Dismantle all welfare programs.

[Immanuel]

Sorry, too many hungry kids out there. Until we can solve that problem, I can't stomach the idea of ending Welfare.

Immie

 

[Big Fitz]

What I'm interested in knowing is how the troll defines "welfare."

unconstitutional giving for social causes not defined in the enumerated powers that previously was done by charities and private individuals.

That's my safe guess. So:

NEA
SCHPS
Medicare
Medicaid
Social Security
Dept of Education
Dept of Energy
Dept of Housing and Urban Development
Welfare
Dept. Homeland Security (split up between DOD and DOJ the rest can be privatized)
Dept. Veterans Affairs (Put back into DOD)

all can go away now. If the states want to keep them, it is constitutional for them to pick up the costs for their state and continue on. Otherwise, bubye. Let true charities do their job.

 

[Political Junky]

Please, republicans, do away with Medicare and Social Security.
Pretty please. It will destroy what's left of your party.

 

[The T]

If one has a propensity for crime.. welfare handouts are not going to prevent that action...

The lazy will just have to do something hocking such as work and providing for their own needs

You assume that everyone on welfare is lazy? How ignorant.

Wow... nice adding to the actual statement I made.... that vast majority on welfare are lazy, as in they are able bodied and simply do not work to support themselves... there are some, very few, that are truly UNABLE to take care of themselves... and those should be wards of the state if they are on the government tit and not being taken care of by family, themselves, or others in a voluntary and personal way

Many left wingers try and say that most on welfare are 'needy', when the reality is that they are want-y

And Those are the ones that *I* do not begrudge help BY the State, or any other Charity entity.

But those that are leeches by the fact that they know that they can vote themselves anything they like and become 'Brood mares' by having children with no visiable means of support other than that of taxpayers?

*Responsibility* is the keyword here. I refuse to subsidize brood mares or others that are quite capable of supporting themselves with a bit of work/sweat...but refuse to.

 

[DiamondDave]

Wow... nice adding to the actual statement I made.... that vast majority on welfare are lazy, as in they are able bodied and simply do not work to support themselves... there are some, very few, that are truly UNABLE to take care of themselves... and those should be wards of the state if they are on the government tit and not being taken care of by family, themselves, or others in a voluntary and personal way

Many left wingers try and say that most on welfare are 'needy', when the reality is that they are want-y

Link?

FUCK YOU!

It is quite evident to anyone that has been around welfare recipients that the vast majority are lazy.... go to a welfare office and simply start counting the number of people that are fully mobile and capable and with their mental facilities intact

And just from a quick reference on numbers change when NY started requiring able bodied recipients to work for their benefit, THE CLAIMS DROPPED BY 2/3
New York Says Those on Welfare Are Increasingly Hard to Employ - NYTimes.com

When Ohio required capable welfare recipients to work, 40% of them decided that they didn't need help after all. Oregon tried to place its able-bodied welfare population in jobs by offering employers a subsidy to take them. Once welfare recipients found that they were going to have to work for someone, 80% went out and found an unsubsidized job. Clearly, a great deal of the welfare population simply chooses not to work when tax dollars, usually in excess of what they would initially earn, are readily available. Giving money to those who could work results in less money for those who can't.
http://www.ruwart.com/poverty.lpn.wpd.html

 

[Modbert]

Sorry, too many hungry kids out there. Until we can solve that problem, I can't stomach the idea of ending Welfare.

Immie

This is what I'm eventually trying to get to. However, Thomas and his pals don't care about the hungry kids out there. He's got his, why should he care about his fellow Americans? I mean, this sort of behavior works in Somalia.

 

[The T]

What I'm interested in knowing is how the troll defines "welfare."

unconstitutional giving for social causes not defined in the enumerated powers that previously was done by charities and private individuals.

That's my safe guess. So:

NEA
SCHPS
Medicare
Medicaid
Social Security
Dept of Education
Dept of Energy
Dept of Housing and Urban Development
Welfare
Dept. Homeland Security (split up between DOD and DOJ the rest can be privatized)
Dept. Veterans Affairs (Put back into DOD)

all can go away now. If the states want to keep them, it is constitutional for them to pick up the costs for their state and continue on. Otherwise, bubye. Let true charities do their job.

*Bingo*

 

[Big Fitz]

Please, republicans, do away with Medicare and Social Security.
Pretty please. It will destroy what's left of your party.

In a few months... maybe years... there won't be a choice. It will be gone. Economics doesn't give a shit about what you want politically. It does what the laws of supply and demand as well as scarcity dictate. And right now, with the economic nitwits running this nation, trying to stuff their pockets before jumping ship before it hits the rocks, it's going to be a disaster on the same scale if not greater than the Great Depression.

We ain't seen nothing yet... cause nothing's been fixed, only made worse.

 

[Modbert]

Very weak comparison, as I didn't say welfare was for the lazy. I ended my sentence with "A good number on assistance are lazy." I didn't continue to say "Therefore, public assistance is for the lazy."

Yes, you said a good number. Which makes DD statement false, not true. What I'm trying to say is a few people do not define a entire group, as I'm sure you will agree.

 

[DiamondDave]

Please, republicans, do away with Medicare and Social Security.
Pretty please. It will destroy what's left of your party.

It would have to be phased out starting with not allowing new people into the program... even if it means taxation still funds it until people start coming off the books by death or buyout

 

[The T]

Sorry, too many hungry kids out there. Until we can solve that problem, I can't stomach the idea of ending Welfare.

Immie

This is what I'm eventually trying to get to. However, Thomas and his pals don't care about the hungry kids out there. He's got his, why should he care about his fellow Americans? I mean, this sort of behavior works in Somalia.

Cry us a fucking river KID...and explain HOW theuy got there and ask their irresponsible PARENTS why they brought kids into the world when they were ILL prepared to support them?

Get about 20 years of experience and AGE on your stupid ass and then come back here and talk to us.

 

[DiamondDave]

Very weak comparison, as I didn't say welfare was for the lazy. I ended my sentence with "A good number on assistance are lazy." I didn't continue to say "Therefore, public assistance is for the lazy."

Yes, you said a good number. Which makes DD statement false, not true. What I'm trying to say is a few people do not define a entire group, as I'm sure you will agree.

Yep.. a few needy people do not make the entire group of welfare recipients needy

Living in the real world and not some dream world with lollipop dreams will have you start to realize the abuse in entitlement systems by the lazy entitlement junkies

 

[Immanuel]

Sorry, too many hungry kids out there. Until we can solve that problem, I can't stomach the idea of ending Welfare.

Immie

This is what I'm eventually trying to get to. However, Thomas and his pals don't care about the hungry kids out there. He's got his, why should he care about his fellow Americans? I mean, this sort of behavior works in Somalia.

Cry us a fucking river KID...and explain HOW theuy got there and ask their irresponsible PARENTS why they brought kids into the world when they were ILL prepared to support them?

Get about 20 years of experience and AGE on your stupid ass and then come back here and talk to us.

I've got at least 20 years on him.

Are you really blaming the kids for the irresponsibility of the parents?

Immie

 

[The T]

Please, republicans, do away with Medicare and Social Security.
Pretty please. It will destroy what's left of your party.

In a few months... maybe years... there won't be a choice. It will be gone. Economics doesn't give a shit about what you want politically. It does what the laws of supply and demand as well as scarcity dictate. And right now, with the economic nitwits running this nation, trying to stuff their pockets before jumping ship before it hits the rocks, it's going to be a disaster on the same scale if not greater than the Great Depression.

We ain't seen nothing yet... cause nothing's been fixed, only made worse.

-And- you are being kind as to what follows if it is allowed to come to fruition. History is a guide...few really read examples left to us and their legacies...their politics and power are of more import than what History and those that have gone before us warned us of by their examples.

 

[Modbert]

Cry us a fucking river KID...and explain HOW theuy got there and ask their irresponsible PARENTS why they brought kids into the world when they were ILL prepared to support them?

Get about 20 years of experience and AGE on your stupid ass and then come back here and talk to us.

Irresponsible parents brought them into the world?

Two parents, each with a job, decide to have a kid. Mom's job goes to China, due to the company wanting to save a couple extra dollars a year. Dad's job in the auto industry goes to Russia. Now, neither can find a job due to their fields going overseas essentially. They can't move, can't afford to.

What happens then?

You have this assumption that everyone who goes on welfare is either lazy or irresponsible, how ignorant and disgusting.

Never mind the fact you are holding kids responsible for their parents.

 

[The T]

This is what I'm eventually trying to get to. However, Thomas and his pals don't care about the hungry kids out there. He's got his, why should he care about his fellow Americans? I mean, this sort of behavior works in Somalia.

Cry us a fucking river KID...and explain HOW theuy got there and ask their irresponsible PARENTS why they brought kids into the world when they were ILL prepared to support them?

Get about 20 years of experience and AGE on your stupid ass and then come back here and talk to us.

I've got at least 20 years on him.

Are you really blaming the kids for the irresponsibility of the parents?

Immie

Did *YOU* read that anywhere? *I* think not.

 

[Modbert]

I've got at least 20 years on him.

Are you really blaming the kids for the irresponsibility of the parents?

Immie

Thinking isn't Thomas's strong point.

 

[Oddball]

SUre, and watch crime go up when starving people get desperate and turn to other methods to survive, like robbing and stealing

Or maybe they'll go out and get jobs.

 

[The T]

Cry us a fucking river KID...and explain HOW theuy got there and ask their irresponsible PARENTS why they brought kids into the world when they were ILL prepared to support them?

Get about 20 years of experience and AGE on your stupid ass and then come back here and talk to us.

Irresponsible parents brought them into the world?

Two parents, each with a job, decide to have a kid. Mom's job goes to China, due to the company wanting to save a couple extra dollars a year. Dad's job in the auto industry goes to Russia. Now, neither can find a job due to their fields going overseas essentially. They can't move, can't afford to.

What happens then?

You have this assumption that everyone who goes on welfare is either lazy or irresponsible, how ignorant and disgusting.

Never mind the fact you are holding kids responsible for their parents.

If you cannot handle having children and support them properly, with some work to be comfortable?

You're damn RIGHT they're irresponsible.

 

[Big Fitz]

When the war on poverty began under LBJ, the percentage of people in poverty in this nation was about 16% IIRC. Since the war kicked off, the percentage of those in poverty has decreased how many percent?

0%. it's gone up by maybe a few decimals, so basically no change.

When are we going to engage in an exit strategy from the war on poverty?