Follow along with the video below to see how to install our site as a web app on your home screen.
Note: This feature currently requires accessing the site using the built-in Safari browser.
It is moronic to suggest that Republicans and more specifically conservatives, do not want to provide for those who are struggling, and more specifically those who are handicapped or unable to provide for themselves. That is not and has NEVER been the case. The difference between Democrats and Republicans is that Republicans and conservatives believe that if you can, then you should work for what you receive. If you are able, then whatever you can do to repay that assistance, you should do it. Further, we also believe that you do not have either a RIGHT or an EXPECTATION of receiving assistance if you are physically healthy.
Actually it is the highest level of poverty in more than 50 years and since they started publishing poverty rates. Poverty hits 50-year high, U.S says - Los Angeles Times
Ah yes...FDR revisited...
Hoover revisited, dupe.
It is the oldest lesson in the human experience. If you teach someone to do something for themselves then you engender self-reliance. If you give them everything that they need, you breed reliance and dependency. The left only has to look to the American Indians and the reservations to see what their entitlement mind set brings. But no, let's continue to 'give' and hope for a different outcome.
The south side of Chicago is a war zone. Hundreds of millions of dollars has done nothing to stem the tide of poverty, out-of-wedlock births and crime. Yet, we hear the same things today we have heard since LBJ... We must provide for those who do not have. What we must do is to provide a means to work your way out of the cycle of poverty... if you do not take the way out, then you're on your own.
Another EXCELLENT thread by Political Chic!
That amounts to $20,610
for every poor person in America, or $61,830 per
poor family of three.
It is moronic to suggest that Republicans and more specifically conservatives, do not want to provide for those who are struggling, and more specifically those who are handicapped or unable to provide for themselves. That is not and has NEVER been the case. The difference between Democrats and Republicans is that Republicans and conservatives believe that if you can, then you should work for what you receive. If you are able, then whatever you can do to repay that assistance, you should do it. Further, we also believe that you do not have either a RIGHT or an EXPECTATION of receiving assistance if you are physically healthy.
If that were true then why do economic plans like Romney's and Paul Ryan's include outright cuts to such things as food stamps and Medicaid,
and not even for deficit reduction, but to pay for huge tax cuts for the wealthiest Americans?
Explain that in the context of your above contention.
to pay for huge tax cuts for the wealthiest Americans?
That amounts to $20,610
for every poor person in America, or $61,830 per
poor family of three.
this what we have made for ourselves....no logical person for a moment would think that this a situation one would create with forethought.
Go look it up.61k for a family of 3? You are out of your tiny minds...
It is moronic to suggest that Republicans and more specifically conservatives, do not want to provide for those who are struggling, and more specifically those who are handicapped or unable to provide for themselves. That is not and has NEVER been the case. The difference between Democrats and Republicans is that Republicans and conservatives believe that if you can, then you should work for what you receive. If you are able, then whatever you can do to repay that assistance, you should do it. Further, we also believe that you do not have either a RIGHT or an EXPECTATION of receiving assistance if you are physically healthy.
If that were true then why do economic plans like Romney's and Paul Ryan's include outright cuts to such things as food stamps and Medicaid,
and not even for deficit reduction, but to pay for huge tax cuts for the wealthiest Americans?
Explain that in the context of your above contention.
its not worth the effort when you burp this idiocy..;
to pay for huge tax cuts for the wealthiest Americans?
Welfare doesn't get people out of poverty, it barely gets people thru hard times, and no one wants to be on it. RWers want people on welfare to cry ALL THE TIME, never borrow a car or live in a relatives house, which they get WRONG all the time- ASSHOLES LOL.
It's education, training and jobs programs that do that, and what Pubs have ruined for 30 years, while pandering to the rich, who have almost tripled their weath while the non rich and the country are slowly ruined.
Chic, you're a brainwashed RW zombie... read a paper or something.
I love your posts, tug, for several reasons....
1. You are refreshingly without depth. One gets tired of all these still waters that run deep.
You, on the other hand, are a fast-running, shallow stream I can even touch bottom with you.
2. Your post are so rife with abject ignorance that the door swings wide open for those of us with corrections.
Shall we begin?
a. "Welfare doesn't get people out of poverty,"
OMG! Right!
you are correct! Thats an event that usually accompanies a parting sea or a stone tablet!!!
The Welfare Industry is a totally owned subsidiary of Liberalism! Even you must know that...
...and it is designed to keep the clientele in captivity....'on the plantation,' so to speak.
b. "...it barely gets people thru hard times,..."
It was too much to expect you to be right twice in a row.
Take the poverty level for a family of four...$23,050 http://coverageforall.org/pdf/FHCE_FedPovertyLevel.pdf
Ignorant folks (insert your name here) don't realize that welfare transfers provide another 78% of the income to that, for an equivalent income of about $100,000!
a. In 2001 cash and in-kind transfers accounted for 77.8% of said recipients income. How fair is it for the Left to tell you that their income is actually 22.2% of what it actually is? Reynolds, Income and Wealth, p. 28
That means that families that EARN about $55K are providing welfare of about twice that!!!
Good job, Liberals!
c. "RWers want people on welfare to cry ALL THE TIME,...blah, blah, blah...."
Now for reality:
"In fact, the only appreciable decline [in poverty] occurred in the 1990s, a time of
state experimentation with tightening welfare eligibility, culminating in the passage
of national welfare reform (the Personal Responsibility and Work Responsibility Act of
1996)."
Scribd
That was because of Republicans!
Geee....I hope I didn't overtax your little pea-brain, tug......
FOOD STAMPS HELPED REDUCE THE POVERTY RATE, STUDY FINDS
WASHINGTON A new study by the Agriculture Department has found that food stamps, one of the countrys largest social safety net programs, reduced the poverty rate substantially during the recent recession. The food stamp program, formally known as the Supplemental Nutrition Assistance Program, or SNAP, reduced the poverty rate by nearly 8 percent in 2009, the most recent year included in the study, a significant impact for a social program whose effects often go unnoticed by policy makers.
...The stimulus package pushed by President Obama and enacted by Congress significantly boosted funding for the program as a temporary relief for families who had fallen on hard times in the recession.
Welfare doesn't get people out of poverty, it barely gets people thru hard times, and no one wants to be on it. RWers want people on welfare to cry ALL THE TIME, never borrow a car or live in a relatives house, which they get WRONG all the time- ASSHOLES LOL.
It's education, training and jobs programs that do that, and what Pubs have ruined for 30 years, while pandering to the rich, who have almost tripled their weath while the non rich and the country are slowly ruined.
Chic, you're a brainwashed RW zombie... read a paper or something.
I love your posts, tug, for several reasons....
1. You are refreshingly without depth. One gets tired of all these still waters that run deep.
You, on the other hand, are a fast-running, shallow stream I can even touch bottom with you.
2. Your post are so rife with abject ignorance that the door swings wide open for those of us with corrections.
Shall we begin?
a. "Welfare doesn't get people out of poverty,"
OMG! Right!
you are correct! Thats an event that usually accompanies a parting sea or a stone tablet!!!
The Welfare Industry is a totally owned subsidiary of Liberalism! Even you must know that...
...and it is designed to keep the clientele in captivity....'on the plantation,' so to speak.
b. "...it barely gets people thru hard times,..."
It was too much to expect you to be right twice in a row.
Take the poverty level for a family of four...$23,050 http://coverageforall.org/pdf/FHCE_FedPovertyLevel.pdf
Ignorant folks (insert your name here) don't realize that welfare transfers provide another 78% of the income to that, for an equivalent income of about $100,000!
a. In 2001 cash and in-kind transfers accounted for 77.8% of said recipients income. How fair is it for the Left to tell you that their income is actually 22.2% of what it actually is? Reynolds, Income and Wealth, p. 28
That means that families that EARN about $55K are providing welfare of about twice that!!!
Good job, Liberals!
c. "RWers want people on welfare to cry ALL THE TIME,...blah, blah, blah...."
Now for reality:
"In fact, the only appreciable decline [in poverty] occurred in the 1990s, a time of
state experimentation with tightening welfare eligibility, culminating in the passage
of national welfare reform (the Personal Responsibility and Work Responsibility Act of
1996)."
Scribd
That was because of Republicans!
Geee....I hope I didn't overtax your little pea-brain, tug......
According to frankie's comrade-in-arms, NYcarbineer,
FOOD STAMPS HELPED REDUCE THE POVERTY RATE, STUDY FINDS
WASHINGTON A new study by the Agriculture Department has found that food stamps, one of the countrys largest social safety net programs, reduced the poverty rate substantially during the recent recession. The food stamp program, formally known as the Supplemental Nutrition Assistance Program, or SNAP, reduced the poverty rate by nearly 8 percent in 2009, the most recent year included in the study, a significant impact for a social program whose effects often go unnoticed by policy makers.
...The stimulus package pushed by President Obama and enacted by Congress significantly boosted funding for the program as a temporary relief for families who had fallen on hard times in the recession.
Yup, 1 of 38 alternative projects went into bankruptcy. Subsidize Big Oil, Big Pharma, and Big Health. What tools of greedy rich/corps. Thanks for the Depression, fools. See sig pp3...Pubs are a proven disaster, and you proven morons.
It is moronic to suggest that Republicans and more specifically conservatives, do not want to provide for those who are struggling, and more specifically those who are handicapped or unable to provide for themselves. That is not and has NEVER been the case. The difference between Democrats and Republicans is that Republicans and conservatives believe that if you can, then you should work for what you receive. If you are able, then whatever you can do to repay that assistance, you should do it. Further, we also believe that you do not have either a RIGHT or an EXPECTATION of receiving assistance if you are physically healthy.
However, the Democrats believe that there is a RIGHT AND an EXPECTATION of assistance, regardless of condition. They see it as being "compassionate" when as a matter of fact, all it really accomplishes is to sustain abject poverty and morally bankrupt those who subject themselves to it. Some Native Americans have an EXPECTATION and believe it is their RIGHT to receive their headrights and government assistance. If they miss their check, there is an outcry of such magnitude that you could hear it in Canada. There are no jobs on the reservations, yet there is no motivation to go somewhere that there is employment. Why worry about a job when you receive MORE in assistance every month without working. Eventually, sitting at home and watching Oprah reruns on TV gets old and then comes the alcohol and drug abuse.
Finally, I went to the county fair this year. And although it was stuck at one end of the pavillion all by itself with no one around it (we're the REDDEST state in the union), I found the state Democratic party booth. Right there in front was a list of "RIGHTS" that the state Democrats wanted to remind you that you had. At the very top was "A RIGHT TO BE WITHOUT WANT." I kid you not. So I asked the lady in the booth where that right came from, as surely it is NOT listed in the constitution. She began to argue that it indeed was an enumerated right and that each American had a right to be free from want. Stupid is as stupid does...
"A RIGHT TO BE WITHOUT WANT."
Hard to imagine anyone that dumb in more than a gofer role in the organization.
Even FDR didn't go quite that far, in his 'Second Bill of Rights' speech:
The right to a useful and remunerative job in the industries or shops or farms or mines of the nation;
The right to earn enough to provide adequate food and clothing and recreation;
The right of every farmer to raise and sell his products at a return which will give him and his family a decent living;
The right of every businessman, large and small, to trade in an atmosphere of freedom from unfair competition and domination by monopolies at home or abroad;
The right of every family to a decent home;
The right to adequate medical care and the opportunity to achieve and enjoy good health;
The right to adequate protection from the economic fears of old age, sickness, accident, and unemployment;
The right to a good education.
You'd have to be a 'franco' to go beyond that....
Of course, none are 'rights'...they are entitlements.
It is moronic to suggest that Republicans and more specifically conservatives, do not want to provide for those who are struggling, and more specifically those who are handicapped or unable to provide for themselves. That is not and has NEVER been the case. The difference between Democrats and Republicans is that Republicans and conservatives believe that if you can, then you should work for what you receive. If you are able, then whatever you can do to repay that assistance, you should do it. Further, we also believe that you do not have either a RIGHT or an EXPECTATION of receiving assistance if you are physically healthy.
However, the Democrats believe that there is a RIGHT AND an EXPECTATION of assistance, regardless of condition. They see it as being "compassionate" when as a matter of fact, all it really accomplishes is to sustain abject poverty and morally bankrupt those who subject themselves to it. Some Native Americans have an EXPECTATION and believe it is their RIGHT to receive their headrights and government assistance. If they miss their check, there is an outcry of such magnitude that you could hear it in Canada. There are no jobs on the reservations, yet there is no motivation to go somewhere that there is employment. Why worry about a job when you receive MORE in assistance every month without working. Eventually, sitting at home and watching Oprah reruns on TV gets old and then comes the alcohol and drug abuse.
Finally, I went to the county fair this year. And although it was stuck at one end of the pavillion all by itself with no one around it (we're the REDDEST state in the union), I found the state Democratic party booth. Right there in front was a list of "RIGHTS" that the state Democrats wanted to remind you that you had. At the very top was "A RIGHT TO BE WITHOUT WANT." I kid you not. So I asked the lady in the booth where that right came from, as surely it is NOT listed in the constitution. She began to argue that it indeed was an enumerated right and that each American had a right to be free from want. Stupid is as stupid does...
"A RIGHT TO BE WITHOUT WANT."
Hard to imagine anyone that dumb in more than a gofer role in the organization.
Even FDR didn't go quite that far, in his 'Second Bill of Rights' speech:
The right to a useful and remunerative job in the industries or shops or farms or mines of the nation;
The right to earn enough to provide adequate food and clothing and recreation;
The right of every farmer to raise and sell his products at a return which will give him and his family a decent living;
The right of every businessman, large and small, to trade in an atmosphere of freedom from unfair competition and domination by monopolies at home or abroad;
The right of every family to a decent home;
The right to adequate medical care and the opportunity to achieve and enjoy good health;
The right to adequate protection from the economic fears of old age, sickness, accident, and unemployment;
The right to a good education.
You'd have to be a 'franco' to go beyond that....
Of course, none are 'rights'...they are entitlements.
But each individual has the responsibility to exercise their "rights" themselves. They do not have the right to expect, no, demand, that others provide for them.
It is the oldest lesson in the human experience. If you teach someone to do something for themselves then you engender self-reliance. If you give them everything that they need, you breed reliance and dependency. The left only has to look to the American Indians and the reservations to see what their entitlement mind set brings. But no, let's continue to 'give' and hope for a different outcome.
The south side of Chicago is a war zone. Hundreds of millions of dollars has done nothing to stem the tide of poverty, out-of-wedlock births and crime. Yet, we hear the same things today we have heard since LBJ... We must provide for those who do not have. What we must do is to provide a means to work your way out of the cycle of poverty... if you do not take the way out, then you're on your own.
Another EXCELLENT thread by Political Chic!
Of course, liberals don't want people to become independent or they won't need liberal politicians anymore. When each person gets $20,610, or $61,830 for a family of three, why would they take a job like the rest of us when it would mean a cut? I don't know if those figures even include the free medical through Medicaid, free cell phones or other giveaway programs. The more children, the more benefits.
Those who work at low paying jobs still make out well and have no incentive to find a higher paying job. If you look at what people are given, on top of their wages, you realize that many are better off than the tax payers who get soaked to pay for their benefits. When they get help with rent, food, schooling, utilities and Medicaid, they end up with more disposable income than most since their paychecks are free and clear because their bills are paid by tax payers. Of course, they are more comfortable on the doles and the liberals need it that way.
A person earning $50,000 or more won't qualify for aid and yet have to pay all their bills, which doesn't leave a lot of disposable income.
I just don't think we should keep increasing aid to the point where they are better off on the doles than the rest of us who make it on our own. We should help long enough for people to get on their feet, but as it is, they keep having more kids to increase benefits rather than try to elevate themselves. The government keeps adding more to the pot, as if they're worried some will leave the liberal plantation. We have 4th and 5th generations of welfare recipients who know how to work the system because they learned from their parents and the more government gives away, the more people will do what they have to in order to qualify.
Go look it up.61k for a family of 3? You are out of your tiny minds...
It is the oldest lesson in the human experience. If you teach someone to do something for themselves then you engender self-reliance. If you give them everything that they need, you breed reliance and dependency. The left only has to look to the American Indians and the reservations to see what their entitlement mind set brings. But no, let's continue to 'give' and hope for a different outcome.
The south side of Chicago is a war zone. Hundreds of millions of dollars has done nothing to stem the tide of poverty, out-of-wedlock births and crime. Yet, we hear the same things today we have heard since LBJ... We must provide for those who do not have. What we must do is to provide a means to work your way out of the cycle of poverty... if you do not take the way out, then you're on your own.
Another EXCELLENT thread by Political Chic!
Yup, 1 of 38 alternative projects went into bankruptcy. Subsidize Big Oil, Big Pharma, and Big Health. What tools of greedy rich/corps. Thanks for the Depression, fools. See sig pp3...Pubs are a proven disaster, and you proven morons.
Are you so phenomenally stupid that you fail to recognize the the liberal pols hand out just as much money, if not more, to those groups you list? Or are you intentionally obtuse, if so, what purpose would willful ignorance serve?
Go look it up.61k for a family of 3? You are out of your tiny minds...
That request unfairly taxes his abilities.
