25 Sep 06
Originally posted by slappy115The irony of this is that that paragraph is a note-perfect description of contemporary corporate lobbying.
"I am not equal. I am unable to support myself and/or my family. I am lower than every hard working person out there because I am unable to function as a productive member of society so I beg (let me emphasize BEG) you as a lower creature to have pity on me and allow me the funds to eat, clothe, and shelter myself and/or my family. Without you, I will rot away and die. Please have pity on me."
I'm not discriminating on the grounds of class, far from it: I was merely wondering why you see one public subsidy as a moral bad and another one (and, I might add, a much more expensive one and a far greater burden on the taxpayer) as either a thing indifferent or a moral good.
25 Sep 06
Originally posted by slappy115ok, for starters welfare is'nt a bad thing ! it is however abused , this is why some .... or many feel so strongly on the subject . an even better solution is to offer a time limit ( nation wide ) that clearluy states .... say 5 years total. and if you get assistance for 6 months then you only have 4and a half years left to take this typ of assistance . but to address a situation like this one cant really argue the point like a republican ( unless you really have that kind of money !) you would have to look at the more serious , and ever fatal elderly , the handicap , the overal indigent . a blanket idea is great if it's just an idea , but think about this .... universal health care ( noone pays for medical attention ) and then some of the weapons money would have to be spent where it's supposed to be spent ! the real facts are that we as a nation dont spend that much on welfare , we spend it on lavish dwellings for our ridiculous politicians .
True. I was trying really trying to push it there. I knew that it was a contradiction.
However, if you renounce your citizenship, can you reobtain it?
That's how I should have worded it. To go on welfare, you have to renounce your ability to vote. I don't know. I'm not a doctor.
say you get a whopping $ 225 per month to take care of you , your kids , your utilities , and mic. expenses .... just how far does that kind of money go to getting the atire you need for a decent position at any real work place ? the gas and insurance , maintanence etc. . not very far ! school clothes , supplies .... think for a sec , do you think there are that many people getting a chunk of your money ? check it out for yourself , get the facts .i dont know anyone that doesnt want the best for thier family , noone ! so why wuold anyone ( there are a great deal of people that dont care what they do in life ) that has a real choice choose any different than you or i ?
25 Sep 06
Originally posted by slappy115I'm fairly certain that you won't find an item labeled "welfare" in the budget before Congress.
It is defined as how the US federal government defines it. So don't play your semantic games.
You will find
Aid to Families with Dependant Children
Medicare
Farm Subsidies
Tax exemptions for timber, oil, and other natural resource based companies
Tax incentives for companies operating in certain underdeveloped areas (such as drug manufacturers in Puerto Rico)
The list goes on. Who are we planning to disenfranchise? Single mothers? Farmers that overproduce? Weyerhaueser executives?
25 Sep 06
Originally posted by WulebgrYet they talk about "welfare reform" so I think that might have an idea of what it is.
I'm fairly certain that you won't find an item labeled "welfare" in the budget before Congress.
You will find
Aid to Families with Dependant Children
Medicare
Farm Subsidies
Tax exemptions for timber, oil, and other natural resource based companies
Tax incentives for companies operating in certain underdeveloped areas (such as drug manufacturers in P ...[text shortened]... anning to disenfranchise? Single mothers? Farmers that overproduce? Weyerhaueser executives?
Disenfranchise them all. Why discriminate? You can't say one form is okay and another isn't. If equalitity is what everyone wants, then give it to them.
In fact, I think over producing farmers should flood the market with crops. They can control how much they grow.
The most amusing part about welfare is how unconstitutional it is. Nowhere in the constitution does it state that the federal, state, or local governments are allowed to levy taxes for the purpose of giving them to someone else. This falls all on FDR's lame legs.
25 Sep 06
Originally posted by AmauroteI must have missed something. What are the two public subsidies we are comparing?
I was merely wondering why you see one public subsidy as a moral bad and another one (and, I might add, a much more expensive one and a far greater burden on the taxpayer) as either a thing indifferent or a moral good.
25 Sep 06
Originally posted by Bomb TechAn idea is amoral so you really can't say that it is a good or bad thing. Oh course the applications are. I do agree with you that a time limit should exist on it. I also think that a complete over haul of it should occur, too. People shouldn't be on welfare "just because it is there". The concept, however, is unconstitutional (stated in an above post).
ok, for starters welfare is'nt a bad thing ! it is however abused , this is why some .... or many feel so strongly on the subject . an even better solution is to offer a time limit ( nation wide ) that clearluy states .... say 5 years total. and if you get assistance for 6 months then you only have 4and a half years left to take this typ of assistance . bu ...[text shortened]... dont care what they do in life ) that has a real choice choose any different than you or i ?
25 Sep 06
What people are forgetting is that, at one time in the US, the family unit was the safety net. My grandfather has told me about growing up during and after WW II where they were far from rich but they never went hungry, went without clothers, and they always had a roof over their heads. It is the lose of family members helping one another in times of need that is missing from the equations. They didn't have welfare to fall back on and yet they lived happy lives.
25 Sep 06
Originally posted by slappy115This sort of thing is one reason why people of some races have it easier than others. A white individual is much more likely to have relatives who have the resources to help out than a black or Native American individual.
What people are forgetting is that, at one time in the US, the family unit was the safety net. My grandfather has told me about growing up during and after WW II where they were far from rich but they never went hungry, went without clothers, and they always had a roof over their heads. It is the lose of family members helping one another in times of nee ...[text shortened]... g from the equations. They didn't have welfare to fall back on and yet they lived happy lives.
25 Sep 06
Originally posted by AThousandYoungWhat are you talking about? Blacks families are huge, especially from the south. We concentrated all of the Natives so, guess what, they are surrounded by their tribe members. You maks it sound like that white people are the only ones who are capable of having families that can support each other. Are you telling me that blacks are incapable of forming functional family units?
This sort of thing is one reason why people of some races have it easier than others. A white individual is much more likely to have relatives who have the resources to help out than a black or Native American individual.
25 Sep 06
2 edits
Originally posted by slappy115But how many black families can give their kids white collar jobs? Nepotism buddy.
What are you talking about? Blacks families are huge, especially from the south. We concentrated all of the Natives so, guess what, they are surrounded by their tribe members. You maks it sound like that white people are the only ones who are capable of having families that can support each other. Are you telling me that blacks are incapable of forming functional family units?
Also, I see quite a lot of black homeless. If their families can take care of them so well, how come they're on the streets?
There's just more money in white hands.
25 Sep 06
Originally posted by AThousandYoungPerhaps that is also related to the 'Bell Curve' difference whuch shows that on average the 'blacks' score some 15 IQ points (1 standard deviation) below the 'whites'.
But how many black families can give their kids white collar jobs? Nepotism buddy.
25 Sep 06
Originally posted by slappy115Politicians say the things that get them elected; many fail to understand that when they start writing laws, and thus write bad laws.
Yet they talk about "welfare reform" so I think that might have an idea of what it is.
[snip]
The most amusing part about welfare is how unconstitutional it is.
"to promote the general welfare" from the Constitution