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.
Unlock unbeatable offers today. Shop here: https://amzn.to/4cEkqYs 🎁
I understand....but what if it was presented this way to the country..I did not say I expect gratitude. I don't.I feel happiness when I personally give to those that need. I don't need a middleman to take the credit.Deflection.
Are you claiming that you wouldn't feel happiness if a small portion of the taxes you pay went to feed needy children?
Why?
Because despite my paying nearly 40% of my income to federal, state and local taxes, those in need do not appreciate my efforts on their behalf. Instead, they say I am greedy and not willing to pay my fair share.
If you gave someone down on their luck ten dollars, what feelings would you have if that person said "ten bucks? You cheap greedy asshole!"
True altruism requires no gratitude.
I assume you served in The Corps. I did, too. Not everyone appreciates our service. That doesn't mean I only served those who show me gratitude for it. I appreciate it when people thank me, even if I saw no action and think others are more deserving of that gratitude, but my service was to defend everyone, not just most Amricans.
However, I DONT expect criticism for what I give.
So I ask again....what if you gave 10 dollars to a man down on his luck and he said to you "only 10 dollars? What a greedy selfish asshole you are".....
I'd think he was an asshole, and hopefully he'll get something to eat.
But this thread is about the children of that asshole, not the asshole.
"We are a country of benevolent and caring people. This is evident by the fact that the citizens have supported programs where tax payer money of the successful is used to give a helping hand to those in need; a helping hand to those that can not help themselves; a helping hand to those that wish they could contribute, but unable to contribute. During these most difficult times we ask those same caring people contribute that much more. Yes, it is asking a lot and yes, it is looking a gift horse in the mouth. But there are people seriously struggling and who better to turn to than those that have proven to all of us that they care."
Why did it have to be...."everyone needs to pay their fair share"....and..."the top 1% don't care about the children"
Did they really expect a positive response?
you do not have a clear understanding of what conservatism is.By and large, bleeding heart Liberals don't mind telling the rest of us to butt out of a woman's choice of what she does with her body, having kids being one of those choice, then expecting the rest of us to support the results of that choice when the woman can't do it.
Deflection.
This isn't about abortion or forced charity. The state has a compelling interest in the welfare of children. I think society has a moral interest as well. Don't you?
I didn't mention abortion. I mentioned choice and choosing to having kids is as much of a choice a woman can make with her body as having an abortion.
What I think is that people like you can't determine my morals.
You may be right. A moral person, I think, couldn't determine your morals.
Your problem is that think it's OK for you to determine where I should stand on this issue. I'd be wiling to bet that if I told a woman it's not moral to kill the unintended result of her choice to have sex, you'd tell me to butt out.
No, because you have a moral right to your opinion.
One of the reasons I am not pro-life is because of the moral dilemma between aborting a fetus and forcing women to carry pregnancies to term. How does one enforce anti-abortion laws? Imprisoning women who may abort? Strapping them to gurneys until they give birth? What about the men who are equally responsible for that pregnancy? Send them to labor depots?
Your position fits the stereotype of conservatives who care about children until they're born, but then not caring after they've been born.
you expect such demagoguery from the President of the united States but question the rationality of those that do not see through it?I understand....but what if it was presented this way to the country..I did not say I expect gratitude. I don't.I feel happiness when I personally give to those that need. I don't need a middleman to take the credit.
Why?
Because despite my paying nearly 40% of my income to federal, state and local taxes, those in need do not appreciate my efforts on their behalf. Instead, they say I am greedy and not willing to pay my fair share.
If you gave someone down on their luck ten dollars, what feelings would you have if that person said "ten bucks? You cheap greedy asshole!"
True altruism requires no gratitude.
I assume you served in The Corps. I did, too. Not everyone appreciates our service. That doesn't mean I only served those who show me gratitude for it. I appreciate it when people thank me, even if I saw no action and think others are more deserving of that gratitude, but my service was to defend everyone, not just most Amricans.
However, I DONT expect criticism for what I give.
So I ask again....what if you gave 10 dollars to a man down on his luck and he said to you "only 10 dollars? What a greedy selfish asshole you are".....
I'd think he was an asshole, and hopefully he'll get something to eat.
But this thread is about the children of that asshole, not the asshole.
"We are a country of benevolent and caring people. This is evident by the fact that the citizens have supported programs where tax payer money of the successful is used to give a helping hand to those in need; a helping hand to those that can not help themselves; a helping hand to those that wish they could contribute, but unable to contribute. During these most difficult times we ask those same caring people contribute that much more. Yes, it is asking a lot and yes, it is looking a gift horse in the mouth. But there are people seriously struggling and who better to turn to than those that have proven to all of us that they care."
Why did it have to be...."everyone needs to pay their fair share"....and..."the top 1% don't care about the children"
Did they really expect a positive response?
Sure. The messaging could certainly be better. Demagoguery seems an inevitable part of politics. But, I guess I expect people to think rationally and ignore stupid or abrasive tone and instead react positively to need.
I think your black and white arguments don't really fly. Welfare in some cases is needed, but it shouldn't be generational. Entire families that refuse to work. Living off of handouts and still being able to afford a new Mercedes, a cellphone, and flatscreen televisions in every room.Everybody has one opinion when they dont need something and another when they do. Just like Stephanie and Ayn Rand your pricipals change once your stomach starts grumbling. Republicans with a full belly will deny that but republicans in Red States LOVE the stuff.
But its weird, all those republicans against welfare AND all those republicans ON welfare. You'd think you'd hear more defense coming from repubs on the program they love receiving.
poor example..Deflection.
Are you claiming that you wouldn't feel happiness if a small portion of the taxes you pay went to feed needy children?
I'd feel happiness if you bleeding hearts would voluntarily do with your own money what you demand the rest of us be forced to do on this matter. The government need not be involved. If people like you would actually go out and do with your own money what you find for the rest of us to do with ours, the problem would be solved. It won't happen because it would mean you would actually have to do it rather than talk about it being done.
If we all stopped paying that small portion in taxes that goes to SNAP, WIC, and other social safety services and donated it to just charities that help needy children, it would not stop people from having kids who shouldn't and taking advantage of these charities.
The state has a compelling interest in the welfare of children. Otherwise we would have no Child Protective Services.
we would have no schools
Why do you say we would have no schools?
taxes support schools. Do you expect each person to pay
fees to send their children to school-----even if they are destitute? --------or do you prefer a society in which children of disabled parents lie in the gutter and beg?
You are also not subjected to means testing so the State can tell you what you can have and politicize what you can buy.poor example..I'd feel happiness if you bleeding hearts would voluntarily do with your own money what you demand the rest of us be forced to do on this matter. The government need not be involved. If people like you would actually go out and do with your own money what you find for the rest of us to do with ours, the problem would be solved. It won't happen because it would mean you would actually have to do it rather than talk about it being done.
If we all stopped paying that small portion in taxes that goes to SNAP, WIC, and other social safety services and donated it to just charities that help needy children, it would not stop people from having kids who shouldn't and taking advantage of these charities.
The state has a compelling interest in the welfare of children. Otherwise we would have no Child Protective Services.
we would have no schools
Why do you say we would have no schools?
taxes support schools. Do you expect each person to pay
fees to send their children to school-----even if they are destitute? --------or do you prefer a society in which children of disabled parents lie in the gutter and beg?
My taxes pay for schools for my children and the children of my community.
I do not get welfare; SNAP; subsidized housing; etc.
You may be right. A moral person, I think, couldn't determine your morals.
Your problem is that think it's OK for you to determine where I should stand on this issue. I'd be wiling to bet that if I told a woman it's not moral to kill the unintended result of her choice to have sex, you'd tell me to butt out.
No, because you have a moral right to your opinion.
One of the reasons I am not pro-life is because of the moral dilemma between aborting a fetus and forcing women to carry pregnancies to term. How does one enforce anti-abortion laws? Imprisoning women who may abort? Strapping them to gurneys until they give birth? What about the men who are equally responsible for that pregnancy? Send them to labor depots?
Your position fits the stereotype of conservatives who care about children until they're born, but then not caring after they've been born.
If those men equally responsible for creating that child would do his damn job, the rest of us woulnd't be forced to do it for him.
Your position fits the typical Liberal mindset that someone should have the freedom to make a choice yet not be held responsible for the results of it. I'm willing to give women whatever choice they want with their bodies as long as when those choices can't be funded by the one making it, I'm not forced to pay for something I was told to butt out of when the choice was being made. I ask for no more choice to say no than she asks for help to fund a choice she made.
So what you're saying, if I understand you correctly, is that either the state forces women to give birth to babies they may not be able to afford but then the state shouldn't do anything about the children's welfare afterwards or that women can have all the children they want even if the kids starve or are brought up in such a way as to continue the cycle of poverty as long as the state has nothing to do with it?
Apparently you missed the part about me being willing to give her whatever choice she wants with her body as long as I, as a taxpayer, aren't forced to fund something I'm told is none of my business when she can't. She can have sex with a different man 365 days/year but if she want contraceptives, she should pay. She can have 100 abortions, and while I do care, if she chooses to do so but any of them cause health problems she can't fund, too bad. If she wants to have a dozen kids, fine as long as she supports them.
I think your black and white arguments don't really fly. Welfare in some cases is needed, but it shouldn't be generational. Entire families that refuse to work. Living off of handouts and still being able to afford a new Mercedes, a cellphone, and flatscreen televisions in every room.Everybody has one opinion when they dont need something and another when they do. Just like Stephanie and Ayn Rand your pricipals change once your stomach starts grumbling. Republicans with a full belly will deny that but republicans in Red States LOVE the stuff.
But its weird, all those republicans against welfare AND all those republicans ON welfare. You'd think you'd hear more defense coming from repubs on the program they love receiving.
Fine dude whatever. You are wrongfully convicted of premeditated murder and you and your kids' mom goes to prison for the rest of your lives. Your friends and relatives are unfit to take care of them. What then?Let's say for whatever reason you lose custody if your children and they are forced to live somewhere else. Wouldn't you prefer it they live somewhere that guarantees they get adequate food? Government assistance or not?Lol so these kids who could potentially go hungry and malnourished during a critical time of brain and body development are not the issue?That's immaterial. As long as these people are pumping out illegitimate litters of kids( most unwanted except for the government bounty they provide) the issue is not the kids themselves. It is the irresponsible and cruel adults that produce them.So what choice do the kids have?
You and the rest of you bleeding hearts who think it's the taxpayer's job to do what you won't even hold the sperm donor that helped produce them do can voluntarily do it. I have my own children to feed.
Let's say you provide a few examples of those reasons instead of saying what MIGHT happen.
Ahh...so now you have hit it on the nose. I ask you think about this.....for years we have had programs for the needy...and we do not have shanty towns and parents losing their children to foster homes ..Your problem is that think it's OK for you to determine where I should stand on this issue. I'd be wiling to bet that if I told a woman it's not moral to kill the unintended result of her choice to have sex, you'd tell me to butt out.
No, because you have a moral right to your opinion.
One of the reasons I am not pro-life is because of the moral dilemma between aborting a fetus and forcing women to carry pregnancies to term. How does one enforce anti-abortion laws? Imprisoning women who may abort? Strapping them to gurneys until they give birth? What about the men who are equally responsible for that pregnancy? Send them to labor depots?
Your position fits the stereotype of conservatives who care about children until they're born, but then not caring after they've been born.
If those men equally responsible for creating that child would do his damn job, the rest of us woulnd't be forced to do it for him.
Your position fits the typical Liberal mindset that someone should have the freedom to make a choice yet not be held responsible for the results of it. I'm willing to give women whatever choice they want with their bodies as long as when those choices can't be funded by the one making it, I'm not forced to pay for something I was told to butt out of when the choice was being made. I ask for no more choice to say no than she asks for help to fund a choice she made.
So what you're saying, if I understand you correctly, is that either the state forces women to give birth to babies they may not be able to afford but then the state shouldn't do anything about the children's welfare afterwards or that women can have all the children they want even if the kids starve or are brought up in such a way as to continue the cycle of poverty as long as the state has nothing to do with it?
Apparently you missed the part about me being willing to give her whatever choice she wants with her body as long as I, as a taxpayer, aren't forced to fund something I'm told is none of my business when she can't. She can have sex with a different man 365 days/year but if she want contraceptives, she should pay. She can have 100 abortions, and while I do care, if she chooses to do so but any of them cause health problems she can't fund, too bad. If she wants to have a dozen kids, fine as long as she supports them.
That all seems reasonable to me and it's currently how insurance works. Tax payers don't find contraceptives, insurance companies cover the cost. Tax payers don't fund abortions, women have to pay for them.
Tax payers fund financial assistance programs because it makes sense in the wealthiest nation in the history of the world not to have shanty towns or people starving in the streets with high crime rates like Mexico or Bolivia or Somalia. It benefits us all.
If a woman has a child and can't support that child, what should we, as a nation, do? If the circumstances are temporary, doesn't it make sense to provide assistance until she gets back on her feet? If it's permanent or chronic, what then? Too bad for the kid? Starve or beg? Foster home?
Billy...this is a discussion for adults that do not spin like children.Fine dude whatever. You are wrongfully convicted of premeditated murder and you and your kids' mom goes to prison for the rest of your lives. Your friends and relatives are unfit to take care of them. What then?Let's say for whatever reason you lose custody if your children and they are forced to live somewhere else. Wouldn't you prefer it they live somewhere that guarantees they get adequate food? Government assistance or not?Lol so these kids who could potentially go hungry and malnourished during a critical time of brain and body development are not the issue?That's immaterial. As long as these people are pumping out illegitimate litters of kids( most unwanted except for the government bounty they provide) the issue is not the kids themselves. It is the irresponsible and cruel adults that produce them.
You and the rest of you bleeding hearts who think it's the taxpayer's job to do what you won't even hold the sperm donor that helped produce them do can voluntarily do it. I have my own children to feed.
Let's say you provide a few examples of those reasons instead of saying what MIGHT happen.
ounces of prevention?One reason why some on the left cannot confide in the sincerity of some on the right, is due simply to the cognitive dissonance of the right in complaining about ounces of prevention for social reasons and complaining about pounds for cure for social reasons, while claiming to be for Capitalism.
Lol! You are hilarious, a woman can go out get pregnant, not know the dads name, can't afford to have child. Yet, the responsible adult who raises his kid without state assistance should think twice about having a kid. You are a loon dude.Explain to me why it's OK to take from MY children then claim it's wrong that I want what I've earned to go to the ones I choose not the ones you choose for me.
If you think the money that can go to my children should be taken to go to someone else's, personally come get it. If you aren't man enough, fuck off.
Utt ohh. Look at you getting all up on your hind legs and being a man. Calling someone out on the 'Net makes you a what.........a real big man eh?
To bad you aren't "man" enough to be both a provider for your kids and an individual that makes enough money that they don't begrudge a little of their tax dollars going to feed hungry kids.
You know why I can do both? Give of my own and not begrudge that my tax dollars helps others? One, because I am successful enough that spending those tax dollars don't hurt me. And two because I have empathy.
As a kid I was on the receiving end of "welfare". Wasn't my fault that I had a drunk for a dad who had a hard time keeping a job. Wasn't even my moms fault. She was doing the best she could. So yea, when those boxes of food would appear, I was glad to see them. I liked to eat. We even had church boxes of food. And a landlord that had a conscience as well.
But this was in the day before assholes like you dominated the "conversation" about how poor people had only them selves to blame and if their kids are hungry, then fuck those kids. The parents should have thought of that before they had kids blah blah blah.
Like I said earlier, you are an asshole and a failure as a parent.
btw. I raised three. Almost got em all through college now. They never went hungry or suffered any because my tax dollars went to help others. I and my wife have had enough success that we don't have to whine and bitch like you do about "taking dollars away from my kids". If you are that fucking broke, maybe you should have thought twice about having kids in the first place.
Ahh...so now you have hit it on the nose. I ask you think about this.....for years we have had programs for the needy...and we do not have shanty towns and parents losing their children to foster homes ..No, because you have a moral right to your opinion.
One of the reasons I am not pro-life is because of the moral dilemma between aborting a fetus and forcing women to carry pregnancies to term. How does one enforce anti-abortion laws? Imprisoning women who may abort? Strapping them to gurneys until they give birth? What about the men who are equally responsible for that pregnancy? Send them to labor depots?
Your position fits the stereotype of conservatives who care about children until they're born, but then not caring after they've been born.
If those men equally responsible for creating that child would do his damn job, the rest of us woulnd't be forced to do it for him.
Your position fits the typical Liberal mindset that someone should have the freedom to make a choice yet not be held responsible for the results of it. I'm willing to give women whatever choice they want with their bodies as long as when those choices can't be funded by the one making it, I'm not forced to pay for something I was told to butt out of when the choice was being made. I ask for no more choice to say no than she asks for help to fund a choice she made.
So what you're saying, if I understand you correctly, is that either the state forces women to give birth to babies they may not be able to afford but then the state shouldn't do anything about the children's welfare afterwards or that women can have all the children they want even if the kids starve or are brought up in such a way as to continue the cycle of poverty as long as the state has nothing to do with it?
Apparently you missed the part about me being willing to give her whatever choice she wants with her body as long as I, as a taxpayer, aren't forced to fund something I'm told is none of my business when she can't. She can have sex with a different man 365 days/year but if she want contraceptives, she should pay. She can have 100 abortions, and while I do care, if she chooses to do so but any of them cause health problems she can't fund, too bad. If she wants to have a dozen kids, fine as long as she supports them.
That all seems reasonable to me and it's currently how insurance works. Tax payers don't find contraceptives, insurance companies cover the cost. Tax payers don't fund abortions, women have to pay for them.
Tax payers fund financial assistance programs because it makes sense in the wealthiest nation in the history of the world not to have shanty towns or people starving in the streets with high crime rates like Mexico or Bolivia or Somalia. It benefits us all.
If a woman has a child and can't support that child, what should we, as a nation, do? If the circumstances are temporary, doesn't it make sense to provide assistance until she gets back on her feet? If it's permanent or chronic, what then? Too bad for the kid? Starve or beg? Foster home?
And during those years we have had republican presidents and congresses that could have eliminated such programs, but did not for they AND their constituents understood the need for those programs to feed and house the needy and their children
But now it has turned into free cell phones; free college; free healthcare (as opposed to ER and clinic free care); free broadband....
Yet for some reason, those against these NEW program are questioned as to why they want little children to starve.
And thus this trhead.
We don't want little children to starve. We want them to learn the importance of earning things.
Because you are a moral being? Well, not you personally, obviously; by "you are" I meant "one is".
So you get to determine morals for someone else? Strange that, as a Conservative, when I've tried to express my moral beliefs on other issues I'm told to butt out.
Deflection.
Are you claiming that you wouldn't feel happiness if a small portion of the taxes you pay went to feed needy children?
I'd feel happiness if you bleeding hearts would voluntarily do with your own money what you demand the rest of us be forced to do on this matter. The government need not be involved. If people like you would actually go out and do with your own money what you find for the rest of us to do with ours, the problem would be solved. It won't happen because it would mean you would actually have to do it rather than talk about it being done.
If we all stopped paying that small portion in taxes that goes to SNAP, WIC, and other social safety services and donated it to just charities that help needy children, it would not stop people from having kids who shouldn't and taking advantage of these charities.
The state has a compelling interest in the welfare of children. Otherwise we would have no Child Protective Services.
If you bleeding hearts pooled your own money together and personally gave to those you say deserve your money to the level you claim compassion, taxes wouldn't need to be taken for such things. Even it that didn't stop people from having kids, at least they'd be abusing your money and I could care less because it's YOUR money.
So you get to determine morals for someone else? Strange that, as a Conservative, when I've tried to express my moral beliefs on other issues I'm told to butt out.
Deflection.
Are you claiming that you wouldn't feel happiness if a small portion of the taxes you pay went to feed needy children?
I'd feel happiness if you bleeding hearts would voluntarily do with your own money what you demand the rest of us be forced to do on this matter. The government need not be involved. If people like you would actually go out and do with your own money what you find for the rest of us to do with ours, the problem would be solved. It won't happen because it would mean you would actually have to do it rather than talk about it being done.
If we all stopped paying that small portion in taxes that goes to SNAP, WIC, and other social safety services and donated it to just charities that help needy children, it would not stop people from having kids who shouldn't and taking advantage of these charities.
The state has a compelling interest in the welfare of children. Otherwise we would have no Child Protective Services.
If you bleeding hearts pooled your own money together and personally gave to those you say deserve your money to the level you claim compassion, taxes wouldn't need to be taken for such things. Even it that didn't stop people from having kids, at least they'd be abusing your money and I could care less because it's YOUR money.
I agree.
All those who think all these bullshit social programs are great should pool THEIR money and give it to all those folks that say they need it. Believe me they will take every dime you want to give them.
Hope they have lots of money because freeloaders abound in the U S of A.
The word charity doesn't exist in the constitution.
Taxpayers money wasn't supposed to be used to support every poor person there was.
The tought of money being used for that would have never entered anyones mind back in colonial America. People took care of themselves and no one expected the Govt to give them squat.
Today we have an entire generation who thinks the Govt is here to take care of them. To pay for their food, housing and any medical care they need using taxpayer money and boy do they lap it up. "Free" money.
The Govt isn't supposed to take care of anyone. Your supposed to take care of yourselves.
As a taxpayer I'm sick of my hardearned money going to some douchbag who can't take care of themselves or their kids.
As for the kids? They are the resonsibility of their parents not the taxpayers of america.
i suggest you recommend other things to complain about other than social spending.ounces of prevention?One reason why some on the left cannot confide in the sincerity of some on the right, is due simply to the cognitive dissonance of the right in complaining about ounces of prevention for social reasons and complaining about pounds for cure for social reasons, while claiming to be for Capitalism.
I suggest you dig deeper into what those on the right truly are concerned about.
of all the social welfare programs------I consider SNAP to be
the most justifiable------we should all be happy that our country
provides food for ALL
Why should I be happy that the portion of taxes taken from me that can go to my kids goes to someone else?
