Welfare question for libertarians, conservatives

[HelenaHandbag]

So basically If I understand this correct. If we got rid of all social programs then that would make everyone pull their own weight.

If that is what you're saying then why didnt that happen when we didnt have these social programs? Kids were working jobs and missing school and people were starving in the streets.

I mean thats cool but I dont think you really are advocating to going back to that, are you?

Yep. And we'll all wear the same two outfits, they'll be no refrigeration, kids will have to walk miles to school and the mules to pull the farming equipment will double as the family car for getting the firewood to heat the homestead

Again, you didnt think this through. And you're embarrassed to answer

Seems none of you really have answers just a bunch of questions and misdirections

The one who doesn't think things trough is the person who acts as though America would end up in pre-industrial times if the welfare state was ended.

That would be you.

 

[kwc57]

How will you enforce everyone pulling their own weight? I'm curious to hear this

You don't. That's the beauty of personal responsibility and the rewards thereof. Not having someone providing for you is great incentive to provide for yourself. Give it a try some time. It's all the rage among the producers.

So basically If I understand this correct. If we got rid of all social programs then that would make everyone pull their own weight.

If that is what you're saying then why didnt that happen when we didnt have these social programs? Kids were working jobs and missing school and people were starving in the streets.

I mean thats cool but I dont think you really are advocating to going back to that, are you?

For able bodied adults who would rather suck off the government teat until the day they die instead of provide for themselves, you damn betcha. But you already new that from my answer about helping 80 year old women in wheelchairs with no living family members as opposed to a 22 year old man in good health. Conservatives do not lack compassion for those that have actual need. And the best help is that which helps someone get back on their feet. The liberal idea taking money from one citizen to provide for another person perfectly capable of providing for themselves from cradle to grave is pure bullshit. I know you believe yourself to be at least of average intelligence. This should be self evident to you.

 

[ClosedCaption]

So far, your only answer is: "Results? We don't need no steenking results!"

Then you wonder how it is that you become deemed a common thief.

We have results. I'm asking did you think the programs was going to get rid of poverty. Because that would be stupid to think so...I guess thats the reason you wont answer.

You were thinking that those programs had an unachieveable goal...no wonder you're disappointed

What results? What goals?

If you're going to have a war on poverty, it only follows that the goal would be to eliminate, or at least greatly reduce, the rates of poverty.

So, again: What results? What goals?

Glad you asked. Now remember you asked for what results. Dont go moving the goal posts once I show you results you didnt know existed, k?

“The War on Poverty expanded a set of government programs that really did make a difference in lifting people out of poverty with regard to making available more food stamps, with regard to the Head Start programs, with regard to Medicaid and a number of other things like that,” said Manuel Pastor, professor of sociology and American studies and ethnicity at USC. “I think what the War on Poverty really didn’t change is the fundamental structure of the economy and the number of low-wage jobs that in particular it’s been creating in the last sort of 20 to 30 years. It’s a bit like pushing the mountain where the mountain is moving in the other direction.”

By one estimate, safety-net policies have helped reduce the national poverty rate from 26 percent in 1967 to about 16 percent in 2012, according to the California Budget Project. And, according to the U.S. Census Bureau, safety-net programs on average kept almost 4 million Californians, including 1 million children, out of poverty between 2009 and 2011.

Now...that you've been shown that. I will also add in the war on Poverty we had a lot of generals. General Nixon, Reagan, Bush and Bush 2 werent very interested in "winning".

If fact they were not interested in "winning" against poverty at all.

So while there were mixed results some good...some bad. We still did pretty good despite having a double agent in charge. Now maybe you believe those guys were fighting just as hard as LBJ wouldve or as hard as Clinton...but you'd just be trying to be funny tho

 

[ClosedCaption]

Yep. And we'll all wear the same two outfits, they'll be no refrigeration, kids will have to walk miles to school and the mules to pull the farming equipment will double as the family car for getting the firewood to heat the homestead

Again, you didnt think this through. And you're embarrassed to answer

Seems none of you really have answers just a bunch of questions and misdirections

The one who doesn't think things trough is the person who acts as though America would end up in pre-industrial times if the welfare state was ended.

That would be you.

Put down that straw....Look at me. Talk to me not the strawman

 

[ClosedCaption]

You don't. That's the beauty of personal responsibility and the rewards thereof. Not having someone providing for you is great incentive to provide for yourself. Give it a try some time. It's all the rage among the producers.

So basically If I understand this correct. If we got rid of all social programs then that would make everyone pull their own weight.

If that is what you're saying then why didnt that happen when we didnt have these social programs? Kids were working jobs and missing school and people were starving in the streets.

I mean thats cool but I dont think you really are advocating to going back to that, are you?

For able bodied adults who would rather suck off the government teat until the day they die instead of provide for themselves, you damn betcha.

At least you're honest. The rest of these guys allude to this fact but refuse to say it.

 

[ClosedCaption]

Do we really need a law to get you to mind your own damned business?

Are you a random question generator?

He said Mandatory weight pulling... I didnt

Actually, you did say mandatory if you care to go back to the post I responded to. I was merely employing the word you used in reverse. Obviously, you aren't bright enough to know a play on words when you see one.

Tell us, how does it feel to have your ass handed to you daily in a public forum? I suppose the anonymity of the interwebs takes some of the sting and shame out of it.

I dont know....How does it feel?

 

[HelenaHandbag]

We have results. I'm asking did you think the programs was going to get rid of poverty. Because that would be stupid to think so...I guess thats the reason you wont answer.

You were thinking that those programs had an unachieveable goal...no wonder you're disappointed

What results? What goals?

If you're going to have a war on poverty, it only follows that the goal would be to eliminate, or at least greatly reduce, the rates of poverty.

So, again: What results? What goals?

Glad you asked. Now remember you asked for what results. Dont go moving the goal posts once I show you results you didnt know existed, k?

“The War on Poverty expanded a set of government programs that really did make a difference in lifting people out of poverty with regard to making available more food stamps, with regard to the Head Start programs, with regard to Medicaid and a number of other things like that,” said Manuel Pastor, professor of sociology and American studies and ethnicity at USC. “I think what the War on Poverty really didn’t change is the fundamental structure of the economy and the number of low-wage jobs that in particular it’s been creating in the last sort of 20 to 30 years. It’s a bit like pushing the mountain where the mountain is moving in the other direction.”

By one estimate, safety-net policies have helped reduce the national poverty rate from 26 percent in 1967 to about 16 percent in 2012, according to the California Budget Project. And, according to the U.S. Census Bureau, safety-net programs on average kept almost 4 million Californians, including 1 million children, out of poverty between 2009 and 2011.

Now...that you've been shown that. I will also add in the war on Poverty we had a lot of generals. General Nixon, Reagan, Bush and Bush 2 werent very interested in "winning".

If fact they were not interested in "winning" against poverty at all.

So while there were mixed results some good...some bad. We still did pretty good despite having a double agent in charge. Now maybe you believe those guys were fighting just as hard as LBJ wouldve or as hard as Clinton...but you'd just be trying to be funny tho

A string of irrelevancies is irrelevant.

The bureaucrats remain the same no matter who is president. The budgets have gone up year after year, decade after decade, yet there is no less poverty today.

Goals: Unintelligible.

Results: None.

 

[The T]

Well I don't think there should be welfare recipients, so...

What are we supposed to do with the people who can't fend for themselves? Let them starve in the street?

NOTHING wrong with giving hand-ups...but it has to be limited, and for a limited time. AS they are on the dole, it is incumbent upon them to better their situation in the meantime...Safety net is FINE...it is when it becomes a hammock, a way of life I have a problem with. THOSE people I call moochers, and they get the moniker deservedly so.

 

[DiamondDave]

So far, your only answer is: "Results? We don't need no steenking results!"

Then you wonder how it is that you become deemed a common thief.

We have results. I'm asking did you think the programs was going to get rid of poverty. Because that would be stupid to think so...I guess thats the reason you wont answer.

You were thinking that those programs had an unachieveable goal...no wonder you're disappointed

What results? What goals?

If you're going to have a war on poverty, it only follows that the goal would be to eliminate, or at least greatly reduce, the rates of poverty.

So, again: What results? What goals?

The result was to give enough to buy enough votes to retain power and expand government... because it sure as hell was not to reduce or eliminate poverty, and those certainly were not the result

 

[ClosedCaption]

What results? What goals?

If you're going to have a war on poverty, it only follows that the goal would be to eliminate, or at least greatly reduce, the rates of poverty.

So, again: What results? What goals?

Glad you asked. Now remember you asked for what results. Dont go moving the goal posts once I show you results you didnt know existed, k?

Now...that you've been shown that. I will also add in the war on Poverty we had a lot of generals. General Nixon, Reagan, Bush and Bush 2 werent very interested in "winning".

If fact they were not interested in "winning" against poverty at all.

So while there were mixed results some good...some bad. We still did pretty good despite having a double agent in charge. Now maybe you believe those guys were fighting just as hard as LBJ wouldve or as hard as Clinton...but you'd just be trying to be funny tho

A string of irrelevancies is irrelevant.

The bureaucrats remain the same no matter who is president. The budgets have gone up year after year, decade after decade, yet there is no less poverty today.

Goals: Unintelligible.

Results: None.

Tell that to all the other people that you know something they dont.

 

[Two Thumbs]

Do you think people who are on welfare should get cash along with food stamps or not?

In another thread I saw that a few conservatives were vehemently opposed to giving these people any cash. I was a bit surprised. Personally, I consider myself a compassionate conservative and believe giving people on welfare a modest cash stipend is appropriate. Keep in mind food stamps don't cover some of the basic needs a person may have, such as clothing, laundry money, transportation, haircut, etc..

most people on welfare know how to work the system, so there's no need for cash.

but stamps need an outside monitor to clean things up.

single mother with one kid gets 4 gals of milk a month, and all 4 gals must be bought at once. yea

it either gets traded out or spoils

 

[BillyZane]

Do you think people who are on welfare should get cash along with food stamps or not?

In another thread I saw that a few conservatives were vehemently opposed to giving these people any cash. I was a bit surprised. Personally, I consider myself a compassionate conservative and believe giving people on welfare a modest cash stipend is appropriate. Keep in mind food stamps don't cover some of the basic needs a person may have, such as clothing, laundry money, transportation, haircut, etc..

Yes, they should get cash, in return for work done in their community.

I say hire every person who needs welfare at minimum wage tax free and let them do community service for 30 hours a week while looking for a job the other 10 (I even say pay them for the 10 hours they are job hunting. Don't wanna work? go hungry

 

[TooTall]

What are we supposed to do with the people who can't fend for themselves? Let them starve in the street?

What did we do with them before the federal government started its "benevolence" programs?

They starved in the streets.

Actually, there were free food kitchens in all large and mid sized cities ran by charities, Churches and just plain citzens that donated time and money to feed them. In the small town I grew up in the Lions Club and the Rotary Club made up of local business men took care of the few that were unable to fend for themselves.

 

[Iceman]

We let them starve in the street.

I don't know if you're joking or not. I hope you are.

Nope. Not joking. It's a fact. The private charities could not keep up.

If private charities were adequate, there would have been no demand for a social safety net. Therefore, private charity was not adequate as the only means of relief for the poor.

 

[HelenaHandbag]

We let them starve in the street.

I don't know if you're joking or not. I hope you are.

Nope. Not joking. It's a fact. The private charities could not keep up.

You don't know that for certain.

 

[HelenaHandbag]

Glad you asked. Now remember you asked for what results. Dont go moving the goal posts once I show you results you didnt know existed, k?

A string of irrelevancies is irrelevant.

The bureaucrats remain the same no matter who is president. The budgets have gone up year after year, decade after decade, yet there is no less poverty today.

Goals: Unintelligible.

Results: None.

Tell that to all the other people that you know something they dont.

I'm obviously telling you something that you don't know.

Have to start somewhere.

 

[R.D.]

I don't know if you're joking or not. I hope you are.

Nope. Not joking. It's a fact. The private charities could not keep up.

If private charities were adequate, there would have been no demand for a social safety net. Therefore, private charity as no adequate as the only means of relief for the poor.

That's just wrong. Follow the votes!

 

[The T]

We have results. I'm asking did you think the programs was going to get rid of poverty. Because that would be stupid to think so...I guess thats the reason you wont answer.

You were thinking that those programs had an unachieveable goal...no wonder you're disappointed

What results? What goals?

If you're going to have a war on poverty, it only follows that the goal would be to eliminate, or at least greatly reduce, the rates of poverty.

So, again: What results? What goals?

The result was to give enough to buy enough votes to retain power and expand government... because it sure as hell was not to reduce or eliminate poverty, and those certainly were not the result

Precisely. War on poverty is a losing one. Jesus said the poor would always be with us, and remains so. And you are correct, the government uses it to buy votes and for their power over those that vote for them...the NEW SLAVERY.

 

[Rocko]

Well I don't think there should be welfare recipients, so...

What are we supposed to do with the people who can't fend for themselves? Let them starve in the street?

NOTHING wrong with giving hand-ups...but it has to be limited, and for a limited time. AS they are on the dole, it is incumbent upon them to better their situation in the meantime...Safety net is FINE...it is when it becomes a hammock, a way of life I have a problem with. THOSE people I call moochers, and they get the moniker deservedly so.

But T, what happens when the limited time runs out and these people still aren't on their feet? Won't society feel a greater burden if we just cut these people off and leave them out in the cold?

 

[The T]

What are we supposed to do with the people who can't fend for themselves? Let them starve in the street?

NOTHING wrong with giving hand-ups...but it has to be limited, and for a limited time. AS they are on the dole, it is incumbent upon them to better their situation in the meantime...Safety net is FINE...it is when it becomes a hammock, a way of life I have a problem with. THOSE people I call moochers, and they get the moniker deservedly so.

But T, what happens when the limited time runs out and these people still aren't on their feet? Won't society feel a greater burden if we just cut these people off and leave them out in the cold?

There used to be a time when PRIVATE CHARITIES took care of these needs exclusively. Yeah many are still around but...they fall under the scrutiny of the same Government that wants the job permanently...Get the drift?