Would you be willing to accept temporary mass starvation to get rid of welfare?

Absolutely not and there's always work that needs to be done. If you're on welfare you work for the local government which could also assist with small business labor costs. There should at least be that option.

Even without an automatic job, I like for there to be some generic pot to put money into that is meant to help problematic issues that arrive. Its just like the bridges and road improvement. Its safer but it also makes you feel good about the community you live in.I'll take hearing about and seeing efforts to work on projects that help the community to the alternative of someone being robbed shot, killed, kids becoming homeless,encountering more panhandlers in front of businesses and having to listen to this constant negativity about people who are impoverished any day!
Solving that structural problem should be easy.

One of the reasons I think Christmas is losing its appeal is that there aren't many genuine collective feel good moments generated by this holiday, which is what I think holidays are for. Its also become dangerous because so many people can't afford the gift giving expectations that are set for their family and everyone they know. You hear more about robbery and the war on Christmas than anything that says genuinely says Aww.. Although everyone likes to hear about how impoverished families are going to have a 'nice' Christmas because of donations that were given.. Putting my opinion of this holiday aside: why do some people feel so great about a nice Christmas the poor family has if when the holiday is over they will judge their lives, don't care if they starve or are homeless?

If nothing else people that agree with Republican congressman should think about what Christmas is going to cost and how it will change for them if there is no welfare. What kind of feel good moments are they going to buy if the welfare family they sponsor on Christmas is out on the street because the shelters are too crowded? Then your holiday tv shows you watch mixed in with news about the unimaginable increase in violent and property crime that is going to come.

The more people suffer the more guilt there will be about excessive spending on Christmas. Think about the businesses that survive from Christmas.How will that affect our economy? People don't like to shop at places that have panhandlers in front of them or risk being robbed/ killed

Easy solution.Welfare could be a job and then maybe the country can hang on for a few more years.

 

To me the answer is yes.

 

To insure your family's survival, what would you be willing to do? Or would you just sit back and let them starve to death?

 

This isn't the 30's-40's-50's, and people today are much more greedy, self interested/absorbed, stingy, and just don't care about the world around them accept what is in it for them. Was and is are two completely different animals.

Also let me add that in those days domestic workers were common and acceptable means of taking care of one's basic needs, even for taking care of a few other family members in the process, and most of the payment was done in trade of work for bartering (food, clothing, housing, etc...), that is all but replaced with the legal presidency of paying for labor with cash only, so the government get's their cut (unless of course you are an illegal).

 

There is no need.

Whenever those who are in a tizzy over government assistance for hungry folks - poor kids and elderly conspicuous amongst them - want to end it, they can end it.

All they need to do is follow the Chrisitian injunction to "Feed the Hungry". There would then be no need to fulfill that humanitarian obligation via a state-run communitarian effort.

Until they step up and meet the challenge, they're just bellywhinging.

 

Food is just one necessity of life.

 

True. Christian morality admonishes decent folks to address others:

Feed the hungry
Give drink to the thirsty
Clothe the naked
Shelter the homeless
Visit the sick
Visit those in prison
Bury the dead

When People, of their own personal initiative, achieve those moral goals, there is no need for a government of, by, and for those People to undertake them.

Civilised societies have found that it is preferable to assume the responsibility collectively, and encourage private initiatives as well.


.

 

We don't live in a ethical/principled/honorable society, so it is questionably civilized, and anything but Christian.

 

If you think not, then I submit that these are noble goals to which we should aspire.

 

What is amazing is there are at least five that said Yes.

 

That will never be obtained with the corruption of the two dominating parties in power. You got half the core members of the two party scam, pretending to be Christians, while the other half use the phony Christians as an example as to what is wrong with Christianity. Good luck with that.

 

You find that amazing? I figured there would be more.

 

Some may complain because self-governance is not immune to human imperfections, but throwing up one's hands in despair is a luxury we cannot afford. Ultimately, the People are responsible - and whether humanitarian needs are addressed by private or collective initiatives, adequately or inadequately, flawlessly or beset by human imperfections, they must be addressed.

 

Interesting concept... if the govt doesn't feed folks, they'll starve to death. Didnt happen during the depression, wouldnt happen now.

But congratulations on having so little faith in your fellow Americans.

 

Not everyone answers honestly, so you can probably add a couple more.

 

People on welfare and food stamps is not the problem it is the result (a symptom if you will) of something much more destructive. You 'address' such matters by holding elected officials feet to the grind stone. You hold them accountable, and you stop placing them on pedestals they cannot be knocked from when there is sufficient evidence they are acting against their oath of office. Weaning people off the government will come when the government is placed back in line with logic and common sense. Cronyism capitalism is why there is so many people dependent on the government today, and changing that should be the goal, not hoping a struggling economy and working class can accept more of a burden on their already burdensome existence.

Making the people dependent on the government and then kicking that crutch out from under them isn't an answer, it's the straw that broke the camels back. Hello 3rd world hellhole. Besides government subsidies do more to coddle the rich than they do to boost up the poor, so where is the benefit to the rich/elites to change what is and has been working so well for them?

 

So how many people are you willing to accept as a dependent?

 

Is your ideal treatment of the hungry by society an imaginary notion or is there an extant nation that you can recommend for emulating? I think we have to be practical.

 

Of course I'd steal to support my family - that doesn't mean I can't be mad when I'm the one getting stolen from.

I wouldn't claim to have the high ground - I'd be in the wrong if I stole to support my family. I'd have aggressed against another without cause for retaliation.

That's not the point - this isn't about right and wrong, it's about survival. I have no more control over whether I steal to eat than I do over whether I take another breath. It's the one thing I can be absolutely certain of - I will always choose the alternative I desire. My values usually lead me to choose liberal options, but when it's my life or coercion I have to go with coercion. You're welcome to shoot me dead for that.

 

A panhandler can make the equivalent of $8 an hour, year round, just sitting on a park bench begging for change - and that's tax free money.

 

I'll take care of my family... you take care of yours.

 

You are the one that suggests charity will fill the gap. Where does the charity start? With you? With somebody else? Obviously with others since you are not as giving as you think everybody else should be?

Oh and I take care of my family by the way, please stop the ignorant responses, and explain how charity starts with somebody else, since it isn't your problem.

 

It won't be the Mayor starving, so sounds good!

- - - Updated - - -

Charity starts with the liberals digging into their own pockets for change. If they have their hands in their own pockets, they can't put them in an American's.

 

Fine, when capitalists get their hands out of the commons.

 

Run away little boy, don't come back until you learn what the "commons" is.