Follow along with the video below to see how to install our site as a web app on your home screen.
Note: This feature may not be available in some browsers.
It's mathematics. If a poor person gets $100 a month in food stamps, that person is $100 less poor.
If you want to end food stamps so you don't have to pay for them, that's fine. But don't pretend that it doesn't make the poor person poorer.
Conservatives want the poor poorer because they want their money back that goes to making the poor less poor. You can't take their taxpayer funded benefits away from them without making them poorer, and you can't give people their tax money back without taking it away from the poor.
So whether you like the description or not, you want the poor to be poorer.
I am not wrong.
Not only are you wrong, you're an idiot if you believe wht you just wrote. So tell me.......did the poor have the $100 to begin with? How did they get it? Are they entitled to it?
And please answer my question about the government assigning one of your bedrooms to a homeless person. You conveniently avoided it. I can't say as I blame you.
The government drafted me into the military for 2 years.
If they could do that they could certainly force me to house a homeless person, if they had the votes to make it a law.
Don't try to tell me what the government can or can't force someone to do.
Did anyone get around to telling us how taking free education away from poor kids would make America better?
Did I miss those answers? I'm genuinely interested.
Did anyone get around to telling us how taking free education away from poor kids would make America better?
Did I miss those answers? I'm genuinely interested.
Possibly you're not getting a response because most realize you have fabricated the straw-argument to hide what a terrible beating you've taken in your expressed views.
No less than you deserve.
Although you have no reputation to speak of, a return to honesty might help restore same to some meager degree.
Maybe.
Not only are you wrong, you're an idiot if you believe wht you just wrote. So tell me.......did the poor have the $100 to begin with? How did they get it? Are they entitled to it?
And please answer my question about the government assigning one of your bedrooms to a homeless person. You conveniently avoided it. I can't say as I blame you.
The government drafted me into the military for 2 years.
If they could do that they could certainly force me to house a homeless person, if they had the votes to make it a law.
Don't try to tell me what the government can or can't force someone to do.
So sorry that you missed it....it's called the United States Constitution.
In includes the following:
No Soldier shall, in time of peace be quartered in any house, without the consent of the Owner, nor in time of war, but in a manner to be prescribed by law.
AMENDMENT III
I believe a court would support any objection to voiding your property rights in this regard.
Not only are you wrong, you're an idiot if you believe wht you just wrote. So tell me.......did the poor have the $100 to begin with? How did they get it? Are they entitled to it?
And please answer my question about the government assigning one of your bedrooms to a homeless person. You conveniently avoided it. I can't say as I blame you.
The government drafted me into the military for 2 years.
If they could do that they could certainly force me to house a homeless person, if they had the votes to make it a law.
Don't try to tell me what the government can or can't force someone to do.
Still avoiding answering questions I see. Color me surprised.
I have to agree. NY's statement was so over the top, even for him, I now suspect him as one of those people who is paid to derail and/or make food fights of threads like this so that the subject can't be discussed rationally and won't gain any legs in the minds of the people. Big government and those organizations that feed on it and promote it don't want any of us upsetting the status quo by promoting ideas that actually help people and make big government less necessary.
A thread starts out with a vicious attack on poor people, and I'm the villain?
lololol you're a fucking retard.
You're entitled to your own opinion, no matter how ignorant it is.......but you are not entitled to your own reality. Vicious? In your mind maybe.
A humane people will not turn away somebody who needs emergency medical care. Also, a humane people will present a bill for medical care to those they treat so that they are prevented from leaching off honest, hard working Americans. Those truly unable to pay their bill of course won't do so and will have no credit to ruin so it will be a wash. Those who are able to pay, even $10/month, should be required to do so even if they are paying that $10/month the rest of their lives. That is the way it should be everywhere.
We do people no favors by encouraging them to become dependent and therefore pawns to be used by the rich and powerful for their own interests.
I agree, but I see absolute ZERO gratitude coming from people who do absolutely nothing for anyone, even themselves.
I'm at a point in thinking it's more humane to let them die in the streets than continue living as slaves to a system that doesn't even ALLOW them to work and enhance their standard of living. Let alone encourage or force them to work and feel the pride of achievement.
People who have an entitlement mentality don't feel grateful. They feel entitled. If anything, they become increasingly angry because once the entitlement mentality sets in, they feel they are being discriminated against and denied their rights because they aren't provided for better. They become like NY up there who seems to be saying that everybody (but him of course) should be forced to take care of anybody who wants to be provided for.
It does feel good to be thanked, but most of us do not do good for others in order to get thanks or any other reward. In fact, unless hands on assistance is appropriate, I would just as soon that the recipients of my charity don't know know who gave it. I think it important that they know the help came from the Salvation Army or Catholic Charities or whatever, so they will know where to repay the favor should they be moved to do so.
But good stewardship does not mean to give blindly just to absolve your conscience. True charity does good and does not harm. When the unintended negative consequences are greater than good intentions, it is time to rethink things and do it differently.
And in my opinion, it is just wrong to justify hurting people because the intentions look and/or sound good or noble.
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 Murrays 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, Americas 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.....
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.
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.
Most of the homeless have foodstamps.
Did anyone get around to telling us how taking free education away from poor kids would make America better?
Did I miss those answers? I'm genuinely interested.
Possibly you're not getting a response because most realize you have fabricated the straw-argument to hide what a terrible beating you've taken in your expressed views.
No less than you deserve.
Although you have no reputation to speak of, a return to honesty might help restore same to some meager degree.
Maybe.
Nothing makes conservatives more happy than a self-loathing minority..
Nothing makes progressives more happy than free-loading, born-out-of-wedlock minority.
I would like nothing more than to see all the minorities get jobs. Jobs that pay a fair wage and they have rights and dignity as workers.
But then the rich wouldn't have anywhere to ride their dressage ponies.
The recipe to avoid poverty or pass through it quickly:
1. Stay in school and educate yourself. A decent transcript may be important later on so do the work to merit good grades.
2. Stay away from illegal activities and substances.
3. Seek and accept whatever work you have to do to acquire marketable skills, develop a work ethic, earn good references. Accept whatever work is available as the person with a job is usually more attractive to employers than is somebody who is out of work.
4. Get married and THEN have kids. Don't have kids without benefit of marriage.
5. Understand that your work is worth only as much as it earns for your employer plus a reasonable profit. Those who understand that and work to prosper their employer will generally prosper most themselves.
In my opinion, this is what a compassionate society is teaching its children and what a compassionate government promotes to its citizens. Rewarding poor choices, underachievement, and unwillingness to educate oneself and develop marketable skills while punishing those who achieve the most is the surest way to promote more poverty.
Did anyone get around to telling us how taking free education away from poor kids would make America better?
Did I miss those answers? I'm genuinely interested.
Possibly you're not getting a response because most realize you have fabricated the straw-argument to hide what a terrible beating you've taken in your expressed views.
No less than you deserve.
Although you have no reputation to speak of, a return to honesty might help restore same to some meager degree.
Maybe.
Just for the record, you said this is in post 131:
"Government's proper function is to provide the correct environment for the creation of wealth....
...it is not there to redistribute wealth."
Public education is government redistribution of wealth because many low income children receive that education at little or no cost to them or their parents,
at the expense of other taxpayers who pay for it.
So tell us why getting the government out of that 'function' will make America a better place. You can start by telling us how it will make the lives of poor children better, once their parents have little or no means to get their children educated.
Or you could just admit that you're wrong and that we 'socialists' who support public education are right...
Did anyone get around to telling us how taking free education away from poor kids would make America better?
Did I miss those answers? I'm genuinely interested.
Possibly you're not getting a response because most realize you have fabricated the straw-argument to hide what a terrible beating you've taken in your expressed views.
No less than you deserve.
Although you have no reputation to speak of, a return to honesty might help restore same to some meager degree.
Maybe.
It's not a strawman. You said, unequivocally, that the government had no business redistributing wealth. Do you need to be reminded of where you said it?
Publlic education redistributes wealth because it makes education available to the poor at the expense of those who aren't poor.
So again, tell us how taking free education away from the Poor will make America a better place?
Possibly you're not getting a response because most realize you have fabricated the straw-argument to hide what a terrible beating you've taken in your expressed views.
No less than you deserve.
Although you have no reputation to speak of, a return to honesty might help restore same to some meager degree.
Maybe.
It's not a strawman. You said, unequivocally, that the government had no business redistributing wealth. Do you need to be reminded of where you said it?
Publlic education redistributes wealth because it makes education available to the poor at the expense of those who aren't poor.
So again, tell us how taking free education away from the Poor will make America a better place?
Good to see you haven't denied your blatant and consistent dishonesty.
It's a start.
The government drafted me into the military for 2 years.
If they could do that they could certainly force me to house a homeless person, if they had the votes to make it a law.
Don't try to tell me what the government can or can't force someone to do.
Still avoiding answering questions I see. Color me surprised.
The government is not assigning homeless people to my home. You want me to respond to an absurdity?
Why?
