The Welfare State

Post by **spot** » Thu May 25, 2006 2:41 am

This House supports the Welfare State.

Three rounds, not switched. Interested parties please indicate on this thread. I'm particularly keen to find a passionate opposition to this, but don't all shout at once.

Raven · Post by **Raven** » Thu May 25, 2006 2:43 am

This house vehemently opposes!

Post by **spot** » Thu May 25, 2006 2:47 am

*grin* it's like dangling maggots on a hook in front of the biggest pike in the pond.

Raven · Post by **Raven** » Thu May 25, 2006 2:55 am

hmph! We'll see.

gmc · Post by **gmc** » Thu May 25, 2006 7:37 am

Now how can anybody argue against the welfare state? I will watch with interest but time constaraints preclude me being one of the debaters.

Give up now Raven you will lose.

Lon · Post by **Lon** » Thu May 25, 2006 7:43 am

Blaah on the Welfare State------It's a great way to curtail the entrepenurial spirit and initiatve, from which all good things come.

Post by **spot** » Thu May 25, 2006 7:54 am

Lon wrote: Blaah on the Welfare State------It's a great way to curtail the entrepenurial spirit and initiatve, from which all good things come.Do I hear you volunteer to oppose the motion, Lon?

Lon · Post by **Lon** » Thu May 25, 2006 8:14 am

spot wrote: Do I hear you volunteer to oppose the motion, Lon?

Yea verily

Lon · Post by **Lon** » Thu May 25, 2006 8:22 am

The Wefare State is simply a Bee Hive, with the Queen Bee representing the State, and all the little worker bees it's citizens. All are provided for equally, all will live, all will die. Not very exciting, but safe.

Raven · Post by **Raven** » Thu May 25, 2006 10:39 am

gmc wrote: Now how can anybody argue against the welfare state? I will watch with interest but time constaraints preclude me being one of the debaters.

Give up now Raven you will lose.
LOL! Everyone is entitled to their opinion of course....but I wouldnt go rushing to the bookies quite yet, if I were you.

Post by **spot** » Thu May 25, 2006 10:47 am

gmc wrote: Now how can anybody argue against the welfare state? I will watch with interest but time constaraints preclude me being one of the debaters.

Give up now Raven you will lose.If you sit back and quietly mull matters over, gmc, you can work out a judging scheme. I don't know if we want one, I doubt whether we do, and if we did I can't think of one that wouldn't be jimmied.

gmc · Post by **gmc** » Fri May 26, 2006 1:42 am

Lon wrote: Blaah on the Welfare State------It's a great way to curtail the entrepenurial spirit and initiatve, from which all good things come.

Bollocks, you just don't grasp the concept.

posted by spot

If you sit back and quietly mull matters over, gmc, you can work out a judging scheme. I don't know if we want one, I doubt whether we do, and if we did I can't think of one that wouldn't be jimmied.

I don't think you should judge in a forum like this, share opinion and educate others to a different world view and maybe change your own. Disagree vehemently without getting personal. Actually cultural differences get in the way-for instance my saying to you you are talking a load of bollocks you would appreciate is a colloquialism meaning I disagree with you vehenmently and not take it as an insult. I remember the reaction the first time I used the word on this forum.

This particular debate would be quite entertaining as the US and UK have very dirrerent views as to what govts should do. It is a given here that one of the main functions of govt is to help people out of poverty and equal opportunuty in terms of access to education and equal treatment and access to health provision. Most would consider it obscene that someone should receive better medical care merely because they are richer than others.

To demonise groups a welfare trash is a subtle way of preventing ordinary people demanding equal treatment and opportunity regardless of the straitened circumstances they find themselves in. Not all poor people are usless wasters just as all rich people don't all contribute to society.

Most americans (sweeping generalisation I know) make the mistake of assumimg that we get such socialist policies foisted upon us rather than being able to accept it is by public demand, what got Maggie finally booted out is that the tories were increasingly seen as uncaring about ordinary people, same with TB, he is ignoring public sentiment at his peril.

I always wonder if it is an indication they (americans) feel powerless against their own govt and don't feel they have the right to demand social welfare programmes. It is not charity if you tell the govt do it or else. To expect people to depend on charity for something govt should take care of is an insult to them and dereliction of responsibility.

Post by **spot** » Fri May 26, 2006 2:39 am

gmc wrote: I don't think you should judge in a forum like thisAh. And I agree entirely. I was reacting to your words "Give up now Raven you will lose", that's all. We did talk about measuring opinion, when we designed the debating structure, and concluded that it wasn't possible. We did put the discussion thread in partly as a replacement.

gmc · Post by **gmc** » Fri May 26, 2006 12:51 pm

spot wrote: Ah. And I agree entirely. I was reacting to your words "Give up now Raven you will lose", that's all. We did talk about measuring opinion, when we designed the debating structure, and concluded that it wasn't possible. We did put the discussion thread in partly as a replacement.

I was being facetious and apart from that hadn't actually read the rules properly so my apologies. (mental note, no heckling of the speakers till they've finished and only in the discussion bit).

Post by **spot** » Fri May 26, 2006 12:56 pm

Do I hear any offer to support this motion? We have two very determined opponents, champing at the bit.

gmc · Post by **gmc** » Fri Jun 02, 2006 5:13 am

I would second the motion but time constraints are such that there might be long gaps from one post to the next so that, while I would happily chip from the floor as it were, I am loath to join in a formal debate.

It would be interesting but there are fundamental differences between the states and europe as to the meaning of "welfare state", in the states it seems to have required a rather pejorative connotation such that anyone on welfare is a member of an underclass in society, the unworthy poor as it were. shiftless layabouts living on the charity of others.

Whereas in the UK forcing someone to be dependant on charity is insulting and degrading, one of the functions of the state is to help people out of poverty by providing the means to do so by educations etc and if needed social housing, generally taking care of the wellbeing of the people so that they don't need charity. So if industries shut down and throw thousands out of work the govt is expected to help by encouraging new industry and providing financial help to those so affected.

All medical care is free at the point of need and on demand (it's not free we pay through our taxes). The idea that anyone would be refused care because they couldn't afford it is appalling as is the idea that those rich enough should be able to get care ahead of the equally ill but poor fellow citizens. simple social justice and equal access to resources in time of need.

http://www2.rgu.ac.uk/publicpolicy/intr ... wstate.htm

The idea of the "welfare state" means different things in different countries.

* An ideal model. The "welfare state" usually refers to an ideal model of provision, where the state accepts responsibility for the provision of comprehensive and universal welfare for its citizens.

* State welfare. Some commentators use it to mean "welfare provided by the state". This is the main use in the USA.

* Social protection. In many "welfare states", social protection is not delivered by the state at all, but by a combination of independent, voluntary and government services. These countries are still usually thought of as "welfare states".

Galbally · Post by **Galbally** » Tue Oct 17, 2006 8:19 am

The best way to judge a society is in how it treats its weakest and poorest members, end of story.

Next question.

gmc · Post by **gmc** » Tue Oct 17, 2006 1:21 pm

Galbally wrote: The best way to judge a society is in how it treats its weakest and poorest members, end of story.

Next question.

Is that you in the picture or George best?

Shouldn't you be holding a pint of Guinness?

CrÃ¨me brÃ»lÃ©e · Tue Oct 17, 2006 4:22 pm

Galbally wrote: The best way to judge a society is in how it treats its weakest and poorest members, end of story.

Next question.

I like that Galbally;)

gmc · Post by **gmc** » Wed Oct 18, 2006 12:38 am

Pinky wrote: I don't think George (may he rest in peace) would be on the cranberry juice somehow mate!

I thought it was a half pint of wine (or should that be a half litre) but didn't like to ask.

Galbally · Post by **Galbally** » Wed Oct 18, 2006 6:00 pm

No, I've decided that I would like to live to see the future, you know, like 2009. So I have cut back on the barrels of vodka.

Saffron · Post by **Saffron** » Wed Oct 18, 2006 7:18 pm

Galbally wrote: The best way to judge a society is in how it treats its weakest and poorest members, end of story.

Next question.
I like that, what you said. Very intelligent and right to the point.

Is England a welfare state?

gmc · Post by **gmc** » Thu Oct 19, 2006 2:10 am

Saffron wrote: I like that, what you said. Very intelligent and right to the point.

Is England a welfare state?

Depends what you mean by a welfare state. The two words carry different connotations depending on which side of the atlantic you are on.

Accountable · Post by **Accountable** » Thu Oct 19, 2006 3:49 am

Galbally wrote: The best way to judge a society is in how it treats its weakest and poorest members, end of story.

Next question.Right. So do we keep them poor and weak if they are capable of developing the skills to be self-reliant, or do we allow them to experience the consequences of their decisions, just as the rest of us experience ours?

gmc · Post by **gmc** » Thu Oct 19, 2006 6:07 am

Accountable wrote: Right. So do we keep them poor and weak if they are capable of developing the skills to be self-reliant, or do we allow them to experience the consequences of their decisions, just as the rest of us experience ours?

Very good question.

I think one big differences beteen the UK & US is that we see one of govt's roles being to help people out of poverty. Provide access to a good education as a right for all rather than a privilege for a few. It's hardly an egalitarian society if some children are deprived of education because they are poor-if you educate them they are morelikely to be abl;e to lift themselves out of poverty. Access to medical services as well, as a right rather than a privilege for a few.

Galbally · Post by **Galbally** » Thu Oct 19, 2006 12:53 pm

Saffron wrote: I like that, what you said. Very intelligent and right to the point.

Is England a welfare state?

Yes, unfortunatly I didn't say it, a fellow who witnessed the French revolution did. But its pretty good as a generalization I think. Also, I don't live in England, but in the Republic of Ireland, but in general I would say England is not a welfare state, its a capitalist country with a free-market economy, but it does have a welfare state within a state, in principal thats a good thing, though there are lots of specific problems with it.

Galbally · Post by **Galbally** » Thu Oct 19, 2006 1:00 pm

Accountable wrote: Right. So do we keep them poor and weak if they are capable of developing the skills to be self-reliant, or do we allow them to experience the consequences of their decisions, just as the rest of us experience ours?

Accountable, we are all utimatley responsible for our actions, whether the law or government says so or not. I come from a quite poor background, but I have managed to educate myself and have been both capable and lucky enough to have had a pretty good life so far, anything that wen't wrong was ultimatley my responsibility to deal with, whether it was bad luck or bad circumstances, or bad decisions on my behalf. I understand your view entirely, and I don't intend to either castigate or romanticize the poor and the weak. But just as much as people cannot succeed without taking responsibility for themselves, we also cannot live as individuals divorced from any reponsibility toward the societies that we are part of and sustain us whether rich or poor, to do so is selfish, arrogant, and ultimately self-defeating.

Accountable · Post by **Accountable** » Thu Oct 19, 2006 4:50 pm

Galbally wrote: Accountable, we are all utimatley responsible for our actions, whether the law or government says so or not. I come from a quite poor background, but I have managed to educate myself and have been both capable and lucky enough to have had a pretty good life so far, anything that wen't wrong was ultimatley my responsibility to deal with, whether it was bad luck or bad circumstances, or bad decisions on my behalf. I understand your view entirely, and I don't intend to either castigate or romanticize the poor and the weak. But just as much as people cannot succeed without taking responsibility for themselves, we also cannot live as individuals divorced from any reponsibility toward the societies that we are part of and sustain us whether rich or poor, to do so is selfish, arrogant, and ultimately self-defeating.We've apparently followed similar paths. I truly believe in helping people. How I define help, however, seems to be radically different from the commonly accepted form. I don't believe never-ending unconditional handouts are helpful to anyone. The vast majority in the US that meet the criteria to qualify as 'poor' are miles from poverty. Yet there they sit in unemployed splendor, sucking off the gov't teat.

Galbally · Post by **Galbally** » Fri Oct 20, 2006 7:01 am

Accountable wrote: We've apparently followed similar paths. I truly believe in helping people. How I define help, however, seems to be radically different from the commonly accepted form. I don't believe never-ending unconditional handouts are helpful to anyone. The vast majority in the US that meet the criteria to qualify as 'poor' are miles from poverty. Yet there they sit in unemployed splendor, sucking off the gov't teat.

I suppose what exactly is the most effective and equitable way of dealing with poverty and giving people the means and attitude to overcome it is the real deabte, and thats what all the arguing is about. I guess its a whole range of things, but certainly I generally agree with you that a welfare state that simply creates perpetual depenency on government handouts is not good either for the well off or the poor. Its a discussion thats going to run and run for a long time I suspect. As the old saying goes, "the poor, always with us".