Welfare is Immoral

[Charles_Main]

child care coverage is getting chopped again as we speak, Luissa.

So apparently it wasn't just a Bush thing.

Nope it's a math thing. It is about sustainability and responsibility. Just how Compassionate is it really if you are so worried about being Compassionate and helping everyone, You collapse your economy and never recover. Robbing MILLIONS of their way of life, and well being. In the end which way will you help more people. By spending more than you can sustain or by living with in your means and doing as much as you can with out going out side them forever?

 

[syrenn]

For everyone disagrees with Welfare, please tell me about the program. Tell me about what one has to do while on Tanff if they do not have a medical exemption? Tell me how many hours they have to put in for job search, and how much time they actually have in their LIFETIME to live on Tanff.
Also tell me how cutting childcare coverage during the Bush years helped people find jobs?

In my opinion all childcare welfare should be cut to only cover ONE child(or the amount of children you FIRST apply with). If you cant afford ONE child you should be responsible enough to not have any more. Nor should the public be responsible for MORE children when you cant afford the one that the public is already covering. If welfare mother thinks she can support several children on the check for one, that is up to her.

Finding jobs and cranking out babies to get a bigger welfare check are two different things. Though you could look at a bigger check as a better job

60 months of ADULT benefits, or 5 years is a long time to sit on your ass and not get a job. Sure they must attempt to find a job, but attempting to find a job could be just getting out of bed and looking at the news paper. After the 5 years the children would most likely still get the benefits not the adult.

I'd explain in detail how ignorant you are, but it would simply be a waste of my time. Welfare changed when AFDC went away and Temporary Aide for Needy Families replaced it. Call your Rep. on the Board of Supervisors and tell them how outraged you are, maybe they'll educate you.

You and i live in the same city remember? Calling them is a waste of time as all they want is votes.

 

[Luissa]

For everyone disagrees with Welfare, please tell me about the program. Tell me about what one has to do while on Tanff if they do not have a medical exemption? Tell me how many hours they have to put in for job search, and how much time they actually have in their LIFETIME to live on Tanff.
Also tell me how cutting childcare coverage during the Bush years helped people find jobs?

In my opinion all childcare welfare should be cut to only cover ONE child(or the amount of children you FIRST apply with). If you cant afford ONE child you should be responsible enough to not have any more. Nor should the public be responsible for MORE children when you cant afford the one that the public is already covering. If welfare mother thinks she can support several children on the check for one, that is up to her.

Finding jobs and cranking out babies to get a bigger welfare check are two different things. Though you could look at a bigger check as a better job

60 months of ADULT benefits, or 5 years is a long time to sit on your ass and not get a job. Sure they must attempt to find a job, but attempting to find a job could be just getting out of bed and looking at the news paper. After the 5 years the children would most likely still get the benefits not the adult.

I will answer my own question.

You have to do 8 hrs a day of job search, if you spend most of the time at home, and log that you do. They will investigate your claim, and sometimes will not pay your child care cost. You have to turn in you job log every day. If you do not do job search and turn in your logs they will reduce your benefits by 40% or take you off Tanff. You also have to go to certain amount of skill building classes. You have to check in with your case worker every week.
They are not getting an easy ride. Yes they are getting benefits, but you can't really sit on your ass and keep your benefits.
If your child's father is paying support, they also have to pay back a portion of the benefits you recieve.

 

[rdean]

Follow the example of the right wing. No one helps them out - EVER!

[ame=http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=yTwpBLzxe4U]YouTube - Craig T. Nelson on Government Aid[/ame]

 

[AllieBaba]

And you don't have to work to get section 8.

 

[Wry Catcher]

In my opinion all childcare welfare should be cut to only cover ONE child(or the amount of children you FIRST apply with). If you cant afford ONE child you should be responsible enough to not have any more. Nor should the public be responsible for MORE children when you cant afford the one that the public is already covering. If welfare mother thinks she can support several children on the check for one, that is up to her.

Finding jobs and cranking out babies to get a bigger welfare check are two different things. Though you could look at a bigger check as a better job

60 months of ADULT benefits, or 5 years is a long time to sit on your ass and not get a job. Sure they must attempt to find a job, but attempting to find a job could be just getting out of bed and looking at the news paper. After the 5 years the children would most likely still get the benefits not the adult.

I'd explain in detail how ignorant you are, but it would simply be a waste of my time. Welfare changed when AFDC went away and Temporary Aide for Needy Families replaced it. Call your Rep. on the Board of Supervisors and tell them how outraged you are, maybe they'll educate you.

You and i live in the same city remember? Calling them is a waste of time as all they want is votes.

call them anyway. You'll speak with an aide, tell them you're a student doing a paper on welfare to work.

 

[syrenn]

I'd explain in detail how ignorant you are, but it would simply be a waste of my time. Welfare changed when AFDC went away and Temporary Aide for Needy Families replaced it. Call your Rep. on the Board of Supervisors and tell them how outraged you are, maybe they'll educate you.

You and i live in the same city remember? Calling them is a waste of time as all they want is votes.

call them anyway. You'll speak with an aide, tell them you're a student doing a paper on welfare to work.

And tell me wry, how will that change my opinion of only giving aid for ONE child? How will that change my opinions of if you have any more children its their own tough shit that they had more and are not going to get paid or having more?

And by the way...i have seen enough of what goes on INSIDE the board of sups to know they are just in it for the money.

I don't CARE what aid it is ...or what it is called ...or what it covers. In my opinion 75% of people on programs are scams.

 

[lizzie]

And by the way...i have seen enough of what goes on INSIDE the board of sups to know they are just in it for the money.

I don't CARE what aid it is ...or what it is called ...or what it covers. In my opinion 75% of people on programs are scams.

I work with alot of SSI beneficiaries (below retirement age disability recipients). The great majority of them are every bit as able-bodied as myself, but they have a sick mentality and they have no desire to be productive members of society. If most people in our society knew intimately what's actually going on with some of these programs, they would be outraged at what we are supporting.

 

[Flopper]

It is immoral for a government to tell its most productive people that they must give up part of their lives and property for the benefit of other people who don't have as many resources as those of us who have worked hard and made successful lives for ourselves just because those others have refused to avail themselves of all the benefits this great country has offered them in the way of education, freedom to pursue their dreams, etc.

Charity is intrinsically a voluntary thing, not something forced on us at the point of a gun by government thugs who have the authority to ultimately kill us for resisting their theft of our property. Taking one man's hard-earned money against his will for the benefit of another man's welfare is definitely not charity, it is the crime of robbery that is dictated by an arrogant and tyrannical government.

Every citizen of this country has the potential ability to carve out a decent, comfortable life for himself by utilizing all the facilities offered up by the benevolence of the productive, taxpaying workers who are forced to subsidize the educational, medical, legal, and other needs of the underclasses who refuse to take responsibility for their own lives as long as they don't have to due to our rulers providing them with all they need and want by stealing from us.

It's immoral to allow a child to go hungry in a country that spends a billion/yr to dispose of excess food.
It's immoral to deny life saving healthcare to the poor because no matter how hard they work they can never afford those services.
It's immoral to deny a good education to a child who's only mistake was to be born into a poor family.
It's immoral to have a family living in cardboard box when millions of homes sit vacant.

And most of all, it is immoral to deny the most basic services to the poor in order to cut taxes for the wealthy.

 

[lizzie]

iIt's immoral to allow a child to go hungry in a country that spends a billion/yr to dispose of excess food.
It's immoral to deny life saving healthcare to the poor because no matter how hard they work they can never afford those services.
It's immoral to deny a good education to a child who's only mistake was to be born into a poor family.
It's immoral to have a family living in cardboard box when millions of homes sit vacant.

And most of all, it is immoral to deny the most basic services to the poor in order to cut taxes for the wealthy.

None of those things are more immoral than theft and coercion by a government who deems that it has a right to your personal labor/property for use as it sees fit. As a conscientious human, I may have my own personal obligation, because I believe it's the right thing to do, and I wish to do so, but for a government to force me to fund poor and/or immoral choices of others is an immoral act in and of itself.

If a poor man robs you blind because he needs your money, is he a theif or is he acting in a moral manner? If a government takes my labor and industry to give to a poor man because he needs it, why is that not theivery?

There is a legitimate role for government in collecting taxes which benefit all citizens equally. There is not a legitimate role for it to collect taxes to redistribute in order to equalize individuals. Government should exist to make and enforce laws which insure a civil society and provide for defense of the homeland.

 

[uscitizen]

[/quote=uscitizen;2720925]

I guess Hoover dam was a bad idea?

It is now providing welfare finianced water and electricity to Vegas and southern CA.

The Dam was not a bad Idea, having the government pay for it was.

How many billions have private industry made from the electricity and water since Hoover dam was built?

Exactly why the Private sector should have paid for it.

so why didn't they?

the same reason sports franchise owners tend to get publicly funded stadiums to play in?

 

[doramider7]

Seriously, go back to AWE. We don't want your broke ass here.

rightwing nut jobs are not people I looked to for morality.

greedy bastard

 

[chanel]

It is immoral for a government to tell its most productive people that they must give up part of their lives and property for the benefit of other people who don't have as many resources as those of us who have worked hard and made successful lives for ourselves just because those others have refused to avail themselves of all the benefits this great country has offered them in the way of education, freedom to pursue their dreams, etc.

Charity is intrinsically a voluntary thing, not something forced on us at the point of a gun by government thugs who have the authority to ultimately kill us for resisting their theft of our property. Taking one man's hard-earned money against his will for the benefit of another man's welfare is definitely not charity, it is the crime of robbery that is dictated by an arrogant and tyrannical government.

Every citizen of this country has the potential ability to carve out a decent, comfortable life for himself by utilizing all the facilities offered up by the benevolence of the productive, taxpaying workers who are forced to subsidize the educational, medical, legal, and other needs of the underclasses who refuse to take responsibility for their own lives as long as they don't have to due to our rulers providing them with all they need and want by stealing from us.

"Every citizen of this country has the potential ability to carve out a decent, comfortable life for himself "


except of course for those people who are unemployed because there aren't enough jobs to go around.

I can imagine a world in the future in which computers, robots, machines do almost all of the work....

resulting in massive unemployment...40%? 50%? 70? 80?...you?

and I don't want 250 million people whining about poverty or demanding that the few extremely wealthy multibillionaires in America who EARNED all of their wealth being forced to pay pennies or nickels just to feed lazy and irresponsible welfare cheats and deadbeats!


America won't be TRULY great until ALL of the wealth is in the hands of a few elitists and everyone else is eating out of garbage cans!

Math isn't my thing, but I am fairly certain that all those "multi billionaires" are paying more than pennies and nickels. BTW - how many "multi billionaires" are there in the U.S.? Four?

I believe in the welfare system as a safety net for those citizens who are the most vulnerable - the elderly, disabled, and children in poverty. I do not agree with supporting able bodied adults who have chosen it as a lifestyle. I would reckon that's about half. **** them. They are thieves.

Having children with no means or desire to properly care for them is immoral.

 

[Douger]

It is immoral for a government to tell its most productive people that they must give up part of their lives and property for the benefit of other people who don't have as many resources as those of us who have worked hard and made successful lives for ourselves just because those others have refused to avail themselves of all the benefits this great country has offered them in the way of education, freedom to pursue their dreams, etc.

Charity is intrinsically a voluntary thing, not something forced on us at the point of a gun by government thugs who have the authority to ultimately kill us for resisting their theft of our property. Taking one man's hard-earned money against his will for the benefit of another man's welfare is definitely not charity, it is the crime of robbery that is dictated by an arrogant and tyrannical government.

Every citizen of this country has the potential ability to carve out a decent, comfortable life for himself by utilizing all the facilities offered up by the benevolence of the productive, taxpaying workers who are forced to subsidize the educational, medical, legal, and other needs of the underclasses who refuse to take responsibility for their own lives as long as they don't have to due to our rulers providing them with all they need and want by stealing from us.

Good morning Rush.

 

[midcan5]

Boy this stuff gets old, it is as if another narcissistic loonie is born every minute.

"When I give food to the poor, they call me a saint. When I ask why the poor have no food, they call me a communist." Dom Helder Camara

"Do not waste your time on Social Questions. What is the matter with the poor is Poverty; what is the matter with the rich is Uselessness." George Bernard Shaw

According to a recent Harper's Index 10,149 US companies are now foreign owned. The average net worth of a white woman between 36 and 49 is 42,600 dollars. For a non-white woman it is five dollars. The CEO of Nike, Philip Knight is the sixth richest man in America. He is worth five billion dollars. "By 1992, Nike had eliminated nearly all of their U.S. work force in favor of low-wage Asian producers."

'As of 2004, the richest one percent of Americans possessed sixty percent of all wealth in the country, while the bottom forty percent accounted for a whopping two-tenths of a percent.' 791 American companies their work to foreign countries. The few companies I am familiar with have well over 5000 employees in India. Added together, how many jobs do you think this list comprises? 'There are 2.4 million job openings for 15.3 million unemployed Americans.'


'What Should a Billionaire Give'

"What is a human life worth? You may not want to put a price tag on a it. But if we really had to, most of us would agree that the value of a human life would be in the millions. Consistent with the foundations of our democracy and our frequently professed belief in the inherent dignity of human beings, we would also agree that all humans are created equal, at least to the extent of denying that differences of sex, ethnicity, nationality and place of residence change the value of a human life." http://www.nytimes.com/2006/12/17/m...?em&ex=1166763600&en=008e5238d37554dc&ei=5070


"On moral grounds, then, we could argue for a flat income tax of 90 percent to return that wealth to its real owners. In the United States, even a flat tax of 70 percent would support all governmental programs (about half the total tax) and allow payment, with the remainder, of a patrimony of about $8,000 per annum per inhabitant, or $25,000 for a family of three. This would generously leave with the original recipients of the income about three times what, according to my rough guess, they had earned." UBI and the Flat Tax



"... legislators cannot invent too many devices for subdividing property... Another means of silently lessening the inequality of property is to exempt all from taxation below a certain point, and to tax the higher portions or property in geometrical progression as they rise. Whenever there are in any country uncultivated lands and unemployed poor, it is clear that the laws of property have been so far extended as to violate natural right." Thomas Jefferson, in a letter to James Madison 1785


"Conservatives say if you don't give the rich more money, they will lose their incentive to invest. As for the poor, they tell us they've lost all incentive because we've given them too much money." George Carlin

 

[blu]

It's immoral to allow a child to go hungry in a country that spends a billion/yr to dispose of excess food.
It's immoral to deny life saving healthcare to the poor because no matter how hard they work they can never afford those services.
It's immoral to deny a good education to a child who's only mistake was to be born into a poor family.
It's immoral to have a family living in cardboard box when millions of homes sit vacant

the only immoral thing here in the list is denying a child a good education. the rest are the responsibility of the parents who had the kids and subjected them to such horrors. Personally, I think people who put kids in such situations should have their kids taken away and then be shot in the head. would solve a lot of problems

 

[chanel]

Where the hell is flopper living? Zumbabwe?

 

[Charles_Main]

[/quote=uscitizen;2720925]

The Dam was not a bad Idea, having the government pay for it was.

How many billions have private industry made from the electricity and water since Hoover dam was built?

Exactly why the Private sector should have paid for it.

so why didn't they?

the same reason sports franchise owners tend to get publicly funded stadiums to play in?

The government could have found ways to encourage the private sector to build it, Instead of doing it themselves. IMO.

 

[Charles_Main]

It's immoral to allow a child to go hungry in a country that spends a billion/yr to dispose of excess food.
It's immoral to deny life saving healthcare to the poor because no matter how hard they work they can never afford those services.
It's immoral to deny a good education to a child who's only mistake was to be born into a poor family.
It's immoral to have a family living in cardboard box when millions of homes sit vacant

the only immoral thing here in the list is denying a child a good education. the rest are the responsibility of the parents who had the kids and subjected them to such horrors. Personally, I think people who put kids in such situations should have their kids taken away and then be shot in the head. would solve a lot of problems

Nazi ass

 

[blu]

It's immoral to allow a child to go hungry in a country that spends a billion/yr to dispose of excess food.
It's immoral to deny life saving healthcare to the poor because no matter how hard they work they can never afford those services.
It's immoral to deny a good education to a child who's only mistake was to be born into a poor family.
It's immoral to have a family living in cardboard box when millions of homes sit vacant

the only immoral thing here in the list is denying a child a good education. the rest are the responsibility of the parents who had the kids and subjected them to such horrors. Personally, I think people who put kids in such situations should have their kids taken away and then be shot in the head. would solve a lot of problems

Nazi ass

sorry goodwin, doesn't apply. I simply want people to have personal responsbility for their actions and be held accountable for it