Follow along with the video below to see how to install our site as a web app on your home screen.
Note: This feature currently requires accessing the site using the built-in Safari browser.
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?
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?
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?
My father and his brothers sold apples and eggs on a street corner during the depression. I collected scrap metal, mowed lawns and ran errands for neighbors for a while when I got laid off back in the early 70's. I did what it took to support my children, but never expected you owed me a damned thing.
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.
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?
Welfare is the practice of paying a living wage to those who have chosen to do nothing as a career choice.
Ok. Whatever it takes to make an honest living. Ok. Like what?
My father and his brothers sold apples and eggs on a street corner during the depression. I collected scrap metal, mowed lawns and ran errands for neighbors for a while when I got laid off back in the early 70's. I did what it took to support my children, but never expected you owed me a damned thing.
It was a different world then. We didn't incentivize laying on the couch for a check.
Then there's this little thing known as "community"...People coming together to help their neighbors who are in real need.You're presupposition is that there could be a singular charity that could cover it all....Thus the hallucination.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.
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.
It's not temporary for the bureaucrats....What's their motivation for seeing to it that nobody becomes dependent upon their welfare state opiate?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?
It should be a temporary hand up for the people who are in need of temporary assistance to get their lives back on track or on track. I think that the whole program of welfare should be geared to wean people off of it and and even have them pay back the benefits they received at a very low payment and interest rate (1%) after they get on track.
It's not temporary for the bureaucrats....What's their motivation for seeing to it that nobody becomes dependent upon their welfare state opiate?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?
It should be a temporary hand up for the people who are in need of temporary assistance to get their lives back on track or on track. I think that the whole program of welfare should be geared to wean people off of it and and even have them pay back the benefits they received at a very low payment and interest rate (1%) after they get on track.
Then there's this little thing known as "community"...People coming together to help their neighbors who are in real need.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.
Of course, this would entail things like joining local organizations like Lion's, Rotary, Shriner's and/or the local *gaaaaaasp* religious institution of your choosing.
But that's too much effort for your average lolberal...They'd just as soon push such social and truly charitable responsibilities off onto the bureaucrat, so they can have the free time to watch American Idol.
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?
Well, at least you're thinking...I'm impressed....And you know I don't impress easily.It's not temporary for the bureaucrats....What's their motivation for seeing to it that nobody becomes dependent upon their welfare state opiate?It should be a temporary hand up for the people who are in need of temporary assistance to get their lives back on track or on track. I think that the whole program of welfare should be geared to wean people off of it and and even have them pay back the benefits they received at a very low payment and interest rate (1%) after they get on track.
LOL, it's funny that you would say the same thing that I was thinking about. What's the motivation for someone whose job depends on a big government program to get people off of that big government program? This is across the board with various programs and the political parties that implement and control them.
Maybe they can give bonuses to case workers who keep their "clients" off of welfare, employed, and paying back their "benefits".
Because welfare statists cling with a death grip to the notion that if the federal gubmint didn't dole out charity, nobody would.Why do discussions about welfare reform always devolve into "lazy poor people and the dems who enable them" ?
Why do discussions about welfare reform always devolve into "lazy poor people and the dems who enable them" ?
Well, at least you're thinking...I'm impressed....And you know I don't impress easily.It's not temporary for the bureaucrats....What's their motivation for seeing to it that nobody becomes dependent upon their welfare state opiate?
LOL, it's funny that you would say the same thing that I was thinking about. What's the motivation for someone whose job depends on a big government program to get people off of that big government program? This is across the board with various programs and the political parties that implement and control them.
Maybe they can give bonuses to case workers who keep their "clients" off of welfare, employed, and paying back their "benefits".
Or how 'bout we double the deductibility for every charitable contribution over $10,000...Then triple it when the contribution exceeds $100,000...Then quadruple it when the contribution exceeds $1,000,000...And on up....???
Because welfare statists cling with a death grip to the notion that if the federal gubmint didn't dole out charity, nobody would.Why do discussions about welfare reform always devolve into "lazy poor people and the dems who enable them" ?
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?
