Why do people hate Liberals?

[Immanuel]

The very idea that the poor be given a vehicle which they use to contact their children's schools in the event of an emergency or so that the schools can contact the parents in the event of an emergency, or to perhaps make appointments to see doctors, case workers, parole officers or what have you, would never enter into the heads of right-wingers.

Not having to chase down people with no phones or internet, right-wingers only see the poor getting something for nothing without seeing why it's in the state's best interest for people to have access to a phone. I say that the savings alone in the time spent by government paid employees trying to contact people with no phone is more than worth it.

But then when I look at government spending, I try t o find value for the money. A cheap free cell phone, especially for parents of school age children, would seem to be a smart investment. By restricting these phones to emergency calls only, schools cannot contact parents unless they send someone out to visit them. In cases of medical emergency, privacy laws prevent the schools from divulging the reasons for their calls to someone other than parents, so in an emergency time is lost if the parent cannot be called directly.

And, in addiition to which, you cannot get a job, if you do not have a phone. Prospective employers have to be able to contact you too. A phone in this day an age, for so many reasons, is a necessity.

That is actually the best defense I have read about the program.

However, you mention government spending and the first thing that comes to my mind is "six hundred dollar toilet seats". I wonder how much per phone the federal government is spending on this program.

I would feel a lot better about this program if it were state and/or local government run rather than federal government, as I don't believe the federal government can do anything efficiently. Our federal deficit is way too high and I believe we should cut everywhere. On the other hand, programs that help people get jobs, stay in contact with important people such as schools as you mentioned should be promoted. Then again, I am certain it is being abused.

Also, the idiot woman shown above did not help the cause when she appeared on YouTube.

Original Obamaphone Lady: Obama Voter Says Vote for Obama because he gives a free Phone - YouTube

Immie

 

[RKMBrown]

The very idea that the poor be given a vehicle which they use to contact their children's schools in the event of an emergency or so that the schools can contact the parents in the event of an emergency, or to perhaps make appointments to see doctors, case workers, parole officers or what have you, would never enter into the heads of right-wingers.

Not having to chase down people with no phones or internet, right-wingers only see the poor getting something for nothing without seeing why it's in the state's best interest for people to have access to a phone. I say that the savings alone in the time spent by government paid employees trying to contact people with no phone is more than worth it.

But then when I look at government spending, I try t o find value for the money. A cheap free cell phone, especially for parents of school age children, would seem to be a smart investment. By restricting these phones to emergency calls only, schools cannot contact parents unless they send someone out to visit them. In cases of medical emergency, privacy laws prevent the schools from divulging the reasons for their calls to someone other than parents, so in an emergency time is lost if the parent cannot be called directly.

And, in addiition to which, you cannot get a job, if you do not have a phone. Prospective employers have to be able to contact you too. A phone in this day an age, for so many reasons, is a necessity.

That is actually the best defense I have read about the program.

However, you mention government spending and the first thing that comes to my mind is "six hundred dollar toilet seats". I wonder how much per phone the federal government is spending on this program.

I would feel a lot better about this program if it were state and/or local government run rather than federal government, as I don't believe the federal government can do anything efficiently. Our federal deficit is way too high and I believe we should cut everywhere. On the other hand, programs that help people get jobs, stay in contact with important people such as schools as you mentioned should be promoted. Then again, I am certain it is being abused.

Also, the idiot woman shown above did not help the cause when she appeared on YouTube.

Original Obamaphone Lady: Obama Voter Says Vote for Obama because he gives a free Phone - YouTube

Immie

The program is funded by paying customers of the cell phone companies. The moochers get their cell phones for nothing, and we get to pay a higher cost for our phone service to account for their cell phones. Government mandated redistribution at it's best.

 

[Immanuel]

The very idea that the poor be given a vehicle which they use to contact their children's schools in the event of an emergency or so that the schools can contact the parents in the event of an emergency, or to perhaps make appointments to see doctors, case workers, parole officers or what have you, would never enter into the heads of right-wingers.

Not having to chase down people with no phones or internet, right-wingers only see the poor getting something for nothing without seeing why it's in the state's best interest for people to have access to a phone. I say that the savings alone in the time spent by government paid employees trying to contact people with no phone is more than worth it.

But then when I look at government spending, I try t o find value for the money. A cheap free cell phone, especially for parents of school age children, would seem to be a smart investment. By restricting these phones to emergency calls only, schools cannot contact parents unless they send someone out to visit them. In cases of medical emergency, privacy laws prevent the schools from divulging the reasons for their calls to someone other than parents, so in an emergency time is lost if the parent cannot be called directly.

And, in addiition to which, you cannot get a job, if you do not have a phone. Prospective employers have to be able to contact you too. A phone in this day an age, for so many reasons, is a necessity.

That is actually the best defense I have read about the program.

However, you mention government spending and the first thing that comes to my mind is "six hundred dollar toilet seats". I wonder how much per phone the federal government is spending on this program.

I would feel a lot better about this program if it were state and/or local government run rather than federal government, as I don't believe the federal government can do anything efficiently. Our federal deficit is way too high and I believe we should cut everywhere. On the other hand, programs that help people get jobs, stay in contact with important people such as schools as you mentioned should be promoted. Then again, I am certain it is being abused.

Also, the idiot woman shown above did not help the cause when she appeared on YouTube.

Original Obamaphone Lady: Obama Voter Says Vote for Obama because he gives a free Phone - YouTube

Immie

The program is funded by paying customers of the cell phone companies. The moochers get their cell phones for nothing, and we get to pay a higher cost for our phone service to account for their cell phones. Government mandated redistribution at it's best.

That's right I do remember that there is a surcharge on our telephone and cell phone bills for this program. It has been a long time since I really even looked as I pay online now and know what the charge is. As long as the bill doesn't change unexpectedly, I don't even need to look.

Now, in regards to "the moochers", I have absolutely no problem assisting those in need. I am even not opposed to my taxes going up in order to help those who do in fact need help. I am flabbergasted that more conservatives don't see it that way as well because I see conservatism as the compassionate "ism", definitely more so than intolerant liberalism. I can't believe conservatives have allowed progressives to abscond with that honor.

We should consider it an honor to aid the poor and we ought to be pissed that progressives have a legitimate claim to being more for the needy than we are.

/sigh I know I will get called a bleeding heart liberal for that comment, but I will be damned if I don't see true conservatism as being the party of the people.

Immie

 

[RKMBrown]

That is actually the best defense I have read about the program.

However, you mention government spending and the first thing that comes to my mind is "six hundred dollar toilet seats". I wonder how much per phone the federal government is spending on this program.

I would feel a lot better about this program if it were state and/or local government run rather than federal government, as I don't believe the federal government can do anything efficiently. Our federal deficit is way too high and I believe we should cut everywhere. On the other hand, programs that help people get jobs, stay in contact with important people such as schools as you mentioned should be promoted. Then again, I am certain it is being abused.

Also, the idiot woman shown above did not help the cause when she appeared on YouTube.

Original Obamaphone Lady: Obama Voter Says Vote for Obama because he gives a free Phone - YouTube

Immie

The program is funded by paying customers of the cell phone companies. The moochers get their cell phones for nothing, and we get to pay a higher cost for our phone service to account for their cell phones. Government mandated redistribution at it's best.

That's right I do remember that there is a surcharge on our telephone and cell phone bills for this program. It has been a long time since I really even looked as I pay online now and know what the charge is. As long as the bill doesn't change unexpectedly, I don't even need to look.

Now, in regards to "the moochers", I have absolutely no problem assisting those in need. I am even not opposed to my taxes going up in order to help those who do in fact need help. I am flabbergasted that more conservatives don't see it that way as well because I see conservatism as the compassionate "ism", definitely more so than intolerant liberalism. I can't believe conservatives have allowed progressives to abscond with that honor.

We should consider it an honor to aid the poor and we ought to be pissed that progressives have a legitimate claim to being more for the needy than we are.

/sigh I know I will get called a bleeding heart liberal for that comment, but I will be damned if I don't see true conservatism as being the party of the people.

Immie

Charity should be voluntary. Charity should be personal. Charity should be for those who need it. Charitable donations should be honored with care by the folks who are using the charity to provide help to the needy. When charities provide help to the needy they generally do care about the needy. When governments write checks from thousands of miles away, there is no care taken to make sure the folks receiving the checks are needy and/or that the money is even helping the people that are receiving the checks. When you force people to be charitable at gun point, and the folks receiving the money is primarily made up of people who are being paid to be moochers... well that's not charity at all. That is redistribution of income for the purpose of getting someone elected and paying the moochers to get fat sitting on their couch and to vote for the checks to keep coming. Government welfare programs are about votes not charity.

 

[Immanuel]

The program is funded by paying customers of the cell phone companies. The moochers get their cell phones for nothing, and we get to pay a higher cost for our phone service to account for their cell phones. Government mandated redistribution at it's best.

That's right I do remember that there is a surcharge on our telephone and cell phone bills for this program. It has been a long time since I really even looked as I pay online now and know what the charge is. As long as the bill doesn't change unexpectedly, I don't even need to look.

Now, in regards to "the moochers", I have absolutely no problem assisting those in need. I am even not opposed to my taxes going up in order to help those who do in fact need help. I am flabbergasted that more conservatives don't see it that way as well because I see conservatism as the compassionate "ism", definitely more so than intolerant liberalism. I can't believe conservatives have allowed progressives to abscond with that honor.

We should consider it an honor to aid the poor and we ought to be pissed that progressives have a legitimate claim to being more for the needy than we are.

/sigh I know I will get called a bleeding heart liberal for that comment, but I will be damned if I don't see true conservatism as being the party of the people.

Immie

Charity should be voluntary. Charity should be personal. Charity should be for those who need it. Charitable donations should be honored with care by the folks who are using the charity to provide help to the needy. When charities provide help to the needy they generally do care about the needy. When governments write checks from thousands of miles away, there is no care taken to make sure the folks receiving the checks are needy and/or that the money is even helping the people that are receiving the checks. When you force people to be charitable at gun point, and the folks receiving the money is primarily made up of people who are being paid to be moochers... well that's not charity at all. That is redistribution of income for the purpose of getting someone elected and paying the moochers to get fat sitting on their couch and to vote for the checks to keep coming. Government welfare programs are about votes not charity.

I don't usually mention when I rep someone, but this is an exception. Well said.

And while I agree with you completely, let me state, that conservatives need to stop sounding like they are blaming the poor and instead go after the fat cat progressives in DC.

Pos rep sent your way.

Immie

 

[Bfgrn]

Ben Franklin was no saint and put his pants on one leg at a time like most guys do--imperfect and flawed in some ways as all people are, but brilliant and bright and blessed with amazing common sense as almost all imperfect people boast some virtues.

But he had it right. To paraphrase: to encourage poverty--to make people more comfortable in it--is not compassion. Compassion is showing them the way to overcome poverty and leading or driving them out of it.

Even if the way to do that is to require work for welfare, that is true compassion. Children should not grow up seeing the parent live fairly decently on the government dole and developing a concept that such government support was his right as a citizen and deciding it was preferable to doing the hard work of educating himself, putting in his dues to acquire marketable skills, develop a work ethic, and acquire references that would enable himself to support himself and a family. That is not compassion.

Children should grow up seeing the parent get up, get cleaned up, get dressed, and go out to work for money to pay the rent and light bill and put groceries on the table. And if the parent has to do that for a government pittance, he or she is likely to decide if s/he has to work anyway, s/he might as well make it worth his/her while and get a real job that pays better.

In the classical liberal view, that is compassion.

"The simplest description of the War on Poverty is that it is a means of making life available for any and all pursuers. It does not try to make men good -- because that is moralizing. It does not try to give men what they want -- because that is catering. It does not try to give men false hopes -- because that is deception. Instead, the War on Poverty tries only to create the conditions by which the good life can be lived -- and that is humanism."
Robert Sargent "Sarge" Shriver, Jr.


I imagine Sargent Shriver had old Ben in mind when he designed the War on Poverty. Ironic that conservatives railed against it and Nixon did his best to gut it.

The War on Poverty was based on opportunity, responsibility, community and empowerment.

The War on Poverty was a program that any conservative should support. But right wing turds just TALK about opportunity, when all they really believe in is punishment and hatred.

The War on Poverty, what it is and isn't...

There's always the 'able bodied but lazy poor person', the 'bleeding heart liberal' who just wants to hand out other people's money and of course, the clear headed 'conservative' whose 'tough love' always saves the day. Well, I refuse to play along. If you have the intelligence and curiosity to find out what the 'War on Poverty' was about and what it wasn't about, it would save conservatives from all the bloviation.

When JFK's brother-in law Sargent Shriver accepted LBJ's challenge and took on the 'War on Poverty' the first thing he discovered was rather startling and disturbing. Half of the Americans living in poverty were children. Another large segment were elderly and another segment were mentally and/or physically disabled. So a HUGE segment of the poor fit the TRUE definition of a dependent. So there is an obligation as a civil society to make sure those real dependents are not trampled on or extinguished.

To address some of the players in your fairy tale, voila! We have an unabashed flaming liberal...Sargent Shriver. But I hate to disappoint you. Sargent Shriver hated welfare and had no intention of creating a handout program. He didn't believe in handouts, he believed in community action. The 'War on Poverty' was called the Office of Economic Opportunity. The core principles were opportunity, responsibility, community and empowerment. The program's aims were maximum feasible participation. One of the concepts of empowerment was poor people had a right to one-third of the seats on every local poverty program board. It was a community based program that focused on education as the keys to the city. Programs such as VISTA, Job Corps, Community Action Program, and Head Start were created to increase opportunity for the poor so they could pull themselves out of poverty with a hand UP, not a hand out. Even when Johnson effectively pulled the plug on the War on Poverty to fund the war in Vietnam, Shriver fought on and won. During the Shriver years more Americans got out of poverty than during any similar time in our history. (The Clinton years - employing the same philosophy - were the second best.)Ref

Here is one of the agencies created by the WOP...

Job Corps is a program administered by the United States Department of Labor that offers free-of-charge education and vocational training to youth ages 16 to 24.

Job Corps offers career planning, on-the-job training, job placement, residential housing, food service, driver's education, basic health and dental care, a bi-weekly basic living allowance and clothing allowance. Some centers offer childcare programs for single parents as well.

Besides vocational training, the Job Corps program also offers academic training, including basic reading and math, GED attainment, college preparatory, and Limited English Proficiency courses. Some centers also offer programs that allow students to remain in residence at their center while attending college.[citation needed] Job Corps provides career counseling and transition support to its students for up to one year after they graduate from the program.

Career paths

Career paths offered by Job Corps include:

Advanced manufacturing

Communication design
Drafting
Electronic assembly
Machine appliance repair
Machining
Welding
Manufacturing technology
Sign, billboard, and display

Automotive and machine repair

Automobile technician
General services technician
Collision repair and refinish
Heavy construction equipment mechanic
Diesel mechanic
Medium/heavy truck repair
Electronics tech
Stationary engineering

Construction

Bricklaying
Carpentry
Cement masonry
Concrete and terrazzo
Construction craft laborer
Electrical
Electrical overhead line
Facilities maintenance
Floor covering
Glazing
HVAC
Industrial engineering technician
Licensed electrician (bilingual)
Mechanical engineering technician
Painting
Plastering
Plumbing
Roto-Rooter plumbing
Tile setting

Extension programs

Advanced Career Training (ACT)
General Educational Development (GED)
Commercial driver's license (CDL)
Off-Center Training (OCT Program)
High school diploma (HSD Program)

Finance and Business

Accounting services
Business management
Clerical occupations
Legal secretary
Insurance and financial services
Marketing
Medical insurance specialist
Office administration
Paralegal
Purchasing

Health care/allied health professions

Clinical medical assistant
Dental assistant
EKG technician
Emergency medical technician
Exercise/massage therapy
Hemodialysis technician
Licensed practical/vocational nurse
Medical office support
Nurse assistant/home health aide
Opticianry
Pharmacy technician
Phlebotomy
Physical therapy assistant
Rehabilitation therapy
Rehabilitation technician
Registered nurse
Respiratory therapy
Sterile processing
Surgical technician

Homeland security

Corrections officer
Seamanship
Security and protective services

Hospitality

Culinary arts
Hotel and lodging

Information technology

A+ Microsoft MSCE
Computer Networking/Cisco
Computer systems administrator
Computer support specialist
Computer technician
Integrated system tech
Network cable installation
Visual communications

Renewable resources and energy

Forest conservation and urban forestry
Firefighting
Wastewater
Landscaping

Retail sales and services

Behavioral health aide
Criminal justice
Child development
Residential advisor
Cosmetology
Retail sales

Transportation

Asphalt paving
Material and distribution operations
Clerical occupations
Heavy equipment operations
Roustabout operator
Heavy truck driving
TCU administrative clerk

If a free society cannot help the many who are poor, it cannot save the few who are rich.
President John F. Kennedy

 

[RKMBrown]

That's right I do remember that there is a surcharge on our telephone and cell phone bills for this program. It has been a long time since I really even looked as I pay online now and know what the charge is. As long as the bill doesn't change unexpectedly, I don't even need to look.

Now, in regards to "the moochers", I have absolutely no problem assisting those in need. I am even not opposed to my taxes going up in order to help those who do in fact need help. I am flabbergasted that more conservatives don't see it that way as well because I see conservatism as the compassionate "ism", definitely more so than intolerant liberalism. I can't believe conservatives have allowed progressives to abscond with that honor.

We should consider it an honor to aid the poor and we ought to be pissed that progressives have a legitimate claim to being more for the needy than we are.

/sigh I know I will get called a bleeding heart liberal for that comment, but I will be damned if I don't see true conservatism as being the party of the people.

Immie

Charity should be voluntary. Charity should be personal. Charity should be for those who need it. Charitable donations should be honored with care by the folks who are using the charity to provide help to the needy. When charities provide help to the needy they generally do care about the needy. When governments write checks from thousands of miles away, there is no care taken to make sure the folks receiving the checks are needy and/or that the money is even helping the people that are receiving the checks. When you force people to be charitable at gun point, and the folks receiving the money is primarily made up of people who are being paid to be moochers... well that's not charity at all. That is redistribution of income for the purpose of getting someone elected and paying the moochers to get fat sitting on their couch and to vote for the checks to keep coming. Government welfare programs are about votes not charity.

I don't usually mention when I rep someone, but this is an exception. Well said.

And while I agree with you completely, let me state, that conservatives need to stop sounding like they are blaming the poor and instead go after the fat cat progressives in DC.

Pos rep sent your way.

Immie

Thx and I agree on your point about conservatives. When we attack government welfare its hard not to sound like scrooge.

 

[C_Clayton_Jones]

The program is funded by paying customers of the cell phone companies. The moochers get their cell phones for nothing, and we get to pay a higher cost for our phone service to account for their cell phones. Government mandated redistribution at it's best.

That's right I do remember that there is a surcharge on our telephone and cell phone bills for this program. It has been a long time since I really even looked as I pay online now and know what the charge is. As long as the bill doesn't change unexpectedly, I don't even need to look.

Now, in regards to "the moochers", I have absolutely no problem assisting those in need. I am even not opposed to my taxes going up in order to help those who do in fact need help. I am flabbergasted that more conservatives don't see it that way as well because I see conservatism as the compassionate "ism", definitely more so than intolerant liberalism. I can't believe conservatives have allowed progressives to abscond with that honor.

We should consider it an honor to aid the poor and we ought to be pissed that progressives have a legitimate claim to being more for the needy than we are.

/sigh I know I will get called a bleeding heart liberal for that comment, but I will be damned if I don't see true conservatism as being the party of the people.

Immie

Charity should be voluntary. Charity should be personal. Charity should be for those who need it. Charitable donations should be honored with care by the folks who are using the charity to provide help to the needy. When charities provide help to the needy they generally do care about the needy. When governments write checks from thousands of miles away, there is no care taken to make sure the folks receiving the checks are needy and/or that the money is even helping the people that are receiving the checks. When you force people to be charitable at gun point, and the folks receiving the money is primarily made up of people who are being paid to be moochers... well that's not charity at all. That is redistribution of income for the purpose of getting someone elected and paying the moochers to get fat sitting on their couch and to vote for the checks to keep coming. Government welfare programs are about votes not charity.

Obviously you don’t understand how public assistance works.

Unfortunately you know only rightist myth.

Needless to say this is completely inaccurate; if interested you might want to research the subject to learn the facts and truth.

Or continue to exhibit your ignorance pursuing a partisan agenda.

 

[Wolfsister77]

The program is funded by paying customers of the cell phone companies. The moochers get their cell phones for nothing, and we get to pay a higher cost for our phone service to account for their cell phones. Government mandated redistribution at it's best.

That's right I do remember that there is a surcharge on our telephone and cell phone bills for this program. It has been a long time since I really even looked as I pay online now and know what the charge is. As long as the bill doesn't change unexpectedly, I don't even need to look.

Now, in regards to "the moochers", I have absolutely no problem assisting those in need. I am even not opposed to my taxes going up in order to help those who do in fact need help. I am flabbergasted that more conservatives don't see it that way as well because I see conservatism as the compassionate "ism", definitely more so than intolerant liberalism. I can't believe conservatives have allowed progressives to abscond with that honor.

We should consider it an honor to aid the poor and we ought to be pissed that progressives have a legitimate claim to being more for the needy than we are.

/sigh I know I will get called a bleeding heart liberal for that comment, but I will be damned if I don't see true conservatism as being the party of the people.

Immie

Charity should be voluntary. Charity should be personal. Charity should be for those who need it. Charitable donations should be honored with care by the folks who are using the charity to provide help to the needy. When charities provide help to the needy they generally do care about the needy. When governments write checks from thousands of miles away, there is no care taken to make sure the folks receiving the checks are needy and/or that the money is even helping the people that are receiving the checks. When you force people to be charitable at gun point, and the folks receiving the money is primarily made up of people who are being paid to be moochers... well that's not charity at all. That is redistribution of income for the purpose of getting someone elected and paying the moochers to get fat sitting on their couch and to vote for the checks to keep coming. Government welfare programs are about votes not charity.

Actually you are completely wrong about how public assistance works. I'd correct you but I think you need to actually go read up some and educate yourself. This post is just sad and insulting to those that need public assistance. Since your rep is under 200, I won't neg you for this at this time. I hope the day never comes that you need help.

 

[C_Clayton_Jones]

That's right I do remember that there is a surcharge on our telephone and cell phone bills for this program. It has been a long time since I really even looked as I pay online now and know what the charge is. As long as the bill doesn't change unexpectedly, I don't even need to look.

Now, in regards to "the moochers", I have absolutely no problem assisting those in need. I am even not opposed to my taxes going up in order to help those who do in fact need help. I am flabbergasted that more conservatives don't see it that way as well because I see conservatism as the compassionate "ism", definitely more so than intolerant liberalism. I can't believe conservatives have allowed progressives to abscond with that honor.

We should consider it an honor to aid the poor and we ought to be pissed that progressives have a legitimate claim to being more for the needy than we are.

/sigh I know I will get called a bleeding heart liberal for that comment, but I will be damned if I don't see true conservatism as being the party of the people.

Immie

Charity should be voluntary. Charity should be personal. Charity should be for those who need it. Charitable donations should be honored with care by the folks who are using the charity to provide help to the needy. When charities provide help to the needy they generally do care about the needy. When governments write checks from thousands of miles away, there is no care taken to make sure the folks receiving the checks are needy and/or that the money is even helping the people that are receiving the checks. When you force people to be charitable at gun point, and the folks receiving the money is primarily made up of people who are being paid to be moochers... well that's not charity at all. That is redistribution of income for the purpose of getting someone elected and paying the moochers to get fat sitting on their couch and to vote for the checks to keep coming. Government welfare programs are about votes not charity.

I don't usually mention when I rep someone, but this is an exception. Well said.

And while I agree with you completely, let me state, that conservatives need to stop sounding like they are blaming the poor and instead go after the fat cat progressives in DC.

Pos rep sent your way.

Immie

And unfortunately you’re endorsing that ignorance.

I once worked in my state’s public assistance program, spent 13 years assisting the people you and others on the right disparage, the last 9 of those years spent investigating fraud, addressing QC and training, and representing the state in administrative hearings.

The ignorance expressed by conservative subscribers to this thread concerning the poor, poverty, and public assistance is immense and comprehensive; all of you sound ignorant and ridiculous.

 

[Foxfyre]

The program is funded by paying customers of the cell phone companies. The moochers get their cell phones for nothing, and we get to pay a higher cost for our phone service to account for their cell phones. Government mandated redistribution at it's best.

That's right I do remember that there is a surcharge on our telephone and cell phone bills for this program. It has been a long time since I really even looked as I pay online now and know what the charge is. As long as the bill doesn't change unexpectedly, I don't even need to look.

Now, in regards to "the moochers", I have absolutely no problem assisting those in need. I am even not opposed to my taxes going up in order to help those who do in fact need help. I am flabbergasted that more conservatives don't see it that way as well because I see conservatism as the compassionate "ism", definitely more so than intolerant liberalism. I can't believe conservatives have allowed progressives to abscond with that honor.

We should consider it an honor to aid the poor and we ought to be pissed that progressives have a legitimate claim to being more for the needy than we are.

/sigh I know I will get called a bleeding heart liberal for that comment, but I will be damned if I don't see true conservatism as being the party of the people.

Immie

Charity should be voluntary. Charity should be personal. Charity should be for those who need it. Charitable donations should be honored with care by the folks who are using the charity to provide help to the needy. When charities provide help to the needy they generally do care about the needy. When governments write checks from thousands of miles away, there is no care taken to make sure the folks receiving the checks are needy and/or that the money is even helping the people that are receiving the checks. When you force people to be charitable at gun point, and the folks receiving the money is primarily made up of people who are being paid to be moochers... well that's not charity at all. That is redistribution of income for the purpose of getting someone elected and paying the moochers to get fat sitting on their couch and to vote for the checks to keep coming. Government welfare programs are about votes not charity.

I have no problem helping those in real need either which is why I have devoted several decades of my life in vocations and avocations that did just that, hands on, up close and personal. So don't anybody try to give me the song and dance that I don't know what I am talking about. And it is well documented that those who identify themselves as 'conservative' these days are more personally generous than are those who identfy themselves as 'libertarian' or 'liberal' or 'moderate'. So it isn't a matter of greed either.

I do have a huge problem with the federal government confiscating property from working Americans, swallowing up two thirds of the taxes confiscated just to feed an ever more bloated and self serving government, and then doling out the remainder on a one-size-fits-all but keep the politicians in office in return for the favors system. Most especially when going on five decades of that system has not reduced the number of the poor and almost every social indicator related to federal anti-poverty programs has indicated negatively during that same period even as our national debt approaches our GDP and bankruptcy of the country.

Charity should be a private matter or at best generated and administered in local cooperative programs. We need a constitutional amendment that prohibits the federal government from using the people's money to benefit ANYBODY--individual, entity, group, or demographic--unless it benefits all Americans simultaneously. Do that, and we will have a lot fewer poor, a lot more money available to help the poor, and 90% of the federal problems we have will evaporate.

 

[Immanuel]

Charity should be voluntary. Charity should be personal. Charity should be for those who need it. Charitable donations should be honored with care by the folks who are using the charity to provide help to the needy. When charities provide help to the needy they generally do care about the needy. When governments write checks from thousands of miles away, there is no care taken to make sure the folks receiving the checks are needy and/or that the money is even helping the people that are receiving the checks. When you force people to be charitable at gun point, and the folks receiving the money is primarily made up of people who are being paid to be moochers... well that's not charity at all. That is redistribution of income for the purpose of getting someone elected and paying the moochers to get fat sitting on their couch and to vote for the checks to keep coming. Government welfare programs are about votes not charity.

I don't usually mention when I rep someone, but this is an exception. Well said.

And while I agree with you completely, let me state, that conservatives need to stop sounding like they are blaming the poor and instead go after the fat cat progressives in DC.

Pos rep sent your way.

Immie

And unfortunately you’re endorsing that ignorance.

I once worked in my state’s public assistance program, spent 13 years assisting the people you and others on the right disparage, the last 9 of those years spent investigating fraud, addressing QC and training, and representing the state in administrative hearings.

The ignorance expressed by conservative subscribers to this thread concerning the poor, poverty, and public assistance is immense and comprehensive; all of you sound ignorant and ridiculous.

As usual, you are full of shit.

The only person I disparaged was the idiot in the video. Well, maybe I disparaged DC progressives as well.

The fact Is that you progressives use the poor but really don't give a shit about them. All you care about is their votes every four years.

And, as I clearly stated I have no problem assisting the needy. I simply believe the federal government is extremely inefficient. I'd love for you to prove me wrong, but don't believe you can.

Immie

 

[RKMBrown]

Charity should be voluntary. Charity should be personal. Charity should be for those who need it. Charitable donations should be honored with care by the folks who are using the charity to provide help to the needy. When charities provide help to the needy they generally do care about the needy. When governments write checks from thousands of miles away, there is no care taken to make sure the folks receiving the checks are needy and/or that the money is even helping the people that are receiving the checks. When you force people to be charitable at gun point, and the folks receiving the money is primarily made up of people who are being paid to be moochers... well that's not charity at all. That is redistribution of income for the purpose of getting someone elected and paying the moochers to get fat sitting on their couch and to vote for the checks to keep coming. Government welfare programs are about votes not charity.

I don't usually mention when I rep someone, but this is an exception. Well said.

And while I agree with you completely, let me state, that conservatives need to stop sounding like they are blaming the poor and instead go after the fat cat progressives in DC.

Pos rep sent your way.

Immie

And unfortunately you’re endorsing that ignorance.

I once worked in my state’s public assistance program, spent 13 years assisting the people you and others on the right disparage, the last 9 of those years spent investigating fraud, addressing QC and training, and representing the state in administrative hearings.

The ignorance expressed by conservative subscribers to this thread concerning the poor, poverty, and public assistance is immense and comprehensive; all of you sound ignorant and ridiculous.

You did not find it odd at all that you needed to spend NINE YEARS INVESTIGATING FRAUD? I've been involved with many successful charitable organizations. My church, Habitat where my parents work, and a Salvation Army store where my parents work. Fraud was never an issue with these charities and no one was FORCED AT GUN POINT to donate to these charities either.

 

[Immanuel]

That's right I do remember that there is a surcharge on our telephone and cell phone bills for this program. It has been a long time since I really even looked as I pay online now and know what the charge is. As long as the bill doesn't change unexpectedly, I don't even need to look.

Now, in regards to "the moochers", I have absolutely no problem assisting those in need. I am even not opposed to my taxes going up in order to help those who do in fact need help. I am flabbergasted that more conservatives don't see it that way as well because I see conservatism as the compassionate "ism", definitely more so than intolerant liberalism. I can't believe conservatives have allowed progressives to abscond with that honor.

We should consider it an honor to aid the poor and we ought to be pissed that progressives have a legitimate claim to being more for the needy than we are.

/sigh I know I will get called a bleeding heart liberal for that comment, but I will be damned if I don't see true conservatism as being the party of the people.

Immie

Charity should be voluntary. Charity should be personal. Charity should be for those who need it. Charitable donations should be honored with care by the folks who are using the charity to provide help to the needy. When charities provide help to the needy they generally do care about the needy. When governments write checks from thousands of miles away, there is no care taken to make sure the folks receiving the checks are needy and/or that the money is even helping the people that are receiving the checks. When you force people to be charitable at gun point, and the folks receiving the money is primarily made up of people who are being paid to be moochers... well that's not charity at all. That is redistribution of income for the purpose of getting someone elected and paying the moochers to get fat sitting on their couch and to vote for the checks to keep coming. Government welfare programs are about votes not charity.

Actually you are completely wrong about how public assistance works. I'd correct you but I think you need to actually go read up some and educate yourself. This post is just sad and insulting to those that need public assistance. Since your rep is under 200, I won't neg you for this at this time. I hope the day never comes that you need help.

I have needed and accepted help. I lost my job just before I turned 49 and it took me more than two years to find a replacement. I understand the need for public assistance. I don't know what I would have done without unemployment extensions and eventually bankruptcy.

I have no problem with helping the needy. I stated that before. I don't blame the needy. I blame the fat cats in Washington, regardless of party. But I am convinced there has to be a better way. I am also convinced, Washington politicians don't give a rat's ass about the rest of us. I am convinced that there is not one single compassionate bone on Capital Hill. They are using and abusing us.

There has to be a better way! Welfare for instance, currently it is a hand out. People fall into it and are encouraged to stay on it by the progressives in power. it would be so much better if welfare actually provided job training and did things like assist single parents with daycare so that they could get back on their feet.

I truly believe Social Security should be an investment in the individual's retirement. It should be mandatory but the majority of the taxes taken should go into a retirement plan for the taxpayer and should he or she pass on before retirement those funds should go to their family members. That being said there needs to be provisions for the disabled and those who pass away much earlier than they can build a nest egg under the plan. And believe me, I understand that we currently have an issue with those who are already at or near retirement. We cannot abandon them. I am going to drop this here because this discussion is better left for another thread.

Suffice it to say, I am not opposed to public assistance. I do, however, believe we could be much more efficient at our public assistance.

I also agree with Brown. Public assistance is in fact redistribution of wealth and as he stated, it is done so at the barrel of a gun. It would be wonderful if our churches, synagogues, mosques or what have you could meet the needs of the needy, but let's be realistic that can't and won't happen, partially because most of them are as corrupt as Washington, DC.

In a perfect world, we would not need the government to feed the needy or provide them with a cell phone, but this world is by no means perfect.

I'm sorry you think I am so evil because I believe we could do better for the poor than we are right now.

Immie

 

[Foxfyre]

Charity should be voluntary. Charity should be personal. Charity should be for those who need it. Charitable donations should be honored with care by the folks who are using the charity to provide help to the needy. When charities provide help to the needy they generally do care about the needy. When governments write checks from thousands of miles away, there is no care taken to make sure the folks receiving the checks are needy and/or that the money is even helping the people that are receiving the checks. When you force people to be charitable at gun point, and the folks receiving the money is primarily made up of people who are being paid to be moochers... well that's not charity at all. That is redistribution of income for the purpose of getting someone elected and paying the moochers to get fat sitting on their couch and to vote for the checks to keep coming. Government welfare programs are about votes not charity.

Actually you are completely wrong about how public assistance works. I'd correct you but I think you need to actually go read up some and educate yourself. This post is just sad and insulting to those that need public assistance. Since your rep is under 200, I won't neg you for this at this time. I hope the day never comes that you need help.

I have needed and accepted help. I lost my job just before I turned 49 and it took me more than two years to find a replacement. I understand the need for public assistance. I don't know what I would have done without unemployment extensions and eventually bankruptcy.

I have no problem with helping the needy. I stated that before. I don't blame the needy. I blame the fat cats in Washington, regardless of party. But I am convinced there has to be a better way. I am also convinced, Washington politicians don't give a rat's ass about the rest of us. I am convinced that there is not one single compassionate bone on Capital Hill. They are using and abusing us.

There has to be a better way! Welfare for instance, currently it is a hand out. People fall into it and are encouraged to stay on it by the progressives in power. it would be so much better if welfare actually provided job training and did things like assist single parents with daycare so that they could get back on their feet.

I truly believe Social Security should be an investment in the individual's retirement. It should be mandatory but the majority of the taxes taken should go into a retirement plan for the taxpayer and should he or she pass on before retirement those funds should go to their family members. That being said there needs to be provisions for the disabled and those who pass away much earlier than they can build a nest egg under the plan. And believe me, I understand that we currently have an issue with those who are already at or near retirement. We cannot abandon them. I am going to drop this here because this discussion is better left for another thread.

Suffice it to say, I am not opposed to public assistance. I do, however, believe we could be much more efficient at our public assistance.

I also agree with Brown. Public assistance is in fact redistribution of wealth and as he stated, it is done so at the barrel of a gun. It would be wonderful if our churches, synagogues, mosques or what have you could meet the needs of the needy, but let's be realistic that can't and won't happen, partially because most of them are as corrupt as Washington, DC.

In a perfect world, we would not need the government to feed the needy or provide them with a cell phone, but this world is by no means perfect.

I'm sorry you think I am so evil because I believe we could do better for the poor than we are right now.

Immie

Unemployment, like social security, is not government charity but both are mandatory insurance programs--far less effective than they should be because the government takes so much of the funds just to run the government and doesn't do anything to help the money grow.

But wouldn't you have preferred a job all those long months instead of a subsistance unemployment check? Just as social security initially was never intended to support anybody but was intended to supplement their meager retirement savings, unemployment was never intended to be a welfare program. It was intended to help cover expenses for a fairly short period until the employee could start on a new job. I filed for unemployment once too--there was a three week waiting period before we could get our first check, but I found a job before the three weeks was up. I told the state to cancel my application but they insisted I take a check for two weeks pay that I was out of work. That is the sole time I have needed any kind of government assistance because I was 'poor'.

But what is a better way to help the poor? To encourage them to stay in poverty and penalize them if they start trying to climb out which is what government does to people now? Or is it giving them a bit of temporary help until they can enter a strong economy with full employment, creating new jobs and new opportunities for all?

 

[Immanuel]

Actually you are completely wrong about how public assistance works. I'd correct you but I think you need to actually go read up some and educate yourself. This post is just sad and insulting to those that need public assistance. Since your rep is under 200, I won't neg you for this at this time. I hope the day never comes that you need help.

I have needed and accepted help. I lost my job just before I turned 49 and it took me more than two years to find a replacement. I understand the need for public assistance. I don't know what I would have done without unemployment extensions and eventually bankruptcy.

I have no problem with helping the needy. I stated that before. I don't blame the needy. I blame the fat cats in Washington, regardless of party. But I am convinced there has to be a better way. I am also convinced, Washington politicians don't give a rat's ass about the rest of us. I am convinced that there is not one single compassionate bone on Capital Hill. They are using and abusing us.

There has to be a better way! Welfare for instance, currently it is a hand out. People fall into it and are encouraged to stay on it by the progressives in power. it would be so much better if welfare actually provided job training and did things like assist single parents with daycare so that they could get back on their feet.

I truly believe Social Security should be an investment in the individual's retirement. It should be mandatory but the majority of the taxes taken should go into a retirement plan for the taxpayer and should he or she pass on before retirement those funds should go to their family members. That being said there needs to be provisions for the disabled and those who pass away much earlier than they can build a nest egg under the plan. And believe me, I understand that we currently have an issue with those who are already at or near retirement. We cannot abandon them. I am going to drop this here because this discussion is better left for another thread.

Suffice it to say, I am not opposed to public assistance. I do, however, believe we could be much more efficient at our public assistance.

I also agree with Brown. Public assistance is in fact redistribution of wealth and as he stated, it is done so at the barrel of a gun. It would be wonderful if our churches, synagogues, mosques or what have you could meet the needs of the needy, but let's be realistic that can't and won't happen, partially because most of them are as corrupt as Washington, DC.

In a perfect world, we would not need the government to feed the needy or provide them with a cell phone, but this world is by no means perfect.

I'm sorry you think I am so evil because I believe we could do better for the poor than we are right now.

Immie

Unemployment, like social security, is not government charity but both are mandatory insurance programs--far less effective than they should be because the government takes so much of the funds just to run the government and doesn't do anything to help the money grow.

But wouldn't you have preferred a job all those long months instead of a subsistance unemployment check? Just as social security initially was never intended to support anybody but was intended to supplement their meager retirement savings, unemployment was never intended to be a welfare program. It was intended to help cover expenses for a fairly short period until the employee could start on a new job. I filed for unemployment once too--there was a three week waiting period before we could get our first check, but I found a job before the three weeks was up. I told the state to cancel my application but they insisted I take a check for two weeks pay that I was out of work. That is the sole time I have needed any kind of government assistance because I was 'poor'.

But what is a better way to help the poor? To encourage them to stay in poverty and penalize them if they start trying to climb out which is what government does to people now? Or is it giving them a bit of temporary help until they can enter a strong economy with full employment, creating new jobs and new opportunities for all?

I have long said that welfare needs to be a hand up not a hand out.

Unfortunately it works more life a whirlpool sucking its victims in than a ladder to allow them to climb out of their troubles.

Immie

 

[RKMBrown]

I have needed and accepted help. I lost my job just before I turned 49 and it took me more than two years to find a replacement. I understand the need for public assistance. I don't know what I would have done without unemployment extensions and eventually bankruptcy.

I have no problem with helping the needy. I stated that before. I don't blame the needy. I blame the fat cats in Washington, regardless of party. But I am convinced there has to be a better way. I am also convinced, Washington politicians don't give a rat's ass about the rest of us. I am convinced that there is not one single compassionate bone on Capital Hill. They are using and abusing us.

There has to be a better way! Welfare for instance, currently it is a hand out. People fall into it and are encouraged to stay on it by the progressives in power. it would be so much better if welfare actually provided job training and did things like assist single parents with daycare so that they could get back on their feet.

I truly believe Social Security should be an investment in the individual's retirement. It should be mandatory but the majority of the taxes taken should go into a retirement plan for the taxpayer and should he or she pass on before retirement those funds should go to their family members. That being said there needs to be provisions for the disabled and those who pass away much earlier than they can build a nest egg under the plan. And believe me, I understand that we currently have an issue with those who are already at or near retirement. We cannot abandon them. I am going to drop this here because this discussion is better left for another thread.

Suffice it to say, I am not opposed to public assistance. I do, however, believe we could be much more efficient at our public assistance.

I also agree with Brown. Public assistance is in fact redistribution of wealth and as he stated, it is done so at the barrel of a gun. It would be wonderful if our churches, synagogues, mosques or what have you could meet the needs of the needy, but let's be realistic that can't and won't happen, partially because most of them are as corrupt as Washington, DC.

In a perfect world, we would not need the government to feed the needy or provide them with a cell phone, but this world is by no means perfect.

I'm sorry you think I am so evil because I believe we could do better for the poor than we are right now.

Immie

Unemployment, like social security, is not government charity but both are mandatory insurance programs--far less effective than they should be because the government takes so much of the funds just to run the government and doesn't do anything to help the money grow.

But wouldn't you have preferred a job all those long months instead of a subsistance unemployment check? Just as social security initially was never intended to support anybody but was intended to supplement their meager retirement savings, unemployment was never intended to be a welfare program. It was intended to help cover expenses for a fairly short period until the employee could start on a new job. I filed for unemployment once too--there was a three week waiting period before we could get our first check, but I found a job before the three weeks was up. I told the state to cancel my application but they insisted I take a check for two weeks pay that I was out of work. That is the sole time I have needed any kind of government assistance because I was 'poor'.

But what is a better way to help the poor? To encourage them to stay in poverty and penalize them if they start trying to climb out which is what government does to people now? Or is it giving them a bit of temporary help until they can enter a strong economy with full employment, creating new jobs and new opportunities for all?

I have long said that welfare needs to be a hand up not a hand out.

Unfortunately it works more life a whirlpool sucking its victims in than a ladder to allow them to climb out of their troubles.

Immie

Folks like you and Foxfire give me hope.

Hand ups only... hand outs should only be for the folks who are disabled to the point of inability to produce.

I just can't believe that 1 in five American households can't get by without receiving welfare (food stamps). That just blows my mind.

 

[Dragonlady]

I just can't believe that 1 in five American households can't get by without receiving welfare (food stamps). That just blows my mind.

Thirty years of flat or declining wages in low skill jobs under successive Republican administrations, combined with increased prices, and economic volatility has seen the poor get much poorer under the Republicans.

 

[RKMBrown]

I just can't believe that 1 in five American households can't get by without receiving welfare (food stamps). That just blows my mind.

Thirty years of flat or declining wages in low skill jobs under successive Republican administrations, combined with increased prices, and economic volatility has seen the poor get much poorer under the Republicans.

HUH? Not one democrat administration, not one democrat congress in thirty years? Everything is to blame on the "republicans?" What is the average salary of a laborer for Heinz? The democrats had all 3 branches for two years and did nothing.

What have the democrats ever done to get the poor out of poverty? Can you name one thing?

 

[Pogo]

It's a glaring fallacy to suggest that "Democrats" and "Republicans" are the same difference as "liberal" versus "conservative" or "right" versus "left". Know what I call 'em? "Demoplicans" or "Republicrats". Two sides of the same coin. To pretend that these two puppets are opposites just because one's dressed in red and the other in blue is to ignore a lot.

To paraphrase Gore Vidal, we can't have a third party in this country, because in order to have a third party you must first have two other parties.