Welfare

[DontBeStupid]

Bullshit.

The federal gubmint has no backing without expropriating from we the people first.


Straw man sophistry.

Name a charity that could do it better.

No one charity can do it all...That's your first hallucination.

Explain to us what happens when a man loses his job, can't provide for his family and gets no help. What would he do?

Pleas to emotion are irrelevant...The presupposition that if gubmint didn't do something then nobody would is your next hallucination.

Care to go for the trifecta?

First off, you should read posts before trying to insult someone. If you had read my post, you'd see we agree. No one charity can do the amount of good that the Federal government can.

Second, since when is an economic question an emotional plea? If there was no welfare and a family man lost his job, what would he do? He'd either let his family starve, or he'd steal. Neither are good for the country or the economy and both options would lead to us spending more money, either on health care or prisons. So, nip that in bud and spend it on food.

You people just refuse to think.

 

[boilermaker55]

I refuse to take part in the poll because it really is to generic. What all of you and your uppity remarks and higher than thou attitudes never ever comment on is the government giving money to corporations. They get hand outs! So this is quite a phoney poll.
But good try.
NOT

Is government-run welfare really necessary?

Can private charities do a better job of taking care of the less fortunate?

Is it better to give a man a fish to hold him over until he can afford steak, or to teach him how to fish?

 

[Jackson]

It was intended as a hand up. A temporary hand up when times got rough but it turned into a way of life. That's where things went wrong. Obama made it worse by taking the provision of working for the hand up out of the equation.

Congress has to step in and make it turn into what was the original idea. Two years of a hand up while folks got back on their feet, but worked or went back to school to make themselves marketable again.

We can't go on subsidizing half the poplulation.

 

[Oddball]

It was intended as a hand up. A temporary hand up when times got rough but it turned into a way of life.

I don't believe that for a moment....It is working as intended: Fostering dependency in both the bureaucracy and in the permanent moocher class.

 

[Luddly Neddite]

What a joke.

If I try to vote in a "poll" run by some fruitcake rw, it just tells me I already voted even though I didn't vote.

 

[Jackson]

It was intended as a hand up. A temporary hand up when times got rough but it turned into a way of life.

I don't believe that for a moment....It is working as intended: Fostering dependency in both the bureaucracy and in the permanent moocher class.

Then we have to change it. Get those Democrats out of office. They just vote more entitlements for vote getters from the public.

 

[Oddball]

Name a charity that could do it better.

No one charity can do it all...That's your first hallucination.

Explain to us what happens when a man loses his job, can't provide for his family and gets no help. What would he do?

Pleas to emotion are irrelevant...The presupposition that if gubmint didn't do something then nobody would is your next hallucination.

Care to go for the trifecta?

First off, you should read posts before trying to insult someone. If you had read my post, you'd see we agree. No one charity can do the amount of good that the Federal government can.

Second, since when is an economic question an emotional plea? If there was no welfare and a family man lost his job, what would he do? He'd either let his family starve, or he'd steal. Neither are good for the country or the economy and both options would lead to us spending more money, either on health care or prisons. So, nip that in bud and spend it on food.

You people just refuse to think.

You're presupposition is that there could be a singular charity that could cover it all....Thus the hallucination.

The second hallucination is in that you're employing the false dichotomy of theft vs. starvation, and that only through the miracle of a centralized federal bureaucracy can that false dichotomy be ameliorated...You can't say that.

Speaking of refusal to think.

 

[DontBeStupid]

No one charity can do it all...That's your first hallucination.


Pleas to emotion are irrelevant...The presupposition that if gubmint didn't do something then nobody would is your next hallucination.

Care to go for the trifecta?

First off, you should read posts before trying to insult someone. If you had read my post, you'd see we agree. No one charity can do the amount of good that the Federal government can.

Second, since when is an economic question an emotional plea? If there was no welfare and a family man lost his job, what would he do? He'd either let his family starve, or he'd steal. Neither are good for the country or the economy and both options would lead to us spending more money, either on health care or prisons. So, nip that in bud and spend it on food.

You people just refuse to think.

You're presupposition is that there could be a singular charity that could cover it all....Thus the hallucination.

The second hallucination is in that you're employing the false dichotomy of theft vs. starvation, and that only through the miracle of a centralized federal bureaucracy can that false dichotomy be ameliorated...You can't say that.

Speaking of refusal to think.

Your attempts at evasion are funny. I say no charity could do it. You say bull shit. I say name one. And you insult me. Cute.

If you don't want to have an adult conversation, you could have just said so.

 

[Ernie S.]

There is no private charity in this country with the reach and financial backing to help as many people as the U.S. Government can and does.

Is welfare necessary? Depends. Would you like a weaker economy and higher crime?

None with the levels of bureaucracy either. If you donate $100 to a poor family, they get to spend $100. If you pay the bureaucracy $100, the poor get to spend $80.
A short reach sounds more efficient.

 

[courseofhistory]

Is government-run welfare really necessary?

Can private charities do a better job of taking care of the less fortunate?

Is it better to give a man a fish to hold him over until he can afford steak, or to teach him how to fish?

What are people supposed to do without government welfare? Depend on charity? It isn't enough to help significantly. I have long been an advocate (and it's fallen on deaf ears) during campaigns I've worked for, at other times writing to my representatives, etc. for much better and more effective welfare to work programs. I should also be for children of people on welfare, teaching them work ethic and how to develop an entrepreneurial attitude, how to obtain training, set goals, etc. But most programs are ineffective. However, we would have huge drags on our economy and our infrastructure and more. Any of the people who oppose welfare or think it is a viscious cycle have any solutions?

 

[Zxereus]

Welfare should always be a temporary safety net, not a permanent hammock.

 

[AmyNation]

Obama made it worse by taking the provision of working for the hand up out of the equation.

why has no one called bullshit on this yet?

 

[Ernie S.]

There is no private charity in this country with the reach and financial backing to help as many people as the U.S. Government can and does.

Bullshit.

The federal gubmint has no backing without expropriating from we the people first.

Is welfare necessary? Depends. Would you like a weaker economy and higher crime?

Straw man sophistry.

Name a charity that could do it better.

Explain to us what happens when a man loses his job, can't provide for his family and gets no help. What would he do?

Whatever it takes to make an honest living. Sitting on the porch with a 40 oz and demanding the taxpayer feed you is not an honest living.

 

[Luddly Neddite]

Just tried again to vote in this so called "poll". All I get is that I already voted.

That's okay. I've had all I can take from the uneducated bigots on this board for one day.

 

[Luddly Neddite]

First off, you should read posts before trying to insult someone. If you had read my post, you'd see we agree. No one charity can do the amount of good that the Federal government can.

Second, since when is an economic question an emotional plea? If there was no welfare and a family man lost his job, what would he do? He'd either let his family starve, or he'd steal. Neither are good for the country or the economy and both options would lead to us spending more money, either on health care or prisons. So, nip that in bud and spend it on food.

You people just refuse to think.

You're presupposition is that there could be a singular charity that could cover it all....Thus the hallucination.

The second hallucination is in that you're employing the false dichotomy of theft vs. starvation, and that only through the miracle of a centralized federal bureaucracy can that false dichotomy be ameliorated...You can't say that.

Speaking of refusal to think.

Your attempts at evasion are funny. I say no charity could do it. You say bull shit. I say name one. And you insult me. Cute.

If you don't want to have an adult conversation, you could have just said so.

Just the usual rw game.

 

[DontBeStupid]

Bullshit.

The federal gubmint has no backing without expropriating from we the people first.


Straw man sophistry.

Name a charity that could do it better.

Explain to us what happens when a man loses his job, can't provide for his family and gets no help. What would he do?

Whatever it takes to make an honest living. Sitting on the porch with a 40 oz and demanding the taxpayer feed you is not an honest living.

Ok. Whatever it takes to make an honest living. Ok. Like what?

 

[mamooth]

Whatever it takes to make an honest living. Sitting on the porch with a 40 oz and demanding the taxpayer feed you is not an honest living.

So are you okay with welfare if they're not drinking malt liquor?

If no, then why did you bring up malt liquor at all?

 

[Jackson]

No one charity can do it all...That's your first hallucination.


Pleas to emotion are irrelevant...The presupposition that if gubmint didn't do something then nobody would is your next hallucination.

Care to go for the trifecta?

First off, you should read posts before trying to insult someone. If you had read my post, you'd see we agree. No one charity can do the amount of good that the Federal government can.

Second, since when is an economic question an emotional plea? If there was no welfare and a family man lost his job, what would he do? He'd either let his family starve, or he'd steal. Neither are good for the country or the economy and both options would lead to us spending more money, either on health care or prisons. So, nip that in bud and spend it on food.

You people just refuse to think.

You're presupposition is that there could be a singular charity that could cover it all....Thus the hallucination.

The second hallucination is in that you're employing the false dichotomy of theft vs. starvation, and that only through the miracle of a centralized federal bureaucracy can that false dichotomy be ameliorated...You can't say that.

Speaking of refusal to think.

Just a thought came to mind with your post. The American Red Cross is a very big organization that people all over the US give to willingly for catastophic causes.

What if a bank provided for the welfare of our underpriveleged the same way with those who are inclined, Religious affliations, corporations, Unions gave to Welfare Component of the same nature that took the burden off the government. In our taxes, we could take any amount off our tax bill (as an adjustment from taxes owed) to go into this fund to serve the poor and conditions would have to be met that it would entitle the elderly, sick and temporarily (two year recipients who found themselves on hard times...)

No longer would the US be sending out welfare checks, food stamps or ADC. The amount in the kitty would be divided into the number of people who qualify, which would be smaller than it is today considering to two year limit. The cost savings would be enormous. It would probably take 4 -8 years to accumulate enough money to begin.

 

[francoHFW]

Charities have high, often scandalous overhead, and run out in hard times. Dupes don't know welfare people ARE scanned for drugs, DO have to work if able, ARE temporary, and 99% want a gd job. It's not an entitlement attitude, or Marxism, MORON dupes, it's the SECOND Pub great depression- and thanks for the total obstruction and fear mongering. Assume the position, a-holes. TYVM.

 

[Ernie S.]

What a joke.

If I try to vote in a "poll" run by some fruitcake rw, it just tells me I already voted even though I didn't vote.

Why don't you start your own poll and try to block me from voting. When you fail, come back and admit your lie.

Hey Oddball! Can a poll be edited so you can see how folks voted?