Conservatives and the Welfare State

[GenSeneca]

Along with hearing the usual nonsense about how Conservatives want to poison the air and water, kill all the wildlife and cut down all the trees, the Left is also very fond of accusing Conservatives of wanting to throw grandma over the cliff, leave the sick and hungry to die in the streets without food or healthcare, and otherwise abolish the "social safety net" (AKA Welfare State) here in America.

Since there are a lot of people here who identify themselves as Conservatives, I'm curious to know how many of you actually want to abolish the safety net programs and how many of you support them.

For those Conservatives who support the Welfare State, I'd like to know what makes your support of the welfare state morally different, or somehow better, than the Leftists view. I see no moral difference. I find all support for the welfare state to be immoral.

 

[dogtowner]

the safety net is largely a hammock. the true safety nets should be a matter for charity, the false ones need to be referred to correctly.

 

[Gipper]

It does need to be terminated in its entirety. But, sadly this will never happen. The genie is out of the bottle...welfare programs are in such demand (which is exactly what the progressives who designed them wanted) that eliminating is impossible. If only we could curtail their use.

Clinton and the Rs did successfully limit welfare in the 90s, but the Skinny Marxist is trying to overturn what they did....http://abcnews.go.com/blogs/politic...riticized-for-giving-states-more-flexibility/

Social Security needs to be included in welfare programs. It is absurd that workers pay into the system and can draw benefits at 65, when many will live into their 90s. The benefits they receive far outweigh what they contributed. In effect, SS is now a welfare program thanks to the progressive politicians who have expanded its benefits beyond anything even the fascist FDR would have accepted.

 

[Gipper]

I know this is a bit off topic, but it shows how far the D Party has gone left. How could a D governor object to preventing welfare recipients from spending other people's money on frivolous purchases???...yet he did. Much like abortion where the Ds demand the right to baby killing at any time during a women's pregnancy, some also demand welfare without restrictions. And the MSM claims the Tea Party are radicals. CRAZY!!!

But the legislature overrode him...so their is some semblance of sanity in the D party.

Mass. legislators overrules governor to bar welfare from being spent on vices

Massachusetts state legislators have made it harder to spend welfare dollars on goods like alcohol and beauty supplies over the objections of their governor.
The state House and Senate agreed on provisions prohibiting the expenditure of cash benefits, via a credit card-like EBT card that also holds food stamps, or certain items, like tattoos, and at certain establishments, like liquor stores, in late June, but Gov. Deval Patrickobjected and amended the bill. (Click here for House bill.)
“I’ve had to drag our governor kicking and screaming all the way. … He took out all the items we prohibited: guns, jewelry. We also prohibited it at those stores. He took out nail shops,” said Shaunna O'Connell, a House Republican on the Ways and Means Committee who has led calls for, and has been repeatedly frustrated in, reforming the way welfare money is handed out.
His reasoning for reinstating them, she said, was along the lines of: “A woman may need to get her nails done for a job interview.”
But the lawmakers in both chambers overrode the governor, with theSenate voting on Thursday, Ms. O'Connell said.
http://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2012/jul/13/mass-legislators-overrules-governor-bar-welfare-be/​

​

​

 

[TheJPRD]

I voted "No", and I'll explain why. My vote's based on the fact that many Americans have worked their entire lifetimes. During their entire working lives they were FORCED to pay into some of those safety-net programs. Such citizens cannot be denied what little benefits they receive now after a lifetime of contributions!

I didn't have an option when it came to paying Social Security taxes. I paid those taxes out of every paycheck I received for more than 40 years with no breaks. I would have preferred to have invested that money on my own, for I'd have achieved a far greater return than I'll ever get back from SS. However, I wasn't given that choice. IF Federal law is changed to wean Americans off of social-security in a way that considers their individual ss-contribution history, I'd support it.

I didn't have an option when it came to paying Medicare taxes either. I paid Medicare taxes for more than 40 years, starting on the very day the program became effective in 1965. I didn't like doing that either, but again, the government gave me no choice in the matter. I'd support the same kind of changes to Medicare as I expressed about social security.

When it comes to safety-net programs like "Welfare", "Food Stamps", and "Medicaid", I believe that such programs serve a worthwhile purpose IF: They're managed in a way that demands that recipients are deserving of the benefits. By that I mean that every person who's capable of working MUST work or be denied ANY benefits from these programs. Any person demanding the benefits of such programs in his/her old age who'd failed to work earlier in his/her life when able, should also be denied benefits. There are a variety of other safeguards that might well be needed in any reforms, but I think I've expressed my general opinion on the matter. This position may draw flack from very political perspective. I'll do my best to handle the pressure.

 

[Cruella]

I voted no. I believe too, that those who were forced into paying SS and Medicare should get their investment back. Maybe those who retire and can support themselves without the benefits could get tax credits until they were paid back. I also believe that for those who are truly in need with no options should be given a hand up, but with limits. Those that are physically able to work, should work for their welfare money or be in some kind of employment training. Local governments hire a lot of people to do things that welfare people can do. I bet even private companies would train a lot of them and even offer them a job if they were good at it. Another thing that's always bugged me, are the welfare mamas who chose to have a bunch of kids to get the welfare money. There is no reason they couldn't help out at all these "head start" and other schools. I also believe in drug testing welfare people. If your on drugs, off to rehab you go or no money.

I would also limit what they could buy and only allow certain items like they do with the WIC program. Give them a menu/recipe booklet and nutritional guide. When I was raising my kids, I had to be extremely careful with my grocery money, as it was the only "flexible" part of my budget. Believe me, there are a hundred ways to stretch a food budget and still eat right with occasional treats.

 

[dogtowner]

I voted "No", and I'll explain why. My vote's based on the fact that many Americans have worked their entire lifetimes. During their entire working lives they were FORCED to pay into some of those safety-net programs. Such citizens cannot be denied what little benefits they receive now after a lifetime of contributions!

I didn't have an option when it came to paying Social Security taxes. I paid those taxes out of every paycheck I received for more than 40 years with no breaks. I would have preferred to have invested that money on my own, for I'd have achieved a far greater return than I'll ever get back from SS. However, I wasn't given that choice. IF Federal law is changed to wean Americans off of social-security in a way that considers their individual ss-contribution history, I'd support it.

I didn't have an option when it came to paying Medicare taxes either. I paid Medicare taxes for more than 40 years, starting on the very day the program became effective in 1965. I didn't like doing that either, but again, the government gave me no choice in the matter. I'd support the same kind of changes to Medicare as I expressed about social security.

When it comes to safety-net programs like "Welfare", "Food Stamps", and "Medicaid", I believe that such programs serve a worthwhile purpose IF: They're managed in a way that demands that recipients are deserving of the benefits. By that I mean that every person who's capable of working MUST work or be denied ANY benefits from these programs. Any person demanding the benefits of such programs in his/her old age who'd failed to work earlier in his/her life when able, should also be denied benefits. There are a variety of other safeguards that might well be needed in any reforms, but I think I've expressed my general opinion on the matter. This position may draw flack from very political perspective. I'll do my best to handle the pressure.

I voted no. I believe too, that those who were forced into paying SS and Medicare should get their investment back. Maybe those who retire and can support themselves without the benefits could get tax credits until they were paid back. I also believe that for those who are truly in need with no options should be given a hand up, but with limits. Those that are physically able to work, should work for their welfare money or be in some kind of employment training. Local governments hire a lot of people to do things that welfare people can do. I bet even private companies would train a lot of them and even offer them a job if they were good at it. Another thing that's always bugged me, are the welfare mamas who chose to have a bunch of kids to get the welfare money. There is no reason they couldn't help out at all these "head start" and other schools. I also believe in drug testing welfare people. If your on drugs, off to rehab you go or no money.

I would also limit what they could buy and only allow certain items like they do with the WIC program. Give them a menu/recipe booklet and nutritional guide. When I was raising my kids, I had to be extremely careful with my grocery money, as it was the only "flexible" part of my budget. Believe me, there are a hundred ways to stretch a food budget and still eat right with occasional treats.

I do not view SS and Medicare as "safety net" simply because they were purchased (if subsidized).
Welfare is another story.

 

[GenSeneca]

I believe too, that those who were forced into paying SS and Medicare should get their investment back.

During their entire working lives they were FORCED to pay into some of those safety-net programs. Such citizens cannot be denied what little benefits they receive now after a lifetime of contributions!

Thank you both for offering explanations. I support a phase out of the welfare state, it is currently consuming nearly 75% of the entire federal budget and that % gets larger every year. It is unsustainable. A phase out approach attempts to honor promises made to those who were forced to pay into the system while eventually ending the cycle of government mandated contributions to such programs. Ending these programs would CUT the overwhelming majority of federal spending, leaving future generations with a stable, sustainable, federal budget that produces actual surpluses necessary for paying down our massive, and growing, federal debt.

I would ask that both of you at least consider the fact that if these programs are not phased out intentionally, they will, eventually, simply collapse. For more information about the specifics, check out these two videos - they are short, to the point, and very well done.

If you reject such proposals outright, then I will have to ask you... What happens when these programs go completely bankrupt, or bankrupt the entire country ala Greece?

 

[dogtowner]

Thank you both for offering explanations. I support a phase out of the welfare state, it is currently consuming nearly 75% of the entire federal budget and that % gets larger every year. It is unsustainable. A phase out approach attempts to honor promises made to those who were forced to pay into the system while eventually ending the cycle of government mandated contributions to such programs. Ending these programs would CUT the overwhelming majority of federal spending, leaving future generations with a stable, sustainable, federal budget that produces actual surpluses necessary for paying down our massive, and growing, federal debt.

I would ask that both of you at least consider the fact that if these programs are not phased out intentionally, they will, eventually, simply collapse. For more information about the specifics, check out these two videos - they are short, to the point, and very well done.

If you reject such proposals outright, then I will have to ask you... What happens when these programs go completely bankrupt, or bankrupt the entire country ala Greece?

agreed. status quo is not an option.

 

[Cruella]

Well I would like to see the Federal Government get out of the business of supporting social programs period. This should be left up to the states. Phasing out of Medicare and Social Security is a good idea. As much as it's nice to think everyone would be responsible enough to put money away for retirement, it's just not ever going to happen. I suppose there should be some sort of program for those who don't plan ahead. But what?

 

[Gipper]

agreed. status quo is not an option.

Agreed, but the political class will only tinker around the edges of this problem, which ultimately will lead to bankrupting the nation and complete collapse of the welfare state (not necessarily a bad thing).

Even Paul Ryan and the Simpson/Bowles plans do little to control spending and curtailing welfare programs. The politicians do not have the will to fix the problem including Romney.

It has been said that social security and medicare are NOT welfare plans, but in reality they are. Most Americans pay very little into these socialistic programs, but take out exponentially more. This is again, an issue that needs clarity. To say both programs are not welfare, is to fail to accept the truth and that leads to failure in effectively addressing the problems.

 

[TheJPRD]

Some observations:
1. Social Security and Medicare should be phased-out over time so that lifelong contributors aren't impacted. The tricky part of such a phase-out is picking the age at which a 100% "break" occurs. I agree with Gipper that these programs are welfare programs for many persons who receive the benefits. Those of us who paid the highest lifelong amounts into those programs have supported many other persons who paid virtually nothing. My preference is that each individual citizen be free to plan, invest, and manage his/her own retirement and medical-insurance plans with NO government involvement. GenSeneca is correct that these programs will eventually go bankrupt if not phased-out sensibly.

2. I agree with Cruella that IF programs like Medicaid, Food Stamps, Welfare, etc. are continued in some form, the Federal government should have ZERO involvement. The individual States should make decisions on such programs, including a decision not to implement those programs at all. Because fraud can be rampant within these kinds of programs, the administration of the programs would have to be conducted at the lowest level possible to avoid it.

3. There's one concept that I prefer over all others when it comes to the future of Medicaid, welfare, and food stamps. It's not a new concept, it's a very old one. It's called "charity"! To someone who grew up in a culture that demanded "individual responsibility, it's mindboggling that many citizens now DEMAND "charity". Many citizens believe it's their "Right" to be given the hard-earned money of others. They don't "Thank" the givers for that money, and they demand more and more of the same. That cultural mindset MUST be changed! If I'm to give any of my money to others, I'd like to believe that (1) they're worthy of my kindness, and that (2) they'll appreciate it.

4. The biggest obstacle in the path to achieving any of the above is the incompetence of the Federal government itself. Politicians are notoriously terrible planners and executors of projects! If we're to accomplish any reform, the most these politicians should be allowed to do is establish a generally-stated Goal with which Americans agree. They should then get out of the way of those objective individuals who actually understand business, finance, project-management, financial-engineering, and the Constitution. Good Luck with this one!

 

[Gipper]

Some observations:
3. There's one concept that I prefer over all others when it comes to the future of Medicaid, welfare, and food stamps. It's not a new concept, it's a very old one. It's called "charity"! To someone who grew up in a culture that demanded "individual responsibility, it's mindboggling that many citizens now DEMAND "charity". Many citizens believe it's their "Right" to be given the hard-earned money of others. They don't "Thank" the givers for that money, and they demand more and more of the same. That cultural mindset MUST be changed! If I'm to give any of my money to others, I'd like to believe that (1) they're worthy of my kindness, and that (2) they'll appreciate it.

The mindset you speak of seems to be quite prevalent among certain classes of Americans. They believe the system is purposely stacked against them because of their race, gender, class, etc. So, they feel they are entitled to take other's income to support themselves. I believe this belief is somewhat accurate, but these disgruntled people have misplace the blame.

The blame in my view is liberalism. Do not liberals tell minorities they can't get ahead because of racism? Do not liberals tell women they are discriminated against? Do the poor not hear all the time from liberals that they can't improve their circumstances? And yet, it is liberals who prevent the poor and minorities from obtaining an effective education that might improve their situation by supporting the teachers unions and refusing to accept ANY changes or competition to the government schools.

 

[dogtowner]

Agreed, but the political class will only tinker around the edges of this problem, which ultimately will lead to bankrupting the nation and complete collapse of the welfare state (not necessarily a bad thing).

Even Paul Ryan and the Simpson/Bowles plans do little to control spending and curtailing welfare programs. The politicians do not have the will to fix the problem including Romney.

It has been said that social security and medicare are NOT welfare plans, but in reality they are. Most Americans pay very little into these socialistic programs, but take out exponentially more. This is again, an issue that needs clarity. To say both programs are not welfare, is to fail to accept the truth and that leads to failure in effectively addressing the problems.

its true enough that pols have bought votes by a slow easing away from self sufficiency over the years. reason enough to phase them out so as to return to what they were billed to be.

 

[GenSeneca]

So it seems that 100% of the "Conservatives" here agree with the need to eliminate the welfare state (at least at the federal level). In national polls, only 30% of "Conservatives" agree with the abolition of the Welfare State. Most prominent "Conservatives" (Rush, Hannity, Beck et all) consider the welfare state an absolute necessity that merely needs to be reformed and properly managed - they FAIL to even comprehend the immoral nature of the welfare state and that bugs me.