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.
Republicans have no sympathy for poor people. Most of them call themselves Christians too. What a joke. They aren’t Christian with those values. Read your bible.
Unfortunately, the asker of this question does not understand they, themselves, are considered "working class," which those who pay for boarding schools, do not need scholarships for their children as their families have been 500K per year contributors to their favorite Ivy League and have the science building named after them, not mentioning they fly on the P.J. aka private jet when they travel as commerical flights are crammed with all of those people like the asker in them, and they have accounts at Neiman's, Saks, and a private shopping consultant for Gucci to which Gucci and Dior's personal shopper send them the newest items in their size and if they dont like them, they call the shopper, who suggests another item, however no bother as the items the shopper sent them come with a pre-paid return shipping package. Yes, people like this exist. I've serviced them many, many times. The one thing they dont do, is discuss their money as they are quite used to it and it is just their standard normal life. So, the asker, attempting to look down on others says more about the asker's social class as the asker is no where near wealthy, rich, nor upper crust.
There are many who work two jobs and obey the law etc and remain poor. Divorce, hospital bills, lawsuits, school loans, law suits etc keep many living from pay check to pay check.
So again, they CHOOSE to be poor by not buying insurance, breaking the law, and taking on loans that they can’t afford.
Last edited by lifeexplorer; 08-05-2020 at 07:51 AM..
The poor should be societies priority, as if the poor masses become disillusioned then this can result in unrest and even revolution.
Opportunity and Social Mobility are important, as is managing the gap between all sections of society, with most civilised societies have welfare safety nets and universal healthcare for all.
In terms of the poor, the debate as to why you should care is illustrated in many religions and by famous authors such as Dickens and Orwell.
As for your assertions, the vast majority of poor people are not unemployed, they are just low paid often in exchange for long hours, and they are not violent drug addicts or alcoholics.
In terms of alcohol and drugs, the current opioid crisis in America has hit many middle class areas, and alcoholism is prevalent among all classes and not just the poor, although people are often disproportionately effected by health conditions including mental illness.
I have every sympathy for the low paid, sick, unemployed and those living in poverty or those who are carers for family members.
So it’s like an extortion - we pay the poor so that they don’t murder us un mass but somehow they are virtuous for being poor?
Not one single libertarian is against welfare as long as it’s funded voluntarily.
That, exactly. Shouldn't be a problem since so many have expressed such strong support for welfare in this thread. Let society choose by voting with their wallets. If society values funding welfare, society will voluntarily do so.
Most are funded through taxes. Then you mean taxes should be voluntary??
Taxes should fund the costs of the Federal Government's enumerated powers which are clearly listed in Article 1 Section 8. Providing for the welfare and/or health care of individual US citizens is not one of them.
Status:
"I don't understand. But I don't care, so it works out."
(set 7 days ago)
35,629 posts, read 17,968,125 times
Reputation: 50652
So honest question here. For those railing about "welfare" for the poor (as opposed to welfare for the rich, which is a thing) would y'all honestly like to go back to times in the 30's and before, where children in the United States starved to death?
Honest question. Yes or no answer only, please. No statements like "well, parents who can't afford food shouldn't have children".
Yes or no. Should we go back to the times when poor children starved to death in the US?
So honest question here. For those railing about "welfare" for the poor (as opposed to welfare for the rich, which is a thing) would y'all honestly like to go back to times in the 30's and before, where children in the United States starved to death?
Honest question. Yes or no answer only, please. No statements like "well, parents who can't afford food shouldn't have children".
Yes or no. Should we go back to the times when poor children starved to death in the US?
I'll give the same answer... Let society choose by voting with their wallets. If society values funding welfare, society will voluntarily do so.
Status:
"I don't understand. But I don't care, so it works out."
(set 7 days ago)
35,629 posts, read 17,968,125 times
Reputation: 50652
Quote:
Originally Posted by InformedConsent
I'll give the same answer... Let society choose by voting with their wallets. If society values funding welfare, society will voluntarily do so.
Yes or no.
Pick one.
(I did realize ahead of time, that virtually no one who is hating on the "poor" would be up to the very simple challenge of saying yes or no).
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.
