I wish someone would end welfare

[Andylusion]

I hate to change the topic's direction but I do not think that the poor will starve to death in this country. There are enough homeless shelters and charity in this country to prevent that from happening. An example is to count the number of people in soup kitchens and see what percentage of them are receiving welfare from the government. If it is not 100% then it is reasonable to conclude that a person can survive without government assistance Evan in the worst conditions.

they have NEVER in the history of man met the need idiot

Has it ever occurred to you my socialist friend that welfare is a burgoise concept? Think of it like this. A person goes to work and earns a decent living at it. He then realizes not evryone can have it as good as himself but he doesn't want to shell out some money from his own pocket to help others. He then creates a welfare system to appease his guilty conscious. As long as welfare exist he know he doesn't have to do squat for the poor and he can continue to be an active member in the capatalist society without feeling guilty about it.

That is correct. And due to the surplus population and the shrinking of the middle class job market, Welfare is the only thing that can keep lower class families out of third world style shanty towns and tent cities.

That is the cold hard truth that Conservative Utopists cannot wrap their heads around.

Somehow cutting taxes will suddenly cause all kinds of middle class jobs to appear. False.

Welfare is the only reason we're not exactly like a third world country.

First off, that's not even logical. It's not possible for the "middle class" to shrink. Trying going to a high school level math class.

Further, you fail to grasp that when you confiscate money from the people who create jobs, you can't logically complain that there are not enough jobs.

You caused there to not be enough jobs.

Greece is a perfect example of this. They have massive social programs all over the place. But they have no jobs. Far from preventing them from sinking to a 3rd world status.... all those social programs you refer to, have guaranteed they end up a third world status.

Good job, sparky.

 

[Davros]

I hate to change the topic's direction but I do not think that the poor will starve to death in this country. There are enough homeless shelters and charity in this country to prevent that from happening. An example is to count the number of people in soup kitchens and see what percentage of them are receiving welfare from the government. If it is not 100% then it is reasonable to conclude that a person can survive without government assistance Evan in the worst conditions.

they have NEVER in the history of man met the need idiot

Has it ever occurred to you my socialist friend that welfare is a burgoise concept? Think of it like this. A person goes to work and earns a decent living at it. He then realizes not evryone can have it as good as himself but he doesn't want to shell out some money from his own pocket to help others. He then creates a welfare system to appease his guilty conscious. As long as welfare exist he know he doesn't have to do squat for the poor and he can continue to be an active member in the capatalist society without feeling guilty about it.

That is correct. And due to the surplus population and the shrinking of the middle class job market, Welfare is the only thing that can keep lower class families out of third world style shanty towns and tent cities.

That is the cold hard truth that Conservative Utopists cannot wrap their heads around.

Somehow cutting taxes will suddenly cause all kinds of middle class jobs to appear. False.

Welfare is the only reason we're not exactly like a third world country.

Surplus population--is that how you view people? They are surplus when they can't find jobs? I guess when you think that the economy is planned you see people as commodities in it and nothing more. We either have to many or not enough. In your thinking people are reduced to sheep on a farm.

I actually thought that the poor had it better under more "conservative" economic policies.

Are the poor better off in Africa sleeping on the ground? In South America in metal shacks?

If you cannot find a job then you are surplus to the job market. That is a cold hard fact. And if you want to live like an American in a decent building with running water, in that case you are much better off living in a welfare state than being a member of the third world poor.

And more importantly, if you have a proper roof over your head and enough money to live on, then your children have a better chance to pay attention in school and work hard and have a better life.

Welfare allows for children to have a better chance of breaking out of the cycle of poverty.

 

[Davros]

So far, I come away with t he notion that

1) The work requirement is still technically apart f welfare.
2)The executive branch is not forcing states to comply with the work requirements.
3)There maybe states that still insist on the work requirements, but that current is state policy.
4)Eventually, the directive will be removed when jobs become more available(The concept is not a failure! However, its suspension may have helped in some other way.)

Is there something I'm missing in this discussion?

Yes. The jobs will never come available. They are gone. Automation, technology, and outsourcing will demolish the middle and working class unless the government steps in.

America --- continue to vote Republican and you will in your lifetime learn what it is like to live in a third world country.

Is this lifted right out of the communist manifesto?

The Communist Manifesto had no concept of America, voting Republican, or third world countries.

My philosophy is markedly non-Communist.

I am all for Capitalism and getting ahead. But I am also for the government taking a healthy cut from the rich and hence elevating the comfort and health and dignity of the less fortunate ... those unable to find and/or keep well paying jobs.

 

[Davros]

So far, I come away with t he notion that

1) The work requirement is still technically apart f welfare.
2)The executive branch is not forcing states to comply with the work requirements.
3)There maybe states that still insist on the work requirements, but that current is state policy.
4)Eventually, the directive will be removed when jobs become more available(The concept is not a failure! However, its suspension may have helped in some other way.)

Is there something I'm missing in this discussion?

Yes. The jobs will never come available. They are gone. Automation, technology, and outsourcing will demolish the middle and working class unless the government steps in.

America --- continue to vote Republican and you will in your lifetime learn what it is like to live in a third world country.

Outsourcing, Automation, and technology, has existed for decades. It existed back in the 1980s. It existed throughout the 90s. Throughout the 2000s, and to this day.

When, dear chicken little, exactly is this 'sky falling' claim supposed to happen?

Automation and technology started a hundred years ago. The Cotton Gin was created in the late 1700s, allowing one person to do the work of 50 people.

By your logic, the entire planet should be devoid of employment.

Hasn't happened, has it?

It's already happened.

What percentage of middle class workers actually accomplish anything? A substantial portion of middle class workers work for the government doing meaningless work such as driving empty buses, filling out papers for the bureaucracy, or failing to teach our children.

Americans spend vast amounts of time on the phone or Internet while at work -- doing nothing.

Government employment is a form of welfare and is one of the major reasons why the work force participation rate isn't lower than it already is.

We already have more population than the real requirements for the workforce can sustain.

As the working age population increases and the job demand decreases due to the forces I mentioned, the need for welfare to sustain the American way of life will only go up. The Great Recession demonstrated how close we are to some kind of a breaking point. We need more Welfare, not less.

 

[Andylusion]

So far, I come away with t he notion that

1) The work requirement is still technically apart f welfare.
2)The executive branch is not forcing states to comply with the work requirements.
3)There maybe states that still insist on the work requirements, but that current is state policy.
4)Eventually, the directive will be removed when jobs become more available(The concept is not a failure! However, its suspension may have helped in some other way.)

Is there something I'm missing in this discussion?

Yes. The jobs will never come available. They are gone. Automation, technology, and outsourcing will demolish the middle and working class unless the government steps in.

America --- continue to vote Republican and you will in your lifetime learn what it is like to live in a third world country.

Is this lifted right out of the communist manifesto?

The Communist Manifesto had no concept of America, voting Republican, or third world countries.

My philosophy is markedly non-Communist.

I am all for Capitalism and getting ahead. But I am also for the government taking a healthy cut from the rich and hence elevating the comfort and health and dignity of the less fortunate ... those unable to find and/or keep well paying jobs.

Which is a socialistic view. The idea that somehow people who rightfully worked for their honest pay, should be punished, and have their money confiscated by the force of government, to give to people who have not earned it.... is a socialist view.

Why should enough get something they have not earned?

What's funny is that any of those like you, who work for a major company, have known at least one person that was super lazy, and yet got the same pay as you. You'd be ticked if that was you, working your butt off, so that someone else could get the same pay while doing as little as possible.

I have that experience right now in fact. There's a chick where i work, that intentionally does as little as she can, while I work as hard as I can. I'll finish 5 projects in a single day, while she spends a week doing 2.

And she's told me that she drags out the work.

If you were in my place, you'd be pissed. Most people would be ticked.

Yet that is exactly what you advocate societal, and it's morally wrong.

Here's the difference between the two. In the case of the chick where I work.... it's the employers money. If he's good with it, that's his deal.

But when you push for it with government, it's not government giving away governments money..... the government doesn't have any of it's own money. That's our money, the tax payers money.

Now if you were working at the company I worked at, and you had money taken from your check, to pay the lazy worker...... you'd be more than pissed, or ticked.... you'd be screaming, and in an absolute rage. We all would.

But you do that to us, with your socialist programs. Why do I, who gets up at 3 AM, drives 30 minutes into work, every single day, and puts in a 10-hour shift, why do I have to have money taken from my check, to pay someone who doesn't get out of bed until noon, and does nothing all day, but collects food stamps and welfare, and go back to bed, in their government subsidized apartment?

Same thing.

 

[Andylusion]

I hate to change the topic's direction but I do not think that the poor will starve to death in this country. There are enough homeless shelters and charity in this country to prevent that from happening. An example is to count the number of people in soup kitchens and see what percentage of them are receiving welfare from the government. If it is not 100% then it is reasonable to conclude that a person can survive without government assistance Evan in the worst conditions.

they have NEVER in the history of man met the need idiot

Has it ever occurred to you my socialist friend that welfare is a burgoise concept? Think of it like this. A person goes to work and earns a decent living at it. He then realizes not evryone can have it as good as himself but he doesn't want to shell out some money from his own pocket to help others. He then creates a welfare system to appease his guilty conscious. As long as welfare exist he know he doesn't have to do squat for the poor and he can continue to be an active member in the capatalist society without feeling guilty about it.

That is correct. And due to the surplus population and the shrinking of the middle class job market, Welfare is the only thing that can keep lower class families out of third world style shanty towns and tent cities.

That is the cold hard truth that Conservative Utopists cannot wrap their heads around.

Somehow cutting taxes will suddenly cause all kinds of middle class jobs to appear. False.

Welfare is the only reason we're not exactly like a third world country.

Surplus population--is that how you view people? They are surplus when they can't find jobs? I guess when you think that the economy is planned you see people as commodities in it and nothing more. We either have to many or not enough. In your thinking people are reduced to sheep on a farm.

I actually thought that the poor had it better under more "conservative" economic policies.

Are the poor better off in Africa sleeping on the ground? In South America in metal shacks?

If you cannot find a job then you are surplus to the job market. That is a cold hard fact. And if you want to live like an American in a decent building with running water, in that case you are much better off living in a welfare state than being a member of the third world poor.

And more importantly, if you have a proper roof over your head and enough money to live on, then your children have a better chance to pay attention in school and work hard and have a better life.

Welfare allows for children to have a better chance of breaking out of the cycle of poverty.

No it doesn't. Not even close.

Children learn the most how to live life, not at school, but by the example of their parents. If your parents spend their life living off government, you are more likely to do the same.

There is zero evidence that welfare does anything, but hold people back into a cycle of poverty.

You are just wrong on that.

 

[danielpalos]

I hate to change the topic's direction but I do not think that the poor will starve to death in this country. There are enough homeless shelters and charity in this country to prevent that from happening. An example is to count the number of people in soup kitchens and see what percentage of them are receiving welfare from the government. If it is not 100% then it is reasonable to conclude that a person can survive without government assistance Evan in the worst conditions.

they have NEVER in the history of man met the need idiot

Has it ever occurred to you my socialist friend that welfare is a burgoise concept? Think of it like this. A person goes to work and earns a decent living at it. He then realizes not evryone can have it as good as himself but he doesn't want to shell out some money from his own pocket to help others. He then creates a welfare system to appease his guilty conscious. As long as welfare exist he know he doesn't have to do squat for the poor and he can continue to be an active member in the capatalist society without feeling guilty about it.

So what; private charity only covers multitudes of sins, not official poverty.

 

[Davros]

So far, I come away with t he notion that

1) The work requirement is still technically apart f welfare.
2)The executive branch is not forcing states to comply with the work requirements.
3)There maybe states that still insist on the work requirements, but that current is state policy.
4)Eventually, the directive will be removed when jobs become more available(The concept is not a failure! However, its suspension may have helped in some other way.)

Is there something I'm missing in this discussion?

Generally, you got it, with one problem. "when more jobs become available". Jobs are available. Sorry, they are.

They have always been available. People just don't want to work. And Obama allowed them to not work.

Why should the people of Kentucky, or anywhere else, be able to force me, to pay their citizens to not work? By allowing states to ignore the work requirement, that is exactly what Obama has allowed to happen.

If Kentucky decides to allow their people to not work, they can sit at home, and collect welfare, that I have to pay Federal taxes to fund.

That's wrong. If Kentucky wants to pay people to not work... great. But Kentucky should pay for it, not me.

Jobs doing what and receiving how much pay?

Service industry and Healthcare Jobs pay enough to sustain peoples' credit card debt but not enough for a family to actually live on. Most of the people who rely on those industries for income also must eventually rely on welfare when their personal debt gets out of control. People live on credit card debt

So far, I come away with t he notion that

1) The work requirement is still technically apart f welfare.
2)The executive branch is not forcing states to comply with the work requirements.
3)There maybe states that still insist on the work requirements, but that current is state policy.
4)Eventually, the directive will be removed when jobs become more available(The concept is not a failure! However, its suspension may have helped in some other way.)

Is there something I'm missing in this discussion?

Yes. The jobs will never come available. They are gone. Automation, technology, and outsourcing will demolish the middle and working class unless the government steps in.

America --- continue to vote Republican and you will in your lifetime learn what it is like to live in a third world country.

Is this lifted right out of the communist manifesto?

The Communist Manifesto had no concept of America, voting Republican, or third world countries.

My philosophy is markedly non-Communist.

I am all for Capitalism and getting ahead. But I am also for the government taking a healthy cut from the rich and hence elevating the comfort and health and dignity of the less fortunate ... those unable to find and/or keep well paying jobs.

Which is a socialistic view. The idea that somehow people who rightfully worked for their honest pay, should be punished, and have their money confiscated by the force of government, to give to people who have not earned it.... is a socialist view.

Why should enough get something they have not earned?

What's funny is that any of those like you, who work for a major company, have known at least one person that was super lazy, and yet got the same pay as you. You'd be ticked if that was you, working your butt off, so that someone else could get the same pay while doing as little as possible.

I have that experience right now in fact. There's a chick where i work, that intentionally does as little as she can, while I work as hard as I can. I'll finish 5 projects in a single day, while she spends a week doing 2.

And she's told me that she drags out the work.

If you were in my place, you'd be pissed. Most people would be ticked.

Yet that is exactly what you advocate societal, and it's morally wrong.

Here's the difference between the two. In the case of the chick where I work.... it's the employers money. If he's good with it, that's his deal.

But when you push for it with government, it's not government giving away governments money..... the government doesn't have any of it's own money. That's our money, the tax payers money.

Now if you were working at the company I worked at, and you had money taken from your check, to pay the lazy worker...... you'd be more than pissed, or ticked.... you'd be screaming, and in an absolute rage. We all would.

But you do that to us, with your socialist programs. Why do I, who gets up at 3 AM, drives 30 minutes into work, every single day, and puts in a 10-hour shift, why do I have to have money taken from my check, to pay someone who doesn't get out of bed until noon, and does nothing all day, but collects food stamps and welfare, and go back to bed, in their government subsidized apartment?

Same thing.

Perhaps you wish to trade places with these "lazy" people.

Give it a shot.

There is personal benefit to being productive that these individuals do not earn.

I am socialist. Absolutely. But I am not Communist. Socialism and capitalism are not contradictory.

The government taking from you to keep the poor out of slums is a choice we as a society (a socialist society) have made so that those who or lazy or otherwise unable to earn above poverty wages do not have to live in shanty towns.

 

[Socialist]

I hate to change the topic's direction but I do not think that the poor will starve to death in this country. There are enough homeless shelters and charity in this country to prevent that from happening. An example is to count the number of people in soup kitchens and see what percentage of them are receiving welfare from the government. If it is not 100% then it is reasonable to conclude that a person can survive without government assistance Evan in the worst conditions.

they have NEVER in the history of man met the need idiot

Has it ever occurred to you my socialist friend that welfare is a burgoise concept? Think of it like this. A person goes to work and earns a decent living at it. He then realizes not evryone can have it as good as himself but he doesn't want to shell out some money from his own pocket to help others. He then creates a welfare system to appease his guilty conscious. As long as welfare exist he know he doesn't have to do squat for the poor and he can continue to be an active member in the capatalist society without feeling guilty about it.

That is correct. And due to the surplus population and the shrinking of the middle class job market, Welfare is the only thing that can keep lower class families out of third world style shanty towns and tent cities.

That is the cold hard truth that Conservative Utopists cannot wrap their heads around.

Somehow cutting taxes will suddenly cause all kinds of middle class jobs to appear. False.

Welfare is the only reason we're not exactly like a third world country.

First off, that's not even logical. It's not possible for the "middle class" to shrink. Trying going to a high school level math class.

Further, you fail to grasp that when you confiscate money from the people who create jobs, you can't logically complain that there are not enough jobs.

You caused there to not be enough jobs.

Greece is a perfect example of this. They have massive social programs all over the place. But they have no jobs. Far from preventing them from sinking to a 3rd world status.... all those social programs you refer to, have guaranteed they end up a third world status.

Good job, sparky.

Oh lord.. Err, the middle class has been in decline for decades, that's an undeniable fact, so don't act like a moron.
Confiscate money? Countries with progressive taxes on the rich have plenty of jobs, your argument is a load of horse shit.
Greece? Greece failed because of taxes not being paid, idiot.

 

[Davros]

I hate to change the topic's direction but I do not think that the poor will starve to death in this country. There are enough homeless shelters and charity in this country to prevent that from happening. An example is to count the number of people in soup kitchens and see what percentage of them are receiving welfare from the government. If it is not 100% then it is reasonable to conclude that a person can survive without government assistance Evan in the worst conditions.

they have NEVER in the history of man met the need idiot

Has it ever occurred to you my socialist friend that welfare is a burgoise concept? Think of it like this. A person goes to work and earns a decent living at it. He then realizes not evryone can have it as good as himself but he doesn't want to shell out some money from his own pocket to help others. He then creates a welfare system to appease his guilty conscious. As long as welfare exist he know he doesn't have to do squat for the poor and he can continue to be an active member in the capatalist society without feeling guilty about it.

That is correct. And due to the surplus population and the shrinking of the middle class job market, Welfare is the only thing that can keep lower class families out of third world style shanty towns and tent cities.

That is the cold hard truth that Conservative Utopists cannot wrap their heads around.

Somehow cutting taxes will suddenly cause all kinds of middle class jobs to appear. False.

Welfare is the only reason we're not exactly like a third world country.

First off, that's not even logical. It's not possible for the "middle class" to shrink. Trying going to a high school level math class.

Further, you fail to grasp that when you confiscate money from the people who create jobs, you can't logically complain that there are not enough jobs.

You caused there to not be enough jobs.

Greece is a perfect example of this. They have massive social programs all over the place. But they have no jobs. Far from preventing them from sinking to a 3rd world status.... all those social programs you refer to, have guaranteed they end up a third world status.

Good job, sparky.

That "no jobs" thing is coming to a country near you whether you cut taxes or not. The reason jobs are decreasing is not because of taxes. It's because technology and ease of using cheap labor are drastically cutting the need for meaningful high paying employment.

So long as people who live in shanty towns in third world countries and computers can get the job done, there is no need for employers to pay fat Americans a bloated salary.

Taxes don't even figure into it.

If you think the middle class can't shrink away I have a bridge to sell you in Brooklyn. There are plenty of third world countries that have little to no middle class.

 

[amrchaos]

So far, I come away with t he notion that

1) The work requirement is still technically apart f welfare.
2)The executive branch is not forcing states to comply with the work requirements.
3)There maybe states that still insist on the work requirements, but that current is state policy.
4)Eventually, the directive will be removed when jobs become more available(The concept is not a failure! However, its suspension may have helped in some other way.)

Is there something I'm missing in this discussion?

Generally, you got it, with one problem. "when more jobs become available". Jobs are available. Sorry, they are.

They have always been available. People just don't want to work. And Obama allowed them to not work.

Why should the people of Kentucky, or anywhere else, be able to force me, to pay their citizens to not work? By allowing states to ignore the work requirement, that is exactly what Obama has allowed to happen.

If Kentucky decides to allow their people to not work, they can sit at home, and collect welfare, that I have to pay Federal taxes to fund.

That's wrong. If Kentucky wants to pay people to not work... great. But Kentucky should pay for it, not me.

I don't know how much Kentucky pays out in terms of welfare, but I don't think it compares to having a 40hr/wk job. Southern states welfare programs tend to pay less than minimum wage.

If Kentucky follows this pattern, then that is more than enough incentive to go looking for that available job.

Now, Hawaii however. I don't see why anyone would would work!!

 

[Davros]

they have NEVER in the history of man met the need idiot

Has it ever occurred to you my socialist friend that welfare is a burgoise concept? Think of it like this. A person goes to work and earns a decent living at it. He then realizes not evryone can have it as good as himself but he doesn't want to shell out some money from his own pocket to help others. He then creates a welfare system to appease his guilty conscious. As long as welfare exist he know he doesn't have to do squat for the poor and he can continue to be an active member in the capatalist society without feeling guilty about it.

That is correct. And due to the surplus population and the shrinking of the middle class job market, Welfare is the only thing that can keep lower class families out of third world style shanty towns and tent cities.

That is the cold hard truth that Conservative Utopists cannot wrap their heads around.

Somehow cutting taxes will suddenly cause all kinds of middle class jobs to appear. False.

Welfare is the only reason we're not exactly like a third world country.

Surplus population--is that how you view people? They are surplus when they can't find jobs? I guess when you think that the economy is planned you see people as commodities in it and nothing more. We either have to many or not enough. In your thinking people are reduced to sheep on a farm.

I actually thought that the poor had it better under more "conservative" economic policies.

Are the poor better off in Africa sleeping on the ground? In South America in metal shacks?

If you cannot find a job then you are surplus to the job market. That is a cold hard fact. And if you want to live like an American in a decent building with running water, in that case you are much better off living in a welfare state than being a member of the third world poor.

And more importantly, if you have a proper roof over your head and enough money to live on, then your children have a better chance to pay attention in school and work hard and have a better life.

Welfare allows for children to have a better chance of breaking out of the cycle of poverty.

No it doesn't. Not even close.

Children learn the most how to live life, not at school, but by the example of their parents. If your parents spend their life living off government, you are more likely to do the same.

There is zero evidence that welfare does anything, but hold people back into a cycle of poverty.

You are just wrong on that.

In what country does a person born in poverty have a greater chance to make it? In the US with a roof over their heads or in Africa where they sleep on the ground and get drafted into child armies for warlords? Where do kids have a greater chance of making it?

A person cannot very readily think about school if he's worried about whether he's going to sleep tonight or thinking about his empty stomach.

Welfare does not hold people back, bad parenting, bad schools, poverty itself, and neighborhood and school violence do.

 

[Andylusion]

So far, I come away with t he notion that

1) The work requirement is still technically apart f welfare.
2)The executive branch is not forcing states to comply with the work requirements.
3)There maybe states that still insist on the work requirements, but that current is state policy.
4)Eventually, the directive will be removed when jobs become more available(The concept is not a failure! However, its suspension may have helped in some other way.)

Is there something I'm missing in this discussion?

Generally, you got it, with one problem. "when more jobs become available". Jobs are available. Sorry, they are.

They have always been available. People just don't want to work. And Obama allowed them to not work.

Why should the people of Kentucky, or anywhere else, be able to force me, to pay their citizens to not work? By allowing states to ignore the work requirement, that is exactly what Obama has allowed to happen.

If Kentucky decides to allow their people to not work, they can sit at home, and collect welfare, that I have to pay Federal taxes to fund.

That's wrong. If Kentucky wants to pay people to not work... great. But Kentucky should pay for it, not me.

Jobs doing what and receiving how much pay?

Service industry and Healthcare Jobs pay enough to sustain peoples' credit card debt but not enough for a family to actually live on. Most of the people who rely on those industries for income also must eventually rely on welfare when their personal debt gets out of control. People live on credit card debt

So far, I come away with t he notion that

1) The work requirement is still technically apart f welfare.
2)The executive branch is not forcing states to comply with the work requirements.
3)There maybe states that still insist on the work requirements, but that current is state policy.
4)Eventually, the directive will be removed when jobs become more available(The concept is not a failure! However, its suspension may have helped in some other way.)

Is there something I'm missing in this discussion?

Yes. The jobs will never come available. They are gone. Automation, technology, and outsourcing will demolish the middle and working class unless the government steps in.

America --- continue to vote Republican and you will in your lifetime learn what it is like to live in a third world country.

Is this lifted right out of the communist manifesto?

The Communist Manifesto had no concept of America, voting Republican, or third world countries.

My philosophy is markedly non-Communist.

I am all for Capitalism and getting ahead. But I am also for the government taking a healthy cut from the rich and hence elevating the comfort and health and dignity of the less fortunate ... those unable to find and/or keep well paying jobs.

Which is a socialistic view. The idea that somehow people who rightfully worked for their honest pay, should be punished, and have their money confiscated by the force of government, to give to people who have not earned it.... is a socialist view.

Why should enough get something they have not earned?

What's funny is that any of those like you, who work for a major company, have known at least one person that was super lazy, and yet got the same pay as you. You'd be ticked if that was you, working your butt off, so that someone else could get the same pay while doing as little as possible.

I have that experience right now in fact. There's a chick where i work, that intentionally does as little as she can, while I work as hard as I can. I'll finish 5 projects in a single day, while she spends a week doing 2.

And she's told me that she drags out the work.

If you were in my place, you'd be pissed. Most people would be ticked.

Yet that is exactly what you advocate societal, and it's morally wrong.

Here's the difference between the two. In the case of the chick where I work.... it's the employers money. If he's good with it, that's his deal.

But when you push for it with government, it's not government giving away governments money..... the government doesn't have any of it's own money. That's our money, the tax payers money.

Now if you were working at the company I worked at, and you had money taken from your check, to pay the lazy worker...... you'd be more than pissed, or ticked.... you'd be screaming, and in an absolute rage. We all would.

But you do that to us, with your socialist programs. Why do I, who gets up at 3 AM, drives 30 minutes into work, every single day, and puts in a 10-hour shift, why do I have to have money taken from my check, to pay someone who doesn't get out of bed until noon, and does nothing all day, but collects food stamps and welfare, and go back to bed, in their government subsidized apartment?

Same thing.

Perhaps you wish to trade places with these "lazy" people.

Give it a shot.

There is personal benefit to being productive that these individuals do not earn.

I am socialist. Absolutely. But I am not Communist. Socialism and capitalism are not contradictory.

The government taking from you to keep the poor out of slums is a choice we as a society (a socialist society) have made so that those who or lazy or otherwise unable to earn above poverty wages do not have to live in shanty towns.

I don't care. I personally have worked some terrible terrible jobs, that paid diddly jack. I've worked multiple jobs. At one point in my life, I was working THREE jobs. One at night, one during the day, and one on the weekend.

I'm not asking anyone to do anything, that I have not done myself.

And you know what? It sucked. That's why I paid off my debts, cut my spending, and only work one single job now.

So yeah, if they have the ability to work, and they are instead on welfare and food stamps, that qualifies them as "lazy".

If YOU are not working, when you have the ability to work, and instead are collecting government hand outs, you sir, are a lazy worthless person.

Let me spell that out even clearer...... Society as a whole.... would be better off if you killed yourself. You are a burden on society. We'd all be better off, if you were dead. Not trying to insult you... it's just a fact. If you and all those lazy people like you, that are not working, and are collected free goodies from the government were gone and dead...... we'd be able to lower taxes on the people who *ARE* working.... and that would benefit EVERYONE.

Just a fact.

Now am I suggesting that you kill yourself, or all those lazy people kill themselves? No. I'd rather that you stop being lazy, and work for a living. But understand that if you choose to not do that... if you choose to live off unemployment compensation because "I'm too good to work at Wendy's"..... just understand..... we'd all be better off if you shoved a 9mm in your mouth, and blew your brains out.

You are choosing to be a burden to everyone who has an alarm clock set for 3 AM, so they can go into a crap job and work for a living. You are making the lives of the rest of us.... worse. You are making life harder for the honest people trying to provide for themselves.

And BTW..... I don't have a single credit card. None. I have no debt anywhere. Why? Because I figured out that if I borrow money, when I don't make enough money to pay it back..... that's my fault. I spent years paying back my debts.

You know what I didn't do? I didn't demand everyone else pay me, because I was stupid. If someone has borrowed so much, they can't afford to pay for their family, because they have credit card debt.......... WHO IS AT FAULT FOR THAT STUPID? MY FAULT??! It's my problem YOU were so undeniably incompetent, that you borrowed your way into subsistence? No, it's your fault. Work a second job. Work a third job. Work overtime.

Again, I'm not asking asking anyone to do anything that I personally have not done. I worked 3 jobs to pay off debt. I didn't become a leftist, and whine and cry on a forum, that everyone should pay higher taxes, so that government can bail me out of my stupidity.

Socialism and Capitalism is inherently contradictory. They are fundamentally incompatible. Every area of our economy that has problems, is the exact areas that are the most socialized.

 

[Andylusion]

I hate to change the topic's direction but I do not think that the poor will starve to death in this country. There are enough homeless shelters and charity in this country to prevent that from happening. An example is to count the number of people in soup kitchens and see what percentage of them are receiving welfare from the government. If it is not 100% then it is reasonable to conclude that a person can survive without government assistance Evan in the worst conditions.

they have NEVER in the history of man met the need idiot

Has it ever occurred to you my socialist friend that welfare is a burgoise concept? Think of it like this. A person goes to work and earns a decent living at it. He then realizes not evryone can have it as good as himself but he doesn't want to shell out some money from his own pocket to help others. He then creates a welfare system to appease his guilty conscious. As long as welfare exist he know he doesn't have to do squat for the poor and he can continue to be an active member in the capatalist society without feeling guilty about it.

That is correct. And due to the surplus population and the shrinking of the middle class job market, Welfare is the only thing that can keep lower class families out of third world style shanty towns and tent cities.

That is the cold hard truth that Conservative Utopists cannot wrap their heads around.

Somehow cutting taxes will suddenly cause all kinds of middle class jobs to appear. False.

Welfare is the only reason we're not exactly like a third world country.

First off, that's not even logical. It's not possible for the "middle class" to shrink. Trying going to a high school level math class.

Further, you fail to grasp that when you confiscate money from the people who create jobs, you can't logically complain that there are not enough jobs.

You caused there to not be enough jobs.

Greece is a perfect example of this. They have massive social programs all over the place. But they have no jobs. Far from preventing them from sinking to a 3rd world status.... all those social programs you refer to, have guaranteed they end up a third world status.

Good job, sparky.

Oh lord.. Err, the middle class has been in decline for decades, that's an undeniable fact, so don't act like a moron.
Confiscate money? Countries with progressive taxes on the rich have plenty of jobs, your argument is a load of horse shit.
Greece? Greece failed because of taxes not being paid, idiot.

Yeah........... You are foolish.

We have the highest standard of living of any country in the world. Our middle class lives better lives than the lower class of even other 1st world countries.

I've been to Europe. I've seen how they live. It's great compared to 3rd world countries... but it's like no where near the standard of living in the US.

A married couple working at Wendy's, can earn enough combined, to be in the top 1% of wage earners in the entire world.

The size of a lower class home in the US, is roughly the same size as an upper class luxury apartment in most of Europe.

You people that claim the middle class has it so bad off in the US.... you flat out don't know jack diddle squat.

As for Greece.... yeah stupid..... duh.... when you raise taxes, people stop paying them. I pointed that out myself moron. I posted a link how people avoided taxes. That was my whole point, sparky.

France tried a wealth tax. People started leaving France by the thousands. Tax revenue started dropping so fact, the socialist french government itself, voted to repeal their own wealth tax.

When Venezuela started hammering it's wealthy..... they left in droves. Black markets exists all over Venezuela.

Yeah stupid, they refused to pay the tax. That what I've been saying.

When California started pushing up taxes on Yachts docked in CA.... suddenly the Yachts started being anchored outside the state. Some even went to Marshall Islands. Oh... they didn't pay the tax again... what a shock.

Are you catching on sparky? Any of this sinking in? Of course not. Willful ignorance is the hallmark of the left.

 

[Andylusion]

I hate to change the topic's direction but I do not think that the poor will starve to death in this country. There are enough homeless shelters and charity in this country to prevent that from happening. An example is to count the number of people in soup kitchens and see what percentage of them are receiving welfare from the government. If it is not 100% then it is reasonable to conclude that a person can survive without government assistance Evan in the worst conditions.

they have NEVER in the history of man met the need idiot

Has it ever occurred to you my socialist friend that welfare is a burgoise concept? Think of it like this. A person goes to work and earns a decent living at it. He then realizes not evryone can have it as good as himself but he doesn't want to shell out some money from his own pocket to help others. He then creates a welfare system to appease his guilty conscious. As long as welfare exist he know he doesn't have to do squat for the poor and he can continue to be an active member in the capatalist society without feeling guilty about it.

That is correct. And due to the surplus population and the shrinking of the middle class job market, Welfare is the only thing that can keep lower class families out of third world style shanty towns and tent cities.

That is the cold hard truth that Conservative Utopists cannot wrap their heads around.

Somehow cutting taxes will suddenly cause all kinds of middle class jobs to appear. False.

Welfare is the only reason we're not exactly like a third world country.

First off, that's not even logical. It's not possible for the "middle class" to shrink. Trying going to a high school level math class.

Further, you fail to grasp that when you confiscate money from the people who create jobs, you can't logically complain that there are not enough jobs.

You caused there to not be enough jobs.

Greece is a perfect example of this. They have massive social programs all over the place. But they have no jobs. Far from preventing them from sinking to a 3rd world status.... all those social programs you refer to, have guaranteed they end up a third world status.

Good job, sparky.

That "no jobs" thing is coming to a country near you whether you cut taxes or not. The reason jobs are decreasing is not because of taxes. It's because technology and ease of using cheap labor are drastically cutting the need for meaningful high paying employment.

So long as people who live in shanty towns in third world countries and computers can get the job done, there is no need for employers to pay fat Americans a bloated salary.

Taxes don't even figure into it.

If you think the middle class can't shrink away I have a bridge to sell you in Brooklyn. There are plenty of third world countries that have little to no middle class.

Again, you people have been screaming the employment sky is falling, for over 200 years. It hasn't happened.

There was tons of cheap labor in the 1990s. Was the 90s a decade of joblessness? No it was not.

"they were not outsourcing then!" Bull crap. They were outsourcing in the 1980s. And certainly in the 90s.

And taxes does play a massive part into it. Absolutely it does. How you can even attempt to deny it, is beyond me.

When taxes go up, the employer has to pay more for employees. File that under 'no duh'.

Therefore, if taxes drives up the cost of employing domestic labor.... Come on sparky... you can do it.... follow the logic.

To claim that taxes on domestic labor, doesn't have a negative effect on employment, is like claiming putting a $500 luxury tax on cell phones, wouldn't cause people to buy fewer cell phones.

The 1990 Yacht tax is proof that claim is wrong.

 

[thereisnospoon]

I've noticed in my lifetime that people who think the only recourse for them when things get bad is welfare tend to learn how to manipulate the system pretty well. I know there are lots good people who just get on it but it seems that for every one normal person there is at least one other deadbeat who is on it perpetually. Crack the stats on neighborhoods where a majority of people are on welfare and you will see that that neighborhood is gang infested deadbeats. I know a lot welfare goes to rural areas but those asses should just move to the city and get jobs and there is plenty of them because Obama created so many of them (no really he did).

This falls under the category of "Gee. Gosh. No. Really?

Without going out on a limb I would think it fair to say that fully half the number of people living on the public dole are gaming the system.

 

[thereisnospoon]

You're a sick sob that thinks people should live on the street and when they do they're treated like shit. Most of these people probably worked their ass off just to get paid peanuts by their super rich boss that laughs all the way to the bank.

Limited welfare is a good thing and I think we should spend more on getting them more skills through community college, trade schools, etc. Just to say that we need to triple the size of the street class on our streets is sick.

Wow....What an idiotic knee jerk reaction...Complete with the " throw them onto the street" straw man argument.
Genius. If you have bothered to read the entire post you'd have realized the subject matter is based on those cheating the system.
I also see you decided to throw in the class envy angle...
Putz...without that "super rich boss" moron, there would be NO JOB....
Most of the people on public assistance have either worked menial jobs or never worked at all.
Have you ever owned a business? Do you know anything about how to run a business? Have you any clue the hoops government sets up for business owners to jump through? The taxes, regulations, insurance, constant harassment from municipal, state and federal pud knocking bureaucrats who have nothing better to do that hunt down successful businesses and for some minor offense try to shut them down?....No? Then shut the fuck up...How dare you.
You have not done a fucking thing in your life to help yourself and you have the gall to criticize those who have.

 

[thereisnospoon]

Perhaps reform welfare is a better idea. Cap the amount of time one can be on it, require work for benefits, encourage job training

Example...Michigan.

 

[thereisnospoon]

I've noticed in my lifetime that people who think the only recourse for them when things get bad is welfare tend to learn how to manipulate the system pretty well. I know there are lots good people who just get on it but it seems that for every one normal person there is at least one other deadbeat who is on it perpetually. Crack the stats on neighborhoods where a majority of people are on welfare and you will see that that neighborhood is gang infested deadbeats. I know a lot welfare goes to rural areas but those asses should just move to the city and get jobs and there is plenty of them because Obama created so many of them (no really he did).

How many perpetual deadbeats are we talking about?

At least one third of all public assistance people are cheating the system.. That's a start. It's time for government to go after the not so low hanging fruit.
Will that happen? Hell no. And why is this? Because the political left forbid anyone to go after their lockstep ( those collecting govt checks) voting bloc.

 

[C_Clayton_Jones]

"I wish someone would end welfare"

Typical of most on the right: to address only a symptom as opposed to the actual problem.