Follow along with the video below to see how to install our site as a web app on your home screen.
Note: This feature may not be available in some browsers.
I for one don't feel its my duty help anyone.. I have no problem with giving to charities though and letting those charities dispense said money. Why? Because it was my choice to give to that charity.
As for those third world shitholes? As far as I'm concerned our money doesn't need to go to any other country. If they can't survive on their own then tough shit.
charities are good at helping feed and cloth people ....but how good are they at paying a mortgage or car payment,medical expenses....i was told they are only as good as the supplies they have and the money on hand.....with some it may be pretty finite....if im wrong let me know.....
you're correct as far as your statement goes; b ut it doesnt go anywhere. it's irrelevant. what is your point? that it is the government's job to pay your mortgage, car payment and medical expenses?
you make the idiotic and false argument that the "safety net" is truly a safety net and not a crutch in fact for millions.
the evidence is all over the place moron. what happened when clinton restricted welfare in the 1990s and limited it to 21 months/
where are all the millions that were going to starve to death according to the rants of liberals like you at the time?
idiot
Weird, You keep telling me the argument I'm making yet I don't remember saying these things. Can you point out where I said this? I'd love to read my own opinion that apparently I forgot about.
you are clearly implying it; when you accuse others of wanting to dismantle is; when in fact they are for limiting it to the truly needy; and have a more common sense outlook on the matter that endless welfare DOES breed a kind of mentality.
AGAIN the evidence is all over the place
dont try to backpeddle now
She said...Not at all what I'm saying, but please feel free to argue against that point anyway if that's the best you can do.
Claudette seems to be under the misguided and selfish assumption that removing welfare and social safety nets will result in prosperity for the poor. I'm asking for societies where this has happened. I'm sure she is basing her opinion on something that has happened in reality and not just speaking out of her ass. So let's see the examples of where this has been shown to work.
A few things regarding what I put in bold...
1) Where does she say it will lead to prosperity for the poor?
"You'd be surprised how quickly someone can take care of themselves when the free ride comes to a screeching halt. You'd be surprised how quickly they can take care of themselves when they have to."
Is this where to tell me she didn't mean it to sound like the poor will be better off if you take away their assistance?
2) How is it selfish to prefer to give money to a charity of YOUR choice compared to government giving your money to charity of ITS choice?
It's not selfish to give to charity. It is selfish to advocate taking away a safety net that many people need because you are under the false assumption that they are all just milking the system.
She said...Not at all what I'm saying, but please feel free to argue against that point anyway if that's the best you can do.
Claudette seems to be under the misguided and selfish assumption that removing welfare and social safety nets will result in prosperity for the poor. I'm asking for societies where this has happened. I'm sure she is basing her opinion on something that has happened in reality and not just speaking out of her ass. So let's see the examples of where this has been shown to work.
A few things regarding what I put in bold...
1) Where does she say it will lead to prosperity for the poor?
"You'd be surprised how quickly someone can take care of themselves when the free ride comes to a screeching halt. You'd be surprised how quickly they can take care of themselves when they have to."
Is this where to tell me she didn't mean it to sound like the poor will be better off if you take away their assistance?
2) How is it selfish to prefer to give money to a charity of YOUR choice compared to government giving your money to charity of ITS choice?
It's not selfish to give to charity. It is selfish to advocate taking away a safety net that many people need because you are under the false assumption that they are all just milking the system.
So this is where the major disconnect happens. I'd love for you to explain how you and your heros claim that "47% of the country are moochers" and how the "poor don't pay any taxes" and yet at the same time claim that "they are being taxed in to poverty".
Like I said, you're an Olympic quality back peddler and circus grade contortionist to be able to hold absolutely contradictory viewpoints that you so easily spew.
Avatar - Still waiting for your response. Your hypocrisy is on full display for everyone to see. This is your chance to face reality.
To my knowledge, I've never claimed that 47% of the country are moochers. How can that display my hypocrisy. In fact, most of the people are forced on government programs because they are taxed too much. While I'm not on any government programs, I can promise you that I would be in a much better position financially if the government wasn't taxing a third of my labor. I'd be able to focus and turn that extra time and money to building my fortune faster.
charities are good at helping feed and cloth people ....but how good are they at paying a mortgage or car payment,medical expenses....i was told they are only as good as the supplies they have and the money on hand.....with some it may be pretty finite....if im wrong let me know.....
you're correct as far as your statement goes; b ut it doesnt go anywhere. it's irrelevant. what is your point? that it is the government's job to pay your mortgage, car payment and medical expenses?
look if everyone is paying a tax to help those who get laid off , disaster hits...an illness an injury whatever....then if it happens to you,AND IT CAN....you are getting something back that you paid into to help for a while until you can get your shit together....but it has to be understood.....its only going to last so long....Unemployment,Welfare whatever....only so long then its gone....no extensions.....its finished.....the end .....
Avatar - Still waiting for your response. Your hypocrisy is on full display for everyone to see. This is your chance to face reality.
To my knowledge, I've never claimed that 47% of the country are moochers. How can that display my hypocrisy. In fact, most of the people are forced on government programs because they are taxed too much. While I'm not on any government programs, I can promise you that I would be in a much better position financially if the government wasn't taxing a third of my labor. I'd be able to focus and turn that extra time and money to building my fortune faster.
Oh, so you disagreed with Romney and the entire Tea Party talking point that the poor don't pay any taxes and that 47% of the country are mooching off the government and the tax payers. You publicly distanced yourself from those positions?
She said...Not at all what I'm saying, but please feel free to argue against that point anyway if that's the best you can do.
Claudette seems to be under the misguided and selfish assumption that removing welfare and social safety nets will result in prosperity for the poor. I'm asking for societies where this has happened. I'm sure she is basing her opinion on something that has happened in reality and not just speaking out of her ass. So let's see the examples of where this has been shown to work.
A few things regarding what I put in bold...
1) Where does she say it will lead to prosperity for the poor?
"You'd be surprised how quickly someone can take care of themselves when the free ride comes to a screeching halt. You'd be surprised how quickly they can take care of themselves when they have to."
Is this where to tell me she didn't mean it to sound like the poor will be better off if you take away their assistance?
2) How is it selfish to prefer to give money to a charity of YOUR choice compared to government giving your money to charity of ITS choice?
It's not selfish to give to charity. It is selfish to advocate taking away a safety net that many people need because you are under the false assumption that they are all just milking the system.
Im a raging hypocrite for correcting your misperception? That seems to be a jump.
You're a raging hypocrite for saying ridiculous hypocritical things. Hopefully that clears up your confusion. Doubt it though.
I'm going to go out on a limb and say you have no clue what a hypocrite actually is. Not surprising. The term is horribly misused.
Avatar - Still waiting for your response. Your hypocrisy is on full display for everyone to see. This is your chance to face reality.
To my knowledge, I've never claimed that 47% of the country are moochers. How can that display my hypocrisy. In fact, most of the people are forced on government programs because they are taxed too much. While I'm not on any government programs, I can promise you that I would be in a much better position financially if the government wasn't taxing a third of my labor. I'd be able to focus and turn that extra time and money to building my fortune faster.
Oh, so you disagreed with Romney and the entire Tea Party talking point that the poor don't pay any taxes and that 47% of the country are mooching off the government and the tax payers. You publicly distanced yourself from those positions?
You're a raging hypocrite for saying ridiculous hypocritical things. Hopefully that clears up your confusion. Doubt it though.
I'm going to go out on a limb and say you have no clue what a hypocrite actually is. Not surprising. The term is horribly misused.
Let me check again.....yeah you're still a hypocrite and the term absolutely applies to you.
The GOP leadership has worked tirelessly to make their base believe American helping American is "socialism" and should be stopped. The very people helped by Social Security and Medicare believe getting government help is the road to disaster for this country. The GOP's misinformation techniques have worked so well, their base doesn't even understand that Medicare and Social Security are government programs and getting rid of government programs means disaster for them.
Republicans say we should look at Blue States to understand how all the welfare has hurt those states. Only the dollar drain from Blue States is going to Red States. The amount of money difference Red States receive from Blue States pales in comparison to what those in Blue States who are on welfare receive and is staggering.
If Red States were so self sufficient, they wouldn't be working overtime trying to lure Blue State workers to their states. They would train their own people. Only that would be (gasp) "socialism".
People don't want charity. Republicans insist they are better people because they imagine they give more to charity. Remember that story Paul Ryan plagiarized? About the little boy who did't want to be given school lunch? Well that's the thing. A little charity does nothing. Without the drain of money from Blue States to Red States, Blue States would have balanced budgets and would still be helping Blue State Citizens. It's because of that aid Blue States are able to give to their citizens that Red States are able to bleed money from those Blue States who earned it.
Perhaps we need some tough love and stop funding Red States. The only problem with that is the GOP leadership would simply let their middle class and poor die. We know that from the millions left off Medicare Expansion. That will probably cost 10,000 deaths a year in Red States.
When the Government FORCES an American to work and give up some of the revenue so the Government can help an American...that is not an American Helping American....that is Government taking and then giving.
When I donate money to the local senior center; donate my time to the local shelter; donate food to the local soup kitchen....that is an American Helping an American
When was the last time a person on welfare thanked the taxpayer?
Donating food isn't helping anyone in the long run. Teaching someone how to work helps people. We call that "education". Something Republicans think of as "brainwashing". It's why they are terrified of immigrants with degrees. Republicans know they can't compete.
Let me ask you, why are you so concerned about someone who differs from you on this subject? You want to help, good for you, if I don't, I don't, why does that bother you?I can't even read a thread this long, not on this topic, so someone may have already raised this point, but I'd argue that the people advocating for the welfare state are the most responsible for equating "american helping american" with socialism. They give the genuine desire to help the poor a bad name by insisting that it can only happen via coercive government mandate.
What's it to you?Oh brother. Another dogooder who wants to bankroll everyones life for em.
The topic is the poor. Not the war in Iraq, your perceived notion of the 1% and the rest of your drivel.
If you think taking care of the poor is worthwhile then whip out your wallet and checkbook and take of em. That will be your choice and your money.
Most of these social programs are utter failures costing millions and its not my duty to feed anyone not that anyone is starving. Far from it most of those on Welfare are fat as fat can be. Obese.
Oh and show me in the constitution where one group of people is obligated to take care of another?
Dont' bother. You won't find it. There is no charity in the constitution.
The true face of "compassionate conservatism".
Ok deal. On the flip side, you can pay for the military budget you refuse to cut.
No, no, no you're too concerned for the poor. You pay for them. It doesn't seem like to much for you to accommodate into your lifestyle. You see the Liberal Democrats actually have more money than the GOP. I bet you didn't know that either. You see I'm not complaining about your spending habits. You have issues with mine.
And you're too concerned with spending ridiculous amounts of money on the military. So while I spend money to care for people here, you can spend your money on bombing people in other countries.
No, no, no you're too concerned for the poor. You pay for them. It doesn't seem like to much for you to accommodate into your lifestyle. You see the Liberal Democrats actually have more money than the GOP. I bet you didn't know that either. You see I'm not complaining about your spending habits. You have issues with mine.
And you're too concerned with spending ridiculous amounts of money on the military. So while I spend money to care for people here, you can spend your money on bombing people in other countries.
You don't see me on a message board complaining about the military, I didn't ask you to help there. You're on here making accusations about someone elses personal choices, I don't see the two as apples to apples that is apples to oranges. So, again, why do you care where I spend my money? What difference is it to you? Do you know where I spend my money? Nope, yet here you are. That is the lowest form of life comlaining about someone elses spending. LOL
To my knowledge, I've never claimed that 47% of the country are moochers. How can that display my hypocrisy. In fact, most of the people are forced on government programs because they are taxed too much. While I'm not on any government programs, I can promise you that I would be in a much better position financially if the government wasn't taxing a third of my labor. I'd be able to focus and turn that extra time and money to building my fortune faster.
Oh, so you disagreed with Romney and the entire Tea Party talking point that the poor don't pay any taxes and that 47% of the country are mooching off the government and the tax payers. You publicly distanced yourself from those positions?
the poor DONT pay federal income taxes for the most part.
GOSH UR STUPID
So what or who do you call the 47%?So you aren't taxing people into poverty?
And stating the truth is never exhausting. It's lying that gets exhausted. See. When you tell the truth, you don't have to remember your story. You just say things as they are. When you are lying you have to remember every detail you've said to keep your story straight. Which is why most liars get caught.
If you didn't take as much money from people, there would be far less poor, regardless of age. We would be in a far better position to take care of one another and support ourselves.
So this is where the major disconnect happens. I'd love for you to explain how you and your heros claim that "47% of the country are moochers" and how the "poor don't pay any taxes" and yet at the same time claim that "they are being taxed in to poverty".
Like I said, you're an Olympic quality back peddler and circus grade contortionist to be able to hold absolutely contradictory viewpoints that you so easily spew.
Avatar - Still waiting for your response. Your hypocrisy is on full display for everyone to see. This is your chance to face reality.
So what or who do you call the 47%?So this is where the major disconnect happens. I'd love for you to explain how you and your heros claim that "47% of the country are moochers" and how the "poor don't pay any taxes" and yet at the same time claim that "they are being taxed in to poverty".
Like I said, you're an Olympic quality back peddler and circus grade contortionist to be able to hold absolutely contradictory viewpoints that you so easily spew.
Avatar - Still waiting for your response. Your hypocrisy is on full display for everyone to see. This is your chance to face reality.
