Welfare is Immoral

[Lasher]

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

The "poor" aren't noted for their willingness to take part in "work."

 

[Lasher]

I guess Hoover dam was a bad idea?

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

Hoover Dam was a great idea, but the way it was financed was not.

 

[Lasher]

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?

First, tell me what "Tanff" is.

 

[Lasher]

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.

Why do you hate successful people to the point that you want the government to rob them of their property? Are you that bitter toward those of us who aren't failures?

 

[Lasher]

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?

If Boulder ..... excuse me, Hoover Dam, was built with the peoples' tax money, why do you think private industry is reaping anything from its operation? Did our government give the dam away to someone?

 

[Lasher]

I see no one has dared to answer my questions.

That should show you what they think of them.

 

[Lasher]

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

Right, if charity were left to private charities, the multi-generational leeches who live off us taxpayers generation after generation would be weeded out and only the very needy who have no other way of living would be certified to benefit, like aged widows with no income whatsoever, and anyone else who applied for it would be directed to an employment agency. No work, no food.

 

[Lasher]

"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, some people don't know what reasoning and logic are.

 

[Lasher]

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.

Nothing you posted addresses the morality of people using the power of government (the only entity that can legally use armed might to attain its goals) to deprive some people of their rightful property to use as a bribe to get other people to vote for their party. There has been much written through the ages about the fact that once people discover they can use the government to raid the common cookie-jar for their benefit, the state will fall into chaos and ruin, which is now happening to America. You just don't get it, do you?

 

[Lasher]

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.

No matter what acronyms are used to describe the theft of Peter to bribe Paul, it still boils down to being an immoral crime of some people colluding with the incumbent political party to rob some other people to benefit the favored ones and to acquire their votes.

 

[Lasher]

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.

It's immoral to allow a child to go hungry in a country that spends a billion/yr to dispose of excess food.
It's immoral to deny life saving healthcare to the poor because no matter how hard they work they can never afford those services.
It's immoral to deny a good education to a child who's only mistake was to be born into a poor family.
It's immoral to have a family living in cardboard box when millions of homes sit vacant.

And most of all, it is immoral to deny the most basic services to the poor in order to cut taxes for the wealthy.

The wealthy pay far more in income taxes than any other group percentagewise, and the bottom 50% of wage earners pay no taxes at all, in fact they are given tax refunds that they never paid in to the system. When the productive people of this country get enough of the government's stealing and robbing them, "Atlas Shrugged" will seem like a plea for a welfare state. It is sad that those most needy of the economic lessons in that book are unable to read and comprehend it. The dependent, weak, useless people who rely on others to support them should all be so ashamed of their lifestyles that they would be motivated to better their conditions, but it simply isn't in their make-up to do so.

 

[saveliberty]

Irresponsible parents are probably the most critical social problem the country faces. Seeds of crime, drugs and poverty are planted by the parents.

Dealing with social problems are the most difficult and costly problems the nation faces. It's very short sighted for the Right to believe that somehow these problems will work themselves out if we just ignore them by cutting off funding for the programs that deal with the problems.

There are no programs by the government to fix the parent problem.

That would require people to have jobs, so kids could see what sacrifices are made to provide for them.

It would require parents honor their commitment to each other, with divorces requiring fault.

It would mean actively raising the kid instead of letting the TV and X box do it.

It would mean parent showing more respect for teachers, pastors, police officers that are doing their vocations correctly.

It would mean replacing drugged up sports and entertainment heroes with ones who followed the rules.

Throwing money at the problem will not even begin to fix the problem.

Cutting back federal funds to many of these programs just transfers the costs to the DHS in the states.

My points are not programs. Get a clue. It is responsibility taught from the parents to the child by example. By the way, IF there is welfare, it IS up to each individual state to decide.

 

[Lasher]

Boy this stuff gets old, it is as if another narcissistic loonie is born every minute.

That really gives you a lot of credibility, your immediate name-calling, that is.

"When I give food to the poor, they call me a saint. When I ask why the poor have no food, they call me a communist." Dom Helder Camara

What do they call you when you use the government to rob people of their property?COLOR]

"Do not waste your time on Social Questions. What is the matter with the poor is Poverty; what is the matter with the rich is Uselessness." George Bernard Shaw

G.B Shaw was a notorious rabble-rousing socialist agitator, so I am not surprised you used his words.

According to a recent Harper's Index 10,149 US companies are now foreign owned. The average net worth of a white woman between 36 and 49 is 42,600 dollars. For a non-white woman it is five dollars. The CEO of Nike, Philip Knight is the sixth richest man in America. He is worth five billion dollars. "By 1992, Nike had eliminated nearly all of their U.S. work force in favor of low-wage Asian producers."

Nike is an enterprise that is in business to make all the profit possible for its shareholders, and therefore uses every means and method to attain that profit. It is an axiom of business that you make profit or fail, so what is your point? Would you have Nike become a charitable organization and give away its capital until all its employees are out of work?

'As of 2004, the richest one percent of Americans possessed sixty percent of all wealth in the country, while the bottom forty percent accounted for a whopping two-tenths of a percent.' 791 American companies their work to foreign countries. The few companies I am familiar with have well over 5000 employees in India. Added together, how many jobs do you think this list comprises? 'There are 2.4 million job openings for 15.3 million unemployed Americans.'

Talk to your union buddies about that.


'What Should a Billionaire Give'

"What is a human life worth? You may not want to put a price tag on a it. But if we really had to, most of us would agree that the value of a human life would be in the millions. Consistent with the foundations of our democracy and our frequently professed belief in the inherent dignity of human beings, we would also agree that all humans are created equal, at least to the extent of denying that differences of sex, ethnicity, nationality and place of residence change the value of a human life." http://www.nytimes.com/2006/12/17/m...?em&ex=1166763600&en=008e5238d37554dc&ei=5070

In what way are all men created equal? Surely not in eye-color, height, weight, hair-color, strength, skin color, facial features ... just what makes all people equal?


"On moral grounds, then, we could argue for a flat income tax of 90 percent to return that wealth to its real owners. In the United States, even a flat tax of 70 percent would support all governmental programs (about half the total tax) and allow payment, with the remainder, of a patrimony of about $8,000 per annum per inhabitant, or $25,000 for a family of three. This would generously leave with the original recipients of the income about three times what, according to my rough guess, they had earned." UBI and the Flat Tax

What communist field manual did that come from?



"... legislators cannot invent too many devices for subdividing property... Another means of silently lessening the inequality of property is to exempt all from taxation below a certain point, and to tax the higher portions or property in geometrical progression as they rise. Whenever there are in any country uncultivated lands and unemployed poor, it is clear that the laws of property have been so far extended as to violate natural right." Thomas Jefferson, in a letter to James Madison 1785

Link?


"Conservatives say if you don't give the rich more money, they will lose their incentive to invest. As for the poor, they tell us they've lost all incentive because we've given them too much money." George Carlin.


No one "gives" money to the rich, they use a method of acquiring it that is as foreign and alien to a liberal as honor is to a knave - they earn it.

 

[Shadow]

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 will answer my own question.

You have to do 8 hrs a day of job search, if you spend most of the time at home, and log that you do. They will investigate your claim, and sometimes will not pay your child care cost. You have to turn in you job log every day. If you do not do job search and turn in your logs they will reduce your benefits by 40% or take you off Tanff. You also have to go to certain amount of skill building classes. You have to check in with your case worker every week.
They are not getting an easy ride. Yes they are getting benefits, but you can't really sit on your ass and keep your benefits.
If your child's father is paying support, they also have to pay back a portion of the benefits you recieve.

That is assuming they enforce those rules. I can tell you for a fact that they do not in the state of NM,probably in a lot of other states as well. I rec'd help paying for daycare for one year and when I re applied the case worker actually told me I made too much money to quailify due to getting a yearly raise in pay ($12.00 too much to be exact). Then proceeded to show me how to cheat the system if I wanted to ( I did not). A) Work 2 hrs less a week (or have my boss fudge my pay stubs) OR B) have another child.

We were also required to take manditory child care classes on saturdays (which no one ever followed up on....ever...and no one attended anyway so they were eventually cancelled). And if you were a full time student you were supposed to provide proof...again... case workers never followed up on this either. Basically in this state they do get a free ride...unless they are honest and don't cheat the system that is.

 

[Flopper]

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.

It's immoral to allow a child to go hungry in a country that spends a billion/yr to dispose of excess food.
It's immoral to deny life saving healthcare to the poor because no matter how hard they work they can never afford those services.
It's immoral to deny a good education to a child who's only mistake was to be born into a poor family.
It's immoral to have a family living in cardboard box when millions of homes sit vacant.

And most of all, it is immoral to deny the most basic services to the poor in order to cut taxes for the wealthy.

The wealthy pay far more in income taxes than any other group percentagewise, and the bottom 50% of wage earners pay no taxes at all, in fact they are given tax refunds that they never paid in to the system. When the productive people of this country get enough of the government's stealing and robbing them, "Atlas Shrugged" will seem like a plea for a welfare state. It is sad that those most needy of the economic lessons in that book are unable to read and comprehend it. The dependent, weak, useless people who rely on others to support them should all be so ashamed of their lifestyles that they would be motivated to better their conditions, but it simply isn't in their make-up to do so.

The bottom 50% in this country don't have any money to pay taxes thanks the 20 years economic policy that has pushed them in poverty.

 

[syrenn]

The bottom 50% in this country don't have any money to pay taxes thanks the 20 years economic policy that has pushed them in poverty.

The bottom bottom line is that those 50% you speak of are trying to make it 75% who cant pay taxes and live in poverty.

 

[syrenn]

That is assuming they enforce those rules. I can tell you for a fact that they do not in the state of NM,probably in a lot of other states as well. I rec'd help paying for daycare for one year and when I re applied the case worker actually told me I made too much money to quailify due to getting a yearly raise in pay ($12.00 too much to be exact). Then proceeded to show me how to cheat the system if I wanted to ( I did not). A) Work 2 hrs less a week (or have my boss fudge my pay stubs) OR B) have another child.

We were also required to take manditory child care classes on saturdays (which no one ever followed up on....ever...and no one attended anyway so they were eventually cancelled). And if you were a full time student you were supposed to provide proof...again... case workers never followed up on this either. Basically in this state they do get a free ride...unless they are honest and don't cheat the system that is.

The sad thing is that as you are someone speaking from the inside, know one will listen to you about what is really happening and what is the truth.

 

[lizzie]

Irresponsible parents are probably the most critical social problem the country faces. Seeds of crime, drugs and poverty are planted by the parents.

Dealing with social problems are the most difficult and costly problems the nation faces. It's very short sighted for the Right to believe that somehow these problems will work themselves out if we just ignore them by cutting off funding for the programs that deal with the problems.

It's very short-sighted for the Lefts to believe that somehow money will fix these problems. That's one of the ways that politicians and many in the public justify welfare- by stating it is a deterrent to crime, which is bullshit. Welfare programs have spawned an entire subculture of crime and gangs, primarily because paying single moms for illegitimate children, and in effect paying them not to marry the father, leaves many young men without a role model or a strong family unit. These gang members are looking for a strong father figure with authority, because they need someone to respect, and God knows they don't respect their mothers. Our welfare system is a huge moral and financial disaster, but many, primarily on the left, happily pay for all the trashy behavior in the ghettos because they believe it deters crime. In other words, they are paying a bribe.

 

[Flopper]

The bottom 50% in this country don't have any money to pay taxes thanks the 20 years economic policy that has pushed them in poverty.

The bottom bottom line is that those 50% you speak of are trying to make it 75% who cant pay taxes and live in poverty.

Everyone is just clamoring to live in that government subsidized housing project where it isn't safe to leave the building after dark, where it's always cold in winter and hot in summer, and your kids are never safe outside of the apartment. And shopping with those food stamps (EBT) are just great but no bath soap, toilet paper, dish soap, paper towels, over the counter medicine, etc. And you can go to the doctor for free if you can find one that's so bad off they have to accept Medicaid. You do have to avoid having any dental, vision, or hearing problems since Medicaid does not cover these things in most states. Since you can't afford to drive a car, you get plenty of exercise strolling through the hood 10 blocks to the grocery store and two miles to the free clinic. Heck, I think I'll quite my job and take advantage of good life.

 

[snjmom]

There is a legitimate role for government in collecting taxes which benefit all citizens equally. There is not a legitimate role for it to collect taxes to redistribute in order to equalize individuals. Government should exist to make and enforce laws which insure a civil society and provide for defense of the homeland.

The redistribution of wealth serves two important public benefits. Those that have their base survival needs met are less likely to cause social unrest, increasing security. The consolidation of power in the form of money can usurp the power of government, making it in government's best interest to not allow such power to accumulate indefinitely.