Why is the betterment of humanity seen as a bad thing?

[Krigaren]

and you must not have went to school at all if your reading comprehension is that lacks

what part of welfare programs did you not understand

Now now, let's not go pretending that you went to school. If you want to get into it, one of us is a masters degree student, and the other probably only has a GED. I'll let you guess which is which.

You do realize that police, firefighters, public roads, clean water and other public works are, in varying degrees, welfare programs, right? They all promote the welfare of the public, and are all paid for by the government through taxes.

But even still, lets get right down to your definition of what welfare is. They're government assistance programs to provide financial aid to those in need. Are you saying that the government collecting taxes and spending it on roads, clean water, your (lack of) education, clean air, subsidies for electrical grid are all okay since they benefit you, but the government collecting taxes to give to other people who can't afford to eat, or can't afford a place to live isn't okay?

Again let me ask, what kind of monster are you?

[Deleted]

Godamn, what is wrong with you people? The OP is asking why we as a society don't prevent people from living in abject poverty, and youre all attacking the idea of eliminating all private property and spouting some shit about equality of outcomes.

Can you then clarify who this "we" is and how exactly should this goal be accomplished?

The only possibly way to do this now is to take away other peoples stuff by force and redistribute it to the undeserving.

- - - Updated - - -

The idea that most wealth is self created is absurd beyond belief. Most (not all and nobody claimed that) wealth is inherited. Sometimes it is direct in the form of cash and assets, in other cases is more indirect like name recognition (you get a position or a loan or something because you are related or descendant of X), education, or opportunity in general.

And whats the problem with inherited wealth?

Say you got rich because you were hard working and innovative. Since its your money, you can do whatever you want with it including giving it to your children as opposed to strangers.

[Sci Fi Samurai]

Leading question.

Short answer, the betterment of humanity is not seen as a bad thing. Naivety is.

[Bodakane]

and you must not have went to school at all if your reading comprehension is that lacks

what part of welfare programs did you not understand

Ohhhhhhhhh, you mean subsidies, tax credits, PACs and lobbies? Yeah those are bad.

[Total Crica]

I have my own mental issues that might give me a little different insight into peoples actions... but is actual equality and making sure that everyone is cared for really such a terrible thing? It blows my mind that human greed is so deeply ingrained that we would rather watch people starve than ask a billionaire to give their workers higher pay or even just to spend their money at all on improving quality of life.

I understand wanting people to try to help themselves a little, but it seems a common theme that we don't even want them to have the option of asking for help.

some people desire control of others and events - i see no other reason to not pay people who work for you enough to keep them from living in poverty (as long as you have the money to pay them enough, of course)

[saltytoes718]

Another clueless wonder that knows nothing of what it's like to be born in poverty.
I fully despise such ignoramuses that endorse fucking the poor even more, while demonizing them for their (lack of) choices.

I can guarantee that you have never experienced the level of poverty I have and I largely agree with the quoted statement. 7 of us on a janitor's salary who immigrated here from a 3rd world country where people actually die of hunger. We where all provide the same opportunities. My siblings and I have faired differently. Some of us have done alright some others are not so alright, The ones not doing alright I can directly trace their current situations to their personal life choices.

[In Ogres We Trust]

I have my own mental issues that might give me a little different insight into peoples actions... but is actual equality and making sure that everyone is cared for really such a terrible thing? It blows my mind that human greed is so deeply ingrained that we would rather watch people starve than ask a billionaire to give their workers higher pay or even just to spend their money at all on improving quality of life.

I understand wanting people to try to help themselves a little, but it seems a common theme that we don't even want them to have the option of asking for help.

Because it goes against human nature and the natural order.

[Vyxn]

Now now, let's not go pretending that you went to school. If you want to get into it, one of us is a masters degree student, and the other probably only has a GED. I'll let you guess which is which.

You do realize that police, firefighters, public roads, clean water and other public works are, in varying degrees, welfare programs, right? They all promote the welfare of the public, and are all paid for by the government through taxes.

But even still, lets get right down to your definition of what welfare is. They're government assistance programs to provide financial aid to those in need. Are you saying that the government collecting taxes and spending it on roads, clean water, your (lack of) education, clean air, subsidies for electrical grid are all okay since they benefit you, but the government collecting taxes to give to other people who can't afford to eat, or can't afford a place to live isn't okay?

Again let me ask, what kind of monster are you?

so you are one those safe space micro aggression college SJW pseudo intellectuals for which your college pedigree doesn't out way the strength of my argument

lets see what Webster describes Government Welfare as

Simple Definition of welfare

1 : a government program for poor or unemployed people that helps pay for their food, housing, medical costs, etc.

strange don't see police, firefighters, public roads, clean water and other public works any where in that description

ok lets look at what government calls and list as welfare programs

Definition of Welfare – What is included or excluded?
The definition of welfare includes government programs to support low-income Americans. The programs provide a safety net to individuals and families to protect them from poverty. There are 13 programs that provide benefits for basic necessities such as food and housing. Welfare also includes the Medicaid Program with provides health care to low-income Americans. The common element to all the programs is that they are means-tested - in order to qualify for benefits the individuals and families must have income from jobs or self-employment at below a defined level. Income above the means-tested level means the individual or family does not qualify for benefits. The means-tested levels are unique per program (see U.S. Welfare Programs). Also common to the Programs is that they are free to low-income Americans – there is no past contribution or taxes paid that are necessary to qualify. These two elements, means-tested and non-contributory, define the programs as welfare.

Large programs not defined as welfare
The definition of welfare does not include the programs of Social Security, Medicare or Unemployment. These programs are not means-tested - they are available to all Americans regardless of income level. The programs are also contributory in nature. To qualify Americans must have contributed to the programs through the payroll taxes they pay. Because the programs are not means-tested and are contributory, they are not considered to be Welfare Programs. See further discussion of this distinction on the Entitlements Program Page.

Narrow definition of Welfare
U.S. Welfare is sometimes narrowly referred to as the TANF program. TANF is the successor of the AFDC program which was the first Welfare Program instituted in the nation. TANF was created in the Welfare Reform act of 1996 and has been the subject of much analysis and debate ever sense. The program makes up a very small percentage of the welfare landscape today but is often discussed or reported as welfare. An example would be the reporting of welfare caseloads or the recent presidential election issue regarding welfare waivers. For more information on the program and its history see the TANF page.

Further definition of U.S. Welfare Programs – What’s in and What’s Out
SNAP is an example of a Welfare Program – it distributes a voucher for recipients to purchase food. But other governmental programs regarding food such as inspections, agricultural support or research are not included as welfare. These programs have functions other than the support of low-income Americans. Here are some examples of what is defined as welfare and what is not.

Housing vouchers for rent – Included
Public Housing – Included
FHA, Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac – Excluded

“Excess EITC”; cash paid out above taxes owed – Included
Tax credits to lessen income tax paid – Excluded

Pell Grants (college scholarships) – Included
Loans to students – Excluded

Child school lunch program – Included
Child foster care and child support enforcement – Excluded

Phone support for low-income Americans (Lifeline) – Included
Phone support for schools, libraries and rural areas - Excluded

Food Stamps or vouchers – Included
Food inspection, regulation, farm aid – Excluded
http://federalsafetynet.com/welfare-definition.html

dam once again no mention of police, firefighters, public roads, clean water and other public works as being part of welfare

you no I would be utterly embarrassed to admit I had a master degree and be totally humiliated by how easy it was to show you don't have a fucking clue what the hell you are talking about by someone you claim only has a GED

[Revik]

I think people need to get out of the mindset that there can ever be true equality. There can be equality on certain levels but it is impossible to have equality on all levels.

For instance:
If we want to have affirmative action where we force people have a certain racial quota to meet then that infringes on the idea of equal opportunity. People are not treated or evaluated equally therefore equal opportunity cannot be had.

If we want an equal percentage tax or flat tax of 10%. This can be harsh on the poorer individuals because they cannot afford to pay 10%.
Then conversely a richer individual pays many times more than a poor individual but gets back no more than someone who put in many times less into the system.

Sports is the epitome of fair or unfair system depending on your perspective. On one hand people raise through the ranks depending on how good they are and everyone's worth is dependent on how good they are. However these opportunities only exist for the most elite individuals while the rest of the people get nothing.

[Jibjub]

I have my own mental issues that might give me a little different insight into peoples actions... but is actual equality and making sure that everyone is cared for really such a terrible thing? It blows my mind that human greed is so deeply ingrained that we would rather watch people starve than ask a billionaire to give their workers higher pay or even just to spend their money at all on improving quality of life.

I understand wanting people to try to help themselves a little, but it seems a common theme that we don't even want them to have the option of asking for help.

The problem is ... everything is relative. The great majority of the impoverished in the United States, for example, have it WAY better than those in other countries.

And once people have ... the idea of not having changes.

While I agree, everyone should have the very basic human needs, getting that is tricky. And knowing when you've gotten there is tough. Because there will always be poor people.

And here is a cute demonstration of why there will ALWAYS be Haves and Have Nots:

[Sevyvia]

Yes. Few things are more unfair than equality. Inequality is actually more fair that equality... particularly when you're talking about how human beings have historically attempted to establish equality of outcomes. Those with determination and gifts are not permitted to exceed the outcomes of those without those qualities. Of course, the real joke is that (invariably) those who control such attempts/societies set themselves up as above (and therefore unequal to) those they rule.

I don't even need to post myself. Well put.

[Mihalik]

The only possibly way to do this now is to take away other peoples stuff by force and redistribute it to the undeserving.

And whats the problem with inherited wealth?

Say you got rich because you were hard working and innovative. Since its your money, you can do whatever you want with it including giving it to your children as opposed to strangers.

The problem is not with inherited wealth, or wanting to pass that wealth on. It is with the ideological inconsistency.

The post I was replying to implied that most wealth is self created. It isn't. So if wealth in most cases is NOT merit based than bashing the poor for being poor doesn't make sense. Nor does worshiping wealth as a sign of personal accomplishment.

The inheritance tax is a different debate to be had, and while I see both sides of the issue, I'm not completely sure on which side I'm on exactly. But that is not the question I was discussing.

[Goatfish]

The problem is ... everything is relative. The great majority of the impoverished in the United States, for example, have it WAY better than those in other countries.

Relative or not, the value of human life should stay the same. In an ideal situation, we could use plans and projects tested to help the needy in our home country, and use those or similar plans to help other countries as well. We are taught to have pride in our original country instead of to have pride in humanity as a whole.

[PC2]

I have my own mental issues that might give me a little different insight into peoples actions... but is actual equality and making sure that everyone is cared for really such a terrible thing? It blows my mind that human greed is so deeply ingrained that we would rather watch people starve than ask a billionaire to give their workers higher pay or even just to spend their money at all on improving quality of life.

I understand wanting people to try to help themselves a little, but it seems a common theme that we don't even want them to have the option of asking for help.

We already do improve humanity on a daily basis. Things are going good where I'm at, maybe you live in a crappy community?

There are some folks out there that think the government can fix all of their problems, that is never going to happen. The government isn't your daddy.

[Jibjub]

Relative or not, the value of human life should stay the same. In an ideal situation, we could use plans and projects tested to help the needy in our home country, and use those or similar plans to help other countries as well. We are taught to have pride in our original country instead of to have pride in humanity as a whole.

I think the INTENT was less nefarious than that (though you are right ... there is healthy nationalism and unhealthy nationalism and we often see the latter).

I think we are seeing a lot of legacy issues that have been inherited. 1) the way things USED to work was each community took care of their own in that community. It worked pretty well (some communities would be more well off than others but no one -- read: fewer people -- was left in the cold). Now we expect the government to do it. 2) technology and global economies / interdependence has shrunk the world so much that we don't even really acknowledge communities -- which feeds the "it's the government's responsibility" mantra. 3) Now that we are expecting the government to do our charity and take care of our communities, we want our tax dollars going to what is most near and dear / relevant to our lives because, back in the olden days, we expected those other communities to take care of their own and we would take care of ours (in fact, we wouldn't even know the problems of others -- thanks technology!). And 5) cultures were a lot more different and a lot of them were insular. Now, not so much. Cultures are blending into one "ideal" culture ... whether this is good or bad is not as important as the fact that it's happening. Before it was, "in Africa they have little but these small tribes prefer it that way" and now it's "they don't have cell phones and TVs and running water, let's make them more like us" (not too mention expansion, consumerism, and industry polluting a lot of the land).

With all that said ... every one does deserve the basics: clean water (not just for drinking), food, shelter, human contact.

[Nurvus]

There is nothing quite so unfair and contrary to natural justice as forcing equality of outcome by taking away from the deserving to give to the undeserving

Equality is not the same as equality of outcome.
And today's laws actually help the undeserving take away from the deserving.

The real problem in this world has always been and will always be money.
In a world with more than enough resources to give everyone an above average quality of life, money is what makes us what we are today as a society.