Welfare

[AmyNation]

Nah, don't you have to show up or stand in the gubmint line?

To apply, not always. However depending on the benifits once you are accepted you get a case manager and have to go down, talk with them, have meetings etc etc.

How many times over the years have you had to go in for an interview?

Congrats, you get my very 1st fuck you.

Unlike you I actually put my money and time where my mouth is. Its not easy for the very poor to get around in rural areas, so I have played shuttle for those in need. You do make sacrifices when asking for help, there is a loss of privacy that not everyone would be comfortable with. And for some, hell yes there's shame.

I bet you've never looked honest poverty in the eye and yet you come in this thread and run your mouth.

 

[Two Thumbs]

Total.Bullshit.

Seriously. 1st I know you right wingers love to pretend that all poor people are dems but it's just not true. 2nd, poor people have very very low voter turn out, so even if 60% of them are dems, only 25% of those will actually vote.

Ok then

Why do dems want so many of us on the dole?


just to be clear, I was being kind. Dems don't just want the votes, here's what they really want;

More people demanding hand outs = a need for more money going from workers too non-workers. Less money in workers pockets = more people demanding handouts.

rinse and repeat until the dems have total control of a useless batch of hand out slaves.

Hows that for blunt no bullshit honesty for ya

That, is a whole lot of bullshit. Just because you "feel" thats what dems want, doesn't make it so, just like when dems say all pubs are racist or greedy etc etc, doesn't make that so.

ok kid


Then why do dems want to put more and more people on the dole?

Try to give me a straight answer, and none of this; we want to help people, crap. b/c welfare doesn't help when it becomes an addiction.

 

[AmyNation]

Please link a single case of starvation in America that didn't involve anorexia.

Are you suggesting no one starved to death during the great depression? Seriously?

I guess you do learn something new every day

Digital History

 

[tjvh]

Ok then

Why do dems want so many of us on the dole?


just to be clear, I was being kind. Dems don't just want the votes, here's what they really want;

More people demanding hand outs = a need for more money going from workers too non-workers. Less money in workers pockets = more people demanding handouts.

rinse and repeat until the dems have total control of a useless batch of hand out slaves.

Hows that for blunt no bullshit honesty for ya

That, is a whole lot of bullshit. Just because you "feel" thats what dems want, doesn't make it so, just like when dems say all pubs are racist or greedy etc etc, doesn't make that so.

ok kid


Then why do dems want to put more and more people on the dole?

Try to give me a straight answer, and none of this; we want to help people, crap. b/c welfare doesn't help when it becomes an addiction.

Don't bother, she already turned a blind eye to my Obama's "life of Julia" link.

 

[AmyNation]

Ok then

Why do dems want so many of us on the dole?


just to be clear, I was being kind. Dems don't just want the votes, here's what they really want;

More people demanding hand outs = a need for more money going from workers too non-workers. Less money in workers pockets = more people demanding handouts.

rinse and repeat until the dems have total control of a useless batch of hand out slaves.

Hows that for blunt no bullshit honesty for ya

That, is a whole lot of bullshit. Just because you "feel" thats what dems want, doesn't make it so, just like when dems say all pubs are racist or greedy etc etc, doesn't make that so.

ok kid


Then why do dems want to put more and more people on the dole?

Try to give me a straight answer, and none of this; we want to help people, crap. b/c welfare doesn't help when it becomes an addiction.

How can I answer the when your starting question is nonsense? Dems don't want "more people on the dole".

 

[tjvh]

That, is a whole lot of bullshit. Just because you "feel" thats what dems want, doesn't make it so, just like when dems say all pubs are racist or greedy etc etc, doesn't make that so.

ok kid


Then why do dems want to put more and more people on the dole?

Try to give me a straight answer, and none of this; we want to help people, crap. b/c welfare doesn't help when it becomes an addiction.

How can I answer the when your starting question is nonsense? Dems don't want "more people on the dole".

Again: The Life of Julia — Barack Obama

 

[AmyNation]

That, is a whole lot of bullshit. Just because you "feel" thats what dems want, doesn't make it so, just like when dems say all pubs are racist or greedy etc etc, doesn't make that so.

ok kid


Then why do dems want to put more and more people on the dole?

Try to give me a straight answer, and none of this; we want to help people, crap. b/c welfare doesn't help when it becomes an addiction.

Don't bother, she already turned a blind eye to my Obama's "life of Julia" link.

Ive seen the life of Julia, I don't need to see it again.

Yes there is a fundamental diffrence between most dems and pubs. Republicans think goverment should gtfu unless absolutly necessary where as dems think government is good and can/should help people along the way. My personal feelings on that issue lean more for toward the pubs, however that doesn't mean I can't see where the dems are coming from, I just respectfully disagree.

 

[Ernie S.]

To apply, not always. However depending on the benifits once you are accepted you get a case manager and have to go down, talk with them, have meetings etc etc.

How many times over the years have you had to go in for an interview?

Congrats, you get my very 1st fuck you.

Unlike you I actually put my money and time where my mouth is. Its not easy for the very poor to get around in rural areas, so I have played shuttle for those in need. You do make sacrifices when asking for help, there is a loss of privacy that not everyone would be comfortable with. And for some, hell yes there's shame.

I bet you've never looked honest poverty in the eye and yet you come in this thread and run your mouth.

I've been poor lady. I borrowed money from family, friends, scrounged scrap metal to sell, cans and bottles for the deposit and did odd jobs for peanuts so I could feed my kids. I also worked my ass off to make myself more valuable and ended my career making a pretty decent salary.
I also put my money where my mouth is.
For 9 months last year, I supported and housed a family; A guy who couldn't find work, his pregnant wife and their 3 kids. I was happy to do it, up and until he stole from me. So you can have your "fuck you" right back and I'll toss in a "fuck off" for good measure.

 

[tjvh]

ok kid


Then why do dems want to put more and more people on the dole?

Try to give me a straight answer, and none of this; we want to help people, crap. b/c welfare doesn't help when it becomes an addiction.

Don't bother, she already turned a blind eye to my Obama's "life of Julia" link.

Ive seen the life of Julia, I don't need to see it again.

Yes there is a fundamental diffrence between most dems and pubs. Republicans think goverment should gtfu unless absolutly necessary where as dems think government is good and can/should help people along the way. My personal feelings on that issue lean more for toward the pubs, however that doesn't mean I can't see where the dems are coming from, I just respectfully disagree.

But on the previous post you said Dems don't want to put people on the dole... Which is EXACTLY what the "life of Julia" is about, and you concur, so your statement they don't want them on the dole is false... I stand correct.

 

[Two Thumbs]

Are you suggesting no one starved to death during the great depression? Seriously?

I guess you do learn something new every day

Digital History

TY

130 total deaths

all in cities, the places where liberals rule

 

[AmyNation]

Don't bother, she already turned a blind eye to my Obama's "life of Julia" link.

Ive seen the life of Julia, I don't need to see it again.

Yes there is a fundamental diffrence between most dems and pubs. Republicans think goverment should gtfu unless absolutly necessary where as dems think government is good and can/should help people along the way. My personal feelings on that issue lean more for toward the pubs, however that doesn't mean I can't see where the dems are coming from, I just respectfully disagree.

But on the previous post you said Dems don't want to put people on the dole... Which is EXACTLY what the "life of Julia" is about, and you concur, so your statement they don't want them on the dole is false... I stand correct.

I do not believe democrats want people living off welfare. However they do, IMO, feel the government should offer help , that people should take advantage of, and can be useful in improving people's lives.

 

[Two Thumbs]

That, is a whole lot of bullshit. Just because you "feel" thats what dems want, doesn't make it so, just like when dems say all pubs are racist or greedy etc etc, doesn't make that so.

ok kid


Then why do dems want to put more and more people on the dole?

Try to give me a straight answer, and none of this; we want to help people, crap. b/c welfare doesn't help when it becomes an addiction.

How can I answer the when your starting question is nonsense? Dems don't want "more people on the dole".

and this is why dems need to stay away from money and the economy.


You fail to learn that increasing spending on entitlements leads too more people needing those entitlements.

If you understand that, you must conclude that dems want more people on the dole.

or how about this; your leaders want more people on the dole and the sheep just get fooled into going along.

 

[AmyNation]

I've was informed eariler by a poster I've nicknamed Birther, that just "disappearing" from arguments is rude.

So Im heading to bed, but I hope someone comes along to argue over these points with you in my absence.

 

[antagon]

The tax system would have to deepen deductibility for donations to devolve welfare's work to charities. A third-sector system could be created consisting of charity banks to manage the funds, or to grant the funds to charitable orgs. Churches and charities are too susceptible to fraud, usurpery and corruption. Probably more so than the government's system. Maybe that 3rd sector could help with that.

The government also tracks constituents, and has better access to tax info etc to make sure needies are really needy. Fraudulent needies can also spend their days going from charity to charity, so there will have to be a private system of tracking individuals' activities in the charity-space. Who would like that type of private tracking? Not all charities would even dig participation/administration on such a tracking system. Lord, if you thought exploitation of welfare among illegal immigrants is bad with the government administrating this...

Lots of big holes in the chances for this charity based welfare thing.

It would be a shame to see charitable dollars shifting to the private social safety-net sector and away from Jerry's kids and the WMKeck foundation, etc. If all charities were offered equal deductibility, the safety-net charities would probably struggle for funds... struggle for mine anyhow.

The biggest dividend of welfare is that it does add demand into a sweet-spot in the economy. That spot will suffer, taking the economy with it. Freedom to select goods within the market would be expressed by charities instead of needies, and probably at the wholesale level... potentially at the irregular/out-of-date level. Needies would probably end up eating what they're given and wasting what they don't care to consume. Needy kids would get toys they didn't want more often.

There's probably more to this, but I would go after the welfare state differently. This seems like a good-sounding proposal until further review. It sounds like a recipe for an africonomy: fraud, corruption and charities. I don't see a total devolution either. I don't see a change in consciousness between the welfare constituent or charityfare constituent, moreover.

Antagon policy rating for charities running welfare: 2.7 of 10.0

 

[Noomi]

Is government-run welfare really necessary?

Can private charities do a better job of taking care of the less fortunate?

Is it better to give a man a fish to hold him over until he can afford steak, or to teach him how to fish?

I think welfare is necessary to help people out. It shouldn't be there long term, unless the person has a disability that means they can't work.

 

[Ravi]

It was intended as a hand up. A temporary hand up when times got rough but it turned into a way of life. That's where things went wrong. Obama made it worse by taking the provision of working for the hand up out of the equation.

Congress has to step in and make it turn into what was the original idea. Two years of a hand up while folks got back on their feet, but worked or went back to school to make themselves marketable again.

We can't go on subsidizing half the poplulation.

Just so you know, Romney's ad making that claim is untrue as you can see from the factcheck article here: FactCheck.org : Does Obama’s Plan ‘Gut Welfare Reform’?

But it doesn't matter, does it? Romney and his supporters will continue to push this lie which in reality just serves to demonize the poor.

And it's amusing that Obama is giving more power to the states on this issue but Romney and his supporters won't mention that.

 

[Steelplate]

remove the welfare mentality and there would be enough charity to go around.

Because that's exactly the way it was before we had welfare.

And it worked from 1776 until the Great Depression.

Great....so let's just undo everything....including the industrial revolution. We'll go back to horse and buggies, burn kerosene lamps for light in our homes, and reenact slavery....that'll solve everything.

In short, since the Industrial Revolution and all the technological advancements that followed(and the increasing levels of associated corporatism), life has gotten much more complicated.

 

[Jackson]

The tax system would have to deepen deductibility for donations to devolve welfare's work to charities. A third-sector system could be created consisting of charity banks to manage the funds, or to grant the funds to charitable orgs. Churches and charities are too susceptible to fraud, usurpery and corruption. Probably more so than the government's system. Maybe that 3rd sector could help with that.


The government also tracks constituents, and has better access to tax info etc to make sure needies are really needy. Fraudulent needies can also spend their days going from charity to charity, so there will have to be a private system of tracking individuals' activities in the charity-space. Who would like that type of private tracking? Not all charities would even dig participation/administration on such a tracking system. Lord, if you thought exploitation of welfare among illegal immigrants is bad with the government administrating this...


Lots of big holes in the chances for this charity based welfare thing.

It would be a shame to see charitable dollars shifting to the private social safety-net sector and away from Jerry's kids and the WMKeck foundation, etc. If all charities were offered equal deductibility, the safety-net charities would probably struggle for funds... struggle for mine anyhow.


The biggest dividend of welfare is that it does add demand into a sweet-spot in the economy. That spot will suffer, taking the economy with it. Freedom to select goods within the market would be expressed by charities instead of needies, and probably at the wholesale level... potentially at the irregular/out-of-date level. Needies would probably end up eating what they're given and wasting what they don't care to consume. Needy kids would get toys they didn't want more often.


There's probably more to this, but I would go after the welfare state differently. This seems like a good-sounding proposal until further review. It sounds like a recipe for an africonomy: fraud, corruption and charities. I don't see a total devolution either. I don't see a change in consciousness between the welfare constituent or charityfare constituent, moreover.

Antagon policy rating for charities running welfare: 2.7 of 10.0

The tax system would have to deepen deductibility for donations to devolve welfare's work to charities. A third-sector system could be created consisting of charity banks to manage the funds, or to grant the funds to charitable orgs. Churches and charities are too susceptible to fraud, usurpery and corruption. Probably more so than the government's system. Maybe that 3rd sector could help with that.

Private enterprise would be the sole collector of the funds from religousprg., charitable org. , unionss, corporations and tax credits from IRS. as well as personal donations. They would work as "fo profit oganizations."

The government also tracks constituents, and has better access to tax info etc to make sure needies are really needy. Fraudulent needies can also spend their days going from charity to charity, so there will have to be a private system of tracking individuals' activities in the charity-space. Who would like that type of private tracking? Not all charities would even dig participation/administration on such a tracking system. Lord, if you thought exploitation of welfare among illegal immigrants is bad with the government administrating this...

Since there would be on clearing house orchestrating the service, there would not by the needy going from charity to charity. This clearing house would track each individual, seek employment for the needy first, then track their paymnents with lower paying employment and/or education to fulfill the requirements of receiving welfare. Illegal immigrants would not be eligible.

Lots of big holes in the chances for this charity based welfare thing.

It would be a shame to see charitable dollars shifting to the private social safety-net sector and away from Jerry's kids and the WMKeck foundation, etc. If all charities were offered equal deductibility, the safety-net charities would probably struggle for funds... struggle for mine anyhow.

Since the government would no longer be in the entitlement business, our taxes would be lower, giving each individual a chance to give to the needy and other charities with their new found fortune.

The biggest dividend of welfare is that it does add demand into a sweet-spot in the economy. That spot will suffer, taking the economy with it. Freedom to select goods within the market would be expressed by charities instead of needies, and probably at the wholesale level... potentially at the irregular/out-of-date level. Needies would probably end up eating what they're given and wasting what they don't care to consume. Needy kids would get toys they didn't want more often.

The privitizing approach to welfare keeps the fraud out, and keeps the needy to focus on jobs first and truly a hand up instead of incentivizing welfare being a a way of life. No longer would those accepting welfare be getting more than they earn and instead be part of the tax system because they are fist and foremost required to participate in in employment before accepting hand outs for no work at all.

There's probably more to this, but I would go after the welfare state differently. This seems like a good-sounding proposal until further review. It sounds like a recipe for an africonomy: fraud, corruption and charities. I don't see a total devolution either. I don't see a change in consciousness between the welfare constituent or charityfare constituent, moreover.

Each state would be servicing their own clearing house for welfare, receiving the federal funds that citizens have earmarked given to welfare for their state in their federal tax returns. It would operate "as profit" to ensure its viability to service the population, in the manner that the neediest abled bodied welfare recipients goal are to find gainful employment first, education second, and a financial hand up, third.

 

[Seawytch]

So many misconceptions...

Let's start with who gets "Welfare".

8 Myths About "Welfare Queens", Debunked

Debunking the Myth of the “Welfare Queen”: Who Actually Receives TANF Benefits?

Then move on to why private charity isn't enough.

4,000 Pastors Respond: Private Charity Isn’t Enough

Why Charity Isn’t Enough

 

[Samson]

So many misconceptions...

Let's start with who gets "Welfare".

8 Myths About "Welfare Queens", Debunked

Debunking the Myth of the “Welfare Queen”: Who Actually Receives TANF Benefits?

Then move on to why private charity isn't enough.

4,000 Pastors Respond: Private Charity Isn’t Enough

Why Charity Isn’t Enough

Posting a link to "Junkland" is the best you can do?