Welfare And Its Supporters Are Evil

[TurtleDude]

Something I wish more conservatives would understand. Welfare and other social programs are a safety net that all of us benefit from, even if we aren't presently enrolled.

I don't benefit from those people constantly voting for socialist politicians

 

[Deuce]

I don't benefit from those people constantly voting for socialist politicians

Your definition of socialist is fundamentally flawed.

 

[TurtleDude]

Your definition of socialist is fundamentally flawed.

your claims about what I know are hysterical. and yes welfare socialism is a form of socialism. the creeping crud of socialism is an incremental increase of the disease.

 

[Lord Tammerlain]

So government stopped people from being able to feed themselves?

Sounds like you're coming around LT.

It was the government responding to the public that stopped it.

City voters didnt want to see the homeless hunting, skinning and then cooking Canadian geese in downtown parks.

 

[Geo Patric]

They are mediocre hacks who enjoy giving successful people's money away.

No other way to rationalize it.

Our country is going to fall, and welfare will be the culprit.

hahahah... yeah... it will not be the greed of the rich but the greed of the poor that causes our collapse.


hahahah.

geo.

 

[Deuce]

your claims about what I know are hysterical. and yes welfare socialism is a form of socialism. the creeping crud of socialism is an incremental increase of the disease.

Yes when you use the word in a definition you'll often arrive at such a conclusion. However, I think you're confusing the social root word in socialism with social programs. Calling welfare a "form of socialism" is kinda like calling professional wrestling a form of Roman gladiatorial combat.

 

[Sadie]

Peopld who dont like welfare are evil

They support having people die from starvation and exposure rather then supporting those who need it

They are as evil as Stalin who took food from the Ukrainians and let them starve to death and the British who took food from the Irish and and let the Irish starve to death

I think you are over-reacting just a bit. Nobody is calling for the starvation/death by exposure of anybody.

The problem with welfare is that it has become generational. From the days when welfare was a needed helping hand to the current use of the system because of entitlement thinking, we still have the poor, the indigent, the homeless.

Why? Because a program that was designed to help boost the truly needy out of despair has become a way of life for many. That's a fact.

Look at it realistically - welfare has grown into an inflated, over-used, over-abused system that does nothing but keep the poor down. Tossing a few crumbs via food stamps, AFDC, and Medicaid only leaves many with a lack of ambition to have anything better for themselves. Complacency in ones own poverty is just as crucial to this scenario as the continuation to "pay" people to remain poor.

The "war on poverty" was a disaster and left many of our poor citizens depending upon the government to take care of them.

To ask for welfare reform isn't calling for the slaughter of poor people. It is a realistic need to stop this continual "you are poor, let the government take care of all your needs" mentality.

 

[Mach]

It was the government

I know, stop rubbing it in!

 

[FilmFestGuy]

They are mediocre hacks who enjoy giving successful people's money away.

No other way to rationalize it.

Our country is going to fall, and welfare will be the culprit.

Except for the fact that welfare represents less than 1% of the federal budget.

Waste in HUGE departments like Defense, Transportation, and Agriculture are of much greater concern and corporate welfare is a much larger expenditure than welfare to individuals.

Go ahead and express your anger toward welfare, but realize that if it were an oil spill, you'd be taking about 5 barrels of oil out of the ocean out of 5,000.

Great job!

 

[Black_Zawisza]

Except for the fact that welfare represents less than 1% of the federal budget.

Waste in HUGE departments like Defense, Transportation, and Agriculture are of much greater concern and corporate welfare is a much larger expenditure than welfare to individuals.

Go ahead and express your anger toward welfare, but realize that if it were an oil spill, you'd be taking about 5 barrels of oil out of the ocean out of 5,000.

Great job!

http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/en/c/ce/Fy2010_spending_by_category.jpg

Let's do the math: 19.63% (Social Security) + 16.13% (General Welfare) + 12.79% (Medicare) + 8.19% (Medicaid) = 56.74%

Compared to defense, which is...18.74%

56.74 ÷ 18.74 = 3.03

I dunno about you, but it looks to me like the expansion of the welfare state is something we oughta be worried about.

 

[Deuce]

http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/en/c/ce/Fy2010_spending_by_category.jpg

Let's do the math: 19.63% (Social Security) + 16.13% (General Welfare) + 12.79% (Medicare) + 8.19% (Medicaid) = 56.74%

Compared to defense, which is...18.74%

56.74 ÷ 18.74 = 3.03

I dunno about you, but it looks to me like the expansion of the welfare state is something we oughta be worried about.

The DOD budget is not the only military-related expenditure. However, I would point out that spending more on health care than bombs is not a bad thing.

 

[Mach]

Except for the fact that welfare represents less than 1% of the federal budget.Great job!

Arguably, the majority of all government expenditures are to a degree, welfare, because they are paid for through progressive taxation. If 1% of the population covers say 25% of the tax burden, then it's indirectly a massive amount of welfare. Add more programs that obviously serve the majority, and it will be difficult if not impossible to remove them because politicians respond to majority appea, yet raising taxes on just the top 10% is easier because they are the minority. This sets up what appears to be a slippery slope towards ever increasing welfare, government scope and power, and higher taxation.

As you point out, if all we did with government spending was to feed the poor and take care of orphans, etc., we probably wouldn't be having a debate.

 

[Deuce]

Arguably, the majority of all government expenditures are to a degree, welfare, because they are paid for through progressive taxation. If 1% of the population covers say 25% of the tax burden, then it's indirectly a massive amount of welfare. Add more programs that obviously serve the majority, and it will be difficult if not impossible to remove them because politicians respond to majority appea, yet raising taxes on just the top 10% is easier because they are the minority. This sets up what appears to be a slippery slope towards ever increasing welfare, government scope and power, and higher taxation.

As you point out, if all we did with government spending was to feed the poor and take care of orphans, etc., we probably wouldn't be having a debate.

Well yes if you're going to change the definition of welfare, everything is welfare. While we're at it, we can call this red coffee mug on my desk "socialism."

 

[TurtleDude]

Arguably, the majority of all government expenditures are to a degree, welfare, because they are paid for through progressive taxation. If 1% of the population covers say 25% of the tax burden, then it's indirectly a massive amount of welfare. Add more programs that obviously serve the majority, and it will be difficult if not impossible to remove them because politicians respond to majority appea, yet raising taxes on just the top 10% is easier because they are the minority. This sets up what appears to be a slippery slope towards ever increasing welfare, government scope and power, and higher taxation.

As you point out, if all we did with government spending was to feed the poor and take care of orphans, etc., we probably wouldn't be having a debate.

That is why I am so opposed to progressive taxation--it gives congress way too much power and in the end the whole system is going to collapse as more and more people expect others to pay for their entitlements and elect politicians who promise only to raise taxes on the few to pay for the votes of the many. when the few decide to stop being soaked, the parasites are going to go bonkers and the bovine excrement is gonna hit the fan.

 

[Captain Rockstar]

Excerpt from a website:

America's poor probably have at least some of these items: wide screen TVs, cable television, cell phones, expensive stereo systems, automobiles, etc. Rarely do American poor go hungry. By hungry I mean no food at all for the day. No snacks, no soup kitchens, no grumbling stomachs because there's been nothing in it for 4 hours.

To be below the poverty line in America, you must earn less than $22,000 (family of 4). Any federal and most state taxes will be refunded at the end of the year too. Let's look at the rest of the world. The international poverty line is $1.25 PER DAY. In America, the lowest wage you can legally earn is more than $7 an hour. In India, you're poor if you make $12 PER MONTH.

The poor in foreign nations do what it takes to improve their lot in life and provide a future for their children. These poor don't wait for government handouts. They don't raise multiple generations in the same government housing complex. They don't demand service from a government that they do not contribute to.

If you want to see poor people surviving, go to Rio de Janerio, go to Ecuador, go to India, go to Congo or the Philippines. Don't go to downtown Durham or the East Side of Chicago or Detroit. You won't find them there. At least not the truly poor.

You're a fantastic debater:

"From a website?" Are you serious? Quote the damn website, give the name, and then source it. This simply makes you look like you are hiding something; the internet is full of bull**** (I once saw a website that contested Martin Luther King Jr. was having a gangbang the night before he was murdered).
Also, we are not India. We are not Rio. We have the worlds largest economy, and are one of the world's most respected nations. We have the privilege (and right) to look after our own. This is one of the things that make the poor living in the slums of India or Rio look at American tourists with jealousy-our country supports people like them. It is our choice.

 

[Black_Zawisza]

The DOD budget is not the only military-related expenditure.

That's true. It can't be much more than the figure for the DoD budget, though, so it's clear that welfare dwarfs defense spending. This post is in response to FilmFestGuy, who said that welfare makes up less than 1% of the budget and thus welfare reform shouldn't take priority over the reeling in of defense spending.

However, I would point out that spending more on health care than bombs is not a bad thing.

That depends entirely on whether one thinks that it's the responsibility of the federal (or even state!) government to provide welfare. If, like me, one does not, then spending on bombs should be higher than welfare spending.

 

[Mach]

Well yes if you're going to change the definition of welfare, everything is welfare. While we're at it, we can call this red coffee mug on my desk "socialism."

Shameless. It's vague when you want it to be, and strict when you don't.

http://www.debatepolitics.com/gover...-general-welfare-clause-2.html#post1058658086

I think "General Welfare" was written intentionally vague, because the guys who wrote it were smart enough to realize that they were not smart enough to predict the future. The world changes, opinions change, the constitution changes, and our country changes.

You are well aware that the line of reasoning I illustrated is how a lot of opponents of liberals/democratic party view the topic of "government welfare". It's obviously a form of welfare.

Funny too, beacuse what you wrote implies that it's the majority who gets to define welfare AND gets to forcibly take money from others to may for it. You don't see a conflict of interest there? Jesus.

 

[lizzie]

. If, like me, one does not, then spending on bombs should be higher than welfare spending.

Besides that little Constitutionality thingie.

 

[Deuce]

That is why I am so opposed to progressive taxation--it gives congress way too much power and in the end the whole system is going to collapse as more and more people expect others to pay for their entitlements and elect politicians who promise only to raise taxes on the few to pay for the votes of the many. when the few decide to stop being soaked, the parasites are going to go bonkers and the bovine excrement is gonna hit the fan.

The rich will always pay more in taxes than the poor. A flat tax rate doesn't change that. Or are you a proponent of regressive taxes? Everyone pays $3000/year or whatever, regardless of income.

Progressive taxation vs. flat tax rate doesn't change the dynamic between the rich and the poor. Also, you're using the word "parasite" referring to human beings, nice touch!

 

[upsideguy]

Arguably, the majority of all government expenditures are to a degree, welfare, because they are paid for through progressive taxation. If 1% of the population covers say 25% of the tax burden, then it's indirectly a massive amount of welfare. Add more programs that obviously serve the majority, and it will be difficult if not impossible to remove them because politicians respond to majority appea, yet raising taxes on just the top 10% is easier because they are the minority. This sets up what appears to be a slippery slope towards ever increasing welfare, government scope and power, and higher taxation.

As you point out, if all we did with government spending was to feed the poor and take care of orphans, etc., we probably wouldn't be having a debate.

20% of Americans own 80% of the country's wealth. The top 20% of wage earners pay 80% of the taxes. Is there a problem here?

The fact that 1% earn 15% of all income and pay 30% of taxes does not make me shed one tear. Given that 50% of the people are off the tax rolls, the top 50% pay 100% of the taxes. Moreover, contrary to popular belief, the US safety net is among the most marginal in the 1st world. We do not have a welfare state.

 

[Deuce]

Shameless. It's vague when you want it to be, and strict when you don't.

http://www.debatepolitics.com/gover...-general-welfare-clause-2.html#post1058658086


You are well aware that the line of reasoning I illustrated is how a lot of opponents of liberals/democratic party view the topic of "government welfare". It's obviously a form of welfare.

Funny too, beacuse what you wrote implies that it's the majority who gets to define welfare AND gets to forcibly take money from others to may for it. You don't see a conflict of interest there? Jesus.

Err, what? The two are not equivalent. Socialism is a specific term used to describe a specific thing. "General welfare," by nature of the word general is a non-specific term open to interpretation. General Welfare as applied to the constitution is a separate discussion, but nice try on linking it. You call it "shameless" and I call it WORDS MEAN THINGS.

 

[Deuce]

That's true. It can't be much more than the figure for the DoD budget, though, so it's clear that welfare dwarfs defense spending. This post is in response to FilmFestGuy, who said that welfare makes up less than 1% of the budget and thus welfare reform shouldn't take priority over the reeling in of defense spending.

That depends entirely on whether one thinks that it's the responsibility of the federal (or even state!) government to provide welfare. If, like me, one does not, then spending on bombs should be higher than welfare spending.

I seem to recall the spending on the Iraq and Afghanistan wars NOT being included in the DOD budget. Until recently, that spending wasn't even on the books! There's also the Department of Veteran's Affairs.

 

[SKYPE]

They are mediocre hacks who enjoy giving successful people's money away.

No other way to rationalize it.

Our country is going to fall, and welfare will be the culprit.

supporting welfare is evil, but supporting your troops that go into iraq, afganistan, and murder, torture, rape, beat, haras, intimidate, frame, frighten innocent civilans. now thats not evil. im sure jesus would have approved of this.

 

[TurtleDude]

supporting welfare is evil, but supporting your troops that go into iraq, afganistan, and murder, torture, rape, beat, haras, intimidate, frame, frighten innocent civilans. now thats not evil. im sure jesus would have approved of this.

wow-for someone who claims to be a moderate you are spewing the far left talking points hating America

 

[Deuce]

wow-for someone who claims to be a moderate you are spewing the far left talking points hating America

Personally I think it's the far-right that hates America.