Would it have been better...?

wub1234 · 2018-07-09T22:43:30+00:00

I don't know as much about the welfare system in the US as I do the UK. But if welfare is going to be phased out or seriously reduced then it should happen at all levels of society and economic status, or not at all. So no corporate welfare, no bailing out banks and massive multinational companies, no billions of dollars of aid for Israel. Or if you must do all of those things then surely you can spare a few dollars for vulnerable children, regardless of the context. Otherwise the state is just a tax-collection agency for the super-rich.

Ercole_ · 2018-07-10T00:02:02+00:00

if welfare is going to be phased out or seriously reduced then it should happen at all levels of society and economic status, or not at all. So no corporate welfare, no bailing out banks and massive multinational companies, no billions of dollars of aid for Israel. Or if you must do all of those things then surely you can spare a few dollars for vulnerable children, regardless of the context. Otherwise the state is just a tax-collection agency for the super-rich.

And don't worry. I'm American.

Pope_Lucious · 2018-07-09T23:12:05+00:00

No. As much as it pains me to say it, it’s a better system now. Welfare programs blow up to unsustainable levels and pervert incentives too much.

In regards to child-support, perhaps the most extreme punitive measures (jail time) can be curved back a little.

Workaholico · 2018-07-09T22:54:28+00:00

Check your grammar, I can't understand what you are talking about.

poppy_blu · 2018-07-09T23:05:52+00:00

On one hand:

-Employment rates among never-married mothers increased

-Poverty rates among families with single mothers and overall poverty rates dropped

On the other hand:

-Families living on less than $2 per person a day more than doubled

-The poorest of the poor are faring worse

Welfare reform was successful in forcing many with some employable skills to enter the labor market. It was not successful in helping the very poor, whose biggest issue is they lack any job skills or aren't capable of holding down a job.

That said, I'd like to see stats on how non cash assistance programs have increased. In other words, are we now just subsidizing the working poor in a different but equally expensive and inefficient way?

Was it preferable? To what? you're asking a bunch of MC and UMC people if they think welfare queens were better than struggling moms on minimum wage. Are their children turning out any better? Are their children able to move out of poverty in higher numbers? The answer unfortunately is no.

wtknight · 2018-07-09T23:38:16+00:00

I have no issue with the provision of financial necessities such as food, housing, medical care, inexpensive transportation and an inexpensive telephone service for any individual. Luxuries should never be provided, however, and should be worked for until it gets to the point that automation permanently affects the number of persons who can be a part of the job market.

GayLubeOil · 2018-07-10T01:50:53+00:00

The problem is a result of importing people from traditionaly polyamorus cultures for hard labor and expecting them to integrate into a European way of life.

AutoModerator · 2018-07-09T22:36:41+00:00

Attention!

You can post off topic/jokes/puns as a comment to this Automoderator message.
For "CMV" and "Question for X" Threads: Parent comments that aren't from the target group will be removed, along with their child replies.
If you want to agree with OP instead of challenging their view or if the question is not targeted at you, post it as an answer to this comment.
OP you can choose your own flair according to these guidelines., just press Flair under your post!

Thanks for your cooperation and enjoy the discussion!

I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please contact the moderators of this subreddit if you have any questions or concerns.

Workaholico · 2018-07-10T00:15:20+00:00

I have no Idea on USs history. But I know most of latin americas.

The Latin America has a problem of the populist cycle.

The economy grows, then, populists are put in power to put welfare programs that the government can't pay, then, the economy stops growing or crashes because debt or just regular spending, then, the austere are put into power, then, the economy grows again starting the cycle once again.

If you don't wanna be into this economic treadmill like most of America. Accept austerity and only increase welfare when you are sure the government has how to pay.

Do not let this happens in the US or it will destroy not only mens life, but everyone's, the rest of the world.

Noxin__Nixon · 2018-07-10T03:29:50+00:00

Weird question because it assume that old school AFDC and Clinton's TANF are the only two possible options.

Both are flawed so its weird to set up the question to force a choice between two flawed options.

Eastuss · 2018-07-10T07:10:43+00:00

I'm not sure how it works for the US. Idealistically I think the deal is simple for men: right = responsibilities, no right = no responsibilities. The state should help the single mothers in need, that would ensure that these children's lifestyle wouldn't be too much dependent on the financial success of the father. If the father wants equal rights on the kid, he has equal responsibilities in nurturing him. If he doesn't want the rights on the kid, or if for some reason he isn't allowed any, he shouldn't be involved financially.

I understand this isn't giving good incentive for men to stick around, but this gives men some sort of equal level of choices in face of women's choices. There are details to think about to ensure such thing tho.

All in all the big problem is more that having kids is not an attractive thing nowadays...

cxj · 2018-07-10T07:47:19+00:00

Quite honestly the old way was probably better for me personally as a man who is not rich. I don’t think taxpayers should be forced to subsidize irresponsible parents in any way and don’t agree with the current system either. I think after a generation or so of starved children women would get the message and stop fucking irresponsible dudes or dudes who haven’t agreed to commit or whatever . America has grown too soft for that though, so instead things will continue insustainably until they collapse.

If you’re going to tax someone to feed the low FTOs then tax the rich not me. But of course they always get out of taxes somehow so the middle class is burdened

adrixshadow · 2018-07-10T10:54:18+00:00

Neither.

Women are not entitled to children on other people's money.

wekacuck · 2018-07-10T12:52:38+00:00

I'm not old enough to have an opinion and I have no idea what is being compared here. I was in high school (and far more interested in foreign policy) when Clinton was being called a traitor for working with the republicans in congress.

Mostly I think we lack good, reliable biologic antivirile methods so that men have complete control of their sexuality at a level far beyond keep-it-in-you-pants. IMHO the world becomes a much better place for everyone when pregnancies can only be possible with full consent of both parties.

abaxeron · 2018-07-10T13:00:35+00:00

Not an American, but based on this graph, Not much better.

nomansweb · 2018-07-10T15:55:35+00:00

Yeah. Welfare works more efficiently the less rules there are. The current rules force low income parents apart.

Title	Would it have been better...?
Author	Atlas_B_Shruggin
Upvotes	6
Comments	49
Date	July 9, 2018 10:36 PM UTC (8 years ago)
Subreddit	Posted in /r/PurplePillDebate
Original Link	https://old.reddit.com/r/PurplePillDebate/comments/8xh52m/would_it_have_been_better/
Archive Link	https://theredarchive.com/r/PurplePillDebate/would-it-have-been-better.261598 https://theredarchive.com/post/261598

Comments