Why Do Democrats Want the Poor to Starve Just to Make It Easy for Illegals to Enter?

[francoHFW]

How about Britannica, dumbass? Or any other outlet outside the GOP propaganda machine? Marxism, then the USSR, now successful modern countries except us of course, thanks to idiots like you...
Socialism - Postwar socialism

Okay, sure, Encyclopedia Britannica works:

It even specifies that it's in direct opposition to Capitalism, which, again, brings me back to every single failure I listed being Socialist, and several of the "successes" you listed being more economically free than America, despite the doctrine being in opposition to Capitalism and requiring Social ownership of the means of production.

Your ignorant adhom attack also brings me back to the point you keep refusing to address, that being that the Economic Calculation Problem and Law of Diminishing Returns preventing government programs from working.

The article you cited, while erroneously referring to the Soviet Union, among other Socialist failures, as communist, also calls them Socialist at the same time. Not only this, but it also admits that this "New definition for Socialism" is not only called something else("Market Socialism"), but still maintains the same components that the name is derived from:

So, once again, you're citing an article that only hurts your argument, especially since at the very end of the Article, the writer is talking about the elimination of individualism and classes:

You linked me an article that was written by a full-blown Marxist, and they still refuted your own argument.

Ownership OR control, idiot. Control over industry and business is what we have, so we are socialists, not communist as in ownership. You are so stupid.

You're just repeating back to me what I've already told you. Social Control of the means of production, as the name components mean, which also means I haven't said a single false thing this entire thread, and you just agreed with me.

Aside from the Communist bit, which is, again, incorrect because Communism is defined as having no Social Classes, no Currency, and no Private Property.

You're also, hilariously, complaining that other locations are doing better than the US while those other locations are more economically free. You're unironically advocating for less government involvement in the market by pointing to more economically free locations, while complaining that we need more Socialism in the US.

Oh, and I didn't call the United States Capitalist. I don't classify any place with a Government as Capitalist, as it's a system independent of the government. I only classify them as more economically free or more Authoritarian.

Calling me stupid when you're unironically proving my point over and over. Spew more adhoms, I'm sure it'll help you look like less of a fool while you're refuting yourself with your own citations.

Guess what, the definition of communism also changed from Marxist pure ideology to the reality of the USSR. At the same time that socialismalso changed definition to the USSR. But since the 20s 30s socialism is only the modern definition. In your world communism has never been tried and socialism is what the USSR called it. LOL. But times have changed and so have the definitions from your ideological ideal.

Your own citation refuted your argument, so you're going right back to making baseless assertions again, with no citations. You're probably the most dishonest person on this entire forum.

Well, if a Nation declaring themselves a specific thing changes the definition of a word, then Democratic means totalitarian dictatorship, therefor making Socialism Totalitarian regardless of whether you use the real definition or your erroneous version. This is the logic you operate by, therefor you should be 100% fine with this conclusion.

Definitions often change especially with a term like socialism communism. I have no idea what you're talking about anymore LOL

 

[francoHFW]

Okay, sure, Encyclopedia Britannica works:

It even specifies that it's in direct opposition to Capitalism, which, again, brings me back to every single failure I listed being Socialist, and several of the "successes" you listed being more economically free than America, despite the doctrine being in opposition to Capitalism and requiring Social ownership of the means of production.

Your ignorant adhom attack also brings me back to the point you keep refusing to address, that being that the Economic Calculation Problem and Law of Diminishing Returns preventing government programs from working.

The article you cited, while erroneously referring to the Soviet Union, among other Socialist failures, as communist, also calls them Socialist at the same time. Not only this, but it also admits that this "New definition for Socialism" is not only called something else("Market Socialism"), but still maintains the same components that the name is derived from:

So, once again, you're citing an article that only hurts your argument, especially since at the very end of the Article, the writer is talking about the elimination of individualism and classes:

You linked me an article that was written by a full-blown Marxist, and they still refuted your own argument.

Ownership OR control, idiot. Control over industry and business is what we have, so we are socialists, not communist as in ownership. You are so stupid.

You're just repeating back to me what I've already told you. Social Control of the means of production, as the name components mean, which also means I haven't said a single false thing this entire thread, and you just agreed with me.

Aside from the Communist bit, which is, again, incorrect because Communism is defined as having no Social Classes, no Currency, and no Private Property.

You're also, hilariously, complaining that other locations are doing better than the US while those other locations are more economically free. You're unironically advocating for less government involvement in the market by pointing to more economically free locations, while complaining that we need more Socialism in the US.

Oh, and I didn't call the United States Capitalist. I don't classify any place with a Government as Capitalist, as it's a system independent of the government. I only classify them as more economically free or more Authoritarian.

Calling me stupid when you're unironically proving my point over and over. Spew more adhoms, I'm sure it'll help you look like less of a fool while you're refuting yourself with your own citations.

Guess what, the definition of communism also changed from Marxist pure ideology to the reality of the USSR. At the same time that socialismalso changed definition to the USSR. But since the 20s 30s socialism is only the modern definition. In your world communism has never been tried and socialism is what the USSR called it. LOL. But times have changed and so have the definitions from your ideological ideal.

Your own citation refuted your argument, so you're going right back to making baseless assertions again, with no citations. You're probably the most dishonest person on this entire forum.

Well, if a Nation declaring themselves a specific thing changes the definition of a word, then Democratic means totalitarian dictatorship, therefor making Socialism Totalitarian regardless of whether you use the real definition or your erroneous version. This is the logic you operate by, therefor you should be 100% fine with this conclusion.

Definitions often change especially with a term like socialism communism. I have no idea what you're talking about anymore LOL

So what what is the definition of socialism dipstick? You said ownership or regulation of business and industry. That could be anything. communism as people think of it not your ideological ideal. The Finnish prime minister knows what most people in the world do. The only people that argue as you do are GOP chumps. Cold War dinosaurs

 

[francoHFW]

Ownership OR control, idiot. Control over industry and business is what we have, so we are socialists, not communist as in ownership. You are so stupid.

You're just repeating back to me what I've already told you. Social Control of the means of production, as the name components mean, which also means I haven't said a single false thing this entire thread, and you just agreed with me.

Aside from the Communist bit, which is, again, incorrect because Communism is defined as having no Social Classes, no Currency, and no Private Property.

You're also, hilariously, complaining that other locations are doing better than the US while those other locations are more economically free. You're unironically advocating for less government involvement in the market by pointing to more economically free locations, while complaining that we need more Socialism in the US.

Oh, and I didn't call the United States Capitalist. I don't classify any place with a Government as Capitalist, as it's a system independent of the government. I only classify them as more economically free or more Authoritarian.

Calling me stupid when you're unironically proving my point over and over. Spew more adhoms, I'm sure it'll help you look like less of a fool while you're refuting yourself with your own citations.

Guess what, the definition of communism also changed from Marxist pure ideology to the reality of the USSR. At the same time that socialismalso changed definition to the USSR. But since the 20s 30s socialism is only the modern definition. In your world communism has never been tried and socialism is what the USSR called it. LOL. But times have changed and so have the definitions from your ideological ideal.

Your own citation refuted your argument, so you're going right back to making baseless assertions again, with no citations. You're probably the most dishonest person on this entire forum.

Well, if a Nation declaring themselves a specific thing changes the definition of a word, then Democratic means totalitarian dictatorship, therefor making Socialism Totalitarian regardless of whether you use the real definition or your erroneous version. This is the logic you operate by, therefor you should be 100% fine with this conclusion.

Definitions often change especially with a term like socialism communism. I have no idea what you're talking about anymore LOL

So what what is the definition of socialism dipstick? You said ownership or regulation of business and industry. That could be anything. communism as people think of it not your ideological ideal. The Finnish prime minister knows what most people in the world do. The only people that argue as you do are GOP chumps. Cold War dinosaurs

Bernie Sanders is a socialist ocasio-cortez every other successful country. Ownership or regulation of business and industry by the government can be any place LOL

 

[Pumpkin Row]

Definitions often change especially with a term like socialism communism. I have no idea what you're talking about anymore LOL

Reasserting the same claim that you've already refuted in your own citations and which I've already refuted several times. If you're just going to keep restating this regardless of facts, then discussion is a pointless waste of time. I refuted your argument philosophically, logically, and historically. I think you're just trying to waste my time at this point.

So what what is the definition of socialism dipstick? You said ownership or regulation of business and industry. That could be anything. communism as people think of it not your ideological ideal. The Finnish prime minister knows what most people in the world do. The only people that argue as you do are GOP chumps. Cold War dinosaurs

I've already cited the dictionary definition multiple times, the definitions listed in the articles, and the definition in your own citations.

The definition I used is from the Communist Manifesto, not my own ideals. It's defined in the Manifesto and in application when implemented since defined By that Manifesto as a Society with no classes, no state, no currency, and no private property, "but with personal property".

Bernie Sanders is a socialist ocasio-cortez every other successful country. Ownership or regulation of business and industry by the government can be any place LOL

Government is inherently unsustainable, so calling any Nation "successful" is misleading. Because of government's tendency towards rapid expansion, the law of diminishing returns, and the economic calculation problem, there's no such thing as a "successful government".

Also, if you're arguing that every Nation is Socialist, that just drastically increases the number of failures Socialism has. At that point, what would you believe makes a Nation Socialist?

 

[Muhammed]

Trump owns the shutdown.

Only congress can cut off funding.

All non-ignorant people know that. Do you?

Really? Congress originates funding shit-brains.....

And what congress giveth, congress can taketh away, jackass.

 

[GWV5903]

Trump owns the shutdown.

Actually he owns you and all your dumb ass cohorts...

 

[candycorn]

Trump owns the shutdown.

Only congress can cut off funding.

All non-ignorant people know that. Do you?

Really? Congress originates funding shit-brains.....

And what congress giveth, congress can taketh away, jackass.

Well fuck face? Well who is in charge of Congress and has been since Obama....?

Think real hard...oh yeah, the republicans. So the Democrats can't do anything. Please do yourself a favor and shut the fuck up.

 

[candycorn]

Definitions often change especially with a term like socialism communism. I have no idea what you're talking about anymore LOL

Reasserting the same claim that you've already refuted in your own citations and which I've already refuted several times. If you're just going to keep restating this regardless of facts, then discussion is a pointless waste of time. I refuted your argument philosophically, logically, and historically. I think you're just trying to waste my time at this point.

So what what is the definition of socialism dipstick? You said ownership or regulation of business and industry. That could be anything. communism as people think of it not your ideological ideal. The Finnish prime minister knows what most people in the world do. The only people that argue as you do are GOP chumps. Cold War dinosaurs

I've already cited the dictionary definition multiple times, the definitions listed in the articles, and the definition in your own citations.

The definition I used is from the Communist Manifesto, not my own ideals. It's defined in the Manifesto and in application when implemented since defined By that Manifesto as a Society with no classes, no state, no currency, and no private property, "but with personal property".

Bernie Sanders is a socialist ocasio-cortez every other successful country. Ownership or regulation of business and industry by the government can be any place LOL

Government is inherently unsustainable, so calling any Nation "successful" is misleading. Because of government's tendency towards rapid expansion, the law of diminishing returns, and the economic calculation problem, there's no such thing as a "successful government".

Also, if you're arguing that every Nation is Socialist, that just drastically increases the number of failures Socialism has. At that point, what would you believe makes a Nation Socialist?

"Government is inherently unsustainable,"

 

[JBond]

Millions could face severe cuts to food stamps due to government shutdown.

Why do the Left put illegals ahead of immigrants who follow our laws and the needs of Americans who are in need of help?

Why does the left favor illegals over new Americans that followed the laws? They hate them.

Why does the left try to continue to suppress wages for American workers despite their rhetoric is a mystery. Maybe they believe everyone is retarded.

 

[francoHFW]

Millions could face severe cuts to food stamps due to government shutdown.

Why do the Left put illegals ahead of immigrants who follow our laws and the needs of Americans who are in need of help?

Why does the left favor illegals over new Americans that followed the laws? They hate them.

Why does the left try to continue to suppress wages for American workers despite their rhetoric is a mystery. Maybe they believe everyone is retarded.

Total bologna and ignorance. New York City has $15 minimum wage $12 everywhere else, and that's happening in red States where everyone has Healthcare. Illegals don't vote or get welfare, super duper.

 

[candycorn]

 

[Dan Stubbs]

Millions could face severe cuts to food stamps due to government shutdown.

Why do the Left put illegals ahead of immigrants who follow our laws and the needs of Americans who are in need of help?

Well if you like polls it seem the Democrats are out of step.

Every other country on earth has borders. Every state has a border. Cities and towns have limits (borders). But nearly two-thirds of Democrats think the United States should not have a border or, at least, one that is so strictly enforced.



A newly-released Rasmussen survey found that 65 percent of respondents who identified as Democrats believe “anyone who wants to come here” who has no criminal record and isn’t a terrorist — or, at least, says they’re not a terrorist — should be able to.

In the national survey of 1,000 likely voters, conducted January 10-13, 2019, approving Democrats said it is in America’s best interest “to open our borders to anyone who wants to come here as long as they are not a terrorist or a criminal.”



Only about a quarter (26 percent) of Democrats said the U.S. should “tightly control who come into the country.”

 

[francoHFW]

Millions could face severe cuts to food stamps due to government shutdown.

Why do the Left put illegals ahead of immigrants who follow our laws and the needs of Americans who are in need of help?

Well if you like polls it seem the Democrats are out of step.

Every other country on earth has borders. Every state has a border. Cities and towns have limits (borders). But nearly two-thirds of Democrats think the United States should not have a border or, at least, one that is so strictly enforced.



A newly-released Rasmussen survey found that 65 percent of respondents who identified as Democrats believe “anyone who wants to come here” who has no criminal record and isn’t a terrorist — or, at least, says they’re not a terrorist — should be able to.

In the national survey of 1,000 likely voters, conducted January 10-13, 2019, approving Democrats said it is in America’s best interest “to open our borders to anyone who wants to come here as long as they are not a terrorist or a criminal.”



Only about a quarter (26 percent) of Democrats said the U.S. should “tightly control who come into the country.”

Rasmussen lies and spins findings.

 

[Pumpkin Row]

Definitions often change especially with a term like socialism communism. I have no idea what you're talking about anymore LOL

Reasserting the same claim that you've already refuted in your own citations and which I've already refuted several times. If you're just going to keep restating this regardless of facts, then discussion is a pointless waste of time. I refuted your argument philosophically, logically, and historically. I think you're just trying to waste my time at this point.

So what what is the definition of socialism dipstick? You said ownership or regulation of business and industry. That could be anything. communism as people think of it not your ideological ideal. The Finnish prime minister knows what most people in the world do. The only people that argue as you do are GOP chumps. Cold War dinosaurs

I've already cited the dictionary definition multiple times, the definitions listed in the articles, and the definition in your own citations.

The definition I used is from the Communist Manifesto, not my own ideals. It's defined in the Manifesto and in application when implemented since defined By that Manifesto as a Society with no classes, no state, no currency, and no private property, "but with personal property".

Bernie Sanders is a socialist ocasio-cortez every other successful country. Ownership or regulation of business and industry by the government can be any place LOL

Government is inherently unsustainable, so calling any Nation "successful" is misleading. Because of government's tendency towards rapid expansion, the law of diminishing returns, and the economic calculation problem, there's no such thing as a "successful government".

Also, if you're arguing that every Nation is Socialist, that just drastically increases the number of failures Socialism has. At that point, what would you believe makes a Nation Socialist?

"Government is inherently unsustainable,"

Oh look, no counter-argument. It's like you don't have one, or something, how... completely normal for you.

 

[candycorn]

Definitions often change especially with a term like socialism communism. I have no idea what you're talking about anymore LOL

Reasserting the same claim that you've already refuted in your own citations and which I've already refuted several times. If you're just going to keep restating this regardless of facts, then discussion is a pointless waste of time. I refuted your argument philosophically, logically, and historically. I think you're just trying to waste my time at this point.

So what what is the definition of socialism dipstick? You said ownership or regulation of business and industry. That could be anything. communism as people think of it not your ideological ideal. The Finnish prime minister knows what most people in the world do. The only people that argue as you do are GOP chumps. Cold War dinosaurs

I've already cited the dictionary definition multiple times, the definitions listed in the articles, and the definition in your own citations.

The definition I used is from the Communist Manifesto, not my own ideals. It's defined in the Manifesto and in application when implemented since defined By that Manifesto as a Society with no classes, no state, no currency, and no private property, "but with personal property".

Bernie Sanders is a socialist ocasio-cortez every other successful country. Ownership or regulation of business and industry by the government can be any place LOL

Government is inherently unsustainable, so calling any Nation "successful" is misleading. Because of government's tendency towards rapid expansion, the law of diminishing returns, and the economic calculation problem, there's no such thing as a "successful government".

Also, if you're arguing that every Nation is Socialist, that just drastically increases the number of failures Socialism has. At that point, what would you believe makes a Nation Socialist?

"Government is inherently unsustainable,"

Oh look, no counter-argument. It's like you don't have one, or something, how... completely normal for you.

How do you quantify "sustainability"?

 

[Pumpkin Row]

Definitions often change especially with a term like socialism communism. I have no idea what you're talking about anymore LOL

Reasserting the same claim that you've already refuted in your own citations and which I've already refuted several times. If you're just going to keep restating this regardless of facts, then discussion is a pointless waste of time. I refuted your argument philosophically, logically, and historically. I think you're just trying to waste my time at this point.

So what what is the definition of socialism dipstick? You said ownership or regulation of business and industry. That could be anything. communism as people think of it not your ideological ideal. The Finnish prime minister knows what most people in the world do. The only people that argue as you do are GOP chumps. Cold War dinosaurs

I've already cited the dictionary definition multiple times, the definitions listed in the articles, and the definition in your own citations.

The definition I used is from the Communist Manifesto, not my own ideals. It's defined in the Manifesto and in application when implemented since defined By that Manifesto as a Society with no classes, no state, no currency, and no private property, "but with personal property".

Bernie Sanders is a socialist ocasio-cortez every other successful country. Ownership or regulation of business and industry by the government can be any place LOL

Government is inherently unsustainable, so calling any Nation "successful" is misleading. Because of government's tendency towards rapid expansion, the law of diminishing returns, and the economic calculation problem, there's no such thing as a "successful government".

Also, if you're arguing that every Nation is Socialist, that just drastically increases the number of failures Socialism has. At that point, what would you believe makes a Nation Socialist?

"Government is inherently unsustainable,"

Oh look, no counter-argument. It's like you don't have one, or something, how... completely normal for you.

How do you quantify "sustainability"?

Lasting, not even permanent, just lasting. As I mentioned in the post you replied to. The State naturally increases in size, evident by the Federal Register, and taxes naturally return less money the higher you raise them(The Law of Diminishing Returns), preventing the State from being able to pay for itself through said taxes, and this is accelerated through its inability to properly allocate resources due to the Economic Calculation problem. These problems have all been observed through the course of history.

 

[candycorn]

Definitions often change especially with a term like socialism communism. I have no idea what you're talking about anymore LOL

Reasserting the same claim that you've already refuted in your own citations and which I've already refuted several times. If you're just going to keep restating this regardless of facts, then discussion is a pointless waste of time. I refuted your argument philosophically, logically, and historically. I think you're just trying to waste my time at this point.

So what what is the definition of socialism dipstick? You said ownership or regulation of business and industry. That could be anything. communism as people think of it not your ideological ideal. The Finnish prime minister knows what most people in the world do. The only people that argue as you do are GOP chumps. Cold War dinosaurs

I've already cited the dictionary definition multiple times, the definitions listed in the articles, and the definition in your own citations.

The definition I used is from the Communist Manifesto, not my own ideals. It's defined in the Manifesto and in application when implemented since defined By that Manifesto as a Society with no classes, no state, no currency, and no private property, "but with personal property".

Bernie Sanders is a socialist ocasio-cortez every other successful country. Ownership or regulation of business and industry by the government can be any place LOL

Government is inherently unsustainable, so calling any Nation "successful" is misleading. Because of government's tendency towards rapid expansion, the law of diminishing returns, and the economic calculation problem, there's no such thing as a "successful government".

Also, if you're arguing that every Nation is Socialist, that just drastically increases the number of failures Socialism has. At that point, what would you believe makes a Nation Socialist?

"Government is inherently unsustainable,"

Oh look, no counter-argument. It's like you don't have one, or something, how... completely normal for you.

How do you quantify "sustainability"?

Lasting, not even permanent, just lasting. As I mentioned in the post you replied to. The State naturally increases in size, evident by the Federal Register, and taxes naturally return less money the higher you raise them(The Law of Diminishing Returns), preventing the State from being able to pay for itself through said taxes, and this is accelerated through its inability to properly allocate resources due to the Economic Calculation problem. These problems have all been observed through the course of history.

We're well into our 3rd century. Its been quite sustainable. As have dozens of other governments.

 

[Pumpkin Row]

Reasserting the same claim that you've already refuted in your own citations and which I've already refuted several times. If you're just going to keep restating this regardless of facts, then discussion is a pointless waste of time. I refuted your argument philosophically, logically, and historically. I think you're just trying to waste my time at this point.
I've already cited the dictionary definition multiple times, the definitions listed in the articles, and the definition in your own citations.

The definition I used is from the Communist Manifesto, not my own ideals. It's defined in the Manifesto and in application when implemented since defined By that Manifesto as a Society with no classes, no state, no currency, and no private property, "but with personal property".
Government is inherently unsustainable, so calling any Nation "successful" is misleading. Because of government's tendency towards rapid expansion, the law of diminishing returns, and the economic calculation problem, there's no such thing as a "successful government".

Also, if you're arguing that every Nation is Socialist, that just drastically increases the number of failures Socialism has. At that point, what would you believe makes a Nation Socialist?

"Government is inherently unsustainable,"

Oh look, no counter-argument. It's like you don't have one, or something, how... completely normal for you.

How do you quantify "sustainability"?

Lasting, not even permanent, just lasting. As I mentioned in the post you replied to. The State naturally increases in size, evident by the Federal Register, and taxes naturally return less money the higher you raise them(The Law of Diminishing Returns), preventing the State from being able to pay for itself through said taxes, and this is accelerated through its inability to properly allocate resources due to the Economic Calculation problem. These problems have all been observed through the course of history.

We're well into our 3rd century. Its been quite sustainable. As have dozens of other governments.

Meanwhile the longest lasting Government is about 400 years, because it tends towards collapse, due to being unsustainable, for the reasons I've outlined, which you refused to address. Longest lasting Anarchy is recorded to have been a few thousand years, projected to be 9000 years, and that's not including the amount of time that people associated BEFORE the existence of the first government. Governments inevitably collapse, as they always have throughout history.

 

[candycorn]

"Government is inherently unsustainable,"

Oh look, no counter-argument. It's like you don't have one, or something, how... completely normal for you.

How do you quantify "sustainability"?

Lasting, not even permanent, just lasting. As I mentioned in the post you replied to. The State naturally increases in size, evident by the Federal Register, and taxes naturally return less money the higher you raise them(The Law of Diminishing Returns), preventing the State from being able to pay for itself through said taxes, and this is accelerated through its inability to properly allocate resources due to the Economic Calculation problem. These problems have all been observed through the course of history.

We're well into our 3rd century. Its been quite sustainable. As have dozens of other governments.

Meanwhile the longest lasting Government is about 400 years, because it tends towards collapse, due to being unsustainable, for the reasons I've outlined, which you refused to address. Longest lasting Anarchy is recorded to have been a few thousand years, projected to be 9000 years, and that's not including the amount of time that people associated BEFORE the existence of the first government. Governments inevitably collapse, as they always have throughout history.

If that is how you quantify "sustainability"...few if any human endeavors are sustainable. The standard is unrealistic.

 

[Conservative65]

Why don't those 10 million Americans do something to earn more money instead of begging for it?

Because they are mainly disabled elderly or children? And is it time to give amnesty to all the felons that can't get jobs? Most of whom it's about drugs or marijuana... What about it law & order idiots?

Why don't their fucking parents or family members do something to help them instead of begging for it? The taxpayers aren't their ATM nor do they hold any responsibility to do for them what their own family refuses to do.

If you're a felon and can't get a job, that's your fucking problem. Should have thought about that before committing a crime.

Also society's problem, since nobody agrees with your let them die philosophy, angry old brainwashed functional moron...

It's not societies problem because their piece of shit family won't take care of them. It tells me that they aren't worth caring for if their own family won't invest in them.

Someone's refusal to do what they're supposed to do doesn't default the responsibility to the rest of us.

I'd let yours die before I'd give them a penny if that little would save their life.

Nobody gives a s*** what you think, brainwashed functional moron hater dupe LOL

Nobody gives a fuck about those who refuse to provide for themselves.

Apparently you do give a shit about what I think. You're on here whining about while the rest of us are being forced to feed the freeloaders for which you only claim to care but do absolutely nothing to help yourself. Maybe they can eat the claims you make about caring. Outside of that, unless YOU'RE giving them something, they should go without until they do for themselves or those actually responsible for them do it.