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.
He provides no "service". Not for me, anyways. I don't consider what he does to have "value".
Do you know that there are people who WORK and still receive welfare? So they provide no "service"?
It's not up to you to determine the functions of the federal government... it's the function of the Constitution.
And yes, there are people who work and still receive welfare. And there are people who make good money off the books and still have the nerve to receive welfare. Neither group are involved in an exchange of work for wages when receiving their welfare checks or food stamps.
I am so sympathetic to the anti welfare heroes on this thread if I could institute a universal welfare system I would make certain that you not only did not get any but that you paid for all of it.
I am so sympathetic to the anti welfare heroes on this thread if I could institute a universal welfare system I would make certain that you not only did not get any but that you paid for all of it.
You all sounf like Ayn Rand with PMS
It must be frustrating not to have a single coherent argument... only to make such a post.
So, since you put so much faith in the government to take care of those less fortunate... how much have you personally donated to the US Treasury through a direct gift? How many tax credits or deductions have you avoided using? Any of these would be a great way for you to continue to fund the programs that you feel are the most efficient method of providing support... so I would assume you've been an enthusiastic contributor.
I am so sympathetic to the anti welfare heroes on this thread if I could institute a universal welfare system I would make certain that you not only did not get any but that you paid for all of it.
Effectively the President of the United States is not paid. At least compared with the executive officer of any private sector firm with millions of employees. For the zillionaires that have occupied the position it has been financially a charity donation. This is one reason that the office is used to spread the tax revenues to a few selected friends.
If these people has social security, welfare, unemployment.. THEY STILL WOULD NOT HAVE WATER!!.. It is not connected to their city...
As for having no money = living on the streets, all you did was confirm my argument. Last I checked, we have hundreds of thousands here living on the streets, even though we have welfare, unemployment insurance, social security programs, we have not solved homelessness.. Which points out.. what have we solved with all of these programs?
I have no running water on my land in Arizona - does that mean there is no running water anywhere in the US??????
This is what you said "In a 3rd world country water DOES NOT EXIST, in this country its your ability to pay."
Again: "In a 3rd world country water DOES NOT EXIST"
And again: "In a 3rd world country water DOES NOT EXIST"
Your words.
That statement is CLEARLY not true. There are indeed PLACES in the 3rd world where running water does not exist, but yeah, running water exists in Mexico City, Guadalajara, etc, etc, etc. It just doesn't EXIST for people there that cannot AFFORD IT - same as here in the US. There are plenty of people in those countries who can and do afford to live in places with running water - those that can't, well, they live in places like those pictured.
My point is, during the Depression years - when there were few jobs and no governmental support, there were MILLIONS of Americans who had no income whatsoever many of whom found themselves living in makeshift shanty-towns and had no running water, electicity or sanitation.
And yeah, there are STILL people who live on the streets in America without those basic services - typically these people are 1/3 mentally ill, 1/3 drug or alcohol abusers and 1/3 folks with none of those problems but who have simply had the misfortune of losing their job and have not found another. The latter group tends to eventually improve their lot and move up - the first two are generally "lifers". The fact is, there will always be SOME people who are extremely poor - but there would be MILLIONS more if those government programs did not exist.
As it is, many seniors find themselves STILL having to struggle even with programs such as Social Security - same with low income mothers on foodstamps.
Madeline isn't wanton or pregnant, but a spunky little girl likely attending an exclusive Paris boarding house!
Example makes me reflect on Pelosi's use of the family in Baltimore that needed SCHIP. Put them in a tv commercial and all only to find out they choose to drive without auto insurance, had an accident, lived in a $400K+ home, sent their kids to a private school and the father owned his business warehouse valued at close to $200K. And this is the lib quintessential family that needed my tax dollars for help. . . .
Vacationer, hehe, does Madeline live in an orphanage or private school? I can't remember? And people who break the law - the parents, ie not having required insurance should be prosecuted and the business dissolved to pay their debts. But an inner city kid, or the kid whose parent's die or are injured, should not have to die of some easily treatable childhood disease or starve because some greedy rich guy broke the law.
Now let us cheer for all the halt, lame and crazy wounded veterans that are so obviously welfare cheats what with they’re occupying public space on the streets of our fair city to beg and sleep in the snow.
The biggest welfare cheats are the executives and stockholders of the companies profiting from the war in Iraq.
A city full of welfare cheats is less wasteful than one halliburton or blackwater/custer-battles war profiteers.
I have no running water on my land in Arizona - does that mean there is no running water anywhere in the US??????
I bet people in Arizona have running water, and Arizona is not a 3rd world country, which YOU tried to compare this country to.
Quote:
Originally Posted by LordBalfor
This is what you said "In a 3rd world country water DOES NOT EXIST, in this country its your ability to pay."
Again: "In a 3rd world country water DOES NOT EXIST"
And again: "In a 3rd world country water DOES NOT EXIST"
Your words.
Do you fail to see the difference in the fact that there is a difference between YOUR lot not having water, and the failure for complete cities in some 3rd world countries not having water?
Quote:
Originally Posted by LordBalfor
That statement is CLEARLY not true. There are indeed PLACES in the 3rd world where running water does not exist, but yeah, running water exists in Mexico City, Guadalajara, etc, etc, etc. It just doesn't EXIST for people there that cannot AFFORD IT - same as here in the US. There are plenty of people in those countries who can and do afford to live in places with running water - those that can't, well, they live in places like those pictured.
There are some places IN Mexico City, Guadalajara that are lacking water.. Not just a lot or two, but complete sections.
Quote:
Originally Posted by LordBalfor
My point is, during the Depression years - when there were few jobs and no governmental support, there were MILLIONS of Americans who had no income whatsoever many of whom found themselves living in makeshift shanty-towns and had no running water, electicity or sanitation.
and your point continues to have absolutely no relationship what so ever to the topic at hand.. This is not the great depression, this is not a time where there is no water available due to a lack of pipelines, lack of phone lines, electricity poles, sewage lines. This is a time where people do not have utilities due to the lack of ability to pay. This is not due to a lack of availability.
Quote:
Originally Posted by LordBalfor
And yeah, there are STILL people who live on the streets in America without those basic services - typically these people are 1/3 mentally ill, 1/3 drug or alcohol abusers and 1/3 folks with none of those problems but who have simply had the misfortune of losing their job and have not found another. The latter group tends to eventually improve their lot and move up - the first two are generally "lifers". The fact is, there will always be SOME people who are extremely poor - but there would be MILLIONS more if those government programs did not exist.
As it is, many seniors find themselves STILL having to struggle even with programs such as Social Security - same with low income mothers on foodstamps.
Ken
People will always continue to struggle, and since we still have millions in poverty, even though we've spent $9,000,000,000,000 to cure poverty, have we really solved anything? Now your back to posting 1 on this complete thread having made a complete circle by admitting that there will always be some who are extremely poor.. Prove that MILLIONS more would be if those programs did not exist..
My contention is that people are now poorer because we have put them into debt by creating socialistic programs that there was no need to create. Considering that each individual in this nation is $30,000+ in debt due to the national debt. Can one argue that the dirt poor is better off today, being $30,000 in debt, then they were before when they did not have debt?
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.
