NationStates Jolt Archive

regarding social welfare, welfare state benefits and so on?

If you were really running a country what would you do?

Do you think it's right in some cases and wrong in others?

How does social security/social welfare work in the country you are living in?

Do you think there should be welfare? Or?

Go on type your views :)

Anyone who can't work should get welfare benefits that cover housing, food, medical care, and some spending money. Anyone who is between jobs, but training for a new career or actively looking for work should get paid a living wage. Anyone who can work, but doesn't feel like it can fuckin' starve for all I care.

If you were really running a country what would you do?

Abdicate.

responce in red
regarding social welfare, welfare state benefits and so on?

If you were really running a country what would you do?
Mandatory government service for 4 years then freecollege for everybody (not necessarily military but government service...you can teach inner city kids to read whatever
Do you think it's right in some cases and wrong in others?huh?

How does social security/social welfare work in the country you are living in?
If you want to eat you work if you can't find a job the state will put you to work but no welfare...active seniors could provide daycare for low income singel parents but everybody can contribute.

Do you think there should be welfare? Or?

Go on type your views :)

regarding social welfare, welfare state benefits and so on?

If you were really running a country what would you do?

Do you think it's right in some cases and wrong in others?

How does social security/social welfare work in the country you are living in?

Do you think there should be welfare? Or?

Go on type your views :)

I'd really like to, but I don't wanna hijack another forum with political views regarding things that have been overly discussed. Just posting so people don't think I'm anti-social. :)

For those people who are truly needy, and for some reason or another really can't support themselves, then I'd allow Welfare. However, if I offered education and job help, and they still sat on their lazy arse all day, well then they are on their own.

I can't help you, if you refuse to help yourself.

I'd really like to, but I don't wanna hijack another forum with political views regarding things that have been overly discussed. Just posting so people don't think I'm anti-social. :)

No you are just a twat.......

I mean what WAS the point in posting? Do you reply to EVERY thread in the NS forum, saying that you "don't want to hijack another forum blah blah blahhhhhhh regarding things that have been overly discussed blah blaaaahhhh" Have you not not noticed that many if not MOST threads are repeated and overly discussed??? There are more repeats than Christmas TV, yet you still watch/read and respond!?!

The anti-social bit, wtf? geeezzzz :rolleyes:

*yawwwwwnnn* :)

Idealistically? A libertarian government.
Realistically? I would allow the people to do as they please and use the state to strongly enforce law and order. I would create a political aristocracy and I would head it as the monarch.

regarding social welfare, welfare state benefits and so on?
Complete rubbish.

If you were really running a country what would you do?
Well, the enormity of the mistakes perpetrated by those who preceded me would preclude me being able to solve our problems in one or even two terms--though I doubt I'd ever get re-elected, as my winning a Presidential election would be a miracle of unfathomable proportions to begin with.

Assuming, then, that I had to take power in some sort of coup, we'd see drastic changes. For the most part, there would be no government involvement with the private sector; the frivolous and self-defeating regulations would die quickly, and the Government would immediately set itself to removing it's influence in private life. Basic services could continue to exist through the government so long as people are voluntarily willing to pay for them, since theft is not justified by simply renaming it "tax."

In order for the government to undertake any endeavor not related first and foremost to protecting the freedoms of its citizens, it would have to earn the money to do so under the strength of its own volition, just as it's expected of everyone outside of the Capitol Building. All subsides would end just as quickly and violently as they started, and reality would be quick to determine which businesses were capable of propping themselves up and which ones weren't. Government would be limited to courts, police, and military, with much smaller agencies to govern things like roads and basic infrastructure that would be too costly to do away with. Government funding would come largely from user fees and trade transactions, and its function would naturally be limited by the funds received from such ventures.

Do you think it's right in some cases and wrong in others?
I think it's moral when done with the proper understanding of the value hierachy that led to said welfare support. If someone wants to help the poor because that's what they want to do with their life then by damn they should have the right to proceed down that path and no one has a right to get in their way, provided this person acts in accordace with reality and recognizes the rights of others. If, however, he becomes a looter; someone who demands instead of asks, for another man's support in the matter--if he demands--at gunpoint, compliance with his accepted values, he loses all credibility and morality. He becomes, in essence, a predator of an almost unnatural and wholly frightening variety: a person who preys on the compassion of others to fulfill his own ends.

How does social security/social welfare work in the country you are living in?
It doesn't. At least, it won't be working in 25 years even if it is sort of limping along right now. Self-contradictory ideas have a way of defeating themselves, which is one of the reasons why Capitalism is crushing the welfare state.

Do you think there should be welfare? Or?
Most certainly not, at least as it's presently defined. Welfare is not "Welfare," it is the extortion of values through force and threats. It is moral cannibalism.

regarding social welfare, welfare state benefits and so on?

If you were really running a country what would you do?

Do you think it's right in some cases and wrong in others?

How does social security/social welfare work in the country you are living in?

Do you think there should be welfare? Or?

Go on type your views :)

Just to provide a non-libertarian perspective, as I like Rawls better than Nozic:

I think welfare should exist where it works. Obviously not everyone who doesn't have a job would benefit from welfare, and there are many who do have jobs who would. It's the government's job to keep everything properly maintained and to try to benefit everyone as much and as equally as possible. If that requires some sort of welfare, that is what the government does. If welfare won't work, then it won't be used. I'm thinking of a government a little like the Machines at the end of I-Robot(the book, not the movie).

I'm against pretty much all forms of social welfare. I always thought the phrase, 'good for nothing' was just an expression until I spent a few months working in a welfare office and saw the people that came in there. Healthy people who hadn't worked in years. Guys who had 8 kids with 7 women and didn't pay for any of them. Illegal alien couples that snuck over here, popped out a kid a month or so later, then we had to pay for it, and them, because the child was born in the US and therefore a citizen. What pissed me off the most was at the time, I was working for a temp service and didn't have health coverage, yet I had to help pay, via taxes, for many of these people to get free healthcare... fuck that.

I do support programs that help the elderly. I support programs like unemployment compensation, provided the coverage ends after a few months. There's a difference because those are circumstances that aren't caused by stupidity or irresponsibility.... everyone gets old. Anyone can get laid off. The only types of 'welfare' I'd support are the types which help EVERYBODY equally, not some forced charitable contribution that benefits one group of people at the expense of a smarter and more responsible group of people.

Most of the people on welfare, at least the ones I've seen, put themselves in their own bad situation and they should have to put themselves out of it.

My philosophy, selfish as it may sound to some, is, 'I take care of myself. If I'm short on cash I bust my ass working until I'm not short on cash anymore, even though I'd rather sit at home watching TV. I'm responsible about sex and don't have a bunch of kids that I can't support, even though getting all kinds of poon and not using a condom sounds fun. I don't ask anyone for anything. Why then should I be forced to donate to a charity in the form of welfare? If someone else opts to, that's fine... but if I opt to use my money in other ways then that should be my right.'

Other changes I'd make... I'd legalize a lot of shit. Drugs, prostitution... things like that, but I'd make the punishments harsher for the crimes that are left on the books.

regarding social welfare, welfare state benefits and so on?

If you were really running a country what would you do?

Do you think it's right in some cases and wrong in others?

How does social security/social welfare work in the country you are living in?

Do you think there should be welfare? Or?

Go on type your views :)

Wow! Well the only kind of Social Welfare that would be available in my country would be unemployment. That's it. I don't believe that giving handouts to people is the way to handle the situation. Unemployment would only be for people who were laid off from their job. Anyone who was fired or quit would not be eligible. Benefits would last only 6 mos; no extensions.

I firmly believe in taking care of one's self, and self responsibility. I personally have never used any kind of social service.

There would be no Social Security in my country. Either save it yourself, or work till the day you die. I don't care, it's your choice to choose.

Large Corporations would be required to provide housing, and health insurance to all of it's employees as long as they are working for them. However, there is no pension. Again, either save for later, or work till you die.
When employment stops, so do all benefits. You must find housing of your own, and pay for your own health insurance.

-------
Ay-Way, I agree with you very much. I too have been accused of being selfish before because of these kinds of views. Personally, I don't see it so much as selfish as responsible.

Welfare should be in every country my real country would focus alot on economy structures and their rights would be good too.

I would cut out several government help programs its pathetic how much America is spending who cares if its popular to make all these programs its not smart!!!
I would first of all change social security due to the fact I know a lot of idiots who can't control spending money instead of the government giving you money they instead hold money for you, that you send in when your young and then give it too you in small amounts when you grow old its dumb that your paying money to support a stranger, support yourself you get what you earn
2nd their's a lot of programs that support the elderly that have no money thats stupid a lot of people are getting rewarded for spending a lot and not saving its like were encouraging them to waste their money since those that actually save aren't paid a dime.. hehehe funny enough a Ceo spent all his money which was in the millions and then was supported by the government when he was old thats plain dumb
3rd I would start a nuclear reaction facility in somewhere remote, Nuclear power is one of the best power sources its very clean for the enviroment and it gives out a very healthy source of power (in some cases more healthy then wind mills since wind mills often kill thousands of birds while solar which is the most healthy is often unpredictable but the only reason we don't use it is because were afraid of nuclear meltdowns. I would build huge numbers of these somewhere remote and then make a law that each plant must be checked and inspected once a year and if the company suffers a meltdown they'll get sued to their death (the only way to control greedy people is to put their money in danger). Sigh its pathetic that the only nation that has taken advantage of this is China and they've been able to support the entire nation with a few plants in scattered place
4th I would put strict strict laws of seperation of church and state I don't believe Religion should hold any type of power over the government if you want to teach your kid send them to a religious school
hmm thats about it

I would increase funding to welfare and foster care programs but also add laws so it's harder to get welfare. In order to do this, I would have to raise taxes. The citizens would revolt and overthrow me in a bloody coup. Preferably all within the space of an hour.

As it stands, though, if you're on welfare, you might be able afford rent, but not food. ($518/month, when most bachelor suites in a small town are $425, and in a city are around $600.) If you couch hop, you get enough for maybe a bag of chips a day (something around $150/month, I think.) The screening process has improved lately, though...

In foster care, they have this ridiculous thing where the government budgets more for clothes for you in a month than they do for food. You get $0.75/meal. It's insane! A lot of foster parents end up paying out of their own pockets or faking receipts for clothes and activities just to feed the kid. So ... something needs to be done about that.