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.
Status:
"Moldy Tater Gangrene, even before Moscow Marge."
(set 10 days ago)
Location: Dallas, TX
5,790 posts, read 3,605,492 times
Reputation: 5697
Advertisements
Quote:
Originally Posted by rebeldor
Quote:
Originally Posted by Frank DeForrest
I applaud people who help out others first hand and put their own time and money where their mouth is. Not those who champion govt redistribution schemes while paying as little as possible or no taxes whatsoever.
I expect it from liberals, but conservatives and MAGAs are showing their true colors now.
Typical ancap thinking. If you can't afford it on your own, you don't deserve it. You probably think the weaker property owner deserve to lose his or her property to the strong owner simply because the weaker owner can't defend their hold/possession of the property. A perfect recipe for an Eternal Riot. OR if you believe the weak have every bit as much right to property as the strong, then you admit there IS a purpose for government (to make laws everybody must obey, sometimes act as mediator between two disputing parties).
I think we all get caught in "Talking Head" mode and take very narrow views of issues without taking into account the behaviors of Americans as a whole.
No one ever said fixing this stuff is easy, and if someone says "all you have to do is..." they are lying to you. This is why its easier to run for congress /president then it is to propose solutions and get them passed. American politics are broken because Americans want every solution to fit on a bumper sticker. Problems are more complicated than that.
Nobody would know who the welfare recipients are, but themselves. But nothing wrong with reminding them they're not "entitled" to it - but should rather be grateful that tax-paying Americans help feed their families.
Why do you leftists continue to advocate for people being forced to pay for welfare?
Typical ancap thinking. If you can't afford it on your own, you don't deserve it. You probably think the weaker property owner deserve to lose his or her property to the strong owner simply because the weaker owner can't defend their hold/possession of the property. A perfect recipe for an Eternal Riot. OR if you believe the weak have every bit as much right to property as the strong, then you admit there IS a purpose for government (to make laws everybody must obey, sometimes act as mediator between two disputing parties).
Yes, let's make them "suffer" and have to survive without Coke and ring-dings - or 54" flatscreen TVs.
Are you going to be the one who picks those who aren't worthy? Or does anyone who receives a social safety net program qualify for your special treatment? What if that TV was purchased when the person was employed, ot what if the person is currently employed - do you want to manage their paycheck because they are receiving SNAP? Will you dole out toilet paper a roll at a time too, you know to make sure they aren't wasting it?
This comment section is beginning to sound like "single and sickly old, unattractive women are good for nuthin so let's make life as hard for them as it can get."
With work requirements coupled with the loss of low wage jobs more people who cannot find paid employment will have to work volunteer jobs in order to receive food stamps. Companies will have slave labor again as former minimum wage jobs become volunteer positions. The lower class will be pretty much powerless.
Around here you have to pay for your own background check to volunteer and even if you pass the background check you might still be turned down for a volunteer spot. $20 for a background check is a lot when you have no monetary income.
If someone who is not on disability (it does not matter how physically ill you are, if you do not receive SSI or SSDI then you are considered to be "able bodied" even though employers don't want you) receives food stamps and cannot find paid employment he/she has to work for free in order to have food to eat. Otherwise, you can only get three months of food stamps every three years. And volunteer positions will be in such demand that many will be turned down for those. You cannot volunteer just anywhere. It has to be an approved location. So, if the recipient cannot even be chosen for a volunteer position in those three months he/she will be cut off and left with nothing.
Just like with paid employment the recipient will be left to depend on the decisions of the employer on whether or not the recipient will be chosen to work for free. Food banks vary, but around here you have to show you receive food stamps to get help more than once at a food bank. So, some food banks will refuse to help the unchosen as well.
Minimum/low wage jobs going away is going to hurt a lot of people.
Excellent post, to be honest I had never thought that through but what you say makes perfect sense. Why else the push for work requirements for medicaid and SNAP, especially in places where there are no jobs? It certainly looks like the opening volley in the war on the poor, doesn't it?
Are you going to be the one who picks those who aren't worthy? Or does anyone who receives a social safety net program qualify for your special treatment? What if that TV was purchased when the person was employed, ot what if the person is currently employed - do you want to manage their paycheck because they are receiving SNAP? Will you dole out toilet paper a roll at a time too, you know to make sure they aren't wasting it?
So you're arguing that someone on food stamps is "entitled" to spend them on ring-dings?
And stop with this "worthy" nonsense. It's a nasty attack that liberals foist on conservatives - much like the "racist" nonsense attached to objections to illegals - when they dare suggest....shudder.....that poor people benefiting from taxpayer largesse are entitled to spend OPM however they choose.
Nope.
I believe in natural law and the NAP.
Mediators are almost all private, anyway.
Part of natural law is survival of the fittest. If you cut off all safety net programs, and I'm sure you consider de SS and medicare to be 'welfare', I hope you aren't surprised when the poor don't ask nicely for food but simply take yours.
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.
