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.
"Tired" with the egoistic avarice of the right-wing? I don't know. Disgusted. Yes.
Quote:
Originally Posted by lilyflower3191981
It seems like the only thing you can come up with to attack a different opinion is that they are right-wingers.
Uh. You're failing to read what you're replying to. What I'm "coming up with" to "attack a different opinion" is that the perspective expressed is immoral. That it reflect a callous disregard for others. That it violates the basic principles of a legitimate society. That it reflects a corrupted prioritization of the comfort and luxury of some over the basic needs of others. That it is a product of deception intended to hide and protect money-grubbing greed.
I have seen a lot of instances where right-wingers cannot bring themselves to accept moral repudiation for what they desire, but I haven't seen many instances where someone would go so far as to deny that the moral repudiation was even posted. That takes some prodigious amount of denial.
"Tired" with the egoistic avarice of the right-wing? I don't know. Disgusted. Yes.
Uh. You're failing to read what you're replying to. What I'm "coming up with" to "attack a different opinion" is that the perspective expressed is immoral. That it reflect a callous disregard for others. That it violates the basic principles of a legitimate society. That it reflects a corrupted prioritization of the comfort and luxury of some over the basic needs of others. That it is a product of deception intended to hide and protect money-grubbing greed.
I have seen a lot of instances where right-wingers cannot bring themselves to accept moral repudiation for what they desire, but I haven't seen many instances where someone would go so far as to deny that the moral repudiation was even posted. That takes some prodigious amount of denial.
sigh.
I don't know why Fox News believes the poor shouldn't eat seafood either. I don't belong to that crowd. I highly doubt that many, ugh, right wingers (for lack of better description) really share the same view as fox news.
However, we have now a half-functioning economy, and one of our safety-net programs for the poorest families has been designed in order to keep as many of them out as possible. That seems like a bigger problem than the possibility that Obama might tinker with a few of its policy details.
The welfare program stopped working because it has stopped helping the poor a long time ago.
Technically, the response to the disgust I experience reading right-wing claptrap is called a "gag reflex". It's pretty much the same reaction someone would have to encountering a curb where a dog owner didn't clean up after their dog.
An utterly ridiculous dodge, given that I paralleled your use of words exactly. You aren't really good at this are you?
It is always better to be precise, and accurate. You should try both.
Don't think anyone is being fooled by your nonsense. Everyone still reading this thread knows that you're just frustrated that because you cannot compose legitimate replies to my nuanced and well-conditioned comments. I actually think through what I write before I write it, and write it deliberately to castrate the ability of right-winger to post vacuously inane replies, without lying about what I wrote.
So make the abuse illegal. I'm 100% in support of that. Problem solved. Are you done now? Or are you going to try to claim that "abuse" is whatever you don't like, imposed how you personally dictate it will be imposed, instead of deferring to society's consensus on the matter? How deep does the self-ratifying nonsense you post go?
I'm used to it. I've been posting online longer than many (most?) of those posting today have been alive. I've learned to write carefully while most people write so carelessly that anyone could drive a truck through the flagrant holes in their "logic".
It is clear that the right-wing often views stupidity as an ethic and intelligence as evil. I suppose that poison has its impact.
Yes, it is my perception that you're going to have to say explicitly what you mean because innuendo and vague evasion won't find quarter.
So why didn't you just say that. It's still vague but there's more to work with: Are you saying that you'll support public assistance so people can pay their own way for the basics, while they're gaining education and training, until such time as they're hired into a living wage job?
Or are you saying that you're in favor of throwing a token amount into training programs, as long as your taxes don't go up to make that happen, and those who are lucky enough to get in get in and the rest they and their families can starve?
Quote:
I think you are missing the point. Until you outline precisely how your
"plan" assures everyone getting public assistance today is still alive, still
health, still treated with worth and dignity as a society like ours should treat
its citizens, etc., why should anyone believe you're not simply looking to
undercut the life and health of those most vulnerable simply to reduce your own
taxes? It's easy to criticize how things are now when you presume you don't have
to explain how things would actually be better for the most vulnerable in
society "your way".
I do not have a plan nor did I ever say I have a plan, I would like to see education emphasized rather than throwing money into a system that does not improve peoples lives in the long run and rewards young mothers to have more kids with no future of being productive citizens. We need to take a look at the statistical history of the welfare system and see how many people using that system were actually trained/educated to be productive members of society vs. people who were not and were/are gaming the system. I would be willing to bet most did not use it as a stepping stone, but gamed it for everything they could get. And BTW, there are no guarantees, even people who never used the welfare system are not always successful in fulfilling their life's dream or just a good job.
Last edited by Ghostrider275452; 04-05-2014 at 08:08 AM..
Do you understand the damage you are doing to those people though, or to society? Do you just give your kids free money without teaching them a work ethic to go with it?
Quote:
Originally Posted by PullMyFinger
Caring is supposed to be for friends and family. Society/government is supposed to just administer our needs through our taxes, they aren't there to provide us with warmth or community and they sure as hell should not be feeding and clothing us.
What is the purpose of government?
I agree with these 100%
Why have so many poor families decided to forgo a government check? Could it be that work requirements may have scared some families off -- of course depend on your political outlook, you might consider that a good thing.
"The poverty rate still remains almost as high today as it was in the mid-1960s. Clearly, it’s a problem government alone cannot fix. Though reactive measures like government aid are needed, a more proactive response is necessary."
Many are capable of holding jobs. Me developmentally disabled step-sister has a job and supports herself. Many mentally and physically challenged people hold jobs. It IS necessary to support those in the above groups who are incapable of holding jobs, but none others.
Spoken like the statist you are. Let them make their own choices and suffer the consequences. The entire reason we have an exponentially growing welfare-dependent class is BECAUSE people who make bad choices never have to suffer the consequences of their actions.
In fact, it ISN'T. THIS is a very real problem:
The FACT that those who receive public assistance have a birth rate 3 times higher than those who don't is a very real problem.
The consequences are such:
Example using numbers: 1 million receiving public assistance, 1 million not receiving such, the latest published birth rate numbers for each group (halved because the rates were reported for women only), and the formula for predicting future population, future value = present value x (e)^kt, where e equals the constant 2.71828, k equals the rate of increase (expressed as a decimal, rate taken from the U.S. Census data), and t is the number of years.
After 20 years, the population of those not receiving public assistance will have grown from 1 million to 1.75 million.
After 20 years, the population of those very likely needing public assistance will have grown from 1 million to 4.953 million.
1.75 million paying taxes to support social programs for 4.953 million.
Giving money, services, and benefits to those who take what they need instead of earning it is not a sustainable strategy.
So after all that, you're basically saying that we should kick most people off welfare starting now, and if they don't learn to make "better choices," too bad, correct?
Still not seeing that as a viable solution. I, for one, don't want to see crime skyrocket the way it would if that happened tomorrow.
What else ya got for an actual, practical, viable solution to the problem?
How about you come up with a viable solution, instead of shooting down everything everyone says and putting words in peoples mouths.
Well, most times those "poor stupid people" made a choice to help the 'smart' people who love to denounce them get wealthy by working for them. Nobody came here with money, made themselves wealthy alone, nor will they be spending any money after death.
And they got paid for their work, did they not? Wealthy invest to create jobs, GET IT!
I do not have a plan nor did I ever say I have a plan, I would like to see education emphasized rather than throwing money into a system that does not improve peoples lives in the long run and rewards young mothers to have more kids with no future of being productive citizens.
I offered you that option: To say that you wanted to increase taxes to fund additional education which, you seemed to imply, would eventually lower the need for (and therefore cost of) offering public assistance entirely. The fact that you didn't jump at that option makes me think that you really aren't being completely forthright about what you are trying to imply.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Ghostrider275452
We need to take a look at the statistical history of the welfare system and see how many people using that system were actually trained/educated to be productive members of society vs. people who were not and were/are gaming the system.
Looking doesn't change anything. If all you're talking about is looking, I'm sure there are lots of Republicans who can rip apart such an idea as yet more waste of government money, far better than I can.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Ghostrider275452
I would be willing to bet most did not use it as a stepping stone, but gamed it for everything they could get.
An utterly baseless assumption, rife with vacuous antipathy for those most vulnerable in society. Keep your random thoughts without iron-clad evidence to back them up to yourself if you don't want them condemned outright. (Or express them, if you're interested in reading the repudiation which will be posted in response to them - your choice.)
Quote:
Originally Posted by Ghostrider275452
And BTW, there are no guarantees, even people who never used the welfare system are not always successful in fulfilling their life's dream or just a good job.
And then what (in your world)? You keep on saying - well - practically nothing, falling back on vagueness and innuendo instead of clearly expressing what you mean.
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.
