Why do democrats hate poor black people and want them permanently on welfare?

[danielpalos]

Providing for the general welfare is in our Constitution. Providing for the common offense or general warfare is not.

welfare in the context used in the constitution does not mean giving money to the poor or lazy. it means providing an environment that is safe and fair. It does not mean guaranteeing everyone equal results in life.

I don't take the right wing seriously about the law or economics.

The general welfare is not the specific welfare. You only have, "specifics".

the words of the constitution and the intent of the founders is quite clear. Individual freedom and responsibility in an environment of law.

Freedom includes both the freedom to succeed and the freedom to fail. Your results are based on your efforts and are not guaranteed by the federal government.

Both terms, promote and provide are used in reference to the general welfare; that means, what ever will work in the most cost effective manner.

I think the words are "promote the general welfare" not "provide welfare in general".

just plain false analogies.

 

[Redfish]

welfare in the context used in the constitution does not mean giving money to the poor or lazy. it means providing an environment that is safe and fair. It does not mean guaranteeing everyone equal results in life.

I don't take the right wing seriously about the law or economics.

The general welfare is not the specific welfare. You only have, "specifics".

the words of the constitution and the intent of the founders is quite clear. Individual freedom and responsibility in an environment of law.

Freedom includes both the freedom to succeed and the freedom to fail. Your results are based on your efforts and are not guaranteed by the federal government.

Both terms, promote and provide are used in reference to the general welfare; that means, what ever will work in the most cost effective manner.

I think the words are "promote the general welfare" not "provide welfare in general".

just plain false analogies.

the meanings of the words are not in dispute, the words in the constitution are clear, the intent of the founders is clear.

they wanted a national environment that allowed any citizen to "pursue happiness" as he or she desired. They had declared independence from a system where everyone was subject to the whims and desires of monarchs and tyrants.

Don't you understand that a government that is big enough to give you everything you want is big enough to take everything you have?

 

[Toddsterpatriot]

What destroyed the US economy were unions; Unions who got so greedy they forced industry to pay outrageous wages and benefits to people that did monkey jobs. When they could no longer pay any more, they had no choice but to leave the state or country because the American consumer refused to support those union wages and benefits.

Today people buy the cheapest products they can, and it has nothing to do with Reagan or the Republicans. Mom and pop stores, and just about all brick and mortar stores are closing up because it's even cheaper to buy things online. The Democrat solution? Fight for increased minimum wages and overpay even more workers and see what happens.

We all make mistakes, but at least Republicans learn from theirs. We inflated our wages so high it sent our work overseas, so Democrats want more inflation. Our government medical systems are failing or going to fail in the near future, and Democrats started a new government medical system. We are experiencing more automation than ever before, and Democrats want to encourage industry to make more automation investments. I swear talking to liberals is like talking to a brick wall sometimes.

People buy cheap because we no longer have good paying union jobs. Make service jobs union and watch the economy my soar.

Unions do two things
1. make the union bosses rich
2. funnel your dues to the rich elites in the democrat party.

Unions used to be a force for fair treatment and pay for workers. Now we have laws that prevent those abuses. Unions are parasites on the blue collar workers.

You don't have laws that prevent those abuses. It's nice to see how thoroughly you've swallowed he conservative lie that unions don't help workers. Those are the same lies that Saint Ronnie used to destroy the air controllers union. They were lies then and they're lies now.

I've never been a fan of unions, but I'm smart enough to realize that when destroying the middle class, Reagan went after the unions FIRST. By 1980, Americans had become complacent with their rights and fair treatment, so it was easy for Reagan to convince the gullible that the unions were the problem, and not unfair practices.

You don't have laws that prevent those abuses.

Obama and Clinton, in their 16 years as President, didn't pass laws to prevent abuses? Assholes!

That's because Republicans controlled Congress for 12 of those 16 years and defeated every worker-friendly piece of legislation introduced.

No mandated vacations, sick leave, maternity leave, or protections from doing dangerous work. If a female worker becomes pregnant, she can be fired, or assigned work so dangerous to her developing child, that she has no choice but to quit. All of this is perfectly legal. Protections against sexual harrassment of employees are virtually non-existant, as many women who have tried to stop such behaviour have found, just as laws against rape are seldom enforced.

In short, the United States has the hardest working employees, with the least protections of any workers on the planet. And all I read on these boards is how lazy Americans are. If you aren't rich in the United States, you are either lazy or stupid, and yet fully half of your citizens are receiving public assistance, in a nation with the highest GDP, the highest average income, and the lowest rate of personal income tax in the first world.

The United States remains the richest nation in the world, and in fact is getting richer as American corporations are busy sucking up profits from their off-shore subsiduaries, and yet the numbers of poor people continue to rise. What is astonishing is that you continue to blame the poor for their plight, and shower praise on the wealthy who are exploiting them.

That's because Republicans controlled Congress for 12 of those 16 years and defeated every worker-friendly piece of legislation introduced.

They didn't do this vital work while they controlled all 3 branches?
Incompetent assholes!

in a nation with the highest GDP, the highest average income, and the lowest rate of personal income tax in the first world.

One and two correct, number three.....wrong!

 

[Toddsterpatriot]

Yes it does obviously. Who is going to tell people to go where and what to do?

It's easy. Next month, a note is added to the envelope your check came in.
It says, "Your June payment will require XX hours of work at the farm at XYZ.
The bus to that farm will be at ABC at precisely 8 AM on June 5th 2017.
Failure to work the required hours will reduce your check proportionately.

And how will people find real jobs

The same places they find real jobs now.
The savings realized by the failure to work the required hours, by payments received by the farms and by former recipients finding other jobs will be more than enough to cover the cost of bus transportation.

if they are working in your slave labor scheme?

These "slaves" are free to quit and forfeit their welfare checks at any time.

This has been an abject failure every time it's been tried. First off, how do you justify paying lower wages to the welfare recipients than they would earn with minimum wages? You can't so right away, there is the human rights problem of slave labour.

There has to be an entire infrastructure set up to find the jobs, to match the welfare recipients to the jobs, to arrange placements with the employers, and to arrange the bus transportation. There has to be due consideration as to whether the individuals can physically perform the work required. Not everyone is physically able to do hard manual labour. Welfare recipients could sue for discrimination if they are assigned work they are physically unsuited to perform.

There also has to be someone at the employers' end who tracks which workers show up and what hours they work, and supervise them to ensure they are working. As for the employers, they aren't interesting in being sent a bunch of city people who have no idea of how to pick crops, or who do it too slowly. The profit margins these farmers work under are so small that they can ill afford a bunch of to hire a bunch of lazy, fat city people who have no idea of what they're doing.

The vast majority of people receiving Section 8 housing, food stamps, MedicAid, or other forms of federal assistance, have full time jobs, or more than one part time job, for which they are paid very low wages. These people wouldn't be available for your slave pool.

As someone who worked in the tobacco fields in the summer when I was young, I am well aware that farm labour really isn't suitable for people who aren't young, strong and very healthy.

This whole program was tried where I lived a few years ago - "WorkFare". Everyone said it was high time. Members of our church thought this would be a good way to get some needed work done on our Church building, while teaching welfare bums some needed lessons. What we discovered was that we had to hire someone to supervise the workers. This person had to be on site the whole time. By the time we paid for our "workers" and the supervisor, it would be cheaper for us to hire small local firms to do the work, and we'd get a higher quality of work if we did.

The government announced this program with great fanfare, but then quietly cancelled it a year later. There were few takers for the service. Many organizations considered it "slavery" and refused to use it. Others, like our church, discovered that the required supervision made the program too expensive to use, and that the quality of the work was highly suspect.

Most communities have difficulty coming up with sufficient work for those sentenced to "community service", much less for those receiving welfare.

First off, how do you justify paying lower wages to the welfare recipients than they would earn with minimum wages?

It's easy, you say "If you don't work the required numbers of hours, you get no benefits"

You can't so right away, there is the human rights problem of slave labour.

Only if you feel someone who is free to quit at any time, is a slave.
The rest of us will laugh at your error.

Employment is at-will. EDD should be required to show for-cause employment to deny or disparage unemployment compensation.

Employment is at-will.

Unemployment benefits are for those laid off.
Not for quitters or never workers.

too much irony for hypocrites? it is about being legal to our own laws instead of merely, "harassing" less fortunate illegals for their illegalities.

it is about being legal to our own laws

Exactly!
Our laws say, unemployment benefits are for those laid off.
Not for quitters or never workers.

 

[Toddsterpatriot]

First off, how do you justify paying lower wages to the welfare recipients than they would earn with minimum wages?

It's easy, you say "If you don't work the required numbers of hours, you get no benefits"

You can't so right away, there is the human rights problem of slave labour.

Only if you feel someone who is free to quit at any time, is a slave.
The rest of us will laugh at your error.

The abuse isn't obvious to you?

So do the places they work pay anything? Or do they get free labor?

The abuse isn't obvious to you?

A work requirement is abuse? Tell me more.

Employment is at-will not for -cause.

DERP!

just untermenchen talk?

Moron says what?

 

[Toddsterpatriot]

First off, how do you justify paying lower wages to the welfare recipients than they would earn with minimum wages?

It's easy, you say "If you don't work the required numbers of hours, you get no benefits"

You can't so right away, there is the human rights problem of slave labour.

Only if you feel someone who is free to quit at any time, is a slave.
The rest of us will laugh at your error.

Employment is at-will. EDD should be required to show for-cause employment to deny or disparage unemployment compensation.

Employment is at-will.

Unemployment benefits are for those laid off.
Not for quitters or never workers.

You have failed to respond to who pays the workers. You send them to random businesses, do they pay for the labor? How much?

dudette, are you really this naive or are you just playing dumb?

So the argument is about working welfare. WELFARE. what part of that word confuses you?

it is a social safety net because capitalism failed in 1929, and we need socialism to bailout capitalism like usual, in modern times.

Capitalism didn't fail in 1929.

 

[Toddsterpatriot]

First off, how do you justify paying lower wages to the welfare recipients than they would earn with minimum wages?

It's easy, you say "If you don't work the required numbers of hours, you get no benefits"

You can't so right away, there is the human rights problem of slave labour.

Only if you feel someone who is free to quit at any time, is a slave.
The rest of us will laugh at your error.

Employment is at-will. EDD should be required to show for-cause employment to deny or disparage unemployment compensation.

Employment is at-will.

Unemployment benefits are for those laid off.
Not for quitters or never workers.

too much irony for hypocrites? it is about being legal to our own laws instead of merely, "harassing" less fortunate illegals for their illegalities.

enforcing immigration laws is harassment? WTF?

this is why i don't take the right wing seriously about the law or economics.

too much irony for hypocrites? it is about being legal to our own laws instead of merely, "harassing" less fortunate illegals for their illegalities.

this is why i don't take the right wing seriously about the law or economics.

It's because you're an idiot who understands neither.

 

[Brain357]

I would support no corp taxes as long as it is tied to hiring here and good wages and benefits. More employees and better wages, lower taxes. Lots of well paid US employees, no taxes.

buy American and hire American. You sound like Trump.

Obviously I agree with the idea of bringing back more good jobs. I don't agree with how he thinks he can do it. The idea of lowering corp taxes for good jobs and benefits seems way better than anything I'm hearing. Corps use the tax savings to pay more so inflation is limited. Employees making more pay more in income tax so gov still gets paid. Walmart could probably even pay enough so employees aren't on welfare, another plus. Money goes direct from employer to employee. No gov programs needed.

'
you and Trump are saying the exact same things, strange that you don't know that.

Similar goal, different strategy. He will give tax cuts with no strings attached. Those will go straight to the rich as we have seen with previous tax cuts. He wants tariffs which I have never seen work. Kicking out immigrants will increase costs by more than wages.

No one wants to kick out immigrants or stop immigration. Do you understand that an illegal alien is not an immigrant? Do you understand that enforcing our immigration laws is one of the primary duties of the federal government?

What strings would you attach to corporate tax cuts? that they must hire people they don't need?

most countries put tariffs on US goods entering their country. Why shouldn't we do the same things to protect American jobs?

I don't think there will be any real benefit to kicking out illegals and spending billions on a wall.

The tax policy would be complicated, but no more than current corp tax policy I'm sure. There would be conservative employment numbers to reach based on industry. So for example Walmart has lots of US employees and would probably already qualify for the full deduction for number of employees. They are however not so good for wages and benefits. So if they increased those to a conservative livable wage they could move to 0 corp tax paid. The livable wage would be calculated by area. The goal for that wage would be to make in access of being able to collect any welfare and high enough to require they pay income tax.

I think most other countries economies are also stunted by those tariffs.

 

[Papageorgio]

You have failed to respond to who pays the workers. You send them to random businesses, do they pay for the labor? How much?

Employers pay labor. I am advocating simplifying our current regime of unemployment compensation, to a general tax on firms.

companies are already taxed. Who pays taxes levied on companies? We do, the consumers.

I would support no corp taxes as long as it is tied to hiring here and good wages and benefits. More employees and better wages, lower taxes. Lots of well paid US employees, no taxes.

Which union do you belong to?


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

Self employed.

Interesting, everyone that says we need unions, don't belong to unions. Why is that? You believe you need them yet, you fail to join.

 

[BrokeLoser]

buy American and hire American. You sound like Trump.

Obviously I agree with the idea of bringing back more good jobs. I don't agree with how he thinks he can do it. The idea of lowering corp taxes for good jobs and benefits seems way better than anything I'm hearing. Corps use the tax savings to pay more so inflation is limited. Employees making more pay more in income tax so gov still gets paid. Walmart could probably even pay enough so employees aren't on welfare, another plus. Money goes direct from employer to employee. No gov programs needed.

'
you and Trump are saying the exact same things, strange that you don't know that.

Similar goal, different strategy. He will give tax cuts with no strings attached. Those will go straight to the rich as we have seen with previous tax cuts. He wants tariffs which I have never seen work. Kicking out immigrants will increase costs by more than wages.

No one wants to kick out immigrants or stop immigration. Do you understand that an illegal alien is not an immigrant? Do you understand that enforcing our immigration laws is one of the primary duties of the federal government?

What strings would you attach to corporate tax cuts? that they must hire people they don't need?

most countries put tariffs on US goods entering their country. Why shouldn't we do the same things to protect American jobs?

I don't think there will be any real benefit to kicking out illegals and spending billions on a wall.

The tax policy would be complicated, but no more than current corp tax policy I'm sure. There would be conservative employment numbers to reach based on industry. So for example Walmart has lots of US employees and would probably already qualify for the full deduction for number of employees. They are however not so good for wages and benefits. So if they increased those to a conservative livable wage they could move to 0 corp tax paid. The livable wage would be calculated by area. The goal for that wage would be to make in access of being able to collect any welfare and high enough to require they pay income tax.

I think most other countries economies are also stunted by those tariffs.

"I don't think there will be any real benefit to kicking out illegals and spending billions on a wall."

In the spirit of total transparency...what part of Mexico are you from and how long have you been riding the back of REAL American's?

 

[Brain357]

Employers pay labor. I am advocating simplifying our current regime of unemployment compensation, to a general tax on firms.

companies are already taxed. Who pays taxes levied on companies? We do, the consumers.

I would support no corp taxes as long as it is tied to hiring here and good wages and benefits. More employees and better wages, lower taxes. Lots of well paid US employees, no taxes.

Which union do you belong to?


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

Self employed.

Interesting, everyone that says we need unions, don't belong to unions. Why is that? You believe you need them yet, you fail to join.

It is not an option for me.

 

[Papageorgio]

companies are already taxed. Who pays taxes levied on companies? We do, the consumers.

I would support no corp taxes as long as it is tied to hiring here and good wages and benefits. More employees and better wages, lower taxes. Lots of well paid US employees, no taxes.

Which union do you belong to?


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

Self employed.

Interesting, everyone that says we need unions, don't belong to unions. Why is that? You believe you need them yet, you fail to join.

It is not an option for me.

And if it was, you wouldn't join anyway, I tire of the dishonesty from you supposed "pro-union" people.

 

[jc456]

Most communities have difficulty coming up with sufficient work for those sentenced to "community service", much less for those receiving welfare.

so the only option is to cripple them forever with welfare so they'll always vote for more welfare??

Work or die, is the "solution" of the right wing.

that's what I do? why are they different?

You are an anecdote. Capitalism's natural rate of unemployment is a market based reality.

so you would guarantee everyone an income whether they work or not? Why would anyone work under that system?

he's a person with no respect for the working class or our country.

 

[jc456]

companies are already taxed. Who pays taxes levied on companies? We do, the consumers.

I would support no corp taxes as long as it is tied to hiring here and good wages and benefits. More employees and better wages, lower taxes. Lots of well paid US employees, no taxes.

Which union do you belong to?


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

Self employed.

Interesting, everyone that says we need unions, don't belong to unions. Why is that? You believe you need them yet, you fail to join.

It is not an option for me.

so how is it you would know their value?

 

[jc456]

what justification is needed for the gift of a welfare bailout?? What justification is there for not making them pay the money back just like banks had to pay bailout loans back. When Clinton/Newt ended welfare as we know it by making it workfare fully half decided they no longer needed welfare. No work no dole is a great way to prevent welfare from crippling people. How is that for justification?????????

How Christian of you. Let them steal for a living, I guess.

Sure beats getting a job, doesn't it???

the left loves to, "hear the right wing whine about taxes", like untermenchen, due to our wars on crime, drugs, and terror.

right, cause the left never pays any.

dear, Mr. Trump and the poor, pay the taxes they are legally obligated to pay.

don't complain; be Patriotic.

i'm not complaining about paying taxes. I'm complaining that people do nothing for the money they receive off the backs of hard workers and ask you why you feel they should be allowed to have that honor? And you can't answer. You're just a loser.

 

[jc456]

Most communities have difficulty coming up with sufficient work for those sentenced to "community service", much less for those receiving welfare.

so the only option is to cripple them forever with welfare so they'll always vote for more welfare??

Work or die, is the "solution" of the right wing.

that's what I do? why are they different?

You are an anecdote. Capitalism's natural rate of unemployment is a market based reality.

I agree with you that unemployment is a market based reality. If there are no incentives to get a new job, the country will go broke. Giving out free money forever would just shrink the working class as has been evidenced through the failed eight years of obummer. more people on food stamps under obummer.

 

[Brain357]

I would support no corp taxes as long as it is tied to hiring here and good wages and benefits. More employees and better wages, lower taxes. Lots of well paid US employees, no taxes.

Which union do you belong to?


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

Self employed.

Interesting, everyone that says we need unions, don't belong to unions. Why is that? You believe you need them yet, you fail to join.

It is not an option for me.

so how is it you would know their value?

There is a lot of information available on the subject.

 

[jc456]

First off, how do you justify paying lower wages to the welfare recipients than they would earn with minimum wages?

It's easy, you say "If you don't work the required numbers of hours, you get no benefits"

You can't so right away, there is the human rights problem of slave labour.

Only if you feel someone who is free to quit at any time, is a slave.
The rest of us will laugh at your error.

Employment is at-will. EDD should be required to show for-cause employment to deny or disparage unemployment compensation.

Employment is at-will.

Unemployment benefits are for those laid off.
Not for quitters or never workers.

You have failed to respond to who pays the workers. You send them to random businesses, do they pay for the labor? How much?

dudette, are you really this naive or are you just playing dumb?

So the argument is about working welfare. WELFARE. what part of that word confuses you?

it is a social safety net because capitalism failed in 1929, and we need socialism to bailout capitalism like usual, in modern times.

see this post....

Employment is at-will. EDD should be required to show for-cause employment to deny or disparage unemployment compensation.

Employment is at-will.

Unemployment benefits are for those laid off.
Not for quitters or never workers.

You have failed to respond to who pays the workers. You send them to random businesses, do they pay for the labor? How much?

dudette, are you really this naive or are you just playing dumb?

So the argument is about working welfare. WELFARE. what part of that word confuses you?

it is a social safety net because capitalism failed in 1929, and we need socialism to bailout capitalism like usual, in modern times.

capitalism didn't fail in 1929, have you ever had a class in American history? Its amazing how ignorant many americans are about our own country's history.

 

[jc456]

Which union do you belong to?


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

Self employed.

Interesting, everyone that says we need unions, don't belong to unions. Why is that? You believe you need them yet, you fail to join.

It is not an option for me.

so how is it you would know their value?

There is a lot of information available on the subject.

and it all says we've outlived the usefulness of a union. A union only keeps the administrators wealthy. It's as failed as the government programs. Oh yeah most government jobs are failed unions.

 

[Ray From Cleveland]

The United States remains the richest nation in the world, and in fact is getting richer as American corporations are busy sucking up profits from their off-shore subsiduaries, and yet the numbers of poor people continue to rise. What is astonishing is that you continue to blame the poor for their plight, and shower praise on the wealthy who are exploiting them.

If the poor people are not responsible for their plight, then who is?

In the USA, poverty is an option, not an affliction. If you want to be poor, then be poor. If you don't want to be poor, then work and don't be poor. If you want to be poor, have children you can't financially support. If you don't want to be poor, don't have children until you are very financially secure.