who are receiving benefits from the government (including middle income earners, corporations and farmers) then THEY should also be tested for drugs, alcohol and tobacco, no? It would be a contradiction to suggest that we target one benefactor over another just because you have a certain hate on for poor people...

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I know the person whose freedom is restricted doesn't agree. There is likely a disagreement there, and freedoms need to be balanced.

Freedom Balanced? Not at all. It is like saying that the right to think for yourself should be balanced.

Freedom should always been maximized not balanced. IMO, there are very few valid reasons for restricting freedom. Protecting the chooser from his own choices should not be one.

The government reflects popular morals for better or worse, and keeping them out of value judgments is impossible.

Separation of church and state (IOW, keeping the state from making moral judgements) is one of our tenents. I don't know if it is completely attainable, however to the greatest degree possible it should be implemented.

You can't scientifically prove things like the viability of trade.

Nor should I or anyone have to. Trade exist because individually make those determinations based upon their own perceptions.

A philosophy that espouses maximizing absolute freedom in all things is great for discussion, but it isn't workable.

The philosphy is an ideal. If you agree on the ideal, they you work to implement the ideal as closely as possible. Where it is not workable, there are exceptions created, however they must be significant justification for the deviation from the ideal.

We've debated libertarian ideas here on other threads. The debate, if I remember correctly, ended up in discussions on the costs of building roads, sidewalks and so forth under a libertarian system.

I really don't remember the outcome of the debate. I think there have been a few. In any case, the connection between building roads and one's right to choose for themselves free of the state's moral code is loose. IOW, even if the state choose a system to force funding of infrastructure, it can still let and individual make his own choices.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

If you have children then you should be receiving the Child Care benefit, which is a payment by the government to you to help raise your children. I don't suppose you know anyone who is giving that payment back or not deducting the child credit from your income tax?

If those who are receiving benefits from the government (including middle income earners, corporations and farmers) then THEY should also be tested for drugs, alcohol and tobacco, no? It would be a contradiction to suggest that we target one benefactor over another just because you have a certain hate on for poor people...

No one, ought to be getting a Child Care benefit from government. It is simply yet another form of welfare (as are bailouts, and govt subsidies)

Link to comment
Share on other sites

If you have children then you should be receiving the Child Care benefit, which is a payment by the government to you to help raise your children. I don't suppose you know anyone who is giving that payment back or not deducting the child credit from your income tax?

http://www.cra-arc.gc.ca/bnfts/uccb-puge/menu-eng.html

http://www.rev.gov.on.ca/en/credit/occs/index.html

http://www.cra-arc.gc.ca/bnfts/ncb-eng.html

If those who are receiving benefits from the government (including middle income earners, corporations and farmers) then THEY should also be tested for drugs, alcohol and tobacco, no? It would be a contradiction to suggest that we target one benefactor over another just because you have a certain hate on for poor people...

You're still confusing people who work and earn their own money (money in which the government takes in taxes) with people collecting a welfare check, not working, and not paying income taxes. And no, I don't hate poor people, I just think drug and tabacco testing is an important thing, in ensuring taxpayer money is going to it's proper purpose. I don't see what the problem is with taking a test once in a while in order to recieve money that isn't yours for doing no work, other than maybe raising your own children, in which you're suppose do anyways.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Freedom Balanced? Not at all. It is like saying that the right to think for yourself should be balanced.

Freedom should always been maximized not balanced. IMO, there are very few valid reasons for restricting freedom. Protecting the chooser from his own choices should not be one.

On a basic level, though, freedoms conflict with each other and need to be arbitrated - or worked out outside the legal system.

Separation of church and state (IOW, keeping the state from making moral judgements) is one of our tenents. I don't know if it is completely attainable, however to the greatest degree possible it should be implemented.

Nor should I or anyone have to. Trade exist because individually make those determinations based upon their own perceptions.

The philosphy is an ideal. If you agree on the ideal, they you work to implement the ideal as closely as possible. Where it is not workable, there are exceptions created, however they must be significant justification for the deviation from the ideal.

Emphasizing an ideal is good when you're talking about abstract issues, but government today is more about practical issues: payments, disbursement, planning projects and so forth.

You wouldn't talk about ideals all the time when you were making a sandwich, and although I appreciate the urge to discuss and abstract ideas I think that government/democracy should be doing less of this in general. We should be focusing more on services and management.

I really don't remember the outcome of the debate. I think there have been a few. In any case, the connection between building roads and one's right to choose for themselves free of the state's moral code is loose. IOW, even if the state choose a system to force funding of infrastructure, it can still let and individual make his own choices.

His own choices in what ? How about the environment ?

The outcome of the debate, I believe, was that it stalled around these very questions.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

On a basic level, though, freedoms conflict with each other and need to be arbitrated - or worked out outside the legal system.

Of course. Nothing I've said contridicts that.

Emphasizing an ideal is good when you're talking about abstract issues, but government today is more about practical issues: payments, disbursement, planning projects and so forth.

Practice needs to take guidance from the ideal. The issue we were discussing was a practical one. Should a person be prohibited by law from being able to act in his own best interest. If you look ag the ideal that freedom should be maximized, then it is clear that no such law should be allowed.

You wouldn't talk about ideals all the time when you were making a sandwich, and although I appreciate the urge to discuss and abstract ideas I think that government/democracy should be doing less of this in general. We should be focusing more on services and management.

Sorry, but I disagree. You can't have programs being enacted such as services and managment, without first having a goal. If the goal is a free society then it leads to a decision on which services or managment is required.

The whole point of this thread was that perhaps welfare services are not required.

His own choices in what ? How about the environment ?

His choice to act as he wishes even if it is against his own self interest. If you remember your position was that a individual should be restricted from makeing "bad" decisions.

The individual doesn't own the environment, it is jointly owned by everyone. Actions impacting the environment would also impact other's use of the environment, so it is reason enough to protect the environment while consistent with maximizing freedom.

Michael, your pointing to issue such as the environment or how infrastructure shoudl be built just indicates that the devil is in the details in implementing the philosophy. It doesn't negate the philosophy, nor the premise that each one should be allowed to make their own bad decisions which primarily or only impact themselves.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Actually, if you read it through the Charter of Rights and Freedoms is actually a document of restrictions and limitations, such that we willingly accept in a free and just society. Insofar as the Charter goes, the only real freedom contained within it would be contained in S.25 which prohibits us and the Charter from abrogating or impinging on existing aboriginal rights and freedoms, whatever they may be.....

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Of course. Nothing I've said contridicts that.

Yes, you did, you said:

"Freedom Balanced? Not at all. It is like saying that the right to think for yourself should be balanced. "

Balancing freedom means working out whose freedoms preside over others'.

Practice needs to take guidance from the ideal. The issue we were discussing was a practical one. Should a person be prohibited by law from being able to act in his own best interest. If you look ag the ideal that freedom should be maximized, then it is clear that no such law should be allowed.

The question should be phrased as: should a person ultimately be allowed to decide what their own best interest is ? The answer clearly is: not in all cases.

Sorry, but I disagree. You can't have programs being enacted such as services and managment, without first having a goal. If the goal is a free society then it leads to a decision on which services or managment is required.

"Free society" is not a tangible goal, though. "To build 100 km of road going north from Kingston on highway 3" is a tangible goal. You can achieve a free society by basing your laws on human rights, but we can't even agree with bjre on an idea of 'freedom'.

The whole point of this thread was that perhaps welfare services are not required.

Well, they're not required if you're ok with having the poor broken and dying in the street.

His choice to act as he wishes even if it is against his own self interest. If you remember your position was that a individual should be restricted from makeing "bad" decisions.

The individual doesn't own the environment, it is jointly owned by everyone. Actions impacting the environment would also impact other's use of the environment, so it is reason enough to protect the environment while consistent with maximizing freedom.

Ok, that makes sense to a degree. But how much right do you have to impact the environment ?

Michael, your pointing to issue such as the environment or how infrastructure shoudl be built just indicates that the devil is in the details in implementing the philosophy. It doesn't negate the philosophy, nor the premise that each one should be allowed to make their own bad decisions which primarily or only impact themselves.

Are there any other marked differences between such a society and ours, other than nanny government protecting you from being ripped off by telemarketers, and cocaine dealers ?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

At the very least, welfare recipients should be tested on a regular basis for alcohol, tobacco and drugs.

If you got rid of welfare thousands of people would be out of work. Welfare people do not save - they disperse there little bit of money almost instantly - Tobacco..yes - most are addicted and shove the money via sin tax right back into the system uusally forfeiting food in the process - as for alcohol - once the rent is paid you are lucky to get one single binge - But the sleezy bars do have good buisness a the first of the month...as for drugs - MOST are on drugs that people like you take..or on drugs that are prescribed by doctors who are part of a tacit policy to keep the poor comfortable as they are slowly destroyed - and big pharma make millions from welfare people - I have heard of on particualar person who was prescribed ten times the doze that any human being can tolerate of hill billy herion... YEP those unwashed poor probably contribute to your stock portfolio.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

If you got rid of welfare thousands of people would be out of work. Welfare people do not save - they disperse there little bit of money almost instantly - Tobacco..yes - most are addicted and shove the money via sin tax right back into the system uusally forfeiting food in the process - as for alcohol - once the rent is paid you are lucky to get one single binge - But the sleezy bars do have good buisness a the first of the month...as for drugs - MOST are on drugs that people like you take..or on drugs that are prescribed by doctors who are part of a tacit policy to keep the poor comfortable as they are slowly destroyed - and big pharma make millions from welfare people - I have heard of on particualar person who was prescribed ten times the doze that any human being can tolerate of hill billy herion... YEP those unwashed poor probably contribute to your stock portfolio.

Oh as for the hillbilly herion guy - He died just before he was to go to a settlement conference regarding a few million buck won in a law suit - You know the one - the buggering of the poor boys at Maple Leaf Gardens - The scandal that instigated the suicide barriers on the Bloor Viaduct...Yep - the guys deader than a doornail - I guess a few people inculding the insurance company can rest easy - along with the families of the old bastards that ruined a lot of kids years ago - to turn them into disturbed adults - ON WELFARE.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

YEP those unwashed poor probably contribute to your stock portfolio.

Unfortunately they don't. What they do contribute to, is the government taking more and more of my income to supply services to these people. Not to mention their monthly cheque. And what they also contribute to is the government spending more and more resources it doesn't have, building higher deficits and higher debt. But nice try.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I guess you don't really understand how the tax system works, shady. Taxes don't belong to you and are not part of your income.

Wow, that's about the most ignorant thing I've heard in a long time. I earn money in the private sector, in which government takes a portion in taxes. The money they take comes from me, and is earned by me. The government doesn't earn even one cent that it spends. They are completely funded by the private sector. And to say that government can do with it what it wants is also ignorant. WE are the government. And if a government spends taxpayer money in unpopular ways, they're removed from office. In other words, keep your grimy hands off other people's hard earned money.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Bing! Bing! Bing!

We have a winner! Congratulations to ToadBrother for this:

"that was reformed in the 19th century and beyond, but how it went hand in hand with other reforms like universal emancipation."

I would have also accepted: "Because what was working before was no longer working." Thus invalidating any sentimental valuation to the argument. Thank you ToadBrother, nice job!

So our next question is directed to ToadBrother:

So if the sentimental valuation to the argument is invalidated, what is left to determine the value of the present welfare state and should it be reformed to reflect the current Canadian demographic?

Someone claimed that "what was working before was no longer working". Who could that have been? Obviously what replaced what was working before does not seem to be working if any powers of observation are used.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

"And if a government spends taxpayer money in unpopular ways, they're removed from office."

Then I can presume that since the government(s) is/are still sitting in office, that welfare is a popular way to spend taxpayer money. Is this what you are saying?

Because, if so, I find it kind of neat how you marginalized your own view like this. Well done!

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I don't mean that. How to mobilize a national change in military expenditure on the fly represents a difficult problem, for example. Necessity doesn't make it easier to set up infrastructure, administration shell etc.

Al Qaeda seems to be giving the US and other participants in the Afghanistan struggle a bit of a hard time, don't you think?

Government will always tell you it doesn't spend anything on unnecessary things.

But if people decided that they were concerned with these things, then why wouldn't they have laws in those areas ?

"People" or pressure groups and special interests?

It's alarmist to call it totalitarian while acknowledging that "There must be freedom within boundaries and the boundaries must be set by those who are contained by them."

Whatever you're proposing does sound different from what we have now, but not different enough to call what we have now 'totalitarian'.

Of course, we don't have totalitarianism now but a law determines the application of force. My premise is that the State will grow through the democratic process towards totalitarianism when justice is concerned with the creation of equality and not the equal application of law. Special interests and pressure groups will lobby for favour creating other interests demanding they too have privilege equal to the privilege granted others. Privlege once gained is not easily relinquished. It is easier to attempt to equalize privileges than to abrogate them.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

A mother raising a child on her own does 3 times the work that a lawyer or doctor may do. Child-rearing is a 24 hour a day occupation with no vacation time, or sick time.

You give her credit for everything she does as though that is a unique service to society which deserves compensation from the state. Yet many single mothers work for a living while still raising their children - and pay for everything themselves. If you think a welfare mother works 168 hours a week just how many hours does a working single mom - or father work?

Do all of us who work for a living also get credit for everything single mom's do, such as showering, brushing their teeth, taking out the garbage, watching TV, vacuuming, doing the groceries, etc?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Then I can presume that since the government(s) is/are still sitting in office, that welfare is a popular way to spend taxpayer money. Is this what you are saying?

Yes, I would say at the very least it's an accepted expenditure.

Because, if so, I find it kind of neat how you marginalized your own view like this. Well done!

You're mistaken. My response was a response to the claim that there is no voice on taxation. Which simply isn't true.

Also, just to clear things up, I never said I was against welfare. I was simply stating that perhaps drug and tobacco testing may be a benefit. And that somehow welfare recipients are a great service to the economy and one's stock portfolio, which is complete nonsense. Taking money from someone who earns it, filtering it through an inefficient bureaucracy, that then distributes it back out, isn't good economics and is absurd to suggest so.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

The French Revolution, where the aristocratic classes of Europe saw what happened when a government didn't take care of its subjects. After that, no European government had the least desire to end up under Madame Guillotine and we started to see the advent of Poor Laws, political liberalization and so forth. What's always interesting about the anti-Welfare types is how they're so ignorant of history that they fail to see that it wasn't just how the poor were treated that was reformed in the 19th century and beyond, but how it went hand in hand with other reforms like universal emancipation.

If there's one thing history has taught us it's that popular uprisings do not succeed if the government is truly totolitarian. Only when the government approaches the supression of human rights in a half-hearted way, when they hesitate from violent and oppressive measures, can the people rise up. That is why states like North Korea can exist for an indefinite time, regardless of how the people feel about them. Only outside forces or the work of people of power within the regime can destabilize a ruthless regime. The peasantry can do nothing.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Al Qaeda seems to be giving the US and other participants in the Afghanistan struggle a bit of a hard time, don't you think?

Government will always tell you it doesn't spend anything on unnecessary things.

"People" or pressure groups and special interests?

Of course, we don't have totalitarianism now but a law determines the application of force. My premise is that the State will grow through the democratic process towards totalitarianism when justice is concerned with the creation of equality and not the equal application of law. Special interests and pressure groups will lobby for favour creating other interests demanding they too have privilege equal to the privilege granted others. Privlege once gained is not easily relinquished. It is easier to attempt to equalize privileges than to abrogate them.

Your response amounts to a statement that you don't trust government, and that you believe it will become more totalitarian. That's fine, but how do you frame your argument to persuade people that their lives will get better under libertarianism ?

And how would it be adopted ? You might once have suggested a phased approach, by opting for conservatism and then moving forward from there. But our conservatives seem about as libertarian as the liberals lately.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

"Taking money from someone who earns it, filtering it through an inefficient bureaucracy, that then distributes it back out, isn't good economics and is absurd to suggest so."

So you are against taxation of any kind, including all the general benefits that are derived from taxation?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Yes, you did, you said:

"Freedom Balanced? Not at all. It is like saying that the right to think for yourself should be balanced. "

Balancing freedom means working out whose freedoms preside over others'.

Then perhaps I did not make myself clear or misunderstand what you mean by balancing freedom. I agree that one individual's freedom needs to be balanced when it conflicts with another individual's freedom. It is what I meant when I said that freedom should be maximized. I do not agree that an individual's freedom should be balanced againt other goals unless it is done so voluntarily. For example the goal of increasing overall wealth should not be balanced against individual's freedom.

The situation you originally described where freedom needed to be balanced, was not a clash of freedoms between individuals, it was trading off freedom against some other goal. If I'm incorrect, please tell me what freedoms are being balanced because I don't see it.

The question should be phrased as: should a person ultimately be allowed to decide what their own best interest is ? The answer clearly is: not in all cases.

Why is that a clear answer, because it is not clear to me that that it is correct.

"Free society" is not a tangible goal, though. "To build 100 km of road going north from Kingston on highway 3" is a tangible goal. You can achieve a free society by basing your laws on human rights, but we can't even agree with bjre on an idea of 'freedom'.

Let's start with a tangible goal then. If your tangible goal is to "To build 100 km of road going north from Kingston on highway 3". How did the state arrive at that goal? To arrive at a goal, it must have a purpose beyond simply building for building's sake.

Well, they're not required if you're ok with having the poor broken and dying in the street.

Actually, I'm ok with it. Poor and hungry did all the time, they just happen not to be on Canadian streets. It seems that the Canadian society in general is ok with that happening, they just would prefer not to see it up close. Out of sight, out of mind.

Ok, that makes sense to a degree. But how much right do you have to impact the environment ?

I expect, none, unless it can be negotiated with others who also are custodians of the environment.

Are there any other marked differences between such a society and ours, other than nanny government protecting you from being ripped off by telemarketers, and cocaine dealers ?

I'm sure there are a whole host of differences but I'm not sure this is the thread for that. In short it minimizes the role of government to what is absolutely necessary. Minimizing fraud or misrepresentation is one of the few areas I see a role for govenment.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I guess you don't really understand how the tax system works, shady. Taxes don't belong to you and are not part of your income. They belong to the government before you even get paid, and they can do with them what they want. There is no democracy here that gives you a voice on taxation.

Huh? Why do taxes "belong to the government before you even get paid"? The government forces companies to remit because they have the power to do so. The government seizes taxes because it can, not because it "deserves" it.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.
Note: Your post will require moderator approval before it will be visible.

Guest
Unfortunately, your content contains terms that we do not allow. Please edit your content to remove the highlighted words below.
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.


  • Tell a friend

    Love Repolitics.com - Political Discussion Forums? Tell a friend!
  • Member Statistics

    • Total Members
      10,712
    • Most Online
      1,403

    Newest Member
    nyralucas
    Joined
  • Recent Achievements

    • Jeary earned a badge
      One Month Later
    • Venandi went up a rank
      Apprentice
    • Gaétan earned a badge
      Very Popular
    • Dictatords earned a badge
      First Post
    • babetteteets earned a badge
      One Year In
  • Recently Browsing

    • No registered users viewing this page.
×
×
  • Create New...