If repubs can never come up with specific policy examples of their party helping the...

[Dad2three]

Well, you'd be wrong. The Federalists won the fight for a limited Federal government with specific enumerated powers and a Bill of Rights which ensured all other power was controlled by the states and people. You represent what the Anti-Federalists feared and the Federalist said could never happen.

On March 4, 1789, general government under the Articles was replaced with the federal government under the U.S. Constitution. The new Constitution provided for a much stronger federal government with a chief executive (the president), courts, and taxing powers.


The General Welfare Clause provides Congress with a plenary spending power to “provide for the . . . general Welfare of the United States.”


"The only orthodox object of the institution of government is to secure the greatest degree of happiness possible to the general mass of those associated under it." --Thomas Jefferson

ANd you honestly think Jefferson would conclude that allowing half the people to sponge off the hard work of the other half would make the most people happy so that would make welfare alright?

False premises, distortions AND LIES the ONLY thing right wingers EVER have

Contrary to "Entitlement Society" Rhetoric, Over Nine-Tenths of Entitlement Benefits Go to Elderly, Disabled, or Working Households

Moreover, the vast bulk of that 9 percent goes for medical care, unemployment insurance benefits (which individuals must have a significant work history to receive), Social Security survivor benefits for the children and spouses of deceased workers, and Social Security benefits for retirees between ages 62 and 64. Seven out of the 9 percentage points go for one of these four purposes.

Contrary to Entitlement Society Rhetoric Over Nine-Tenths of Entitlement Benefits Go to Elderly Disabled or Working Households mdash Center on Budget and Policy Priorities

Conservatives just ignore facts and reality. They have "faith" that their ideology is correct.

80% of the population owns 5% of the wealth.

Who Rules America Wealth Income and Power

The middle class has been eviscerated.


Third World countries. One of the things they all had in common was a small, very rich elite, small middle class, and a large lower class. They also shared very low economic growth as a result. This has been known for at least 50 years. The US has been going in this direction for at least the last 30 years as we have gradually de-industrialized and government policies (such as trickle down economics) have promoted the shift of wealth from the lower and middle classes to the economic elite

do you think using annoying fonts adds any gravitas to your arguments?

Comparing us to a third world nation is stupid.

Do you know why we became the most powerful nation in the history of the world? It wasn't because our government forced the most industrious of our citizens to support the least able.

If welfare is such a fabric of our society and the founding fathers intended for the USG to provide it, then riddle me this batman why was it 150 years AFTER the COTUS was ratified before any welfare programs were began?

You of course can not possibly explain that away so back to more large font and name calling for you.

Start with a false premise and argue from there huh? lol


THE PROGRESSIVE PERIOD BROUGHT US THE LARGEST MIDDLE CLASS THE WORLD HAS EVER KNOWN, CONSERVATIVE POLICIES HAVE SHRUNK IT THE PAST 40 YEARS...


The history of welfare in the U.S. started long before the government welfare programs we know were created. In the early days of the United States, the colonies imported the British Poor Laws. These laws made a distinction between those who were unable to work due to their age or physical health and those who were able-bodied but unemployed. The former group was assisted with cash or alternative forms of help from the government. The latter group was given public service employment in workhouses.

Throughout the 1800's welfare history continued when there were attempts to reform how the government dealt with the poor. Some changes tried to help the poor move to work rather than continuing to need assistance. Social casework, consisting of caseworkers visiting the poor and training them in morals and a work ethic was advocated by reformers in the 1880s and 1890s.

Prior to the Great Depression, the United States Congress supported various programs to assist the poor. One of these, a Civil War Pension Program was passed in 1862 and provided aid to Civil War Veterans and their families.

When the Great Depression hit, many families suffered. It is estimated that one-fourth of the labor force was unemployed during the worst part of the depression. With many families suffering financial difficulties, the government stepped in to solve the problem and that is where the history of welfare as we know it really began.

US Welfare System - Help for US Citizens

 

[SmarterThanTheAverageBear]

Well, you'd be wrong. The Federalists won the fight for a limited Federal government with specific enumerated powers and a Bill of Rights which ensured all other power was controlled by the states and people. You represent what the Anti-Federalists feared and the Federalist said could never happen.

On March 4, 1789, general government under the Articles was replaced with the federal government under the U.S. Constitution. The new Constitution provided for a much stronger federal government with a chief executive (the president), courts, and taxing powers.


The General Welfare Clause provides Congress with a plenary spending power to “provide for the . . . general Welfare of the United States.”


"The only orthodox object of the institution of government is to secure the greatest degree of happiness possible to the general mass of those associated under it." --Thomas Jefferson

ANd you honestly think Jefferson would conclude that allowing half the people to sponge off the hard work of the other half would make the most people happy so that would make welfare alright?

False premises, distortions AND LIES the ONLY thing right wingers EVER have

Contrary to "Entitlement Society" Rhetoric, Over Nine-Tenths of Entitlement Benefits Go to Elderly, Disabled, or Working Households

Moreover, the vast bulk of that 9 percent goes for medical care, unemployment insurance benefits (which individuals must have a significant work history to receive), Social Security survivor benefits for the children and spouses of deceased workers, and Social Security benefits for retirees between ages 62 and 64. Seven out of the 9 percentage points go for one of these four purposes.

Contrary to Entitlement Society Rhetoric Over Nine-Tenths of Entitlement Benefits Go to Elderly Disabled or Working Households mdash Center on Budget and Policy Priorities

Conservatives just ignore facts and reality. They have "faith" that their ideology is correct.

80% of the population owns 5% of the wealth.

Who Rules America Wealth Income and Power

The middle class has been eviscerated.


Third World countries. One of the things they all had in common was a small, very rich elite, small middle class, and a large lower class. They also shared very low economic growth as a result. This has been known for at least 50 years. The US has been going in this direction for at least the last 30 years as we have gradually de-industrialized and government policies (such as trickle down economics) have promoted the shift of wealth from the lower and middle classes to the economic elite

do you think using annoying fonts adds any gravitas to your arguments?

Comparing us to a third world nation is stupid.

Do you know why we became the most powerful nation in the history of the world? It wasn't because our government forced the most industrious of our citizens to support the least able.

If welfare is such a fabric of our society and the founding fathers intended for the USG to provide it, then riddle me this batman why was it 150 years AFTER the COTUS was ratified before any welfare programs were began?

You of course can not possibly explain that away so back to more large font and name calling for you.

Start with a false premise and argue from there huh? lol


THE PROGRESSIVE PERIOD BROUGHT US THE LARGEST MIDDLE CLASS THE WORLD HAS EVER KNOWN, CONSERVATIVE POLICIES HAVE SHRUNK IT THE PAST 40 YEARS...


The history of welfare in the U.S. started long before the government welfare programs we know were created. In the early days of the United States, the colonies imported the British Poor Laws. These laws made a distinction between those who were unable to work due to their age or physical health and those who were able-bodied but unemployed. The former group was assisted with cash or alternative forms of help from the government. The latter group was given public service employment in workhouses.

Throughout the 1800's welfare history continued when there were attempts to reform how the government dealt with the poor. Some changes tried to help the poor move to work rather than continuing to need assistance. Social casework, consisting of caseworkers visiting the poor and training them in morals and a work ethic was advocated by reformers in the 1880s and 1890s.

Prior to the Great Depression, the United States Congress supported various programs to assist the poor. One of these, a Civil War Pension Program was passed in 1862 and provided aid to Civil War Veterans and their families.

When the Great Depression hit, many families suffered. It is estimated that one-fourth of the labor force was unemployed during the worst part of the depression. With many families suffering financial difficulties, the government stepped in to solve the problem and that is where the history of welfare as we know it really began.

US Welfare System - Help for US Citizens

Wrong and wrong and wrong

And PS this is my last response if you continue to post like a child, enough with the ridiculously large fonts

The colonies had LOCAL charity and they gave it out VERY sparingly

The poor laws of the original thirteen states can best be described as reluctant public charity. 1 Assistance was provided to some of the poor but, when provided, was strictly rationed to those local residents considered worthy of help. Visitors, strangers and nonresident poor people were not helped and were legally run out of town. Poor relief for the locals was frequently given in ways that were demeaning and destructive to families. Poor people were always expected to work, and even poor children were taken from their families by the authorities and apprenticed to others. Poor adults that could work were not helped, and were forced to work upon pain of whipping, imprisonment, and banishment. Poor people who worked fared little better. Many of the poor, working or not, were not allowed to vote. Maximum wages were set. Child labor was common, often away from the family. The working poor were held back by the laws of settlement, indenture, and slavery. As the United States was formed, its legal treatment of the poor remained anchored in the punitive mode of the English and colonial poor laws.

ARTICLE RELUCTANT CHARITY POOR LAWS IN THE ORIGINAL THIRTEEN STATES

And in fact since the federal government didn't even have a steady source of income prior to the income tax, where would they even have got money to give.

 

[Dad2three]

Well, you'd be wrong. The Federalists won the fight for a limited Federal government with specific enumerated powers and a Bill of Rights which ensured all other power was controlled by the states and people. You represent what the Anti-Federalists feared and the Federalist said could never happen.

On March 4, 1789, general government under the Articles was replaced with the federal government under the U.S. Constitution. The new Constitution provided for a much stronger federal government with a chief executive (the president), courts, and taxing powers.


The General Welfare Clause provides Congress with a plenary spending power to “provide for the . . . general Welfare of the United States.”


"The only orthodox object of the institution of government is to secure the greatest degree of happiness possible to the general mass of those associated under it." --Thomas Jefferson

ANd you honestly think Jefferson would conclude that allowing half the people to sponge off the hard work of the other half would make the most people happy so that would make welfare alright?

False premises, distortions AND LIES the ONLY thing right wingers EVER have

Contrary to "Entitlement Society" Rhetoric, Over Nine-Tenths of Entitlement Benefits Go to Elderly, Disabled, or Working Households

Moreover, the vast bulk of that 9 percent goes for medical care, unemployment insurance benefits (which individuals must have a significant work history to receive), Social Security survivor benefits for the children and spouses of deceased workers, and Social Security benefits for retirees between ages 62 and 64. Seven out of the 9 percentage points go for one of these four purposes.

Contrary to Entitlement Society Rhetoric Over Nine-Tenths of Entitlement Benefits Go to Elderly Disabled or Working Households mdash Center on Budget and Policy Priorities

Conservatives just ignore facts and reality. They have "faith" that their ideology is correct.

80% of the population owns 5% of the wealth.

Who Rules America Wealth Income and Power

The middle class has been eviscerated.


Third World countries. One of the things they all had in common was a small, very rich elite, small middle class, and a large lower class. They also shared very low economic growth as a result. This has been known for at least 50 years. The US has been going in this direction for at least the last 30 years as we have gradually de-industrialized and government policies (such as trickle down economics) have promoted the shift of wealth from the lower and middle classes to the economic elite

do you think using annoying fonts adds any gravitas to your arguments?

Comparing us to a third world nation is stupid.

Do you know why we became the most powerful nation in the history of the world? It wasn't because our government forced the most industrious of our citizens to support the least able.

If welfare is such a fabric of our society and the founding fathers intended for the USG to provide it, then riddle me this batman why was it 150 years AFTER the COTUS was ratified before any welfare programs were began?

You of course can not possibly explain that away so back to more large font and name calling for you.

Start with a false premise and argue from there huh? lol


THE PROGRESSIVE PERIOD BROUGHT US THE LARGEST MIDDLE CLASS THE WORLD HAS EVER KNOWN, CONSERVATIVE POLICIES HAVE SHRUNK IT THE PAST 40 YEARS...


The history of welfare in the U.S. started long before the government welfare programs we know were created. In the early days of the United States, the colonies imported the British Poor Laws. These laws made a distinction between those who were unable to work due to their age or physical health and those who were able-bodied but unemployed. The former group was assisted with cash or alternative forms of help from the government. The latter group was given public service employment in workhouses.

Throughout the 1800's welfare history continued when there were attempts to reform how the government dealt with the poor. Some changes tried to help the poor move to work rather than continuing to need assistance. Social casework, consisting of caseworkers visiting the poor and training them in morals and a work ethic was advocated by reformers in the 1880s and 1890s.

Prior to the Great Depression, the United States Congress supported various programs to assist the poor. One of these, a Civil War Pension Program was passed in 1862 and provided aid to Civil War Veterans and their families.

When the Great Depression hit, many families suffered. It is estimated that one-fourth of the labor force was unemployed during the worst part of the depression. With many families suffering financial difficulties, the government stepped in to solve the problem and that is where the history of welfare as we know it really began.

US Welfare System - Help for US Citizens

Wrong and wrong and wrong

And PS this is my last response if you continue to post like a child, enough with the ridiculously large fonts

The colonies had LOCAL charity and they gave it out VERY sparingly

The poor laws of the original thirteen states can best be described as reluctant public charity. 1 Assistance was provided to some of the poor but, when provided, was strictly rationed to those local residents considered worthy of help. Visitors, strangers and nonresident poor people were not helped and were legally run out of town. Poor relief for the locals was frequently given in ways that were demeaning and destructive to families. Poor people were always expected to work, and even poor children were taken from their families by the authorities and apprenticed to others. Poor adults that could work were not helped, and were forced to work upon pain of whipping, imprisonment, and banishment. Poor people who worked fared little better. Many of the poor, working or not, were not allowed to vote. Maximum wages were set. Child labor was common, often away from the family. The working poor were held back by the laws of settlement, indenture, and slavery. As the United States was formed, its legal treatment of the poor remained anchored in the punitive mode of the English and colonial poor laws.

ARTICLE RELUCTANT CHARITY POOR LAWS IN THE ORIGINAL THIRTEEN STATES

And in fact since the federal government didn't even have a steady source of income prior to the income tax, where would they even have got money to give.

How does THAT refute a single word of my post??? lol

 

[SmarterThanTheAverageBear]

Well, you'd be wrong. The Federalists won the fight for a limited Federal government with specific enumerated powers and a Bill of Rights which ensured all other power was controlled by the states and people. You represent what the Anti-Federalists feared and the Federalist said could never happen.

On March 4, 1789, general government under the Articles was replaced with the federal government under the U.S. Constitution. The new Constitution provided for a much stronger federal government with a chief executive (the president), courts, and taxing powers.


The General Welfare Clause provides Congress with a plenary spending power to “provide for the . . . general Welfare of the United States.”


"The only orthodox object of the institution of government is to secure the greatest degree of happiness possible to the general mass of those associated under it." --Thomas Jefferson

ANd you honestly think Jefferson would conclude that allowing half the people to sponge off the hard work of the other half would make the most people happy so that would make welfare alright?

False premises, distortions AND LIES the ONLY thing right wingers EVER have

Contrary to "Entitlement Society" Rhetoric, Over Nine-Tenths of Entitlement Benefits Go to Elderly, Disabled, or Working Households

Moreover, the vast bulk of that 9 percent goes for medical care, unemployment insurance benefits (which individuals must have a significant work history to receive), Social Security survivor benefits for the children and spouses of deceased workers, and Social Security benefits for retirees between ages 62 and 64. Seven out of the 9 percentage points go for one of these four purposes.

Contrary to Entitlement Society Rhetoric Over Nine-Tenths of Entitlement Benefits Go to Elderly Disabled or Working Households mdash Center on Budget and Policy Priorities

Conservatives just ignore facts and reality. They have "faith" that their ideology is correct.

80% of the population owns 5% of the wealth.

Who Rules America Wealth Income and Power

The middle class has been eviscerated.


Third World countries. One of the things they all had in common was a small, very rich elite, small middle class, and a large lower class. They also shared very low economic growth as a result. This has been known for at least 50 years. The US has been going in this direction for at least the last 30 years as we have gradually de-industrialized and government policies (such as trickle down economics) have promoted the shift of wealth from the lower and middle classes to the economic elite

do you think using annoying fonts adds any gravitas to your arguments?

Comparing us to a third world nation is stupid.

Do you know why we became the most powerful nation in the history of the world? It wasn't because our government forced the most industrious of our citizens to support the least able.

If welfare is such a fabric of our society and the founding fathers intended for the USG to provide it, then riddle me this batman why was it 150 years AFTER the COTUS was ratified before any welfare programs were began?

You of course can not possibly explain that away so back to more large font and name calling for you.

Start with a false premise and argue from there huh? lol


THE PROGRESSIVE PERIOD BROUGHT US THE LARGEST MIDDLE CLASS THE WORLD HAS EVER KNOWN, CONSERVATIVE POLICIES HAVE SHRUNK IT THE PAST 40 YEARS...


The history of welfare in the U.S. started long before the government welfare programs we know were created. In the early days of the United States, the colonies imported the British Poor Laws. These laws made a distinction between those who were unable to work due to their age or physical health and those who were able-bodied but unemployed. The former group was assisted with cash or alternative forms of help from the government. The latter group was given public service employment in workhouses.

Throughout the 1800's welfare history continued when there were attempts to reform how the government dealt with the poor. Some changes tried to help the poor move to work rather than continuing to need assistance. Social casework, consisting of caseworkers visiting the poor and training them in morals and a work ethic was advocated by reformers in the 1880s and 1890s.

Prior to the Great Depression, the United States Congress supported various programs to assist the poor. One of these, a Civil War Pension Program was passed in 1862 and provided aid to Civil War Veterans and their families.

When the Great Depression hit, many families suffered. It is estimated that one-fourth of the labor force was unemployed during the worst part of the depression. With many families suffering financial difficulties, the government stepped in to solve the problem and that is where the history of welfare as we know it really began.

US Welfare System - Help for US Citizens

Wrong and wrong and wrong

And PS this is my last response if you continue to post like a child, enough with the ridiculously large fonts

The colonies had LOCAL charity and they gave it out VERY sparingly

The poor laws of the original thirteen states can best be described as reluctant public charity. 1 Assistance was provided to some of the poor but, when provided, was strictly rationed to those local residents considered worthy of help. Visitors, strangers and nonresident poor people were not helped and were legally run out of town. Poor relief for the locals was frequently given in ways that were demeaning and destructive to families. Poor people were always expected to work, and even poor children were taken from their families by the authorities and apprenticed to others. Poor adults that could work were not helped, and were forced to work upon pain of whipping, imprisonment, and banishment. Poor people who worked fared little better. Many of the poor, working or not, were not allowed to vote. Maximum wages were set. Child labor was common, often away from the family. The working poor were held back by the laws of settlement, indenture, and slavery. As the United States was formed, its legal treatment of the poor remained anchored in the punitive mode of the English and colonial poor laws.

ARTICLE RELUCTANT CHARITY POOR LAWS IN THE ORIGINAL THIRTEEN STATES

And in fact since the federal government didn't even have a steady source of income prior to the income tax, where would they even have got money to give.

How does THAT refute a single word of my post??? lol

It TOTALLY refutes the idea that Jefferson would nod his head in approval about today's welfare system.

 

[Dad2three]

Well, you'd be wrong. The Federalists won the fight for a limited Federal government with specific enumerated powers and a Bill of Rights which ensured all other power was controlled by the states and people. You represent what the Anti-Federalists feared and the Federalist said could never happen.

On March 4, 1789, general government under the Articles was replaced with the federal government under the U.S. Constitution. The new Constitution provided for a much stronger federal government with a chief executive (the president), courts, and taxing powers.


The General Welfare Clause provides Congress with a plenary spending power to “provide for the . . . general Welfare of the United States.”


"The only orthodox object of the institution of government is to secure the greatest degree of happiness possible to the general mass of those associated under it." --Thomas Jefferson

ANd you honestly think Jefferson would conclude that allowing half the people to sponge off the hard work of the other half would make the most people happy so that would make welfare alright?

False premises, distortions AND LIES the ONLY thing right wingers EVER have

Contrary to "Entitlement Society" Rhetoric, Over Nine-Tenths of Entitlement Benefits Go to Elderly, Disabled, or Working Households

Moreover, the vast bulk of that 9 percent goes for medical care, unemployment insurance benefits (which individuals must have a significant work history to receive), Social Security survivor benefits for the children and spouses of deceased workers, and Social Security benefits for retirees between ages 62 and 64. Seven out of the 9 percentage points go for one of these four purposes.

Contrary to Entitlement Society Rhetoric Over Nine-Tenths of Entitlement Benefits Go to Elderly Disabled or Working Households mdash Center on Budget and Policy Priorities

Conservatives just ignore facts and reality. They have "faith" that their ideology is correct.

80% of the population owns 5% of the wealth.

Who Rules America Wealth Income and Power

The middle class has been eviscerated.


Third World countries. One of the things they all had in common was a small, very rich elite, small middle class, and a large lower class. They also shared very low economic growth as a result. This has been known for at least 50 years. The US has been going in this direction for at least the last 30 years as we have gradually de-industrialized and government policies (such as trickle down economics) have promoted the shift of wealth from the lower and middle classes to the economic elite

do you think using annoying fonts adds any gravitas to your arguments?

Comparing us to a third world nation is stupid.

Do you know why we became the most powerful nation in the history of the world? It wasn't because our government forced the most industrious of our citizens to support the least able.

If welfare is such a fabric of our society and the founding fathers intended for the USG to provide it, then riddle me this batman why was it 150 years AFTER the COTUS was ratified before any welfare programs were began?

You of course can not possibly explain that away so back to more large font and name calling for you.

Start with a false premise and argue from there huh? lol


THE PROGRESSIVE PERIOD BROUGHT US THE LARGEST MIDDLE CLASS THE WORLD HAS EVER KNOWN, CONSERVATIVE POLICIES HAVE SHRUNK IT THE PAST 40 YEARS...


The history of welfare in the U.S. started long before the government welfare programs we know were created. In the early days of the United States, the colonies imported the British Poor Laws. These laws made a distinction between those who were unable to work due to their age or physical health and those who were able-bodied but unemployed. The former group was assisted with cash or alternative forms of help from the government. The latter group was given public service employment in workhouses.

Throughout the 1800's welfare history continued when there were attempts to reform how the government dealt with the poor. Some changes tried to help the poor move to work rather than continuing to need assistance. Social casework, consisting of caseworkers visiting the poor and training them in morals and a work ethic was advocated by reformers in the 1880s and 1890s.

Prior to the Great Depression, the United States Congress supported various programs to assist the poor. One of these, a Civil War Pension Program was passed in 1862 and provided aid to Civil War Veterans and their families.

When the Great Depression hit, many families suffered. It is estimated that one-fourth of the labor force was unemployed during the worst part of the depression. With many families suffering financial difficulties, the government stepped in to solve the problem and that is where the history of welfare as we know it really began.

US Welfare System - Help for US Citizens

Wrong and wrong and wrong

And PS this is my last response if you continue to post like a child, enough with the ridiculously large fonts

The colonies had LOCAL charity and they gave it out VERY sparingly

The poor laws of the original thirteen states can best be described as reluctant public charity. 1 Assistance was provided to some of the poor but, when provided, was strictly rationed to those local residents considered worthy of help. Visitors, strangers and nonresident poor people were not helped and were legally run out of town. Poor relief for the locals was frequently given in ways that were demeaning and destructive to families. Poor people were always expected to work, and even poor children were taken from their families by the authorities and apprenticed to others. Poor adults that could work were not helped, and were forced to work upon pain of whipping, imprisonment, and banishment. Poor people who worked fared little better. Many of the poor, working or not, were not allowed to vote. Maximum wages were set. Child labor was common, often away from the family. The working poor were held back by the laws of settlement, indenture, and slavery. As the United States was formed, its legal treatment of the poor remained anchored in the punitive mode of the English and colonial poor laws.

ARTICLE RELUCTANT CHARITY POOR LAWS IN THE ORIGINAL THIRTEEN STATES

And in fact since the federal government didn't even have a steady source of income prior to the income tax, where would they even have got money to give.

How does THAT refute a single word of my post??? lol

It TOTALLY refutes the idea that Jefferson would nod his head in approval about today's welfare system.

Weird, YOUR premise was a link that said the welfare you supported ended in 1790 AND YOUR premise is that TJ would be against helping the less fortunate via Gov't when the FALSE premise conservatives have is half of US are oin it? lol

 

[SmarterThanTheAverageBear]

Well, you'd be wrong. The Federalists won the fight for a limited Federal government with specific enumerated powers and a Bill of Rights which ensured all other power was controlled by the states and people. You represent what the Anti-Federalists feared and the Federalist said could never happen.

On March 4, 1789, general government under the Articles was replaced with the federal government under the U.S. Constitution. The new Constitution provided for a much stronger federal government with a chief executive (the president), courts, and taxing powers.


The General Welfare Clause provides Congress with a plenary spending power to “provide for the . . . general Welfare of the United States.”


"The only orthodox object of the institution of government is to secure the greatest degree of happiness possible to the general mass of those associated under it." --Thomas Jefferson

ANd you honestly think Jefferson would conclude that allowing half the people to sponge off the hard work of the other half would make the most people happy so that would make welfare alright?

False premises, distortions AND LIES the ONLY thing right wingers EVER have

Contrary to "Entitlement Society" Rhetoric, Over Nine-Tenths of Entitlement Benefits Go to Elderly, Disabled, or Working Households

Moreover, the vast bulk of that 9 percent goes for medical care, unemployment insurance benefits (which individuals must have a significant work history to receive), Social Security survivor benefits for the children and spouses of deceased workers, and Social Security benefits for retirees between ages 62 and 64. Seven out of the 9 percentage points go for one of these four purposes.

Contrary to Entitlement Society Rhetoric Over Nine-Tenths of Entitlement Benefits Go to Elderly Disabled or Working Households mdash Center on Budget and Policy Priorities

Conservatives just ignore facts and reality. They have "faith" that their ideology is correct.

80% of the population owns 5% of the wealth.

Who Rules America Wealth Income and Power

The middle class has been eviscerated.


Third World countries. One of the things they all had in common was a small, very rich elite, small middle class, and a large lower class. They also shared very low economic growth as a result. This has been known for at least 50 years. The US has been going in this direction for at least the last 30 years as we have gradually de-industrialized and government policies (such as trickle down economics) have promoted the shift of wealth from the lower and middle classes to the economic elite

do you think using annoying fonts adds any gravitas to your arguments?

Comparing us to a third world nation is stupid.

Do you know why we became the most powerful nation in the history of the world? It wasn't because our government forced the most industrious of our citizens to support the least able.

If welfare is such a fabric of our society and the founding fathers intended for the USG to provide it, then riddle me this batman why was it 150 years AFTER the COTUS was ratified before any welfare programs were began?

You of course can not possibly explain that away so back to more large font and name calling for you.

Start with a false premise and argue from there huh? lol


THE PROGRESSIVE PERIOD BROUGHT US THE LARGEST MIDDLE CLASS THE WORLD HAS EVER KNOWN, CONSERVATIVE POLICIES HAVE SHRUNK IT THE PAST 40 YEARS...


The history of welfare in the U.S. started long before the government welfare programs we know were created. In the early days of the United States, the colonies imported the British Poor Laws. These laws made a distinction between those who were unable to work due to their age or physical health and those who were able-bodied but unemployed. The former group was assisted with cash or alternative forms of help from the government. The latter group was given public service employment in workhouses.

Throughout the 1800's welfare history continued when there were attempts to reform how the government dealt with the poor. Some changes tried to help the poor move to work rather than continuing to need assistance. Social casework, consisting of caseworkers visiting the poor and training them in morals and a work ethic was advocated by reformers in the 1880s and 1890s.

Prior to the Great Depression, the United States Congress supported various programs to assist the poor. One of these, a Civil War Pension Program was passed in 1862 and provided aid to Civil War Veterans and their families.

When the Great Depression hit, many families suffered. It is estimated that one-fourth of the labor force was unemployed during the worst part of the depression. With many families suffering financial difficulties, the government stepped in to solve the problem and that is where the history of welfare as we know it really began.

US Welfare System - Help for US Citizens

Wrong and wrong and wrong

And PS this is my last response if you continue to post like a child, enough with the ridiculously large fonts

The colonies had LOCAL charity and they gave it out VERY sparingly

The poor laws of the original thirteen states can best be described as reluctant public charity. 1 Assistance was provided to some of the poor but, when provided, was strictly rationed to those local residents considered worthy of help. Visitors, strangers and nonresident poor people were not helped and were legally run out of town. Poor relief for the locals was frequently given in ways that were demeaning and destructive to families. Poor people were always expected to work, and even poor children were taken from their families by the authorities and apprenticed to others. Poor adults that could work were not helped, and were forced to work upon pain of whipping, imprisonment, and banishment. Poor people who worked fared little better. Many of the poor, working or not, were not allowed to vote. Maximum wages were set. Child labor was common, often away from the family. The working poor were held back by the laws of settlement, indenture, and slavery. As the United States was formed, its legal treatment of the poor remained anchored in the punitive mode of the English and colonial poor laws.

ARTICLE RELUCTANT CHARITY POOR LAWS IN THE ORIGINAL THIRTEEN STATES

And in fact since the federal government didn't even have a steady source of income prior to the income tax, where would they even have got money to give.

How does THAT refute a single word of my post??? lol

It TOTALLY refutes the idea that Jefferson would nod his head in approval about today's welfare system.

Weird, YOUR premise was a link that said the welfare you supported ended in 1790 AND YOUR premise is that TJ would be against helping the less fortunate via Gov't when the FALSE premise conservatives have is half of US are oin it? lol

Eh what?

First of all I didn't state that I support welfare that ended in 1790.

Second of all, I am not responsible for the premise believed by all conservatives.

My question to you was "Do you think jefferson would support the welfare programs we have today?"

And you went off on a completely insane tangent, because you absolutely know that the answer to my question is an unequivocal no.

Get this straight people. I AM smarter than you and I won't be dissuaded by stupid and inane arguments. If asked a straight forward question , I will do my best to give a straight forward answer, and I have no reason to evade because my opinions are rooted in logic , fact, and truth rather than ideological stupidity. I would appreciate if you would next time answer a yes or no question with a yes or a no, then perhaps with some links to support your opinion.

 

[Dad2three]

Eh what?

First of all I didn't state that I support welfare that ended in 1790.

Second of all, I am not responsible for the premise believed by all conservatives.

My question to you was "Do you think jefferson would support the welfare programs we have today?"

And you went off on a completely insane tangent, because you absolutely know that the answer to my question is an unequivocal no.

Get this straight people. I AM smarter than you and I won't be dissuaded by stupid and inane arguments. If asked a straight forward question , I will do my best to give a straight forward answer, and I have no reason to evade because my opinions are rooted in logic , fact, and truth rather than ideological stupidity. I would appreciate if you would next time answer a yes or no question with a yes or a no, then perhaps with some links to support your opinion.

"Eh what?

First of all I didn't state that I support welfare that ended in 1790."

YOUR LINK

"This article provides a general overview of the poor laws of the original thirteen states from approximately the time of the American Revolution until 1790, when Rhode Island became the thirteenth state to ratify the Constitution"

"Do you think jefferson would support the welfare programs we have today?"

FKKING YES

"The rich alone use imported articles, and on these alone the whole taxes of the General Government are levied. ... Our revenues liberated by the discharge of the public debt, and its surplus applied to canals, roads, schools, etc., the farmer will see his government supported, his children educated, and the face of his country made a paradise by the contributions of the rich alone, without his being called on to spend a cent from his earnings." --Thomas Jefferson


"The catholic principle of republicanism is that every people may establish what form of government they please and change it as they please, the will of the nation being the only thing essential." --Thomas Jefferson


BUT I DON'T REALLY GIVE A FUCK, IT'S NOT WHAT YOU PREMISED

YOUR PREMISE

"ANd you honestly think Jefferson would conclude that allowing half the people to sponge off the hard work of the other half would make the most people happy so that would make welfare alright?"


Contrary to "Entitlement Society" Rhetoric, Over Nine-Tenths of Entitlement Benefits Go to Elderly, Disabled, or Working Households

Moreover, the vast bulk of that 9 percent goes for medical care, unemployment insurance benefits (which individuals must have a significant work history to receive), Social Security survivor benefits for the children and spouses of deceased workers, and Social Security benefits for retirees between ages 62 and 64. Seven out of the 9 percentage points go for one of these four purposes.


Contrary to Entitlement Society Rhetoric Over Nine-Tenths of Entitlement Benefits Go to Elderly Disabled or Working Households mdash Center on Budget and Policy Priorities

 

[Dad2three]

Well, you'd be wrong. The Federalists won the fight for a limited Federal government with specific enumerated powers and a Bill of Rights which ensured all other power was controlled by the states and people. You represent what the Anti-Federalists feared and the Federalist said could never happen.

On March 4, 1789, general government under the Articles was replaced with the federal government under the U.S. Constitution. The new Constitution provided for a much stronger federal government with a chief executive (the president), courts, and taxing powers.


The General Welfare Clause provides Congress with a plenary spending power to “provide for the . . . general Welfare of the United States.”


"The only orthodox object of the institution of government is to secure the greatest degree of happiness possible to the general mass of those associated under it." --Thomas Jefferson

ANd you honestly think Jefferson would conclude that allowing half the people to sponge off the hard work of the other half would make the most people happy so that would make welfare alright?

False premises, distortions AND LIES the ONLY thing right wingers EVER have

Contrary to "Entitlement Society" Rhetoric, Over Nine-Tenths of Entitlement Benefits Go to Elderly, Disabled, or Working Households

Moreover, the vast bulk of that 9 percent goes for medical care, unemployment insurance benefits (which individuals must have a significant work history to receive), Social Security survivor benefits for the children and spouses of deceased workers, and Social Security benefits for retirees between ages 62 and 64. Seven out of the 9 percentage points go for one of these four purposes.

Contrary to Entitlement Society Rhetoric Over Nine-Tenths of Entitlement Benefits Go to Elderly Disabled or Working Households mdash Center on Budget and Policy Priorities

Conservatives just ignore facts and reality. They have "faith" that their ideology is correct.

80% of the population owns 5% of the wealth.

Who Rules America Wealth Income and Power

The middle class has been eviscerated.


Third World countries. One of the things they all had in common was a small, very rich elite, small middle class, and a large lower class. They also shared very low economic growth as a result. This has been known for at least 50 years. The US has been going in this direction for at least the last 30 years as we have gradually de-industrialized and government policies (such as trickle down economics) have promoted the shift of wealth from the lower and middle classes to the economic elite

do you think using annoying fonts adds any gravitas to your arguments?

Comparing us to a third world nation is stupid.

Do you know why we became the most powerful nation in the history of the world? It wasn't because our government forced the most industrious of our citizens to support the least able.

If welfare is such a fabric of our society and the founding fathers intended for the USG to provide it, then riddle me this batman why was it 150 years AFTER the COTUS was ratified before any welfare programs were began?

You of course can not possibly explain that away so back to more large font and name calling for you.

Start with a false premise and argue from there huh? lol


THE PROGRESSIVE PERIOD BROUGHT US THE LARGEST MIDDLE CLASS THE WORLD HAS EVER KNOWN, CONSERVATIVE POLICIES HAVE SHRUNK IT THE PAST 40 YEARS...


The history of welfare in the U.S. started long before the government welfare programs we know were created. In the early days of the United States, the colonies imported the British Poor Laws. These laws made a distinction between those who were unable to work due to their age or physical health and those who were able-bodied but unemployed. The former group was assisted with cash or alternative forms of help from the government. The latter group was given public service employment in workhouses.

Throughout the 1800's welfare history continued when there were attempts to reform how the government dealt with the poor. Some changes tried to help the poor move to work rather than continuing to need assistance. Social casework, consisting of caseworkers visiting the poor and training them in morals and a work ethic was advocated by reformers in the 1880s and 1890s.

Prior to the Great Depression, the United States Congress supported various programs to assist the poor. One of these, a Civil War Pension Program was passed in 1862 and provided aid to Civil War Veterans and their families.

When the Great Depression hit, many families suffered. It is estimated that one-fourth of the labor force was unemployed during the worst part of the depression. With many families suffering financial difficulties, the government stepped in to solve the problem and that is where the history of welfare as we know it really began.

US Welfare System - Help for US Citizens

Wrong and wrong and wrong

And PS this is my last response if you continue to post like a child, enough with the ridiculously large fonts

The colonies had LOCAL charity and they gave it out VERY sparingly

The poor laws of the original thirteen states can best be described as reluctant public charity. 1 Assistance was provided to some of the poor but, when provided, was strictly rationed to those local residents considered worthy of help. Visitors, strangers and nonresident poor people were not helped and were legally run out of town. Poor relief for the locals was frequently given in ways that were demeaning and destructive to families. Poor people were always expected to work, and even poor children were taken from their families by the authorities and apprenticed to others. Poor adults that could work were not helped, and were forced to work upon pain of whipping, imprisonment, and banishment. Poor people who worked fared little better. Many of the poor, working or not, were not allowed to vote. Maximum wages were set. Child labor was common, often away from the family. The working poor were held back by the laws of settlement, indenture, and slavery. As the United States was formed, its legal treatment of the poor remained anchored in the punitive mode of the English and colonial poor laws.

ARTICLE RELUCTANT CHARITY POOR LAWS IN THE ORIGINAL THIRTEEN STATES

And in fact since the federal government didn't even have a steady source of income prior to the income tax, where would they even have got money to give.

How does THAT refute a single word of my post??? lol

It TOTALLY refutes the idea that Jefferson would nod his head in approval about today's welfare system.

Weird, YOUR premise was a link that said the welfare you supported ended in 1790 AND YOUR premise is that TJ would be against helping the less fortunate via Gov't when the FALSE premise conservatives have is half of US are oin it? lol

Eh what?

First of all I didn't state that I support welfare that ended in 1790.

Second of all, I am not responsible for the premise believed by all conservatives.

My question to you was "Do you think jefferson would support the welfare programs we have today?"

And you went off on a completely insane tangent, because you absolutely know that the answer to my question is an unequivocal no.

Get this straight people. I AM smarter than you and I won't be dissuaded by stupid and inane arguments. If asked a straight forward question , I will do my best to give a straight forward answer, and I have no reason to evade because my opinions are rooted in logic , fact, and truth rather than ideological stupidity. I would appreciate if you would next time answer a yes or no question with a yes or a no, then perhaps with some links to support your opinion.

"Get this straight people. I AM smarter than you and I won't be dissuaded by stupid and inane arguments. If asked a straight forward question , I will do my best to give a straight forward answer, and I have no reason to evade because my opinions are rooted in logic , fact, and truth rather than ideological stupidity. I would appreciate if you would next time answer a yes or no question with a yes or a no, then perhaps with some links to support your opinion."



Give me ONE bill that worked as the GOPers said it would the past 30 years?

ONE policy the conservatives have EVER been on the correct side of history on in the US?

 

[Youch]

The stimulus failed by the standards the administration set for it. Period. That is fact. The economy has had its worst growth post recession ever. That is a fact. Both of those things are directly traceable to Democrat policies enacted when Dems had a lock on Congress and the WH. That is a fact.
Dems don't do well with facts.

they will never admit it is their party strangling (us the people), our country and businesses.
they just won't come into REALITY if they did they'd have to admit they support a failing strategy and policies

lol, Yeah, GOP/conservative policies worked so well *shaking head*

Name one that hasn't???

 

[Youch]

You mean like greed, selfishness and myths and fairy tales?

Weird, after 8 years of Dubya/GOP 'job creator' policies, and with the lowest sustained tax burden on the 'job creators', Dubya lost over 1 million PRIVATE sector jobs in 8 years AND 5+ million more in 2009? And the socialist Obama has had 10+ million created since hitting Bush's bottom March 2010?

DEC 2007

The Economic Consequences of Mr. Bush
The next president will have to deal with yet another crippling legacy of George W. Bush: the economy. A Nobel laureate, Joseph E. Stiglitz, sees a generation-long struggle to recoup.

The Economic Consequences of Mr. Bush Vanity Fair

[

lol, Yeah, GOP/conservative policies worked so well *shaking head*

Dad3Two,

Why do you insist Bush was conservative? He was not, and few, few Republicans, would ever assert such a thing. Saying so is only a device to besmirch and dismiss conservatism....it works, because most voters pay more attention to the Kardashians.

Please hound me to provide counter data to your liberal editorial on Vanity Fair....please. When I have time I'll napalm your contention. But have little time to do more than just this drive-by at the moment....I'm too busy making money and employing other so that we can pay for all the liberals on the dole. Seriously, don't let me forget....

 

[usmcstinger]

And

...middle class and poor, why do they continue to support them? I just don't understand it. Why do republicans continue to be elected?

Trickle down economics has proven to be smoke screen. Bush's tax cuts pitifully created 4.6 jobs per million dollar cut. That's it. In Obama's first 4 years, twice as many jobs were created than in all of Bush's 8. According to the CBO, Obama's stimulus alone created over 2 million jobs that still exist to this day.

CBO: Stimulus Supports 2.9 Million Jobs Today | FDL News Desk

Obama’s Numbers, October Update

Here is a non partisan thorough look at what the stimulus accomplished which is staggering. It literally saved the country from another depression.

Was the Obama Stimulus a Success or a Failure? - NPQ - Nonprofit Quarterly

Here is WHY Obama's stimulus worked:

Extended Federal Unemployment Benefits and the Economy

I just don't understand what republicans have to show for. Obama's tax cut for the middle class was the biggest since Reagan. Seriously what has any republican president since Reagan done that has benefitted the country as a whole?

It seems as though all the average joe republicans want to hear are flowery speeches about freedom and warm apple pie. They don't want to hear the truth which is that republicans have nothing to offer.

Extended Federal Unemployment Benefits and the Economy

Thanks for the hilarious link. She cracks me up!

And yet you can't explain why she is wrong.

Congratulations. You stated the Obama talking points to the letter. The use of Keynesian Economics Theory has never worked. Once again the expected out come was not achieved.

 

[zeke]

You mean like greed, selfishness and myths and fairy tales?

Weird, after 8 years of Dubya/GOP 'job creator' policies, and with the lowest sustained tax burden on the 'job creators', Dubya lost over 1 million PRIVATE sector jobs in 8 years AND 5+ million more in 2009? And the socialist Obama has had 10+ million created since hitting Bush's bottom March 2010?

DEC 2007

The Economic Consequences of Mr. Bush
The next president will have to deal with yet another crippling legacy of George W. Bush: the economy. A Nobel laureate, Joseph E. Stiglitz, sees a generation-long struggle to recoup.

The Economic Consequences of Mr. Bush Vanity Fair

[

lol, Yeah, GOP/conservative policies worked so well *shaking head*

Dad3Two,

Why do you insist Bush was conservative? He was not, and few, few Republicans, would ever assert such a thing. Saying so is only a device to besmirch and dismiss conservatism....it works, because most voters pay more attention to the Kardashians.

Please hound me to provide counter data to your liberal editorial on Vanity Fair....please. When I have time I'll napalm your contention. But have little time to do more than just this drive-by at the moment....I'm too busy making money and employing other so that we can pay for all the liberals on the dole. Seriously, don't let me forget....

I really like the way Republicans have the ability to completely re write history. Bush was conservative enough to appeal to the Republicans when they voted him to the office of the President. Twice. He was conservative enough to get his massive tax cuts passed. Conservative enough to get us into a stupid war in Iraq.

But he's not a conservative now? What is he? Ain't 20/20 hindsight amazing?

 

[The Rabbi]

You mean like greed, selfishness and myths and fairy tales?

Weird, after 8 years of Dubya/GOP 'job creator' policies, and with the lowest sustained tax burden on the 'job creators', Dubya lost over 1 million PRIVATE sector jobs in 8 years AND 5+ million more in 2009? And the socialist Obama has had 10+ million created since hitting Bush's bottom March 2010?

DEC 2007

The Economic Consequences of Mr. Bush
The next president will have to deal with yet another crippling legacy of George W. Bush: the economy. A Nobel laureate, Joseph E. Stiglitz, sees a generation-long struggle to recoup.

The Economic Consequences of Mr. Bush Vanity Fair

[

lol, Yeah, GOP/conservative policies worked so well *shaking head*

Dad3Two,

Why do you insist Bush was conservative? He was not, and few, few Republicans, would ever assert such a thing. Saying so is only a device to besmirch and dismiss conservatism....it works, because most voters pay more attention to the Kardashians.

Please hound me to provide counter data to your liberal editorial on Vanity Fair....please. When I have time I'll napalm your contention. But have little time to do more than just this drive-by at the moment....I'm too busy making money and employing other so that we can pay for all the liberals on the dole. Seriously, don't let me forget....

I really like the way Republicans have the ability to completely re write history. Bush was conservative enough to appeal to the Republicans when they voted him to the office of the President. Twice. He was conservative enough to get his massive tax cuts passed. Conservative enough to get us into a stupid war in Iraq.

But he's not a conservative now? What is he? Ain't 20/20 hindsight amazing?

Bush was never a conservative. He never pretended to be. Recall he was a "compassionate conservative", i.e. a big government type. Other than the tax cuts for all Americans early on the rest of his two terms were big government intiiatives: steel tariffs, drug benefit, federal standards for schools, bailouts of the auto companies over Congressional objection. All of them big government stuff.
And amazingly the country did very well despite that. Then along came Obama and things turned to shit.

 

[Wildman]

I think the answer to the OP is obvious.

The OP has no freaking clue what he is talking about and that's why he is confused.

===========================================

Billy ZERO, ZERO, ZERO, is not confused.., he is just another libercrat shill spewing the liberscum talking points sent to him by his lord and master.

 

[Wildman]

I think the answer to the OP is obvious.

The OP has no freaking clue what he is talking about and that's why he is confused.

How so? Be specific.

===========================

see post 274, that is very specific !

 

[Billy000]

It dis

And

...middle class and poor, why do they continue to support them? I just don't understand it. Why do republicans continue to be elected?

Trickle down economics has proven to be smoke screen. Bush's tax cuts pitifully created 4.6 jobs per million dollar cut. That's it. In Obama's first 4 years, twice as many jobs were created than in all of Bush's 8. According to the CBO, Obama's stimulus alone created over 2 million jobs that still exist to this day.

CBO: Stimulus Supports 2.9 Million Jobs Today | FDL News Desk

Obama’s Numbers, October Update

Here is a non partisan thorough look at what the stimulus accomplished which is staggering. It literally saved the country from another depression.

Was the Obama Stimulus a Success or a Failure? - NPQ - Nonprofit Quarterly

Here is WHY Obama's stimulus worked:

Extended Federal Unemployment Benefits and the Economy

I just don't understand what republicans have to show for. Obama's tax cut for the middle class was the biggest since Reagan. Seriously what has any republican president since Reagan done that has benefitted the country as a whole?

It seems as though all the average joe republicans want to hear are flowery speeches about freedom and warm apple pie. They don't want to hear the truth which is that republicans have nothing to offer.

Extended Federal Unemployment Benefits and the Economy

Thanks for the hilarious link. She cracks me up!

And yet you can't explain why she is wrong.

Congratulations. You stated the Obama talking points to the letter. The use of Keynesian Economics Theory has never worked. Once again the expected out come was not achieved.

The stimulus did work. It saved us from a depression. It alone created 3 million jobs. It didn't work as well it was meant to. I'll give you that.

 

[Billy000]

I think the answer to the OP is obvious.

The OP has no freaking clue what he is talking about and that's why he is confused.

How so? Be specific.

===========================

see post 274, that is very specific !

You have provided no facts of your own. You are a simpleton who is incapable of having an intelligent conversation.

 

[The Rabbi]

It dis

And

...middle class and poor, why do they continue to support them? I just don't understand it. Why do republicans continue to be elected?

Trickle down economics has proven to be smoke screen. Bush's tax cuts pitifully created 4.6 jobs per million dollar cut. That's it. In Obama's first 4 years, twice as many jobs were created than in all of Bush's 8. According to the CBO, Obama's stimulus alone created over 2 million jobs that still exist to this day.

CBO: Stimulus Supports 2.9 Million Jobs Today | FDL News Desk

Obama’s Numbers, October Update

Here is a non partisan thorough look at what the stimulus accomplished which is staggering. It literally saved the country from another depression.

Was the Obama Stimulus a Success or a Failure? - NPQ - Nonprofit Quarterly

Here is WHY Obama's stimulus worked:

Extended Federal Unemployment Benefits and the Economy

I just don't understand what republicans have to show for. Obama's tax cut for the middle class was the biggest since Reagan. Seriously what has any republican president since Reagan done that has benefitted the country as a whole?

It seems as though all the average joe republicans want to hear are flowery speeches about freedom and warm apple pie. They don't want to hear the truth which is that republicans have nothing to offer.

Extended Federal Unemployment Benefits and the Economy

Thanks for the hilarious link. She cracks me up!

And yet you can't explain why she is wrong.

Congratulations. You stated the Obama talking points to the letter. The use of Keynesian Economics Theory has never worked. Once again the expected out come was not achieved.

The stimulus did work. It saved us from a depression. It alone created 3 million jobs. It didn't work as well it was meant to. I'll give you that.

I heard the stimulus stopped WW3 and total nuclear annhilation.
Thanks, Obama!

 

[SmarterThanTheAverageBear]

Eh what?

First of all I didn't state that I support welfare that ended in 1790.

Second of all, I am not responsible for the premise believed by all conservatives.

My question to you was "Do you think jefferson would support the welfare programs we have today?"

And you went off on a completely insane tangent, because you absolutely know that the answer to my question is an unequivocal no.

Get this straight people. I AM smarter than you and I won't be dissuaded by stupid and inane arguments. If asked a straight forward question , I will do my best to give a straight forward answer, and I have no reason to evade because my opinions are rooted in logic , fact, and truth rather than ideological stupidity. I would appreciate if you would next time answer a yes or no question with a yes or a no, then perhaps with some links to support your opinion.

"Eh what?

First of all I didn't state that I support welfare that ended in 1790."

YOUR LINK

"This article provides a general overview of the poor laws of the original thirteen states from approximately the time of the American Revolution until 1790, when Rhode Island became the thirteenth state to ratify the Constitution"

"Do you think jefferson would support the welfare programs we have today?"

FKKING YES

"The rich alone use imported articles, and on these alone the whole taxes of the General Government are levied. ... Our revenues liberated by the discharge of the public debt, and its surplus applied to canals, roads, schools, etc., the farmer will see his government supported, his children educated, and the face of his country made a paradise by the contributions of the rich alone, without his being called on to spend a cent from his earnings." --Thomas Jefferson


"The catholic principle of republicanism is that every people may establish what form of government they please and change it as they please, the will of the nation being the only thing essential." --Thomas Jefferson


BUT I DON'T REALLY GIVE A FUCK, IT'S NOT WHAT YOU PREMISED

YOUR PREMISE

"ANd you honestly think Jefferson would conclude that allowing half the people to sponge off the hard work of the other half would make the most people happy so that would make welfare alright?"


Contrary to "Entitlement Society" Rhetoric, Over Nine-Tenths of Entitlement Benefits Go to Elderly, Disabled, or Working Households

Moreover, the vast bulk of that 9 percent goes for medical care, unemployment insurance benefits (which individuals must have a significant work history to receive), Social Security survivor benefits for the children and spouses of deceased workers, and Social Security benefits for retirees between ages 62 and 64. Seven out of the 9 percentage points go for one of these four purposes.


Contrary to Entitlement Society Rhetoric Over Nine-Tenths of Entitlement Benefits Go to Elderly Disabled or Working Households mdash Center on Budget and Policy Priorities

I made it pretty clear that I would no longer debate with you if you continued with the silly fonts. Good day

 

[Dad2three]

Eh what?

First of all I didn't state that I support welfare that ended in 1790.

Second of all, I am not responsible for the premise believed by all conservatives.

My question to you was "Do you think jefferson would support the welfare programs we have today?"

And you went off on a completely insane tangent, because you absolutely know that the answer to my question is an unequivocal no.

Get this straight people. I AM smarter than you and I won't be dissuaded by stupid and inane arguments. If asked a straight forward question , I will do my best to give a straight forward answer, and I have no reason to evade because my opinions are rooted in logic , fact, and truth rather than ideological stupidity. I would appreciate if you would next time answer a yes or no question with a yes or a no, then perhaps with some links to support your opinion.

"Eh what?

First of all I didn't state that I support welfare that ended in 1790."

YOUR LINK

"This article provides a general overview of the poor laws of the original thirteen states from approximately the time of the American Revolution until 1790, when Rhode Island became the thirteenth state to ratify the Constitution"

"Do you think jefferson would support the welfare programs we have today?"

FKKING YES

"The rich alone use imported articles, and on these alone the whole taxes of the General Government are levied. ... Our revenues liberated by the discharge of the public debt, and its surplus applied to canals, roads, schools, etc., the farmer will see his government supported, his children educated, and the face of his country made a paradise by the contributions of the rich alone, without his being called on to spend a cent from his earnings." --Thomas Jefferson


"The catholic principle of republicanism is that every people may establish what form of government they please and change it as they please, the will of the nation being the only thing essential." --Thomas Jefferson


BUT I DON'T REALLY GIVE A FUCK, IT'S NOT WHAT YOU PREMISED

YOUR PREMISE

"ANd you honestly think Jefferson would conclude that allowing half the people to sponge off the hard work of the other half would make the most people happy so that would make welfare alright?"


Contrary to "Entitlement Society" Rhetoric, Over Nine-Tenths of Entitlement Benefits Go to Elderly, Disabled, or Working Households

Moreover, the vast bulk of that 9 percent goes for medical care, unemployment insurance benefits (which individuals must have a significant work history to receive), Social Security survivor benefits for the children and spouses of deceased workers, and Social Security benefits for retirees between ages 62 and 64. Seven out of the 9 percentage points go for one of these four purposes.


Contrary to Entitlement Society Rhetoric Over Nine-Tenths of Entitlement Benefits Go to Elderly Disabled or Working Households mdash Center on Budget and Policy Priorities

I made it pretty clear that I would no longer debate with you if you continued with the silly fonts. Good day

lol, AFTER you said you'd answer direct questions