No More Free Rides...Make America Work Again!

[RDD_1210]

Can any of you loons give an example of a country that doesn't have a robust government backed safety net in place and has a low poverty rate?

I mean, you're so sure that if we just remove the safety net for the poor that they will suddenly "become motivated" and climb out of poverty. So how about some examples of this in action.

Nations without a safety net are called third world countries.

Even if that were true, I'll take freedom in a "3rd world country" over the "advanced" "cosmopolitan" society of communism any day...

I bet you wouldn't think it so "chic" if you were there when Joseph Stalin was murdering 20 million of his fellow Russians.

Would you still breathe oxygen in this third world country Utopia you think exists?

 

[alan1]

Flopper - the data is in and it's undeniable. These people don't spend decades on welfare because they are working relentlessly to get out of it. Quite the contrary, they are there because they are comfortable and happy.

There is far too much information out there Flopper for you to keep blindly accepting the liberal propaganda. Just because you and I would feel like a failure doesn't mean everyone else would as well. If the government data above isn't enough for you, how about REAL people:

I Got 15 Kids & 3 Babydaddys-SOMEONE'S GOTTA PAY FOR ME & MY KIDS!!! - YouTube

In the case presented in the video, why the heck should I be responsible for supporting her and her kids? I'm not the one that impregnated her. Birth control is cheap, in fact, condoms are free at Planned Parenthood. Because she made poor choices does not make me (or any tax payer) responsible for her decisions.
She is a cold heartless bitch that brought children into this world that she couldn't support. I can be just as cold and heartless and tell her I'm not going to support them just like she isn't supporting them.

 

[Flopper]

...People do not prefer public assistance to working...

Most, but not all.

The thing about welfare is that the vast majority of recipients are folks like you said, who hate being on the dole and return to gainful employment without delay. The problem is the vast majority of welfare funding gets gobbled up by that tiny minority of career welfare pros that can play the system like a violin.

In the late '90's Welfare Reform was forced on Clinton and after few vetoes he finally went along --it addressed this problem and saved a fortune, and the surpluses were then available to help the truly needy. Unfortunately it's recently been cancelled by presidential order. Sure, lots of people say the order was illegal but it'll have to wait in line with Fast'n'Furious, Bengazi, etc.

I haven't seen any statistics that support your claim that the vast majority of welfare funding gets gobbled up by that tiny minority. The fact is that the welfare queen today is more myth than fact. Welfare programs are much different today than they were in the 1980's or 1990's. Half the number of families that received assistance via TANF in 1997 are receiving assistance today. In addition, about 62 percent of never-married moms ages 20 to 49 with a high school degree or less were working in 2011. That's a 51% improvement over 1992.

The problem is not that people on welfare aren't working because most people who receive welfare are working. The problem is the jobs are part time or temporary jobs that pay practical nothing. If we want to reduce the number of people on welfare, we have to find a way to create job that they are qualified to do. Most of those jobs disappeared year ago.

The myth of the modern welfare queen

 

[alan1]

...People do not prefer public assistance to working...

Most, but not all.

The thing about welfare is that the vast majority of recipients are folks like you said, who hate being on the dole and return to gainful employment without delay. The problem is the vast majority of welfare funding gets gobbled up by that tiny minority of career welfare pros that can play the system like a violin.

In the late '90's Welfare Reform was forced on Clinton and after few vetoes he finally went along --it addressed this problem and saved a fortune, and the surpluses were then available to help the truly needy. Unfortunately it's recently been cancelled by presidential order. Sure, lots of people say the order was illegal but it'll have to wait in line with Fast'n'Furious, Bengazi, etc.

I haven't seen any statistics that support your claim that the vast majority of welfare funding gets gobbled up by that tiny minority. The fact is that the welfare queen today is more myth than fact. Welfare programs are much different today than they were in the 1980's or 1990's. Half the number of families that received assistance via TANF in 1997 are receiving assistance today. In addition, about 62 percent of never-married moms ages 20 to 49 with a high school degree or less were working in 2011. That's a 51% improvement over 1992.

The problem is not that people on welfare aren't working because most people who receive welfare are working. The problem is the jobs are part time or temporary jobs that pay practical nothing. If we want to reduce the number of people on welfare, we have to find a way to create job that they are qualified to do. Most of those jobs disappeared year ago.

The myth of the modern welfare queen

How about of they find a way to become qualified for jobs that pay better?
If 10% of the people in your city only have the skill set to sweep a broom, should your city make sure that 10% of the jobs are broom sweepers? That seems kind of dumb to me.

 

[shikaki]

Many states are using $8.00 as their minimum wage. If we could increase it to $10, and at the same time, decrease welfare and food stamps by 20% each year for 5 years, taxing benefits at 10%, welfare recipients would finally see that getting a job would be more lucrative than staying on welfare and food stamps.

We have to stop enabling people. Free daycare if you have a wage stub.

No way. Enough of the freebies (as you said to begin with). No free daycare. **** these irresponsible people. If you have a child, you take care of that child on your own (as in independent of government - not of your friends and family).

No more food stamps. No more government housing. You work, you take care of your child, and if you fail to do so, you go to prison and we'll send your child(ren) to a family that will voluntarily take care of them - permanently.

It's time Dumbocrats are forced to act like adults. It's time they put their big boy pants on and figure it out just like the rest of us have.

I could not agree more, the specific list that comes to mind is probably different than your generalizations. Irresponsible is a perfect word though!!!!

ENRON
CIT GROUP
GENERAL MOTORS
WORLDCOM
WASHINGTON MUTUAL
LEHMAN BROTHERS

Those are just a real obvious list. That doesn't include the thousands of companies that outsource there jobs to other countries, essentially moving money elsewhere and hurting the "lazy liberals" that helped to build their business' up enough to be able to outsource. Or the huge list of "businesses" to dumb to manage themselves correctly and needed a bailout. That was a result of 100% mismanagement.

 

[Flopper]

Actually, what's "hilarious" [MENTION=23461]RDD_1210[/MENTION] is just how uneducated you are. You know that government you worship? Yeah, well they did a little study on poverty. Here, learn something for once in your life:

• 80% of poor households have air conditioning. In 1970, only 36% of the entire U.S. population enjoyed air conditioning.
  
  
• 92% of poor households have a microwave.
  
  
• Nearly 75% have a car or truck, and 31% have two or more cars or trucks.
  
  
• Nearly two-thirds have cable or satellite TV.
  
  
• Two-thirds have at least one DVD player, and 70% have a VCR.
  
  
• Half have a personal computer, and one in seven have two or more computers.
  
  
• More than half of poor families with children have a video game system, such as an Xbox or PlayStation.
  
  
• 43% have Internet access.
  
  
• One-third have a wide-screen plasma or LCD TV.
  
  
• One-fourth have a digital video recorder system, such as a TiVo.

Oh, doesn't your heart just ache for these "poor" people who have aid conditioning to keep them cool while playing on their Xbox connected to their big screen tv's with DVD players? You fuck'n fool - you're such a lapdog to the official liberal propaganda...

Understanding Poverty in the United States: Poverty USA

What is Poverty in the United States: Air Conditioning, Cable TV and an Xbox

You talk to anyone who actually works with public assistance. People do not prefer public assistance to working. The Right has been spreading this myth for years but has nothing to back it up with. And like almost everyone who has ever had to be on this assistance, they hate every second of it. They can't wait to get off of it because every time you use a Link card to buy food or a medical card, you feel like a failure. The sooner you can stop depending on that shit, the better. Regardless of what the extremists say, getting government assistance is not like finding buried treasure -- it's like digging coins out of the sewer.

Most people on public assistance don't live under a bridge in cardboard boxes. They have a roof over their head, enough food to eat and some things that we all take for granted, but that does not mean they prefer a life of handouts, dependence, and being label failure in life.

Flopper - the data is in and it's undeniable. These people don't spend decades on welfare because they are working relentlessly to get out of it. Quite the contrary, they are there because they are comfortable and happy.

There is far too much information out there Flopper for you to keep blindly accepting the liberal propaganda. Just because you and I would feel like a failure doesn't mean everyone else would as well. If the government data above isn't enough for you, how about REAL people:

[ame=http://youtu.be/bavou_SEj1E]I Got 15 Kids & 3 Babydaddys-SOMEONE'S GOTTA PAY FOR ME & MY KIDS!!! - YouTube[/ame]

How can you conclude that people on public assistance are comfortable and happy in their lives because they have amenities such cable TV, a DVD player, or air conditioning. You can buy a dvd player for $29.95, a used air conditioners for less than $50, and limited cable tv is available in many areas for less $30/mo. In fact most of the items on your list can be bought used at very low prices. Your data just doesn't support your conclusion. Also the data is skewed because many people receiving assistance are middle class income earners who receive assistance for less than year.

 

[Flopper]

Most, but not all.

The thing about welfare is that the vast majority of recipients are folks like you said, who hate being on the dole and return to gainful employment without delay. The problem is the vast majority of welfare funding gets gobbled up by that tiny minority of career welfare pros that can play the system like a violin.

In the late '90's Welfare Reform was forced on Clinton and after few vetoes he finally went along --it addressed this problem and saved a fortune, and the surpluses were then available to help the truly needy. Unfortunately it's recently been cancelled by presidential order. Sure, lots of people say the order was illegal but it'll have to wait in line with Fast'n'Furious, Bengazi, etc.

I haven't seen any statistics that support your claim that the vast majority of welfare funding gets gobbled up by that tiny minority. The fact is that the welfare queen today is more myth than fact. Welfare programs are much different today than they were in the 1980's or 1990's. Half the number of families that received assistance via TANF in 1997 are receiving assistance today. In addition, about 62 percent of never-married moms ages 20 to 49 with a high school degree or less were working in 2011. That's a 51% improvement over 1992.

The problem is not that people on welfare aren't working because most people who receive welfare are working. The problem is the jobs are part time or temporary jobs that pay practical nothing. If we want to reduce the number of people on welfare, we have to find a way to create job that they are qualified to do. Most of those jobs disappeared year ago.

The myth of the modern welfare queen

How about of they find a way to become qualified for jobs that pay better?
If 10% of the people in your city only have the skill set to sweep a broom, should your city make sure that 10% of the jobs are broom sweepers? That seems kind of dumb to me.

It is and that's one of the reasons we have public assistance.

Actually there are plenty of students in community colleges on food stamps and medicaid. The problem for so many long term welfare recipients is becoming employable in a job that will make them self supporting which is a lot more than getting a little education. Long term welfare recipients have to overcome problems such as a history of addiction, physical, mental, or emotional disabilities, lanugage problems, and criminal records. Many of those on welfare have dependents such as aging parents, young children, relatives with disabilities to be cared for. People like this just don't qualify for jobs that pay enough to be self supporting.

When you start looking at people who are perpetually on welfare, you come up with the inescapable conclusion. Nobody is going to hire these people into anything other than a shit job that pays practically nothing.

 

[P@triot]

Can any of you loons give an example of a country that doesn't have a robust government backed safety net in place and has a low poverty rate?

I mean, you're so sure that if we just remove the safety net for the poor that they will suddenly "become motivated" and climb out of poverty. So how about some examples of this in action.

This is what they spend their time thinking about. How many services they can take away without a thought to where these people are going to work.

Idiots.

Meanwhile, you spend your time on communism and how you can "share" the wealth and resources. Then, every 5 years or so, there will be a Joseph Stalin-like purge of millions of people because there won't be enough producers left to provide for the people.

Can you say "who is John Galt"?

 

[P@triot]

You talk to anyone who actually works with public assistance. People do not prefer public assistance to working. The Right has been spreading this myth for years but has nothing to back it up with. And like almost everyone who has ever had to be on this assistance, they hate every second of it. They can't wait to get off of it because every time you use a Link card to buy food or a medical card, you feel like a failure. The sooner you can stop depending on that shit, the better. Regardless of what the extremists say, getting government assistance is not like finding buried treasure -- it's like digging coins out of the sewer.

Most people on public assistance don't live under a bridge in cardboard boxes. They have a roof over their head, enough food to eat and some things that we all take for granted, but that does not mean they prefer a life of handouts, dependence, and being label failure in life.

Flopper - the data is in and it's undeniable. These people don't spend decades on welfare because they are working relentlessly to get out of it. Quite the contrary, they are there because they are comfortable and happy.

There is far too much information out there Flopper for you to keep blindly accepting the liberal propaganda. Just because you and I would feel like a failure doesn't mean everyone else would as well. If the government data above isn't enough for you, how about REAL people:

[ame=http://youtu.be/bavou_SEj1E]I Got 15 Kids & 3 Babydaddys-SOMEONE'S GOTTA PAY FOR ME & MY KIDS!!! - YouTube[/ame]

How can you conclude that people on public assistance are comfortable and happy in their lives because they have amenities such cable TV, a DVD player, or air conditioning. You can buy a dvd player for $29.95, a used air conditioners for less than $50, and limited cable tv is available in many areas for less $30/mo. In fact most of the items on your list can be bought used at very low prices. Your data just doesn't support your conclusion. Also the data is skewed because many people receiving assistance are middle class income earners who receive assistance for less than year.

So in your mind, these items don't count because they don't cost a fortune?!? What in the hell kind of rational is that Flopper?!?

Dude - they people in "poverty" have freaking air conditioning!!! An exotic luxury in over 90% of the world. You think anyone in Ethiopia as A/C? Afghanistan? You liberals have lost all perspective on what "poverty" really is and it's glaring evidence that these people have a fuck load more than they need.

On one hand you people provide all of these imaginary sob stories of people dying in the streets of starvation and on the other hand you declare that people living in air conditioning with massive HD tv's, $400 Xbox's, and DVD players aren't comfortable enough

The fact is, they are comfortable which is exactly why they don't do anything about their situation. If you want to see them improve their lives, make them "uncomfortable in their poverty" (a quote by Ben Franklin). Once they are hungry for a couple of days, see how fast it lights a fire under their ass.

Go watch the Pursuit of Happyness Flopper - the true story about Chris Gardner. He was perfectly content in his poverty (and there is nothing wrong with that so long as you don't expect someone else to pay your way). But the moment his wife left him and he could no longer afford to keep a roof under his sons head or food on his plate - the man got motivated and went from poverty to multi-millionaire.

You ensure the people in the ghetto remain in the ghetto by giving them no reason at all to want to get out. Sadly, that is by design for the overwhelming majority of your party. Keep the masses convinced they are helpless, keep them content in their poverty, and keep them hooked on government subsidies to ensure re-election and thus power.

 

[P@triot]

I haven't seen any statistics that support your claim that the vast majority of welfare funding gets gobbled up by that tiny minority. The fact is that the welfare queen today is more myth than fact. Welfare programs are much different today than they were in the 1980's or 1990's. Half the number of families that received assistance via TANF in 1997 are receiving assistance today. In addition, about 62 percent of never-married moms ages 20 to 49 with a high school degree or less were working in 2011. That's a 51% improvement over 1992.

The problem is not that people on welfare aren't working because most people who receive welfare are working. The problem is the jobs are part time or temporary jobs that pay practical nothing. If we want to reduce the number of people on welfare, we have to find a way to create job that they are qualified to do. Most of those jobs disappeared year ago.

The myth of the modern welfare queen

How about of they find a way to become qualified for jobs that pay better?
If 10% of the people in your city only have the skill set to sweep a broom, should your city make sure that 10% of the jobs are broom sweepers? That seems kind of dumb to me.

It is and that's one of the reasons we have public assistance.

Actually there are plenty of students in community colleges on food stamps and medicaid. The problem for so many long term welfare recipients is becoming employable in a job that will make them self supporting which is a lot more than getting a little education. Long term welfare recipients have to overcome problems such as a history of addiction, physical, mental, or emotional disabilities, lanugage problems, and criminal records. Many of those on welfare have dependents such as aging parents, young children, relatives with disabilities to be cared for. People like this just don't qualify for jobs that pay enough to be self supporting.

When you start looking at people who are perpetually on welfare, you come up with the inescapable conclusion. Nobody is going to hire these people into anything other than a shit job that pays practically nothing.

And that's because the idiot socialist policies of the a Dumbocrats ensures that jobs will be scarce due to the devastating job-crushing taxes to cover the costs of the socialism.

The day you guys wake up and figure this out is the day this nation will flourish. Until then, you guys will continue to collapse city after city like a cancer until they are all 3rd world shit-holes like Detroit.

 

[rdean]

...states are using $8.00 as their minimum wage. If we could increase it to $10, and at the same time, decrease welfare and food stamps by 20% each year for 5 years, taxing benefits at 10%, welfare recipients would finally see that getting a job would be more lucrative ...

Sounds like you think that raising minimum wages will increase people's wages. Please understand that no government has the authority to repeal the law of supply and demand, and the only thing a min.wage law does is outlaw the hiring of cheap labor.

The way it works is people are different and each person's labor has its own unique market value. If you can cut a $0.25 profit by buying work from someone who's worth $7.50/hour, then you'll do it. When an $8 minwage turns that profit into a loss, there's nothing to stop you from laying the guy off and setting up a different shop that uses superior more productive labor that's worth every penny of the $8 that you now have got to pay.

Higher minimum wage = fewer jobs
Lower minimum wage = more jobs.

You know that working at McDonald's costs the government 5 billion a year, right? There was a very recent thread on it.

 

[rdean]

Work doing what? Republicans helped move the jobs and factories overseas and they block every single jobs bill. What is it America is supposed to do?

[MENTION=20394]rdean[/MENTION] - I know your IQ is exceptionally low (even by normal Dumbocrat standards) but surely even you can grasp that the Dumbocrats are solely responsible for moving every job overseas?

Just think about this logically for a second retard. Nobody wants to move their operations overseas. It costs hundreds of millions to provide severance packages for existing employees, build facilities overseas, recruit foreign workers, train them, meet requirements of foreign regulations, etc.

So why would anyone do it? Because Dumbocrats have put everyone out of business with devastating taxes, crushing regulations, and artificially inflated salaries thanks to union extortion. Dumbocrats have made it so impossible to conduct business in the United States and still stay in business, that it's more affordable to spend hundreds of millions moving their entire operations to a foreign nation.

Speaks volumes about the failure of Dumbocrat policy, doesn't it?

Hilarious. Republicans work hand in hand with business and this tard says it's the Democrats fault. Republicans sure do attract the "stupid".

Report: U.S. has lost 2.4M jobs to China from 2001 to 2008 - The Hill - covering Congress, Politics, Political Campaigns and Capitol Hill | TheHill.com

2.4 million jobs lost due to China from 2001-2008

Outsourcing Report: Republicans Rewarding Corporations that Ship U.S. Jobs Overseas

 

[jasonnfree]

Can any of you loons give an example of a country that doesn't have a robust government backed safety net in place and has a low poverty rate?

I mean, you're so sure that if we just remove the safety net for the poor that they will suddenly "become motivated" and climb out of poverty. So how about some examples of this in action.

Hey [MENTION=23461]RDD_1210[/MENTION], I can certainly give you endless examples of nations which collapsed because of their "robust governments" (interesting way of putting that by the way) "safety nets". Would you like some of those?

U.S.S.R.
Cuba
Greece
Spain
Vietnam
North Korea
Cambodia
Ethiopia
Mongolia

(Is that enough to get you started kid?)

Your list is third world countries. How about nations that haven't collapsed by having safety nets such as all the scandanavian and european countries and of course USA, still the strongest country in the world even though republicans said FDR would ruin the country with socialistic social security over seventy five years ago? Why do republicans want to turn this country into victorian england? Why do republicans hate and ridicule the poor and then at the same time try to pretend they're christians?

 

[shikaki]

Dude - they people in "poverty" have freaking air conditioning!!! An exotic luxury in over 90% of the world. You think anyone in Ethiopia as A/C? Afghanistan? You liberals have lost all perspective on what "poverty" really is and it's glaring evidence that these people have a **** load more than they need.

Many of the countries you mentioned don't have toilets either, should we expect our fellow citizens to pee in the streets?

You ensure the people in the ghetto remain in the ghetto by giving them no reason at all to want to get out. Sadly, that is by design for the overwhelming majority of your party. Keep the masses convinced they are helpless, keep them content in their poverty, and keep them hooked on government subsidies to ensure re-election and thus power.

I'm assuming with your post that you have enjoyed some of that quality time in the ghetto?

 

[P@triot]

Work doing what? Republicans helped move the jobs and factories overseas and they block every single jobs bill. What is it America is supposed to do?

[MENTION=20394]rdean[/MENTION] - I know your IQ is exceptionally low (even by normal Dumbocrat standards) but surely even you can grasp that the Dumbocrats are solely responsible for moving every job overseas?

Just think about this logically for a second retard. Nobody wants to move their operations overseas. It costs hundreds of millions to provide severance packages for existing employees, build facilities overseas, recruit foreign workers, train them, meet requirements of foreign regulations, etc.

So why would anyone do it? Because Dumbocrats have put everyone out of business with devastating taxes, crushing regulations, and artificially inflated salaries thanks to union extortion. Dumbocrats have made it so impossible to conduct business in the United States and still stay in business, that it's more affordable to spend hundreds of millions moving their entire operations to a foreign nation.

Speaks volumes about the failure of Dumbocrat policy, doesn't it?

Hilarious. Republicans work hand in hand with business and this tard says it's the Democrats fault. Republicans sure do attract the "stupid".

Report: U.S. has lost 2.4M jobs to China from 2001 to 2008 - The Hill - covering Congress, Politics, Political Campaigns and Capitol Hill | TheHill.com

2.4 million jobs lost due to China from 2001-2008

Outsourcing Report: Republicans Rewarding Corporations that Ship U.S. Jobs Overseas

@Rdean - simple question - even for a mongoloid like you: would any business move jobs overseas if it were cheaper to keep jobs here?

Come on Dumbocrats - think real hard. As long as you continue to punish success, successful people will go somewhere else where they are welcomed. Can you say "who is John Galt", idiot?

 

[P@triot]

Many of the countries you mentioned don't have toilets either, should we expect our fellow citizens to pee in the streets?

No - just like we shouldn't expect parasites mooching off of the government to have exotic luxuries that literally 95% of the world does not have.

How pathetic that you're actually trying to justify government dependents owning expensive & frivolous items like a $400 Xbox. Speaks volumes about what a bunch of unhinged and entitled little bitches you Dumbocrats have become, doesn't it?

I'm assuming with your post that you have enjoyed some of that quality time in the ghetto?

And I assume you're a fuck'n idiot? Yeah - you definitely have confirmed that with your ignorant post desperately trying to justify government dependents having expensive & frivolous items like a $400 Xbox.

 

[P@triot]

...states are using $8.00 as their minimum wage. If we could increase it to $10, and at the same time, decrease welfare and food stamps by 20% each year for 5 years, taxing benefits at 10%, welfare recipients would finally see that getting a job would be more lucrative ...

Sounds like you think that raising minimum wages will increase people's wages. Please understand that no government has the authority to repeal the law of supply and demand, and the only thing a min.wage law does is outlaw the hiring of cheap labor.

The way it works is people are different and each person's labor has its own unique market value. If you can cut a $0.25 profit by buying work from someone who's worth $7.50/hour, then you'll do it. When an $8 minwage turns that profit into a loss, there's nothing to stop you from laying the guy off and setting up a different shop that uses superior more productive labor that's worth every penny of the $8 that you now have got to pay.

Higher minimum wage = fewer jobs
Lower minimum wage = more jobs.

You know that working at McDonald's costs the government 5 billion a year, right? There was a very recent thread on it.

You know that's only because of idiot policies of you Dumbocrats, right? Because you assholes believe someone mopping a floor should live like Bill Gates - including owning a private jet, owning a 12,000ft home, and having a 60" plasma tv every room of said home.

If you selfish, greedy, communist fuck'n idiots would just abide by the highest law in the land, that $5 billion would be where it belongs - in the pockets of the people who earned it - and there would be a shit load of more and better jobs out there,

 

[shikaki]

Many of the countries you mentioned don't have toilets either, should we expect our fellow citizens to pee in the streets?

No - just like we shouldn't expect parasites mooching off of the government to have exotic luxuries that literally 95% of the world does not have.

How pathetic that you're actually trying to justify government dependents owning expensive & frivolous items like a $400 Xbox. Speaks volumes about what a bunch of unhinged and entitled little *****es you Dumbocrats have become, doesn't it?

I'm assuming with your post that you have enjoyed some of that quality time in the ghetto?

And I assume you're a ****'n idiot? Yeah - you definitely have confirmed that with your ignorant post desperately trying to justify government dependents having expensive & frivolous items like a $400 Xbox.

wow.. Very good responses.. You have it all sorted out...LOL One word for you Idiot or Troll, you pick...

 

[shikaki]

You know that's only because of idiot policies of you Dumbocrats, right? Because you *******s believe someone mopping a floor should live like Bill Gates - including owning a private jet, owning a 12,000ft home, and having a 60" plasma tv every room of said home.

If you selfish, greedy, communist ****'n idiots would just abide by the highest law in the land, that $5 billion would be where it belongs - in the pockets of the people who earned it - and there would be a **** load of more and better jobs out there,

I think that is potentially one of the dumbest responses I have ever read on any site..

 

[RDD_1210]

Can any of you loons give an example of a country that doesn't have a robust government backed safety net in place and has a low poverty rate?

I mean, you're so sure that if we just remove the safety net for the poor that they will suddenly "become motivated" and climb out of poverty. So how about some examples of this in action.

Still not a single answer to this.

Not surprising at all.