Why exactly do you have a problem footing the bill for the daily survival of the poor?

[The Rabbi]

Are we being serious?

When did the poor become unable to tend to their basic survival?

WHY would they be incapable of tending to what humanity has managed to do for 20,000 years?

Is it because... (They're Brown?) What about the White ones? Do they get more or less basic survival subsidy?

1. Yes.
2. Technically it's been a problem for at least as long as recorded history. In this country specifically it's become the omnipresent problem it is today because of the economic shift from an agrarian society to one based on providing services through specialist skills. In centuries past you could be dirt poor yet still have the land and knowledge to feed yourself as long as the climate, soil, and rich man remained favorable. Now you either have the fortune to be born with sufficient positive circumstances (such as good family or remarkable intelligence) or you don't.
3. See the above. Humanity has largely relied on an agrarian lifestyle to see to our basic needs. That is no longer practical for most of us. How many of the urban poor can just buy arable land and start a successful farm?
4. Conservatives have been the only ones to mention race in this thread so far. You say that it might not be fair to "white" people to the benefit of "black" people. I say that historical factors cause you to be the same ethnicity and you don't even know it. Your focus on the remaining physical differences and the legacy of bigoted cultural attitudes blinds you to your common descent. I wonder how many enslaved Africans you count as your ancestors...

That is, like, completely fabricated. Far more people were poor under the agrarian system. Ever hear of the Dust Bowl? Okies?

 

[Pedro de San Patricio]

boy oh boy, reading that crap gave me a chill I was reading something HILTER would have said.

We are all a family except those Jews.

I made no exception. Humans are family. The Abrahamic religions teach that we share descent from one original couple. The historical record shows us that we share descent from several original populations. Americans would technically also be family by virtue of being an emergent ethnicity. All of this will probably go over your head if you've never studied any of the relevant disciplines but it's no less true. This isn't an attempt to declare a Homo Sovieticus. This is an attempt to point out that homo sapiens is exactly what I said earlier: a large, often dysfunctional family of more or less inbred families.

 

[eots]

We're family, both as a species and a nation. I mean that in the most literal sense. We're all descended from a relatively small pool of people that becomes even smaller the farther back you go. The homeless guy you sneer at on your way to work is your fourth cousin and you don't even know it. The kid you're wishing would just die already so you don't have to pay her medical bills is his third cousin's niece by marriage. It kind of makes me sad to see how people treat their own family like shit like this just because they don't think poor people deserve a safe place to sleep every night and quality medical care.

It's especially frustrating how many of these people claim to be "pro-life" and claim to understand the moral truth that all life has inherent value but only mean they're against killing babies and are utterly apathetic to other forms of human suffering. Why can't people just accept these facts? Why do people have to turn their back on their alleged values when they're asked to put them into practice? If you believe in the inalienable value of life, if you truly understand that we're a massive, inbred, dysfunctional family, then why do you shirk your responsibility to your cousins and nieces and nephews and allow them to starve and die on the street? -.-

when into perspective tax money spent assuring housing and food for low income and no income people seems like money well spent

 

[Pedro de San Patricio]

2. Technically it's been a problem for at least as long as recorded history. In this country specifically it's become the omnipresent problem it is today because of the economic shift from an agrarian society to one based on providing services through specialist skills. In centuries past you could be dirt poor yet still have the land and knowledge to feed yourself as long as the climate, soil, and rich man remained favorable. Now you either have the fortune to be born with sufficient positive circumstances (such as good family or remarkable intelligence) or you don't.

That is, like, completely fabricated. Far more people were poor under the agrarian system. Ever hear of the Dust Bowl? Okies?

 

[Skull Pilot]

We have done more for the poor than any country.

But there comes a time when you have to hold people accountable for their own fates.

We have free education, countless government aid programs, countless other resources to help people improve their situation.

We can't do it all sooner or later people have to decide to act on their own behalf

 

[Politico]

Most of the people who want to dump the poor are narcissists, they are incapable of caring about anyone except themselves and all they know is that they want to keep more of their money for their own purposes.

No they just don't want to pay for other people's shit.

 

[Mac1958]

.

There will always be people who are simply not equipped to cope in any given society. For these people, no amount of encouragement or maintaining of standards is going to help, simply because that is not how they are wired. Seems there is a significant amount of people like this.

On one hand, you can look at assistance as that society deciding to help those people simply because they need it. And we certainly can't claim that the various (and very helpful) charities can help enough on their own. You can also look at it from a selfish perspective.

Selfishly, my quality of life is improved when my city and state have fewer of these people on the streets and/or turning to crime just to exist. Speaking of quality of life, my quality of life is also improved when parks are kept up and potholes are filled. Those funds come from us.

The question to me is equilibrium, finding a proper balance between spending on the above and creating a significant drag on (a) and economy and (b) the self-reliance of the individual. Since both ends of this argument choose not to examine that issue, it's not being addressed.

.

 

[Claudette]

Loads of freeloaders in this country who have been playing the system for years.

Why get a job? Why work when the taxpayers of America will foot your bills for you.

The ONLY people who should get taxpayer help are those who are truly medically or mentally handicapped and have no family.

Everyone else need to get off their collective asses and take care of themselves.

 

[Mr.Right]

I know this may sound cruel, but if someone won't work, they shouldn't eat. Notice I didn't say couldn't work. I'm all for helping people on a temporary basis. But if they are able to work I shouldn't have to support them. At the very least, we should have a upper limit on how long some gets government assistance. Once that's over, they're on their own. You be surprised how many people would find work if their benefits were cut off.

 

[BlackSand]

So you cut the funds to those very people that are supposed to be looking for this. You want it both ways and keep doing deep cuts that harms the whole system rather than pushing to get more oversight in place.

How about we just fire the incompetent bastards that cannot do their jobs and root out the abusers?
The abusers aren't giving themselves benefits ... And if the government cannot manage their funds without wasting more money ... Then they shouldn't have the job to start with.

If they can afford to advertise on radio, television and billboards ... They can afford to police their services.
If they have trouble understanding the proper allocation of funds and proper diligence in ensuring accountability ... Perhaps they would be better served with a little experience in the private sector.

.

Sounds like a plan. Now, who is going to pay for this oversight? You already lobbied hard top cut funds where the oversight isn't where is should be.

I didn't lobby for cutting funds .. I lobbied for better allocation of funds and accountability.
If they can afford advertising ... They have enough money ... And need to spend it more wisely..

.

 

[Stephanie]

Why should anyone work by the insane logic of the op

Just claim poor and he'll volunteer to take care of us. I'll give you my address you can send me money weekly. K

 

[Pedro de San Patricio]

Why should anyone work by the insane logic of the op

Just claim poor and he'll volunteer to take care of us. I'll give you my address you can send me money weekly. K

I get this weird feeling that you didn't actually read the OP. If you did, then you don't seem equipped to understand it. It's pretty straightforward. We are biologically related through common descent. This makes us family by definition. You wouldn't watch your first cousin slowly starve while covered in shit and living in the gutter. Why would it be different for your seventh cousin? You could argue that you don't know the latter like you know the former, but I would counter that you only think this way because of your culture isn't very healthy and suffers from a form of narcissism as a general rule.

 

[Stephanie]

Why should anyone work by the insane logic of the op

Just claim poor and he'll volunteer to take care of us. I'll give you my address you can send me money weekly. K

I get this weird feeling that you didn't actually read the OP. If you did, then you don't seem equipped to understand it. It's pretty straightforward. We are biologically related through common descent. This makes us family by definition. You wouldn't watch your first cousin slowly starve while covered in shit and living in the gutter. Why would it be different for your seventh cousin? You could argue that you don't know the latter like you know the former, but I would counter that you only think this way because of your culture isn't very healthy and suffers from a form of narcissism as a general rule.

Depends if I like that first cousin. lol
spare us we are all family. I could care less what happens to you...it's a dog eat dog world. I wasn't put here to take care of you or anyone else.

 

[Moonglow]

Why should anyone work by the insane logic of the op

Just claim poor and he'll volunteer to take care of us. I'll give you my address you can send me money weekly. K

I get this weird feeling that you didn't actually read the OP. If you did, then you don't seem equipped to understand it. It's pretty straightforward. We are biologically related through common descent. This makes us family by definition. You wouldn't watch your first cousin slowly starve while covered in shit and living in the gutter. Why would it be different for your seventh cousin? You could argue that you don't know the latter like you know the former, but I would counter that you only think this way because of your culture isn't very healthy and suffers from a form of narcissism as a general rule.

Depends if I like that first cousin. lol
spare us we are all family. I could less what happens to you...it's a dog eat dog world. I'm not put here to take of you or anyone else.

Don't stumble and fall.....

 

[BlackSand]

I get this weird feeling that you didn't actually read the OP. If you did, then you don't seem equipped to understand it. It's pretty straightforward. We are biologically related through common descent. This makes us family by definition. You wouldn't watch your first cousin slowly starve while covered in shit and living in the gutter. Why would it be different for your seventh cousin? You could argue that you don't know the latter like you know the former, but I would counter that you only think this way because of your culture isn't very healthy and suffers from a form of narcissism as a general rule.

Perhaps it is only foolish to assume that all others have the same perception of your idealistic approach to family.
Where as it is completely reasonable to suggest that families provide and care for each other ... It is equally apparent that families approach the idea of long-term support quite differently.

Not to set their standards as any sort of benchmark ... My parents saw it as their obligation to instill values such as independence and self-sustainability.
They instilled a respectable work ethic at an early age ... They defined self-responsibility as a requirement in every measure of engagement with societal demands.

The options they allowed were rather straightforward and led to fruition of the desired outcome.
I remember as freshman in high school when my father explained to me ...

"When you graduate, the day you graduate from high school ... One of three things will happen.
The first concerning the fact that you are accepted into college and waiting to attend at the beginning of the Fall Semester ... And working through the Summer.
The second option can include your enlistment into the military and the subsequent wait necessary before you leave for training.
The third option is simple and understandable ... If you fail to meet the previous conditions, you will be out of my house effective that day."

It had nothing to do with narcissism unless you would care to suggest that an individual capable of caring for themselves cannot be achieved without some sense of superiority in regards to their view of others who may not be as well equipped to handle the actual demands of becoming a worthwhile benefit to society.

I am also a firm believer that starvation and the lack of financial security can certainly be very powerful motivators.
They also have the greatest ability to form the most dependable interpretations as to the character of any individual ... Whether they choose to conquer the obstacles before them or surrender to their weaknesses.

.

 

[Pedro de San Patricio]

Why should anyone work by the insane logic of the op

Just claim poor and he'll volunteer to take care of us. I'll give you my address you can send me money weekly. K

I get this weird feeling that you didn't actually read the OP. If you did, then you don't seem equipped to understand it. It's pretty straightforward. We are biologically related through common descent. This makes us family by definition. You wouldn't watch your first cousin slowly starve while covered in shit and living in the gutter. Why would it be different for your seventh cousin? You could argue that you don't know the latter like you know the former, but I would counter that you only think this way because of your culture isn't very healthy and suffers from a form of narcissism as a general rule.

Depends if I like that first cousin. lol
spare us we are all family. I could care less what happens to you...it's a dog eat dog world. I wasn't put here to take care of you or anyone else.

Doesn't matter if you do or not. Doesn't matter if your culture influences you to think in a sociopathic manner like that. It's our responsibility to you to see and treat you as kin, because you are. Even if you weren't, it would still be a requirement of an authentically pro-life position. One can't recognize the inherent, inalienable worth of life and decide that protecting and nurturing life is a waste of time without being a flaming hypocrite not worthy of the label.

 

[Stephanie]

Why should anyone work by the insane logic of the op

Just claim poor and he'll volunteer to take care of us. I'll give you my address you can send me money weekly. K

I get this weird feeling that you didn't actually read the OP. If you did, then you don't seem equipped to understand it. It's pretty straightforward. We are biologically related through common descent. This makes us family by definition. You wouldn't watch your first cousin slowly starve while covered in shit and living in the gutter. Why would it be different for your seventh cousin? You could argue that you don't know the latter like you know the former, but I would counter that you only think this way because of your culture isn't very healthy and suffers from a form of narcissism as a general rule.

Perhaps it is only foolish to assume that all others have the same perception of your idealistic approach to family.
Where as it is completely reasonable to suggest that families provide and care for each other ... It is equally apparent that families approach the idea of long-term support quite differently.

Not to set their standards as any sort of benchmark ... My parents saw it as their obligation to instill values such as independence and self-sustainability.
They instilled a respectable work ethic at an early age ... They defined self-responsibility as a requirement in every measure of engagement with societal demands.

The options they allowed were rather straightforward and led to fruition of the desired outcome.
I remember as freshman in high school when my father explained to me ...

"When you graduate, the day you graduate from high school ... One of three things will happen.
The first concerning the fact that you are accepted into college and waiting to attend at the beginning of the Fall Semester ... And working through the Summer.
The second option can include your enlistment into the military and the subsequent wait necessary to leave for training.
The third option is simple and understandable ... If you fail to meet the previous conditions, you will be out of my house effective that day."

It had nothing to do with narcissism unless you would care to suggest that an individual capable of caring for themselves cannot be achieved without some sense of superiority in regards to their view of others who may not be as well equipped to handle the actual demands of becoming a worthwhile benefit to society.

I am also a firm believer that starvation and the lack of financial security can certainly be very powerful motivators.
They also have the greatest ability to form the most dependable interpretations as to the character of any individual ... Whether they choose to conquer the obstacles before them or surrender to their weaknesses.

.

ok fine

 

[LeftofLeft]

We're family, both as a species and a nation. I mean that in the most literal sense. We're all descended from a relatively small pool of people that becomes even smaller the farther back you go. The homeless guy you sneer at on your way to work is your fourth cousin and you don't even know it. The kid you're wishing would just die already so you don't have to pay her medical bills is his third cousin's niece by marriage. It kind of makes me sad to see how people treat their own family like shit like this just because they don't think poor people deserve a safe place to sleep every night and quality medical care.

It's especially frustrating how many of these people claim to be "pro-life" and claim to understand the moral truth that all life has inherent value but only mean they're against killing babies and are utterly apathetic to other forms of human suffering. Why can't people just accept these facts? Why do people have to turn their back on their alleged values when they're asked to put them into practice? If you believe in the inalienable value of life, if you truly understand that we're a massive, inbred, dysfunctional family, then why do you shirk your responsibility to your cousins and nieces and nephews and allow them to starve and die on the street? -.-

As a Conservative and a Christian, I am ultimately going to be held accountable how much I helped the poor. To your question, I have no problem supporting the poor and sick. Here is the problem I do have: Government buraucracies, unions, and community organizers using the Poor as props so they can grab money from the wealthy and Middle Class, disseminate and redistribute to their cronies and friends, give the leftovers to the poor, then go back to the wealthy and middle class and tell them they are not giving enough as per Jesus Christ. I find it to be very Alinskyite; unAmetican and unChristian.

 

[Little-Acorn]

Why exactly do you have a problem footing the bill for the daily survival of the poor?


Yet another liberal troll thread, where some fanatic ask "Why is it that..." followed by some lie about conservatives.

You people really need some new material. Nobody believes your lies any more. In case you were wondering why you got tossed out on your keisters in the last election.

BTW, I have no problem supporting the poor. I've been doing it all my life. (You don't think their free food and housing was really free, did you?)

I have a problem with some holier-than-thou do-gooder tries to steal from me and hand the stolen goods to the poor (or hand it to his favorite betting parlor or crack dealer etc.). Whether the theft is committed by pulling a gun on me in a dark alley, or by government taking my tax money under color of their taxing power, and then spending it on things they have no authority to spend on.

When I see that happening, yes, I'll do all I can to stop it and make sure the perps are thrown in jail as they deserve.

While I simultaneously support the poor without complaining, as I've done all my life.

Hope that clears up your misunderstanding. Though I know it won't. Liberals always make sure they don't understand, so that they can keep committing their thefts and pretend they're somehow "doing good".

 

[Pedro de San Patricio]

I know this may sound cruel, but if someone won't work, they shouldn't eat. Notice I didn't say couldn't work. I'm all for helping people on a temporary basis. But if they are able to work I shouldn't have to support them. At the very least, we should have a upper limit on how long some gets government assistance. Once that's over, they're on their own. You be surprised how many people would find work if their benefits were cut off.

A sixteen year old kid gets emancipated from her abusive parents. She moves out on her own and can't find a job. Eventually she can't make rent and is living in a shelter. She has no food. She has no money. Nobody will hire her. Obviously she's a worthless parasite and should die a slow and undignified death for her crimes against society. Are you really prepared to allow this to become an acceptable case?