What's crazier

[Pumpkin Row]

I mean, people are people. People are not perfect and they do make mistakes. Most of those mistakes are made early on in life when people are more naive about things.

They have only themselves to blame for those mistakes, and wouldn't have made them if they didn't lack thought and foresight.

How can someone so young be so cynical and cold? Hopefully you don't ever fall upon hard times and find out just how difficult life can be! Your attitude is terrible.

If I do, it'll be my own fault, and I'll deserve it for my mistakes.

Everybody makes mistakes. EVERYBODY.

They do, and they're to blame for all of them.

 

[Pumpkin Row]

Those 35% are put there because of the 'social services' to start with. It allows businesses to use them to force people to supplement their income, instead of giving them the payment they'd have otherwise been collecting. Bleeding hearts like you have only yourselves to thank for the poor state of the middle class. Congrats.

Ahh. Now we are getting somewhere. The fact of the matter is that wages have not kept up with inflation, not even close. THAT is why so many people have to collect social services and are poor.

Bogus, only 3% of the population of the United States even makes minimum wage, businesses otherwise already pay people above that minimum wage. If it wasn't for "Social Services", then people would already be making a "Living wage".

I'm talking about wages in general. Wages have not kept up with inflation. That is a fact. Another fact is that there are not nearly enough good jobs out there for everyone in the US. Also, a lot of employers have dumped full time workers in favor of part time workers so that they can avoid the extra taxes and health care mandates.

You can thank the same bleeding hearts for those extra taxes and healthcare mandates. Further proof that regulations damage the economy. Wages follow inflation automatically, because businesses have to be able to sell their goods and services to the working class.

As human beings, we are supposed to care for our fellow human beings, especially those who are disadvantaged.

It costs the average taxpayer making 50,000 a year approximately 35 dollars per year to put in their share to help the poor eat, have shelter and healthcare.

That's thirty-five more dollars than it should cost per year to involuntarily help the Nation's failures. There are people that do it willingly, nobody should be forced to help others.

Furthermore, those people that make 50,000 a year or more are partly or mostly business owners, and that cost is passed down to employees, which lowers employment and increases the cost of goods and services, and lowers wages. In which case, that hurts lots of people in the middle class.

 

[ChrisL]

Ahh. Now we are getting somewhere. The fact of the matter is that wages have not kept up with inflation, not even close. THAT is why so many people have to collect social services and are poor.

Bogus, only 3% of the population of the United States even makes minimum wage, businesses otherwise already pay people above that minimum wage. If it wasn't for "Social Services", then people would already be making a "Living wage".

I'm talking about wages in general. Wages have not kept up with inflation. That is a fact. Another fact is that there are not nearly enough good jobs out there for everyone in the US. Also, a lot of employers have dumped full time workers in favor of part time workers so that they can avoid the extra taxes and health care mandates.

You can thank the same bleeding hearts for those extra taxes and healthcare mandates. Further proof that regulations damage the economy. Wages follow inflation automatically, because businesses have to be able to sell their goods and services to the working class.

As human beings, we are supposed to care for our fellow human beings, especially those who are disadvantaged.

It costs the average taxpayer making 50,000 a year approximately 35 dollars per year to put in their share to help the poor eat, have shelter and healthcare.

That's thirty-five more dollars than it should cost per year to involuntarily help the Nation's failures. There are people that do it willingly, nobody should be forced to help others.

Furthermore, those people that make 50,000 a year or more are partly or mostly business owners, and that cost is passed down to employees, which lowers employment and increases the cost of goods and services, and lowers wages. In which case, that hurts lots of people in the middle class.

Lol. That is not true at all. I think you should do some more reading. The median income in Massachusetts (my state) is around 65,000 a year.

 

[Pumpkin Row]

Bogus, only 3% of the population of the United States even makes minimum wage, businesses otherwise already pay people above that minimum wage. If it wasn't for "Social Services", then people would already be making a "Living wage".

I'm talking about wages in general. Wages have not kept up with inflation. That is a fact. Another fact is that there are not nearly enough good jobs out there for everyone in the US. Also, a lot of employers have dumped full time workers in favor of part time workers so that they can avoid the extra taxes and health care mandates.

You can thank the same bleeding hearts for those extra taxes and healthcare mandates. Further proof that regulations damage the economy. Wages follow inflation automatically, because businesses have to be able to sell their goods and services to the working class.

As human beings, we are supposed to care for our fellow human beings, especially those who are disadvantaged.

It costs the average taxpayer making 50,000 a year approximately 35 dollars per year to put in their share to help the poor eat, have shelter and healthcare.

That's thirty-five more dollars than it should cost per year to involuntarily help the Nation's failures. There are people that do it willingly, nobody should be forced to help others.

Furthermore, those people that make 50,000 a year or more are partly or mostly business owners, and that cost is passed down to employees, which lowers employment and increases the cost of goods and services, and lowers wages. In which case, that hurts lots of people in the middle class.

Lol. That is not true at all. I think you should do some more reading. The median income in Massachusetts (my state) is around 65,000 a year.

That's neat, but the tax still applies to businesses, because they make more than that. That also means that it applies directly and indirectly to the Middle Class.

 

[ChrisL]

I'm talking about wages in general. Wages have not kept up with inflation. That is a fact. Another fact is that there are not nearly enough good jobs out there for everyone in the US. Also, a lot of employers have dumped full time workers in favor of part time workers so that they can avoid the extra taxes and health care mandates.

You can thank the same bleeding hearts for those extra taxes and healthcare mandates. Further proof that regulations damage the economy. Wages follow inflation automatically, because businesses have to be able to sell their goods and services to the working class.

As human beings, we are supposed to care for our fellow human beings, especially those who are disadvantaged.

It costs the average taxpayer making 50,000 a year approximately 35 dollars per year to put in their share to help the poor eat, have shelter and healthcare.

That's thirty-five more dollars than it should cost per year to involuntarily help the Nation's failures. There are people that do it willingly, nobody should be forced to help others.

Furthermore, those people that make 50,000 a year or more are partly or mostly business owners, and that cost is passed down to employees, which lowers employment and increases the cost of goods and services, and lowers wages. In which case, that hurts lots of people in the middle class.

Lol. That is not true at all. I think you should do some more reading. The median income in Massachusetts (my state) is around 65,000 a year.

That's neat, but the tax still applies to businesses, because they make more than that. That also means that it applies directly and indirectly to the Middle Class.

I think you've got that backwards. When a company does not pay an employee enough to make ends meet, that employee will be eligible for some social service benefits, that is taken directly out of OUR wallets. That is what is hurting the middle class. Corporate welfare. We help them in MANY ways. Ever hear of TARP?

 

[Pumpkin Row]

You can thank the same bleeding hearts for those extra taxes and healthcare mandates. Further proof that regulations damage the economy. Wages follow inflation automatically, because businesses have to be able to sell their goods and services to the working class.

As human beings, we are supposed to care for our fellow human beings, especially those who are disadvantaged.

It costs the average taxpayer making 50,000 a year approximately 35 dollars per year to put in their share to help the poor eat, have shelter and healthcare.

That's thirty-five more dollars than it should cost per year to involuntarily help the Nation's failures. There are people that do it willingly, nobody should be forced to help others.

Furthermore, those people that make 50,000 a year or more are partly or mostly business owners, and that cost is passed down to employees, which lowers employment and increases the cost of goods and services, and lowers wages. In which case, that hurts lots of people in the middle class.

Lol. That is not true at all. I think you should do some more reading. The median income in Massachusetts (my state) is around 65,000 a year.

That's neat, but the tax still applies to businesses, because they make more than that. That also means that it applies directly and indirectly to the Middle Class.

I think you've got that backwards. When a company does not pay an employee enough to make ends meet, that employee will be eligible for some social service benefits, that is taken directly out of OUR wallets. That is what is hurting the middle class. Corporate welfare. We help them in MANY ways. Ever hear of TARP?

It's not really helping businesses if you're employed by them. I am, again, against corporate welfare.

Also, again, businesses are allowed to "not pay their employees enough" BECAUSE of "Social Welfare".

 

[ChrisL]

As human beings, we are supposed to care for our fellow human beings, especially those who are disadvantaged.

It costs the average taxpayer making 50,000 a year approximately 35 dollars per year to put in their share to help the poor eat, have shelter and healthcare.

That's thirty-five more dollars than it should cost per year to involuntarily help the Nation's failures. There are people that do it willingly, nobody should be forced to help others.

Furthermore, those people that make 50,000 a year or more are partly or mostly business owners, and that cost is passed down to employees, which lowers employment and increases the cost of goods and services, and lowers wages. In which case, that hurts lots of people in the middle class.

Lol. That is not true at all. I think you should do some more reading. The median income in Massachusetts (my state) is around 65,000 a year.

That's neat, but the tax still applies to businesses, because they make more than that. That also means that it applies directly and indirectly to the Middle Class.

I think you've got that backwards. When a company does not pay an employee enough to make ends meet, that employee will be eligible for some social service benefits, that is taken directly out of OUR wallets. That is what is hurting the middle class. Corporate welfare. We help them in MANY ways. Ever hear of TARP?

It's not really helping businesses if you're employed by them. I am, again, against corporate welfare.

Also, again, businesses are allowed to "not pay their employees enough" BECAUSE of "Social Welfare".

Face reality. If there were no social supports, there would be MORE crime and more people dying.

Here is why welfare was created . . . And if you think "charitable contributions" would be enough to support all the poor people in the United States, then you would be foolish.

BRIA 14 3 a How Welfare Began in the United States - Constitutional Rights Foundation

During the Great Depression of the 1930s, local and state governments as well as private charities were overwhelmed by needy families seeking food, clothing, and shelter. In 1935, welfare for poor children and other dependent persons became a federal government responsibility, which it remained for 60 years.

MINNEAPOLIS—Several hundred men and women in an unemployed demonstration today stormed a grocery store and meat market in the Gateway district, smashed plate glass windows and helped themselves to bacon and ham, fruit and canned goods.

—from the New York Times, February 26, 1931

The 1920s in America seemed like an age of endless prosperity. Construction boomed, business flourished, and the stock market soared. Then on October 29, 1929, the stock market crashed. The crash sent shockwaves throughout the economy. Banks failed. Businesses closed. Millions found themselves out of work. The Great Depression, which would last through the 1930s, had begun.

When the Great Depression began, about 18 million elderly, disabled, and single mothers with children already lived at a bare subsistence level in the United States. State and local governments together with private charities helped these people. By 1933, another 13 million Americans had been thrown out of work. Suddenly, state and local governments and charities could no longer provide even minimum assistance for all those in need. Food riots broke out. Desertions by husbands and fathers increased. Homeless families in cities lived in public parks and shanty towns. Desperate times began to put into question the old American notion that if a man worked hard enough, he could always take care of himself and his family.
The effect of the Depression on poor children was particularly severe. Grace Abbott, head of the federal Children's Bureau, reported that in the spring of 1933, 20 percent of the nation's school children showed evidence of poor nutrition, housing, and medical care. School budgets were cut and in some cases schools were shut down for lack of money to pay teachers. An estimated 200,000 boys left home to wander the streets and beg because of the poor economic condition of their families.

Most elderly Americans did not have personal savings or retirement pensions to support them in normal times, let alone during a national economic crisis. Those few able to set aside money for retirement often found that their savings and investments had been wiped out by the financial crash in 1929. Senator Paul Douglas of Illinois made this observation in 1936:

The impact of all these forces increasingly convinced the majority of the American people that individuals could not by themselves provide adequately for their old age, and that some form of greater security should be provided by society.Even skilled workers, business owners, successful farmers, and professionals of all kinds found themselves in severe economic difficulty as one out of four in the labor force lost their jobs. Words like "bewildered," "shocked," and "humiliated," were often used at the time to describe increasing numbers of Americans as the Depression deepened.
Although President Franklin D. Roosevelt focused mainly on creating jobs for the masses of unemployed workers, he also backed the idea of federal aid for poor children and other dependent persons. By 1935, a national welfare system had been established for the first time in American history.

Welfare Before the Depression
A federal welfare system was a radical break from the past. Americans had always prided themselves on having a strong sense of individualism and self-reliance. Many believed that those who couldn't take care of themselves were to blame for their own misfortunes. During the 19th century, local and state governments as well as charities established institutions such as poorhouses and orphanages for destitute individuals and families. Conditions in these institutions were often deliberately harsh so that only the truly desperate would apply.

Local governments (usually counties) also provided relief in the form of food, fuel, and sometimes cash to poor residents. Those capable were required to work for the town or county, often at hard labor such as chopping wood and maintaining roads. But most on general relief were poor dependent persons not capable of working: widows, children, the elderly, and the disabled.

Local officials decided who went to the poorhouse or orphanage and who would receive relief at home. Cash relief to the poor depended on local property taxes, which were limited. Also, not only did a general prejudice exist against the poor on relief, but local officials commonly discriminated against individuals applying for aid because of their race, nationality, or religion. Single mothers often found themselves in an impossible situation. If they applied for relief, they were frequently branded as morally unfit by the community. If they worked, they were criticized for neglecting their children.

 

[Pumpkin Row]

That's thirty-five more dollars than it should cost per year to involuntarily help the Nation's failures. There are people that do it willingly, nobody should be forced to help others.

Furthermore, those people that make 50,000 a year or more are partly or mostly business owners, and that cost is passed down to employees, which lowers employment and increases the cost of goods and services, and lowers wages. In which case, that hurts lots of people in the middle class.

Lol. That is not true at all. I think you should do some more reading. The median income in Massachusetts (my state) is around 65,000 a year.

That's neat, but the tax still applies to businesses, because they make more than that. That also means that it applies directly and indirectly to the Middle Class.

I think you've got that backwards. When a company does not pay an employee enough to make ends meet, that employee will be eligible for some social service benefits, that is taken directly out of OUR wallets. That is what is hurting the middle class. Corporate welfare. We help them in MANY ways. Ever hear of TARP?

It's not really helping businesses if you're employed by them. I am, again, against corporate welfare.

Also, again, businesses are allowed to "not pay their employees enough" BECAUSE of "Social Welfare".

Face reality. If there were no social supports, there would be MORE crime and more people dying.

Here is why welfare was created . . . And if you think "charitable contributions" would be enough to support all the poor people in the United States, then you would be foolish.

BRIA 14 3 a How Welfare Began in the United States - Constitutional Rights Foundation

Spoiler

During the Great Depression of the 1930s, local and state governments as well as private charities were overwhelmed by needy families seeking food, clothing, and shelter. In 1935, welfare for poor children and other dependent persons became a federal government responsibility, which it remained for 60 years.

Spoiler

MINNEAPOLIS—Several hundred men and women in an unemployed demonstration today stormed a grocery store and meat market in the Gateway district, smashed plate glass windows and helped themselves to bacon and ham, fruit and canned goods.

—from the New York Times, February 26, 1931

The 1920s in America seemed like an age of endless prosperity. Construction boomed, business flourished, and the stock market soared. Then on October 29, 1929, the stock market crashed. The crash sent shockwaves throughout the economy. Banks failed. Businesses closed. Millions found themselves out of work. The Great Depression, which would last through the 1930s, had begun.

When the Great Depression began, about 18 million elderly, disabled, and single mothers with children already lived at a bare subsistence level in the United States. State and local governments together with private charities helped these people. By 1933, another 13 million Americans had been thrown out of work. Suddenly, state and local governments and charities could no longer provide even minimum assistance for all those in need. Food riots broke out. Desertions by husbands and fathers increased. Homeless families in cities lived in public parks and shanty towns. Desperate times began to put into question the old American notion that if a man worked hard enough, he could always take care of himself and his family.
The effect of the Depression on poor children was particularly severe. Grace Abbott, head of the federal Children's Bureau, reported that in the spring of 1933, 20 percent of the nation's school children showed evidence of poor nutrition, housing, and medical care. School budgets were cut and in some cases schools were shut down for lack of money to pay teachers. An estimated 200,000 boys left home to wander the streets and beg because of the poor economic condition of their families.

Most elderly Americans did not have personal savings or retirement pensions to support them in normal times, let alone during a national economic crisis. Those few able to set aside money for retirement often found that their savings and investments had been wiped out by the financial crash in 1929. Senator Paul Douglas of Illinois made this observation in 1936:

The impact of all these forces increasingly convinced the majority of the American people that individuals could not by themselves provide adequately for their old age, and that some form of greater security should be provided by society.Even skilled workers, business owners, successful farmers, and professionals of all kinds found themselves in severe economic difficulty as one out of four in the labor force lost their jobs. Words like "bewildered," "shocked," and "humiliated," were often used at the time to describe increasing numbers of Americans as the Depression deepened.
Although President Franklin D. Roosevelt focused mainly on creating jobs for the masses of unemployed workers, he also backed the idea of federal aid for poor children and other dependent persons. By 1935, a national welfare system had been established for the first time in American history.

Welfare Before the Depression
A federal welfare system was a radical break from the past. Americans had always prided themselves on having a strong sense of individualism and self-reliance. Many believed that those who couldn't take care of themselves were to blame for their own misfortunes. During the 19th century, local and state governments as well as charities established institutions such as poorhouses and orphanages for destitute individuals and families. Conditions in these institutions were often deliberately harsh so that only the truly desperate would apply.

Local governments (usually counties) also provided relief in the form of food, fuel, and sometimes cash to poor residents. Those capable were required to work for the town or county, often at hard labor such as chopping wood and maintaining roads. But most on general relief were poor dependent persons not capable of working: widows, children, the elderly, and the disabled.

Local officials decided who went to the poorhouse or orphanage and who would receive relief at home. Cash relief to the poor depended on local property taxes, which were limited. Also, not only did a general prejudice exist against the poor on relief, but local officials commonly discriminated against individuals applying for aid because of their race, nationality, or religion. Single mothers often found themselves in an impossible situation. If they applied for relief, they were frequently branded as morally unfit by the community. If they worked, they were criticized for neglecting their children.

There would be less crime, because more people would have better paying jobs.

Socialist policies are what turned the recession into a great depression, and extended it seven years. You probably could have had a point(Unlikely) if you didn't cite an example caused by what you're advocating.

 

[ChrisL]

Lol. That is not true at all. I think you should do some more reading. The median income in Massachusetts (my state) is around 65,000 a year.

That's neat, but the tax still applies to businesses, because they make more than that. That also means that it applies directly and indirectly to the Middle Class.

I think you've got that backwards. When a company does not pay an employee enough to make ends meet, that employee will be eligible for some social service benefits, that is taken directly out of OUR wallets. That is what is hurting the middle class. Corporate welfare. We help them in MANY ways. Ever hear of TARP?

It's not really helping businesses if you're employed by them. I am, again, against corporate welfare.

Also, again, businesses are allowed to "not pay their employees enough" BECAUSE of "Social Welfare".

Face reality. If there were no social supports, there would be MORE crime and more people dying.

Here is why welfare was created . . . And if you think "charitable contributions" would be enough to support all the poor people in the United States, then you would be foolish.

BRIA 14 3 a How Welfare Began in the United States - Constitutional Rights Foundation

Spoiler

During the Great Depression of the 1930s, local and state governments as well as private charities were overwhelmed by needy families seeking food, clothing, and shelter. In 1935, welfare for poor children and other dependent persons became a federal government responsibility, which it remained for 60 years.

Spoiler

MINNEAPOLIS—Several hundred men and women in an unemployed demonstration today stormed a grocery store and meat market in the Gateway district, smashed plate glass windows and helped themselves to bacon and ham, fruit and canned goods.

—from the New York Times, February 26, 1931

The 1920s in America seemed like an age of endless prosperity. Construction boomed, business flourished, and the stock market soared. Then on October 29, 1929, the stock market crashed. The crash sent shockwaves throughout the economy. Banks failed. Businesses closed. Millions found themselves out of work. The Great Depression, which would last through the 1930s, had begun.

When the Great Depression began, about 18 million elderly, disabled, and single mothers with children already lived at a bare subsistence level in the United States. State and local governments together with private charities helped these people. By 1933, another 13 million Americans had been thrown out of work. Suddenly, state and local governments and charities could no longer provide even minimum assistance for all those in need. Food riots broke out. Desertions by husbands and fathers increased. Homeless families in cities lived in public parks and shanty towns. Desperate times began to put into question the old American notion that if a man worked hard enough, he could always take care of himself and his family.
The effect of the Depression on poor children was particularly severe. Grace Abbott, head of the federal Children's Bureau, reported that in the spring of 1933, 20 percent of the nation's school children showed evidence of poor nutrition, housing, and medical care. School budgets were cut and in some cases schools were shut down for lack of money to pay teachers. An estimated 200,000 boys left home to wander the streets and beg because of the poor economic condition of their families.

Most elderly Americans did not have personal savings or retirement pensions to support them in normal times, let alone during a national economic crisis. Those few able to set aside money for retirement often found that their savings and investments had been wiped out by the financial crash in 1929. Senator Paul Douglas of Illinois made this observation in 1936:

The impact of all these forces increasingly convinced the majority of the American people that individuals could not by themselves provide adequately for their old age, and that some form of greater security should be provided by society.Even skilled workers, business owners, successful farmers, and professionals of all kinds found themselves in severe economic difficulty as one out of four in the labor force lost their jobs. Words like "bewildered," "shocked," and "humiliated," were often used at the time to describe increasing numbers of Americans as the Depression deepened.
Although President Franklin D. Roosevelt focused mainly on creating jobs for the masses of unemployed workers, he also backed the idea of federal aid for poor children and other dependent persons. By 1935, a national welfare system had been established for the first time in American history.

Welfare Before the Depression
A federal welfare system was a radical break from the past. Americans had always prided themselves on having a strong sense of individualism and self-reliance. Many believed that those who couldn't take care of themselves were to blame for their own misfortunes. During the 19th century, local and state governments as well as charities established institutions such as poorhouses and orphanages for destitute individuals and families. Conditions in these institutions were often deliberately harsh so that only the truly desperate would apply.

Local governments (usually counties) also provided relief in the form of food, fuel, and sometimes cash to poor residents. Those capable were required to work for the town or county, often at hard labor such as chopping wood and maintaining roads. But most on general relief were poor dependent persons not capable of working: widows, children, the elderly, and the disabled.

Local officials decided who went to the poorhouse or orphanage and who would receive relief at home. Cash relief to the poor depended on local property taxes, which were limited. Also, not only did a general prejudice exist against the poor on relief, but local officials commonly discriminated against individuals applying for aid because of their race, nationality, or religion. Single mothers often found themselves in an impossible situation. If they applied for relief, they were frequently branded as morally unfit by the community. If they worked, they were criticized for neglecting their children.

There would be less crime, because more people would have better paying jobs.

Socialist policies are what turned the recession into a great depression, and extended it seven years. You probably could have had a point(Unlikely) if you didn't cite an example caused by what you're advocating.

That all happened before there was a welfare system. Lol. That is why it was created, and today with all the more people, it would be much worse. We would be like a 3rd world country.

 

[Pumpkin Row]

That's neat, but the tax still applies to businesses, because they make more than that. That also means that it applies directly and indirectly to the Middle Class.

I think you've got that backwards. When a company does not pay an employee enough to make ends meet, that employee will be eligible for some social service benefits, that is taken directly out of OUR wallets. That is what is hurting the middle class. Corporate welfare. We help them in MANY ways. Ever hear of TARP?

It's not really helping businesses if you're employed by them. I am, again, against corporate welfare.

Also, again, businesses are allowed to "not pay their employees enough" BECAUSE of "Social Welfare".

Face reality. If there were no social supports, there would be MORE crime and more people dying.

Here is why welfare was created . . . And if you think "charitable contributions" would be enough to support all the poor people in the United States, then you would be foolish.

BRIA 14 3 a How Welfare Began in the United States - Constitutional Rights Foundation

Spoiler

During the Great Depression of the 1930s, local and state governments as well as private charities were overwhelmed by needy families seeking food, clothing, and shelter. In 1935, welfare for poor children and other dependent persons became a federal government responsibility, which it remained for 60 years.

Spoiler

MINNEAPOLIS—Several hundred men and women in an unemployed demonstration today stormed a grocery store and meat market in the Gateway district, smashed plate glass windows and helped themselves to bacon and ham, fruit and canned goods.

—from the New York Times, February 26, 1931

The 1920s in America seemed like an age of endless prosperity. Construction boomed, business flourished, and the stock market soared. Then on October 29, 1929, the stock market crashed. The crash sent shockwaves throughout the economy. Banks failed. Businesses closed. Millions found themselves out of work. The Great Depression, which would last through the 1930s, had begun.

When the Great Depression began, about 18 million elderly, disabled, and single mothers with children already lived at a bare subsistence level in the United States. State and local governments together with private charities helped these people. By 1933, another 13 million Americans had been thrown out of work. Suddenly, state and local governments and charities could no longer provide even minimum assistance for all those in need. Food riots broke out. Desertions by husbands and fathers increased. Homeless families in cities lived in public parks and shanty towns. Desperate times began to put into question the old American notion that if a man worked hard enough, he could always take care of himself and his family.
The effect of the Depression on poor children was particularly severe. Grace Abbott, head of the federal Children's Bureau, reported that in the spring of 1933, 20 percent of the nation's school children showed evidence of poor nutrition, housing, and medical care. School budgets were cut and in some cases schools were shut down for lack of money to pay teachers. An estimated 200,000 boys left home to wander the streets and beg because of the poor economic condition of their families.

Most elderly Americans did not have personal savings or retirement pensions to support them in normal times, let alone during a national economic crisis. Those few able to set aside money for retirement often found that their savings and investments had been wiped out by the financial crash in 1929. Senator Paul Douglas of Illinois made this observation in 1936:

The impact of all these forces increasingly convinced the majority of the American people that individuals could not by themselves provide adequately for their old age, and that some form of greater security should be provided by society.Even skilled workers, business owners, successful farmers, and professionals of all kinds found themselves in severe economic difficulty as one out of four in the labor force lost their jobs. Words like "bewildered," "shocked," and "humiliated," were often used at the time to describe increasing numbers of Americans as the Depression deepened.
Although President Franklin D. Roosevelt focused mainly on creating jobs for the masses of unemployed workers, he also backed the idea of federal aid for poor children and other dependent persons. By 1935, a national welfare system had been established for the first time in American history.

Welfare Before the Depression
A federal welfare system was a radical break from the past. Americans had always prided themselves on having a strong sense of individualism and self-reliance. Many believed that those who couldn't take care of themselves were to blame for their own misfortunes. During the 19th century, local and state governments as well as charities established institutions such as poorhouses and orphanages for destitute individuals and families. Conditions in these institutions were often deliberately harsh so that only the truly desperate would apply.

Local governments (usually counties) also provided relief in the form of food, fuel, and sometimes cash to poor residents. Those capable were required to work for the town or county, often at hard labor such as chopping wood and maintaining roads. But most on general relief were poor dependent persons not capable of working: widows, children, the elderly, and the disabled.

Local officials decided who went to the poorhouse or orphanage and who would receive relief at home. Cash relief to the poor depended on local property taxes, which were limited. Also, not only did a general prejudice exist against the poor on relief, but local officials commonly discriminated against individuals applying for aid because of their race, nationality, or religion. Single mothers often found themselves in an impossible situation. If they applied for relief, they were frequently branded as morally unfit by the community. If they worked, they were criticized for neglecting their children.

There would be less crime, because more people would have better paying jobs.

Socialist policies are what turned the recession into a great depression, and extended it seven years. You probably could have had a point(Unlikely) if you didn't cite an example caused by what you're advocating.

That all happened before there was a welfare system. Lol. That is why it was created, and today with all the more people, it would be much worse. We would be like a 3rd world country.

I don't get the train of thought that leads a person to think that not dropping money in people's laps suddenly destroys a Nation enough to become a third world country. You have to be completely delusional.

Before their was a welfare system, sure. A welfare system is a Socialist policy and what caused and extended the Depression were Socialist policies. The same train of thought is what caused it to start with is what I'm saying.

 

[OldLady]

What's crazier?

1. Believing in god? There's no evidence for such! Believe it or not all the evidence, data and the reality of the facts all are against such! Pretty freaking crazy!
2. Believing in Aliens? Well, there's 300 billion stars in our galaxy and some stars have 3-8 planets. We have found about 8-9 planets that could already have such life. It isn't that much of a stretch of the imagination.
3. Well, half a million years ago a huge ape that stood 10-12 feet tall was very real.
4. No evidence to support it but the US government has done some fucked up stuff in history!
5. No evidence for such! Pretty crazy as far as I can tell. Now McCain and some other people in our government did visit and come close to baghdadi,,,so who knows.

I believe that the craziest effin thing on this list is believing in some all powerful creature and believing in what some 2,000 year old book says.

The craziest thing is trying to change anyone's beliefs. Why must you meddle in what gives some people comfort?

 

[OldLady]

The reason it is so fucking insane is because we as a society are so accepting of it, even through it is more insane then the other 4 choices. We give up logic, rationality and hate on science because of it, why? Because we're all brainwashed to believe some 2,000 year old book! Would we do the same to someone screaming about space aliens visiting his room at night or someone that came back from a hiking trip that says he seen big foot? Fuck no. We wouldn't cut science because of these two individuals and we wouldn't give up our rationality. We only accept the holy bible for the same reason as 100 bucks may get the mob after you, but 1 trillion bucks gets you bailed out by the government.

Don't think people 'cut science' for people's other beliefs, either. People are allowed to believe whatever they like, and the fact that you're not okay with other people accepting it only goes to show how intolerant Democrats are of opinions and beliefs that conflict with their own.

Not all Democrats.

 

[Pumpkin Row]

The reason it is so fucking insane is because we as a society are so accepting of it, even through it is more insane then the other 4 choices. We give up logic, rationality and hate on science because of it, why? Because we're all brainwashed to believe some 2,000 year old book! Would we do the same to someone screaming about space aliens visiting his room at night or someone that came back from a hiking trip that says he seen big foot? Fuck no. We wouldn't cut science because of these two individuals and we wouldn't give up our rationality. We only accept the holy bible for the same reason as 100 bucks may get the mob after you, but 1 trillion bucks gets you bailed out by the government.

Don't think people 'cut science' for people's other beliefs, either. People are allowed to believe whatever they like, and the fact that you're not okay with other people accepting it only goes to show how intolerant Democrats are of opinions and beliefs that conflict with their own.

Not all Democrats.

There's an exception to everything. I don't ever use a blanket statement as an absolute.

 

[phoenyx]

I'd just like to mention to everyone that I have been replying to comments here that deal with economics to the economics sub forum on this board, think most would agree that this thread and this sub forum really isn't the best place for this. Here's the thread:
Theories on how to efficiently run an economy

 

[ChrisL]

I think you've got that backwards. When a company does not pay an employee enough to make ends meet, that employee will be eligible for some social service benefits, that is taken directly out of OUR wallets. That is what is hurting the middle class. Corporate welfare. We help them in MANY ways. Ever hear of TARP?

It's not really helping businesses if you're employed by them. I am, again, against corporate welfare.

Also, again, businesses are allowed to "not pay their employees enough" BECAUSE of "Social Welfare".

Face reality. If there were no social supports, there would be MORE crime and more people dying.

Here is why welfare was created . . . And if you think "charitable contributions" would be enough to support all the poor people in the United States, then you would be foolish.

BRIA 14 3 a How Welfare Began in the United States - Constitutional Rights Foundation

Spoiler

During the Great Depression of the 1930s, local and state governments as well as private charities were overwhelmed by needy families seeking food, clothing, and shelter. In 1935, welfare for poor children and other dependent persons became a federal government responsibility, which it remained for 60 years.

Spoiler

MINNEAPOLIS—Several hundred men and women in an unemployed demonstration today stormed a grocery store and meat market in the Gateway district, smashed plate glass windows and helped themselves to bacon and ham, fruit and canned goods.

—from the New York Times, February 26, 1931

The 1920s in America seemed like an age of endless prosperity. Construction boomed, business flourished, and the stock market soared. Then on October 29, 1929, the stock market crashed. The crash sent shockwaves throughout the economy. Banks failed. Businesses closed. Millions found themselves out of work. The Great Depression, which would last through the 1930s, had begun.

When the Great Depression began, about 18 million elderly, disabled, and single mothers with children already lived at a bare subsistence level in the United States. State and local governments together with private charities helped these people. By 1933, another 13 million Americans had been thrown out of work. Suddenly, state and local governments and charities could no longer provide even minimum assistance for all those in need. Food riots broke out. Desertions by husbands and fathers increased. Homeless families in cities lived in public parks and shanty towns. Desperate times began to put into question the old American notion that if a man worked hard enough, he could always take care of himself and his family.
The effect of the Depression on poor children was particularly severe. Grace Abbott, head of the federal Children's Bureau, reported that in the spring of 1933, 20 percent of the nation's school children showed evidence of poor nutrition, housing, and medical care. School budgets were cut and in some cases schools were shut down for lack of money to pay teachers. An estimated 200,000 boys left home to wander the streets and beg because of the poor economic condition of their families.

Most elderly Americans did not have personal savings or retirement pensions to support them in normal times, let alone during a national economic crisis. Those few able to set aside money for retirement often found that their savings and investments had been wiped out by the financial crash in 1929. Senator Paul Douglas of Illinois made this observation in 1936:

The impact of all these forces increasingly convinced the majority of the American people that individuals could not by themselves provide adequately for their old age, and that some form of greater security should be provided by society.Even skilled workers, business owners, successful farmers, and professionals of all kinds found themselves in severe economic difficulty as one out of four in the labor force lost their jobs. Words like "bewildered," "shocked," and "humiliated," were often used at the time to describe increasing numbers of Americans as the Depression deepened.
Although President Franklin D. Roosevelt focused mainly on creating jobs for the masses of unemployed workers, he also backed the idea of federal aid for poor children and other dependent persons. By 1935, a national welfare system had been established for the first time in American history.

Welfare Before the Depression
A federal welfare system was a radical break from the past. Americans had always prided themselves on having a strong sense of individualism and self-reliance. Many believed that those who couldn't take care of themselves were to blame for their own misfortunes. During the 19th century, local and state governments as well as charities established institutions such as poorhouses and orphanages for destitute individuals and families. Conditions in these institutions were often deliberately harsh so that only the truly desperate would apply.

Local governments (usually counties) also provided relief in the form of food, fuel, and sometimes cash to poor residents. Those capable were required to work for the town or county, often at hard labor such as chopping wood and maintaining roads. But most on general relief were poor dependent persons not capable of working: widows, children, the elderly, and the disabled.

Local officials decided who went to the poorhouse or orphanage and who would receive relief at home. Cash relief to the poor depended on local property taxes, which were limited. Also, not only did a general prejudice exist against the poor on relief, but local officials commonly discriminated against individuals applying for aid because of their race, nationality, or religion. Single mothers often found themselves in an impossible situation. If they applied for relief, they were frequently branded as morally unfit by the community. If they worked, they were criticized for neglecting their children.

There would be less crime, because more people would have better paying jobs.

Socialist policies are what turned the recession into a great depression, and extended it seven years. You probably could have had a point(Unlikely) if you didn't cite an example caused by what you're advocating.

That all happened before there was a welfare system. Lol. That is why it was created, and today with all the more people, it would be much worse. We would be like a 3rd world country.

I don't get the train of thought that leads a person to think that not dropping money in people's laps suddenly destroys a Nation enough to become a third world country. You have to be completely delusional.

Before their was a welfare system, sure. A welfare system is a Socialist policy and what caused and extended the Depression were Socialist policies. The same train of thought is what caused it to start with is what I'm saying.

The welfare system was created because people (especially CHILDREN) were dying of starvation and medical illnesses.

 

[Pumpkin Row]

It's not really helping businesses if you're employed by them. I am, again, against corporate welfare.

Also, again, businesses are allowed to "not pay their employees enough" BECAUSE of "Social Welfare".

Face reality. If there were no social supports, there would be MORE crime and more people dying.

Here is why welfare was created . . . And if you think "charitable contributions" would be enough to support all the poor people in the United States, then you would be foolish.

BRIA 14 3 a How Welfare Began in the United States - Constitutional Rights Foundation

Spoiler

During the Great Depression of the 1930s, local and state governments as well as private charities were overwhelmed by needy families seeking food, clothing, and shelter. In 1935, welfare for poor children and other dependent persons became a federal government responsibility, which it remained for 60 years.

Spoiler

MINNEAPOLIS—Several hundred men and women in an unemployed demonstration today stormed a grocery store and meat market in the Gateway district, smashed plate glass windows and helped themselves to bacon and ham, fruit and canned goods.

—from the New York Times, February 26, 1931

The 1920s in America seemed like an age of endless prosperity. Construction boomed, business flourished, and the stock market soared. Then on October 29, 1929, the stock market crashed. The crash sent shockwaves throughout the economy. Banks failed. Businesses closed. Millions found themselves out of work. The Great Depression, which would last through the 1930s, had begun.

When the Great Depression began, about 18 million elderly, disabled, and single mothers with children already lived at a bare subsistence level in the United States. State and local governments together with private charities helped these people. By 1933, another 13 million Americans had been thrown out of work. Suddenly, state and local governments and charities could no longer provide even minimum assistance for all those in need. Food riots broke out. Desertions by husbands and fathers increased. Homeless families in cities lived in public parks and shanty towns. Desperate times began to put into question the old American notion that if a man worked hard enough, he could always take care of himself and his family.
The effect of the Depression on poor children was particularly severe. Grace Abbott, head of the federal Children's Bureau, reported that in the spring of 1933, 20 percent of the nation's school children showed evidence of poor nutrition, housing, and medical care. School budgets were cut and in some cases schools were shut down for lack of money to pay teachers. An estimated 200,000 boys left home to wander the streets and beg because of the poor economic condition of their families.

Most elderly Americans did not have personal savings or retirement pensions to support them in normal times, let alone during a national economic crisis. Those few able to set aside money for retirement often found that their savings and investments had been wiped out by the financial crash in 1929. Senator Paul Douglas of Illinois made this observation in 1936:

The impact of all these forces increasingly convinced the majority of the American people that individuals could not by themselves provide adequately for their old age, and that some form of greater security should be provided by society.Even skilled workers, business owners, successful farmers, and professionals of all kinds found themselves in severe economic difficulty as one out of four in the labor force lost their jobs. Words like "bewildered," "shocked," and "humiliated," were often used at the time to describe increasing numbers of Americans as the Depression deepened.
Although President Franklin D. Roosevelt focused mainly on creating jobs for the masses of unemployed workers, he also backed the idea of federal aid for poor children and other dependent persons. By 1935, a national welfare system had been established for the first time in American history.

Welfare Before the Depression
A federal welfare system was a radical break from the past. Americans had always prided themselves on having a strong sense of individualism and self-reliance. Many believed that those who couldn't take care of themselves were to blame for their own misfortunes. During the 19th century, local and state governments as well as charities established institutions such as poorhouses and orphanages for destitute individuals and families. Conditions in these institutions were often deliberately harsh so that only the truly desperate would apply.

Local governments (usually counties) also provided relief in the form of food, fuel, and sometimes cash to poor residents. Those capable were required to work for the town or county, often at hard labor such as chopping wood and maintaining roads. But most on general relief were poor dependent persons not capable of working: widows, children, the elderly, and the disabled.

Local officials decided who went to the poorhouse or orphanage and who would receive relief at home. Cash relief to the poor depended on local property taxes, which were limited. Also, not only did a general prejudice exist against the poor on relief, but local officials commonly discriminated against individuals applying for aid because of their race, nationality, or religion. Single mothers often found themselves in an impossible situation. If they applied for relief, they were frequently branded as morally unfit by the community. If they worked, they were criticized for neglecting their children.

There would be less crime, because more people would have better paying jobs.

Socialist policies are what turned the recession into a great depression, and extended it seven years. You probably could have had a point(Unlikely) if you didn't cite an example caused by what you're advocating.

That all happened before there was a welfare system. Lol. That is why it was created, and today with all the more people, it would be much worse. We would be like a 3rd world country.

I don't get the train of thought that leads a person to think that not dropping money in people's laps suddenly destroys a Nation enough to become a third world country. You have to be completely delusional.

Before their was a welfare system, sure. A welfare system is a Socialist policy and what caused and extended the Depression were Socialist policies. The same train of thought is what caused it to start with is what I'm saying.

The welfare system was created because people (especially CHILDREN) were dying of starvation and medical illnesses.

Due to other Socialist policies implemented beforehand.

 

[ChrisL]

IMO, the downfall of our country comes from those who are greedy and who are heartless and don't care a bean about their fellow Americans who may be suffering. They are the most awful people, IMO. Way worse than any poor person.

 

[ChrisL]

I'd just like to mention to everyone that I have been replying to comments here that deal with economics to the economics sub forum on this board, think most would agree that this thread and this sub forum really isn't the best place for this. Here's the thread:
Theories on how to efficiently run an economy

I will go check this out later on. Sounds interesting. Thanks.

 

[ChrisL]

Face reality. If there were no social supports, there would be MORE crime and more people dying.

Here is why welfare was created . . . And if you think "charitable contributions" would be enough to support all the poor people in the United States, then you would be foolish.

BRIA 14 3 a How Welfare Began in the United States - Constitutional Rights Foundation

Spoiler

During the Great Depression of the 1930s, local and state governments as well as private charities were overwhelmed by needy families seeking food, clothing, and shelter. In 1935, welfare for poor children and other dependent persons became a federal government responsibility, which it remained for 60 years.

Spoiler

MINNEAPOLIS—Several hundred men and women in an unemployed demonstration today stormed a grocery store and meat market in the Gateway district, smashed plate glass windows and helped themselves to bacon and ham, fruit and canned goods.

—from the New York Times, February 26, 1931

The 1920s in America seemed like an age of endless prosperity. Construction boomed, business flourished, and the stock market soared. Then on October 29, 1929, the stock market crashed. The crash sent shockwaves throughout the economy. Banks failed. Businesses closed. Millions found themselves out of work. The Great Depression, which would last through the 1930s, had begun.

When the Great Depression began, about 18 million elderly, disabled, and single mothers with children already lived at a bare subsistence level in the United States. State and local governments together with private charities helped these people. By 1933, another 13 million Americans had been thrown out of work. Suddenly, state and local governments and charities could no longer provide even minimum assistance for all those in need. Food riots broke out. Desertions by husbands and fathers increased. Homeless families in cities lived in public parks and shanty towns. Desperate times began to put into question the old American notion that if a man worked hard enough, he could always take care of himself and his family.
The effect of the Depression on poor children was particularly severe. Grace Abbott, head of the federal Children's Bureau, reported that in the spring of 1933, 20 percent of the nation's school children showed evidence of poor nutrition, housing, and medical care. School budgets were cut and in some cases schools were shut down for lack of money to pay teachers. An estimated 200,000 boys left home to wander the streets and beg because of the poor economic condition of their families.

Most elderly Americans did not have personal savings or retirement pensions to support them in normal times, let alone during a national economic crisis. Those few able to set aside money for retirement often found that their savings and investments had been wiped out by the financial crash in 1929. Senator Paul Douglas of Illinois made this observation in 1936:

The impact of all these forces increasingly convinced the majority of the American people that individuals could not by themselves provide adequately for their old age, and that some form of greater security should be provided by society.Even skilled workers, business owners, successful farmers, and professionals of all kinds found themselves in severe economic difficulty as one out of four in the labor force lost their jobs. Words like "bewildered," "shocked," and "humiliated," were often used at the time to describe increasing numbers of Americans as the Depression deepened.
Although President Franklin D. Roosevelt focused mainly on creating jobs for the masses of unemployed workers, he also backed the idea of federal aid for poor children and other dependent persons. By 1935, a national welfare system had been established for the first time in American history.

Welfare Before the Depression
A federal welfare system was a radical break from the past. Americans had always prided themselves on having a strong sense of individualism and self-reliance. Many believed that those who couldn't take care of themselves were to blame for their own misfortunes. During the 19th century, local and state governments as well as charities established institutions such as poorhouses and orphanages for destitute individuals and families. Conditions in these institutions were often deliberately harsh so that only the truly desperate would apply.

Local governments (usually counties) also provided relief in the form of food, fuel, and sometimes cash to poor residents. Those capable were required to work for the town or county, often at hard labor such as chopping wood and maintaining roads. But most on general relief were poor dependent persons not capable of working: widows, children, the elderly, and the disabled.

Local officials decided who went to the poorhouse or orphanage and who would receive relief at home. Cash relief to the poor depended on local property taxes, which were limited. Also, not only did a general prejudice exist against the poor on relief, but local officials commonly discriminated against individuals applying for aid because of their race, nationality, or religion. Single mothers often found themselves in an impossible situation. If they applied for relief, they were frequently branded as morally unfit by the community. If they worked, they were criticized for neglecting their children.

There would be less crime, because more people would have better paying jobs.

Socialist policies are what turned the recession into a great depression, and extended it seven years. You probably could have had a point(Unlikely) if you didn't cite an example caused by what you're advocating.

That all happened before there was a welfare system. Lol. That is why it was created, and today with all the more people, it would be much worse. We would be like a 3rd world country.

I don't get the train of thought that leads a person to think that not dropping money in people's laps suddenly destroys a Nation enough to become a third world country. You have to be completely delusional.

Before their was a welfare system, sure. A welfare system is a Socialist policy and what caused and extended the Depression were Socialist policies. The same train of thought is what caused it to start with is what I'm saying.

The welfare system was created because people (especially CHILDREN) were dying of starvation and medical illnesses.

Due to other Socialist policies implemented beforehand.

Such as?

 

[Pumpkin Row]

There would be less crime, because more people would have better paying jobs.

Socialist policies are what turned the recession into a great depression, and extended it seven years. You probably could have had a point(Unlikely) if you didn't cite an example caused by what you're advocating.

That all happened before there was a welfare system. Lol. That is why it was created, and today with all the more people, it would be much worse. We would be like a 3rd world country.

I don't get the train of thought that leads a person to think that not dropping money in people's laps suddenly destroys a Nation enough to become a third world country. You have to be completely delusional.

Before their was a welfare system, sure. A welfare system is a Socialist policy and what caused and extended the Depression were Socialist policies. The same train of thought is what caused it to start with is what I'm saying.

The welfare system was created because people (especially CHILDREN) were dying of starvation and medical illnesses.

Due to other Socialist policies implemented beforehand.

Such as?

Pretty much every single thing about the NRA, and he established that agency the first year he was in office.