Should The Government Cut Back On Welfare Benefits or Should They Be More Generous?

[Ray From Cleveland]

You said it yourself: they are people just like me, so they should be treated just as I treat myself.

Have you castrated yourself? Or, if you lose your job, would you castrate yourself?

Nope, just a simple form of birth control is all. As a male, I would opt for a vasectomy. That's why I believe that no male should get public assistance if they have a child they cannot support without having one themselves. What's not fair about that?

 

[quorthon]

Nope, just a simple form of birth control is all. As a male, I would opt for a vasectomy. That's why I believe that no male should get public assistance if they have a child they cannot support without having one themselves. What's not fair about that?

Sorry for offending. But you can't make sterilization/vasectomy mandatory for recipients, 'cause people, the govt and world community will definitely call it inhuman.

 

[billyerock1991]

The welfare system is way too large right now, and discourages work by the generous payments it gives out, and the way it is structured. If we were to cut welfare benefits, the government would save money through less welfare funding, and earn more money through income taxes since more people would be getting jobs via the discouragement of living off a super small pay-check.

actually they aren't ... welfare by it self has dropped in numbers ... what has gone up is food stamps which isn't welfare ... if you look at the numbers by them selves you will see people who are working jobs get food stamps too .... yes people on welfare get food stamps ... but its not a automatic, they still have to apply for food food stamps... what I've seen is, the right does this all the time, they will combine food stamps and the welfare system then say see welfare is going up when clearly the food stamp program has gone up ...

 

[billyerock1991]

You said it yourself: they are people just like me, so they should be treated just as I treat myself.

Have you castrated yourself? Or, if you lose your job, would you castrate yourself?

Nope, just a simple form of birth control is all. As a male, I would opt for a vasectomy. That's why I believe that no male should get public assistance if they have a child they cannot support without having one themselves. What's not fair about that?

what if you are disabled and you can't work ??? as a male and you have children then what ??? sign up to be home plate ???

 

[MrShangles]

If you're overweight you shouldn't be able to get food stamps. Most people I know that are on food stamps are fat and brag about getting food stamps.


Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk

 

[Ray From Cleveland]

You said it yourself: they are people just like me, so they should be treated just as I treat myself.

Have you castrated yourself? Or, if you lose your job, would you castrate yourself?

Nope, just a simple form of birth control is all. As a male, I would opt for a vasectomy. That's why I believe that no male should get public assistance if they have a child they cannot support without having one themselves. What's not fair about that?

what if you are disabled and you can't work ??? as a male and you have children then what ??? sign up to be home plate ???

Most responsible disabled people would not want children because of the reason they can't afford them.

 

[Ray From Cleveland]

The welfare system is way too large right now, and discourages work by the generous payments it gives out, and the way it is structured. If we were to cut welfare benefits, the government would save money through less welfare funding, and earn more money through income taxes since more people would be getting jobs via the discouragement of living off a super small pay-check.

actually they aren't ... welfare by it self has dropped in numbers ... what has gone up is food stamps which isn't welfare ... if you look at the numbers by them selves you will see people who are working jobs get food stamps too .... yes people on welfare get food stamps ... but its not a automatic, they still have to apply for food food stamps... what I've seen is, the right does this all the time, they will combine food stamps and the welfare system then say see welfare is going up when clearly the food stamp program has gone up ...

I don't see the difference. It's still taxpayer money that's being used. Food stamps are worse because the program is now so over bloated. On out of every seven Americans being fed by taxpayers is way too much for me. It's uncalled for.

 

[Ray From Cleveland]

Nope, just a simple form of birth control is all. As a male, I would opt for a vasectomy. That's why I believe that no male should get public assistance if they have a child they cannot support without having one themselves. What's not fair about that?

Sorry for offending. But you can't make sterilization/vasectomy mandatory for recipients, 'cause people, the govt and world community will definitely call it inhuman.

They could call it what ever they like, but there is nothing inhuman about stopping people from having children that can't afford to support them. Being inhuman is treating another human being the way you would not want to be treated yourself.

Example: I would not want to burden my neighbor with a financial obligation I would never take on myself.

 

[danielpalos]

I believe we should abolish simple poverty in our republic.

 

[Ray From Cleveland]

I believe we should abolish simple poverty in our republic.

You'll never abolish poverty because being poor is just part of every society.

I mean, if you took every poor person today and gave them 100,000 dollars, then the middle-class would be considered the new poor.

We could never have a society where everybody is rich, or everybody is middle-class, or everybody is poor. In America, we have a choice as to what we wish to be, but not everybody has the same goals or concerns. Jesus said it himself "The poor will always be with us."

 

[danielpalos]

I believe we should abolish simple poverty in our republic.

You'll never abolish poverty because being poor is just part of every society.

I mean, if you took every poor person today and gave them 100,000 dollars, then the middle-class would be considered the new poor.

We could never have a society where everybody is rich, or everybody is middle-class, or everybody is poor. In America, we have a choice as to what we wish to be, but not everybody has the same goals or concerns. Jesus said it himself "The poor will always be with us."

did you know that failing to distinguish between poverty and simply being poor is a fallacy of composition?

 

[Ray From Cleveland]

I believe we should abolish simple poverty in our republic.

You'll never abolish poverty because being poor is just part of every society.

I mean, if you took every poor person today and gave them 100,000 dollars, then the middle-class would be considered the new poor.

We could never have a society where everybody is rich, or everybody is middle-class, or everybody is poor. In America, we have a choice as to what we wish to be, but not everybody has the same goals or concerns. Jesus said it himself "The poor will always be with us."

did you know that failing to distinguish between poverty and simply being poor is a fallacy of composition?

Bad news for ya: the only people in poverty are the poor. Poor may have different definitions from different people. But poverty is poverty.

 

[danielpalos]

I believe we should abolish simple poverty in our republic.

You'll never abolish poverty because being poor is just part of every society.

I mean, if you took every poor person today and gave them 100,000 dollars, then the middle-class would be considered the new poor.

We could never have a society where everybody is rich, or everybody is middle-class, or everybody is poor. In America, we have a choice as to what we wish to be, but not everybody has the same goals or concerns. Jesus said it himself "The poor will always be with us."

did you know that failing to distinguish between poverty and simply being poor is a fallacy of composition?

Bad news for ya: the only people in poverty are the poor. Poor may have different definitions from different people. But poverty is poverty.

No; poverty is poverty, poor is being poor. There is and must be a difference should we need to quibble.

 

[The Rabbi]

The welfare system is way too large right now, and discourages work by the generous payments it gives out, and the way it is structured. If we were to cut welfare benefits, the government would save money through less welfare funding, and earn more money through income taxes since more people would be getting jobs via the discouragement of living off a super small pay-check.

We should eliminate welfare and cut taxes so private charities can take care of the truly needy while the worthless needy go out and get jobs.

 

[Ray From Cleveland]

I believe we should abolish simple poverty in our republic.

You'll never abolish poverty because being poor is just part of every society.

I mean, if you took every poor person today and gave them 100,000 dollars, then the middle-class would be considered the new poor.

We could never have a society where everybody is rich, or everybody is middle-class, or everybody is poor. In America, we have a choice as to what we wish to be, but not everybody has the same goals or concerns. Jesus said it himself "The poor will always be with us."

did you know that failing to distinguish between poverty and simply being poor is a fallacy of composition?

Bad news for ya: the only people in poverty are the poor. Poor may have different definitions from different people. But poverty is poverty.

No; poverty is poverty, poor is being poor. There is and must be a difference should we need to quibble.

There's a difference? Then maybe tell me what that difference is! I've even went through my dictionaries to double check.

 

[danielpalos]

I believe we should abolish simple poverty in our republic.

You'll never abolish poverty because being poor is just part of every society.

I mean, if you took every poor person today and gave them 100,000 dollars, then the middle-class would be considered the new poor.

We could never have a society where everybody is rich, or everybody is middle-class, or everybody is poor. In America, we have a choice as to what we wish to be, but not everybody has the same goals or concerns. Jesus said it himself "The poor will always be with us."

did you know that failing to distinguish between poverty and simply being poor is a fallacy of composition?

Bad news for ya: the only people in poverty are the poor. Poor may have different definitions from different people. But poverty is poverty.

No; poverty is poverty, poor is being poor. There is and must be a difference should we need to quibble.

There's a difference? Then maybe tell me what that difference is! I've even went through my dictionaries to double check.

Yes, and to fail to distinguish is a fallacy or error in reasoning.

Poverty (guidelines) are weights and measures fixed by our elected representatives. Poor is relative and an economic indicator and function.

 

[billyerock1991]

The welfare system is way too large right now, and discourages work by the generous payments it gives out, and the way it is structured. If we were to cut welfare benefits, the government would save money through less welfare funding, and earn more money through income taxes since more people would be getting jobs via the discouragement of living off a super small pay-check.

actually they aren't ... welfare by it self has dropped in numbers ... what has gone up is food stamps which isn't welfare ... if you look at the numbers by them selves you will see people who are working jobs get food stamps too .... yes people on welfare get food stamps ... but its not a automatic, they still have to apply for food food stamps... what I've seen is, the right does this all the time, they will combine food stamps and the welfare system then say see welfare is going up when clearly the food stamp program has gone up ...

I don't see the difference. It's still taxpayer money that's being used. Food stamps are worse because the program is now so over bloated. On out of every seven Americans being fed by taxpayers is way too much for me. It's uncalled for.

I don't think your types do see the difference ... here are the differences ... welfare is money that a person receives from the government to live on ... rent that sort of thing .... or would you rather see them lying in the street in front of your home...

food stamps are designed to help people to feed them selves ... you don't have to be on welfare to get food stamps to get food stamps you can be a person working 2 jobs but not getting enough money to buy food for your family.... most of your types think only food stamps go to peopler on welfare ... thats thats not the case ...

you say the program is over bloated ... this maybe true ...why is it over bloated ... could it be caused by republicans voting down minimum wage increases could that be the reason they are forsed to be on food stamps???? HUMMMMMMMM ??????

the point I was making is your types really don't get what's going on ... all they see is what they call their money going to worthless people

 

[Ray From Cleveland]

The welfare system is way too large right now, and discourages work by the generous payments it gives out, and the way it is structured. If we were to cut welfare benefits, the government would save money through less welfare funding, and earn more money through income taxes since more people would be getting jobs via the discouragement of living off a super small pay-check.

actually they aren't ... welfare by it self has dropped in numbers ... what has gone up is food stamps which isn't welfare ... if you look at the numbers by them selves you will see people who are working jobs get food stamps too .... yes people on welfare get food stamps ... but its not a automatic, they still have to apply for food food stamps... what I've seen is, the right does this all the time, they will combine food stamps and the welfare system then say see welfare is going up when clearly the food stamp program has gone up ...

I don't see the difference. It's still taxpayer money that's being used. Food stamps are worse because the program is now so over bloated. On out of every seven Americans being fed by taxpayers is way too much for me. It's uncalled for.

I don't think your types do see the difference ... here are the differences ... welfare is money that a person receives from the government to live on ... rent that sort of thing .... or would you rather see them lying in the street in front of your home...

food stamps are designed to help people to feed them selves ... you don't have to be on welfare to get food stamps to get food stamps you can be a person working 2 jobs but not getting enough money to buy food for your family.... most of your types think only food stamps go to peopler on welfare ... thats thats not the case ...

you say the program is over bloated ... this maybe true ...why is it over bloated ... could it be caused by republicans voting down minimum wage increases could that be the reason they are forsed to be on food stamps???? HUMMMMMMMM ??????

the point I was making is your types really don't get what's going on ... all they see is what they call their money going to worthless people

Yep, and that's it: it's what we see. So let me tell you what I've seen.

I've seen those food stamp people in front of me at the grocery store. They buy food I would never afford for myself, whip out the card, and I'm paying for it. Afterwards, they put their cigarettes, bags of dog food, cat litter, cat food, beer, flowers, greeting cards on the belt, and then whip out a wad of cash and pay for it that way.

I've seen these overgrown people--some with multiple children with two carts of food at times. I've seen the vehicles they drive when I make my few purchases and follow them out into the store parking lot. Then they load their goodies into their SUV with vanity license plates.

I remember two years ago when I had to evict a family. They were getting further and further behind on rent. The male of the household worked, but he didn't make enough money to support his family, The female stayed home supposedly home schooling their two children. They were unmarried to game the system better.

When I suggested that she get a part-time job on the weekends to catch up on rent, she blew it off because she was getting $200.00 a month in food stamps. If she went to work and earned income, that would interfere in her benefits.

These were people with three cats and a large dog. They both smoked and even provided cigarettes to their daughter who was a little to young to get a job and buy her own.

So we taxpayers were paying for their food, and the couple was paying for their pet supplies and bad habits.

 

[danielpalos]

all i see is the establishment denying and disparaging the least wealthy but claiming poverty is an Individual problem.

 

[Ray From Cleveland]

all i see is the establishment denying and disparaging the least wealthy but claiming poverty is an Individual problem.

all i see is the establishment denying and disparaging the least wealthy but claiming poverty is an Individual problem.

If it's not an individual problem, then who's problem is it?