Where do republicans get this myth that Democrats believe welfare is the key to ending poverty?

[Billy000]

Gosh, gee, I just can't imagine how anyone could get the wild idea that Democrats think welfare is the key to ending poverty! Shucks, where would anyone get such an idea? Truly, this is a deep mystery, just unfathomable.

What is wrong with helping people who need help?

IN A FREE COUNTRY CHARITY SHOULD BE ****VOLUNTARY*******


.SECONDLY, PEOPLE WHO ARE DEPENDENT ON FEDERAL LARGESSE SHOULD NOT HAVE THE RIGHT TO VOTE THEY ARE MOTIVATED TO ELECT WELFARE STATE POLITICIANS LIKE COMRADE SANDERS AND SINCE THEY DON'T OWN PROPERTY THEY ARE NOT MOTIVATED TO KEEP TAXES LOW. THEY SHOULD NOT BE PART OF JURIES WHERE THE GOVERNMENT IS A PARTY.


.


.

If you make any form of charity voluntary then there would be little to no support for these types of individuals.

Imagine what would happen if employment benefits were entirely voluntary. Sure, you think UE is a horrible program like any other libertarian, but imagine what would happen if this country fell into another Great Recession where 8 MILLION people lost their jobs within less than a year. Do you remember any charitable rich people giving a helping hand to those 8 million unemployed in the last recession? No of course not because they didn't. Obama had to extend the benefits through legislation to keep those people afloat. Imagine if you lost your job against your will in the time of a great recession and you realized it was next to impossible for you to find another job to support your family. I am willing to bet that if you were in such desperate situation you would turn to benefits after awhile...

 

[Billy000]

Liberals do not believe welfare programs like food stamps are intended to lift people out of poverty. Such programs exist as an unfortunate safety net to the very poor. It is a necessary evil in an economy where wages for the poor are WAY behind on inflation. It is also important to note that 83% of households on food stamps have at least one child living in them. That means that even if you want to argue that any adult on food stamps is a self-defeating loser, it doesn't change the fact that kids in that family are in desperate need of proper nutrition for their development.

Conservatives like to argue that the poor are responsible for lifting themselves out of poverty, not the government. Now this is certainly true to a degree and is a fair point, but this logic ignores the nature of the economy that we live in. Low wage jobs greatly outnumber higher wage jobs and low wages are way behind on current cost of living standards. That means millions of people have NO CHOICE but to accept shitty paying jobs.

No liberal/democrat in general believes that welfare will end poverty. Have you noticed that one of the polcies of dems is to raise the minimum wage? Millions of people currently on welfare would no longer qualify for it if they made a decent wage.That is the ONLY way to fix poverty. Wages in the middle class and poor have been flat for DECADES while inflation is way ahead. What is the incentive for the private market to raise wages on its own if business owners can maximize profit by keeping wages so low?

A SAFETY NET is not supposed to last for decades and generations dipshit.

Yeah no shit, but if wages remain flat what choice do we have?

 

[Vigilante]

 

[Ray From Cleveland]

Gosh, gee, I just can't imagine how anyone could get the wild idea that Democrats think welfare is the key to ending poverty! Shucks, where would anyone get such an idea? Truly, this is a deep mystery, just unfathomable.

What is wrong with helping people who need help?

IN A FREE COUNTRY CHARITY SHOULD BE ****VOLUNTARY*******


.SECONDLY, PEOPLE WHO ARE DEPENDENT ON FEDERAL LARGESSE SHOULD NOT HAVE THE RIGHT TO VOTE THEY ARE MOTIVATED TO ELECT WELFARE STATE POLITICIANS LIKE COMRADE SANDERS AND SINCE THEY DON'T OWN PROPERTY THEY ARE NOT MOTIVATED TO KEEP TAXES LOW. THEY SHOULD NOT BE PART OF JURIES WHERE THE GOVERNMENT IS A PARTY.


.


.

If you make any form of charity voluntary then there would be little to no support for these types of individuals.

Imagine what would happen if employment benefits were entirely voluntary. Sure, you think UE is a horrible program like any other libertarian, but imagine what would happen if this country fell into another Great Recession where 8 MILLION people lost their jobs within less than a year. Do you remember any charitable rich people giving a helping hand to those 8 million unemployed in the last recession? No of course not because they didn't. Obama had to extend the benefits through legislation to keep those people afloat. Imagine if you lost your job against your will in the time of a great recession and you realized it was next to impossible for you to find another job to support your family. I am willing to bet that if you were in such desperate situation you would turn to benefits after awhile...

So what's wrong with unemployment insurance being optional? If you want it, you pay for it. If you don't, then you're not covered.

 

[Wyatt earp]

Gosh, gee, I just can't imagine how anyone could get the wild idea that Democrats think welfare is the key to ending poverty! Shucks, where would anyone get such an idea? Truly, this is a deep mystery, just unfathomable.

What is wrong with helping people who need help?

IN A FREE COUNTRY CHARITY SHOULD BE ****VOLUNTARY*******


.SECONDLY, PEOPLE WHO ARE DEPENDENT ON FEDERAL LARGESSE SHOULD NOT HAVE THE RIGHT TO VOTE THEY ARE MOTIVATED TO ELECT WELFARE STATE POLITICIANS LIKE COMRADE SANDERS AND SINCE THEY DON'T OWN PROPERTY THEY ARE NOT MOTIVATED TO KEEP TAXES LOW. THEY SHOULD NOT BE PART OF JURIES WHERE THE GOVERNMENT IS A PARTY.


.


.

If you make any form of charity voluntary then there would be little to no support for these types of individuals.

Imagine what would happen if employment benefits were entirely voluntary. Sure, you think UE is a horrible program like any other libertarian, but imagine what would happen if this country fell into another Great Recession where 8 MILLION people lost their jobs within less than a year. Do you remember any charitable rich people giving a helping hand to those 8 million unemployed in the last recession? No of course not because they didn't. Obama had to extend the benefits through legislation to keep those people afloat. Imagine if you lost your job against your will in the time of a great recession and you realized it was next to impossible for you to find another job to support your family. I am willing to bet that if you were in such desperate situation you would turn to benefits after awhile...

Yea ok Billy, remember how the democrats complained when the 99 weekers lost the extension?

What happened to all those people Billy? You see them all panhandling right now???????

The 99 weekers abused that extension then cried and said it was unfair that no one wanted to hire them.

 

[Wyatt earp]

Gosh, gee, I just can't imagine how anyone could get the wild idea that Democrats think welfare is the key to ending poverty! Shucks, where would anyone get such an idea? Truly, this is a deep mystery, just unfathomable.

What is wrong with helping people who need help?

IN A FREE COUNTRY CHARITY SHOULD BE ****VOLUNTARY*******


.SECONDLY, PEOPLE WHO ARE DEPENDENT ON FEDERAL LARGESSE SHOULD NOT HAVE THE RIGHT TO VOTE THEY ARE MOTIVATED TO ELECT WELFARE STATE POLITICIANS LIKE COMRADE SANDERS AND SINCE THEY DON'T OWN PROPERTY THEY ARE NOT MOTIVATED TO KEEP TAXES LOW. THEY SHOULD NOT BE PART OF JURIES WHERE THE GOVERNMENT IS A PARTY.


.


.

If you make any form of charity voluntary then there would be little to no support for these types of individuals.

Imagine what would happen if employment benefits were entirely voluntary. Sure, you think UE is a horrible program like any other libertarian, but imagine what would happen if this country fell into another Great Recession where 8 MILLION people lost their jobs within less than a year. Do you remember any charitable rich people giving a helping hand to those 8 million unemployed in the last recession? No of course not because they didn't. Obama had to extend the benefits through legislation to keep those people afloat. Imagine if you lost your job against your will in the time of a great recession and you realized it was next to impossible for you to find another job to support your family. I am willing to bet that if you were in such desperate situation you would turn to benefits after awhile...

So what's wrong with unemployment insurance being optional? If you want it, you pay for it. If you don't, then you're not covered.

You don't pay for it directly your employer does.

 

[Billy000]

I don't know. What are we supposed to do with the children? Put them to sleep?

What do you mean what are we supposed to do? Shouldn't you be directing that question to the people making the babies they can't pay for?

I agree they shouldn't of had the child but that isn't my point. Regardless of the mother's irresponsibility, the important question I am asking is what we do with the child. We can't put em back in the womb. So what do we do with the child?

That's the parents' issue to figure out. I see nothing "we" need to do. I take care of my own family.

Ok I don't understand why you people think so one dimensionally about this issue. My point is what we do with the child. You speak as though we are talking about someone not being able to make their monthly car payments. We are talking about a human being. So because the mother can't take of her kid, we should let the kid starve to death? Don't you see how that's a problem. Giving food stamps to a mother isn't about her. It's about the kid she is raising.

So you don't think the mother uses the food that comes from those food stamps?

Our government gives incentives for poor people to have children, then we can't figure out why we can't solve poverty?

That's like saying I can't solve the problem of the raccoon digging in my garbage can, but I keep the lid off all night and throw away good food that I couldn't finish for dinner every night.

If you can't take care of your kids, they should be put up for adoption. While not the most humane thing to do, it would stop the incentive for these poor people to have children, and then there would be less of them in the future.

Yeah she probably does. And? She is being stretched pretty thin on the dirt poor income she is on.

Incentives to have children? Ok so obviously you know nothing about the actual facts of food stamps. On average, a household gets about $133 per month per person as a supplement to an income that is on average $744 per month. Do you really think a mother is profiting off of $133 per month? Do you not even know how much it costs to raise a child? You see these facts matter.

So your fascist solution to this problem is for parents to be forced to put up their kids for adoption? So its better for the government to separate families then to pay for a welfare program? Hmm. Ok so lets go with this for a moment. You do realize that people aren't just lining up to adopt kids right? It's relatively uncommon. There's no way such small demand for adopted children would fix the actual problem.

 

[Billy000]

Gosh, gee, I just can't imagine how anyone could get the wild idea that Democrats think welfare is the key to ending poverty! Shucks, where would anyone get such an idea? Truly, this is a deep mystery, just unfathomable.

What is wrong with helping people who need help?

IN A FREE COUNTRY CHARITY SHOULD BE ****VOLUNTARY*******


.SECONDLY, PEOPLE WHO ARE DEPENDENT ON FEDERAL LARGESSE SHOULD NOT HAVE THE RIGHT TO VOTE THEY ARE MOTIVATED TO ELECT WELFARE STATE POLITICIANS LIKE COMRADE SANDERS AND SINCE THEY DON'T OWN PROPERTY THEY ARE NOT MOTIVATED TO KEEP TAXES LOW. THEY SHOULD NOT BE PART OF JURIES WHERE THE GOVERNMENT IS A PARTY.


.


.

If you make any form of charity voluntary then there would be little to no support for these types of individuals.

Imagine what would happen if employment benefits were entirely voluntary. Sure, you think UE is a horrible program like any other libertarian, but imagine what would happen if this country fell into another Great Recession where 8 MILLION people lost their jobs within less than a year. Do you remember any charitable rich people giving a helping hand to those 8 million unemployed in the last recession? No of course not because they didn't. Obama had to extend the benefits through legislation to keep those people afloat. Imagine if you lost your job against your will in the time of a great recession and you realized it was next to impossible for you to find another job to support your family. I am willing to bet that if you were in such desperate situation you would turn to benefits after awhile...

Yea ok Billy, remember how the democrats complained when the 99 weekers lost the extension?

What happened to all those people Billy? You see them all panhandling right now???????

The 99 weekers abused that extension then cried and said it was unfair that no one wanted to hire them.

You realize of course that when we lost those 8 million jobs, those jobs didn't go to anyone else. THEY WERE GONE. That means we had an unemployed population that was significantly bigger than actual available jobs. It would take MONTHS to create new jobs.

 

[Billy000]

Gosh, gee, I just can't imagine how anyone could get the wild idea that Democrats think welfare is the key to ending poverty! Shucks, where would anyone get such an idea? Truly, this is a deep mystery, just unfathomable.

What is wrong with helping people who need help?

IN A FREE COUNTRY CHARITY SHOULD BE ****VOLUNTARY*******


.SECONDLY, PEOPLE WHO ARE DEPENDENT ON FEDERAL LARGESSE SHOULD NOT HAVE THE RIGHT TO VOTE THEY ARE MOTIVATED TO ELECT WELFARE STATE POLITICIANS LIKE COMRADE SANDERS AND SINCE THEY DON'T OWN PROPERTY THEY ARE NOT MOTIVATED TO KEEP TAXES LOW. THEY SHOULD NOT BE PART OF JURIES WHERE THE GOVERNMENT IS A PARTY.


.


.

If you make any form of charity voluntary then there would be little to no support for these types of individuals.

Imagine what would happen if employment benefits were entirely voluntary. Sure, you think UE is a horrible program like any other libertarian, but imagine what would happen if this country fell into another Great Recession where 8 MILLION people lost their jobs within less than a year. Do you remember any charitable rich people giving a helping hand to those 8 million unemployed in the last recession? No of course not because they didn't. Obama had to extend the benefits through legislation to keep those people afloat. Imagine if you lost your job against your will in the time of a great recession and you realized it was next to impossible for you to find another job to support your family. I am willing to bet that if you were in such desperate situation you would turn to benefits after awhile...

So what's wrong with unemployment insurance being optional? If you want it, you pay for it. If you don't, then you're not covered.

Because people are generally selfish so we would be WAY short on alleviating the problem. Do you think anyone would pay their taxes if it was optional? Hell no. The deficit and debt would be a hell of a lot higher than 18 trillion.

 

[Ray From Cleveland]

What do you mean what are we supposed to do? Shouldn't you be directing that question to the people making the babies they can't pay for?

I agree they shouldn't of had the child but that isn't my point. Regardless of the mother's irresponsibility, the important question I am asking is what we do with the child. We can't put em back in the womb. So what do we do with the child?

That's the parents' issue to figure out. I see nothing "we" need to do. I take care of my own family.

Ok I don't understand why you people think so one dimensionally about this issue. My point is what we do with the child. You speak as though we are talking about someone not being able to make their monthly car payments. We are talking about a human being. So because the mother can't take of her kid, we should let the kid starve to death? Don't you see how that's a problem. Giving food stamps to a mother isn't about her. It's about the kid she is raising.

So you don't think the mother uses the food that comes from those food stamps?

Our government gives incentives for poor people to have children, then we can't figure out why we can't solve poverty?

That's like saying I can't solve the problem of the raccoon digging in my garbage can, but I keep the lid off all night and throw away good food that I couldn't finish for dinner every night.

If you can't take care of your kids, they should be put up for adoption. While not the most humane thing to do, it would stop the incentive for these poor people to have children, and then there would be less of them in the future.

Yeah she probably does. And? She is being stretched pretty thin on the dirt poor income she is on.

Incentives to have children? Ok so obviously you know nothing about the actual facts of food stamps. On average, a household gets about $133 per month per person as a supplement to an income that is on average $744 per month. Do you really think a mother is profiting off of $133 per month? Do you not even know how much it costs to raise a child? You see these facts matter.

So your fascist solution to this problem is for parents to be forced to put up their kids for adoption? So its better for the government to separate families then to pay for a welfare program? Hmm. Ok so lets go with this for a moment. You do realize that people aren't just lining up to adopt kids right? It's relatively uncommon. There's no way such small demand for adopted children would fix the actual problem.

As I pointed out, it might not for them, but in the future, women would be fearful of losing their child to adoption and maybe....just maybe they would be a little more responsible about having children in the first place.

I know of plenty of women that had children just to get more government benefits. It's really not too much of a secret in the ghetto. Do you think I don't see how many children these mothers have with them when they get in front of me at the grocery store counter? Do you think I don't notice what kind of food items they are buying? Do you think I'm making it all up when I tell you about the greeting cards they buy with cash, and cigarettes, and beer, and sacks of dog food, and cat litter? I don't know about these things?

 

[Ray From Cleveland]

Gosh, gee, I just can't imagine how anyone could get the wild idea that Democrats think welfare is the key to ending poverty! Shucks, where would anyone get such an idea? Truly, this is a deep mystery, just unfathomable.

What is wrong with helping people who need help?

IN A FREE COUNTRY CHARITY SHOULD BE ****VOLUNTARY*******


.SECONDLY, PEOPLE WHO ARE DEPENDENT ON FEDERAL LARGESSE SHOULD NOT HAVE THE RIGHT TO VOTE THEY ARE MOTIVATED TO ELECT WELFARE STATE POLITICIANS LIKE COMRADE SANDERS AND SINCE THEY DON'T OWN PROPERTY THEY ARE NOT MOTIVATED TO KEEP TAXES LOW. THEY SHOULD NOT BE PART OF JURIES WHERE THE GOVERNMENT IS A PARTY.


.


.

If you make any form of charity voluntary then there would be little to no support for these types of individuals.

Imagine what would happen if employment benefits were entirely voluntary. Sure, you think UE is a horrible program like any other libertarian, but imagine what would happen if this country fell into another Great Recession where 8 MILLION people lost their jobs within less than a year. Do you remember any charitable rich people giving a helping hand to those 8 million unemployed in the last recession? No of course not because they didn't. Obama had to extend the benefits through legislation to keep those people afloat. Imagine if you lost your job against your will in the time of a great recession and you realized it was next to impossible for you to find another job to support your family. I am willing to bet that if you were in such desperate situation you would turn to benefits after awhile...

So what's wrong with unemployment insurance being optional? If you want it, you pay for it. If you don't, then you're not covered.

Because people are generally selfish so we would be WAY short on alleviating the problem. Do you think anyone would pay their taxes if it was optional? Hell no. The deficit and debt would be a hell of a lot higher than 18 trillion.

Did you ever stop to consider that maybe the reason people don't give to charity is because they assume government is taking care of everything?

The United States is the most charitable country in the world--and I don't mean our government. People from Canada and Europe praised us on several occasions about our good deeds to people half-way across the world. To say Americans are selfish is just uncalled for. Many people who give do so in silence. That is unless you're Oprah where you know your charitable contributions can act as a ratings getter for your televisions show. Then you boast about it as loud as you can.

 

[Dont Taz Me Bro]

Put aside the mother and her fuck up. WHAT DO WE DO WITH THE KID WHO DIDNT CHOOSE TO BE BORN.

I don't give a fuck. Life isn't always fair.

Oh great. Spoken like a true Rightwinger. Congratulations..

How many of those kids are you going to take in, feed, and clothe?

None of them. It's best they stay with their parents.

So you expect everyone else to foot the bill while you sit back and feel good about yourself.

Oh great. Spoken like a true left winger. Congratulations..

 

[Dont Taz Me Bro]

What do you mean what are we supposed to do? Shouldn't you be directing that question to the people making the babies they can't pay for?

I agree they shouldn't of had the child but that isn't my point. Regardless of the mother's irresponsibility, the important question I am asking is what we do with the child. We can't put em back in the womb. So what do we do with the child?

That's the parents' issue to figure out. I see nothing "we" need to do. I take care of my own family.

Ok I don't understand why you people think so one dimensionally about this issue. My point is what we do with the child. You speak as though we are talking about someone not being able to make their monthly car payments. We are talking about a human being. So because the mother can't take of her kid, we should let the kid starve to death? Don't you see how that's a problem. Giving food stamps to a mother isn't about her. It's about the kid she is raising.

And I don't understand why you keep asking what "we" are going to do when I have no such obligation to do anything instead of asking the parents what they are going to do.

We the People have decided we are going to help the less fortunate in our society

Sucks being you

Then go ahead and help them. How many needy children have you gone out and helped?

 

[rightwinger]

Gosh, gee, I just can't imagine how anyone could get the wild idea that Democrats think welfare is the key to ending poverty! Shucks, where would anyone get such an idea? Truly, this is a deep mystery, just unfathomable.

What is wrong with helping people who need help?

IN A FREE COUNTRY CHARITY SHOULD BE ****VOLUNTARY*******


.SECONDLY, PEOPLE WHO ARE DEPENDENT ON FEDERAL LARGESSE SHOULD NOT HAVE THE RIGHT TO VOTE THEY ARE MOTIVATED TO ELECT WELFARE STATE POLITICIANS LIKE COMRADE SANDERS AND SINCE THEY DON'T OWN PROPERTY THEY ARE NOT MOTIVATED TO KEEP TAXES LOW. THEY SHOULD NOT BE PART OF JURIES WHERE THE GOVERNMENT IS A PARTY.


.


.

You are welcome to give to whoever you want

As a society, we have decided to help those who need helping. If you object, you are free to vote for those who object to helping others

 

[rightwinger]

I agree they shouldn't of had the child but that isn't my point. Regardless of the mother's irresponsibility, the important question I am asking is what we do with the child. We can't put em back in the womb. So what do we do with the child?

That's the parents' issue to figure out. I see nothing "we" need to do. I take care of my own family.

Ok I don't understand why you people think so one dimensionally about this issue. My point is what we do with the child. You speak as though we are talking about someone not being able to make their monthly car payments. We are talking about a human being. So because the mother can't take of her kid, we should let the kid starve to death? Don't you see how that's a problem. Giving food stamps to a mother isn't about her. It's about the kid she is raising.

And I don't understand why you keep asking what "we" are going to do when I have no such obligation to do anything instead of asking the parents what they are going to do.

We the People have decided we are going to help the less fortunate in our society

Sucks being you

Then go ahead and help them. How many needy children have you gone out and helped?

I am best known for rescuing kittens from trees and helping old ladies to cross the street

In addition, I vote for those who are willing to help the neediest in our society
If you want to vote for those who only help the wealthy....that is your prerogative

 

[Billy000]

I agree they shouldn't of had the child but that isn't my point. Regardless of the mother's irresponsibility, the important question I am asking is what we do with the child. We can't put em back in the womb. So what do we do with the child?

That's the parents' issue to figure out. I see nothing "we" need to do. I take care of my own family.

Ok I don't understand why you people think so one dimensionally about this issue. My point is what we do with the child. You speak as though we are talking about someone not being able to make their monthly car payments. We are talking about a human being. So because the mother can't take of her kid, we should let the kid starve to death? Don't you see how that's a problem. Giving food stamps to a mother isn't about her. It's about the kid she is raising.

So you don't think the mother uses the food that comes from those food stamps?

Our government gives incentives for poor people to have children, then we can't figure out why we can't solve poverty?

That's like saying I can't solve the problem of the raccoon digging in my garbage can, but I keep the lid off all night and throw away good food that I couldn't finish for dinner every night.

If you can't take care of your kids, they should be put up for adoption. While not the most humane thing to do, it would stop the incentive for these poor people to have children, and then there would be less of them in the future.

Yeah she probably does. And? She is being stretched pretty thin on the dirt poor income she is on.

Incentives to have children? Ok so obviously you know nothing about the actual facts of food stamps. On average, a household gets about $133 per month per person as a supplement to an income that is on average $744 per month. Do you really think a mother is profiting off of $133 per month? Do you not even know how much it costs to raise a child? You see these facts matter.

So your fascist solution to this problem is for parents to be forced to put up their kids for adoption? So its better for the government to separate families then to pay for a welfare program? Hmm. Ok so lets go with this for a moment. You do realize that people aren't just lining up to adopt kids right? It's relatively uncommon. There's no way such small demand for adopted children would fix the actual problem.

As I pointed out, it might not for them, but in the future, women would be fearful of losing their child to adoption and maybe....just maybe they would be a little more responsible about having children in the first place.

I know of plenty of women that had children just to get more government benefits. It's really not too much of a secret in the ghetto. Do you think I don't see how many children these mothers have with them when they get in front of me at the grocery store counter? Do you think I don't notice what kind of food items they are buying? Do you think I'm making it all up when I tell you about the greeting cards they buy with cash, and cigarettes, and beer, and sacks of dog food, and cat litter? I don't know about these things?

Lol you know plenty of women who profit off of having children? How do you know? How do you know they had these kids to get benefits? Are you sure you aren't just making a bigoted assumption? And again, based on the actual facts about food stamps, mothers do not profit off of it even if they wanted to. And are you so nosy that you pay attention to how these women pay for their items? Can't you mind your own business? Talk about being a self righteous asshole. And okay, yeah, they do spend cash on such things if they can afford them. So what? Are they not allowed to spend any income they make? Again, the income they get is complete shit anyway. These people are dirt poor.

 

[Wyatt earp]

Gosh, gee, I just can't imagine how anyone could get the wild idea that Democrats think welfare is the key to ending poverty! Shucks, where would anyone get such an idea? Truly, this is a deep mystery, just unfathomable.

What is wrong with helping people who need help?

IN A FREE COUNTRY CHARITY SHOULD BE ****VOLUNTARY*******


.SECONDLY, PEOPLE WHO ARE DEPENDENT ON FEDERAL LARGESSE SHOULD NOT HAVE THE RIGHT TO VOTE THEY ARE MOTIVATED TO ELECT WELFARE STATE POLITICIANS LIKE COMRADE SANDERS AND SINCE THEY DON'T OWN PROPERTY THEY ARE NOT MOTIVATED TO KEEP TAXES LOW. THEY SHOULD NOT BE PART OF JURIES WHERE THE GOVERNMENT IS A PARTY.


.


.

You are welcome to give to whoever you want

As a society, we have decided to help those who need helping. If you object, you are free to vote for those who object to helping others

What you really mean to say is:

As the democrat party, we have decided to help those who vote for us and to the hell with the rest.

As examples see the bailout of the GM pensions and when obama tried to prevent Boeing from opening a plant in South Carolina.

 

[Billy000]

Put aside the mother and her fuck up. WHAT DO WE DO WITH THE KID WHO DIDNT CHOOSE TO BE BORN.

I don't give a fuck. Life isn't always fair.

Oh great. Spoken like a true Rightwinger. Congratulations..

How many of those kids are you going to take in, feed, and clothe?

None of them. It's best they stay with their parents.

So you expect everyone else to foot the bill while you sit back and feel good about yourself.

Oh great. Spoken like a true left winger. Congratulations..

I personally would be a shitty parent. Is that not a good enough reason to not adopt? I obviously don't care if my tax dollars go to the program. Of course this issue isn't really about me is it? Even if I adopted 7 kids it really wouldn't fix the overall problem would it?

 

[rightwinger]

Gosh, gee, I just can't imagine how anyone could get the wild idea that Democrats think welfare is the key to ending poverty! Shucks, where would anyone get such an idea? Truly, this is a deep mystery, just unfathomable.

What is wrong with helping people who need help?

IN A FREE COUNTRY CHARITY SHOULD BE ****VOLUNTARY*******


.SECONDLY, PEOPLE WHO ARE DEPENDENT ON FEDERAL LARGESSE SHOULD NOT HAVE THE RIGHT TO VOTE THEY ARE MOTIVATED TO ELECT WELFARE STATE POLITICIANS LIKE COMRADE SANDERS AND SINCE THEY DON'T OWN PROPERTY THEY ARE NOT MOTIVATED TO KEEP TAXES LOW. THEY SHOULD NOT BE PART OF JURIES WHERE THE GOVERNMENT IS A PARTY.


.


.

You are welcome to give to whoever you want

As a society, we have decided to help those who need helping. If you object, you are free to vote for those who object to helping others

What you really mean to say is:

As the democrat party, we have decided to help those who vote for us and to the hell with the rest.

As examples see the bailout of the GM pensions and when obama tried to prevent Boeing from opening a plant in South Carolina.

We the people vote

We have decided to help those who need it

Sucks being you

 

[Ray From Cleveland]

That's the parents' issue to figure out. I see nothing "we" need to do. I take care of my own family.

Ok I don't understand why you people think so one dimensionally about this issue. My point is what we do with the child. You speak as though we are talking about someone not being able to make their monthly car payments. We are talking about a human being. So because the mother can't take of her kid, we should let the kid starve to death? Don't you see how that's a problem. Giving food stamps to a mother isn't about her. It's about the kid she is raising.

So you don't think the mother uses the food that comes from those food stamps?

Our government gives incentives for poor people to have children, then we can't figure out why we can't solve poverty?

That's like saying I can't solve the problem of the raccoon digging in my garbage can, but I keep the lid off all night and throw away good food that I couldn't finish for dinner every night.

If you can't take care of your kids, they should be put up for adoption. While not the most humane thing to do, it would stop the incentive for these poor people to have children, and then there would be less of them in the future.

Yeah she probably does. And? She is being stretched pretty thin on the dirt poor income she is on.

Incentives to have children? Ok so obviously you know nothing about the actual facts of food stamps. On average, a household gets about $133 per month per person as a supplement to an income that is on average $744 per month. Do you really think a mother is profiting off of $133 per month? Do you not even know how much it costs to raise a child? You see these facts matter.

So your fascist solution to this problem is for parents to be forced to put up their kids for adoption? So its better for the government to separate families then to pay for a welfare program? Hmm. Ok so lets go with this for a moment. You do realize that people aren't just lining up to adopt kids right? It's relatively uncommon. There's no way such small demand for adopted children would fix the actual problem.

As I pointed out, it might not for them, but in the future, women would be fearful of losing their child to adoption and maybe....just maybe they would be a little more responsible about having children in the first place.

I know of plenty of women that had children just to get more government benefits. It's really not too much of a secret in the ghetto. Do you think I don't see how many children these mothers have with them when they get in front of me at the grocery store counter? Do you think I don't notice what kind of food items they are buying? Do you think I'm making it all up when I tell you about the greeting cards they buy with cash, and cigarettes, and beer, and sacks of dog food, and cat litter? I don't know about these things?

Lol you know plenty of women who profit off of having children? How do you know? How do you know they had these kids to get benefits? Are you sure you aren't just making a bigoted assumption? And again, based on the actual facts about food stamps, mothers do not profit off of it even if they wanted to. And are you so nosy that you pay attention to how these women pay for their items? Can't you mind your own business? Talk about being a self righteous asshole. And okay, yeah, they do spend cash on such things if they can afford them. So what? Are they not allowed to spend any income they make? Again, the income they get is complete shit anyway. These people are dirt poor.

Dirt poor, huh?

If they are so dirt poor, why do they smoke cigarettes and drink alcohol? If they are so dirt poor, why do they need a 50 lbs. dog to take care of? If they are so dirt poor, what's with all that cat litter they buy?

Yeah, you bet I notice what people are doing with my tax money. It is my business. Why shouldn't I notice? You lefties rant on about how the rich should pay for this, how the rich should pay for that, how much the rich should pay their employees, how much more they should pay in taxes, but dare a taxpayer sound off about the abuse of his money, now you've crossed the line.

This is one of the many problems we have with you libs: you're fine with working people paying for others food, but in the meantime, they are feeding their animals instead of themselves. But we are the heartless ones.