Welfare is Immoral

[uscitizen]

I guess Hoover dam was a bad idea?

It is now providing welfare finianced water and electricity to Vegas and southern CA.

The Dam was not a bad Idea, having the government pay for it was.

How many billions have private industry made from the electricity and water since Hoover dam was built?

How many billions in tax dollars of income are still attributed to Hoover dam?

 

[Luissa]

I see no one has dared to answer my questions.

 

[Charles_Main]

[/quote=uscitizen;2720925]

I guess Hoover dam was a bad idea?

It is now providing welfare finianced water and electricity to Vegas and southern CA.

The Dam was not a bad Idea, having the government pay for it was.

How many billions have private industry made from the electricity and water since Hoover dam was built?

Exactly why the Private sector should have paid for it.

 

[WillowTree]

rightwing nut jobs are not people I looked to for morality.

greedy bastard

what makes him greedy? exactly?

 

[syrenn]

For everyone disagrees with Welfare, please tell me about the program. Tell me about what one has to do while on Tanff if they do not have a medical exemption? Tell me how many hours they have to put in for job search, and how much time they actually have in their LIFETIME to live on Tanff.
Also tell me how cutting childcare coverage during the Bush years helped people find jobs?

In my opinion all childcare welfare should be cut to only cover ONE child(or the amount of children you FIRST apply with). If you cant afford ONE child you should be responsible enough to not have any more. Nor should the public be responsible for MORE children when you cant afford the one that the public is already covering. If welfare mother thinks she can support several children on the check for one, that is up to her.

Finding jobs and cranking out babies to get a bigger welfare check are two different things. Though you could look at a bigger check as a better job

60 months of ADULT benefits, or 5 years is a long time to sit on your ass and not get a job. Sure they must attempt to find a job, but attempting to find a job could be just getting out of bed and looking at the news paper. After the 5 years the children would most likely still get the benefits not the adult.

 

[blu]

It is immoral for a government to tell its most productive people that they must give up part of their lives and property for the benefit of other people who don't have as many resources as those of us who have worked hard and made successful lives for ourselves just because those others have refused to avail themselves of all the benefits this great country has offered them in the way of education, freedom to pursue their dreams, etc.

Charity is intrinsically a voluntary thing, not something forced on us at the point of a gun by government thugs who have the authority to ultimately kill us for resisting their theft of our property. Taking one man's hard-earned money against his will for the benefit of another man's welfare is definitely not charity, it is the crime of robbery that is dictated by an arrogant and tyrannical government.

Every citizen of this country has the potential ability to carve out a decent, comfortable life for himself by utilizing all the facilities offered up by the benevolence of the productive, taxpaying workers who are forced to subsidize the educational, medical, legal, and other needs of the underclasses who refuse to take responsibility for their own lives as long as they don't have to due to our rulers providing them with all they need and want by stealing from us.

"Every citizen of this country has the potential ability to carve out a decent, comfortable life for himself "


except of course for those people who are unemployed because there aren't enough jobs to go around.

I can imagine a world in the future in which computers, robots, machines do almost all of the work....

resulting in massive unemployment...40%? 50%? 70? 80?...you?

I started a thread on this. when it happens unemployment using current measures uemployment will be nearly 90% at all times. the american way of living will be completely changed. maybe starting another thread on it will be worth it

 

[blu]

Bah, Humbug, I tell you. Are there no workhouses for the poor to go to? Humbug, I say.

Now why go to work when you can get section 8 housing and welfare. Poor sharon jasper, its such a tough life living in her slum

you need a job (paycheck) in order to qualify for section 8 dumbass

 

[blu]

No one ever asked government to take on the task of charity. There used to be a time where private entities/individuals used to do this. And it worked just FINE.

That is until the 16th Amendment came into being courtesy of the Socialist Do-gooders in Government that thought they knew better.

Government has used it as a WEAPON against the people ever since.

It's high time it ceased.

while I agree with the idea, charity would be nowhere near the same if it was all voluntary. its one of the reasons the government started in the first place

 

[syrenn]

Bah, Humbug, I tell you. Are there no workhouses for the poor to go to? Humbug, I say.

Now why go to work when you can get section 8 housing and welfare. Poor sharon jasper, its such a tough life living in her slum

you need a job (paycheck) in order to qualify for section 8 dumbass

I suggest you Google sharon jasper.

 

[Charles_Main]

It is immoral for a government to tell its most productive people that they must give up part of their lives and property for the benefit of other people who don't have as many resources as those of us who have worked hard and made successful lives for ourselves just because those others have refused to avail themselves of all the benefits this great country has offered them in the way of education, freedom to pursue their dreams, etc.

Charity is intrinsically a voluntary thing, not something forced on us at the point of a gun by government thugs who have the authority to ultimately kill us for resisting their theft of our property. Taking one man's hard-earned money against his will for the benefit of another man's welfare is definitely not charity, it is the crime of robbery that is dictated by an arrogant and tyrannical government.

Every citizen of this country has the potential ability to carve out a decent, comfortable life for himself by utilizing all the facilities offered up by the benevolence of the productive, taxpaying workers who are forced to subsidize the educational, medical, legal, and other needs of the underclasses who refuse to take responsibility for their own lives as long as they don't have to due to our rulers providing them with all they need and want by stealing from us.

"Every citizen of this country has the potential ability to carve out a decent, comfortable life for himself "


except of course for those people who are unemployed because there aren't enough jobs to go around.

I can imagine a world in the future in which computers, robots, machines do almost all of the work....

resulting in massive unemployment...40%? 50%? 70? 80?...you?

I started a thread on this. when it happens unemployment using current measures uemployment will be nearly 90% at all times. the american way of living will be completely changed. maybe starting another thread on it will be worth it

If you really think this could happen, You do not understand how an economy works. They would never make every job Automated. They would never get a chance as they did it and people lost their jobs they would also lose their ability to buy the products the companies made, and the companies would lose their income and ability to continue to Pay for Robots

 

[Charles_Main]

Bah, Humbug, I tell you. Are there no workhouses for the poor to go to? Humbug, I say.

Now why go to work when you can get section 8 housing and welfare. Poor sharon jasper, its such a tough life living in her slum

you need a job (paycheck) in order to qualify for section 8 dumbass

No you don't you ignorant ass. My mother in law has been on section 8 For 2 Decades (legally blind and barely able to walk) and has not had a PAY Check in all that time. She lives off of Social Security, the kind for the disabled. SSI or D or what ever. Not in the mood to look it up.

Her Rent is 850 Dollars a month of which she pays I think it is 90 Bucks and Section 8 Pays the REST and has for 2 Decades.

 

[blu]

If you really think this could happen, You do not understand how an economy works. They would never make every job Automated. They would never get a chance as they did it and people lost their jobs they would also lose their ability to buy the products the companies made, and the companies would lose their income and ability to continue to Pay for Robots

it will happen without a doubt and yes the whole model of economics will change as 80-90% unemployment will be rampant b/c there is only some many people who have the education and brainpower to do the only jobs that will be left available, and repairs etc on the robots won't sustain a whole country of people.

 

[Charles_Main]

If you really think this could happen, You do not understand how an economy works. They would never make every job Automated. They would never get a chance as they did it and people lost their jobs they would also lose their ability to buy the products the companies made, and the companies would lose their income and ability to continue to Pay for Robots

it will happen without a doubt and yes the whole model of economics will change as 80-90% unemployment will be rampant b/c there is only some many people who have the education and brainpower to do the only jobs that will be left available, and repairs etc on the robots won't sustain a whole country of people.

You are missing the point. If this country as you say had 90% unemployment all the time. The companies would go out of Business. How are they to sustain themselves when only 10% of workers have incomes?

 

[lizzie]

I see no one has dared to answer my questions.

Maybe it has nothing to do with "daring", but that the OP posed a question about the morality of welfare, as opposed to the requirements for getting on welfare.

 

[Wry Catcher]

It is immoral for a government to tell its most productive people that they must give up part of their lives and property for the benefit of other people who don't have as many resources as those of us who have worked hard and made successful lives for ourselves just because those others have refused to avail themselves of all the benefits this great country has offered them in the way of education, freedom to pursue their dreams, etc.

Charity is intrinsically a voluntary thing, not something forced on us at the point of a gun by government thugs who have the authority to ultimately kill us for resisting their theft of our property. Taking one man's hard-earned money against his will for the benefit of another man's welfare is definitely not charity, it is the crime of robbery that is dictated by an arrogant and tyrannical government.

Every citizen of this country has the potential ability to carve out a decent, comfortable life for himself by utilizing all the facilities offered up by the benevolence of the productive, taxpaying workers who are forced to subsidize the educational, medical, legal, and other needs of the underclasses who refuse to take responsibility for their own lives as long as they don't have to due to our rulers providing them with all they need and want by stealing from us.

Thank you. You have provided some of the best evidence possible to prove today's conservative is callous, and avarice is a family value of the conservative/tea party 'movement'.
The spin, justifying avarice, is an excellent example of Reactionary dogma; the poor, aged, infirm, and those who suffer cogenital health challenges are so because they are morally corrupt.

 

[Luissa]

I see no one has dared to answer my questions.

Maybe it has nothing to do with "daring", but that the OP posed a question about the morality of welfare, as opposed to the requirements for getting on welfare.

I just wanted to know if the people who are against, know anything about it. But thanks!

 

[Wry Catcher]

For everyone disagrees with Welfare, please tell me about the program. Tell me about what one has to do while on Tanff if they do not have a medical exemption? Tell me how many hours they have to put in for job search, and how much time they actually have in their LIFETIME to live on Tanff.
Also tell me how cutting childcare coverage during the Bush years helped people find jobs?

In my opinion all childcare welfare should be cut to only cover ONE child(or the amount of children you FIRST apply with). If you cant afford ONE child you should be responsible enough to not have any more. Nor should the public be responsible for MORE children when you cant afford the one that the public is already covering. If welfare mother thinks she can support several children on the check for one, that is up to her.

Finding jobs and cranking out babies to get a bigger welfare check are two different things. Though you could look at a bigger check as a better job

60 months of ADULT benefits, or 5 years is a long time to sit on your ass and not get a job. Sure they must attempt to find a job, but attempting to find a job could be just getting out of bed and looking at the news paper. After the 5 years the children would most likely still get the benefits not the adult.

I'd explain in detail how ignorant you are, but it would simply be a waste of my time. Welfare changed when AFDC went away and Temporary Aide for Needy Families replaced it. Call your Rep. on the Board of Supervisors and tell them how outraged you are, maybe they'll educate you.

 

[The T]

I haven't seen evidence that the government can or will kill a person for not paying taxes, but yes, forced charity is morally wrong, while voluntary charity is one of the most admirable of human qualities.
Government forcing one to support others with his own earned labor is intrinsically as wrong as theft on the street or in the neighborhood. It's government stealing your energy and your labor for their own use as they deem fit.

No one ever asked government to take on the task of charity. There used to be a time where private entities/individuals used to do this. And it worked just FINE.

That is until the 16th Amendment came into being courtesy of the Socialist Do-gooders in Government that thought they knew better.

Government has used it as a WEAPON against the people ever since.

It's high time it ceased.

It worked just fine for the people they helped, not for the people they were not able to help.

And? Who's fault is that? The one's giving the assistance...or those seeking assistance?

I dare say the latter.

With Liberty comes responsibility.

Learn it, Live it, KNOW IT.

 

[AllieBaba]

child care coverage is getting chopped again as we speak, Luissa.

So apparently it wasn't just a Bush thing.

 

[AllieBaba]

I sent out 3 or 4 TANF denials today. To 2-parent families whose primary wage earner was either fired or quit a productive job. Because in a two-parent family, if the PWE loses his or her last productive job either by voluntary quit, or being fired for something like drug use, the family is not eligible.

Our TANF families who receive money and don't have to look for work are the lowest functioning of the welfare population. People do get bumped off TANF for not looking for work and cooperating with their case managers and adhering to their case plan. While I was sending out denials, my supervisor was backing up another manager in regard to a couple of clients who were trying to play the system and were being denied benefits for not complying.

oh crud, gotta run.