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.
They are not and this is a major problem. Some states have ways of handling the problem while others ignore it. The most successful way of solving the problem is by forcing these able bodied persons to either take a job that is offered or loose assistance. Even culling through the list and sending these workers to temporary work tends to lower the rolls as some will simply not show up for two week temporary job without missing days without valid excuses. The problem is that not all states have these programs and those that do don't have even enough temporary jobs to use the method effectively.Now you are getting desperate and making up stuff. I said the country took on the responsibility for assisting the vulnerable almost a century ago. You confirmed this in your own post with the comments about Hoover and Roosevelt actions in the early 1930's. That was 85 years ago, almost a centuryYou get your so called facts so disjointed and confused you didn't even notice that you supported my post. The legislature in Washington DC did exactly as I claimed under Republican Hoover and Democrat Roosevelt and all legislatures and Presidents since that time have endorsed and propagated the idea that the nation has an obligation and duty to the poor and vulnerable.Assistance is given to the poor because almost a century ago the nation made a decision that the whole of the country had an obligation and duty to help the vulnerable. The decision has been re-affirmed and reinforced ever since. It is what the American people decided to do in the 20th Century. There have always been imperfections and complaints about how the system works or doesn't work, but the only solution that has ever been found is related to access to jobs. That is the only solution that works to relieve the assistance rolls and lists.
False.
Are you ignorant or simply lying???
Franklin Roosevelt, bosom-buddy of Joseph Stalin, removed it from the private to the public.
Remarkable lack of success has been on display since.
1. "[Hoover] was heartened by the work of private charities in handling the overwhelming number....As of the fall of 1931, and into 1932, Americans raised over $100 million for charity..."
"Federal Aid for Relief (Columbia University Studies in the Social Sciences), "by Edward A. Williams, p. 33.
2. The pressure from Congress to federalize relief- by the summer of 1932 almost 16 million were unemployed! But charities, like the Red Cross, opposed federal intervention, because they knew that it would result in the end of support by citizens for private charities. In 1932, Hoover and the Congress sharply raised the income tax, leaving citizens with less ability to aid the needy.
a. The result was Hoover ended the American tradition of private relief. " The Emergency Relief and Construction Act(ch. 520, 47 Stat. 709, enacted July 21, 1932), was the United States's first major-relief legislation, enabled under Herbert Hoover and later adopted and expanded by Franklin D. Roosevelt as part of his New Deal." Emergency Relief and Construction Act - Wikipedia the free encyclopedia
"....adopted and expanded by Franklin D. Roosevelt as part of his New Deal."
This is 2015.
You claimed welfare was a federal endeavor for 100 years.
That makes you a serial liar.
""....adopted and expanded by Franklin D. Roosevelt as part of his New Deal."
How are able-bodied adults "vulnerable?" Please explain.
"Conservatives say if you don't give the rich more money, they will lose their incentive to invest. As for the poor, they tell us they've lost all incentive because we've given them too much money."
- George Carlin
Nowhere in the US or anywhere in the world have the poor done better when you take away benefits
Only conservatives believe this
Benefits....from who? Who decides who benefits and who loses? Define precisely please.
And how can they be "benefits" when they have not been earned. Again...please explain?
Oh....and I'll ask again....How are able-bodied adults "vulnerable?" Please explain.
When we as a society become a Nation of looters and freeloaders all hope is lost.
Benefits must be earned. If you are able-bodied and unwilling to work....you get shit.
Clear enough?
You are making an assumption that the parents are in the position to take care of their kid and grandchild or grandchildren.Good example of how you distort facts. Single mothers make up a large portion of those households. The largest percentage of them are white teenage girls. Having babies in the home makes it difficult to get or hold a job for these girls who are kids themselves.People who have educated themselves and learned skills deserve to make good money and have jobs that don't require sore muscles and aching backs at the end of the day are fortunate and deserve the benefits of their positions. To imply that those less fortunate don't work hard is just disgusting self aggrandizing and aristocratic crap.You a an idiot. I would like to see you work at harvesting vegetables and fruit or pushing a wheel barrel full of concrete or carrying shingles onto a roof or doing landscaping all day in the hot sun or spreading black top in 98% temperature or standing in front of a commercial dishwasher and lifting bins of dirty dishes. Many people who do these kinds of back breaking and life shortening jobs live in poverty or on the edge of it. Only people who have never worked at hard labor mock hard labor.Let's get back to the most powerful lying-Liberal.
As per the title of this thread.....
5. "The Lie Obama Keeps Repeating About the Poor in America
The best anti-poverty program is a job. Obama said this at a recent conference on poverty.
But he continues to repeat a falsehood over and over. This is the claim that the poor work just as hard as the rich do. .... the average poor family doesn’t work nearly as much as the rich families do. And that’s a key reason why these households are poor.
.... Census Bureau data on household incomes document the importance of work. Census sorts the households by income quintile, and we will label those in the highest quintile as “rich,” and those in the lowest quintile as “poor.” The average household in the top 20 percent of income have an average of almost exactly two full-time workers. The average poor family (bottom 20 percent) has just 0.4 workers.
This means on average, roughly for every hour worked by those in a poor household, those in a rich household work five hours.
The finding that six out of 10 poor households have no one working at all is disturbing. Since they have no income from work, is it a surprise they are poor?" The Lie Obama Keeps Repeating About the Poor in America
Obama: "... the poor work just as hard as the rich do..."
Clearly not the case.
Another winner in the "Lie of the Year" contest???
"To imply that those less fortunate don't work hard..."
DON'T WORK AT ALL!!!!
Can't you read, you moron???
"The finding that six out of 10 poor households have no one working at all is disturbing. Since they have no income from work, is it a surprise they are poor?"
The Lie Obama Keeps Repeating About the Poor in America
White teenage girls, then their parents can take care of them, riiiight? Why do I have to work overtime and give the money to take care of other peoples kids?
When we as a society become a Nation of looters and freeloaders all hope is lost.
Benefits must be earned. If you are able-bodied and unwilling to work....you get shit.
Clear enough?
"Conservatives say if you don't give the rich more money, they will lose their incentive to invest. As for the poor, they tell us they've lost all incentive because we've given them too much money."
- George Carlin
Nowhere in the US or anywhere in the world have the poor done better when you take away benefits
Only conservatives believe this
You are making an assumption that the parents are in the position to take care of their kid and grandchild or grandchildren.Good example of how you distort facts. Single mothers make up a large portion of those households. The largest percentage of them are white teenage girls. Having babies in the home makes it difficult to get or hold a job for these girls who are kids themselves.People who have educated themselves and learned skills deserve to make good money and have jobs that don't require sore muscles and aching backs at the end of the day are fortunate and deserve the benefits of their positions. To imply that those less fortunate don't work hard is just disgusting self aggrandizing and aristocratic crap.You a an idiot. I would like to see you work at harvesting vegetables and fruit or pushing a wheel barrel full of concrete or carrying shingles onto a roof or doing landscaping all day in the hot sun or spreading black top in 98% temperature or standing in front of a commercial dishwasher and lifting bins of dirty dishes. Many people who do these kinds of back breaking and life shortening jobs live in poverty or on the edge of it. Only people who have never worked at hard labor mock hard labor.
"To imply that those less fortunate don't work hard..."
DON'T WORK AT ALL!!!!
Can't you read, you moron???
"The finding that six out of 10 poor households have no one working at all is disturbing. Since they have no income from work, is it a surprise they are poor?"
The Lie Obama Keeps Repeating About the Poor in America
White teenage girls, then their parents can take care of them, riiiight? Why do I have to work overtime and give the money to take care of other peoples kids?
When you are making your point you don't find it necessary to call people names. You let your facts, credibility and with speak for you. You loose, I win.What about the 40% according to you that do work? And what about the households that make just a small amount over the poverty level because they do that back breaking work. Any way you look at it, you are distorting facts to fit your agenda.Good example of how you distort facts. Single mothers make up a large portion of those households. The largest percentage of them are white teenage girls. Having babies in the home makes it difficult to get or hold a job for these girls who are kids themselves."To imply that those less fortunate don't work hard..."
DON'T WORK AT ALL!!!!
Can't you read, you moron???
"The finding that six out of 10 poor households have no one working at all is disturbing. Since they have no income from work, is it a surprise they are poor?"
The Lie Obama Keeps Repeating About the Poor in America
So....you've finally gotten around to admitting that I'm correct about the 'poor' not working....
....and now you attempt is to spin the fact.
How about this fact: you're a moron.
So....you've finally gotten around to admitting that I'm correct about the 'poor' not working....
....and now you attempt is to spin the fact.
How about this fact: you're a moron.
You confirmed what I said in my post with your cut and paste response about Hoover and Roosevelt. You aren't pummeling anyone. You are still fitting into your typical pattern of refusing to respond to specific questions and deflecting as you post disjointed and distorted so called facts.Now you are getting desperate and making up stuff. I said the country took on the responsibility for assisting the vulnerable almost a century ago. You confirmed this in your own post with the comments about Hoover and Roosevelt actions in the early 1930's. That was 85 years ago, almost a centuryYou get your so called facts so disjointed and confused you didn't even notice that you supported my post. The legislature in Washington DC did exactly as I claimed under Republican Hoover and Democrat Roosevelt and all legislatures and Presidents since that time have endorsed and propagated the idea that the nation has an obligation and duty to the poor and vulnerable.Assistance is given to the poor because almost a century ago the nation made a decision that the whole of the country had an obligation and duty to help the vulnerable. The decision has been re-affirmed and reinforced ever since. It is what the American people decided to do in the 20th Century. There have always been imperfections and complaints about how the system works or doesn't work, but the only solution that has ever been found is related to access to jobs. That is the only solution that works to relieve the assistance rolls and lists.
False.
Are you ignorant or simply lying???
Franklin Roosevelt, bosom-buddy of Joseph Stalin, removed it from the private to the public.
Remarkable lack of success has been on display since.
1. "[Hoover] was heartened by the work of private charities in handling the overwhelming number....As of the fall of 1931, and into 1932, Americans raised over $100 million for charity..."
"Federal Aid for Relief (Columbia University Studies in the Social Sciences), "by Edward A. Williams, p. 33.
2. The pressure from Congress to federalize relief- by the summer of 1932 almost 16 million were unemployed! But charities, like the Red Cross, opposed federal intervention, because they knew that it would result in the end of support by citizens for private charities. In 1932, Hoover and the Congress sharply raised the income tax, leaving citizens with less ability to aid the needy.
a. The result was Hoover ended the American tradition of private relief. " The Emergency Relief and Construction Act(ch. 520, 47 Stat. 709, enacted July 21, 1932), was the United States's first major-relief legislation, enabled under Herbert Hoover and later adopted and expanded by Franklin D. Roosevelt as part of his New Deal." Emergency Relief and Construction Act - Wikipedia the free encyclopedia
"....adopted and expanded by Franklin D. Roosevelt as part of his New Deal."
This is 2015.
You claimed welfare was a federal endeavor for 100 years.
That makes you a serial liar.
""....adopted and expanded by Franklin D. Roosevelt as part of his New Deal."
How and why would I be 'getting desperate'????
You're the one who crawled over to the thread, and keep whining while I pummel you in every post.
When we as a society become a Nation of looters and freeloaders all hope is lost.
Benefits must be earned. If you are able-bodied and unwilling to work....you get shit.
Clear enough?
You shouldn't talk about CEOs that way
"Conservatives say if you don't give the rich more money, they will lose their incentive to invest. As for the poor, they tell us they've lost all incentive because we've given them too much money."
- George Carlin
Nowhere in the US or anywhere in the world have the poor done better when you take away benefits
Only conservatives believe this
Of course they were better off.
OK.....let's stipulate that your posts are formed from equivalent dollops of ignorance and lies.
1. The government conducted a study, 1971-1978 known as the Seattle-Denver Income Maintenance Experiment, or SIME-DIME, in which low income families were given a guaranteed income,a welfare package with everything liberal policy makers could hope for.
Result: for every dollar of extra welfare given,low income recipients reduced their laborby 80 cents.
http://www.policyarchive.org/handle/...eams/12794.pdf
a. Furtherresults: dissolution of families:
“This conclusion was unambiguously unfavorable to advocates of a negative income tax that would cover married couples, for two important reasons.First, increased marital breakupsamong the poor would increase the numbers on welfare and the amount of transfer payments, principally because the separated wife and children would receive higher transfer payments. Second, marital dissolutions and the usual accompanyingabsence of fathersfrom households with children are generally considered unfavorable outcomes regardless of whether or not the welfare rolls increase.”http://www.bos.frb.org/economic/conf/conf30/conf30c.pdf
2. But....none was entitled to receive any material provision:
"If any poor person shall refuse to be lodged, kept, maintained and employed in such house or houses, he or she shall not be entitled to receive relief from the overseers during such refusal."
Salmon P. Chase, "The Statutes of Ohio and the Northwest Territory," vol.I, p. 176.
When we as a society become a Nation of looters and freeloaders all hope is lost.
Benefits must be earned. If you are able-bodied and unwilling to work....you get shit.
Clear enough?
"Conservatives say if you don't give the rich more money, they will lose their incentive to invest. As for the poor, they tell us they've lost all incentive because we've given them too much money."
- George Carlin
Nowhere in the US or anywhere in the world have the poor done better when you take away benefits
Only conservatives believe this
Of course they were better off.
OK.....let's stipulate that your posts are formed from equivalent dollops of ignorance and lies.
1. The government conducted a study, 1971-1978 known as the Seattle-Denver Income Maintenance Experiment, or SIME-DIME, in which low income families were given a guaranteed income,a welfare package with everything liberal policy makers could hope for.
Result: for every dollar of extra welfare given,low income recipients reduced their laborby 80 cents.
http://www.policyarchive.org/handle/...eams/12794.pdf
a. Furtherresults: dissolution of families:
“This conclusion was unambiguously unfavorable to advocates of a negative income tax that would cover married couples, for two important reasons.First, increased marital breakupsamong the poor would increase the numbers on welfare and the amount of transfer payments, principally because the separated wife and children would receive higher transfer payments. Second, marital dissolutions and the usual accompanyingabsence of fathersfrom households with children are generally considered unfavorable outcomes regardless of whether or not the welfare rolls increase.”http://www.bos.frb.org/economic/conf/conf30/conf30c.pdf
2. But....none was entitled to receive any material provision:
"If any poor person shall refuse to be lodged, kept, maintained and employed in such house or houses, he or she shall not be entitled to receive relief from the overseers during such refusal."
Salmon P. Chase, "The Statutes of Ohio and the Northwest Territory," vol.I, p. 176.
1. Why do your cut and pastes always end up drifting so much from the topic?
b. Of course, none of them demonstrate that poor people ever do better when you slash their benefits
When we as a society become a Nation of looters and freeloaders all hope is lost.
Benefits must be earned. If you are able-bodied and unwilling to work....you get shit.
Clear enough?
You shouldn't talk about CEOs that way
I was wrong.
Earlier I claimed you had posted your stupidest post.
This one surpasses.
On the bright side, you qualify as proof of reincarnation: no one could become this stupid in one lifetime.
"Conservatives say if you don't give the rich more money, they will lose their incentive to invest. As for the poor, they tell us they've lost all incentive because we've given them too much money."
- George Carlin
Nowhere in the US or anywhere in the world have the poor done better when you take away benefits
Only conservatives believe this
Of course they were better off.
OK.....let's stipulate that your posts are formed from equivalent dollops of ignorance and lies.
1. The government conducted a study, 1971-1978 known as the Seattle-Denver Income Maintenance Experiment, or SIME-DIME, in which low income families were given a guaranteed income,a welfare package with everything liberal policy makers could hope for.
Result: for every dollar of extra welfare given,low income recipients reduced their laborby 80 cents.
http://www.policyarchive.org/handle/...eams/12794.pdf
a. Furtherresults: dissolution of families:
“This conclusion was unambiguously unfavorable to advocates of a negative income tax that would cover married couples, for two important reasons.First, increased marital breakupsamong the poor would increase the numbers on welfare and the amount of transfer payments, principally because the separated wife and children would receive higher transfer payments. Second, marital dissolutions and the usual accompanyingabsence of fathersfrom households with children are generally considered unfavorable outcomes regardless of whether or not the welfare rolls increase.”http://www.bos.frb.org/economic/conf/conf30/conf30c.pdf
2. But....none was entitled to receive any material provision:
"If any poor person shall refuse to be lodged, kept, maintained and employed in such house or houses, he or she shall not be entitled to receive relief from the overseers during such refusal."
Salmon P. Chase, "The Statutes of Ohio and the Northwest Territory," vol.I, p. 176.
1. Why do your cut and pastes always end up drifting so much from the topic?
b. Of course, none of them demonstrate that poor people ever do better when you slash their benefits
Liar.
"Conservatives say if you don't give the rich more money, they will lose their incentive to invest. As for the poor, they tell us they've lost all incentive because we've given them too much money."
- George Carlin
Nowhere in the US or anywhere in the world have the poor done better when you take away benefits
Only conservatives believe this
Of course they were better off.
OK.....let's stipulate that your posts are formed from equivalent dollops of ignorance and lies.
1. The government conducted a study, 1971-1978 known as the Seattle-Denver Income Maintenance Experiment, or SIME-DIME, in which low income families were given a guaranteed income,a welfare package with everything liberal policy makers could hope for.
Result: for every dollar of extra welfare given,low income recipients reduced their laborby 80 cents.
http://www.policyarchive.org/handle/...eams/12794.pdf
a. Furtherresults: dissolution of families:
“This conclusion was unambiguously unfavorable to advocates of a negative income tax that would cover married couples, for two important reasons.First, increased marital breakupsamong the poor would increase the numbers on welfare and the amount of transfer payments, principally because the separated wife and children would receive higher transfer payments. Second, marital dissolutions and the usual accompanyingabsence of fathersfrom households with children are generally considered unfavorable outcomes regardless of whether or not the welfare rolls increase.”http://www.bos.frb.org/economic/conf/conf30/conf30c.pdf
2. But....none was entitled to receive any material provision:
"If any poor person shall refuse to be lodged, kept, maintained and employed in such house or houses, he or she shall not be entitled to receive relief from the overseers during such refusal."
Salmon P. Chase, "The Statutes of Ohio and the Northwest Territory," vol.I, p. 176.
1. Why do your cut and pastes always end up drifting so much from the topic?
b. Of course, none of them demonstrate that poor people ever do better when you slash their benefits
Liar.
Thief
Nowhere in the US or anywhere in the world have the poor done better when you take away benefits
Only conservatives believe this
Of course they were better off.
OK.....let's stipulate that your posts are formed from equivalent dollops of ignorance and lies.
1. The government conducted a study, 1971-1978 known as the Seattle-Denver Income Maintenance Experiment, or SIME-DIME, in which low income families were given a guaranteed income,a welfare package with everything liberal policy makers could hope for.
Result: for every dollar of extra welfare given,low income recipients reduced their laborby 80 cents.
http://www.policyarchive.org/handle/...eams/12794.pdf
a. Furtherresults: dissolution of families:
“This conclusion was unambiguously unfavorable to advocates of a negative income tax that would cover married couples, for two important reasons.First, increased marital breakupsamong the poor would increase the numbers on welfare and the amount of transfer payments, principally because the separated wife and children would receive higher transfer payments. Second, marital dissolutions and the usual accompanyingabsence of fathersfrom households with children are generally considered unfavorable outcomes regardless of whether or not the welfare rolls increase.”http://www.bos.frb.org/economic/conf/conf30/conf30c.pdf
2. But....none was entitled to receive any material provision:
"If any poor person shall refuse to be lodged, kept, maintained and employed in such house or houses, he or she shall not be entitled to receive relief from the overseers during such refusal."
Salmon P. Chase, "The Statutes of Ohio and the Northwest Territory," vol.I, p. 176.
1. Why do your cut and pastes always end up drifting so much from the topic?
b. Of course, none of them demonstrate that poor people ever do better when you slash their benefits
Liar.
Thief
My claim that you lie is correct.
Your response is an attempt to save face that you never had to begin with.
You have no way of knowing what percentage of parents are able to support their teenage mother and child. You have no idea if it is even legal to do so. For all you know the teenage mom's daddy might be $15,000 in debt to the state in back child support and the girls mom might be a minimum wage worker at Walmart.You are making an assumption that the parents are in the position to take care of their kid and grandchild or grandchildren.Good example of how you distort facts. Single mothers make up a large portion of those households. The largest percentage of them are white teenage girls. Having babies in the home makes it difficult to get or hold a job for these girls who are kids themselves.People who have educated themselves and learned skills deserve to make good money and have jobs that don't require sore muscles and aching backs at the end of the day are fortunate and deserve the benefits of their positions. To imply that those less fortunate don't work hard is just disgusting self aggrandizing and aristocratic crap.
"To imply that those less fortunate don't work hard..."
DON'T WORK AT ALL!!!!
Can't you read, you moron???
"The finding that six out of 10 poor households have no one working at all is disturbing. Since they have no income from work, is it a surprise they are poor?"
The Lie Obama Keeps Repeating About the Poor in America
White teenage girls, then their parents can take care of them, riiiight? Why do I have to work overtime and give the money to take care of other peoples kids?
Nice try but you stepped in it deep with your excuse mongering post. You said, "the largest percentage" are white teenage girls. Maybe a small percentage don't have parents but in the vast majority of cases it is their parents responsibility not mine to provide for them. Otherwise where does it end? I may as well just hand over my freaking paycheck to the liberal communists.
You're proof of that!I know you get a kick out of lying. Tell me something I didn't already know."Conservatives say if you don't give the rich more money, they will lose their incentive to invest. As for the poor, they tell us they've lost all incentive because we've given them too much money."
- George Carlin
I've listed FACTS in this thread.
Care to try to dispute any of 'em?
Or, for everyone's amusement.....go back to claiming that George Bernard Shaw wasn't a totalitarian who wanted to annihilate all those who 'couldn't justify their being alive.'
I get such a kick out of that one.
That George Bernard Shaw was a Stalinist?
Like that?
OK...another one you 'don't, already know:'
When you're dead, you don't know you're dead: it's only a reality for others. And that relates to you: it's the same when you're stupid.
