Obama: "We're responsible for each other". Really? Since when?

[DiamondDave]

You blew it in the first sentence. These "entitlements" were EARNED by those workers and PROMISED by the people they work for.

.

Tell me how welfare is earned? How is Medicaid earned? Unemployment is only earned up to the amount you and your employer pay in...or it should be. How does one earn money by simply having babies. You gave up easily as there was no response to my last point. Want to try again with the entire debate of just pick one line (unemployment is not the entitlement I was speaking of but go ahead and answer the welfare question then tell me again how I "blew it".

First of all welfare and Medicaid is earned by the taxes we pay. It is entitled because we are Americans. It is OUR safety net (yours and mine). And there are plenty of wage earners that found themselves disabled due to sickness and/or accidents. And anyone who says "I will never need welfare" is either an egotist or stupid.

The same thing goes with voting. We can vote because we are American citizens and have the right to pick who controls our destiny. If you want to deny voting rights to any group of people (except felons) then you must decide exactly who and what criteria must be met to be able to vote. You'll cause one hell of a mess and people who are unjustly disenfranchised. If you think elections are a mess now just wait till you see the lawsuits from the changes YOU want to make!!

.

No... it is not earned from taxes "we" pay.... the recipients do not "earn" it.. the majority do not pay into the federal income tax system.. the taxpayer earns it, and it is handed out to the one that did not do a damn thing to earn it... in some misguided concept that the entitlement junkie is entitled to the benefits of the earnings of others... which is completely against the concepts of freedom and private property rights

 

[DaGoose]

Tell me how welfare is earned? How is Medicaid earned? Unemployment is only earned up to the amount you and your employer pay in...or it should be. How does one earn money by simply having babies. You gave up easily as there was no response to my last point. Want to try again with the entire debate of just pick one line (unemployment is not the entitlement I was speaking of but go ahead and answer the welfare question then tell me again how I "blew it".

First of all welfare and Medicaid is earned by the taxes we pay. It is entitled because we are Americans. It is OUR safety net (yours and mine). And there are plenty of wage earners that found themselves disabled due to sickness and/or accidents. And anyone who says "I will never need welfare" is either an egotist or stupid.

The same thing goes with voting. We can vote because we are American citizens and have the right to pick who controls our destiny. If you want to deny voting rights to any group of people (except felons) then you must decide exactly who and what criteria must be met to be able to vote. You'll cause one hell of a mess and people who are unjustly disenfranchised. If you think elections are a mess now just wait till you see the lawsuits from the changes YOU want to make!!

.

No... it is not earned from taxes "we" pay.... the recipients do not "earn" it.. the majority do not pay into the federal income tax system.. the taxpayer earns it, and it is handed out to the one that did not do a damn thing to earn it... in some misguided concept that the entitlement junkie is entitled to the benefits of the earnings of others... which is completely against the concepts of freedom and private property rights

Bullshit. Most people that collect welfare are NOT lifetime freeloaders. That is just plain wrong.

1) There are many people who work full time jobs yet still qualify for some welfare benefits.

2) Many, if not most, people collects welfare for only a few years with the average being two. Hence....they paid in and now need a TEMPORARY safety net.

.

 

[DiamondDave]

First of all welfare and Medicaid is earned by the taxes we pay. It is entitled because we are Americans. It is OUR safety net (yours and mine). And there are plenty of wage earners that found themselves disabled due to sickness and/or accidents. And anyone who says "I will never need welfare" is either an egotist or stupid.

The same thing goes with voting. We can vote because we are American citizens and have the right to pick who controls our destiny. If you want to deny voting rights to any group of people (except felons) then you must decide exactly who and what criteria must be met to be able to vote. You'll cause one hell of a mess and people who are unjustly disenfranchised. If you think elections are a mess now just wait till you see the lawsuits from the changes YOU want to make!!

.

No... it is not earned from taxes "we" pay.... the recipients do not "earn" it.. the majority do not pay into the federal income tax system.. the taxpayer earns it, and it is handed out to the one that did not do a damn thing to earn it... in some misguided concept that the entitlement junkie is entitled to the benefits of the earnings of others... which is completely against the concepts of freedom and private property rights

Bullshit. Most people that collect welfare are NOT lifetime freeloaders. That is just plain wrong.

1) There are many people who work full time jobs yet still qualify for some welfare benefits.

2) Many, if not most, people collects welfare for only a few years with the average being two. Hence....they paid in and now need a TEMPORARY safety net.

.

Most people who take welfare fall into the category of persons who do not owe federal income tax...

Hence being non-contributors who draw something back out... taking benefit from the earnings of others

 

[Big Fitz]

Well, I make it a point to never listen to an atheist tell me what a Christian is.

Yep, like a Queer tryin' to describe marriage.

Or a wing nut trying to describe tolerance and compassion.

BTW...I noticed Big Fitz liked your post. I suppose he's going to try and say that Jesus would call them names and cast stones? Wait.....maybe in his belief he would think that Jesus would do that.

.

Whine whine WHINE whine whine. I don't give a fuck over political correctness. But you can try to hide behind your pharisee skirts if you want. Ain't working though. I've seen enough bad teaching in my life to know a poltical snowjob with Christian trimmings on sight.

1. Christ teaches that not one "Jot or tittle" of the law has been done away with. Only forgiveness for sin is offered through the sacrifice of Christ.
2. Homosexuality is an abomination to the eyes of God.
3. You think that Jesus would approve of "Adam and Steve's" behavior let alone their definition of marriage?
4. My agreement was with the concept, not the term.

You're still trying to hammer scripture home to fit your political correctness, which is evil unto itself. It codifies racism and the striation of people into false separation from God, and excuses abominable unrepentant behavior. Yeah, some real good teaching there.

 

[Big Fitz]

forced wealth transfer payments, stealing the labor of one to give to the parasitic behavior of another is simply immoral


Democrats are truly evil

You want to deny help to the crippled and infirm and you say I'M the evil one.

Oh yeah.....Jesus would agree with YOU on that.

.

Cite one time in scripture where Christ took from another person, against their will to help someone. Just one.

 

[Samson]

Well, I make it a point to never listen to an atheist tell me what a Christian is.

Yep, like a Queer tryin' to describe marriage.

Or a wing nut trying to describe tolerance and compassion.

BTW...I noticed Big Fitz liked your post. I suppose he's going to try and say that Jesus would call them names and cast stones? Wait.....maybe in his belief he would think that Jesus would do that.

.

I let others speak for themselves.

I only hope that unlike you, Fitz won't appear idiotic.

 

[Big Fitz]

forced wealth transfer payments, stealing the labor of one to give to the parasitic behavior of another is simply immoral


Democrats are truly evil

You want to deny help to the crippled and infirm and you say I'M the evil one.

Oh yeah.....Jesus would agree with YOU on that.

.

And here we have the prime example of liberal paranoid talking points, fully on display.

LMAO!......And they wonder why their weak, loony liberal/progressive agenda is going down the fucking tubes.

Yep. Another person who doesn't get the fact that the Body of Christ has different ministries for every person in it. Some, are to preach and bring the word of God to those who do not know it. Some are to care for the sick and dying. Some are to be there for those in financial stress and desperate need. Some are called to intercessory prayer. Some are given the gift of teaching in depth and discernment for God's word.

No where does God say everyone must do the same as everyone else. When one of His disciples began to get jealous of how Christ interacted with another one, Christ admonished him. He was told flatly to not concern himself with how he interacted with the other disciple. He was to follow Him, and not let this interaction become a stumbling block to His own path.

So while DaGewse wants everyone to be responsible for every poor and hungry person in the world all the time, regardless of their ability or calling, God is not calling everyone to do that. If Gewse's heart is convicted to helping the sick, homeless and broken, God's calling is on HIM and HIM alone.

Jesus stated we will always have poor people, but we wouldn't always have Him. We are to reach out and help those when our hearts are convicted in our conscience to do so. That is God getting our attention. Nowhere does God say that we are to do this to EVER LAST PERSON as if it is our responsibility to make them well. Nowhere does God charge a government to take care of every last whim or need of the people from cradle to grave. It is not in scripture where government or any proxy of man's government is responsible to salve the wounds and feed everyone.

It is only implied by twisting scripture to assuage the guilt of the left who ignore the conviction of their heart, or have such a deep conviction that it is destructive to themselves to accomplish it. That is not of God but the enemy.

 

[DaGoose]

forced wealth transfer payments, stealing the labor of one to give to the parasitic behavior of another is simply immoral


Democrats are truly evil

You want to deny help to the crippled and infirm and you say I'M the evil one.

Oh yeah.....Jesus would agree with YOU on that.

.

Cite one time in scripture where Christ took from another person, against their will to help someone. Just one.

Sure. As soon as you provide evidence that supports YOUR contention that Jesus would disapprove a nation using its resources to help the poor and needy.

.

 

[Big Fitz]

forced wealth transfer payments, stealing the labor of one to give to the parasitic behavior of another is simply immoral


Democrats are truly evil

You want to deny help to the crippled and infirm and you say I'M the evil one.

Oh yeah.....Jesus would agree with YOU on that.

.

NO DUMBASS... We seek to DENY forced Charity.

Forced giving is never charity. Force is anathema of charity.

 

[Big Fitz]

You want to deny help to the crippled and infirm and you say I'M the evil one.

Oh yeah.....Jesus would agree with YOU on that.

.

Cite one time in scripture where Christ took from another person, against their will to help someone. Just one.

Sure. As soon as you provide evidence that supports YOUR contention that Jesus would disapprove a nation using its resources to help the poor and needy.

.

Can't prove a negative, dumbass. His approval of national forced charity doesn't exist. Try again.

Therefore it's up to you to prove it DOES exist.

 

[Big Fitz]

Yep, like a Queer tryin' to describe marriage.

Or a wing nut trying to describe tolerance and compassion.

BTW...I noticed Big Fitz liked your post. I suppose he's going to try and say that Jesus would call them names and cast stones? Wait.....maybe in his belief he would think that Jesus would do that.

.

I let others speak for themselves.

I only hope that unlike you, Fitz won't appear idiotic.

Oh crap! That could be difficult.

 

[DaGoose]

Yep, like a Queer tryin' to describe marriage.

Or a wing nut trying to describe tolerance and compassion.

BTW...I noticed Big Fitz liked your post. I suppose he's going to try and say that Jesus would call them names and cast stones? Wait.....maybe in his belief he would think that Jesus would do that.

.

Whine whine WHINE whine whine. I don't give a fuck over political correctness. But you can try to hide behind your pharisee skirts if you want. Ain't working though. I've seen enough bad teaching in my life to know a poltical snowjob with Christian trimmings on sight.

1. Christ teaches that not one "Jot or tittle" of the law has been done away with. Only forgiveness for sin is offered through the sacrifice of Christ.
2. Homosexuality is an abomination to the eyes of God.
3. You think that Jesus would approve of "Adam and Steve's" behavior let alone their definition of marriage?
4. My agreement was with the concept, not the term.

You're still trying to hammer scripture home to fit your political correctness, which is evil unto itself. It codifies racism and the striation of people into false separation from God, and excuses abominable unrepentant behavior. Yeah, some real good teaching there.

And of course God has selected YOU to be their "Judge", right?

I can just see you judging Jesus for eating and drinking with sinners and forgiving the adulteress.

You not only "don't give a fuck for political correctness", you have shown you don't give a fuck about the poor, needy, disabled and crippled.

.

 

[Big Fitz]

You want to deny help to the crippled and infirm and you say I'M the evil one.

Oh yeah.....Jesus would agree with YOU on that.

.

No. we would have helped them without the government. Now they will suffer and suffer, because you caused an economic collapse.

Why? You (or we) never have before. There's a reason welfare programs were created in the first place.

Even today with the programs already in place charities cannot keep up with the need.

.

Yes. Purchasing votes and creating second class citizenry of minorities who are disproportionately on it.

 

[DaGoose]

Cite one time in scripture where Christ took from another person, against their will to help someone. Just one.

Sure. As soon as you provide evidence that supports YOUR contention that Jesus would disapprove a nation using its resources to help the poor and needy.

.

Can't prove a negative, dumbass. His approval of national forced charity doesn't exist. Try again.

Therefore it's up to you to prove it DOES exist.

Ok....you can't do it.

Thanks for playing.........

.

 

[Jarhead]

No. we would have helped them without the government. Now they will suffer and suffer, because you caused an economic collapse.

Why? You (or we) never have before. There's a reason welfare programs were created in the first place.

Even today with the programs already in place charities cannot keep up with the need.

.

Yes. Purchasing votes and creating second class citizenry of minorities who are disproportionately on it.

you know what is sad...I mean really sad....I am a recruiter/busines planner in the NYC area. I experience how the chronically unemployed and the less financially stable groups of people act as it pertains to "striving" for success.

I know the truth. I see it, feel it and expereience it everyday.

Our politicians know the truth...and they speak in front of the cameras and outright deny it....day after day after day....

They know the truth....and they are doing their best to fool the American people in an effort to strenthen their base.

 

[Big Fitz]

Or a wing nut trying to describe tolerance and compassion.

BTW...I noticed Big Fitz liked your post. I suppose he's going to try and say that Jesus would call them names and cast stones? Wait.....maybe in his belief he would think that Jesus would do that.

.

Whine whine WHINE whine whine. I don't give a fuck over political correctness. But you can try to hide behind your pharisee skirts if you want. Ain't working though. I've seen enough bad teaching in my life to know a poltical snowjob with Christian trimmings on sight.

1. Christ teaches that not one "Jot or tittle" of the law has been done away with. Only forgiveness for sin is offered through the sacrifice of Christ.
2. Homosexuality is an abomination to the eyes of God.
3. You think that Jesus would approve of "Adam and Steve's" behavior let alone their definition of marriage?
4. My agreement was with the concept, not the term.

You're still trying to hammer scripture home to fit your political correctness, which is evil unto itself. It codifies racism and the striation of people into false separation from God, and excuses abominable unrepentant behavior. Yeah, some real good teaching there.

And of course God has selected YOU to be their "Judge", right?

I can just see you judging Jesus for eating and drinking with sinners and forgiving the adulteress.

You not only "don't give a fuck for political correctness", you have shown you don't give a fuck about the poor, needy, disabled and crippled.

.

never claimed I was judging their spirits. Only judging the fruits of their activities and your words.

Ever hear of the gift of Discernment? I can tell by your statements, you're not blessed with it.

As a poor person I do care and probably give more towards the betterment of poor people than you do by the simple act of taking one to dinner. Proportionately, every time I give, it's a larger percentage of my income than yours.

My ministry is not for the crippled, and disabled. God doesn't convict my heart that way. I was not given the gifts to help them. I have been blessed in other ways. You don't demand a sword act like a spoon. You don't try to use a wrench to drive a nail. Your foolishness overflows your cup.

How many demons have YOU cast out in your life? Have you helped save someone from a lifetime of spiritual oppression? How many people have you talked down from suicide? How many people have you helped understand God's word for them deeper? I've done so many times. My work lies there. You, Martha, get back into the kitchen and serve there. I'll be out taking care of those who fight the powers and principalities if not doing some myself.

Unable to get the point in 3...2...1...

 

[Big Fitz]

Sure. As soon as you provide evidence that supports YOUR contention that Jesus would disapprove a nation using its resources to help the poor and needy.

.

Can't prove a negative, dumbass. His approval of national forced charity doesn't exist. Try again.

Therefore it's up to you to prove it DOES exist.

Ok....you can't do it.

Thanks for playing.........

.

Prove fliggleblops don't exist you fucking retard.

 

[Samson]

And of course God has selected YOU to be their "Judge", right?

I can just see you judging Jesus for eating and drinking with sinners and forgiving the adulteress.

You not only "don't give a fuck for political correctness", you have shown you don't give a fuck about the poor, needy, disabled and crippled.

.

Well, admittedly, he has shown a certain intolerance for your brand of retarded posting.

 

[Mr Liberty]

You want to deny help to the crippled and infirm and you say I'M the evil one.

Oh yeah.....Jesus would agree with YOU on that.

.

No. we would have helped them without the government. Now they will suffer and suffer, because you caused an economic collapse.

Why? You (or we) never have before. There's a reason welfare programs were created in the first place.

Even today with the programs already in place charities cannot keep up with the need.

.

Charities are unable to keep up only during depressions.
BRIA 14 3 a How Welfare Began in the United States

Charities handled the problem just fine from 1783 to 1930 and could/should have after 1940. Welfare has cause great harm to the recipients by holding them at the poverty level for generations.

 

[Vanquish]

I paged back about 10 pages and saw what invariably I knew I'd see...some bullshit about how lazy minorities are breaking the back of the government.

Living in Alabama, one of the amazing bits of rhetoric I get to hear over and over is "I'm payin' for all these laze abouts to just sit there and not work." The corollary is often "If people really wanted a job, they can find one." Really? Seriously? Wow.

With certain legislators axing the extension of unemployment benefits - one of the defenses I've heard has been a retreat to that "lazy bum" drivel.

Let me hit you with something that might seem counter-intuitive: increasing unemployment benefits actually creates jobs.

That's the exact rationale for having automatic stabilizers like unemployment insurance that kick in during these kinds of fiscal downturns. From that CBO report:


Extending additional unemployment benefits would directly help those who would otherwise exhaust their unemployment benefits between March and December of this year. Households receiving unemployment benefits tend to spend the additional benefits quickly, making this option both timely and cost-effective in spurring economic activity and employment. A variant of this option would extend assistance with paying health insurance premiums, which would allow some recipients to maintain health insurance coverage they would otherwise have dropped. This variant would result in increased demand for health care services, and it would increase the income available to purchase other goods and services for recipients who would have purchased insurance even without this special assistance. Both policy options could dampen people’s efforts to look for work, although that concern is less of a factor when employment opportunities are expected to be limited for some time.

CBO estimates that the policies would raise output cumulatively between 2010 and 2015 by $0.70 to $1.90 per dollar of total budgetary cost. CBO also estimates that the policies would add 8 to 19 cumulative years of full-time-equivalent employment in 2010 and 2011 per million dollars of total budgetary cost.



Economies are based on people buying good and services. For example, that's why deficit spending on food stamps during downturns has similar effects to unemployment compensation and for a similar reason. Empirical data shows that every additional $5 spent on them--through emergency spending--spurs up to $9.20 in economic activity. Moreover, as Hanson and Golan conclude in that brief:


Ultimately, whether growth in the Food Stamp Program stimulates economic activity depends on the funding mechanism—emergency financing stimulates economic activity in a recession, while budget-neutral financing does not. However, in either scenario, the increase in FSP expenditures raises the budgets of food stamp recipient households, stabilizing recipients’ food consumption and their well-being during economic downturns. Both scenarios also result in increased demand and production in the agriculture and food sectors, stabilizing economic activities in these key rural sectors during downturns in the economy.



Exactly the reason why stimulus (emergency funding) contained a large amount of money for food stamps:


Today, USDA Under Secretary Kevin Concannon marked the one year anniversary of the American Recovery and Reinvestment Act (AARA) of 2009, also known as the stimulus or recovery package, by announcing that ARRA invested more than $8 billion in local economies to feed the hungry through the Supplemental Nutrition Assistance Program (SNAP), formerly the Food Stamp Program with approximately $830 million more invested each month. In addition, through the Emergency Food Assistance program, States received an additional $150 million to support local food banks, food pantries and soup kitchens.



So extending programs like this during a recession has VALUE.

Here's more evidence in chart form. Red staters...pardon the use of the color Blue.

The attempts to play on stereotypes is class warfare that serves NO ONE. That goes for both sides. Trying to paint a group as lazy and unwilling to work? That's bull. Trying to paint the rich as evil and uncaring. That's bull too.

Come on people. We can be better critical thinkers than these stereotypes.