Poll for USMB conservatives: The social safety net

[daveman]

USMB conservatives only, please. The poll will show who's voted, so any progs trying to game it will be exposed.

Question:

Do you support the social safety net? Programs that allow people to get back on their feet and off public assistance. A hand up, not a hand out.

This is in contrast to the professional, Nth-generation welfare recipients.

 

[The Rabbi]

What do you mean by "the social safety net"? That might be key here.
I'd be in favor of dismantling every federal program that deals with providing whatever to people. That role properly belongs to: the family, the community, the municipality, and the state, in that order.
Obviously people experience various hardships from time to time and need a hand temporarily. No one is saying they shouldn't have it. Nor is anyone saying people who genuinely are disabled and cannot work should not get any help. But too many people become "disabled" meaning they can't move furniture or roof houses, while they could be doing something else. And if min wage laws didnt apply they could probably find something.

 

[daveman]

What do you mean by "the social safety net"? That might be key here.

TANF and SNAP, primarily.

I'd be in favor of dismantling every federal program that deals with providing whatever to people. That role properly belongs to: the family, the community, the municipality, and the state, in that order.
Obviously people experience various hardships from time to time and need a hand temporarily. No one is saying they shouldn't have it. Nor is anyone saying people who genuinely are disabled and cannot work should not get any help. But too many people become "disabled" meaning they can't move furniture or roof houses, while they could be doing something else. And if min wage laws didnt apply they could probably find something.

I agree; there is way too much fraud.

 

[Redfish]

There should be a safety net, but only for the truly needy. Churches and charities should also be encouraged and incentivized to help because they do a much more efficient job of it.

 

[Steven_R]

I can live with a temporary safety net with a lifetime cap on whatever benefits are available, but there should be no federal involvement whatsoever unless the Constitution is amended to provide for it. Let New York figure out how to cope with New York's poor without taxing Nebraskans in the process.

Given my druthers, it would include no cash or options going to the recipient. Something like a set amount and type of food based on family size and nutritional needs and the food gets picked up at a central processing point per county and would only be staples like rice, wheat, pasta, dehydrated milk, canned veggies and fruit, peanut butter, and eggs.

Not only would there be a cap on benefits and amount of time, but there would be a work requirement. Either prove that the recipient is working 40 hours per week or is a full time student, or the difference gets made up in public service work (cleaning graffiti, picking up trash, planting flowers and trees at parks, that kind of stuff).

Finally, there would be required birth control while on the program and any pregnancy immediately terminates the program for the recipient for life.

 

[C_Clayton_Jones]

USMB conservatives only, please. The poll will show who's voted, so any progs trying to game it will be exposed.

Question:

Do you support the social safety net? Programs that allow people to get back on their feet and off public assistance. A hand up, not a hand out.

This is in contrast to the professional, Nth-generation welfare recipients.

Liberals advocate a social safety net with programs that allow people to get back to work and off of public assistance. In fact, it’s often republicans who seek to end funding for education and training program designed to do just that.

And no one advocates any citizen being on public assistance for an extended period of time, liberals in particular; and when liberals indeed attempt to implement education and training programs to address the problem of those on long-term public assistance, they’re likely to run into resistance by republicans.

 

[ShootSpeeders]

Welfare is ok to a point but there is no question the constitution makes it a state matter and the feds must stay out.

 

[The Rabbi]

USMB conservatives only, please. The poll will show who's voted, so any progs trying to game it will be exposed.

Question:

Do you support the social safety net? Programs that allow people to get back on their feet and off public assistance. A hand up, not a hand out.

This is in contrast to the professional, Nth-generation welfare recipients.

Liberals advocate a social safety net with programs that allow people to get back to work and off of public assistance. In fact, it’s often republicans who seek to end funding for education and training program designed to do just that.

And no one advocates any citizen being on public assistance for an extended period of time, liberals in particular; and when liberals indeed attempt to implement education and training programs to address the problem of those on long-term public assistance, they’re likely to run into resistance by republicans.

Where have we ever seen liberals advocating less assistance? Who was behind the push to extend unemployment benefits to 99 weeks?

 

[ShootSpeeders]

[

Liberals advocate a social safety net with programs that allow people to get back to work and off of public assistance. In fact, it’s often republicans who seek to end funding for education and training program designed to do just that.

.

Damn right we oppose those programs because they're just more expensive BS. I'm sick of my money going to a bunch of "social workers" that don't do anything.

And liberals do NOT want the poor off the safety net. They want them to stay there and continue voting democrat - the welfare party.

 

[daveman]

USMB conservatives only, please. The poll will show who's voted, so any progs trying to game it will be exposed.

Question:

Do you support the social safety net? Programs that allow people to get back on their feet and off public assistance. A hand up, not a hand out.

This is in contrast to the professional, Nth-generation welfare recipients.

Liberals advocate a social safety net with programs that allow people to get back to work and off of public assistance. In fact, it’s often republicans who seek to end funding for education and training program designed to do just that.

And no one advocates any citizen being on public assistance for an extended period of time, liberals in particular; and when liberals indeed attempt to implement education and training programs to address the problem of those on long-term public assistance, they’re likely to run into resistance by republicans.

I'm sure you enjoy believing that. Welfare reform in 1996 was spearheaded by Republicans, and signed by Clinton solely with a eye towards votes.

 

[NoTeaPartyPleez]

What do you mean by "the social safety net"? That might be key here.
I'd be in favor of dismantling every federal program that deals with providing whatever to people. That role properly belongs to: the family, the community, the municipality, and the state, in that order.
Obviously people experience various hardships from time to time and need a hand temporarily. No one is saying they shouldn't have it. Nor is anyone saying people who genuinely are disabled and cannot work should not get any help. But too many people become "disabled" meaning they can't move furniture or roof houses, while they could be doing something else. And if min wage laws didnt apply they could probably find something.

Can you flesh out a scenario of how this works?

This sounds so reasonable: "That role properly belongs to: the family, the community, the municipality, and the state, in that order" doesn't it? But fails in practicality. So I must be missing something, but let me try:

John Doe incurs a hardship. So Plan A, he goes to his family. Ooops, they can't help him, they are living paycheck to paycheck, as are many Americans five years into the recession.

So John Doe now goes to "the community". Can you tell me what that looks like and where it is? Is that a food bank or a homeless shelter? Or the Community theater?

John Doe next goes to his "municipality". Again, what is that? In my town the municipal building houses the police department and the local township tax office.

You see, you people are just full of rhetorical shit. That's the conservative way. Pretty words with no fucking substance.

Carry on.

 

[daveman]

You see, you people are just full of rhetorical shit. That's the conservative way. Pretty words with no fucking substance.

Carry on. [/B]

 

[The Rabbi]

What do you mean by "the social safety net"? That might be key here.
I'd be in favor of dismantling every federal program that deals with providing whatever to people. That role properly belongs to: the family, the community, the municipality, and the state, in that order.
Obviously people experience various hardships from time to time and need a hand temporarily. No one is saying they shouldn't have it. Nor is anyone saying people who genuinely are disabled and cannot work should not get any help. But too many people become "disabled" meaning they can't move furniture or roof houses, while they could be doing something else. And if min wage laws didnt apply they could probably find something.

Can you flesh out a scenario of how this works?

This sounds so reasonable: "That role properly belongs to: the family, the community, the municipality, and the state, in that order" doesn't it? But fails in practicality. So I must be missing something, but let me try:

John Doe incurs a hardship. So Plan A, he goes to his family. Ooops, they can't help him, they are living paycheck to paycheck, as are many Americans five years into the recession.

So John Doe now goes to "the community". Can you tell me what that looks like and where it is? Is that a food bank or a homeless shelter? Or the Community theater?

John Doe next goes to his "municipality". Again, what is that? In my town the municipal building houses the police department and the local township tax office.

You see, you people are just full of rhetorical shit. That's the conservative way. Pretty words with no fucking substance.

Carry on.

What is "a hardship", jackoff? Lost his job? Drug and alcohol addiction? Needs an operation but no insurance?
Libs love filling in scenarios with the absolute worst case and if a solution can't be made then the whole idea is no good, regardless of how many real people it might help.

 

[Jackson]

I can live with a temporary safety net with a lifetime cap on whatever benefits are available, but there should be no federal involvement whatsoever unless the Constitution is amended to provide for it. Let New York figure out how to cope with New York's poor without taxing Nebraskans in the process.

Given my druthers, it would include no cash or options going to the recipient. Something like a set amount and type of food based on family size and nutritional needs and the food gets picked up at a central processing point per county and would only be staples like rice, wheat, pasta, dehydrated milk, canned veggies and fruit, peanut butter, and eggs.

Not only would there be a cap on benefits and amount of time, but there would be a work requirement. Either prove that the recipient is working 40 hours per week or is a full time student, or the difference gets made up in public service work (cleaning graffiti, picking up trash, planting flowers and trees at parks, that kind of stuff).

Finally, there would be required birth control while on the program and any pregnancy immediately terminates the program for the recipient for life.

If people are getting food stamps, stop the free breakfast and lunch programs. They are duplicative programs.

Before there were free lunches and free breakfast, the children ate at home. They were not starving or dying in the streets.

 

[JakeStarkey]

daveman does not control who participated on the Board: never has, never will.

I, who am not considered a 'conservative' by many of the far right, voted in "favor."

The Rabbi, who is in fact far beyond conservative and is in fact a rabid reactionary, wrote "I'd be in favor of dismantling every federal program that deals with providing whatever to people. That role properly belongs to: the family, the community, the municipality, and the state, in that order." Simply not true.

Conservatives would be far better off by paring off the reactionaries. This is why they have such a bad name in American politics.

 

[HenryBHough]

Survival of the fittest. Any safety net just allows the gene pool to become more corrupt.

 

[The Rabbi]

daveman does not control who participated on the Board: never has, never will.

I, who am not considered a 'conservative' by many of the far right, voted in "favor."

The Rabbi, who is in fact far beyond conservative and is in fact a rabid reactionary, wrote "I'd be in favor of dismantling every federal program that deals with providing whatever to people. That role properly belongs to: the family, the community, the municipality, and the state, in that order." Simply not true.

Conservatives would be far better off by paring off the reactionaries. This is why they have such a bad name in American politics.

So sez Jake, King of the Unsubstantiated Statement! Hail King of Fakery.

 

[Contumacious]

USMB conservatives only, please. The poll will show who's voted, so any progs trying to game it will be exposed.

Question:

Do you support the social safety net? Programs that allow people to get back on their feet and off public assistance. A hand up, not a hand out.

This is in contrast to the professional, Nth-generation welfare recipients.

In a FREE COUNTRY people are NOT compelled to share their hard earned money with someone else who they do not know.

Every time I go to Wal-Mart and buy an item I am helping someone else .

 

[daveman]

daveman does not control who participated on the Board: never has, never will.

I, who am not considered a 'conservative' by many of the far right, voted in "favor."

The Rabbi, who is in fact far beyond conservative and is in fact a rabid reactionary, wrote "I'd be in favor of dismantling every federal program that deals with providing whatever to people. That role properly belongs to: the family, the community, the municipality, and the state, in that order." Simply not true.

Conservatives would be far better off by paring off the reactionaries. This is why they have such a bad name in American politics.

Yes, but like most progressives, you want a permanent underclass to exploit.

You don't want assistance to be temporary.

Run along, boy.

 

[HenryBHough]

There will be NO permanent underclass when natural selection is allowed to function.