The Lazy Poor

[FJO]

1. This is Star Parker: "Parker was born to mostly absent parents and raised in a nonreligious home; she says she was raised "by the secular 'I'm okay, you're okay' doctrine that says people should be allowed to make their own rules and shouldn't judge other people's lives."

.

Nothing makes conservatives more happy than a self-loathing minority..

Nothing makes progressives more happy than free-loading, born-out-of-wedlock minority.

 

[PoliticalChic]

1. This is Star Parker: "Parker was born to mostly absent parents and raised in a nonreligious home; she says she was raised "by the secular 'I'm okay, you're okay' doctrine that says people should be allowed to make their own rules and shouldn't judge other people's lives."

.

Nothing makes conservatives more happy than a self-loathing minority..

Once again, on display, the modus operandi of the statist.

Since it is not possible to support your principles, instead, you attack those who exemplify the rectitude of a winning, conservative, strategy.

 

[kwc57]

This thread is even further proof that what conservatives really want is to make the poor poorer and the rich richer.

There is nothing in the conservative view of economic policy as it relates to rich and poor that does not strive for that goal.

Has Liesmatters hacked your account? I didn't know she had that much intelligence.

 

[Claudette]

This thread is even further proof that what conservatives really want is to make the poor poorer and the rich richer.

There is nothing in the conservative view of economic policy as it relates to rich and poor that does not strive for that goal.

Has Liesmatters hacked your account? I didn't know she had that much intelligence.

Yeah. He's so full of shit.

I just don't know where he and other lamebrains get the idea that everyone should feel obligated to help the poor.

No one asked me if I wanted my hardearned money going to the poor. Talk about noble idiots. Of course if they are asked to just spend their money on the poor I think you would see a big change of heart. The poor will take every dime they can get.

If you can't make responsible decisions in your life and get off your ass to take care of yourself then thats your damned problem. Not mine. And certainly not the taxpayers of America.

 

[Foxfyre]

You bet. Most of em do no want a job. They want the taxpayers of America to fund their lives for them. They don't have to get up and go to work or worry about where the money to pay the bills will come from.

Shit. You have Grandma, Mom and grandkid all with their illigitimate kids on welfare. No way will any of em get off their asses and take care of themselves. Why should they when we the taxpayer are forced to support them.

Of course they vote Democratic. Why wouldn't they. Thats the party that has foisted their responsibility onto the taxpayers of this country.

So we have established that Republicans do not want to offer employment opportunities because......they are too fucking lazy to take them

So Republicans what is your solution?

no, what we've determined is the democrats have a lock on the inner cities. they have for decades. they even have a lock on the community leaders. they have for decades too, and the message of those leaders since the days of Malcolm X have been let us control the business in our own communities. it's a locked society under democratic control. you want change, it has to start with the democrats. your boys. you admit they've done nothing. so make them do something. why do you continue to support a party you know is the root of the problem

The GOP's hands aren't clean either. Many a young visionary has gone to Washington only to be corrupted by the allure of power, prestige, influence, and almost unlimited ability to enrich themselves at our expense. And before long they too are expanding government and promising freebies to attract votes and/or campaign contributions from those who get the government benefits in whatever form. The GOP, however, has a constituency that clamors for fiscal responsibility and accountability so they grow the massive bloated government a bit more slowly than do the Democrats. But we are dishonest if we pretend they don't grow it.

But the GOP is still the party that looks to the best and most practical ways, as Ben Franklin said, to lead or drive people out of poverty because more Republicans do understand that you won't get people out of poverty by giving them money and stuff, and to keep them in poverty in order to benefit those in government is not compassion.

 

[koshergrl]

1. This is Star Parker: "Parker was born to mostly absent parents and raised in a nonreligious home; she says she was raised "by the secular 'I'm okay, you're okay' doctrine that says people should be allowed to make their own rules and shouldn't judge other people's lives."

.

Nothing makes conservatives more happy than a self-loathing minority..

Nothing makes progressives more happy than free-loading, born-out-of-wedlock minority.

You forgot "criminal" and "predatory".

 

[Spoonman]

So we have established that Republicans do not want to offer employment opportunities because......they are too fucking lazy to take them

So Republicans what is your solution?

no, what we've determined is the democrats have a lock on the inner cities. they have for decades. they even have a lock on the community leaders. they have for decades too, and the message of those leaders since the days of Malcolm X have been let us control the business in our own communities. it's a locked society under democratic control. you want change, it has to start with the democrats. your boys. you admit they've done nothing. so make them do something. why do you continue to support a party you know is the root of the problem

The GOP's hands aren't clean either. Many a young visionary has gone to Washington only to be corrupted by the allure of power, prestige, influence, and almost unlimited ability to enrich themselves at our expense. And before long they too are expanding government and promising freebies to attract votes and/or campaign contributions from those who get the government benefits in whatever form. The GOP, however, has a constituency that clamors for fiscal responsibility and accountability so they grow the massive bloated government a bit more slowly than do the Democrats. But we are dishonest if we pretend they don't grow it.

But the GOP is still the party that looks to the best and most practical ways, as Ben Franklin said, to lead or drive people out of poverty because more Republicans do understand that you won't get people out of poverty by giving them money and stuff, and to keep them in poverty in order to benefit those in government is not compassion.

no one in congress is innocent. The GOP has been becoming more and more guilty as well. they really fell flat on their faces during the bush administration. they kept clinton in check on spending and the results were positive, but they lost that practical thought process once bush was elected. when it comes to spending, they pretty much all fail IMO.

I see welfare as a problem much greater then spending. the problem I see with it is it has created a dependent society. it has created a non productive element of society. when welfare was first introduced in this country, it was done to get people working. you got paid, but you worked for it. that is smart spending of money. paying people just to exist, is poor spending. democrats can't introduce shovel ready jobs because these people on welfare are non union for one. and the unions wouldn't like that. second, for years they have been saying it would violate their rights. the first thing we have to do is recalibrate our mindsets. otherwise, we can never fix this problem. also, we have to make it very clear that you come here looking for work, do it legally and if you don't find it, there is no longer a free ride.

 

[Foxfyre]

no, what we've determined is the democrats have a lock on the inner cities. they have for decades. they even have a lock on the community leaders. they have for decades too, and the message of those leaders since the days of Malcolm X have been let us control the business in our own communities. it's a locked society under democratic control. you want change, it has to start with the democrats. your boys. you admit they've done nothing. so make them do something. why do you continue to support a party you know is the root of the problem

The GOP's hands aren't clean either. Many a young visionary has gone to Washington only to be corrupted by the allure of power, prestige, influence, and almost unlimited ability to enrich themselves at our expense. And before long they too are expanding government and promising freebies to attract votes and/or campaign contributions from those who get the government benefits in whatever form. The GOP, however, has a constituency that clamors for fiscal responsibility and accountability so they grow the massive bloated government a bit more slowly than do the Democrats. But we are dishonest if we pretend they don't grow it.

But the GOP is still the party that looks to the best and most practical ways, as Ben Franklin said, to lead or drive people out of poverty because more Republicans do understand that you won't get people out of poverty by giving them money and stuff, and to keep them in poverty in order to benefit those in government is not compassion.

no one in congress is innocent. The GOP has been becoming more and more guilty as well. they really fell flat on their faces during the bush administration. they kept clinton in check on spending and the results were positive, but they lost that practical thought process once bush was elected. when it comes to spending, they pretty much all fail IMO.

I see welfare as a problem much greater then spending. the problem I see with it is it has created a dependent society. it has created a non productive element of society. when welfare was first introduced in this country, it was done to get people working. you got paid, but you worked for it. that is smart spending of money. paying people just to exist, is poor spending. democrats can't introduce shovel ready jobs because these people on welfare are non union for one. and the unions wouldn't like that. second, for years they have been saying it would violate their rights. the first thing we have to do is recalibrate our mindsets. otherwise, we can never fix this problem. also, we have to make it very clear that you come here looking for work, do it legally and if you don't find it, there is no longer a free ride.

I can't quarrel with this. When you have a government that punishes initiative, hard work, and success, you have less initiative, hard work, and success.

When you have a government that rewards bad choices, irresponsibility, and dependency, you have more bad choices, irresponsibility, and dependency.

 

[NoNukes]

1. This is Star Parker: "Parker was born to mostly absent parents and raised in a nonreligious home; she says she was raised "by the secular 'I'm okay, you're okay' doctrine that says people should be allowed to make their own rules and shouldn't judge other people's lives."

She lived in Japan for three years and returned to the U.S., moving to East St. Louis, Illinois, at twelve, at which point she says she "just joined right in" with the "anger and tension among blacks" in the area.[4] "I bought into the lie that there was nothing in America for me except institutional racism and glass ceilings that would keep me from getting promoted," she said.[4]

She said that after one arrest for shoplifting, her white high school guidance counselor told her "not to worry about it, because I was a 'victim of racism, lashing out at society.'" [5] After attending church at the behest of her friends, she embraced Christianity and began turning her life around.[4]"
Star Parker - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia




2. In her book, "Uncle Sam's Plantation," Star Parker makes the point that there are several kinds of poor people. In one particularly poignant passage, she relates her own journey as one of the 'lazy poor.'

"Let me make sure that I understand you correctly," I inquired of the welfare caseworker as I presented her with my pregnancy confirmation note from a doctor. "All I have to do for you to send me $465 a month, $176 worth of food stamps, and 100% free medical and dental assistance is keep this baby. As long as I don't have a bank account, find a job, or get married, I qualify for aid? Where do I sign up?"

3. It was like winning the lottery....I had been looking for a way to finance my laziness. Now, at 23, I had finally found a source of income that did not require work.






4. I would steal money from my mother's purse...steal property and money from neighbors or local merchants....I lusted after the finest designer labels...and blamed racism, my parents, and any other excuse society would allow me to use for my laziness. My attitude of victimization, coupled with my unwillingness to develop the habits necessary to attain financial independence, led me further into poverty.

a. The root cause of this poverty is the perverse, counterproductive incentives arising from the welfare system itself. Charles Murray’s “Losing Ground” documented this effect using social indicators such as work, marriage, legitimacy, crime, and alcohol and drug abuse, and showing how the massive increase in government welfare programs worsened the problem.

b. Since productive activity not making any economic sense because of the work disincentives of the welfare plantation, other kinds of activities proliferate: drug and alcohol abuse, crime, recreational sex, illegitimacy, and family breakup are the new social norms, as does the culture of violence. From Peter Ferrara, “America’s Ticking Bankruptcy Bomb,” chapter five.





5. The lazy poor are the one poverty group for which a central government must facilitate welfare services through guilt and manipulation of the rest of the populace. This is because taxpayers generally despise this poverty group because, no matter how expensive the welfare programs are, the lazy poor always want more. They depend on the pity of liberal politicians to redistribute wealth, so that they can get what they want with little effort and no personal responsibility.

6. Compare this group to the economically challenged poor, whose tax payments offset most of the government benefits they might receive: no, the social consequences, and social costs due to the actions of the lazy poor are a financial drain on our entire tax system.

7. These are the "I couldn't care less" poor, the 'refuse to work' poor, and those poor who claim welfare benefits as their 'entitlement.' Some politicians believe they are doing these folks a favor by addicting them to a government-subsidized life. These are people who will be forever impoverished: they have bought the lie that poor people are poor because rich people are rich, and, therefore, they can demand that Uncle Sam fuels, or at least feels, their pain.





8. Dr. Thomas Sowell points out another sort of 'poor,' who aren't really poor. The terms ‘the rich’ and ‘the poor’ are seldom defined. Thus, there are mistakes in understanding the difference between the flow of income during a given year, and what has been accumulated. Similarly, the poor are usually defined in terms of current income, rather than how much they have or have not accumulated. Income and wealth are not the same thing. So, government definitions based on income can be misleading.
For many hand-wringing, bleeding-heat Liberals the following distinctions escape them.
Too nuanced, or requires actual thought.

a. Some who have low income, but are hardly poor are the spouse of a rich or affluent husband or wife.

b. Affluent or wealthy speculators, investors, or business owners having an off year.

c. Students who graduate in the middle of the year, and, therefore, earn half of what they would have.

d. Doctors or other professionals just starting out.

e. Those still living at home with folks who are wealthy or affluent. Or retirees in the reverse situation.
From "Economic Facts and Fallacies," Thomas Sowell



I hope it's not too late for something to be done to change the direction of this nation.

I am lazy and wealthy, are you going to do a thread about me?

 

[Truthseeker420]

You work for Romney?

 

[Wyatt earp]

So we have established that Republicans do not want to offer employment opportunities because......they are too fucking lazy to take them

So Republicans what is your solution?

no, what we've determined is the democrats have a lock on the inner cities. they have for decades. they even have a lock on the community leaders. they have for decades too, and the message of those leaders since the days of Malcolm X have been let us control the business in our own communities. it's a locked society under democratic control. you want change, it has to start with the democrats. your boys. you admit they've done nothing. so make them do something. why do you continue to support a party you know is the root of the problem

The GOP's hands aren't clean either. Many a young visionary has gone to Washington only to be corrupted by the allure of power, prestige, influence, and almost unlimited ability to enrich themselves at our expense. And before long they too are expanding government and promising freebies to attract votes and/or campaign contributions from those who get the government benefits in whatever form. The GOP, however, has a constituency that clamors for fiscal responsibility and accountability so they grow the massive bloated government a bit more slowly than do the Democrats. But we are dishonest if we pretend they don't grow it.

But the GOP is still the party that looks to the best and most practical ways, as Ben Franklin said, to lead or drive people out of poverty because more Republicans do understand that you won't get people out of poverty by giving them money and stuff, and to keep them in poverty in order to benefit those in government is not compassion.

What? Ben Franklin was still alive when the Republican party was formed ??????n

 

[Foxfyre]

no, what we've determined is the democrats have a lock on the inner cities. they have for decades. they even have a lock on the community leaders. they have for decades too, and the message of those leaders since the days of Malcolm X have been let us control the business in our own communities. it's a locked society under democratic control. you want change, it has to start with the democrats. your boys. you admit they've done nothing. so make them do something. why do you continue to support a party you know is the root of the problem

The GOP's hands aren't clean either. Many a young visionary has gone to Washington only to be corrupted by the allure of power, prestige, influence, and almost unlimited ability to enrich themselves at our expense. And before long they too are expanding government and promising freebies to attract votes and/or campaign contributions from those who get the government benefits in whatever form. The GOP, however, has a constituency that clamors for fiscal responsibility and accountability so they grow the massive bloated government a bit more slowly than do the Democrats. But we are dishonest if we pretend they don't grow it.

But the GOP is still the party that looks to the best and most practical ways, as Ben Franklin said, to lead or drive people out of poverty because more Republicans do understand that you won't get people out of poverty by giving them money and stuff, and to keep them in poverty in order to benefit those in government is not compassion.

What? Ben Franklin was still alive when the Republican party was formed ??????n

Nope. Franklin didn't make it out of the 18th Century alive. But he was one of the quintessential Founders of our great nation and fully understood the classical liberal/modern American conservative principles that were embodied in the Constitution--a Constitution that was intended to create a government that would bind the states together as one nation and secure individual rights, and then leave the people alone to live their lives.

We still have a few Republicans--very few unfortunately--in high leadership positions who understand those principles. The GOP started out in the 19th Century holding the same value system, except for a few exceptions here and there.

From Wiki who has the history mostly right here:

The United States Republican Party is the second oldest existing political party in the U.S. after its great rival, the Democratic Party. It emerged in 1854 to combat the Kansas Nebraska Act, which threatened to extend slavery into the territories and to promote more vigorous modernization of the economy. It had almost no presence in the South, but by 1858 in the North it had enlisted former Whigs and former Free Soil Democrats to form majorities in nearly every Northern state.

With its election of Abraham Lincoln in 1860, and its success in guiding the Union to victory and abolishing slavery, it came to dominate the national political scene until 1932. The Republican Party was based on northern white Protestants, businessmen, small business owners, professionals, factory workers, farmers, and African-Americans. It was pro-business, supporting banks, the gold standard, railroads, and tariffs to protect industrial workers and industry

 

[NYcarbineer]

This thread is even further proof that what conservatives really want is to make the poor poorer and the rich richer.

There is nothing in the conservative view of economic policy as it relates to rich and poor that does not strive for that goal.

Has Liesmatters hacked your account? I didn't know she had that much intelligence.

Can you name the conservative economic policies in this area that does not attempt to either make the poor poorer, or the rich richer, or both?

Prove me wrong with evidence.

 

[NYcarbineer]

This thread is even further proof that what conservatives really want is to make the poor poorer and the rich richer.

There is nothing in the conservative view of economic policy as it relates to rich and poor that does not strive for that goal.

Has Liesmatters hacked your account? I didn't know she had that much intelligence.

Yeah. He's so full of shit.

I just don't know where he and other lamebrains get the idea that everyone should feel obligated to help the poor.

No one asked me if I wanted my hardearned money going to the poor. Talk about noble idiots. Of course if they are asked to just spend their money on the poor I think you would see a big change of heart. The poor will take every dime they can get.

If you can't make responsible decisions in your life and get off your ass to take care of yourself then thats your damned problem. Not mine. And certainly not the taxpayers of America.

Which proves my point. You, as a conservative, want less of your money going to the poor, thus, you want to make them poorer.

 

[Foxfyre]

This thread is even further proof that what conservatives really want is to make the poor poorer and the rich richer.

There is nothing in the conservative view of economic policy as it relates to rich and poor that does not strive for that goal.

Has Liesmatters hacked your account? I didn't know she had that much intelligence.

Can you name the conservative economic policies in this area that does not attempt to either make the poor poorer, or the rich richer, or both?

Prove me wrong with evidence.

Prove your assertion, with evidence, that a single conservative economic policy in this area attempts to make the poor poorer and/or the rich richer. Take your time so you won't continue to post the same ridiculous questions over and and over and over.

 

[Claudette]

Has Liesmatters hacked your account? I didn't know she had that much intelligence.

Yeah. He's so full of shit.

I just don't know where he and other lamebrains get the idea that everyone should feel obligated to help the poor.

No one asked me if I wanted my hardearned money going to the poor. Talk about noble idiots. Of course if they are asked to just spend their money on the poor I think you would see a big change of heart. The poor will take every dime they can get.

If you can't make responsible decisions in your life and get off your ass to take care of yourself then thats your damned problem. Not mine. And certainly not the taxpayers of America.

Which proves my point. You, as a conservative, want less of your money going to the poor, thus, you want to make them poorer.

I'm a fiscal conservative and I see no reason why my hard earned money should go to take care of poor people. I don't feel obligated to assume their responsibilities.

As for wanting them poorer? What an assinine statement.

If the poor don't want to be poor then they need to get off their asses and make the're lives better. That ball is in the're court.

You, of course, want the bandaid of welfare to keep them poor. As long as wefare is in place these folks have no incentive to better themselves. Your an ass.

If thats how you want YOUR money spent then feel free my friend. I just wish the rest of us had some say in the matter.

Oh and you better be ready. The poor will take every dime you want to give them and won't care where it comes from and won't even give you a thank you for your noble idiocy.

 

[squeeze berry]

maybe you should buy them them chisels

then we can call them chiselers

 

[PoliticalChic]

1. This is Star Parker: "Parker was born to mostly absent parents and raised in a nonreligious home; she says she was raised "by the secular 'I'm okay, you're okay' doctrine that says people should be allowed to make their own rules and shouldn't judge other people's lives."

She lived in Japan for three years and returned to the U.S., moving to East St. Louis, Illinois, at twelve, at which point she says she "just joined right in" with the "anger and tension among blacks" in the area.[4] "I bought into the lie that there was nothing in America for me except institutional racism and glass ceilings that would keep me from getting promoted," she said.[4]

She said that after one arrest for shoplifting, her white high school guidance counselor told her "not to worry about it, because I was a 'victim of racism, lashing out at society.'" [5] After attending church at the behest of her friends, she embraced Christianity and began turning her life around.[4]"
Star Parker - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia




2. In her book, "Uncle Sam's Plantation," Star Parker makes the point that there are several kinds of poor people. In one particularly poignant passage, she relates her own journey as one of the 'lazy poor.'

"Let me make sure that I understand you correctly," I inquired of the welfare caseworker as I presented her with my pregnancy confirmation note from a doctor. "All I have to do for you to send me $465 a month, $176 worth of food stamps, and 100% free medical and dental assistance is keep this baby. As long as I don't have a bank account, find a job, or get married, I qualify for aid? Where do I sign up?"

3. It was like winning the lottery....I had been looking for a way to finance my laziness. Now, at 23, I had finally found a source of income that did not require work.






4. I would steal money from my mother's purse...steal property and money from neighbors or local merchants....I lusted after the finest designer labels...and blamed racism, my parents, and any other excuse society would allow me to use for my laziness. My attitude of victimization, coupled with my unwillingness to develop the habits necessary to attain financial independence, led me further into poverty.

a. The root cause of this poverty is the perverse, counterproductive incentives arising from the welfare system itself. Charles Murray’s “Losing Ground” documented this effect using social indicators such as work, marriage, legitimacy, crime, and alcohol and drug abuse, and showing how the massive increase in government welfare programs worsened the problem.

b. Since productive activity not making any economic sense because of the work disincentives of the welfare plantation, other kinds of activities proliferate: drug and alcohol abuse, crime, recreational sex, illegitimacy, and family breakup are the new social norms, as does the culture of violence. From Peter Ferrara, “America’s Ticking Bankruptcy Bomb,” chapter five.





5. The lazy poor are the one poverty group for which a central government must facilitate welfare services through guilt and manipulation of the rest of the populace. This is because taxpayers generally despise this poverty group because, no matter how expensive the welfare programs are, the lazy poor always want more. They depend on the pity of liberal politicians to redistribute wealth, so that they can get what they want with little effort and no personal responsibility.

6. Compare this group to the economically challenged poor, whose tax payments offset most of the government benefits they might receive: no, the social consequences, and social costs due to the actions of the lazy poor are a financial drain on our entire tax system.

7. These are the "I couldn't care less" poor, the 'refuse to work' poor, and those poor who claim welfare benefits as their 'entitlement.' Some politicians believe they are doing these folks a favor by addicting them to a government-subsidized life. These are people who will be forever impoverished: they have bought the lie that poor people are poor because rich people are rich, and, therefore, they can demand that Uncle Sam fuels, or at least feels, their pain.





8. Dr. Thomas Sowell points out another sort of 'poor,' who aren't really poor. The terms ‘the rich’ and ‘the poor’ are seldom defined. Thus, there are mistakes in understanding the difference between the flow of income during a given year, and what has been accumulated. Similarly, the poor are usually defined in terms of current income, rather than how much they have or have not accumulated. Income and wealth are not the same thing. So, government definitions based on income can be misleading.
For many hand-wringing, bleeding-heat Liberals the following distinctions escape them.
Too nuanced, or requires actual thought.

a. Some who have low income, but are hardly poor are the spouse of a rich or affluent husband or wife.

b. Affluent or wealthy speculators, investors, or business owners having an off year.

c. Students who graduate in the middle of the year, and, therefore, earn half of what they would have.

d. Doctors or other professionals just starting out.

e. Those still living at home with folks who are wealthy or affluent. Or retirees in the reverse situation.
From "Economic Facts and Fallacies," Thomas Sowell



I hope it's not too late for something to be done to change the direction of this nation.

I am lazy and wealthy, are you going to do a thread about me?

Don't get ya' hopes up, Gilligan.


.....unless there'll be snacks.....

 

[kwc57]

The GOP's hands aren't clean either. Many a young visionary has gone to Washington only to be corrupted by the allure of power, prestige, influence, and almost unlimited ability to enrich themselves at our expense. And before long they too are expanding government and promising freebies to attract votes and/or campaign contributions from those who get the government benefits in whatever form. The GOP, however, has a constituency that clamors for fiscal responsibility and accountability so they grow the massive bloated government a bit more slowly than do the Democrats. But we are dishonest if we pretend they don't grow it.

But the GOP is still the party that looks to the best and most practical ways, as Ben Franklin said, to lead or drive people out of poverty because more Republicans do understand that you won't get people out of poverty by giving them money and stuff, and to keep them in poverty in order to benefit those in government is not compassion.

no one in congress is innocent. The GOP has been becoming more and more guilty as well. they really fell flat on their faces during the bush administration. they kept clinton in check on spending and the results were positive, but they lost that practical thought process once bush was elected. when it comes to spending, they pretty much all fail IMO.

I see welfare as a problem much greater then spending. the problem I see with it is it has created a dependent society. it has created a non productive element of society. when welfare was first introduced in this country, it was done to get people working. you got paid, but you worked for it. that is smart spending of money. paying people just to exist, is poor spending. democrats can't introduce shovel ready jobs because these people on welfare are non union for one. and the unions wouldn't like that. second, for years they have been saying it would violate their rights. the first thing we have to do is recalibrate our mindsets. otherwise, we can never fix this problem. also, we have to make it very clear that you come here looking for work, do it legally and if you don't find it, there is no longer a free ride.

I can't quarrel with this. When you have a government that punishes initiative, hard work, and success, you have less initiative, hard work, and success.

When you have a government that rewards bad choices, irresponsibility, and dependency, you have more bad choices, irresponsibility, and dependency.

An iteresting read.

More Than Dependency | National Review Online

"..........While I think the argument about dependency gets at a real problem—the ways in which the welfare state undermines personal responsibility—the term dependency and the concept it describes point us toward a radically individualist understanding of that problem that is mistaken in some important ways. We are all dependent on others. The question is whether we are dependent on people we know, and they on us—in ways that foster family and community, build habits of restraint and dignity, and instill in us responsibility and a sense of obligation—or we are dependent on distant, neutral, universal systems of benefits that help provide for our material wants without connecting us to any local and immediate nexus of care and obligation. It is not dependence per se, which is a universal fact of human life, but dependence without mutual obligation, that corrupts the soul. Such technocratic provision enables precisely the illusion of independence from the people around us and from the requirements of any moral code they might uphold. It is corrosive not because it instills a true sense of dependence but because it inspires a false sense of independence and so frees us from the sorts of moral habits of mutual obligation that alone can make us free.

We reach for the idea of dependency because of the kind of arguments we often respond to from the left—arguments that seem like calls for common action instead of individual action. But we should look more carefully at those arguments. The problem with the “you didn’t build that” mindset, as becomes particularly clear if you read what the president said before and after that line, is not just that it denies the significance of individual initiative (though that’s an important part of the problem, and our culture of individual initiative, which is far from radical individualism, is a huge social achievement in America) but also that it denies the significance of any common efforts that are not political. The president took the pose of a critic of individualism, but in fact the position he described involves perhaps the most radical individualism of all, in which nothing but individuals and the state exists in society.........."

 

[kwc57]

Has Liesmatters hacked your account? I didn't know she had that much intelligence.

Yeah. He's so full of shit.

I just don't know where he and other lamebrains get the idea that everyone should feel obligated to help the poor.

No one asked me if I wanted my hardearned money going to the poor. Talk about noble idiots. Of course if they are asked to just spend their money on the poor I think you would see a big change of heart. The poor will take every dime they can get.

If you can't make responsible decisions in your life and get off your ass to take care of yourself then thats your damned problem. Not mine. And certainly not the taxpayers of America.

Which proves my point. You, as a conservative, want less of your money going to the poor, thus, you want to make them poorer.

Come on NY, you aren't THAT stoopid. My money is MY money. If I keep MY money, how am I making the poor poorer? It isn't THEIR money to begin with and I'm not taking anything away from them that they already had. I'm as charitable as the next person.....in fact more charitable tyhan many folks I know on both ends of the political spectrum......but I should be free to determine who I am charitable to. No one is entitled to my money and no one should demand that they deserve a poretion of what I earn.

I've asked this question over and over here at USMB and not a single liberal has ever answered it. If you have a spare bedroom at your house, are you OK with the government telling you that they will be placing a homeless person in that spare room? They need it and you don't. You have the whole rest of the house to yourself which is more than you need. All the government asks is that you give your "fair share". Tell me, what is the difference between the money you earn and the real estate you own? Why is the poor entitled to one and not the other?