“When law and religion conflict, choices have to be made.”

[Andylusion]

I've heard welfare to the poor is a drop in the bucket. If your going to make cuts stop cutting things that help the poor. Cut corporate welfare and military spending that isn't needed.

I'd be impressed with Republicans if they weren't always going after the poor.

Why does a middle class athiest care about the poor but a good Christian like you doesn't?

Socialist programs make up the vast majority of all government spending.

Government programs for the poor, generally do more to keep people poor, than anything else in this country.

Moreover, the poor end up paying taxes, to pay for these horrible programs you claim are for the poor, which actually harm them.

Lastly, quite frankly, I wager I have donated more money to the poor, and volunteered more hours to charities for the poor, than any 3 of you people combined. Could be wrong, but I doubt it.

And by the way.... *I* was adopted myself, and both my parents are conservative.

You people on the left, only demand others help the poor, and other adopt children, and others do things for our fellow man. We actually do it.

"Government programs for the poor, generally do more to keep people poor, than anything else in this country."

But they accomplish their goal: keeping Democrats in power.



Over 80% of welfare recipients vote Democrat.

Typical Republican hypocracy. My gop buddy tells me his dad died when he was a kid and all the government shit his white mom and him got.

Fact is, you conservatives didn't mind helping people like this but ever since the civil rights era when poor blacks started being allowed to take advantage of these programs.

Only then did you stop caring about the poor. Your racism trumps your religion

The only folks who don't care about the poor are those who support the Liberal welfare policies....they create the poor.

1. ‘Welfare’ as a wholly owned subsidiary of the government, and its main result is the incentivizing of a disrespect for oneself, and for the entity that provides the welfare. As more folks in a poor neighborhood languish with little or no work, entire local culture begins to change: daily work is no longer the expected social norm. Extended periods of hanging around the neighborhood, neither working nor going to school becoming more and more socially acceptable.
   1. Since productive activity not making any economic sense because of the work disincentives of the welfare plantation, other kinds of activities proliferate: drug and alcohol abuse, crime, recreational sex, illegitimacy, and family breakup are the new social norms, as does the culture of violence.
      From Peter Ferrara, “America’s Ticking Bankruptcy Bomb,” chapter five.
   2. "The lessons of history … show conclusively that continued dependence upon relief induces a spiritual and moral disintegration fundamentally destructive to the national fiber. To dole out relief in this way is to administer a narcotic, a subtle destroyer of the human spirit."
      
      These searing words about Depression-era welfare are from Franklin Roosevelt's 1935 State of the Union Address.
   3. On Dec. 7, 2012, liberal New York Times columnist Nicholas Kristof offered an unexpected concession:
      “This is painful for a liberal to admit, but … America’s safety net can sometimes entangle people in a soul-crushing dependency. Our poverty programs do rescue many people, but other times they backfire.”
2. Prior to the War on Poverty, black families remained intact, and the vast majority of black babies were born into two-parent families, with a 28% illegitimacy rate in 1965. Then 49% in ’75; 65% in ’90; 75% in ’95. See also The State Against Blacks

Conservatives understand what Liberals never will: it is not money that solves this problem, but a change in attitude and values.



I've seen your posts.
When I mention 'values,' I fully understand that you and I don't speak the same language.

We understand the conservative position but it doesn't work in the real world.

And you cut welfare at the worst time. During the bush great recession. Now you want to blame Democrats who fixed bush economy.

First, it is impossible to support any claim that democrats fixed anything. You simply can't support that claim. The recession would have ended, even if the democrats did nothing. We know this because the economy is not created by government, and never was.

No government agent has to come to your home, and say "Hey timmy, you should go buy things you want!", nor does a government agent go to a business and say "Hey Executive Bob, you should make things, and sell them for a profit".

No aspect of economic growth is created by the government.

Further, numerous times in US history, has the government done absolutely nothing whatsoever to improve the economy from a recession, and the economy recovered just fine. Calvin Coolidge in the early 1920s, faced a much deeper recession than what happened in 2009, and all he did was cut spending.... and cut taxes.... and the economy recovered to what was called the roaring 20s.

Further, it was a documented fact, that people who were give longer unemployment benefits, stayed unemployed longer than those whose unemployment benefits ran out. People who supposedly 'could not' find a job and thus needed extended unemployment comp, magically were able to find jobs, when the unemployment ran out.

This magic moment, happened magically sooner, for people who ran out of unemployment comp sooner, and magically happened later, for those whose unemployment comp ran out later.

In other words, people who didn't have to find a job, magically couldn't find a job, until they had no choice but to find a job, and then magically.... they could find a job.

Of course, the longer a person is not working, the worse his job prospects end up. Employers look unfavorably at someone who has been out of work for..... oh... lets say.... 99 weeks.

The longer you are out of work, the lower on the ladder you have to start. The worst thing government can do, is enable people to procrastinate on unemployment comp for 99 weeks, where when they finally are forced to go back to work, they start out a dozen steps lower on the income ladder.

I actually know an employer who refused to even consider someone out of work for more than 3 months.

 

[Andylusion]

How many orphans have I given to a homo? Lots. They'd be sitting in orphanages if it weren't for us liberals. You don't want to adopt them so really, how much do you value life once it is born. In fact you don't even want to pay taxes that fund orphanages.

Two things....

One: If I could cut out all the spending for government funded health care, welfare, food stamps, and Obama Phones, and crap..... we could cut taxes by more than 50%, AND fund all your orphanages, and more. We could likely have all the children stay at the Hilton, and still have money left over.

If you left-wingers would stop blowing money on all your silly socialist crap, we could easily fund the real issues that need funded, and have billions of dollars left over.

Two: Practicing Christians (Christians who go to church more than twice in one week), are twice as likely to adopt a child, that the general public. And are THREE TIMES as likely to be a Foster parent, than the general public.

http://downloads.frc.org/EF/EF15A71.pdf

So the facts contradict your left-wing made up BS.

Oh and by the way..... people part of mixed-race families are more likely to be conservative, than left-tard liars.

I've heard welfare to the poor is a drop in the bucket. If your going to make cuts stop cutting things that help the poor. Cut corporate welfare and military spending that isn't needed.

I'd be impressed with Republicans if they weren't always going after the poor.

Why does a middle class athiest care about the poor but a good Christian like you doesn't?

Socialist programs make up the vast majority of all government spending.

Government programs for the poor, generally do more to keep people poor, than anything else in this country.

Moreover, the poor end up paying taxes, to pay for these horrible programs you claim are for the poor, which actually harm them.

Lastly, quite frankly, I wager I have donated more money to the poor, and volunteered more hours to charities for the poor, than any 3 of you people combined. Could be wrong, but I doubt it.

And by the way.... *I* was adopted myself, and both my parents are conservative.

You people on the left, only demand others help the poor, and other adopt children, and others do things for our fellow man. We actually do it.

"Government programs for the poor, generally do more to keep people poor, than anything else in this country."

But they accomplish their goal: keeping Democrats in power.



Over 80% of welfare recipients vote Democrat.

Typical Republican hypocracy. My gop buddy tells me his dad died when he was a kid and all the government shit his white mom and him got.

Fact is, you conservatives didn't mind helping people like this but ever since the civil rights era when poor blacks started being allowed to take advantage of these programs.

Only then did you stop caring about the poor. Your racism trumps your religion

It's always funny to go read through a bunch of posts, and see the very first mention of race, in the entire conversation, isn't the Republican being accused of racism, but rather the left-winger making the accusation of racism.

The only racism on this thread, came from your posts. Not ours. No other person yet, has brought up race.

Everything you said, you just made up in your own head. Nothing she said, nor I said, suggests anything of what you claimed.

 

[sealybobo]

How many orphans have I given to a homo? Lots. They'd be sitting in orphanages if it weren't for us liberals. You don't want to adopt them so really, how much do you value life once it is born. In fact you don't even want to pay taxes that fund orphanages.

Two things....

One: If I could cut out all the spending for government funded health care, welfare, food stamps, and Obama Phones, and crap..... we could cut taxes by more than 50%, AND fund all your orphanages, and more. We could likely have all the children stay at the Hilton, and still have money left over.

If you left-wingers would stop blowing money on all your silly socialist crap, we could easily fund the real issues that need funded, and have billions of dollars left over.

Two: Practicing Christians (Christians who go to church more than twice in one week), are twice as likely to adopt a child, that the general public. And are THREE TIMES as likely to be a Foster parent, than the general public.

http://downloads.frc.org/EF/EF15A71.pdf

So the facts contradict your left-wing made up BS.

Oh and by the way..... people part of mixed-race families are more likely to be conservative, than left-tard liars.

I've heard welfare to the poor is a drop in the bucket. If your going to make cuts stop cutting things that help the poor. Cut corporate welfare and military spending that isn't needed.

I'd be impressed with Republicans if they weren't always going after the poor.

Why does a middle class athiest care about the poor but a good Christian like you doesn't?

And another thing.....

There almost is no corporate welfare. It's practically a lie.

The only corporate welfare in the federal budget, if you people bothered to fact check your own made up BS, is all the crap you socialists push with your bad left-wing programs.

Green-energy grants, and solar panels, and battery technology. I worked at a company which shut down a project intentionally, because they knew they could get a grant from the government for the project...... to help build a hybrid bus. The corporate welfare stems from you people, not us. You push a bunch of corporate welfare programs, then blame us for it, and start screaming how we're for corporate welfare. Dumb as rocks, ignorant left-tards. Left-wing ideology is mental illness.

Lots of pork on both sides. I like our pork better than yours.

We need a cenntrist solution. The answer is never a right wing position and usually the left wing position is not even really our position. It's exaggerated by the right.

Point is this is a back and forth I'm not interested in having. We will have to agree to disagree.

Why won't a red state show the rest of us how its done. I want to see a libertarian country or state show us it works.

Why is it that everyone else is expected to show you how it's done? The biggest failures in this country have been..... where? Orange County California? Detroit Michigan? Stockton California? San Bernardino County, California? All went bankrupt.

Which one of those is a red state? How about the left wing show us how it's done? Of course given how left-wing ideology has bankrupted nearly every country that's tried it, they are on par for the course.

Easy running Mayberry. Don't even have to pave the roads.

I'll be happy to see jobs in mexico and china come to red states. People from Detroit will migrate back down south for those jobs same way they left the south for a better life.

 

[koshergrl]

The face of hate.

that looks like you in drag, Tommy.

She has a better 'stash.

 

[koshergrl]

The top court in this state could sack this judge who keeps refusing to marry gays

Yup, like its time to get another job you backward bigot.

they're going to have to remove him from the bench. some state yahoo can't override federal law. period.

You mean like local yahoos creating sanctuary cities despite federal laws related to illegals?

Why don't you just say "can't override federal laws" unless I as a Liberal agree they can.

Fucking liar.

different ... for the uninformed, you can always provide GREATER rights than the feds, not fewer.

I hope that explains things to you.

btw, i have never created a sanctuary city. nor do i live in one.

have a good day stewing i your pointless rage.

For the idiots like you, not when doing so violates federal law. You said so yourself. You said some state yahoo can't override federal law, period. Sanctuary cities override federal law.

Whether or not you created on is irrelevant.

You've been busted contradicting yourself and don't have the guts to admit it.

Or the intelligence to understand it.

 

[Andylusion]

Two things....

One: If I could cut out all the spending for government funded health care, welfare, food stamps, and Obama Phones, and crap..... we could cut taxes by more than 50%, AND fund all your orphanages, and more. We could likely have all the children stay at the Hilton, and still have money left over.

If you left-wingers would stop blowing money on all your silly socialist crap, we could easily fund the real issues that need funded, and have billions of dollars left over.

Two: Practicing Christians (Christians who go to church more than twice in one week), are twice as likely to adopt a child, that the general public. And are THREE TIMES as likely to be a Foster parent, than the general public.

http://downloads.frc.org/EF/EF15A71.pdf

So the facts contradict your left-wing made up BS.

Oh and by the way..... people part of mixed-race families are more likely to be conservative, than left-tard liars.

I've heard welfare to the poor is a drop in the bucket. If your going to make cuts stop cutting things that help the poor. Cut corporate welfare and military spending that isn't needed.

I'd be impressed with Republicans if they weren't always going after the poor.

Why does a middle class athiest care about the poor but a good Christian like you doesn't?

And another thing.....

There almost is no corporate welfare. It's practically a lie.

The only corporate welfare in the federal budget, if you people bothered to fact check your own made up BS, is all the crap you socialists push with your bad left-wing programs.

Green-energy grants, and solar panels, and battery technology. I worked at a company which shut down a project intentionally, because they knew they could get a grant from the government for the project...... to help build a hybrid bus. The corporate welfare stems from you people, not us. You push a bunch of corporate welfare programs, then blame us for it, and start screaming how we're for corporate welfare. Dumb as rocks, ignorant left-tards. Left-wing ideology is mental illness.

Lots of pork on both sides. I like our pork better than yours.

We need a cenntrist solution. The answer is never a right wing position and usually the left wing position is not even really our position. It's exaggerated by the right.

Point is this is a back and forth I'm not interested in having. We will have to agree to disagree.

Why won't a red state show the rest of us how its done. I want to see a libertarian country or state show us it works.

Why is it that everyone else is expected to show you how it's done? The biggest failures in this country have been..... where? Orange County California? Detroit Michigan? Stockton California? San Bernardino County, California? All went bankrupt.

Which one of those is a red state? How about the left wing show us how it's done? Of course given how left-wing ideology has bankrupted nearly every country that's tried it, they are on par for the course.

Easy running Mayberry. Don't even have to pave the roads.

I'll be happy to see jobs in mexico and china come to red states. People from Detroit will migrate back down south for those jobs same way they left the south for a better life.

Well you have to get over that.

Yeah it would be great for us, if Europe wiped itself out in a world war again, so that their manufacturing was left in ruins, and they all came to the US for manufactured goods.

Fact is, that's not likely to happen, and thus we are not likely to be the manufacturing capital of the world anymore.

And even if we did return to being the manufacturing capital of the world, you still won't get those jobs back. More jobs have been lost to automation, than even outsourcing.

If Apple brought Iphone production back to the US, they wouldn't hire hundreds of workers like in China, they would automate production. A dozen maintenance employees would do run the machines, and do the work of hundreds.

Those jobs are never going to come back to the US... ever. No matter what you do.

Now we can still increase employment to some degree, by reducing taxes both individual and corporate, cutting health care mandates, reducing labor costs, reducing union laws, cutting the minimum wage.

All of these things will increase employment. But none will bring back the jobs like we had in the 1950s. It will never happen.

That ship has sailed, and is long gone. Dreaming about the impossible, is waste of time.

 

[koshergrl]

So how many orphans have you given a home to? How is one person going to stop starving babies?


Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk

How many orphans have I given to a homo? Lots. They'd be sitting in orphanages if it weren't for us liberals. You don't want to adopt them so really, how much do you value life once it is born. In fact you don't even want to pay taxes that fund orphanages.

Two things....

One: If I could cut out all the spending for government funded health care, welfare, food stamps, and Obama Phones, and crap..... we could cut taxes by more than 50%, AND fund all your orphanages, and more. We could likely have all the children stay at the Hilton, and still have money left over.

If you left-wingers would stop blowing money on all your silly socialist crap, we could easily fund the real issues that need funded, and have billions of dollars left over.

Two: Practicing Christians (Christians who go to church more than twice in one week), are twice as likely to adopt a child, that the general public. And are THREE TIMES as likely to be a Foster parent, than the general public.

http://downloads.frc.org/EF/EF15A71.pdf

So the facts contradict your left-wing made up BS.

Oh and by the way..... people part of mixed-race families are more likely to be conservative, than left-tard liars.

I've heard welfare to the poor is a drop in the bucket. If your going to make cuts stop cutting things that help the poor. Cut corporate welfare and military spending that isn't needed.

I'd be impressed with Republicans if they weren't always going after the poor.

Why does a middle class athiest care about the poor but a good Christian like you doesn't?

Socialist programs make up the vast majority of all government spending.

Government programs for the poor, generally do more to keep people poor, than anything else in this country.

Moreover, the poor end up paying taxes, to pay for these horrible programs you claim are for the poor, which actually harm them.

Lastly, quite frankly, I wager I have donated more money to the poor, and volunteered more hours to charities for the poor, than any 3 of you people combined. Could be wrong, but I doubt it.

And by the way.... *I* was adopted myself, and both my parents are conservative.

You people on the left, only demand others help the poor, and other adopt children, and others do things for our fellow man. We actually do it.

In China there is not really anything like social programs. Poor people are poor and they deal with it or they don't. People are still poor. They don't have welfare programs making them poor, or keeping them poor, they're kept poor by the fact that every society will generally have poor people. The richest countries in the world will have poor people. They might appear to have a lot of money, but then in real terms they probably don't have much at all.

I'm not disagreeing with that welfare can encourage people to stay in poverty. It depends on the program and how it's administered.

Thank you, federally driven public education, for the production of this imbecile. There are so many layers of ignorance on display in this morons post that I am quite defeated.

 

[LuckyDuck]

You can't descriminate against gays in your laws. See, your laws that are unconstitutional are always telling people they can't do something. Gays can't marry, women can't get abortions, blacks can't get welfare only whites can, blacks can't go to white schools, etc.

You right wingers just don't see why you can't use the constitution to be unconstitutional

Yet you can't show the words abortion, marriage, or social welfare in the Constitution.

What about the general welfare clause?

It also says a well regulated militia

What about it? It doesn't say any of the things I posted.

It specifically says the right to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed.

If you think that the only arms someone should own should be based on what existed at the time of the writing of the 2nd amendment because of the words, next time you communicate with me find a piece of paper, write with a quill pen, and have someone on horseback deliver it to me.

Technically, the 2nd Amendment is actually citing that the people may keep and bear (carry) arms for the purpose of providing for a state's militia.

Says who, you?

That means your next correspondence is going to be on paper sent through the mail?

Constitutional Law was one of my classes in Criminal Justice degree course and that's how the Second Amendment was presented in class.

 

[koshergrl]

Yet you can't show the words abortion, marriage, or social welfare in the Constitution.

What about the general welfare clause?

It also says a well regulated militia

What about it? It doesn't say any of the things I posted.

It specifically says the right to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed.

If you think that the only arms someone should own should be based on what existed at the time of the writing of the 2nd amendment because of the words, next time you communicate with me find a piece of paper, write with a quill pen, and have someone on horseback deliver it to me.

Technically, the 2nd Amendment is actually citing that the people may keep and bear (carry) arms for the purpose of providing for a state's militia.

Says who, you?

That means your next correspondence is going to be on paper sent through the mail?

Constitutional Law was one of my classes in Criminal Justice degree course and that's how the Second Amendment was presented in class.

And? We already know that schools teach to an agenda...and the Leo community ignorance of the constitution is an open joke.

 

[LuckyDuck]

Fetuses. Let me guess, you're a middle-aged or elderly white male steeped in religion and believe your specific religious beliefs should be forced upon all, regardless of their religious or non-religious beliefs. I'm all for hindering late-term abortions, unless it threatens the mother's life; on the other hand, while it's still just a clump of cells (living or not), it's not in a state of being a sentient. To say otherwise would be to say that every cell in your body is a sentient being and in that case, allowing blood to be drawn would be the equivalent of murder to each of those living red-blood cells, white-blood cells, et cetera. The only individual with the right to make the choice to have a baby is the one who would be carrying it for nine months; not some middle-aged or elderly guy spouting his religious crap.

I never used the word sentient, and all of your assumptions are false. Tell me, would you like if you were aborted? I kinda like living.

Seems to me, in most cases, the choice to have a baby coincides with the choice to keep your legs closed.

That last statement clearly shows that you place the blame and responsibility on the woman, rather than on the aggressive males that coax and push them into sex. The males are the physically stronger and are almost always the ones to push for sex. Your pushing the responsibility on the woman shows your knuckle-dragging misogynist mentality.
If I had been aborted, that would have been my parents decision and I would have not existed to know either way. No big deal.

Had you been aborted, that would be your parent's decision what to do with you, a separate person.

Your twisting of my words only shows you're incapable of proper debate. I specifically said "in most cases". If a woman is forced into sex, it's called rape. The fact is, outside of rape, it's the woman's decision. A woman can allow herself to be talked/coaxed into it, but that still takes her relenting. If a woman gets herself drunk, that's her own fault also. Impairing one's senses is a decision one makes for themselves. When someone takes an action, they are accepting the consequences of said action, and if you're not prepared for those consequences, it's on you. Aborting a child is forcing someone else to take the consequences of your actions upon themselves.

In other words, it takes two to tango.

It's still ultimately the MALE's fault.

Are you implying that all sex is rape, and that all men force sex from their wives?

No. Obviously, most sex is not rape, but by men saying that women should just keep their legs together, implies that it is her responsibility alone. Men are just as responsible for the sex act, more so, since it is usually them pursuing the woman. The males need to keep their penises in their pants. Period.

 

[sealybobo]

I never used the word sentient, and all of your assumptions are false. Tell me, would you like if you were aborted? I kinda like living.

Seems to me, in most cases, the choice to have a baby coincides with the choice to keep your legs closed.

That last statement clearly shows that you place the blame and responsibility on the woman, rather than on the aggressive males that coax and push them into sex. The males are the physically stronger and are almost always the ones to push for sex. Your pushing the responsibility on the woman shows your knuckle-dragging misogynist mentality.
If I had been aborted, that would have been my parents decision and I would have not existed to know either way. No big deal.

Had you been aborted, that would be your parent's decision what to do with you, a separate person.

Your twisting of my words only shows you're incapable of proper debate. I specifically said "in most cases". If a woman is forced into sex, it's called rape. The fact is, outside of rape, it's the woman's decision. A woman can allow herself to be talked/coaxed into it, but that still takes her relenting. If a woman gets herself drunk, that's her own fault also. Impairing one's senses is a decision one makes for themselves. When someone takes an action, they are accepting the consequences of said action, and if you're not prepared for those consequences, it's on you. Aborting a child is forcing someone else to take the consequences of your actions upon themselves.

In other words, it takes two to tango.

It's still ultimately the MALE's fault.

Are you implying that all sex is rape, and that all men force sex from their wives?

No. Obviously, most sex is not rape, but by men saying that women should just keep their legs together, implies that it is her responsibility alone. Men are just as responsible for the sex act, more so, since it is usually them pursuing the woman. The males need to keep their penises in their pants. Period.

Which dog owner gets fucked when two mutts fuck? That's right, the bitches owner.

The man doesn't have to carry the baby for 9 months either. Women need to be more responsible because us guys won't. Don't expect that to change. Are women dumb? Even when they are warned they still give if up to us slick talking dudes.

 

[LuckyDuck]

That last statement clearly shows that you place the blame and responsibility on the woman, rather than on the aggressive males that coax and push them into sex. The males are the physically stronger and are almost always the ones to push for sex. Your pushing the responsibility on the woman shows your knuckle-dragging misogynist mentality.
If I had been aborted, that would have been my parents decision and I would have not existed to know either way. No big deal.

Had you been aborted, that would be your parent's decision what to do with you, a separate person.

Your twisting of my words only shows you're incapable of proper debate. I specifically said "in most cases". If a woman is forced into sex, it's called rape. The fact is, outside of rape, it's the woman's decision. A woman can allow herself to be talked/coaxed into it, but that still takes her relenting. If a woman gets herself drunk, that's her own fault also. Impairing one's senses is a decision one makes for themselves. When someone takes an action, they are accepting the consequences of said action, and if you're not prepared for those consequences, it's on you. Aborting a child is forcing someone else to take the consequences of your actions upon themselves.

In other words, it takes two to tango.

It's still ultimately the MALE's fault.

Are you implying that all sex is rape, and that all men force sex from their wives?

No. Obviously, most sex is not rape, but by men saying that women should just keep their legs together, implies that it is her responsibility alone. Men are just as responsible for the sex act, more so, since it is usually them pursuing the woman. The males need to keep their penises in their pants. Period.

Which dog owner gets fucked when two mutts fuck? That's right, the bitches owner.

The man doesn't have to carry the baby for 9 months either. Women need to be more responsible because us guys won't. Don't expect that to change. Are women dumb? Even when they are warned they still give if up to us slick talking dudes.

If only you could hear your misogynist, knuckle-dragging, Neanderthal self......"Women need to be MORE responsible because us guys CAN'T?!" What are you....some Muslim?

 

[sealybobo]

Had you been aborted, that would be your parent's decision what to do with you, a separate person.

Your twisting of my words only shows you're incapable of proper debate. I specifically said "in most cases". If a woman is forced into sex, it's called rape. The fact is, outside of rape, it's the woman's decision. A woman can allow herself to be talked/coaxed into it, but that still takes her relenting. If a woman gets herself drunk, that's her own fault also. Impairing one's senses is a decision one makes for themselves. When someone takes an action, they are accepting the consequences of said action, and if you're not prepared for those consequences, it's on you. Aborting a child is forcing someone else to take the consequences of your actions upon themselves.

In other words, it takes two to tango.

It's still ultimately the MALE's fault.

Are you implying that all sex is rape, and that all men force sex from their wives?

No. Obviously, most sex is not rape, but by men saying that women should just keep their legs together, implies that it is her responsibility alone. Men are just as responsible for the sex act, more so, since it is usually them pursuing the woman. The males need to keep their penises in their pants. Period.

Which dog owner gets fucked when two mutts fuck? That's right, the bitches owner.

The man doesn't have to carry the baby for 9 months either. Women need to be more responsible because us guys won't. Don't expect that to change. Are women dumb? Even when they are warned they still give if up to us slick talking dudes.

If only you could hear your misogynist, knuckle-dragging, Neanderthal self......"Women need to be MORE responsible because us guys CAN'T?!" What are you....some Muslim?

If I had a daughter I would tell her the reality. I know white guys who knocked a girl up and had no interest in being a father. They didn't pay and they didn't spend time with the kid. You can make him pay but are you going to make him care? If you can't convince them to care for a human they created do you think you are going to convince them to stop trying to get laid? You're trying to be rational with adolescent kids. Do you realize this?

So don't you think girls should understand we don't give a fuck and will even lie to get that pooty? Sorry but it's the truth.

Go ahead and take his minimum wage or put him in jail. Now he's costing us more.

 

[frigidweirdo]

How many orphans have I given to a homo? Lots. They'd be sitting in orphanages if it weren't for us liberals. You don't want to adopt them so really, how much do you value life once it is born. In fact you don't even want to pay taxes that fund orphanages.

Two things....

One: If I could cut out all the spending for government funded health care, welfare, food stamps, and Obama Phones, and crap..... we could cut taxes by more than 50%, AND fund all your orphanages, and more. We could likely have all the children stay at the Hilton, and still have money left over.

If you left-wingers would stop blowing money on all your silly socialist crap, we could easily fund the real issues that need funded, and have billions of dollars left over.

Two: Practicing Christians (Christians who go to church more than twice in one week), are twice as likely to adopt a child, that the general public. And are THREE TIMES as likely to be a Foster parent, than the general public.

http://downloads.frc.org/EF/EF15A71.pdf

So the facts contradict your left-wing made up BS.

Oh and by the way..... people part of mixed-race families are more likely to be conservative, than left-tard liars.

I've heard welfare to the poor is a drop in the bucket. If your going to make cuts stop cutting things that help the poor. Cut corporate welfare and military spending that isn't needed.

I'd be impressed with Republicans if they weren't always going after the poor.

Why does a middle class athiest care about the poor but a good Christian like you doesn't?

Socialist programs make up the vast majority of all government spending.

Government programs for the poor, generally do more to keep people poor, than anything else in this country.

Moreover, the poor end up paying taxes, to pay for these horrible programs you claim are for the poor, which actually harm them.

Lastly, quite frankly, I wager I have donated more money to the poor, and volunteered more hours to charities for the poor, than any 3 of you people combined. Could be wrong, but I doubt it.

And by the way.... *I* was adopted myself, and both my parents are conservative.

You people on the left, only demand others help the poor, and other adopt children, and others do things for our fellow man. We actually do it.

In China there is not really anything like social programs. Poor people are poor and they deal with it or they don't. People are still poor. They don't have welfare programs making them poor, or keeping them poor, they're kept poor by the fact that every society will generally have poor people. The richest countries in the world will have poor people. They might appear to have a lot of money, but then in real terms they probably don't have much at all.

I'm not disagreeing with that welfare can encourage people to stay in poverty. It depends on the program and how it's administered.

Huh? What are you smoking? In 1978 under socialism, 63% of the entire population of China, was under their poverty level. Today it's under 2%. The average wage in China, in just the past 10 years, has increased 3 fold, from 20K yuan, to 60K yuan.

Under Capitalism, the average Chinese worker is enjoying an increasing standard of living, that has not been seen in China, for 100 years.

Moreover, yes every country in the world has poor. The only way you can avoid having poor people, is if you take away their ability to choose to work. You force people to work, then you can force them to stay out of poverty. As long as people have a choice, some will choose to remain poor.

I'm actually a good example of this. I have been offered several jobs where I could easily have earned double what I do now. Yes, I could have a bigger pay check, with a phat bonus, and so on. I didn't want it. I didn't care to earn more money. I never could figure out why I would work so hard, for more money that I can see any need of.

I had one guy tell me I was going to be store manager, and earn $80,000 a year, plus a profit sharing bonus. I hated that job. Last thing I wanted to do was earn a ton of money, while hoping my store would burn down to the ground. I'd much rather earn $20,000 and like what I do. Which is where I am now.

It's not societies fault, or some crap about the evil 1%, or democrats or republicans. I'm not willing to do what is required to earn that much.

China has levels of capitalism and levels of socialism.

The whole argument here is that welfare causes people to be poor, as if the lack of welfare in China has somehow made all these people come out of poverty. What is poverty anyway? The reality is that poverty is a benchmark set by someone to compare with other people. China still has 150 million people in poverty.

Yes, the ability to have capitalism in certain areas of society has helped massively to give many Chinese the level of life that people would want.

However the argument was that welfare caused poverty, but in China they have a population half the size of the US in poverty and no welfare. So, there's something amiss here.

The point I am making is that welfare can be good, it can be bad, not having welfare can be good and it can be bad. To simply make a blanket statement that welfare is bad and then "prove it" with something very whimsical, isn't going to be a good argument.

 

[sealybobo]

Two things....

One: If I could cut out all the spending for government funded health care, welfare, food stamps, and Obama Phones, and crap..... we could cut taxes by more than 50%, AND fund all your orphanages, and more. We could likely have all the children stay at the Hilton, and still have money left over.

If you left-wingers would stop blowing money on all your silly socialist crap, we could easily fund the real issues that need funded, and have billions of dollars left over.

Two: Practicing Christians (Christians who go to church more than twice in one week), are twice as likely to adopt a child, that the general public. And are THREE TIMES as likely to be a Foster parent, than the general public.

http://downloads.frc.org/EF/EF15A71.pdf

So the facts contradict your left-wing made up BS.

Oh and by the way..... people part of mixed-race families are more likely to be conservative, than left-tard liars.

I've heard welfare to the poor is a drop in the bucket. If your going to make cuts stop cutting things that help the poor. Cut corporate welfare and military spending that isn't needed.

I'd be impressed with Republicans if they weren't always going after the poor.

Why does a middle class athiest care about the poor but a good Christian like you doesn't?

Socialist programs make up the vast majority of all government spending.

Government programs for the poor, generally do more to keep people poor, than anything else in this country.

Moreover, the poor end up paying taxes, to pay for these horrible programs you claim are for the poor, which actually harm them.

Lastly, quite frankly, I wager I have donated more money to the poor, and volunteered more hours to charities for the poor, than any 3 of you people combined. Could be wrong, but I doubt it.

And by the way.... *I* was adopted myself, and both my parents are conservative.

You people on the left, only demand others help the poor, and other adopt children, and others do things for our fellow man. We actually do it.

In China there is not really anything like social programs. Poor people are poor and they deal with it or they don't. People are still poor. They don't have welfare programs making them poor, or keeping them poor, they're kept poor by the fact that every society will generally have poor people. The richest countries in the world will have poor people. They might appear to have a lot of money, but then in real terms they probably don't have much at all.

I'm not disagreeing with that welfare can encourage people to stay in poverty. It depends on the program and how it's administered.

Huh? What are you smoking? In 1978 under socialism, 63% of the entire population of China, was under their poverty level. Today it's under 2%. The average wage in China, in just the past 10 years, has increased 3 fold, from 20K yuan, to 60K yuan.

Under Capitalism, the average Chinese worker is enjoying an increasing standard of living, that has not been seen in China, for 100 years.

Moreover, yes every country in the world has poor. The only way you can avoid having poor people, is if you take away their ability to choose to work. You force people to work, then you can force them to stay out of poverty. As long as people have a choice, some will choose to remain poor.

I'm actually a good example of this. I have been offered several jobs where I could easily have earned double what I do now. Yes, I could have a bigger pay check, with a phat bonus, and so on. I didn't want it. I didn't care to earn more money. I never could figure out why I would work so hard, for more money that I can see any need of.

I had one guy tell me I was going to be store manager, and earn $80,000 a year, plus a profit sharing bonus. I hated that job. Last thing I wanted to do was earn a ton of money, while hoping my store would burn down to the ground. I'd much rather earn $20,000 and like what I do. Which is where I am now.

It's not societies fault, or some crap about the evil 1%, or democrats or republicans. I'm not willing to do what is required to earn that much.

China has levels of capitalism and levels of socialism.

The whole argument here is that welfare causes people to be poor, as if the lack of welfare in China has somehow made all these people come out of poverty. What is poverty anyway? The reality is that poverty is a benchmark set by someone to compare with other people. China still has 150 million people in poverty.

Yes, the ability to have capitalism in certain areas of society has helped massively to give many Chinese the level of life that people would want.

However the argument was that welfare caused poverty, but in China they have a population half the size of the US in poverty and no welfare. So, there's something amiss here.

The point I am making is that welfare can be good, it can be bad, not having welfare can be good and it can be bad. To simply make a blanket statement that welfare is bad and then "prove it" with something very whimsical, isn't going to be a good argument.

Republicans didn't mind welfare when they could deny it to black women and give it to white women. NPR did a piece on this issue. When civil rights said welfare couldn't be denied to poor blacks any longer, welfare quadrupled. All of the sudden Republicans started hating welfare.

And excuse me if those Republicans were actually southern Democrats pre southern strategy.

 

[frigidweirdo]

I've heard welfare to the poor is a drop in the bucket. If your going to make cuts stop cutting things that help the poor. Cut corporate welfare and military spending that isn't needed.

I'd be impressed with Republicans if they weren't always going after the poor.

Why does a middle class athiest care about the poor but a good Christian like you doesn't?

Socialist programs make up the vast majority of all government spending.

Government programs for the poor, generally do more to keep people poor, than anything else in this country.

Moreover, the poor end up paying taxes, to pay for these horrible programs you claim are for the poor, which actually harm them.

Lastly, quite frankly, I wager I have donated more money to the poor, and volunteered more hours to charities for the poor, than any 3 of you people combined. Could be wrong, but I doubt it.

And by the way.... *I* was adopted myself, and both my parents are conservative.

You people on the left, only demand others help the poor, and other adopt children, and others do things for our fellow man. We actually do it.

In China there is not really anything like social programs. Poor people are poor and they deal with it or they don't. People are still poor. They don't have welfare programs making them poor, or keeping them poor, they're kept poor by the fact that every society will generally have poor people. The richest countries in the world will have poor people. They might appear to have a lot of money, but then in real terms they probably don't have much at all.

I'm not disagreeing with that welfare can encourage people to stay in poverty. It depends on the program and how it's administered.

Huh? What are you smoking? In 1978 under socialism, 63% of the entire population of China, was under their poverty level. Today it's under 2%. The average wage in China, in just the past 10 years, has increased 3 fold, from 20K yuan, to 60K yuan.

Under Capitalism, the average Chinese worker is enjoying an increasing standard of living, that has not been seen in China, for 100 years.

Moreover, yes every country in the world has poor. The only way you can avoid having poor people, is if you take away their ability to choose to work. You force people to work, then you can force them to stay out of poverty. As long as people have a choice, some will choose to remain poor.

I'm actually a good example of this. I have been offered several jobs where I could easily have earned double what I do now. Yes, I could have a bigger pay check, with a phat bonus, and so on. I didn't want it. I didn't care to earn more money. I never could figure out why I would work so hard, for more money that I can see any need of.

I had one guy tell me I was going to be store manager, and earn $80,000 a year, plus a profit sharing bonus. I hated that job. Last thing I wanted to do was earn a ton of money, while hoping my store would burn down to the ground. I'd much rather earn $20,000 and like what I do. Which is where I am now.

It's not societies fault, or some crap about the evil 1%, or democrats or republicans. I'm not willing to do what is required to earn that much.

China has levels of capitalism and levels of socialism.

The whole argument here is that welfare causes people to be poor, as if the lack of welfare in China has somehow made all these people come out of poverty. What is poverty anyway? The reality is that poverty is a benchmark set by someone to compare with other people. China still has 150 million people in poverty.

Yes, the ability to have capitalism in certain areas of society has helped massively to give many Chinese the level of life that people would want.

However the argument was that welfare caused poverty, but in China they have a population half the size of the US in poverty and no welfare. So, there's something amiss here.

The point I am making is that welfare can be good, it can be bad, not having welfare can be good and it can be bad. To simply make a blanket statement that welfare is bad and then "prove it" with something very whimsical, isn't going to be a good argument.

Republicans didn't mind welfare when they could deny it to black women and give it to white women. NPR did a piece on this issue. When civil rights said welfare couldn't be denied to poor blacks any longer, welfare quadrupled. All of the sudden Republicans started hating welfare.

And excuse me if those Republicans were actually southern Democrats pre southern strategy.

Sounds about right. They love spending on their thinks and then hate any spending for anyone else.

 

[Pumpkin Row]

I never used the word sentient, and all of your assumptions are false. Tell me, would you like if you were aborted? I kinda like living.

Seems to me, in most cases, the choice to have a baby coincides with the choice to keep your legs closed.

That last statement clearly shows that you place the blame and responsibility on the woman, rather than on the aggressive males that coax and push them into sex. The males are the physically stronger and are almost always the ones to push for sex. Your pushing the responsibility on the woman shows your knuckle-dragging misogynist mentality.
If I had been aborted, that would have been my parents decision and I would have not existed to know either way. No big deal.

Had you been aborted, that would be your parent's decision what to do with you, a separate person.

Your twisting of my words only shows you're incapable of proper debate. I specifically said "in most cases". If a woman is forced into sex, it's called rape. The fact is, outside of rape, it's the woman's decision. A woman can allow herself to be talked/coaxed into it, but that still takes her relenting. If a woman gets herself drunk, that's her own fault also. Impairing one's senses is a decision one makes for themselves. When someone takes an action, they are accepting the consequences of said action, and if you're not prepared for those consequences, it's on you. Aborting a child is forcing someone else to take the consequences of your actions upon themselves.

In other words, it takes two to tango.

It's still ultimately the MALE's fault.

Are you implying that all sex is rape, and that all men force sex from their wives?

No. Obviously, most sex is not rape, but by men saying that women should just keep their legs together, implies that it is her responsibility alone. Men are just as responsible for the sex act, more so, since it is usually them pursuing the woman. The males need to keep their penises in their pants. Period.

It takes two to tango, they're equally responsible. Women can say no, men can control themselves.

 

[Pumpkin Row]

I've heard welfare to the poor is a drop in the bucket. If your going to make cuts stop cutting things that help the poor. Cut corporate welfare and military spending that isn't needed.

I'd be impressed with Republicans if they weren't always going after the poor.

Why does a middle class athiest care about the poor but a good Christian like you doesn't?

Socialist programs make up the vast majority of all government spending.

Government programs for the poor, generally do more to keep people poor, than anything else in this country.

Moreover, the poor end up paying taxes, to pay for these horrible programs you claim are for the poor, which actually harm them.

Lastly, quite frankly, I wager I have donated more money to the poor, and volunteered more hours to charities for the poor, than any 3 of you people combined. Could be wrong, but I doubt it.

And by the way.... *I* was adopted myself, and both my parents are conservative.

You people on the left, only demand others help the poor, and other adopt children, and others do things for our fellow man. We actually do it.

In China there is not really anything like social programs. Poor people are poor and they deal with it or they don't. People are still poor. They don't have welfare programs making them poor, or keeping them poor, they're kept poor by the fact that every society will generally have poor people. The richest countries in the world will have poor people. They might appear to have a lot of money, but then in real terms they probably don't have much at all.

I'm not disagreeing with that welfare can encourage people to stay in poverty. It depends on the program and how it's administered.

Huh? What are you smoking? In 1978 under socialism, 63% of the entire population of China, was under their poverty level. Today it's under 2%. The average wage in China, in just the past 10 years, has increased 3 fold, from 20K yuan, to 60K yuan.

Under Capitalism, the average Chinese worker is enjoying an increasing standard of living, that has not been seen in China, for 100 years.

Moreover, yes every country in the world has poor. The only way you can avoid having poor people, is if you take away their ability to choose to work. You force people to work, then you can force them to stay out of poverty. As long as people have a choice, some will choose to remain poor.

I'm actually a good example of this. I have been offered several jobs where I could easily have earned double what I do now. Yes, I could have a bigger pay check, with a phat bonus, and so on. I didn't want it. I didn't care to earn more money. I never could figure out why I would work so hard, for more money that I can see any need of.

I had one guy tell me I was going to be store manager, and earn $80,000 a year, plus a profit sharing bonus. I hated that job. Last thing I wanted to do was earn a ton of money, while hoping my store would burn down to the ground. I'd much rather earn $20,000 and like what I do. Which is where I am now.

It's not societies fault, or some crap about the evil 1%, or democrats or republicans. I'm not willing to do what is required to earn that much.

China has levels of capitalism and levels of socialism.

The whole argument here is that welfare causes people to be poor, as if the lack of welfare in China has somehow made all these people come out of poverty. What is poverty anyway? The reality is that poverty is a benchmark set by someone to compare with other people. China still has 150 million people in poverty.

Yes, the ability to have capitalism in certain areas of society has helped massively to give many Chinese the level of life that people would want.

However the argument was that welfare caused poverty, but in China they have a population half the size of the US in poverty and no welfare. So, there's something amiss here.

The point I am making is that welfare can be good, it can be bad, not having welfare can be good and it can be bad. To simply make a blanket statement that welfare is bad and then "prove it" with something very whimsical, isn't going to be a good argument.

Republicans didn't mind welfare when they could deny it to black women and give it to white women. NPR did a piece on this issue. When civil rights said welfare couldn't be denied to poor blacks any longer, welfare quadrupled. All of the sudden Republicans started hating welfare.

And excuse me if those Republicans were actually southern Democrats pre southern strategy.

There are so many different levels of stupidity in this claim. Ultimately I'm not a Republican, but I can tell you that welfare is a stupid concept for any "race", and in the end, it's still the middle class paying for someone's laziness and failure.

 

[frigidweirdo]

Socialist programs make up the vast majority of all government spending.

Government programs for the poor, generally do more to keep people poor, than anything else in this country.

Moreover, the poor end up paying taxes, to pay for these horrible programs you claim are for the poor, which actually harm them.

Lastly, quite frankly, I wager I have donated more money to the poor, and volunteered more hours to charities for the poor, than any 3 of you people combined. Could be wrong, but I doubt it.

And by the way.... *I* was adopted myself, and both my parents are conservative.

You people on the left, only demand others help the poor, and other adopt children, and others do things for our fellow man. We actually do it.

In China there is not really anything like social programs. Poor people are poor and they deal with it or they don't. People are still poor. They don't have welfare programs making them poor, or keeping them poor, they're kept poor by the fact that every society will generally have poor people. The richest countries in the world will have poor people. They might appear to have a lot of money, but then in real terms they probably don't have much at all.

I'm not disagreeing with that welfare can encourage people to stay in poverty. It depends on the program and how it's administered.

Huh? What are you smoking? In 1978 under socialism, 63% of the entire population of China, was under their poverty level. Today it's under 2%. The average wage in China, in just the past 10 years, has increased 3 fold, from 20K yuan, to 60K yuan.

Under Capitalism, the average Chinese worker is enjoying an increasing standard of living, that has not been seen in China, for 100 years.

Moreover, yes every country in the world has poor. The only way you can avoid having poor people, is if you take away their ability to choose to work. You force people to work, then you can force them to stay out of poverty. As long as people have a choice, some will choose to remain poor.

I'm actually a good example of this. I have been offered several jobs where I could easily have earned double what I do now. Yes, I could have a bigger pay check, with a phat bonus, and so on. I didn't want it. I didn't care to earn more money. I never could figure out why I would work so hard, for more money that I can see any need of.

I had one guy tell me I was going to be store manager, and earn $80,000 a year, plus a profit sharing bonus. I hated that job. Last thing I wanted to do was earn a ton of money, while hoping my store would burn down to the ground. I'd much rather earn $20,000 and like what I do. Which is where I am now.

It's not societies fault, or some crap about the evil 1%, or democrats or republicans. I'm not willing to do what is required to earn that much.

China has levels of capitalism and levels of socialism.

The whole argument here is that welfare causes people to be poor, as if the lack of welfare in China has somehow made all these people come out of poverty. What is poverty anyway? The reality is that poverty is a benchmark set by someone to compare with other people. China still has 150 million people in poverty.

Yes, the ability to have capitalism in certain areas of society has helped massively to give many Chinese the level of life that people would want.

However the argument was that welfare caused poverty, but in China they have a population half the size of the US in poverty and no welfare. So, there's something amiss here.

The point I am making is that welfare can be good, it can be bad, not having welfare can be good and it can be bad. To simply make a blanket statement that welfare is bad and then "prove it" with something very whimsical, isn't going to be a good argument.

Republicans didn't mind welfare when they could deny it to black women and give it to white women. NPR did a piece on this issue. When civil rights said welfare couldn't be denied to poor blacks any longer, welfare quadrupled. All of the sudden Republicans started hating welfare.

And excuse me if those Republicans were actually southern Democrats pre southern strategy.

There are so many different levels of stupidity in this claim. Ultimately I'm not a Republican, but I can tell you that welfare is a stupid concept for any "race", and in the end, it's still the middle class paying for someone's laziness and failure.

Wow, the lack of understanding about why many people need welfare is astounding.

Many people on welfare work. You can earn up to $1000 a month and be on welfare.

Receivers of benefits include veterans, people with kids.

Welfare programs include Women, Infants and Children Program, Medicaid, food stamps, Temporary Assistance to Needy Families Program.

Welfare isn't just for people who can't be bothered to work.

Saying that I think the welfare system needs a massive overhaul.

 

[Pumpkin Row]

In China there is not really anything like social programs. Poor people are poor and they deal with it or they don't. People are still poor. They don't have welfare programs making them poor, or keeping them poor, they're kept poor by the fact that every society will generally have poor people. The richest countries in the world will have poor people. They might appear to have a lot of money, but then in real terms they probably don't have much at all.

I'm not disagreeing with that welfare can encourage people to stay in poverty. It depends on the program and how it's administered.

Huh? What are you smoking? In 1978 under socialism, 63% of the entire population of China, was under their poverty level. Today it's under 2%. The average wage in China, in just the past 10 years, has increased 3 fold, from 20K yuan, to 60K yuan.

Under Capitalism, the average Chinese worker is enjoying an increasing standard of living, that has not been seen in China, for 100 years.

Moreover, yes every country in the world has poor. The only way you can avoid having poor people, is if you take away their ability to choose to work. You force people to work, then you can force them to stay out of poverty. As long as people have a choice, some will choose to remain poor.

I'm actually a good example of this. I have been offered several jobs where I could easily have earned double what I do now. Yes, I could have a bigger pay check, with a phat bonus, and so on. I didn't want it. I didn't care to earn more money. I never could figure out why I would work so hard, for more money that I can see any need of.

I had one guy tell me I was going to be store manager, and earn $80,000 a year, plus a profit sharing bonus. I hated that job. Last thing I wanted to do was earn a ton of money, while hoping my store would burn down to the ground. I'd much rather earn $20,000 and like what I do. Which is where I am now.

It's not societies fault, or some crap about the evil 1%, or democrats or republicans. I'm not willing to do what is required to earn that much.

China has levels of capitalism and levels of socialism.

The whole argument here is that welfare causes people to be poor, as if the lack of welfare in China has somehow made all these people come out of poverty. What is poverty anyway? The reality is that poverty is a benchmark set by someone to compare with other people. China still has 150 million people in poverty.

Yes, the ability to have capitalism in certain areas of society has helped massively to give many Chinese the level of life that people would want.

However the argument was that welfare caused poverty, but in China they have a population half the size of the US in poverty and no welfare. So, there's something amiss here.

The point I am making is that welfare can be good, it can be bad, not having welfare can be good and it can be bad. To simply make a blanket statement that welfare is bad and then "prove it" with something very whimsical, isn't going to be a good argument.

Republicans didn't mind welfare when they could deny it to black women and give it to white women. NPR did a piece on this issue. When civil rights said welfare couldn't be denied to poor blacks any longer, welfare quadrupled. All of the sudden Republicans started hating welfare.

And excuse me if those Republicans were actually southern Democrats pre southern strategy.

There are so many different levels of stupidity in this claim. Ultimately I'm not a Republican, but I can tell you that welfare is a stupid concept for any "race", and in the end, it's still the middle class paying for someone's laziness and failure.

Wow, the lack of understanding about why many people need welfare is astounding.

Many people on welfare work. You can earn up to $1000 a month and be on welfare.

Receivers of benefits include veterans, people with kids.

Welfare programs include Women, Infants and Children Program, Medicaid, food stamps, Temporary Assistance to Needy Families Program.

Welfare isn't just for people who can't be bothered to work.

Saying that I think the welfare system needs a massive overhaul.

If by overhaul, you mean completely terminated. People are on their own the moment they leave home, aside from the help of complete strangers, and that should never have changed. Besides, 'Federal Aid' is the reason people don't make 'enough' money in the first place. Businesses can pay people what they do because 'Federal Aid' allows people to pay for goods and services without having the actual money from actual work. It's a dumb concept, thought up by oxygen thieves.