Dismantle all welfare programs.

[Sarah G]

Oh? So you know how much I give to charity? You know my causes and those I help with financial assistance or personal effort? How much to YOU fork out of your own pocket above and beyond what you pay in taxes? You go down and serve in shelters or soup kitchens much for free? (yes, I'm saying unpaid volunteers. An alien concept for many libs.)

I doubt highly you understand the concept of tough love either, and all too many who are enabled by the entitlement culture need to experience a whole shitload of that to get their lazy asses back into being a productive member of society and not a parasite dragging others down.

As for disassembling welfare, we won't have to. When there is no money left, the deadbeats on it will be last in line for assistance if there is any to get cause you liberal fucks have wasted all the money on do nothings dependents for generations. Nobody will be paid anything cause everyone wants to get pulled in the wagon. Learn some economic realities instead of getting stoned on hoaxy changey bullshit.

And stop pm'ing me, nobody gives a shit what you have to say here or anywhere else.

I didn't pm you. I neg repped you with a comment.

I wouldn't waste my time in sidebar with you. Not only that I was public about it. You libeled me and my charitable efforts, and then have been nothing than a turd chucking troll. You earned it. But if you can't hack the conversation, seek life elsewhere. This is not conducive to your quality of living and you've added nothing but fertilizer.

You're the one who couldn't hack the conversation, you tried to end it with your snotty pm. Are you about done now? I'm kind of bored with your nonsense.

 

[Big Fitz]

And stop pm'ing me, nobody gives a shit what you have to say here or anywhere else.

I didn't pm you. I neg repped you with a comment.

I wouldn't waste my time in sidebar with you. Not only that I was public about it. You libeled me and my charitable efforts, and then have been nothing than a turd chucking troll. You earned it. But if you can't hack the conversation, seek life elsewhere. This is not conducive to your quality of living and you've added nothing but fertilizer.

You're the one who couldn't hack the conversation, you tried to end it with your snotty pm. Are you about done now? I'm kind of bored with your nonsense.

Don't let the door hit ya, where the Lord split ya. You can even shout a foul epithet as you leave to have the last word... as long as you leave.

 

[Sarah G]

I didn't pm you. I neg repped you with a comment.

I wouldn't waste my time in sidebar with you. Not only that I was public about it. You libeled me and my charitable efforts, and then have been nothing than a turd chucking troll. You earned it. But if you can't hack the conversation, seek life elsewhere. This is not conducive to your quality of living and you've added nothing but fertilizer.

You're the one who couldn't hack the conversation, you tried to end it with your snotty pm. Are you about done now? I'm kind of bored with your nonsense.

Don't let the door hit ya, where the Lord split ya. You can even shout a foul epithet as you leave to have the last word... as long as you leave.

Yawnnn.

 

[Murf76]

This is an interesting, and telling, contrast to the thread about New York pedestrians ignoring a dying homeless man. It's much easier to ignore those in need when the government takes the place of Community.

Exactly! Forced social welfare HURTS families. It abrogates our personal responsibility to our loved ones. Instead of our loved ones being OUR concern, they become the government's concern. Families are no longer dependent upon the strength of their values and interpersonal skills, but upon the good-will of politicians. They become beholden to government, when all along it's the job of the people to LIMIT that power.

 

[The T]

That's when things called personal character kick in. Instead of begging the government to steal from others to support the one they love, they pitch in themselves. They sacrifice from their own wealth to help those they feel drawn to. And if they can't support financially, they support spiritually, or with works.

This is the nature of conservatism that has been stomped on by entitlement junkies accusing those who won't steal from someone else to fund what they want, of being heartless. It's disingenuous and more than that, morally despicable. Of course, when they're called out on this, most entitlement junkies then scream and holler like stuck pigs that we don't have the right to judge them, for they have goooooood intentions. The road to hell is paved with those, and using goooooood intentions to justify theft via government through taxes may as well be them sticking the gun in the face of others themselves. But their gooooood intentions help them sleep better at night, thinking that covers their sin.

If you really cared so much, you'd pull out your own checkbook to the depth of which you feel the need to help. Otherwise, you're robin hood. A common thief playing god with other people's property and freedom.

Well said.

You know, there's a HUGE difference between charity and forced redistribution. And the difference is that charity is voluntary. It springs from Free Will... that which God, Himself, has granted us. And who do these people think they are to say they know better than God?

For the last year, we've been raising someone else's teenager as our own. We feed, clothe, shelter, and love him just like he was one of ours. He's a good kid. And he'll be the first in his family to graduate high school, and hopefully... the first to attend college. It's not his fault that his family lost their home, but the bottom line is that it wasn't just bad luck that caused the loss... it was bad CHOICES.

Be that as it may, this kid would have likely dropped out without our intervention. His story is an injustice that we CHOSE to address, not one that was forced upon us. And we are NOT the exception to the rule. Every day, millions of good-hearted Americans see a problem... and choose to address it. And we TEACH that value-set to our offspring. My son just recently rescued two feral kittens, and paid his own money, (which he worked for), to have them spayed, vaccinate them, and adopt them out to a good home.

Leftists seem to believe that people are innately evil and stupid, and that they need to be forced to acts of kindness. It's very sad... and NOT true.

Wonderful! A proactive approach on your own accord. Kudos to you.

The next time I hear some Libtard quote Jesus Christ to make some idiotic point? I'll point them HERE.

It is indeed a choice, and thing is people hate to be told what they MUST do ~Or Else~ via Government fiat when it comes to charity. But then that would pre-suppose that Libs (Seculiarists) belive in Christ and Christain Charity to begin with...?

It's a club they use to beat over the heads of people, and a weapon they have NO right to. Thius is what -WE- resent.

NO one here disputes or will deny a fellow human their dignity with a hand up. It when that hand up becomes a hammock, rather than the safety net it was intended to be.

These politicians are no different than the Pharisees of old that Christ himself spoke of. Gee Loook at us and our works...(Nevermind that privately we don't practice what we preach)!

KUDOS to you and your personal example.

 

[Big Fitz]

This is an interesting, and telling, contrast to the thread about New York pedestrians ignoring a dying homeless man. It's much easier to ignore those in need when the government takes the place of Community.

Exactly! Forced social welfare HURTS families. It abrogates our personal responsibility to our loved ones. Instead of our loved ones being OUR concern, they become the government's concern. Families are no longer dependent upon the strength of their values and interpersonal skills, but upon the good-will of politicians. They become beholden to government, when all along it's the job of the people to LIMIT that power.

Personal responsibility... the bane of liberalism. It's why they desire to kill off the family unit. Long live the creche.

 

[The T]

Well said.

You know, there's a HUGE difference between charity and forced redistribution. And the difference is that charity is voluntary. It springs from Free Will... that which God, Himself, has granted us. And who do these people think they are to say they know better than God?

For the last year, we've been raising someone else's teenager as our own. We feed, clothe, shelter, and love him just like he was one of ours. He's a good kid. And he'll be the first in his family to graduate high school, and hopefully... the first to attend college. It's not his fault that his family lost their home, but the bottom line is that it wasn't just bad luck that caused the loss... it was bad CHOICES.

Be that as it may, this kid would have likely dropped out without our intervention. His story is an injustice that we CHOSE to address, not one that was forced upon us. And we are NOT the exception to the rule. Every day, millions of good-hearted Americans see a problem... and choose to address it. And we TEACH that value-set to our offspring. My son just recently rescued two feral kittens, and paid his own money, (which he worked for), to have them spayed, vaccinate them, and adopt them out to a good home.

Leftists seem to believe that people are innately evil and stupid, and that they need to be forced to acts of kindness. It's very sad... and NOT true.

This is an interesting, and telling, contrast to the thread about New York pedestrians ignoring a dying homeless man. It's much easier to ignore those in need when the government takes the place of Community.

Yep. And lest we forget the Hildebeast and "It Takes A Villiage" nonsense?

People will ultimately DO the correct thing. They don't need an Imperial Government telling them they must.

 

[boedicca]

Yep. And lest we forget the Hildebeast and "It Takes A Villiage" nonsense?

Q) How many White House Interns does it take to satisfy Bill Clinton?

A) It takes a Village.

 

[Sarah G]

This is an interesting, and telling, contrast to the thread about New York pedestrians ignoring a dying homeless man. It's much easier to ignore those in need when the government takes the place of Community.

Exactly! Forced social welfare HURTS families. It abrogates our personal responsibility to our loved ones. Instead of our loved ones being OUR concern, they become the government's concern. Families are no longer dependent upon the strength of their values and interpersonal skills, but upon the good-will of politicians. They become beholden to government, when all along it's the job of the people to LIMIT that power.

Personal responsibility... the bane of liberalism. It's why they desire to kill off the family unit. Long live the creche.

Long live the family unit, it was created by conservatives, you know. There are no Liberals who have families out there..

Silliness.

 

[Mr Natural]

Yeah, well until the majority of our population ponies up enough money to help the less fortunate among us, I'll rely on the government to do it for them.

And if you cheesy assholes don't like it, you can go fuck yourselves.

 

[boedicca]

Here's the problem with that: the pool defined as "less fortunate" will continue to grow until it becomes the majority.

Only in America are The Poor overweight, have plasma TVs, indoor plumbing, air conditioning, refrigerators, cars....

 

[midcan5]

To see if this marvelous idea would work, let's make sure they start here. The Conservative Nanny State After that welfare has been taken care of there may be no need to punish children and the elderly with social Darwinist conservatism.

'Beyond the Conservative Nanny State'

"Political possibilities look very different if we move beyond the nanny state conservatives’ framing of the world. They do not want us to even discuss the really important factors that determine who gets rich and who ends up poor: Federal Reserve Board policy, free trade for doctors and lawyers, copyrights and patents. Once we insist that everything must be placed on the table, it is easy to design policies that offer substantial rewards in terms of higher growth and will also lead to a more equal distribution of income.

Freeing trade in professional services should be an easy one. The economic gains from having free access to doctors and other professionals from India, China, and other developing countries vastly exceed the potential gains from trade deals like NAFTA and CAFTA that make the “free traders” so excited. The savings on these services will make health care much more affordable and make other prices lower, effectively raising the real wages of the workers who are already facing competition from workers in developing countries.

One key economic fact that the nanny state conservatives understand very well, and that confuses many progressives, is that one person’s income is a cost to another person. Nanny state conservatives clearly recognize that when they make the wages of autoworkers and nannies lower, they make themselves richer, because the goods and services produced by autoworkers and nannies will cost less. The exact same logic applies to the wages of professionals. When their wages fall, the goods and services they produce will cost less to everyone else. Lowering the wages of doctors, lawyers, economists, and journalists is not just beating up on relatively well-paid workers, it is also increasing the real wages of dishwashers, autoworkers, and nannies. Progressives must recognize this simple fact of economics and arithmetic if they want to understand public policy."

 

[csbarry]

I think we should end all welfare...period.

Obama was just to much.

There's no getting around it; the welfare system is being seriously abused, but we can't just eliminate all welfare programs. Humanity must care for those who cannot care for themselves. Compassion must be exhibited, abuse cannot and will not be tolerated.

 

[Mr Natural]

Here's the problem with that: the pool defined as "less fortunate" will continue to grow until it becomes the majority.

Only in America are The Poor overweight, have plasma TVs, indoor plumbing, air conditioning, refrigerators, cars....

I for one consider myself fortunate enough to live in a country at a time when even the poorest among us have plasma TVs, indoor plumbing, air conditioning, refrigerators, and cars.

God Bless the USA!

 

[Murf76]

Personal responsibility... the bane of liberalism. It's why they desire to kill off the family unit. Long live the creche.

Leftists have a warped and arbitrary view of "fairness". And frankly, traditional families are a threat to it. Financial and emotional support within families is dependent upon civilized behavior, at least once we've reached our majority. Past childhood, we have to WORK at our relationships. You can't be a snarky little asshat and expect that your extended family is going to be there for you if you end up needing some help later on.

The loss of the family unit, and the lessons we learn within it, are part of the "civility" problem if you ask me. It's where we first learn the consequences of intolerance, where we learn NOT to be "snarky little asshats".

Unfortunately, as we see in the UK a stark example of where we're heading. They're approaching a rate of 50% for children born out of wedlock, and even in families where parents remain married, it's often more cost effective NOT to work.

Excerpt:
Critics say the declining popularity of marriage and the rising numbers of unmarried parents are partly the fault of Labour, which insists all types of relationships are equally valid and has removed financial incentives for couples to stay together.

A recent academic study claimed that the Government's benefits reforms have encouraged family breakdowns, since they meant women who left their husbands were better off financially after leaving their husbands because they could claim higher welfare payments and better child care. The introduction of the Working Families Tax Credit in 1999 had a "substantial impact'' on the divorce rate among the poorest households, prompting a 160 per cent rise in separations, the report published in the Economic Journal claimed.

Nearly half of children born out of wedlock, official figures show - Telegraph

The Davey family's £815-a-week state handouts pay for a four-bedroom home, top-of-the-range mod cons and two vehicles including a Mercedes people carrier.

Father-of-seven Peter gave up work because he could make more living on benefits.

Yet he and his wife Claire are still not happy with their lot.

With an eighth child on the way, they are demanding a bigger house, courtesy of the taxpayer.

<snip>

It doesn't bother me that taxpayers are paying for me to have a large family,' added Mrs Davey.

'We couldn't afford to care for our children without benefits, but as long as they have everything they need, I don't think I'm selfish.

'Most of the parents at our kids' school are on benefits.'

She added: 'I don't feel bad about being subsidised by people who are working. I'm just working with the system that's there.

<snip>

She insists her husband would do any job 'as long as we could still afford the lifestyle we have now'.

Mrs Davey, who spends £160 a week at Tesco, says she does not intend to stop at eight children. Her target is 14.

And she adds: 'I've always wanted a big family - no one can tell me how many kids I can have whether I'm working or not.'

Read more: Peter Davey gets £42,000 in benefits a year and drives a Mercedes | Mail Online

 

[The T]

Here's the problem with that: the pool defined as "less fortunate" will continue to grow until it becomes the majority.

Only in America are The Poor overweight, have plasma TVs, indoor plumbing, air conditioning, refrigerators, cars....

And we can expand on the list that the so-called 'Poor' are deprived of.

 

[The T]

Yep. And lest we forget the Hildebeast and "It Takes A Villiage" nonsense?

Q) How many White House Interns does it take to satisfy Bill Clinton?

A) It takes a Village.

 

[Flopper]

I think we should end all welfare...period.

Obama was just to much.

"The U.S. Social Security Administration defines social welfare expenditures as the cost of "cash benefits, services, and the administration of public programs that directly benefit individuals and families." This broad definition includes expenditures for social security (Old-Age, Survivor's, Disability, and Health Insurance, or OASDHI), health and medical programs, education, housing, veterans' programs, and public aid programs."

If your goal is revolution or anarchy, this would probably do it.

 

[Big Fitz]

Yeah, well until the majority of our population ponies up enough money to help the less fortunate among us, I'll rely on the government to do it for them.

And if you cheesy assholes don't like it, you can go fuck yourselves.

uh huh.... as if you have a right to rob me to fund some n'ere-do-well dealing crack on the corner while his 'ho' is popping out another baby for a bigger gub'mint check.

I'm sure that this 'family' is a paragon of charitable giving too. Oh, and remember, they're the recipients of your 'charity' who will be just as likely to demand your money as their right as you think it's your right to steal from someone else.

Back in the colonial era, it was the Church's responsibility to support orphans and widows and those parishoners less fortunate. It built community and did what it could to foster charitable giving to others obviously in need. But they also didn't put up with jackholes who spent their time drinking their lives away at the pub and wouldn't work to better the community. They had no time for this nonsense. Why? Because one jackhole being a drain on a community or church could endanger others while providing nothing.

But no, today, you libs seem to think this drunk or druggie who is deliberately abdicating his responsibility to society is to be coddled and protected from de big bad wurld! (ooh! it's SO mean!) and claim the bad choices he makes is an affliction or disease he needs curing from first. But the day of reckoning never comes. It's put off because he 'showed progress' or 'is improving' or 'needs a little more time'. Horseshit. The spoiled brat needs repercussions for their actions that are unpleasant because pain is the only thing that seems to drive the point home. Consequence free societies always fail.

Life is not always fair, and that's too damn bad. We all either have to get our shit together and improve ourlives and use our good fortune and profit to help the lives of others. BUT there is nothing that says we must, regardless of how successful we are, in ourselves. Nor do you have the right to any of their rightfully gotten gains no matter how much good you could do with it. If you want to do the good, take up donations, pay for it yourself, but get the resources VOLUNTARILY. Taxes are compulsory, not voluntary.

But ultimately I have a suspicion why libs like taxes more than donations. An innate fear that their pet projects won't be funded. So to ensure they get funded in spite of lack of support (probably because people rightfully see it as enabling deadbeats or the undeserving) they steal others money through government then misuse it against the will of the people. Also, I'm quite certain that there are many libs in the government who see this as a way to prevent charities that they dislike (pro life charities, anti-illegal immigration groups) from receiving similar funds.

This of course is why the welfare state needs to not only be destroyed, but the ground permeated with toxins to prevent anything ever growing there politically again.

 

[Mr Natural]

Yeah, well until the majority of our population ponies up enough money to help the less fortunate among us, I'll rely on the government to do it for them.

And if you cheesy assholes don't like it, you can go fuck yourselves.

uh huh.... as if you have a right to rob me to fund some n'ere-do-well dealing crack on the corner while his 'ho' is popping out another baby for a bigger gub'mint check.

I'm sure that this 'family' is a paragon of charitable giving too. Oh, and remember, they're the recipients of your 'charity' who will be just as likely to demand your money as their right as you think it's your right to steal from someone else.

Back in the colonial era, it was the Church's responsibility to support orphans and widows and those parishoners less fortunate. It built community and did what it could to foster charitable giving to others obviously in need. But they also didn't put up with jackholes who spent their time drinking their lives away at the pub and wouldn't work to better the community. They had no time for this nonsense. Why? Because one jackhole being a drain on a community or church could endanger others while providing nothing.

But no, today, you libs seem to think this drunk or druggie who is deliberately abdicating his responsibility to society is to be coddled and protected from de big bad wurld! (ooh! it's SO mean!) and claim the bad choices he makes is an affliction or disease he needs curing from first. But the day of reckoning never comes. It's put off because he 'showed progress' or 'is improving' or 'needs a little more time'. Horseshit. The spoiled brat needs repercussions for their actions that are unpleasant because pain is the only thing that seems to drive the point home. Consequence free societies always fail.

Life is not always fair, and that's too damn bad. We all either have to get our shit together and improve ourlives and use our good fortune and profit to help the lives of others. BUT there is nothing that says we must, regardless of how successful we are, in ourselves. Nor do you have the right to any of their rightfully gotten gains no matter how much good you could do with it. If you want to do the good, take up donations, pay for it yourself, but get the resources VOLUNTARILY. Taxes are compulsory, not voluntary.

But ultimately I have a suspicion why libs like taxes more than donations. An innate fear that their pet projects won't be funded. So to ensure they get funded in spite of lack of support (probably because people rightfully see it as enabling deadbeats or the undeserving) they steal others money through government then misuse it against the will of the people. Also, I'm quite certain that there are many libs in the government who see this as a way to prevent charities that they dislike (pro life charities, anti-illegal immigration groups) from receiving similar funds.

This of course is why the welfare state needs to not only be destroyed, but the ground permeated with toxins to prevent anything ever growing there politically again.

That's right, we the people do have the right to "rob" you to fund the less fortunate. And that in itself is a good thing. But what makes it even better, is that is pisses your kind off so badly.

It's like a bonus. It almost makes paying taxes palatable.