Question to the left: How much is enough welfare?

Honest question. I don't want this to turn into a trolling thread.

Welfare never seems to be enough for the left. They always want more.

So what to you is a far system?


Me who does not claim to be on the left?

For joblessness I would provide no money instead:

A Bunk is a government run hostel/ Barracks with clean but communal living arrangements like showers and toilets.
3 basic meals a day that gives the needed nutrients and calories. Food designed for cost effectiveness not taste.
If your on hard drugs you don't get in unless in rehab.
If you steal or commit acts of violence/sexual assault you get kicked out and left to starve, provided the police don't get you first.
Must have contraceptives injections until you leave.

That way no one is homeless or starving. To help with finding work these hostels/Barracks would be given communal computers and phones.

If they want more they need to work.

That would cut the welfare bill as it will provide for those that really need it but wont be viable for a long term living due to the very basic nature.



Disability I would handle separately. If you have a true disability that is confirmed by 3 doctors and you really cant work, well I would give a comfortable payout which can be set by local authorities depended on cost of living in the area.


So what would you set welfare as? And how would you pay for it?

That sounds pretty dystopian.

a reply to: DieGloke


Let's just throw the poor people into camps where we give them just enough to survive. If they don't behave they can starve and die.

No thank you.

Sociopathic?

a reply to: DieGloke

gee, is there barbed wires surrounding your concentra.... or I mean, luxury spas for the unemployed poor??
and what if the disabled can't even afford the one doctor let alone three?
the only doctor I had verifying for me was the one the social security office used to find a reason to refuse claims.

a reply to: DieGloke

Enough so that left can guarantee the recipients vote Dimocrat.

originally posted by: wheresthebody
That sounds pretty dystopian.

There is nothing pretty about it...

originally posted by: wheresthebody
That sounds pretty dystopian.

So what would you think reasonable?

originally posted by: ScepticScot

originally posted by: wheresthebody
That sounds pretty dystopian.

There is nothing pretty about it...

Want pretty get a job.


Otherwise enjoy functional.


So what would you provide?

originally posted by: wheresthebody
That sounds pretty dystopian.

You mean like the current culture of poverty resulting in generations being on welfare and in housing projects created by the liberal welfare state over the past 60 years?

originally posted by: dawnstar
a reply to: DieGloke

gee, is there barbed wires surrounding your concentra.... or I mean, luxury spas for the unemployed poor??
and what if the disabled can't even afford the one doctor let alone three?
the only doctor I had verifying for me was the one the social security office used to find a reason to refuse claims.

No.

People would be free to come and go as they please and given active support to find jobs and leave for better accommodation.

And I forget in the states you have to pay for healthcare.....

a reply to: DieGloke

If you steal or commit acts of violence/sexual assault you get kicked out and left to starve, provided the police don't get you first. 

Why...wouldnt the police be called automatically?

Disability I would handle separately. If you have a true disability that is confirmed by 3 doctors and you really cant work, well I would give a comfortable payout which can be set by local authorities depended on cost of living in the area

Cue the desperate poor figuring out how to best disable themselves for a comfortable payout.

originally posted by: Isurrender73
a reply to: DieGloke


Let's just throw the poor people into camps where we give them just enough to survive. If they don't behave they can starve and die.

No thank you.

Sociopathic?

What is your definition of camp?

I am talking clean, safe but basic accommodation.

You deem soldiers who risk there life's for you fit enough to live in similar conditions so why not the unemployed?


As for behaving.....very simple follow the law. Shelters for the vulnerable should be safe places.

originally posted by: Atsbhct
a reply to: DieGloke

If you steal or commit acts of violence/sexual assault you get kicked out and left to starve, provided the police don't get you first. 

Why...wouldnt the police be called automatically?

Failure of the criminal justice system a whole different thread.

originally posted by: DieGloke

originally posted by: ScepticScot

originally posted by: wheresthebody
That sounds pretty dystopian.

There is nothing pretty about it...

Want pretty get a job.


Otherwise enjoy functional.


So what would you provide?

For a start your proposal seems based round people wanting to be unemployed and there being enough jobs for everyone. A situation that is an anomaly not the norm.

You also seem to see welfare as a drain on society. It actually provides an important economic stabiliser and the development of welfare schemes post w2 is one of the primary reasons that the 2008 recession was just a recession and not the great depression mark 3.

What I would like to see is governments move away from welfare towards a job guarantee scheme instead. If everyone who wants a job can actually get one then the need for welfare as safety net dramatically reduces.

the total value amount of the giveaways should be tied in with the minimum wage... meaning the welfare should never be more than what the lowest worker in the nation has for a 40 hour week. and the mess should then be dropped into the laps of the business sector... they can make the decision of weather they want to increase that minimum wage so their employees and others can have some spending power and fuel their businesses of put up with the consequences of having the spending decreased.
what the op seems to be missing entirely is that most of those receiving benefits ARE working, they just aren't earning enough to match the cost of living.

originally posted by: Edumakated

originally posted by: wheresthebody
That sounds pretty dystopian.

You mean like the current culture of poverty resulting in generations being on welfare and in housing projects created by the liberal welfare state over the past 60 years?

I would find a safe clean hostel where healthy food is provided better than a dirty inner city ghetto where ones diet consists on grease filled fat.....

originally posted by: DieGloke
Honest question. I don't want this to turn into a trolling thread.

Welfare never seems to be enough for the left. They always want more.

So what to you is a far system?


Me who does not claim to be on the left?

For joblessness I would provide no money instead:

A Bunk is a government run hostel/ Barracks with clean but communal living arrangements like showers and toilets.
3 basic meals a day that gives the needed nutrients and calories. Food designed for cost effectiveness not taste.
If your on hard drugs you don't get in unless in rehab.
If you steal or commit acts of violence/sexual assault you get kicked out and left to starve, provided the police don't get you first.
Must have contraceptives injections until you leave.

That way no one is homeless or starving. To help with finding work these hostels/Barracks would be given communal computers and phones.

If they want more they need to work.

That would cut the welfare bill as it will provide for those that really need it but wont be viable for a long term living due to the very basic nature.



Disability I would handle separately. If you have a true disability that is confirmed by 3 doctors and you really cant work, well I would give a comfortable payout which can be set by local authorities depended on cost of living in the area.


So what would you set welfare as? And how would you pay for it?

Welfare should not be administered at the federal level. Any welfare should be done locally at the city level. IDeally by churches and other non-governmental services. The less bureaucrats involved, the more efficient the system will be. In addition, having to ask your local community for help provides way more motivation for getting off the public dole than a faceless bureaucrat. It is also easier to spot the scammers and losers gaming the system.

Most people don't have an issue with helping someone out. However, welfare should not be a way of life.

We also need to change the rules to reward people for getting off the dole and making responsible decisions. For example, instead of paying women for being single, we ought be encouraging marriage.

originally posted by: DieGloke

originally posted by: ScepticScot

originally posted by: wheresthebody
That sounds pretty dystopian.

There is nothing pretty about it...

Want pretty get a job.


Otherwise enjoy functional.


So what would you provide?

Oh I don't know. Maybe some psychological help for those who lack motivation and suffer from depression.

People that don't have these problems to the extreme that causes homelessness have no understanding. These people are a product of a broken society. The individuals are broken by no fault of their own. They were born into this craphole.

And be it genetic, socio economic, education or some other factors society as a whole failed these people. So society should be there to lend them a hand and treat them like brothers and not a burden.

That's what I would advocate if I was in leadership.

originally posted by: dawnstar
the total value amount of the giveaways should be tied in with the minimum wage... meaning the welfare should never be more than what the lowest worker in the nation has for a 40 hour week. and the mess should then be dropped into the laps of the business sector... they can make the decision of weather they want to increase that minimum wage so their employees and others can have some spending power and fuel their businesses of put up with the consequences of having the spending decreased.
what the op seems to be missing entirely is that most of those receiving benefits ARE working, they just aren't earning enough to match the cost of living.

Ok then why should I get a minimum wage job rather than chill on welfare.

I would get paid the same for doing nothing so why work?

originally posted by: dawnstar
the total value amount of the giveaways should be tied in with the minimum wage... meaning the welfare should never be more than what the lowest worker in the nation has for a 40 hour week. and the mess should then be dropped into the laps of the business sector... they can make the decision of weather they want to increase that minimum wage so their employees and others can have some spending power and fuel their businesses of put up with the consequences of having the spending decreased.
what the op seems to be missing entirely is that most of those receiving benefits ARE working, they just aren't earning enough to match the cost of living.

Ok then why should I get a minimum wage job rather than chill on welfare.

I would get paid the same for doing nothing so why work?