Poll for USMB conservatives: The social safety net

[alan1]

I'll defer to Ben

I am for doing good to the poor, but...I think the best way of doing good to the poor, is not making them easy in poverty, but leading or driving them out of it. I observed...that the more public provisions were made for the poor, the less they provided for themselves, and of course became poorer. And, on the contrary, the less was done for them, the more they did for themselves, and became richer.

 

[daveman]

"Social Safety Net" = Medicare, Medicaid, food stamps, tax deductions, tax credits, corporate and farm subsidies, GSEs, bailouts, public transportation, price supports, public works, ObamaCare...ad infinitum.

Let he who is without a government tit in his mouth cast the first stone.

Duck,

I'll handle this for you, g.

"You drive on ROADS, Alan! You're a SOCIALIST!!"

 

[rightwinger]

I am a firm believer in begging for ones meals

 

[alan1]

"Social Safety Net" = Medicare, Medicaid, food stamps, tax deductions, tax credits, corporate and farm subsidies, GSEs, bailouts, public transportation, price supports, public works, ObamaCare...ad infinitum.

Let he who is without a government tit in his mouth cast the first stone.

Duck,

I'll handle this for you, g.

"You drive on ROADS, Alan! You're a SOCIALIST!!"

Well, I do pay gasoline tax that is used to build the roads I drive on. (Side note, bicyclists don't, but that is a whole other argument)
I might be more accommodating to have my taxes pay for welfare if I got a lawn mowing from the welfare queens now and then. Ya know, kinda like 'driving' that road also.
I guess it's not fair for me to expect a service from them whilst I provide a service (my taxes) to them.

 

[hortysir]

Duck,

I'll handle this for you, g.

"You drive on ROADS, Alan! You're a SOCIALIST!!"

Well, I do pay gasoline tax that is used to build the roads I drive on. (Side note, bicyclists don't, but that is a whole other argument)
I might be more accommodating to have my taxes pay for welfare if I got a lawn mowing from the welfare queens now and then. Ya know, kinda like 'driving' that road also.
I guess it's not fair for me to expect a service from them whilst I provide a service (my taxes) to them.

And they're not even required to LOOK for work

 

[JakeStarkey]

Start your own poll if you want prog horseshit included.

You are bound by the forum rules the same as always, nothing different.

Find me one that says I have to include the votes from lying progressives.

Find one that says you can exclude them.

You can't bar anyone from this or voting.

Step along, kid.

 

[FA_Q2]

Let's cut through the bullshit, okay.


My wife and me have both worked with "social safety net" folks for years. Very few are down on their luck. The overwhelming majority are lazy, stupid, general fuck ups, or like to stay high and/or a combination of all of the above.

Liberals who talk about this shit make me laugh because they have zero experience working with this population, and have no fucking idea what they're taking about.

The only thing that gets people off "social safety net programs" (I love the phrase, it's so Orwellian) is tough love. If you want a handout from the state...what does the state get in return. It better be something tangible or people will be on "social safety net" programs for generations.

Roughly 3%-5% of the population is truly mentally or physically disabled. They deserve help...but if you are labeled "disabled" and are getting benefits, you must surrender your driver's license. If you are so disabled you cannot work....you should not be capable of driving.

And people in prison should be required to work 8 hours a day like everyone else. Refuse to work put the person in solitary and add time to their sentence.

Finally, a quick story. My wife worked for many years as a child therapist in a inner city clinic. Roughly 70% of the Mothers and their kids were on welfare and other "social safety net programs," many for years. When welfare work requirements came into place, one of the mothers told my wife...."It's really hard to work and raise kids."

My wife said basically...."no shit, that's what everyone else in America does, tell me why you're so special and different?" Demand work in exchange for benefits and hold people accountable. That is the answer.

The problem with requiring them to work is that you are then just providing them with a useless job. You actually need a labor filled to give anyone a job and the government does not need to create positions for welfare takers. That creates a million other problems not the least oof which is growing the government out of proportion.

There should be some betterment requirements though. As other posters pointed out, requiring some sort of vocational training with actual passing scores is a good idea. That helps provide the recipients with more than simple needs but also provides them with actual marketable skills. It also provides motivation. Getting paid to sit on your ass is a good deal – why get a job. When you have to actually work for it then you might as well get a job. It will pay better anyway.

 

[DaGoose]

Currently, the count is 10 for a hand up, and 4 against.

Of course, Jake's vote doesn't count, since he's not a conservative.

What inspired this poll was a discussion I was having with [MENTION=26072]DaGoose[/MENTION]:

The vast majority of conservatives have no opposition to a societal safety net, despite what progressives tell each other.

(Really? Prove it.)

...his reply in red.

I'd say it's been proved.

You proved nothing.

EVERYBODY (except for the five who voted nothing for anybody) is in favor of giving people "hand ups" and...


NOBODY is in favor of just handing benefits willy-nilly to all who ask.

The rub is where that line is drawn with the definition of needy.

.

 

[eagle1462010]

I voted yes ONLY after reading the intent. Hand up, NOT A HAND OUT. If they are capable of doing something to EARN a living, they should have to do it.

 

[WelfareQueen]

I am a firm believer in begging for ones meals

Why don't you try working instead and stop being a parasite?

 

[Toro]

Yes.

People who truly need assistance should get it.

People who temporarily need assistance should also get it.

But it shouldn't be a way of life and should be periodically means tested.

 

[Toro]

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

Right.

There was no permanent underclass in the 5000 years of human history prior to the implementation of the social safety net.

lol

 

[thereisnospoon]

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.

The term 'disabled ' is perhaps the most abused of any term regarding public assistance.
So many people who claim they are injured and cannot work, simple decide they have had enough of working so they claim some mysterious malady and apply for SS Disability.
They then wait for their checks to start rolling in.
I had a worker who I gave jobs to tell me every day his wrist hurt and was slowing him down. He was telling me he was going to apply for SS Disability.
When I asked him if he could live on $900 per month he said no. Then he says he would go and get a job working for a courier company delivering envelopes and small packages. I asked him why defraud the taxpayers and collect. Why not work. His reaction was to the tune of 'fuck the government"..I asked him who he thought funded the government. No response. I stopped offering him work.

 

[thereisnospoon]

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.

Not true. Liberals seek to continue the flow of public money into these social programs as a means to keep the recipients voting democrat.
There has never ever been a goal to end poverty or give people a 'hand up'...It has always been a 'hand out'..

 

[thereisnospoon]

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.

Your way is thosands of times worse. Government uses poverty as a tool for political gain.
The cost is in the trillions. Waste fraud and abuse are rampant.
60% of the federal budget is gobbled up by social entitlements with over half of that going to pay do nothing bureaucrats and their flunky workers.

 

[HenryBHough]

Think of "survival of the fittest" as just a more even-handed sort of natural death panel and you pinkos will love it.

 

[Contumacious]

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.

your way is thosands of times worse. Government uses poverty as a tool for political gain.
The cost is in the trillions. Waste fraud and abuse are rampant.
60% of the federal budget is gobbled up by social entitlements with over half of that going to pay do nothing bureaucrats and their flunky workers.

a welfare state = government buy the people

.

 

[rdean]

It's only good for white people.

 

[thereisnospoon]

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. .

Not at all. In fact, a reactionary such as you many others here wish to keep such classes without any form of support or opportunity to better themselve so you can exploit them economically: you know, child and adult labor and all that at less than the necessary wage to live. That way you get the whole family.

Let's cut out the bullshit, shall we.

 

[daveman]

You are bound by the forum rules the same as always, nothing different.

Find me one that says I have to include the votes from lying progressives.

Find one that says you can exclude them.

You can't bar anyone from this or voting.

Step along, kid.

I can't remove your vote from the database.

But I can ignore it when I count votes.

Now stop whining about it, kid.