Cut ALL anti-poverty programs

Bush92

GHBush1992
May 23, 2014
34,808
10,719
1,400
I feel the United States federal government should cut out ALL anti-poverty programs in order to assist the lame and lazy to go out and become gainfully employed. This would serve two purposes:

A.) When they are off the government tit and working and climbing the economic ladder...they will start to vote Republican. Like the election day saying goes, "The Democrats jumped out to an early lead...then the Republicans got off work and went to the polls."

B.) This will put the issue back where it belongs...with the states. If blue/red ink states like California or Illinois want to support dead beats so be it. Just don't use my federal tax $$$ to fund public housing urchins who apply most of their effort to avoiding work and "playing the system."
 
Last edited:
And how much do we spend on such things? Let's see if you're a rational adult, and can do the math? Go...

ZERO on poverty programs. You get hungry enough...you will work.

How much are we talking about? And they won't bother working; stealing, or begging, is much easier and pays better. Learn history.
Thats what we have laws for. I say if I'm gonna have to spend tax dollars on these people...might as well be in an orange suit on a chain gang cutting grass by the side of the road while supervised by a corrections officer on a horse with high powered rifle. At least they will be working.
 
I feel the United States federal government should cut out ALL anti-poverty programs in order to assist the lame and lazy to go out and become gainfully employed. This would serve two purposes:

A.) When they are off the government tit and working and climbing the economic ladder...they will start to vote Republican. Like the election day saying goes, "The Democrats jumped out to an early lead...then the Republicans got off work and went to the polls."

B.) This will put the issue back where it belongs...with the states. If blue/red ink states like California or Illinois want to support dead beats so be it. Just don't use my federal tax $$$ to fund public housing urchins who apply most of their effort to avoiding work and "playing the system."

Good plan. Then instead of a thousand lining up for a hundred low wage job openings at a Walmart,

we'll have five thousand.

Then Walmart can lower the wage, and the stockholders will be even richer.
 
I'd settle for not expanding them at this point and getting to a de-centralizing situation.
 
I feel the United States federal government should cut out ALL anti-poverty programs in order to assist the lame and lazy to go out and become gainfully employed. This would serve two purposes:

A.) When they are off the government tit and working and climbing the economic ladder...they will start to vote Republican. Like the election day saying goes, "The Democrats jumped out to an early lead...then the Republicans got off work and went to the polls."

B.) This will put the issue back where it belongs...with the states. If blue/red ink states like California or Illinois want to support dead beats so be it. Just don't use my federal tax $$$ to fund public housing urchins who apply most of their effort to avoiding work and "playing the system."

Good plan. Then instead of a thousand lining up for a hundred low wage job openings at a Walmart,

we'll have five thousand.

Then Walmart can lower the wage, and the stockholders will be even richer.
And perhaps they can get one of the 100 jobs! The motivated rise to the top.
 
Legalize marijuana again and the decentralization of the power of production away from international conglomerates back to the People will shift the global economy in favor of the world's working poor.

This is why marijuana was outlawed in the first place and remains so today. The ruling class fears the decentralization of power that they have accumulated and do not wish to relinquish control or profits.

The problem is not too many poor people. The problem is too few rich people sucking up as much of the world's wealth to themselves and leaving everyone else to apply for food stamps. Who cannot see the reality of this situation?

128_3.jpg
 
And how much do we spend on such things? Let's see if you're a rational adult, and can do the math? Go...

ZERO on poverty programs. You get hungry enough...you will work.

How much are we talking about? And they won't bother working; stealing, or begging, is much easier and pays better. Learn history.

actually, they usually die or end up in work houses.... because Dickensian England was such a happy place

I do think good ole bush baby is a sock or a leftie trying to make righties look bad.... seems kind of caricaturish....
 
Legalize marijuana again and the decentralization of the power of production away from international conglomerates back to the People will shift the global economy in favor of the world's working poor.

This is why marijuana was outlawed in the first place and remains so today. The ruling class fears the decentralization of power that they have accumulated and do not wish to relinquish control or profits.

The problem is not too many poor people. The problem is too few rich people sucking up as much of the world's wealth to themselves and leaving everyone else to apply for food stamps. Who cannot see the reality of this situation?

128_3.jpg
Sure, thats what we need...we can all sit around and get stoned and perhaps sell hemp shirts or hemp bags and cool shit like that dude.OMFG
 
You can always tell when a poster is still in HS.
 
ZERO on poverty programs. You get hungry enough...you will work.

How much are we talking about? And they won't bother working; stealing, or begging, is much easier and pays better. Learn history.

actually, they usually die or end up in work houses.... because Dickensian England was such a happy place

I do think good ole bush baby is a sock or a leftie trying to make righties look bad.... seems kind of caricaturish....
Dickesonian England. Yes...send them to work camps. At least they wont be producing welfare babies when they are locked up. I am not a ruse...I'm dead on serious. Let em starve.
 
I feel the United States federal government should cut out ALL anti-poverty programs in order to assist the lame and lazy to go out and become gainfully employed. This would serve two purposes:

A.) When they are off the government tit and working and climbing the economic ladder...they will start to vote Republican. Like the election day saying goes, "The Democrats jumped out to an early lead...then the Republicans got off work and went to the polls."

B.) This will put the issue back where it belongs...with the states. If blue/red ink states like California or Illinois want to support dead beats so be it. Just don't use my federal tax $$$ to fund public housing urchins who apply most of their effort to avoiding work and "playing the system."

Good plan. Then instead of a thousand lining up for a hundred low wage job openings at a Walmart,

we'll have five thousand.

Then Walmart can lower the wage, and the stockholders will be even richer.
And perhaps they can get one of the 100 jobs! The motivated rise to the top.

lol, and illiterate too.
 
I agree completely with you. Let's get rid of the handouts and turn it into Workfare. You can't find another job, some to work for us cleaning streets and the countryside of the trash you lazy Haves threw there.

BUT, if for one minute you think those bird-feathered politicians are gonna find the juevos to do it ....... :eusa_whistle:
 
Before I can get pissed about anti-poverty programs I need to know what they're costing me personally. What are my out-of-pocket expenses?

I'm sure someone out there has done the research.
 
Before I can get pissed about anti-poverty programs I need to know what they're costing me personally. What are my out-of-pocket expenses?

I'm sure someone out there has done the research.
Roughly speaking, 1.5 cents on the tax dollar, 2 cents if you include Unemployment Insurance. Foreign Aid is half that.
 
If that was done the Democrats would never get another vote to run over the people in this country and beat them over the heads with how they care more for the poor... and we know they do care, as long as it's other people's monies paying for it
 

Forum List

Back
Top