Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
This right here is the KEY to the problem. The left assume that we on the right want people to starve. That we want to punish the less fortunate. Nothing could be farther from the truth! We want to help those in need.. What we don't want to do is pay and pay and pay some more for those who are unwilling to help themselves. Even in just the smallest way. Why is it that instead of admitting that there are those who DO take advantage of the system and help to come up with a cost-effective solution that takes both sides into consideration... ya'll continue to paint us as the big bad people who want to put starving children on the streets? All we want is some accountability! I think we deserve that from those who have their hands in our pockets so regularly. And we'd appreciate the fact if the left would finally admit that the vault is dry. That no matter how we ALL would love to live in this Utopia where everyone is all happy and money flowed down the creeks that it isn't reality. If I give you 75% of my paycheck is that enough for you? If I give you every last single dime that it doesn't take me to put a decent roof over my head and food in my mouth will that finally be enough to cure hunger in this country? To never see someone living in substandard conditions again? If that's what it takes... then I might as well quit busting my butt out here trying to make a living and just let you take care of me too.........
That's the problem w/ the Right's position. You say you don't WANT people to starve, yet all your "remedies" suggest you don't CARE if they do.
Like I said, no one approves of welfare mooches, but there hasn't been a single responsible, reliable, or cost-effective solution to deal w/ that. In essence, the Right is mounting an effort to eliminate crime in a segment of society. Does that sound possible? All you can do is create as much disincentive to try to scam the system as possible, and that's what we have going on now.
All the welfare programs have ~5% fraud. As strict as our system is now, all the suggestions for eliminating that 5% amount to cutting off way more people that need services than it stops from defrauding the system.
So the question now for the Right is: how many legit people w/ needs are you willing to sacrifice just so you can eliminate the already minuscule amount of fraud?
This right here is the KEY to the problem. The left assume that we on the right want people to starve. That we want to punish the less fortunate. Nothing could be farther from the truth! We want to help those in need.. What we don't want to do is pay and pay and pay some more for those who are unwilling to help themselves. Even in just the smallest way. Why is it that instead of admitting that there are those who DO take advantage of the system and help to come up with a cost-effective solution that takes both sides into consideration... ya'll continue to paint us as the big bad people who want to put starving children on the streets? All we want is some accountability! I think we deserve that from those who have their hands in our pockets so regularly. And we'd appreciate the fact if the left would finally admit that the vault is dry. That no matter how we ALL would love to live in this Utopia where everyone is all happy and money flowed down the creeks that it isn't reality. If I give you 75% of my paycheck is that enough for you? If I give you every last single dime that it doesn't take me to put a decent roof over my head and food in my mouth will that finally be enough to cure hunger in this country? To never see someone living in substandard conditions again? If that's what it takes... then I might as well quit busting my butt out here trying to make a living and just let you take care of me too.........
Of course! I guess that's why I've seen so many posts from the right saying "I don't care if they starve!"
Location: Just transplanted to FL from the N GA mountains
3,997 posts, read 4,144,523 times
Reputation: 2677
Quote:
Originally Posted by EddieB.Good
That's the problem w/ the Right's position. You say you don't WANT people to starve, yet all your "remedies" suggest you don't CARE if they do.
No... We do care... We still do... we wouldn't be so adamant about fixing it correctly if we didn't. But failed program after failed program shows that throwing money after a problem doesn't FIX it! Ya'll never did answer my question... Just how much is enough? Just how much % of a persons annual income do you want to take from me and give to others? How much will it take to cure the problem? And exactly what is the ROOT problem?
I don't have any "remedies"... if I did.. I'd run for office...
"Those who truly deserve it"!!! According to WHO??? You?????? Who made you God?
I'm "God" only of my own life and in this case, my own checkbook, at least to the degree that I can control or influence that. Looks like you and your ilk want to control that checkbook to the greatest degree that you can, deciding where the money taken by force from me should go despite my feelings on the subject, EH?
Quote:
Originally Posted by lucknow
Your example is truly pathetic and paints a picture of an extremely selfish and self centred person. Are you really that person who wants to cause suffering for the children of parents who have made some kind of mistake. Hey, maybe when parents are jailed we should send the kids right along to jail with them.
I don't want to cause suffering for anyone. If someone causes it for themselves or their charges, I'm not involved in creating that situation and not necessarily obligated to alleviate it at my own expense. And I consider tax dollars wasted to be "my own expense" which I would not endorse.
The children are the responsibility of the parents, not me. I had nothing to do with their conception. If the parents make bad choices which affect the children badly, of course I will have some sympathy but not to the point where I feel tax dollars should be used VERY INEFFICIENTLY to assist. Let the parents lose sleep over it. As I said, I have the option of contributing directly or via a charity. I can't fix every sad story in the world. Lest you think me a total jerk, there *is* a family I support on a regular basis, making sure that they have a roof over their head, heat, lights and telephone on, and food on their table. I cannot change their entire world or the environment in which they live, but I make sure in a very direct manner that their basic needs are covered. I have paid for doctors, operations (straight cash) and covered what's needed for school. Where they are is full of tragic stories, and I can't help everyone there, and so I don't need to feel bad about it. I have been very careful in what I give to not allow a dependency to form. I expect (and ensure) that what I give supplements what they do for themselves, not give so they can have extras above and beyond.
Libs get way too wrapped up in the emotions. Try some logic, EH?
Like I said, no one approves of welfare mooches, but there hasn't been a single responsible, reliable, or cost-effective solution to deal w/ that. In essence, the Right is mounting an effort to eliminate crime in a segment of society. Does that sound possible? All you can do is create as much disincentive to try to scam the system as possible, and that's what we have going on now.
I'm a strong advocate of mandatory sterilization before any welfare benefits are delivered, and no additional benefits for any children borne while on welfare. Poverty would plummet and be significantly reduced within a generation. Responsible, reliable, and cost-effective. But you probably don't like that either. You're trying to treat symptoms rather than addressing the source of the problem.
No... We do care... We still do... we wouldn't be so adamant about fixing it correctly if we didn't. But failed program after failed program shows that throwing money after a problem doesn't FIX it! Ya'll never did answer my question... Just how much is enough? Just how much % of a persons annual income do you want to take from me and give to others? How much will it take to cure the problem? And exactly what is the ROOT problem?
I don't have any "remedies"... if I did.. I'd run for office...
No, you don't care. If you did, you wouldn't offer solutions that sacrifice people that truly need the system just so you could eliminate the minuscule corruption.
I don't know what the % is, but American citizens and businesses have the lowest effective tax rates that this country has seen since we realized we needed universal safety nets.
If you're concerned about how much of your paycheck is going to gov't spending, then why not direct your anger at military spending, which accounts for far more spending than feeding needy families and the occasional moocher?
I'm a strong advocate of mandatory sterilization before any welfare benefits are delivered, and no additional benefits for any children borne while on welfare. Poverty would plummet and be significantly reduced within a generation. Responsible, reliable, and cost-effective. But you probably don't like that either. You're trying to treat symptoms rather than addressing the source of the problem.
Are you seriously rolling your eyes that I don't want mandatory sterilization just so people can get money to eat? That's what you consider a reasonable approach to feeding people?
I'm a strong advocate of mandatory sterilization before any welfare benefits are delivered, and no additional benefits for any children borne while on welfare. Poverty would plummet and be significantly reduced within a generation. Responsible, reliable, and cost-effective. But you probably don't like that either. You're trying to treat symptoms rather than addressing the source of the problem.
Mandatory sterilization. I guess that's what you righties mean by a "less intrusive government."
Couple that with forced ultrasounds, the R politician who wants to make oral sex illegal, even for married couples, and you have a government that isn't intrusive in the least.
Are you seriously rolling your eyes that I don't want mandatory sterilization just so people can get money to eat? That's what you consider a reasonable approach to feeding people?
No, I consider it a reasonable appraoch to solving the problem of having too many people to feed. I'm not advocating killing or harming anyone, just preventing future births before they start.
Let's stop paying those who are sucking most heavily at the public teat from reproducing irresponsibly and paying them further when they do. If they can't provide for themselves, why should they be breeding more for the rest of us to pay for? As a taxpayer providing the cash, I say "If you don't like the terms of accepting my money, you're free to find another means to provide for yourself. My money, my rules. Next in line!"
We're getting off topic here. Back to the healthcare debacle.
I don't care if right-wingers want poor people to starve or not. What right-wingers want really isn't a factor in my decision making.
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
You're trying to treat symptoms rather than addressing the source of the problem.
