How To Wean the Dependent Off Welfare

[regent]

Yes, I do

We are the wealthiest nation on earth. We can afford to provide a safety net to all families.

We did not become a wealthy nation by "providing a safety net to all families."

If we tried, then we would be called "Cuba."

Cause and effect

There was a time we did not take care of our poor. We had a Dickensonian view of the poor. Survival of the fittest, debtors prison and orphanages. Modern societies take care of those who cannot take care of themselves.

America had welfare even before we broke with Britain in 1776, and when the new nation, the United States was created, we continued welfare, we never stopped having welfare. Welfare goes with being a civilized nation.

 

[rightwinger]

We did not become a wealthy nation by "providing a safety net to all families."

If we tried, then we would be called "Cuba."

Cause and effect

There was a time we did not take care of our poor. We had a Dickensonian view of the poor. Survival of the fittest, debtors prison and orphanages. Modern societies take care of those who cannot take care of themselves.

It depends on who cannot take care of themselves. Most of the poor today choose not to take care of themselves, therefore they cannot take care of themselves.

More rightwing dogma

Most of our poor have jobs and struggle to take care of themselves in a bad economy.

And you want to take away their children

 

[NYcarbineer]

Once again, reducto ad absurdum, where I call for ending all government programs. A position you cant prove.

XXXXXXX

Also, this was something any high school student, regardless of income, was eligible for. It was based on distance of commute of each segment. If over 1.5 miles the ride was free, if less than 1.5 miles, 1/2 price. If less than 1/2 mile, full price.

This wasnt welfare as it applied to anyone in a high school in NYC.

Of course you don't. Like most Americans, you only call for ending the government programs you don't benefit from

If the taxpayer subsidizes your school and public transportation you look at it as something you earned

I went to catholic school which my parents paid for. In fact they paid twice because I did not use the public schools that we paid for via taxes.

How big is the Catholic Church's tax exemption in the US, compared to non-religious businesses?

 

[NYcarbineer]

You take the children away from parents who refuse to provide for them. It's not hard. Especially now that Russia slapped obama upside the head and banned adoption of Russian children.

Wow......what a callous asshole

I lived it. I'm entitled to be callous. When I was little we were homeless. Before there was a social safety net. No medical care, food, housing, Toys for Tots programs. We lived on the street. A stranger, a man we didn't even know, reported us to the police and the court took me away. No hearing, no trial, just a judge who had no sympathy and no recourse even if he had. His order was that I would live with my aunt until my step dad could get a job and my parents could provide stable housing. It took them a year. Mostly because my step dad was not used to working and was resentful of the demands. Demands like showing up and actually doing something. My mother was angry that apartments charged rent. But, in all fairness to them, they did it. If I didn't have an aunt I would have gone to a volunteer family (no foster care program) probably through a Church system.

But that's not the kicker, the punch line. Years later, my parents owned their own home and drove a nice car. I had my own child, graduated law school (because I didn't want to be poor), my mother told me that those years on the street were the happiest in her life. It was a callous and cruel judge that ended all those good times. Had their been the same social safety net then that we have now, that kind of poverty would be comfortable. Instead of being a successful lawyer I would be second generation welfare. Instead of being a VP for a major company, my son would have been third generation welfare like the other men who are generationally welfare. They drift from girlfriend to girlfriend because those are the ones the government gives most of the goodies to.

Poverty is painful compared to living in a mansion on the golf course. It just isn't painful enough. It should be far, FAR more painful that it is, with real loss. Serious loss.

Do you think it's the government's job to give people the happiest times in their lives?

Yeah, and I went through 10 years of hard times after my unicorn ranch was wiped out by an asteroid.

The shit people will post on the internet thinking any sane person would believe it, amazing.

 

[ba1614]

In many cases, 16 year olds can only be employed part time, and they need a license and car to get to work.

......then try teaching an 18 year old to get a job........doing.....what?

unemployment rate for the 16 to 19 age group has been just under 24% now for three months in a row.

If they're not flipping burgers then they're
1. Taking out a government loan to go to college
2. Enlisting for military service

BOTH choices require Uncle Sam to pay.

I'm eluding to the useless healthy parent setting the example for the kid that it's ok to be useless and do nothing, uncle sam will pay your way.

You are eluding to HOW MANY?

Is it a million people? 10 million? 100 million? How many? And how much do they cost us?

Please. Let's discuss reality. Not your selfish fantasy. How many are there?

I've told you I don't know how many there are, and I don't know how much it costs, how many times do you want me to admit that?

Whatever the number is, it would be a fantastic place to start "weaning people off welfare", and denying there are folks taking advantage is simply asinine.

 

[squeeze berry]

Of course you don't. Like most Americans, you only call for ending the government programs you don't benefit from

If the taxpayer subsidizes your school and public transportation you look at it as something you earned

I went to catholic school which my parents paid for. In fact they paid twice because I did not use the public schools that we paid for via taxes.

How big is the Catholic Church's tax exemption in the US, compared to non-religious businesses?

now you are thinking like Henry VIII

 

[Katzndogz]

We did not become a wealthy nation by "providing a safety net to all families."

If we tried, then we would be called "Cuba."

Cause and effect

There was a time we did not take care of our poor. We had a Dickensonian view of the poor. Survival of the fittest, debtors prison and orphanages. Modern societies take care of those who cannot take care of themselves.

America had welfare even before we broke with Britain in 1776, and when the new nation, the United States was created, we continued welfare, we never stopped having welfare. Welfare goes with being a civilized nation.

Which government programs did we have prior to 1776? Please enlighten us.

 

[Katzndogz]

I went to catholic school which my parents paid for. In fact they paid twice because I did not use the public schools that we paid for via taxes.

How big is the Catholic Church's tax exemption in the US, compared to non-religious businesses?

now you are thinking like Henry VIII

The money made by Catholic Schools is taxable income. Not only is the profit taxable, but all the teachers pay taxes too, unless they are nuns or priests. They don't pay taxes because they don't get a salary or wages.

 

[LoneLaugher]

Cause and effect

There was a time we did not take care of our poor. We had a Dickensonian view of the poor. Survival of the fittest, debtors prison and orphanages. Modern societies take care of those who cannot take care of themselves.

America had welfare even before we broke with Britain in 1776, and when the new nation, the United States was created, we continued welfare, we never stopped having welfare. Welfare goes with being a civilized nation.

Which government programs did we have prior to 1776? Please enlighten us.

Ruh-roh Shaggy, the Lawyer thinks he caught you unawares.......better eat a Scooby snack.

 

[ba1614]

Cause and effect

There was a time we did not take care of our poor. We had a Dickensonian view of the poor. Survival of the fittest, debtors prison and orphanages. Modern societies take care of those who cannot take care of themselves.

It depends on who cannot take care of themselves. Most of the poor today choose not to take care of themselves, therefore they cannot take care of themselves.

More rightwing dogma

Most of our poor have jobs and struggle to take care of themselves in a bad economy.

And you want to take away their children

And I personally respect the hell out of anyone who works for shitty wages day in and day out, that is the true definition of "guts".

It's the useless who WON'T WORK that I take issue with.

 

[regent]

Cause and effect

There was a time we did not take care of our poor. We had a Dickensonian view of the poor. Survival of the fittest, debtors prison and orphanages. Modern societies take care of those who cannot take care of themselves.

America had welfare even before we broke with Britain in 1776, and when the new nation, the United States was created, we continued welfare, we never stopped having welfare. Welfare goes with being a civilized nation.

Which government programs did we have prior to 1776? Please enlighten us.

The colonies used the British Poor Laws.

 

[initforme]

"And I personally respect the hell out of anyone who works for shitty wages day in and day out, that is the true definition of "guts".

It's the useless who WON'T WORK that I take issue with.

That isnt the definition of "guts." Thats the definition of "Taking advantage of." There's no other way of seeing it. While I believe in hard work, those that work hard for low pay for a long time are exaclty what american employers want. IThey dont get handouts, and they dont cost their employers a thing. Employers dont respect those people, they laugh at them behind their backs. And there is no other way of looking at the situation.

 

[Katzndogz]

America had welfare even before we broke with Britain in 1776, and when the new nation, the United States was created, we continued welfare, we never stopped having welfare. Welfare goes with being a civilized nation.

Which government programs did we have prior to 1776? Please enlighten us.

The colonies used the British Poor Laws.

Do you know what the Poor Laws were?

Tudor attempts to tackle the problem originate during the reign of Henry VII. In 1495, Parliament passed a statute ordering officials to seize "[a]ll such vagabonds, idle and suspected persons living suspiciously and then so taken and set in stocks, there to remain by the space of three days and three nights to have none other sustenance but bread and water, and there after the said three days and three nights, to be had out and set at large and then to be commanded to avoid the town."[17] No remedy to the problem of poverty was offered by this; it was merely swept from sight, or moved from town to town. Moreover, no distinction was made between vagrants and the jobless; both were simply categorised as "sturdy beggars", to be punished and moved on.[18]
In 1530, during the reign of Henry VIII, a proclamation was issued, describing idleness as the "mother and root of all vices"[19] and ordering that whipping should replace the stocks as the punishment for vagabonds. This change was confirmed in statute the following year, with one important change: a distinction was made between the "impotent poor" and the sturdy beggar, giving the old, the sick and the disabled licence to beg. Still no provision was made, though, for the healthy man simply unable to find work. All able-bodied unemployed were put into the same category. Those unable to find work had a stark choice: starve or break the law. In 1535, a bill was drawn up calling for the creation of a system of public works to deal with the problem of unemployment, to be funded by a tax on income and capital. A law passed a year later allowed vagabonds to be whipped.[20]
For the able-bodied poor, life became even tougher during the reign of Edward VI. In 1547, a bill was passed that subjected vagrants to some of the more extreme provisions of the criminal law, namely two years servitude and branding with a "V" as the penalty for the first offence and death for the second. Justices of the Peace were reluctant to apply the full penalty.[21] The government of Elizabeth I, Edward VI's successor after Mary I, was also inclined to severity. An Act passed in 1572 called for offenders to be bored through the ear for a first offence and that persistent beggars should be hanged.

Did you REALLY think that the British Poor Laws compelled the King to tax the merchants and hand out gold pieces to the poor?

 

[ba1614]

"And I personally respect the hell out of anyone who works for shitty wages day in and day out, that is the true definition of "guts".

It's the useless who WON'T WORK that I take issue with.

That isnt the definition of "guts." Thats the definition of "Taking advantage of." There's no other way of seeing it. While I believe in hard work, those that work hard for low pay for a long time are exaclty what american employers want. IThey dont get handouts, and they dont cost their employers a thing. Employers dont respect those people, they laugh at them behind their backs. And there is no other way of looking at the situation.

Sit on your ass and collect welfare then, that is every Americans god given right apparently.

 

[LoneLaugher]

I'm eluding to the useless healthy parent setting the example for the kid that it's ok to be useless and do nothing, uncle sam will pay your way.

You are eluding to HOW MANY?

Is it a million people? 10 million? 100 million? How many? And how much do they cost us?

Please. Let's discuss reality. Not your selfish fantasy. How many are there?

I've told you I don't know how many there are, and I don't know how much it costs, how many times do you want me to admit that?

Whatever the number is, it would be a fantastic place to start "weaning people off welfare", and denying there are folks taking advantage is simply asinine.

We cannot have a meaningful discussion about "weaning people off of welfare" ( in and of itself a fucked up way to describe our goal ) if we cannot agree on who we are trying to wean....how much we will save and what will become of those who are weaned.

Let's say that we are talking about a million people. A million able bodied adults who, due to laziness, refuse to work an available job and rely on tax dollars for their existence.

Putting them at poverty level with admin costs, lets say that this costs us about $10'000,000,000 per year. All of which is pumped back into the economy....supporting jobs across this country.

If we cut those million people off, will we save $10,000,000,000?

Think, please. Before responding.

 

[Katzndogz]

Unless the poor are cut off from government assistance, all the jobs we create for them, across the country will be filled by poor unskilled and low skilled immigrants from other countries.

 

[initforme]

"Sit on your ass and collect welfare then, that is every Americans god given right apparently."

Where did I say that? As a business owner of over 25 years now, I see hard working people making a low wage and dont find it all that acceptable. You do. You seem to have a dislike for them. WHy?

 

[LoneLaugher]

Which government programs did we have prior to 1776? Please enlighten us.

The colonies used the British Poor Laws.

Do you know what the Poor Laws were?

Tudor attempts to tackle the problem originate during the reign of Henry VII. In 1495, Parliament passed a statute ordering officials to seize "[a]ll such vagabonds, idle and suspected persons living suspiciously and then so taken and set in stocks, there to remain by the space of three days and three nights to have none other sustenance but bread and water, and there after the said three days and three nights, to be had out and set at large and then to be commanded to avoid the town."[17] No remedy to the problem of poverty was offered by this; it was merely swept from sight, or moved from town to town. Moreover, no distinction was made between vagrants and the jobless; both were simply categorised as "sturdy beggars", to be punished and moved on.[18]
In 1530, during the reign of Henry VIII, a proclamation was issued, describing idleness as the "mother and root of all vices"[19] and ordering that whipping should replace the stocks as the punishment for vagabonds. This change was confirmed in statute the following year, with one important change: a distinction was made between the "impotent poor" and the sturdy beggar, giving the old, the sick and the disabled licence to beg. Still no provision was made, though, for the healthy man simply unable to find work. All able-bodied unemployed were put into the same category. Those unable to find work had a stark choice: starve or break the law. In 1535, a bill was drawn up calling for the creation of a system of public works to deal with the problem of unemployment, to be funded by a tax on income and capital. A law passed a year later allowed vagabonds to be whipped.[20]
For the able-bodied poor, life became even tougher during the reign of Edward VI. In 1547, a bill was passed that subjected vagrants to some of the more extreme provisions of the criminal law, namely two years servitude and branding with a "V" as the penalty for the first offence and death for the second. Justices of the Peace were reluctant to apply the full penalty.[21] The government of Elizabeth I, Edward VI's successor after Mary I, was also inclined to severity. An Act passed in 1572 called for offenders to be bored through the ear for a first offence and that persistent beggars should be hanged.

Did you REALLY think that the British Poor Laws compelled the King to tax the merchants and hand out gold pieces to the poor?

A lawyer ought to understand the need to cite one's source.

 

[ba1614]

You are eluding to HOW MANY?

Is it a million people? 10 million? 100 million? How many? And how much do they cost us?

Please. Let's discuss reality. Not your selfish fantasy. How many are there?

I've told you I don't know how many there are, and I don't know how much it costs, how many times do you want me to admit that?

Whatever the number is, it would be a fantastic place to start "weaning people off welfare", and denying there are folks taking advantage is simply asinine.

We cannot have a meaningful discussion about "weaning people off of welfare" ( in and of itself a fucked up way to describe our goal ) if we cannot agree on who we are trying to wean....how much we will save and what will become of those who are weaned.

Let's say that we are talking about a million people. A million able bodied adults who, due to laziness, refuse to work an available job and rely on tax dollars for their existence.

Putting them at poverty level with admin costs, lets say that this costs us about $10'000,000,000 per year. All of which is pumped back into the economy....supporting jobs across this country.

If we cut those million people off, will we save $10,000,000,000?

Think, please. Before responding.

lol you want to talk reality and then pull numbers out of your ass.

I don't buy into the progressive logic of government handouts to the useless with borrowed money being a good stimulus, use of taxpayer wealth, or supporting jobs, regardless of how many times Pelosi tells you it is. Jobs that rely on handouts from government is just another way people are being deluded into thinking government is the answer, they are not. People being productive and spending money they EARN is what sustains an economy, not a fake government funded economy.

And before you deflect to government bailing out big business, I don't support government bailing ANYONE out.

 

[jillian]

"Sit on your ass and collect welfare then, that is every Americans god given right apparently."

Where did I say that? As a business owner of over 25 years now, I see hard working people making a low wage and dont find it all that acceptable. You do. You seem to have a dislike for them. WHy?

self hatred/ignorane/lying...

your pick.