The Lazy Poor

PoliticalChic cracks me up.

We feed, clothe, and house our poor and then she comes along and says, "I see no people without food, clothing, or shelter, so there are no poor in America!"

:lol: :lol: :lol: :lol:



Gasbag....you're the explanation of why the Hindenburg ended up the way it did.
 
you have been proven to be a lair with your own words PC.

you can lie about your lies some more but you have been outed for what you really are.
 
Stoopidity is NOT a virtue. Work on that.

Tell us which Democrat/liberal social programs for the poor you would END.

None. But I would limit them to those who actually needed it instead of use them to keep people enslaved and buy votes with them. We've gone from providing assitance to supporting a lifestyle for many.

I would end ALL of them at the Federal level and put the choice to assume the responsibility at the state and local levels where it belongs. That simple solution would remove most of the corruption and graft we find in government and among the recipients of the taxpayer's generosity. It would also provide a means to solve our debt problems as a nation, restore stability to the dollar, eliminate almost all of the bloat and excessiveness of the federal government, and return it to the function the Founders intended.
 
anyone who tries to talk you out of helping your fellow man is a sociopath

What help do you provide personally? Insisting that the government tax people with more than you to give it to others in your name doesn't count. What do you personally do to help your fellow man?

She doesn't help anyone. TDM doesn't pay taxes, either.

So essentially, she's insisting that we pay her money to sit on her dumb fat ass and demand more money from us.
 
What help do you provide personally? Insisting that the government tax people with more than you to give it to others in your name doesn't count. What do you personally do to help your fellow man?

I am the president of a non-profit which helps people in actute crises. Which is why I know PoliticalChic is chock full of shit.
 
Tell us which Democrat/liberal social programs for the poor you would END.

None. But I would limit them to those who actually needed it instead of use them to keep people enslaved and buy votes with them. We've gone from providing assitance to supporting a lifestyle for many.

I would end ALL of them at the Federal level and put the choice to assume the responsibility at the state and local levels where it belongs. That simple solution would remove most of the corruption and graft we find in government and among the recipients of the taxpayer's generosity. It would also provide a means to solve our debt problems as a nation, restore stability to the dollar, eliminate almost all of the bloat and excessiveness of the federal government, and return it to the function the Founders intended.

i have to agree, put it back at the state level where it belongs and is more manageable. States can more easily determine what works best in their particular environment. because what works at one state level most likely will not work at a national level. healthcare is a great example. obamacare which is pretty much romney's state wide plan functions a lot differently when applied to a national level than it did at the individual state level. demands, available funding, income levels, amount of people who already have coverage. these are all specific factors that make up the viability of the plan.
 
Folks, the dam is going to break one day. The massive future Entitlements cannot be paid for. We're already $17 Trillion in Debt. What are all these people who live off Entitlements, gonna do when it all ends? I suspect they're not gonna take it too well. They'll likely take to the streets and burn it all down.

You can only squeeze the hard-working Middle Class so much. And squeezing the wealthy isn't nearly enough either. Massive Civil Unrest is coming. We're sewing those seeds right now. Our Government isn't hoarding all that Ammo, and passing horrible Laws like the NDAA for nothing. They're fully aware of what's coming. The dam is going to break. Be prepared and stay safe.
 
None. But I would limit them to those who actually needed it instead of use them to keep people enslaved and buy votes with them. We've gone from providing assitance to supporting a lifestyle for many.

I would end ALL of them at the Federal level and put the choice to assume the responsibility at the state and local levels where it belongs. That simple solution would remove most of the corruption and graft we find in government and among the recipients of the taxpayer's generosity. It would also provide a means to solve our debt problems as a nation, restore stability to the dollar, eliminate almost all of the bloat and excessiveness of the federal government, and return it to the function the Founders intended.

i have to agree, put it back at the state level where it belongs and is more manageable. States can more easily determine what works best in their particular environment. because what works at one state level most likely will not work at a national level. healthcare is a great example. obamacare which is pretty much romney's state wide plan functions a lot differently when applied to a national level than it did at the individual state level. demands, available funding, income levels, amount of people who already have coverage. these are all specific factors that make up the viability of the plan.

Many federal programs for the poor are managed at the local level. And as one who actually works in the trenches helping the poor, I can tell you without equivocation that government programs have far better due diligence than privately run programs. It is one of my great frustrations the private organizations I cross-pollinate with totally SUCK at due diligence. They are easily and regularly abused and they are fully aware they are being abused, and still do nothing about it. There is double, triple, and quadruple dipping going on.

One of my points of pride is the donors to our organization know exactly where every penny they donate goes, and we investigate each and every case down into the weeds. And we pay our own overhead out of our own pockets. But we are by far the exception.

Are government programs managed perfectly? Not by a long shot. But when compared to private programs, they are far better managed.
 
Last edited:
What help do you provide personally? Insisting that the government tax people with more than you to give it to others in your name doesn't count. What do you personally do to help your fellow man?

I am the president of a non-profit which helps people in actute crises. Which is why I know PoliticalChic is chock full of shit.

I have run a large social agency, have devoted a good deal of my life dealing with hard core 'poor', and am hands on involved in local agencies that deal with people in acute crisis as well as those who are among the hard core poor. (Two different things there.)

And that is why I know that PC is right on and that her OP merits serious discussion. Compassion requires seeing and consideration of untended negative consequences of what we do regardless of how well intentioned we might be or how noble a program title looks on paper.
 
Last edited:
I would end ALL of them at the Federal level and put the choice to assume the responsibility at the state and local levels where it belongs. That simple solution would remove most of the corruption and graft we find in government and among the recipients of the taxpayer's generosity. It would also provide a means to solve our debt problems as a nation, restore stability to the dollar, eliminate almost all of the bloat and excessiveness of the federal government, and return it to the function the Founders intended.

i have to agree, put it back at the state level where it belongs and is more manageable. States can more easily determine what works best in their particular environment. because what works at one state level most likely will not work at a national level. healthcare is a great example. obamacare which is pretty much romney's state wide plan functions a lot differently when applied to a national level than it did at the individual state level. demands, available funding, income levels, amount of people who already have coverage. these are all specific factors that make up the viability of the plan.

Many federal programs for the poor are managed at the local level. And as one who actually works in the trenches helping the poor, I can tell you without equivocation that government programs have far better due diligence than privately run programs. It is one of my great frustrations the private organizations I cross-pollinate with totally SUCK at due diligence. They are easily and regularly abused and they are fully aware they are being abused, and still do nothing about it.

One of my points of pride is the donors to our organization know exactly where every penny they donate goes. And we pay our own overhead out of our own pockets. But we are by far the exception.

So why not just leave the program at the local level to begin with instead of taxing the people, siphoning off a huge percentage of the tax money to feed the ever more bloated, growing, expensive federal government, and then returning a pittance to the people for their own use?

The more layers of government administration there are to fund, the less money actually gets to anybody who needs it.
 
The Party will be over at some point. This Welfare/Warfare State cannot be sustained. Our awful problems haven't even begun yet.
 
Last edited:
Stoopidity is NOT a virtue. Work on that.

Tell us which Democrat/liberal social programs for the poor you would END.

None. But I would limit them to those who actually needed it instead of use them to keep people enslaved and buy votes with them. We've gone from providing assitance to supporting a lifestyle for many.

So you agree that historically, the Democrats/liberals have been right - in starting these programs -

and the Republicans/conservatives have been WRONG, in opposing them every step of the way.

They are in fact socialism and the redistribution of wealth, btw.

This is proof of why it is vital to keep conservatives out of power.
 
i have to agree, put it back at the state level where it belongs and is more manageable. States can more easily determine what works best in their particular environment. because what works at one state level most likely will not work at a national level. healthcare is a great example. obamacare which is pretty much romney's state wide plan functions a lot differently when applied to a national level than it did at the individual state level. demands, available funding, income levels, amount of people who already have coverage. these are all specific factors that make up the viability of the plan.

Many federal programs for the poor are managed at the local level. And as one who actually works in the trenches helping the poor, I can tell you without equivocation that government programs have far better due diligence than privately run programs. It is one of my great frustrations the private organizations I cross-pollinate with totally SUCK at due diligence. They are easily and regularly abused and they are fully aware they are being abused, and still do nothing about it.

One of my points of pride is the donors to our organization know exactly where every penny they donate goes. And we pay our own overhead out of our own pockets. But we are by far the exception.

So why not just leave the program at the local level to begin with instead of taxing the people, siphoning off a huge percentage of the tax money to feed the ever more bloated, growing, expensive federal government, and then returning a pittance to the people for their own use?

The more layers of government administration there are to fund, the less money actually gets to anybody who needs it.

I have mixed feelings about that.

With federal oversight, you have consistent federal rules. With local oversight, you have rules which vary in their severity and consistency, which results in a great deal of chaos and waste.

Federal rules require far more due diligence, and that means a lot more paperwork. But the end result is that you have a higher level of confidence the intended people are getting the intended assistance.

The problem is not food stamps or heating oil or food. The problem is that "assistance" has expanded to a point of ridiculousness. For example, I live in a state which provides college tuition assistance to alcoholics and drug addicts. That's not a federal program. That's a state program.

But the state government is very good at making sure a meth head gets that money so they can go to college, see? That is what the government intends for that money.

Every penny that is diverted to putting an alcoholic or drug addict through college is a penny not going to a family living out of their car, or a widow with huge medical bills. And that is where my organization ends up having to step in.

Believe me, there are a lot of people falling through the cracks. Private organizations are not making up the difference. PoliticalChic's belief we have no poor is the single most ignorant statement out of an ocean of ignorant statements I have heard on this board.

We just have to ask ourselves exactly what kind of "assistance" do we really need to be providing, and to whom? That is where the conversation needs to be directed. Who thinks we should pay for addicts to earn a degree? Who thinks a widow should not have to worry about medical bills? And so forth.

Somewhere along the way, those decisions were taken out of our hands.

But to deny we need to provide any kind of assistance at all is sheer assholery.
 
Last edited:

Forum List

Back
Top