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.
I think you should follow your OWN advice, from another thread I was just reading. You said: "I'm honestly very sick of the sense of entitlement people have. Your argument is that you pay taxes so you have a right to that money. No, you don't, you pay into a gigantic fund used to pay for EVERYTHING the gov't does."
So if you feel this way about taxes, why do you feel entitled to know how everyone's spending their welfare? Isn't it just a big pool for the government to spend as they see fit? Obviously they don't see a point in tightening welfare legislation/spending, or they would have done it by now.
Thak you for taking the time to read my post and respond but I respectfully disagree with your conclusions. A nation cannot cut off a segment of it's population or demonize them as second class citizens, for then you create an enemy from within. A nation must find a way to deal with it's least fortunate in a compassionate, humane manner. I still conclude that we are only as strong as the least of us.
I think you should follow your OWN advice, from another thread I was just reading. You said: "I'm honestly very sick of the sense of entitlement people have. Your argument is that you pay taxes so you have a right to that money. No, you don't, you pay into a gigantic fund used to pay for EVERYTHING the gov't does."
So if you feel this way about taxes, why do you feel entitled to know how everyone's spending their welfare? Isn't it just a big pool for the government to spend as they see fit? Obviously they don't see a point in tightening welfare legislation/spending, or they would have done it by now.
That is laughable. It hasn't been done b/c the Dems need to keep people strung along so they can get votes. Who said nobody wants to adjust entitlement programs, either? Link, please.
Last edited by Green Irish Eyes; 12-24-2010 at 12:29 PM..
Reason: Please discuss the topic, not each other.
I believe that the best measurement of the health of any society is how the rulers treat the most disadvantaged of their population. Every society has it's ball and chain of the disposessed, diseased, and those that fall on unfortunate circumstances. Either Society makes a choice to carry that ball and advance together or they choose to cut the chain and disassociate itself from the lowest common denominator of the social fabric. One route is based on compassion the other is based on social separation. All societies that discriminate and demonize their underclass have been ultimately doomed to the scrap heap of history. Only by showing compassion and a willingness to accept the entire social structure and advance into the future together does a nation prosper. Ultimately, a nation is only as good as the least of it's citizens.
This is not about compassion, though. It's about expecting people on welfare to become productive members of society who do not take advantage of gov't assistance just b/c they can. These are two totally different topics, the welfare mamas are not exactly the downtrodden you refer to.
As has been previously mentioned by almost everyone who has taken an "anti-poor" stance as you all like to call it, nobody is advocating for NOBODY to get welfare when they need it.
But I suppose it's easier to put words in others' mouths than it is to try to understand their position on the issue.
Thak you for taking the time to read my post and respond but I respectfully disagree with your conclusions. A nation cannot cut off a segment of it's population or demonize them as second class citizens, for then you create an enemy from within. A nation must find a way to deal with it's least fortunate in a compassionate, humane manner. I still conclude that we are only as strong as the least of us.
Nobody believes people who need a temporary hand up are second-class citizens. They become second-class citizens when they start to expect that the taxpayer will fund their lives for the duration. Why shouldn't we cut them off when they are fully able to work and take care of themselves?
What was an attack? I apologize if I offended you with something.
Calling me a fool counts as a personal attack in my book.
Then you answered the topic already. If you have nothing to add except to argue with people, move on. I'm not speculating on anything, it's also not an opinion or belief. It's FACT when you see something with your own two eyes for years on end.
Huh? I guess the same argument could be made for you and everybody else posting here, "if you have nothing to add except to argue with people, move on." LOL That's what these boards are all about, you know, "debating".....
Fair enough. But obviously these topics are started to encourage discussion of the situation. If you think they are started just for a yes or no answer, say NO and move on.
Ah, the second time you've told me to "move on." I actually have more to say than "no," which is what I've been doing.
You have stated this. What makes you think that repeating it multiple times will change my view and others'?
Just hope. That's all. Just hope that the light will get through.
Yes, we are, and what has our president done to help this? However, handouts cannot go on forever, how does it get paid for? The libs refuse to cut spending.
As you've stated many, many times in this thread, THAT is off topic, not the topic of discussion in this thread, what our president has or has not done. There are many other places to discuss that issue, as well as "libs" and "spending."
Who is in denial here? You think abuse and fraud isn't widespread and only occurs at a very low rate.
In fact, I do think that the abuse is not substantial and therefore does not call for drug testing of people who receive Unemployment and welfare benefits. I've stated that numerous times.
They also are not looking hard enough. I have listed on multiple threads that there are jobs everywhere. If these people want jobs, they have to seize the day and be willing to take what they can get. Sure, perhaps they had a six-figure income before, they should not expect to get that now. They do not want to settle. Then you have those who just plain don't want to work b/c their benefits exceed or equal what they would make at minimum wage for 40 hours a week.
Again using ONLY your personal experience in ONE RESTAURANT in the entire country to make the huge leap that people are "not looking hard enough." Do you EVER read the news or do any research on these topics other than just what you hear through gossip and your own personal day-to-day experience? Now if you were running a Fortune 500 company employing thousands and thousands of people and you had that many positions and no one applied for them, then I'd certainly take notice.
The question becomes, when did our society become so morally corrupt that people are willing to mooch instead of take pride in working and earning their own way?
Geeezzzz. Do you have any background in American history?
I myself need about 10 more people for our restaurant and it's like pulling teeth to get people in there. It makes no sense to me. I had one lady ask us to be paid under the table so she could keep her UE. I had another who would rather have no job than take the training wage we pay for managers, knowing he will get a decent sized raise in another week or two. I know firsthand what is going on and yes, it has turned me into a huge skeptic. The experiences with my family have made me pretty bitter, as I said before, and I do try to give people the benefit of the doubt but it's hard when everywhere you look, someone is taking advantage, whether it be family, friend, acquaintance, or people you hear about in the news.
Again, personal experience of ONE person, running ONE restaurant in the entire country.....
I cannot back up the abuse with statistics since there are none. We have been over this. If we had a way to quantify it, we would have a way to stop it. Wouldn't you agree with that assessment? There are six people in my family alone who abuse the system, there are dozens more that I know or know of in real life, then there are the news stories like the article that was posted here about the ladies in DC who are being kicked off.
Okay. It's simple. SAY clearly that it's YOUR OPINION, based on your personal experiences with friends and family, that there is rampant abuse of the welfare system. You see? IMO, if there seemed to be such rampant abuse in the system overall, the "government" would, if not already, would be doing something about it. The level of abuse you're talking about would be evident to the people who work and oversee these programs. In My Opinion. I don't know ANYBODY who abuses the welfare system. You know six family members and some friends. Other people have posted that they don't know anyone who abused or abuses the system. That "sort of" balances out your position.
I understand wanting to be an optimist, I understand not wanting to lose faith in humanity, I understand giving the benefit of the doubt, but where does it end? At what point will you admit that there is a problem, and a big one?
First of all, in the real world, you have to be able to provide some objective proof that there is a "BIG PROBLEM." Also it might be time to work on not "losing faith in humanity." Then, "where does it end"? Well, there is never going to be perfection and there will never be an end.
This is not about compassion, though. It's about expecting people on welfare to become productive members of society who do not take advantage of gov't assistance just b/c they can. These are two totally different topics, the welfare mamas are not exactly the downtrodden you refer to.
As has been previously mentioned by almost everyone who has taken an "anti-poor" stance as you all like to call it, nobody is advocating for NOBODY to get welfare when they need it.
But I suppose it's easier to put words in others' mouths than it is to try to understand their position on the issue.
I gave a personal viewpoint concerning my beliefs for a healthy society and nation. I don't recall putting words in anybody's mouth. My opinions are all my own and I take full responsibility for them. I think with all your posts on this and other entitlement or social welfare programs I understand pretty much where you stand on the issues. I've read all your posts and respond to very few of them.
Nobody believes people who need a temporary hand up are second-class citizens. They become second-class citizens when they start to expect that the taxpayer will fund their lives for the duration. Why shouldn't we cut them off when they are fully able to work and take care of themselves?
The problem is, andrea, HOW DO YOU DETERMINE who are the people who need a "temporary hand up" as opposed to the people you see in your personal world who are abusing teh system???
For "the duration"........What does that mean to you? Are you again talking about people who are on welfare for their entire lives? If so, please give us some numbers on that. CERTAINLY there must be statistics out there for the number of people who are on welfare for a lifetime. In fact, that would be the perfect place to start an investigation into any perceived abuse.
The problem is, andrea, HOW DO YOU DETERMINE who are the people who need a "temporary hand up" as opposed to the people you see in your personal world who are abusing teh system???
For "the duration"........What does that mean to you? Are you again talking about people who are on welfare for their entire lives? If so, please give us some numbers on that. CERTAINLY there must be statistics out there for the number of people who are on welfare for a lifetime. In fact, that would be the perfect place to start an investigation into any perceived abuse.
I'm sure that if there was a significant number of welfare, food stamp and unemployment cheats in the system, that number would be flogged to death by certain partisan factions within the CD community.
That is laughable. It hasn't been done b/c the Dems need to keep people strung along so they can get votes. Who said nobody wants to adjust entitlement programs, either? Link, please.
If you want to discuss my posts on other threads, perhaps you should address me there.
Jeeze, you and some others really creep me out with this stalking of my posts.
It doesn't seem to me that anybody is stalking anybody. There are a lot of threads on the issue of social programs and LOTS OF POSTS out there to read.
So now your position is that there is rampant abuse of the welfare system BECAUSE Democrats WANT to keep people poor and needy in order to get votes? I wonder just how many of those welfare recipients go to the polls and vote? Do you have any idea? My guess is that you don't.
Last edited by Perlier; 12-24-2010 at 12:03 PM..
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.
Who is in denial here? You think abuse and fraud isn't widespread and only occurs at a very low rate.
