I'd have to hear both sides of the story between StaceyO and her husband's family. StaceyO claims she hates them, so of course she is going to portray them in the most negative light possible. I'd have to hear their side, discover as many of the facts as I can, before deciding who is in the "wrong." Maybe StaceyO is the one being 100% selfish. Maybe it's her husband's family being 100% selfish. My guess is that there is selfishness on both sides.
I agree with the point of Red's post her. Those who hate welfare are going to portray the welfare system in the most negative light possible... like the sole purpose of the welfare system is to support daily drug-and-alcohol-using black people that don't have jobs and are having children every year... just so they go vote Democrat and form the "base" of the Democrat party. To me, that's a completely ridiculous belief to have. I myself would feel pretty stupid believing such a one-sided view point.
I doubt anyone believes this. There are abuses at all levels of society, but welfare's very nature is having people's needs met either by government, or some other segment of society. While valid conditions exist requiring this in some instances, the very nature of "welfare" goes against the principles of democracy and capitalism. It is more in step with socialism. It also has nothing to do with race. It has to do with poverty. If you believe that somebody is supposed to help you, the majority of the time you will become dependent upon that instead of helping yourself. This principle is not a stretch.
So why bring it up, nobody even mentioned race as a factor. All color of people are currently on welfare.
I know it is a factor, but no one mention it here, except you. Which will turn it into a race discussion, there is nothing wrong with that, but its not the purpose of the thread.
Uhhhh pardon me, Judge Wapner, . . . but anyone who asks you for handouts, takes them, and then calls you selfish is WRONG! What am I missing here?
My intent in starting this thread was wondering what people who used the label "socialistic" were trying to get at when discussing American politics. Like I said, I don't know a lot about the term "socialism," but I usually associated it with stuff like government involvement in industry, like the government running a business that ships mail and packages like UPS and FedEx, or like the government running a passenger train business like they did with AmTrak. Originally, I thought the two terms (socialism vs. welfare) were pretty different, but after researching it, it does turn out that the term "socialism" is interpreted different ways, and that the term "socialism" is applied to economic, social and/or political theories and systems. So far, based on reading this thread, and reading some other articles on the internet, its seems that most who use the term "socialistic" while discussing American politics focus mainly on the fact that they are not happy that the United States is a welfare state (like all major 1st-world Western countries). For example, like TheDude just wrote: "the very nature of 'welfare' goes against the principles of democracy and capitalism." In other words, he is saying that welfare is socialistic (e.g. not in line with solid principles of capitalism and democracy). Other people in this thread have implied similar points. Considering that views on welfare is very much on point when it comes to this threads' topic regarding what the label "socialistic" implies when discussing American politics, any discussion relevant to America as a welfare state is on point here (and like you agreed, race is a factor that influences people's views on welfare).
