CDZ Welfare vs Charity

[Spare_change]

As with all things, one need only reflect on what the nazis did, and be for the opposite

That is ridiculous.

You do know that the Nazis were also for public education, welfare, advancing their economy and like mathematics too, right?

So we should ditch public education, etc, simply because the Nazis did it?

Sheesh.

Should we ditch public education? Absolutely.

Because the Nazis did it? Nope

Because it failed? Yes.

 

[Spare_change]

The Sorry State of Corporate Taxes | Citizens for Tax Justice

• As a group, the 288 corporations examined paid an effective federal income tax rate of just 19.4 percent over the five-year period — far less than the statutory 35 percent tax rate.

• Twenty-six of the corporations, including Boeing, General Electric, Priceline.com and Verizon, paid no federal income tax at all over the five year period. A third of the corporations (93) paid an effective tax rate of less than ten percent over that period.

• Of those corporations in our sample with significant offshore profits, two thirds paid higher corporate tax rates to foreign governments where they operate than they paid in the U.S. on their U.S. profits.

These findings refute the prevailing view inside the Washington, D.C. Beltway that America’s corporate income tax is more burdensome than the corporate income taxes levied by other countries, and that this purported (but false) excess burden somehow makes the U.S. “uncompetitive.”

Other Findings:

• One hundred and eleven of the 288 companies (39 percent of them) paid zero or less in federal income taxes in at least one year from 2008 to 2012.

• The sectors with the lowest effective corporate tax rates over the five-year period were utilities (2.9 percent), industrial machinery (4.3 percent), telecommunications (9.8 percent), oil, gas and pipelines (14.4 percent), transportation (16.4 percent), aerospace and defense (16.7 percent) and financial (18.8 percent).

• The tax breaks claimed by these companies are highly concentrated in the hands of a few very large corporations. Just 25 companies claimed $174 billion in tax breaks over the five years between 2008 and 2012. That’s almost half the $364 billion in tax subsidies claimed by all of the 288 companies in our sample.

• Five companies — Wells Fargo, AT&T, IBM, General Electric, and Verizon — enjoyed over $77 billion in tax breaks during this five-year period.

Did you bother to look at the average federal income tax rate for a representative sample of American workers? The top 1% paid just over 31%, and the bottom 20% average 3.8%. The average tax rate was 18.6%. How Much Does the Average American Worker Pay in Taxes? : FedSmith.com Blogs

Now, tell me again how corporations aren't paying their share?

 

[320 Years of History]

I know that it can be done, but I also know THAT MOST PEOPLE DO NOT HAVE THE DISCIPLINE TO DO THIS.

Are you trying to help these people or simply punish them for not being as smart and fortunate as you are genetically?

I believe the Lord helps those who help themselves. How that applies in the context of this discussion about skills development and whatnot is that those who lack the commitment and discipline -- two things that don't cost any money at all -- to "bust ass" and "get 'er done" don't deserve to rewarded for their sloth. I also have no belief that punishment is what they deserve either; I have no thought that society should take from those folks whatever they've gained in the course of putting out as little effort as they can.

For folks at the level of needing welfare assistance, the simple fact is that I have no desire to have folks starving and going homeless, so welfare benefits aren't among the things I'd deny folks. If they work, and their earnings are supplemented with housing support and/or food support, fine. Moreover, if they are working or not, I think those folks need to get training to boost their skill levels. But if won't participate in the training, I'm certainly not going to suggest they deserve more than the state provided assistance to keep them from being homeless and hungry.

A couple other things:

• The act of providing support to the extent needed to make up for one's inability to feed and house themselves is not my idea of a "reward." It may be someone else's.
• I do not ascribe to the idea that people are perfectly content if they have a roof of some sort over their head and some sort of nourishment in their bellies. There may be folks for whom that's enough, but I think those folks are very "few and far between."

You want a Marxist civil war going on in this country, then by all means go and cut more social programs, sure go right ahead.

??? Excuse me? I know you recognize my ID as I do yours, I did write the following posts:

• CDZ - Welfare vs Charity
  
• CDZ - Welfare vs Charity
  
• CDZ - Welfare vs Charity
  
• CDZ - Welfare vs Charity
  
• CDZ - Welfare vs Charity
  
• CDZ - Welfare vs Charity
  
• CDZ - Welfare vs Charity
  
• CDZ - Welfare vs Charity
  
• CDZ - Welfare vs Charity

Given those remarks, combined with my unyielding advocacy of capitalism, my belief that one must take ownership for one's success and failure, etc., what makes you think I want a "Marxist civil war?" Indeed, what makes you think I want any kind of war?

 

[Andylusion]

If people are doing this 40 hours a week, when are they taking classes to get new skills? When are they doing work searches?

During the remaining 128 hours of the week.

Your response that suggests you are more interested in punishing the poor than helping them to get on their feet.

So you think it wise to rob them of 80 hours a week of pointless make do BS labor, then leave them the evenings and weekends to look for work, get trained in a new career line and still eat, sleep, shit, shower, shave and have a little time for the family?

You are not being serious about helping these people with that kind of nonsense; you are working on the presupposition that they are merely lazy asses and forcing them to do a little work will drive them to getting real jobs.

Were we talking about 20 hours of work a week, I could buy the idea, as it would help them to get out, stay used to early rising, and make social contacts, but a full work week that would interfere with actually getting a real job?

That is punitive nonsense.

Red:
What readers should infer from my remark is that the line of argument that says there isn't enough time in the week, what with working 40 hours, is a "non-starter" with me as a reason why folks cannot gain new skills.

Well people like Jim, think that they should be able to get a 6-figure income, while working only 40 hours. Anyone can start their own business, and make tons of money. They just don't want to put in the time. But no one has ever made it big, working as few hours as possible.

The people who started Snapple, at one point were sleeping in their cars, at the plant parking lot. You can't make it big, and work 9 to 5.

Yet even those who do, just work a straight 40 hours, can still advance somewhat in their career, and gain skills. When I was at Advance Auto Parts, they had on-the-clock training provided on-site. When things were slow, you could log on to the companies training, and learn how to do the cycle counts, the store budget, and other various things.

Things that if you completed them all, and passed all your tests, they would give you a company certification. Getting that allowed you free company paid management training program.

So even the most lazy idiot, could still advance somehow in their career.

I have a friend who got college reimbursement from Walmart, and now is a civil engineer. From working at Walmart.

People like Jim are not saying what they say from a perspective of fact or truth. They are speaking out of necessity. He MUST believe that people are helpless and stuck. That's the only way to justify left-wing ideology to control and regulate business, and have endless government programs that harm the poor, while claiming to benefit them.

Thematically I agree with your general point that there is lots of opportunity that's there for the taking and availing oneself of it will require more than just working 40 hours a week. I agree with your theme because I happen to know you are correct, but were I not already possessed of that knowledge, what you wrote would be far from convincing. The reason is that the specific ways you expressed your thoughts are unconvincing because of:

• the generalizations that are unsupported thus lending the post a pontifical tone as well as merely being the remarks of someone about whom the reader knows nothing, least of all whether you should be viewed as an expert on matters of why folks do are or are not financially successful, or why folks do or don't take advantage of opportunities that stare them in the face,
• the off-handed insult, and
• the heavy reliance on anecdotal evidence.

Indeed, the reliance on anecdotal evidence didn't need to occur at all, especially seeing as of your main points, it is the one that is very easily supported with facts that take all of a few seconds to gather. There are plenty of resources on WWW about companies that offer tuition reimbursement, for example:

• 15 Companies That Will Help Pay Your College Tuition
  
• 4 Fast Food Jobs That Pay for College
  
• These 6 Companies Give Their Employees Unlimited Tuition Reimbursement
  
• Jobs that pay for college
  
• 10 Companies that Offer Tuition Assistance
  
• 33 Companies That Can Save You From College Debt | CollegePlus

All true. The reason is because of who I was replaying to. First, I knew that you knew all of this was true. So there is no need to post detailed data on the subject. Before you, is Jim. Jim has a massively long history of being a closed minded, partisan bigot, and I could posted 100 pages worth of data, and he will ignore it all.

You have to know Jim. Giving him the data, is like tossing jewelry into a pig pen, and expecting a super model to come out.

Jim's normal mode of operation is to thing use his amazing intellect to punch in "corporations pay less tax" into Google, and then cut and paste endless links and snippet from the articles. He doesn't use his intelligence to consider why, nor bother to even fact check the articles he posts. He has even at times posted articles that completely contradict his stated position, but he never bothers to read any of the articles he himself posts, to find this out.

In short... in all honesty, I would advise you to not bother too much with trying to have an intellectual discussion with Jim. If you say something he already agrees with, he'll say you are brilliant. You say something he disagrees with, and the G-d of the universe could tell him it's true, and he would never believe it. Obama himself could contact Jim, and Jim would still say it was wrong, and somehow Obama was just misled by some right-wing conspiracy.

Beyond that......

The claim that people are trapped and helpless in their situation, is either true, or false. There is no middle ground.

So while I could post all that stuff, it's not required. Again everything you said is in fact accurate. But all that is needed to prove a claim false is several examples that disprove the claim.

If people were trapped and hopeless... then how can one person come here with zero "white privilege", have zero education, zero support or external help... and become millionaires?

Again, the claim is either true or false. Are people who are poor, trapped, or not? If they are trapped, then how is it possible for people with even fewer advantages to succeed? How many of the poorest have family to fall back on, as an advantage? People come here from across the planet, and they have nothing to fall back on. Their family is thousand of miles away, yet they start businesses, and become wealthy.

Honestly, without any data whatsoever, I can't figure out how this claim could be even remotely logical. Poor impoverished people, come here from all over the world, and are able to become wealthy.

"Slave wages, force people to stay at subsistence"

Yet people come here and they can't even speak English, and are able to become wealthy? How is that even possible? The claim simply can't be true. It's sad that today our reliance on research and ivy league institutions, and government funded studies, has resulted in us not having enough common sense to think though these claims, without someone tell the public what answer they came up with.

 

[Tommy Tainant]

Its a very simple proposition. If people in work still need assistance then we are subsidising their employers.
How can it be anything else ?

Your comment is based on the fallacious assumption that corporations, somehow, have a responsibility to provide for their employees.

Corporations have a single responsibility - to make as much money as they can make - period. No more, no less. To attempt to assign them some social construct, is to deny your own social responsibility.

And therefore they have no right to expect the taxpayer to subsidise their starvation wages.
If people work at a full time job then their employer should pay a living wage.

What is difficult about that ?

The employer should pay them exactly what they're worth - defined as how much value to they add to the finished product - and not one nickel more. Their lifestyle is not the responsibility of the employer.

Put in its simplest terms - which seems to work best around here -- it the goal of the employer to get $1 million worth of labor for $1, and it is the goal of the employee to get $1 million for $1 worth of labor. Sounds pretty adversarial to me.

I have seen this argument put before and it never ceases to entertain me. Corporations do not operate in a bubble. The sole pursuit of profit is not an acceptable business model.

Corporations benefit from the advances made by our society and need to play their part in supporting that.

They do --- it's called paying taxes --- quit trying to find some flimsy excuse to blame the corporations when the fault lies with you.

I pay my taxes. I dont employ other corporations to help me evade paying them like your precious corporations do.

 

[320 Years of History]

Jim has a massively long history of being a closed minded, partisan bigot, and I could posted 100 pages worth of data, and he will ignore it all.

You have to know Jim. Giving him the data, is like tossing jewelry into a pig pen, and expecting a super model to come out.

You and I clearly have had decidedly different conversations with JimBowie1958. Perhaps some of your discourse with him has been outside the CDZ/SDF. Mine have not. Maybe therein lie the difference.

Jim's normal mode of operation is to thing use his amazing intellect to punch in "corporations pay less tax" into Google, and then cut and paste endless links and snippet from the articles.

I have observed JimBowie1958's unrelenting stance opposing capitalism and corporations. I think some of it is "on point"/warranted and some of it is not.

all that is needed to prove a claim false is several examples that disprove the claim....If people were trapped and hopeless... then how can one person come here with zero "white privilege", have zero education, zero support or external help... and become millionaires?

Well, when it comes to macroeconomic and social policy, both of which welfare systems are a part, the consequences to one individual, or the observed success/failure of one, or even a limited few individuals isn't really the point. Were you (or someone) to credibly show that of the millions of immigrants who come to the U.S. with nary a nickel to their name and 10-15 years later are multimillionaires, I'd think there's something to your illustration about the fact that some immigrants do so.

Your immigrant example is no different than the Oprah, Bill Clinton, Jay Z, Snoop Dog, or the other "Horatio Alger" native born Americans whom one might cite. It's not at all difficult to identify exceptions to any given rule, paradigm or process. But with socioeconomic policy that is constrained by the body of jurisprudence we have in the U.S., all that's relevant about those exceptional individuals and their "stories" is that our system allows for them to achieve exceptionally in spite of wherefrom they began their lives. That's in stark contrast with other places where that sort of exceptional performance simply isn't possible if one didn't start from at least a somewhat privileged position in life.

This is now the second time you've presented exactly the same line about immigrants finding success. Did you read any of linked content I shared when I responded to it the first time? It's not as though I have a different response now to the very same remark you made some time back.

 

[JimBowie1958]

Jim has a massively long history of being a closed minded, partisan bigot, and I could posted 100 pages worth of data, and he will ignore it all.

You have to know Jim. Giving him the data, is like tossing jewelry into a pig pen, and expecting a super model to come out.

You and I clearly have had decidedly different conversations with JimBowie1958. Perhaps some of your discourse with him has been outside the CDZ/SDF. Mine have not. Maybe therein lie the difference.

Jim's normal mode of operation is to thing use his amazing intellect to punch in "corporations pay less tax" into Google, and then cut and paste endless links and snippet from the articles.

I have observed JimBowie1958's unrelenting stance opposing capitalism and corporations. I think some of it is "on point"/warranted and some of it is not.

all that is needed to prove a claim false is several examples that disprove the claim....If people were trapped and hopeless... then how can one person come here with zero "white privilege", have zero education, zero support or external help... and become millionaires?

Well, when it comes to macroeconomic and social policy, both of which welfare systems are a part, the consequences to one individual, or the observed success/failure of one, or even a limited few individuals isn't really the point. Were you (or someone) to credibly show that of the millions of immigrants who come to the U.S. with nary a nickel to their name and 10-15 years later are multimillionaires, I'd think there's something to your illustration about the fact that some immigrants do so.

Your immigrant example is no different than the Oprah, Bill Clinton, Jay Z, Snoop Dog, or the other "Horatio Alger" native born Americans whom one might cite. It's not at all difficult to identify exceptions to any given rule, paradigm or process. But with socioeconomic policy that is constrained by the body of jurisprudence we have in the U.S., all that's relevant about those exceptional individuals and their "stories" is that our system allows for them to achieve exceptionally in spite of wherefrom they began their lives. That's in stark contrast with other places where that sort of exceptional performance simply isn't possible if one didn't start from at least a somewhat privileged position in life.

This is now the second time you've presented exactly the same line about immigrants finding success. Did you read any of linked content I shared when I responded to it the first time? It's not as though I have a different response now to the very same remark you made some time back.

I do support capitalism with a heavy mix of Nordic Socialism.

I do not waste time trying to explain things to people like Andy who simply repeat the same unfacts over and over and over. He thinks we can cut welfare to zero, then shoot all the indigents and that would solve our nations economic problems, or something similar.

I dont have enough seconds left in my life to bother with such nonsense.

 

[JimBowie1958]

You want a Marxist civil war going on in this country, then by all means go and cut more social programs, sure go right ahead.

??? Excuse me? I know you recognize my ID as I do yours, I did write the following posts:...
Given those remarks, combined with my unyielding advocacy of capitalism, my belief that one must take ownership for one's success and failure, etc., what makes you think I want a "Marxist civil war?" Indeed, what makes you think I want any kind of war?

I did not mean 'you' literally, but the generic 'you' as in 'a person'.

You can do this or that and see what it gets you.

One can do this or that and see what it gets one.

A person can do this or that and see what it gets a person.

I apologize for the miscommunication.

 

[Andylusion]

One of the advantages of charity, is the charity might cut off the able bodied person that just doesn't want to work and welfare never will. As far as single moms go I'm all for helping them out, but it is a little like rewarding them for there poor choices in husband material. I once bumped into a welfare queen with 9 kids by 9 different fathers. Welfare was her work of choice. Welfare IS needed, but we should do a lot more policing of recipients than we do. Of course that means more federal workers who can't be fired.

And you just happened to ask her about these fathers, this woman you just bumped into? That had to be a very unique conversation.

Oh good grief Carla. Are you sheltered? I've had several women tell me about "babies daddy". I am always shocked when it happens, but they do. Almost proud of it or something.

 

[Andylusion]

The permanent underclass is maintained by creating government programs that offer no path to an increased financial reality, providing them a living subsistence with no possibility for growth, thus ensuring that their presence in the underclass is permanent.

Creating a permanent underclass and marginalizing the growth potential of whole segment of society is NOT "for the good of society", and constitutes the basest of thefts and the use of other people's money to solidify your position as the controlling element.

There is some permanency in allowing people to remain on welfare and not encourage them to leave it, but some have no choice such as the elderly on SocSec or military people on pensions, etc.

Your sweeping generalizations are simplistic in the extreme.

Ask yourself - what is the purpose of our government? Now, ask yourself - how does welfare help meet that purpose? In those two answers, you will find the fallacy of your position.

There are a great many purposes found in the Constitution for our federal and state governments.

That you think there is only one or a few simple purposes that can be attributed as one, is telling, and provides the fallacy of your position.

Ladies and gentlemen ---

What we have here is an example how to respond when you don't have a coherent or cogent counter-argument. If you can't attack the argument, attack the poster.

Ridiculous unsupported assertions.

Welcome to my ignore list.

LOL! Jim, if everyone had the same standard for ignoring you..... no one on the entire forum would know you still exist.

 

[Andylusion]

Welfare and fasfa only helps people a billion times more then Charity.

Charity isn't serious.

Its clear that charities can only help on a smaller scale unless they are acting as an agent of the government.

You should learn some history. Charities have retreated in direct correlation to the advancement of government. As government expanded, and increased taxation, and covered more and more of what was the domain of charities, charities did less and less.

After all, if the government is willing to pay for immunizations, why would a charity cover that?

Moreover, government actively discourages private charity. Take New Orleans. Government agencies told private charities to stay out of the flood zone, and to not help people. Well if government is telling you to stay out, and to not help, why would charities scale up? Why would more people donate?

There is also a mentality issue. People today think they should not have to help each other out. That it's not their duty to help their fellow citizen, but rather government job. That they shouldn't have to sacrifice for the good of others.

I keep going back to the Great Dayton Flood, here in Ohio. Private companies spent MILLIONS in 1913 dollars.... and that's not including goods and services, that's just raw cash, to help out their fellow man. Today... why should they pay? That's governments job.

From private citizens, to the oh-so-evil 'robber barons', everyone believed that they had an inherent duty, themselves, not government, to help each other.

The Charity that saved Dayton Ohio, was so great, that entire trains of food and supplies had to wait outside the city, because there was too much donated goods for the city to handle.

But not today. Why? Because Charities can't handle it? Because without government, the average people can't help each other?

No, because the left-wing has taught them that only government can solve these problems. Only government can help the public. Only government can make a difference. And if a charity does do anything, it's only with the help of government.

They have indoctrinated you successfully. Good little peon.

 

[Andylusion]

That claim is patently false and one has nothing to do with the other, but you already knew that

Its a very simple proposition. If people in work still need assistance then we are subsidising their employers.
How can it be anything else ?

Your comment is based on the fallacious assumption that corporations, somehow, have a responsibility to provide for their employees.

Corporations have a single responsibility - to make as much money as they can make - period. No more, no less. To attempt to assign them some social construct, is to deny your own social responsibility.

And therefore they have no right to expect the taxpayer to subsidise their starvation wages.
If people work at a full time job then their employer should pay a living wage.

What is difficult about that ?

The employer should pay them exactly what they're worth - defined as how much value to they add to the finished product - and not one nickel more. Their lifestyle is not the responsibility of the employer.

Put in its simplest terms - which seems to work best around here -- it the goal of the employer to get $1 million worth of labor for $1, and it is the goal of the employee to get $1 million for $1 worth of labor. Sounds pretty adversarial to me.

I have seen this argument put before and it never ceases to entertain me. Corporations do not operate in a bubble. The sole pursuit of profit is not an acceptable business model.

Corporations benefit from the advances made by our society and need to play their part in supporting that.

Well you have the right to be wrong. It might amuse you, but you are still wrong. The sole pursuit of profit, is the driving factor for nearly every human being on the planet, unless you are part of government, which profit doesn't matter when you can simply shove a gun in tax payer faces, and demand more cash.

Round up all your left-wing people, and show me ONE person.... ONE... that would go to work, and produce, if they did not profit from doing so. Where is this person? Where is he at?

He doesn't exist. Just like your ideology is nice in theory, but in practical reality, doesn't exist.

People don't work for free. Groups of people don't work for free. Businesses do not work for free. Companies don't work for free. Anyone who claims otherwise, isn't just intellectually dishonest, he's a blatant liar. Why? Because we've seen how countries that try to force that ideology on the public, end up.

Where is your Soviet Union, with the non-profit motive companies? They are all gone, along with the ashes of that ideology. Where is your China with non-profit motive companies? All gone, replaced by capitalist profit driven companies. Where is your Cuba, with your non-profit motive companies? Cuba went from 1st world standard of living, to 3rd world, and now is moving back to classic profit motivated capitalistic companies.

Where is your example? Where is your workers paradise, without the evil profit motive? All ruins, all ashes, all impoverishment.

Your side has lost the argument, before you ever made the argument. History has proven us right, and will continue with Venezuela, and every other left-wing socialist hell created on the Earth.

 

[Andylusion]

Gee....I'm really disappointed in you.

Well, you can expect more of that when you argue that FDR caused the real estate meltdown of 2008, when he has been dead for 80+ years and his policies have long since ended.

Your argument that people are actually better off on starvation diets and that the Great Depression was good for their health while periods of prosperity are bad, is just complete nonsense that shows either you are not taking the subject seriously or incapable of doing so.

You have let your ideology lead you into the intellectual fever swamps and I dont have the time to fish you out, so good luck.

Well Jim, I want you to know that unlike PoliticalChic, I'm not disappointed in you at all. In fact you have met my low expectations dead on. Congrats.

 

[Andylusion]

I know that it can be done, but I also know THAT MOST PEOPLE DO NOT HAVE THE DISCIPLINE TO DO THIS.

Are you trying to help these people or simply punish them for not being as smart and fortunate as you are genetically?

I believe the Lord helps those who help themselves. How that applies in the context of this discussion about skills development and whatnot is that those who lack the commitment and discipline -- two things that don't cost any money at all -- to "bust ass" and "get 'er done" don't deserve to rewarded for their sloth. I also have no belief that punishment is what they deserve either; I have no thought that society should take from those folks whatever they've gained in the course of putting out as little effort as they can.

For folks at the level of needing welfare assistance, the simple fact is that I have no desire to have folks starving and going homeless, so welfare benefits aren't among the things I'd deny folks. If they work, and their earnings are supplemented with housing support and/or food support, fine. Moreover, if they are working or not, I think those folks need to get training to boost their skill levels. But if won't participate in the training, I'm certainly not going to suggest they deserve more than the state provided assistance to keep them from being homeless and hungry.

A couple other things:

• The act of providing support to the extent needed to make up for one's inability to feed and house themselves is not my idea of a "reward." It may be someone else's.
• I do not ascribe to the idea that people are perfectly content if they have a roof of some sort over their head and some sort of nourishment in their bellies. There may be folks for whom that's enough, but I think those folks are very "few and far between."

You want a Marxist civil war going on in this country, then by all means go and cut more social programs, sure go right ahead.

??? Excuse me? I know you recognize my ID as I do yours, I did write the following posts:

• CDZ - Welfare vs Charity

You know, I gotta say that of all the things I could worry about, how much the government spends, thus how much of my tax dollar gets consumed by that spending, how much it spends on welfare and similar programs is very low on the list of things that disturb me. There are a few reasons why I don't really care all that much:

• Welfare is spending that returns more to the economy than it cost to provide.
• Welfare is spending that helps individual and specific human beings.
• "Corporate welfare" consumes far, far more of my tax payments and goes indirectly to support individuals who have less need for the help than do welfare recipients, if only by dint of their being employed by those corporations, if not an ownership stake.
• I really don't care whether every welfare recipient "needs" the help; I care that without welfare, the people who do truly need the help will receive less help than they do currently. I might care were welfare to consume a share of my tax payments comparable to that of "corporate welfare," but it doesn't doesn't, and I'm not going to be so heartless as to complain about the relative pittance welfare takes from my taxes, even considering whatever graft that may occur in welfare programs.

Welfare is spending that returns more to the economy than it cost to provide.

This is entirely false, by any economic measure possible. In fact, it's false by the very nature of the system, without trying to measure it. At the very fundamental level, it is logically impossible for what you claim to be true.

Welfare is spending that helps individual and specific human beings.

Depends on how you define help. While I was in college, I was forced to watch an educational video about a guy who lost his job, because of an apartment fire, where he failed to buy rental insurance, and lost all his tools. Instead of getting a job at a fast food joint, he got public housing assistance, but then was faced with the dilemma that if he got a job, he would be kicked out of the public housing. So instead he just remained unemployed. After being there for 2 years, he openly on camera admitted he was considering suicide.

There's your "help".

Compare that to the shelter I worked at, which pushed and helped people get jobs, and furnish their own apartments as soon as they earned the money to sign a lease. That's real help. Helping people to move on. Not helping them to stay in misery for life.

And let's not forget that for every dollar of taxes, the end welfare recipient gets about 20¢. That's your 'help'. Where as for every dollar given to the charities I support, the end recipient gets about 90¢. That's real help.

"Corporate welfare" consumes far, far more of my tax payments and goes indirectly to support individuals who have less need for the help than do welfare recipients, if only by dint of their being employed by those corporations, if not an ownership stake.

Total lie. Just simply not true. You have been brainwashed by liars. Pure and simple.

By the way, just for the sake of a hypothetical argument, if I had no choice, but to choose to either give money to a corporation or to a welfare recipient, which would I choose? The Corporation. How many jobs have you gotten, created by a welfare person? How many products have been made by a welfare person? How many products and jobs are created by corporations? Millions. Billions. Trillions even.

Any rational person, if they had no choice but to pick who to give money to, should pick corporations.

I really don't care whether every welfare recipient "needs" the help; I care that without welfare, the people who do truly need the help will receive less help than they do currently. I might care were welfare to consume a share of my tax payments comparable to that of "corporate welfare," but it doesn't doesn't, and I'm not going to be so heartless as to complain about the relative pittance welfare takes from my taxes, even considering whatever graft that may occur in welfare programs.

By the way, if you want people to get off welfare, and get good jobs, who are they going to those jobs from? Corporations.

You know, the more you talk on this subject, the more it becomes clear you don't know what you are talking about, but you think you do.

Coming from you, I'm not insulted.

Well, that's good. The comment isn't written as an insult.

Oh, good to know. Because I had the exact same thought about you, but didn't say it. Fantastic that I can let you know, that based on the ignorance you have posted, that it's clear you have no idea what you are talking about. But it's great that you won't take my pointing out your lack of knowledge, to be an insult.

 

[JimBowie1958]

Gee....I'm really disappointed in you.

Well, you can expect more of that when you argue that FDR caused the real estate meltdown of 2008, when he has been dead for 80+ years and his policies have long since ended.

Your argument that people are actually better off on starvation diets and that the Great Depression was good for their health while periods of prosperity are bad, is just complete nonsense that shows either you are not taking the subject seriously or incapable of doing so.

You have let your ideology lead you into the intellectual fever swamps and I dont have the time to fish you out, so good luck.

Well Jim, I want you to know that unlike PoliticalChic, I'm not disappointed in you at all. In fact you have met my low expectations dead on. Congrats.

I put my religious values into my political beliefs, i.e. I am not going to ever agree with the concept of letting millions of people starve then shoot them down when they understandably riot, like you do. I am never going to say I believe sometihing as patently ridiculous as FDR is responsible for policies made 80 years after he is dead or that people do so much better when they are unemployed in a depression, etc.

But seeing how you and PC believe that, is fine by me, as it is a guarantee that no one of any magnitude is going to be paying any serious attention to what you say.

 

[PoliticalChic]

Gee....I'm really disappointed in you.

Well, you can expect more of that when you argue that FDR caused the real estate meltdown of 2008, when he has been dead for 80+ years and his policies have long since ended.

Your argument that people are actually better off on starvation diets and that the Great Depression was good for their health while periods of prosperity are bad, is just complete nonsense that shows either you are not taking the subject seriously or incapable of doing so.

You have let your ideology lead you into the intellectual fever swamps and I dont have the time to fish you out, so good luck.

Well Jim, I want you to know that unlike PoliticalChic, I'm not disappointed in you at all. In fact you have met my low expectations dead on. Congrats.

I put my religious values into my political beliefs, i.e. I am not going to ever agree with the concept of letting millions of people starve then shoot them down when they understandably riot, like you do. I am never going to say I believe sometihing as patently ridiculous as FDR is responsible for policies made 80 years after he is dead or that people do so much better when they are unemployed in a depression, etc.

But seeing how you and PC believe that, is fine by me, as it is a guarantee that no one of any magnitude is going to paying any serious attention to what you say.

1. "the concept of letting millions of people starve then shoot them down when they understandably riot..."
Certainly never applicable to America.
Never happened, and appears the fantasy of a fevered mind.

2."...never going to say I believe sometihing as patently ridiculous as FDR is responsible for policies made 80 years after he is dead..."
Shows a jaw-dropping resistance to education and reality.

3. "...people do so much better when they are unemployed in a depression,..."
Perhaps I missed it, but I don't believe anyone ever stated that.....other than you.

4. Fact is, FDR wanted to extend the Depression...and he did, making it run twice as long as any other of it's sort.

5. Why did he want to extend the Depression?
"You never let a serious crisis go to waste. And what I mean by that it's an opportunity to do things you think you could not do before."
Rahm Emanuel

Roosevelt despised the Constitution and the restrictions it imposed.


As there is no hope for you, I provide the above for readers capable of learning and casting off the mind-numbing of government schooling.

Be well.

 

[Andylusion]

Gee....I'm really disappointed in you.

Well, you can expect more of that when you argue that FDR caused the real estate meltdown of 2008, when he has been dead for 80+ years and his policies have long since ended.

Your argument that people are actually better off on starvation diets and that the Great Depression was good for their health while periods of prosperity are bad, is just complete nonsense that shows either you are not taking the subject seriously or incapable of doing so.

You have let your ideology lead you into the intellectual fever swamps and I dont have the time to fish you out, so good luck.

Well Jim, I want you to know that unlike PoliticalChic, I'm not disappointed in you at all. In fact you have met my low expectations dead on. Congrats.

I put my religious values into my political beliefs, i.e. I am not going to ever agree with the concept of letting millions of people starve then shoot them down when they understandably riot, like you do. I am never going to say I believe sometihing as patently ridiculous as FDR is responsible for policies made 80 years after he is dead or that people do so much better when they are unemployed in a depression, etc.

But seeing how you and PC believe that, is fine by me, as it is a guarantee that no one of any magnitude is going to be paying any serious attention to what you say.

Only a religious nut makes up that millions would starve. When food stamps and welfare were cut drastically in the 1990s, millions didn't starve. Instead they got work.

Only a religious nut thinks that forcibly confiscating people's hard work, is justified to avoid a myth.

The only thing you said that is accurate, is that it's religious. Left-wing most certainly is a religious movement devoid of fact, filled with dogma, and closely resembles a suicide cult.

The left-wing attacks everyone that doesn't by their mythology, the same way people who leave cults are often attacked by the members.

 

[PoliticalChic]

Gee....I'm really disappointed in you.

Well, you can expect more of that when you argue that FDR caused the real estate meltdown of 2008, when he has been dead for 80+ years and his policies have long since ended.

Your argument that people are actually better off on starvation diets and that the Great Depression was good for their health while periods of prosperity are bad, is just complete nonsense that shows either you are not taking the subject seriously or incapable of doing so.

You have let your ideology lead you into the intellectual fever swamps and I dont have the time to fish you out, so good luck.

Well Jim, I want you to know that unlike PoliticalChic, I'm not disappointed in you at all. In fact you have met my low expectations dead on. Congrats.

I put my religious values into my political beliefs, i.e. I am not going to ever agree with the concept of letting millions of people starve then shoot them down when they understandably riot, like you do. I am never going to say I believe sometihing as patently ridiculous as FDR is responsible for policies made 80 years after he is dead or that people do so much better when they are unemployed in a depression, etc.

But seeing how you and PC believe that, is fine by me, as it is a guarantee that no one of any magnitude is going to be paying any serious attention to what you say.

Only a religious nut makes up that millions would starve. When food stamps and welfare were cut drastically in the 1990s, millions didn't starve. Instead they got work.

Only a religious nut thinks that forcibly confiscating people's hard work, is justified to avoid a myth.

The only thing you said that is accurate, is that it's religious. Left-wing most certainly is a religious movement devoid of fact, filled with dogma, and closely resembles a suicide cult.

The left-wing attacks everyone that doesn't by their mythology, the same way people who leave cults are often attacked by the members.

"Only a religious nut makes up that millions would starve."

I fully understand folks disagreeing....even in the face of evidence, when they have heard and believed propaganda and mythology from an encomiastic media and academia their entire lives.


But when Jimmy makes up an absurdity such as "letting millions of people starve" when such a thing has never happened nor will....

...in the face of facts like this:

"As a group, America's poor are far from being chronically undernourished. The average consumption of protein, vitamins, and minerals is virtually the same for poor and middle-class children and, in most cases, is well above recommended norms. Poor children actually consume more meat than do higher-income children and have average protein intakes 100 percent above recommended levels.

Most poor children today are, in fact, supernourished and grow up to be, on average, one inch taller and 10 pounds heavier than the GIs who stormed the beaches of Normandy in World War II."
How Poor Are America's Poor? Examining the "Plague" of Poverty in America



One can only doubt America's future.


And....the irony is that actual starvation of millions was the purposeful act of Soviet Bolsheviks.....

....the political predecessors of today's Democrat Party.

 

[regent]

With charity one has to sing some religious songs before being fed.

 

[PoliticalChic]

Gee....I'm really disappointed in you.

Well, you can expect more of that when you argue that FDR caused the real estate meltdown of 2008, when he has been dead for 80+ years and his policies have long since ended.

Your argument that people are actually better off on starvation diets and that the Great Depression was good for their health while periods of prosperity are bad, is just complete nonsense that shows either you are not taking the subject seriously or incapable of doing so.

You have let your ideology lead you into the intellectual fever swamps and I dont have the time to fish you out, so good luck.

Well Jim, I want you to know that unlike PoliticalChic, I'm not disappointed in you at all. In fact you have met my low expectations dead on. Congrats.

I put my religious values into my political beliefs, i.e. I am not going to ever agree with the concept of letting millions of people starve then shoot them down when they understandably riot, like you do. I am never going to say I believe sometihing as patently ridiculous as FDR is responsible for policies made 80 years after he is dead or that people do so much better when they are unemployed in a depression, etc.

But seeing how you and PC believe that, is fine by me, as it is a guarantee that no one of any magnitude is going to be paying any serious attention to what you say.

Only a religious nut makes up that millions would starve. When food stamps and welfare were cut drastically in the 1990s, millions didn't starve. Instead they got work.

Only a religious nut thinks that forcibly confiscating people's hard work, is justified to avoid a myth.

The only thing you said that is accurate, is that it's religious. Left-wing most certainly is a religious movement devoid of fact, filled with dogma, and closely resembles a suicide cult.

The left-wing attacks everyone that doesn't by their mythology, the same way people who leave cults are often attacked by the members.

"Only a religious nut thinks that forcibly confiscating people's hard work, is justified to avoid a myth.

The only thing you said that is accurate, is that it's religious. Left-wing most certainly is a religious movement devoid of fact, filled with dogma, and closely resembles a suicide cult.

The left-wing attacks everyone that doesn't by their mythology, the same way people who leave cults are often attacked by the members."


1. "Stand with anybody that stands RIGHT. Stand with him while he is right and PART with him when he goes wrong." Abraham Lincoln, Speech at Peoria, Illinois (October 16, 1854),

Here is where we part company, Andy



2. As one who is deeply and fervently religious, I have yet to meet any 'religious nuts.'
"confiscating people's hard work" is hardly a religious principle...it is one out of the mouth of Karl Marx:
"From Each According to Their Abilities, to Each According to Their Needs"


It is not a religious motto....
This is:
"Even while we were with you, we gave you this command: "Those unwilling to work will not get to eat."
2 Thessalonians 3:10


Nor is it an American value. Thomas Jefferson:
"To take from one, because it is thought his own industry and that of his father has acquired too much, in order to spare to others who (or whose fathers) have not exercised equal industry and skill, is to violate arbitrarily the first principle of association, "to guarantee to everyone a free exercise of his industry and the fruits acquired by it."
http://www.ustreas.gov/education/fact-sheets/taxes/ustax.shtml
http://www.founding.com/founders_library/pageID.2190/default.asp


3. Further, Jimmy is as wrong about this as he is about Roosevelt.
So.....socialism endorsed in the Bible????

Not hardly.

An accurate understanding of the Bible requires the distinction between 'redistribution' and 'generosity.'

What the Bible really show is that the Bible advocates generosity.

These are two very different concepts.
Generosity springs from free will....not force, coercion, or threats.


The motivation to give and share originates in compassion, as 1 John 3:17 indicates—but there is choice involved.

With socialism, it is the opposite.
Redistribution of wealth is always by force of government. The government simply uses its overwhelming power to take what it thinks is “fair” from the “givers.” Is God a Socialist?



Generosity is based on choice....on free will....the cornerstone of Judeo-Christian tradition.
Not so with any of these six: Socialism, Liberalism, Communism, Nazism, Progressivism, or Fascism.





a. And this is the face of government coercion.....

Under the Bolsheviks, the dynasty with which Franklin Roosevelt felt comradeship, slaughter was so omnipresent that corpse-disposal actually became a problem.

There was resistance to the Lefts mandate of collectivism, especially in the Ukraine.
September 11, 1932, Stalin wrote to his assistant, 'We must take steps so we do not lose the Ukraine.' So, 1932-1933, all food supplies in the Ukraine were confiscated.


Those who tried to leave were shot, those who remained, starved to death. Men, women, children. They died tortuously slowly.
NKVD squads collected the dead. They received 200 grams of bread for every dead body they delivered; often they didn't wait until the victim was dead.


'Lazar Kaganovich (together with Vyacheslav Molotov) participated with the All-Ukrainian Party Conference of 1930 and were given the task of implementation of thecollectivization policy that caused a catastrophic 1932–33 famine known as theHolodomor. He also personally oversaw grain confiscations during the same time periods.

'Similar policies also inflicted enormous suffering on the Soviet Central Asian republic ofKazakhstan, the Kuban region, Crimea, the lower Volga region, and other parts of the Soviet Union. As an emissary of the Central Committee of the Communist Party, Kaganovich traveled to Ukraine, the central regions of the USSR, the NorthernCaucasus, and Siberia demanding the acceleration of collectivization and repressions against theKulaks, who were generally blamed for the slow progress of collectivization.'
Lazar Kaganovich - Wikipedia the free encyclopedia