What degree is welfare fraud?

[David Floyd]

But Floyd, I thought these rights simply existed in nature? Why does a government needed to enforce them?

A government is needed to prevent people from violating the rights of others. You see, not everyone wants to behave morally - that's why we have a murder rate. The point of government is, in part, to prevent and punish murder.

Furthermore, should a government be forced to provide these rights to the people?

Certainly, as I can see no other ultimate purpose for government.

No, it has the option to charge a price, does it not?

Certainly. It can, should, and MUST charge a price for things such as police and medical service, and this price MUST be paid by those who use it.

Otherwise the people would be forcing the government to provide it with a service without compensation. That would be immoral, would it not?

Certainly, and I've never advocated free medical service. That's your position, remember?

[orange]

A government is needed to prevent people from violating the rights of others. You see, not everyone wants to behave morally - that's why we have a murder rate. The point of government is, in part, to prevent and punish murder.

Completely false. You've invented a definition for government. Sure, it'd be ideal if government existed to prevent people from violating the rights of others. But even still, it shouldn't be 'forced' to do so for free. That's a violation of rights in itself.

Certainly, as I can see no other ultimate purpose for government.

But that's a violation of its liberty! Just because it may not be able to serve another purpose doesn't mean it should be forced to serve that purpose.

Certainly. It can, should, and MUST charge a price for things such as police and medical service, and this price MUST be paid by those who use it.

Argument ends here. The government can charge any price it wants for these services. If it is making a profit and decides to use that profit to redistribute to the poor, that's its choice because it's the government's money. We also must define 'those who use it'. Doesn't everyone use law enforcement protection? Doesn't everyone (in theory) use medical services?

Certainly, and I've never advocated free medical service. That's your position, remember?

No, they'd pay for it in higher taxes. Possibly not even higher taxes, if the government simply prioritized better.

[Imran Siddiqui]

But Floyd, I thought these rights simply existed in nature? Why does a government needed to enforce them?

[Zylka]

Originally posted by orange
welfare should exist, but only with strict regulation and a watchful eye. For people to be on welfare, they should be exhausting all other outlets. I despise welfare abuse, because I think it is a sign of laziness and theft.

...and how difficult can it honestly be to recognize and halt obvious cases of abuse? One poster I know from a music site forum, was an able middle aged man without children, responsibility (apparently) or any ailment holding him back from getting a job - and he lived in a major city! Instead he sat on his ass with his girlfriend recieving cheques for MONTHS on end. He even once had the audacity to b*tch about potentially being cut off due to nationwide restructuring, and eventually PUT OFF desirable employment offerings to avoid being disqualified for a full term of benefits

That's my definition of a scumbag taking more than needed. Go figure, the guy labeled himself a "communist" too - who woulldn't want a free cheque in the mail every month when believing that Marxy garbage

Man I'm glad I don't visit that site anymore. At least poly has some decency...

[MRT144]

this is why i support welfare reform. so welfare is a safety net, that people bounce back up from. if you cant hack it after welfare then maybe you should consider moving back in with your parents and getting 2 jobs. or you can live on the street and recieve food stiepens.

[notyoueither]

I have seen the odd bag person myself. I do not understand why, with our system of handouts, these people still need to seek warmth when the temperature hits -20c. But they are still there, and so are those who suck the *** while they could work. Oh, but don't worry, we'll open the undergrounds and let them sleep there when it gets too cold.

I don't think we have perfected Nirvana yet.

[St Leo]

welfare should exist, but only with strict regulation and a watchful eye.

It is already overregulated and overwatchful.

I despise welfare abuse, because I think it is a sign of laziness and theft.

Yes, but chronic welfare abuse is a sign of an insufficient welfare rates.

[Sava]

@ Floyd... "Justice for those who can afford it"

[Felch]

Floyd, you can't deny that the rich benefit more from government than the poor do. Without the security provided by a governing structure, the rich would be robbed of everything they worked so hard to accumulate. Furthermore, the bread and circuses that we provide the desperately poor with are more a tool to prevent them from needing to rob the rich than anything else. I recognize your dispute, but you have to realize that the welfare state exists to profit those who have power.

That's the inherent problem with what Zylka observed. If welfare were truly intended to help the less fortunate he wouldn't have run into the bag lady. I don't know much about the intricacies of welfare, especially not in Canada, but I'm willing to bet that a series of altruistic reform measures could diminish what he saw.

[DinoDoc]

Originally posted by St Leo
It is already overregulated and overwatchful.

So what.

[Jac de Molay]

this is why i support welfare reform. so welfare is a safety net, that people bounce back up from. if you cant hack it after welfare then maybe you should consider moving back in with your parents and getting 2 jobs. or you can live on the street and recieve food stiepens.

The problem is people on welfare live with a host of socioeconomic problems to begin with. You can push people to work, but what about day care? adequate public transportation? adequate health care? Job training?

People here want good jobs for the good things their families deserve, but the kind of quality work that brings that about is few and far between. The idea that people don't want to work is largely a myth.

Most people on welfare don't have the luxury of "moving back in" with someone else when there's mouths to feed and backs to clothe. Here in Michigan, when a follow-up was done concerning how people fared under welfare-to-work reform, an interesting phenomena occured- many enrolled in the program simply disappeared. No one knows what happened to them, where they went, or how they support themselves when the aid was cut off. I have a feeling they're not in a better state of affairs.

[Sava]

Good post DetroitDave

[Lawrence of Arabia]

Government welfare only becomes fraudulent when there is no other alternative (ie. private rretirement funds, private charities, etc.) Taxes are the fee which every citizen is supposed to pay to live in this country. The government can then take those taxes and do what it likes with them, as long as they do not ban private practices. And if you dont like paying taxes, no one is forcing you to live in America. Go live somewhere else, like the Cayman Islands, where there is no income tax.

[orange]

It is already overregulated and overwatchful.

In the states? Not really...

Yes, but chronic welfare abuse is a sign of an insufficient welfare rates.

Or society's failure in general...i think there's a better way to tackle the problems of the Urban Class than handouts through welfare...

[orange]

Taxes are the fee which every citizen is supposed to pay to live in this country. The government can then take those taxes and do what it likes with them, as long as they do not ban private practices.