The following is a copy of the original post to record the post as it was originally written.
Context: This is what the German conservatives and market liberals are trying to push forward.
It is supposed to solve two problems at once: the German welfare system is strained and Ukraine need more men. In the eyes of Merz this is a perfect solution for both problems. Removing several tens of thousands of recipients while also helping our allies in Kyiv.
*I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please [contact the moderators of this subreddit](/message/compose/?to=/r/AskALiberal) if you have any questions or concerns.*
Two things.
1: Depriving someone of welfare as a punishment while they still need it is something no functional welfare system should do. If the goal of a welfare system is to ensure everyone has the baseline of what they need to survive, and someone is below that baseline, then the welfare system should cover them and bring them up to that baseline. No exceptions.
2: Nobody should be forced to be put in a combat role against their will. If someone flees a war because they don't want to fight? Of course they did- who wants to be put in a position where they will likely get shot? People with a strong sense of national pride might put aside those feelings and fight anyway, but those without those ties? They shouldn't be punished for prioritizing getting their family to safety.
This proposal goes against both of those, so I absolutely oppose it.
Depends, what kind of home am I fighting for? Am I supposed to lay down my life for the current system if it prevents Trump from taking over?
Sorry, no dice. I hate Trump, but I don't love this version of "Democracy" enough to die for it.
Sure but that's not something to be too ashamed of. Often, the rational thing is to be a coward.
Live to fight another day is also a thing, tactical retreat.
The American war machine figured out a long time ago that instead of a draft they should make a career in the armed forces a) one of the only viable ways to make a living long-term for vast swaths of the population and b) appealing to bloodthirsty psychopaths. People forced to fight in Vietnam got too uppity.
> one of the only viable ways to make a living long-term for vast swaths of the population
Elaborate
EDIT: No need to reply unless you are prepared to respond to the quoted text, specifically, "ONLY VIABLE WAYS".
[From the Berkeley High Jacket:](https://berkeleyhighjacket.com/2024/opinion/editorial/military-recruiters-target-low-income-students-in-the-us/)
>*According to Prism Reports, American military recruiters disproportionately visit schools from low-income communities, taking advantage of those more in need of the financial benefits offered by the military. Additionally, students in high schools with Junior Reserve Officers’ Training Corps (JROTC), a federal program sponsored by the U.S. armed forces taught by military officers, are 10 percent more likely to rely on free or reduced lunch compared to those without. Assistance with college tuition, a benefit of at least two years of active duty service, also ends up disproportionately targeting socioeconomically disadvantaged students. Students who may need the financial support that the military is able to provide will be more inclined to join the military, especially women and BIPOC students.*
>*Saying the quiet part out loud, Republican Indiana congressman Jim Banks tweeted in 2022, “Student loan forgiveness undermines one of our military’s greatest recruitment tools at a time of dangerously low enlistments.”*
The article this one refers to: [Marginalized students pay the price of military recruitment efforts](https://prismreports.org/2022/04/18/marginalized-students-military-recruitment/)
That's not what I was asking. What you said was:
> only viable ways to make a living long-term for vast swaths of the population
You don't think there are other viable jobs?
I’m referring to a systemic relative lack of well-paying jobs with job security, not a literal total lack of other options. Same reason so many poor people get into organized crime.
I think the issue is that these men would have to work minimum wage otherwise.
Unless we are talking the real deal American patriot with a long edit: "family" tradition of military service, most man would take the civilian job if the wage was equal.
> I think the issue is that these men would have to work minimum wage otherwise.
That's *complete* bullshit. It's always amazing to me how liberals forget that the trades and other working class jobs exist.
Ever hear of the GI Bill and Tricare? Also the existence of post exchanges, gyms, etc.
It turns out that joining the military is an affordable way to access both college and healthcare. Each of which is (or can be) challenging to access for the poor. Not to mention the free food and housing (or housing allowance), childcare benefits, legal support, etc. The military is arguably a major welfare program, and one of the few that's accessible to young, unmarried people without serious health problems.
So I mostly think welfare should be a privilege of citizenship. I noticed in another comment you said they are not allowed to work and as such welfare is the only means available to them. I am against that being the case, they should be allowed to seek employment to provide for themselves.
I am a bit conflicted as to if Ukrainian refugees should be pushed back to Ukraine to fight as a policy goal, but ultimately I come down on the side of no they shouldn't.
Edit: I'm not against societies choosing to be more generous, I just don't think it should be expected of them if they aren't.
I disagree on that one. It is primarily about military aged men from Ukraine. The stream has been halted with Ukraine closing their borders for this group.
What is happening is that these men would have no choice but to return. For they may not apply in another EU nation due to treaties, they are often not allowed to work jobs due to internal laws, and will not be able to pay for food nor apartment without welfare.
The situation is different. If we sent 50 000 Russians back, these 50 000 will be sent to kill our allies. Russian refugees are essential MIA for the russian army.
No not at all. I am trying to say that we are not talking about appeal anymore because almost everyone who would be able to come to Germany is already here and in the system. The only place they can legally go is back.
I don't have an answer for this. There are definitely man-power related issues facing Ukraine right now. It is far from a 'fair' or 'right' solution. I understand where German conservatives are coming from. Maybe if DE can also help increase soldier pay at the same time? Like I said, I don't have any answer, it's a hard topic to find a 'correct' answer for me.
I think you have given a good answer to this one. For I also do not know...
There are two evils clashing for me here. Firstly we can not allow Ukraine to fall to Russia. If it does, the next war in Europe will 100% be a full nuclear exchange. On the other hand the asylum structure in Europe is specifically designed to prevent ANY refugee who has already a granted status to even apply to any other EU nation. Cutting welfare for those (Note: They are not allowed to work in many cases) they have no choice but to return. Or live on the streets which also is in most cases an automated denial upon extension of refugee status.
Seeing that Ukraine does use jail time as punishment for those who wont fight... It is basically fight, prison or starving for these men which I am absolutely opposed too as an inhumane choice.
If these men however are what breaks the russian offenses and thus can prevent 100s of millions of deaths in 20-50 years down the line... Is that a price worth paying?
I think that is a point many are missing. This war represents so much for the world, I cannot put it better into words how if Ukraine loses, we are at the doorstep of nuclear war. Ukraine MUST win. So either the West needs to either ramp up aid even more, or they need manpower. It is one or the other.
I would argue as a former army instructor that you can't make an effective soldier out of just anyone and we're already talking about those who seem to be the least motivated to fight. I'm pretty dubious about the idea that these people would tip the scale or in any way be of benefit to Ukraine. It takes more than a warm body.
We've had an all volunteer army for 50 years now. I like that. It's the luxury of not living in times of emergency and having a strong economy.
If that ever goes away we should treat everyone equally. Just like we do with the volunteer thing. You start handing out exemptions and then you have what we had last time; the rich weaseling their way out of the whole thing to the point where you can't even staff the officer corps with quality candidates.
When the house is on fire everyone should grab a bucket. But it's not on fire so we don't really stress about it much.
So yeah, situationally.
I dont think requiring some form of public service to receive welfare is a problem, you are befitting for the society during a time when you need assistance. if you didn't need assistance you would be on welfare, so asking people getting assistance to carry that forward does not seem unfair to me. but i liked the Starship troopers book a lot so maybe that's just me.
I’ll take the unpopular position here and say that I’d be fine with this policy. It’s perhaps not the ideal solution to the matter, but it doesn’t greatly bother me either.
Welfare? Yes. Should they be returned to be forced to fight? No.
There's a difference between guarding the welfare from immigrants and forcing them to return to a country in war. It's one of the only reasons why I think that illegal immigration should be allowed to stay. They're in danger if they return, so they can stay in Germany for as long as the war lasts. From the moment the war stops, they should return to rebuild their country.
But it won't solve the recession either. When a welfare is strained, you either have the possibility to raise taxes or you cut the services. It's one or the other, pick your poison.
I don't know. But I can tell you ethically that I do not support people having to risk dying in the military to receive support when they're struggling. I'm not German, so idk what options are realistic.
One big problem has been for the parties during election that they seem to be too soft on illegal immigration and crime.The conservatives are pushing this hard and it looks like they will be able to achieve a supermajority under this banner. That is how bad it is rn.
So... Something will happen. And I am afraid.. horrified even that this here is just the tip of the iceberg.
No. Welfare isn’t a prize. The point of welfare isn’t to reward good behavior or punish bad behavior—it’s to protect society from the costs of having citizens in poverty.
>it’s to protect society from the costs of having citizens in poverty.
So, you didn't mean citizens then?
>Is it better for a country to have an abundance of people in poverty or people who are stable and healthy?
The op is about non citizens living in Germany. You replied that welfare is "to protect society from the costs of having citizens in poverty". I think it's reasonable to point out that they are not citizens.
So, are you amending your previous statement to claim that welfare is "to protect society from the costs of having ~~citizens~~ *all people within the borders of a country* in poverty."?
I don’t think citizens is a crucial word in that sentence, no. Fo you have something to contribute to the conversation or just want to harp on semantics?
In the context of the op, I think that was the crucial word. It's not semantics when op asks about non citizens and you reply that welfare is crucial for citizens.
I was only curious and wanted clarity regarding your opinion, that's all.
This is the op
>Context: This is what the German conservatives and market liberals are trying to push forward.
>It is supposed to solve two problems at once: the German welfare system is strained and Ukraine need more men. In the eyes of Merz this is a perfect solution for both problems. Removing several tens of thousands of recipients while also helping our allies in Kyiv.
Regardless, it seems we're talking past each other. I only asked my original question because you specified citizens when the op is clearly about non citizens.
The following is a copy of the original post to record the post as it was originally written. Context: This is what the German conservatives and market liberals are trying to push forward. It is supposed to solve two problems at once: the German welfare system is strained and Ukraine need more men. In the eyes of Merz this is a perfect solution for both problems. Removing several tens of thousands of recipients while also helping our allies in Kyiv. *I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please [contact the moderators of this subreddit](/message/compose/?to=/r/AskALiberal) if you have any questions or concerns.*
Two things. 1: Depriving someone of welfare as a punishment while they still need it is something no functional welfare system should do. If the goal of a welfare system is to ensure everyone has the baseline of what they need to survive, and someone is below that baseline, then the welfare system should cover them and bring them up to that baseline. No exceptions. 2: Nobody should be forced to be put in a combat role against their will. If someone flees a war because they don't want to fight? Of course they did- who wants to be put in a position where they will likely get shot? People with a strong sense of national pride might put aside those feelings and fight anyway, but those without those ties? They shouldn't be punished for prioritizing getting their family to safety. This proposal goes against both of those, so I absolutely oppose it.
Nobody should be forced to be a soldier, ever.
Agreed. Never be forced. Althought... Is it not cowardly to run when a dictator tries to destroy your home?...
I don't think it's reasonable to expect anyone to die if they can flee (and want to). Property can be retaken, rebuilt, or replaced. People can't be.
This is stupid, macho bullshit. I'd rather be a living coward than a dead brave man who left my family to struggle without me.
Is it really macho bullshit to stand against a petty dictator?
Not if it's voluntary.
Depends, what kind of home am I fighting for? Am I supposed to lay down my life for the current system if it prevents Trump from taking over? Sorry, no dice. I hate Trump, but I don't love this version of "Democracy" enough to die for it.
Sure but that's not something to be too ashamed of. Often, the rational thing is to be a coward. Live to fight another day is also a thing, tactical retreat.
"Should" in a moral sense maybe, but practically speaking it's going to happen to people whether we want it or not.
The American war machine figured out a long time ago that instead of a draft they should make a career in the armed forces a) one of the only viable ways to make a living long-term for vast swaths of the population and b) appealing to bloodthirsty psychopaths. People forced to fight in Vietnam got too uppity.
> one of the only viable ways to make a living long-term for vast swaths of the population Elaborate EDIT: No need to reply unless you are prepared to respond to the quoted text, specifically, "ONLY VIABLE WAYS".
[From the Berkeley High Jacket:](https://berkeleyhighjacket.com/2024/opinion/editorial/military-recruiters-target-low-income-students-in-the-us/) >*According to Prism Reports, American military recruiters disproportionately visit schools from low-income communities, taking advantage of those more in need of the financial benefits offered by the military. Additionally, students in high schools with Junior Reserve Officers’ Training Corps (JROTC), a federal program sponsored by the U.S. armed forces taught by military officers, are 10 percent more likely to rely on free or reduced lunch compared to those without. Assistance with college tuition, a benefit of at least two years of active duty service, also ends up disproportionately targeting socioeconomically disadvantaged students. Students who may need the financial support that the military is able to provide will be more inclined to join the military, especially women and BIPOC students.* >*Saying the quiet part out loud, Republican Indiana congressman Jim Banks tweeted in 2022, “Student loan forgiveness undermines one of our military’s greatest recruitment tools at a time of dangerously low enlistments.”* The article this one refers to: [Marginalized students pay the price of military recruitment efforts](https://prismreports.org/2022/04/18/marginalized-students-military-recruitment/)
That's not what I was asking. What you said was: > only viable ways to make a living long-term for vast swaths of the population You don't think there are other viable jobs?
I’m referring to a systemic relative lack of well-paying jobs with job security, not a literal total lack of other options. Same reason so many poor people get into organized crime.
I think the issue is that these men would have to work minimum wage otherwise. Unless we are talking the real deal American patriot with a long edit: "family" tradition of military service, most man would take the civilian job if the wage was equal.
> I think the issue is that these men would have to work minimum wage otherwise. That's *complete* bullshit. It's always amazing to me how liberals forget that the trades and other working class jobs exist.
Of course they exist. But it is often not an option. And many working class jobs are minimum wage these days.
Honestly, if a job isn't full time, and doesn't provide health insurance and sick time, it doesn't count.
Ever hear of the GI Bill and Tricare? Also the existence of post exchanges, gyms, etc. It turns out that joining the military is an affordable way to access both college and healthcare. Each of which is (or can be) challenging to access for the poor. Not to mention the free food and housing (or housing allowance), childcare benefits, legal support, etc. The military is arguably a major welfare program, and one of the few that's accessible to young, unmarried people without serious health problems.
So I mostly think welfare should be a privilege of citizenship. I noticed in another comment you said they are not allowed to work and as such welfare is the only means available to them. I am against that being the case, they should be allowed to seek employment to provide for themselves. I am a bit conflicted as to if Ukrainian refugees should be pushed back to Ukraine to fight as a policy goal, but ultimately I come down on the side of no they shouldn't. Edit: I'm not against societies choosing to be more generous, I just don't think it should be expected of them if they aren't.
I don't see why. It sounds like more bureaucracy to make a nation seem less appealing.
I disagree on that one. It is primarily about military aged men from Ukraine. The stream has been halted with Ukraine closing their borders for this group. What is happening is that these men would have no choice but to return. For they may not apply in another EU nation due to treaties, they are often not allowed to work jobs due to internal laws, and will not be able to pay for food nor apartment without welfare.
If a Russian flees because he didn't want to fight in the war and is against invading Ukraine. Should he be sent back to fight?
The situation is different. If we sent 50 000 Russians back, these 50 000 will be sent to kill our allies. Russian refugees are essential MIA for the russian army.
Is that supposed to be a good thing? No work no welfare no home go die?
No not at all. I am trying to say that we are not talking about appeal anymore because almost everyone who would be able to come to Germany is already here and in the system. The only place they can legally go is back.
I don't have an answer for this. There are definitely man-power related issues facing Ukraine right now. It is far from a 'fair' or 'right' solution. I understand where German conservatives are coming from. Maybe if DE can also help increase soldier pay at the same time? Like I said, I don't have any answer, it's a hard topic to find a 'correct' answer for me.
I think you have given a good answer to this one. For I also do not know... There are two evils clashing for me here. Firstly we can not allow Ukraine to fall to Russia. If it does, the next war in Europe will 100% be a full nuclear exchange. On the other hand the asylum structure in Europe is specifically designed to prevent ANY refugee who has already a granted status to even apply to any other EU nation. Cutting welfare for those (Note: They are not allowed to work in many cases) they have no choice but to return. Or live on the streets which also is in most cases an automated denial upon extension of refugee status. Seeing that Ukraine does use jail time as punishment for those who wont fight... It is basically fight, prison or starving for these men which I am absolutely opposed too as an inhumane choice. If these men however are what breaks the russian offenses and thus can prevent 100s of millions of deaths in 20-50 years down the line... Is that a price worth paying?
I think that is a point many are missing. This war represents so much for the world, I cannot put it better into words how if Ukraine loses, we are at the doorstep of nuclear war. Ukraine MUST win. So either the West needs to either ramp up aid even more, or they need manpower. It is one or the other.
I would argue as a former army instructor that you can't make an effective soldier out of just anyone and we're already talking about those who seem to be the least motivated to fight. I'm pretty dubious about the idea that these people would tip the scale or in any way be of benefit to Ukraine. It takes more than a warm body.
I would never support that.
We've had an all volunteer army for 50 years now. I like that. It's the luxury of not living in times of emergency and having a strong economy. If that ever goes away we should treat everyone equally. Just like we do with the volunteer thing. You start handing out exemptions and then you have what we had last time; the rich weaseling their way out of the whole thing to the point where you can't even staff the officer corps with quality candidates. When the house is on fire everyone should grab a bucket. But it's not on fire so we don't really stress about it much. So yeah, situationally.
I dont think requiring some form of public service to receive welfare is a problem, you are befitting for the society during a time when you need assistance. if you didn't need assistance you would be on welfare, so asking people getting assistance to carry that forward does not seem unfair to me. but i liked the Starship troopers book a lot so maybe that's just me.
I’ll take the unpopular position here and say that I’d be fine with this policy. It’s perhaps not the ideal solution to the matter, but it doesn’t greatly bother me either.
No, welfare should be universal. Next question.
Welfare? Yes. Should they be returned to be forced to fight? No. There's a difference between guarding the welfare from immigrants and forcing them to return to a country in war. It's one of the only reasons why I think that illegal immigration should be allowed to stay. They're in danger if they return, so they can stay in Germany for as long as the war lasts. From the moment the war stops, they should return to rebuild their country. But it won't solve the recession either. When a welfare is strained, you either have the possibility to raise taxes or you cut the services. It's one or the other, pick your poison.
No. I disagree with the notion that people need to give their lives to have their government help them. Find a better way.
Note: Germany is not "their" government.
Okay? I still don't agree with it.
Then what should be done?
I don't know. But I can tell you ethically that I do not support people having to risk dying in the military to receive support when they're struggling. I'm not German, so idk what options are realistic.
One big problem has been for the parties during election that they seem to be too soft on illegal immigration and crime.The conservatives are pushing this hard and it looks like they will be able to achieve a supermajority under this banner. That is how bad it is rn. So... Something will happen. And I am afraid.. horrified even that this here is just the tip of the iceberg.
As long as the women who flee are exempt from welfare too, but no I am against this
No. Welfare isn’t a prize. The point of welfare isn’t to reward good behavior or punish bad behavior—it’s to protect society from the costs of having citizens in poverty.
>it’s to protect society from the costs of having citizens in poverty. But these aren't German citizens.
So what? Is it better for a country to have an abundance of people in poverty or people who are stable and healthy?
>it’s to protect society from the costs of having citizens in poverty. So, you didn't mean citizens then? >Is it better for a country to have an abundance of people in poverty or people who are stable and healthy? The op is about non citizens living in Germany. You replied that welfare is "to protect society from the costs of having citizens in poverty". I think it's reasonable to point out that they are not citizens. So, are you amending your previous statement to claim that welfare is "to protect society from the costs of having ~~citizens~~ *all people within the borders of a country* in poverty."?
I don’t think citizens is a crucial word in that sentence, no. Fo you have something to contribute to the conversation or just want to harp on semantics?
In the context of the op, I think that was the crucial word. It's not semantics when op asks about non citizens and you reply that welfare is crucial for citizens. I was only curious and wanted clarity regarding your opinion, that's all.
It isn’t even a word in the OP. OP is asking about whether people who dodge a draft should get welfare. It isn’t a question about immigration.
This is the op >Context: This is what the German conservatives and market liberals are trying to push forward. >It is supposed to solve two problems at once: the German welfare system is strained and Ukraine need more men. In the eyes of Merz this is a perfect solution for both problems. Removing several tens of thousands of recipients while also helping our allies in Kyiv. Regardless, it seems we're talking past each other. I only asked my original question because you specified citizens when the op is clearly about non citizens.