Topic: what we 'deserve'
msharmony's photo
Tue 07/03/12 08:43 AM












They don't contribute and saying working welfare recipiants contribute is not a valid arguement anyway....If a person who works can still qualify for welfare they are "contrubuting" very little or, in in most cases, nothing to the program.... Or, as Harmony said earlier, they are even getting money back....
Some facts...Welfare DOES foster dependence, it DOES compel people who work give money to people who don't work....
The real question is ethical..Are we morally "bound" to help the less fortunate?...OR....Is the real truth that someone else's need is not an automatic claim on those without need?....
I don't think most people take issue with helping those less fortunate, I think people take issue with government coercing them into supporting the poor...What gives government that right?...By what right do you use force to transfer money from those who have it to those who don't?...
The old and tired arguement that all people have a right to life does not mean welfare is intended to provide a means to sustaine life to those who can't or won't...The right to life means every person has the right to take what ever life sustaining measures necessary as long as they do not violate the rights of others...
Since you can't force people to be moral, you cannot defend welfare as a right to life....Welfare is nothing more than stealing property from one person and giving it to another....It should be abolished because helping people is a personal choice not a political policy.....

Welfare mentality addicts will always defend their drug.

Little history on welfare. I was there though part of the beginnings.

Once upon a time, Churches and civic organizations would go around and gather unsellable food items and distribute them to needy folks.

Then, one day, the mean, old, greedy, ogre Corporation woke up and saw his pile of gold wasn't coming in as large as it used to.

So, he, along with some ogre friends, Congress, came up with a plan to make Corporate ogre's gold pile large again.

They passed laws taxing the humble citizens of the land. They were much more humble and naive back the because the news stations were not allowed to show the true faces of the ogre Congress or ogre Corporations.

The taxes stopped the of free food to Churches and other organizations that fed the poor and needy.

The ogre Corp commanded that all foods that didn't sell be either returned to process for other things like pet foods, fertilizers, etc. Or dumped into the dumpsters.

One day, an innocent ogre employee reported that he has seen people diving into the dumpsters and retrieving food. The first action the ogre Corp commanded was for the outlets to taint, (poison), the food.

After some people got sick and some died, the lowly citizen sued ogre Corp. and the ogre fed fined them a meager amount and told them to stop.

They stopped and now, today, all the outlets throw their unsellable meats and veggies into sealed dumpsters. The only people who can get to it are some of the brave employees who steal it from the ogre Corp. They risk their job and jail to do it.

Ogre Corp and ogre Congress, including all of DC, are sitting fat. Laughing all the way to the bank while, the humble Tax Payer supports many who choose indulge in their welfare crack.

Ex ogre Presidents and other ogre politicians live happily ever after

The End


___________________________________________________________________

Welfare should be a moral obligation.
Not a legal one.
No more forced Welfare Tax!



no more forced school tax either, while we are at it,, it shouldnt be a 'legal' obligation

no more forced military pay (taxes) either, they shouldnt be 'legal' obligations

no more forced infrastructure tax either, they shouldnt be 'legal' obligations

people should choose to donate to schools if they are going to use them,,,see how many generations we will get through before we are overrun with embeciles..


people should choose to donate to military if they agree to having a military, ,, see how long those 'patriots' continue to serve....


people should also choose to donate to keeping up the roads and buildings,, see how long before we also 'look' like a third world country as our haves and have nots define a third world country divide,,,


heck, we can cut the budget by 1/8 getting rid of welfare and another 1/4 by getting rid of military,,,,,thats a whopping 3/8

we should certainly have a better BUDGET , damn what kind of COUNTRY we are left with though,,lol




when it happens ,I can move to any of the other WESTERN countries doing just as well and not GRIPING about taking care of their own,,,,


What do schools, military, and infrastructure have to do with welfare?what




the argument that being 'forced' to pay others with OUR money if we dont want to,,,the argument that some payments should be MORAL Decisions instead of obligationg

can be applied to the military and public education as well..

perhaps some of us feel having weapons and going to war is a moral issue,, or educating children,,,,,

perhapss some of us feel everyone should not be forced to contribute to the 'welfare' of the nations protection, or the 'welfare' of other peoples children being educated

if we follow the example set by withdrawing mandatory support for feeding children , we can withdraw mandatory support for educating them ......surely...




No, no, no Harmony...Your argument is void, empty...If you want to argue for welfare, do it...You don't need to use BS to make your point...The people contributing to your thread seem intelligent, concerned, engaged...Stop making this about feeding children...When you see people selling food stamps to get money to buy cigs and booze that argument sounds trite at best...The discussion is NOT about people being unwilling to help those that TRUELY need help, it is about "what we deserve" remember, you picked the topic....Stop trying to candy coat it...Stop trying to lump welfare in with everything every single tax dollar is spent on....IMO, you are just making the problems worse by pushing the idea that people who work should support people people who don't work because they have young children, or because they have children with fathers who don't pay, or because they are black, or because they are women, or because there is a recession, or because we tax people for schools, roads, bridges, military ...I know a woman who can't walk, she is paralized from the waist down, who makes a very good living typing medical transcripts from her home.....All she needed was a computer and some brain power........whoa


nope, you are using THIEVES to justify

Im not talking about thieves, Im talking about the predominant REASON and use for welfare which is to help people feed and take care of their families in hard times,,,

I know people who get through tough times too, but guess what, they all used some HELP from somewhere,, regardless of how many stubborn people REFUSE To believe it

people dont achieve in a vaccum, they have resources, assistance of some type,, although most never want to admit it and most prefer to claim they do it 'all by themself'

when the argument is about what someones 'tax' money goes to, the relevant comparison is of other things 'tax' money goes to,,,




This mentality is exactly what I am talking about...You have NO idea what people do, how they achieve what they achieve..Many DO do it by themselves Harmony!...The argument IS NOT about how tax dollars are spent, the argument is about "WHAT WE DESERVE".....



lol, wrong

give me an example of someone doing it 'themself' and I promise you I can show where SOMEONE helped them,,,by giving them the opportunity, or the reference, or the resource,,,,or some other resource they may not have PERSONALLY had,,,,


even your disabled friend, I imagine, received some RESOURCE to get her through the time it took to earn the proper certifications to type transcripts,,,


Yes, you imagine...but you really don't know do you...You're just h*ll bent on justifying forced handouts.....lol,lol,lol



nope, just hell bent on destroying the idea that there is anyone who doesnt or hasnt required 'help' at some point in their life,,,or that it makes them less 'deserving' than anyone else,,,


Hasn't needed help, or hasn't needed a welfare check....?



same thing, different resource

but still help just the same,,,

Chazster's photo
Tue 07/03/12 08:44 AM
The parents also went to school. Anyway school isn't even related. It's not giving money to individuals who should be providing for themselves.

no photo
Tue 07/03/12 08:46 AM













They don't contribute and saying working welfare recipiants contribute is not a valid arguement anyway....If a person who works can still qualify for welfare they are "contrubuting" very little or, in in most cases, nothing to the program.... Or, as Harmony said earlier, they are even getting money back....
Some facts...Welfare DOES foster dependence, it DOES compel people who work give money to people who don't work....
The real question is ethical..Are we morally "bound" to help the less fortunate?...OR....Is the real truth that someone else's need is not an automatic claim on those without need?....
I don't think most people take issue with helping those less fortunate, I think people take issue with government coercing them into supporting the poor...What gives government that right?...By what right do you use force to transfer money from those who have it to those who don't?...
The old and tired arguement that all people have a right to life does not mean welfare is intended to provide a means to sustaine life to those who can't or won't...The right to life means every person has the right to take what ever life sustaining measures necessary as long as they do not violate the rights of others...
Since you can't force people to be moral, you cannot defend welfare as a right to life....Welfare is nothing more than stealing property from one person and giving it to another....It should be abolished because helping people is a personal choice not a political policy.....

Welfare mentality addicts will always defend their drug.

Little history on welfare. I was there though part of the beginnings.

Once upon a time, Churches and civic organizations would go around and gather unsellable food items and distribute them to needy folks.

Then, one day, the mean, old, greedy, ogre Corporation woke up and saw his pile of gold wasn't coming in as large as it used to.

So, he, along with some ogre friends, Congress, came up with a plan to make Corporate ogre's gold pile large again.

They passed laws taxing the humble citizens of the land. They were much more humble and naive back the because the news stations were not allowed to show the true faces of the ogre Congress or ogre Corporations.

The taxes stopped the of free food to Churches and other organizations that fed the poor and needy.

The ogre Corp commanded that all foods that didn't sell be either returned to process for other things like pet foods, fertilizers, etc. Or dumped into the dumpsters.

One day, an innocent ogre employee reported that he has seen people diving into the dumpsters and retrieving food. The first action the ogre Corp commanded was for the outlets to taint, (poison), the food.

After some people got sick and some died, the lowly citizen sued ogre Corp. and the ogre fed fined them a meager amount and told them to stop.

They stopped and now, today, all the outlets throw their unsellable meats and veggies into sealed dumpsters. The only people who can get to it are some of the brave employees who steal it from the ogre Corp. They risk their job and jail to do it.

Ogre Corp and ogre Congress, including all of DC, are sitting fat. Laughing all the way to the bank while, the humble Tax Payer supports many who choose indulge in their welfare crack.

Ex ogre Presidents and other ogre politicians live happily ever after

The End


___________________________________________________________________

Welfare should be a moral obligation.
Not a legal one.
No more forced Welfare Tax!



no more forced school tax either, while we are at it,, it shouldnt be a 'legal' obligation

no more forced military pay (taxes) either, they shouldnt be 'legal' obligations

no more forced infrastructure tax either, they shouldnt be 'legal' obligations

people should choose to donate to schools if they are going to use them,,,see how many generations we will get through before we are overrun with embeciles..


people should choose to donate to military if they agree to having a military, ,, see how long those 'patriots' continue to serve....


people should also choose to donate to keeping up the roads and buildings,, see how long before we also 'look' like a third world country as our haves and have nots define a third world country divide,,,


heck, we can cut the budget by 1/8 getting rid of welfare and another 1/4 by getting rid of military,,,,,thats a whopping 3/8

we should certainly have a better BUDGET , damn what kind of COUNTRY we are left with though,,lol




when it happens ,I can move to any of the other WESTERN countries doing just as well and not GRIPING about taking care of their own,,,,


What do schools, military, and infrastructure have to do with welfare?what




the argument that being 'forced' to pay others with OUR money if we dont want to,,,the argument that some payments should be MORAL Decisions instead of obligationg

can be applied to the military and public education as well..

perhaps some of us feel having weapons and going to war is a moral issue,, or educating children,,,,,

perhapss some of us feel everyone should not be forced to contribute to the 'welfare' of the nations protection, or the 'welfare' of other peoples children being educated

if we follow the example set by withdrawing mandatory support for feeding children , we can withdraw mandatory support for educating them ......surely...




No, no, no Harmony...Your argument is void, empty...If you want to argue for welfare, do it...You don't need to use BS to make your point...The people contributing to your thread seem intelligent, concerned, engaged...Stop making this about feeding children...When you see people selling food stamps to get money to buy cigs and booze that argument sounds trite at best...The discussion is NOT about people being unwilling to help those that TRUELY need help, it is about "what we deserve" remember, you picked the topic....Stop trying to candy coat it...Stop trying to lump welfare in with everything every single tax dollar is spent on....IMO, you are just making the problems worse by pushing the idea that people who work should support people people who don't work because they have young children, or because they have children with fathers who don't pay, or because they are black, or because they are women, or because there is a recession, or because we tax people for schools, roads, bridges, military ...I know a woman who can't walk, she is paralized from the waist down, who makes a very good living typing medical transcripts from her home.....All she needed was a computer and some brain power........whoa


nope, you are using THIEVES to justify

Im not talking about thieves, Im talking about the predominant REASON and use for welfare which is to help people feed and take care of their families in hard times,,,

I know people who get through tough times too, but guess what, they all used some HELP from somewhere,, regardless of how many stubborn people REFUSE To believe it

people dont achieve in a vaccum, they have resources, assistance of some type,, although most never want to admit it and most prefer to claim they do it 'all by themself'

when the argument is about what someones 'tax' money goes to, the relevant comparison is of other things 'tax' money goes to,,,




This mentality is exactly what I am talking about...You have NO idea what people do, how they achieve what they achieve..Many DO do it by themselves Harmony!...The argument IS NOT about how tax dollars are spent, the argument is about "WHAT WE DESERVE".....



lol, wrong

give me an example of someone doing it 'themself' and I promise you I can show where SOMEONE helped them,,,by giving them the opportunity, or the reference, or the resource,,,,or some other resource they may not have PERSONALLY had,,,,


even your disabled friend, I imagine, received some RESOURCE to get her through the time it took to earn the proper certifications to type transcripts,,,


Yes, you imagine...but you really don't know do you...You're just h*ll bent on justifying forced handouts.....lol,lol,lol



nope, just hell bent on destroying the idea that there is anyone who doesnt or hasnt required 'help' at some point in their life,,,or that it makes them less 'deserving' than anyone else,,,


Hasn't needed help, or hasn't needed a welfare check....?



same thing, different resource

but still help just the same,,,


Not the same thing at all....lol

msharmony's photo
Tue 07/03/12 08:49 AM

The parents also went to school. Anyway school isn't even related. It's not giving money to individuals who should be providing for themselves.



of course it isnt,,tell that to those paying taxes to schools who have no children going there and whose PARENTS already covered their taxes when they went,,,


providing requires the 'opportunity' to earn money,

the economy isnt even set up to survive a country where everyone has that opportunity,,,its set UP for a certain unemployment,, do you realize that?


children dont 'provide' for themself,,people who fall on illnesses and develop disabilities are not always able to 'provide' for thsmelf


are we a better community if we toss all those people aside, for the sake of saving money? while we continue to die for 'flags' what will we do for actual AMERICANS in need?


people need to think about the long term affects of their actiona and inactions,, children need food and shelter even MORESO than an education,,, to gripe about paying into the system that provides one,, we may as well grip about providing the other....



msharmony's photo
Tue 07/03/12 08:51 AM














They don't contribute and saying working welfare recipiants contribute is not a valid arguement anyway....If a person who works can still qualify for welfare they are "contrubuting" very little or, in in most cases, nothing to the program.... Or, as Harmony said earlier, they are even getting money back....
Some facts...Welfare DOES foster dependence, it DOES compel people who work give money to people who don't work....
The real question is ethical..Are we morally "bound" to help the less fortunate?...OR....Is the real truth that someone else's need is not an automatic claim on those without need?....
I don't think most people take issue with helping those less fortunate, I think people take issue with government coercing them into supporting the poor...What gives government that right?...By what right do you use force to transfer money from those who have it to those who don't?...
The old and tired arguement that all people have a right to life does not mean welfare is intended to provide a means to sustaine life to those who can't or won't...The right to life means every person has the right to take what ever life sustaining measures necessary as long as they do not violate the rights of others...
Since you can't force people to be moral, you cannot defend welfare as a right to life....Welfare is nothing more than stealing property from one person and giving it to another....It should be abolished because helping people is a personal choice not a political policy.....

Welfare mentality addicts will always defend their drug.

Little history on welfare. I was there though part of the beginnings.

Once upon a time, Churches and civic organizations would go around and gather unsellable food items and distribute them to needy folks.

Then, one day, the mean, old, greedy, ogre Corporation woke up and saw his pile of gold wasn't coming in as large as it used to.

So, he, along with some ogre friends, Congress, came up with a plan to make Corporate ogre's gold pile large again.

They passed laws taxing the humble citizens of the land. They were much more humble and naive back the because the news stations were not allowed to show the true faces of the ogre Congress or ogre Corporations.

The taxes stopped the of free food to Churches and other organizations that fed the poor and needy.

The ogre Corp commanded that all foods that didn't sell be either returned to process for other things like pet foods, fertilizers, etc. Or dumped into the dumpsters.

One day, an innocent ogre employee reported that he has seen people diving into the dumpsters and retrieving food. The first action the ogre Corp commanded was for the outlets to taint, (poison), the food.

After some people got sick and some died, the lowly citizen sued ogre Corp. and the ogre fed fined them a meager amount and told them to stop.

They stopped and now, today, all the outlets throw their unsellable meats and veggies into sealed dumpsters. The only people who can get to it are some of the brave employees who steal it from the ogre Corp. They risk their job and jail to do it.

Ogre Corp and ogre Congress, including all of DC, are sitting fat. Laughing all the way to the bank while, the humble Tax Payer supports many who choose indulge in their welfare crack.

Ex ogre Presidents and other ogre politicians live happily ever after

The End


___________________________________________________________________

Welfare should be a moral obligation.
Not a legal one.
No more forced Welfare Tax!



no more forced school tax either, while we are at it,, it shouldnt be a 'legal' obligation

no more forced military pay (taxes) either, they shouldnt be 'legal' obligations

no more forced infrastructure tax either, they shouldnt be 'legal' obligations

people should choose to donate to schools if they are going to use them,,,see how many generations we will get through before we are overrun with embeciles..


people should choose to donate to military if they agree to having a military, ,, see how long those 'patriots' continue to serve....


people should also choose to donate to keeping up the roads and buildings,, see how long before we also 'look' like a third world country as our haves and have nots define a third world country divide,,,


heck, we can cut the budget by 1/8 getting rid of welfare and another 1/4 by getting rid of military,,,,,thats a whopping 3/8

we should certainly have a better BUDGET , damn what kind of COUNTRY we are left with though,,lol




when it happens ,I can move to any of the other WESTERN countries doing just as well and not GRIPING about taking care of their own,,,,


What do schools, military, and infrastructure have to do with welfare?what




the argument that being 'forced' to pay others with OUR money if we dont want to,,,the argument that some payments should be MORAL Decisions instead of obligationg

can be applied to the military and public education as well..

perhaps some of us feel having weapons and going to war is a moral issue,, or educating children,,,,,

perhapss some of us feel everyone should not be forced to contribute to the 'welfare' of the nations protection, or the 'welfare' of other peoples children being educated

if we follow the example set by withdrawing mandatory support for feeding children , we can withdraw mandatory support for educating them ......surely...




No, no, no Harmony...Your argument is void, empty...If you want to argue for welfare, do it...You don't need to use BS to make your point...The people contributing to your thread seem intelligent, concerned, engaged...Stop making this about feeding children...When you see people selling food stamps to get money to buy cigs and booze that argument sounds trite at best...The discussion is NOT about people being unwilling to help those that TRUELY need help, it is about "what we deserve" remember, you picked the topic....Stop trying to candy coat it...Stop trying to lump welfare in with everything every single tax dollar is spent on....IMO, you are just making the problems worse by pushing the idea that people who work should support people people who don't work because they have young children, or because they have children with fathers who don't pay, or because they are black, or because they are women, or because there is a recession, or because we tax people for schools, roads, bridges, military ...I know a woman who can't walk, she is paralized from the waist down, who makes a very good living typing medical transcripts from her home.....All she needed was a computer and some brain power........whoa


nope, you are using THIEVES to justify

Im not talking about thieves, Im talking about the predominant REASON and use for welfare which is to help people feed and take care of their families in hard times,,,

I know people who get through tough times too, but guess what, they all used some HELP from somewhere,, regardless of how many stubborn people REFUSE To believe it

people dont achieve in a vaccum, they have resources, assistance of some type,, although most never want to admit it and most prefer to claim they do it 'all by themself'

when the argument is about what someones 'tax' money goes to, the relevant comparison is of other things 'tax' money goes to,,,




This mentality is exactly what I am talking about...You have NO idea what people do, how they achieve what they achieve..Many DO do it by themselves Harmony!...The argument IS NOT about how tax dollars are spent, the argument is about "WHAT WE DESERVE".....



lol, wrong

give me an example of someone doing it 'themself' and I promise you I can show where SOMEONE helped them,,,by giving them the opportunity, or the reference, or the resource,,,,or some other resource they may not have PERSONALLY had,,,,


even your disabled friend, I imagine, received some RESOURCE to get her through the time it took to earn the proper certifications to type transcripts,,,


Yes, you imagine...but you really don't know do you...You're just h*ll bent on justifying forced handouts.....lol,lol,lol



nope, just hell bent on destroying the idea that there is anyone who doesnt or hasnt required 'help' at some point in their life,,,or that it makes them less 'deserving' than anyone else,,,


Hasn't needed help, or hasn't needed a welfare check....?



same thing, different resource

but still help just the same,,,


Not the same thing at all....lol



only to those who refuse to see it that way

still, noone has answered how my 'welfare' eheck was any less deserved than someones 'employment' check when I was likewise 'working' everyday,,,,,


are we supposed to only survive when others give us the 'opportunity' to earn a living,,?

and when that opportunity is not surfacing, what do we with families do then...? EVen though we have skills to offer and willing to work but not able to find an 'employer'?......

that welfare check is undeserved huh?



no photo
Tue 07/03/12 09:01 AM















They don't contribute and saying working welfare recipiants contribute is not a valid arguement anyway....If a person who works can still qualify for welfare they are "contrubuting" very little or, in in most cases, nothing to the program.... Or, as Harmony said earlier, they are even getting money back....
Some facts...Welfare DOES foster dependence, it DOES compel people who work give money to people who don't work....
The real question is ethical..Are we morally "bound" to help the less fortunate?...OR....Is the real truth that someone else's need is not an automatic claim on those without need?....
I don't think most people take issue with helping those less fortunate, I think people take issue with government coercing them into supporting the poor...What gives government that right?...By what right do you use force to transfer money from those who have it to those who don't?...
The old and tired arguement that all people have a right to life does not mean welfare is intended to provide a means to sustaine life to those who can't or won't...The right to life means every person has the right to take what ever life sustaining measures necessary as long as they do not violate the rights of others...
Since you can't force people to be moral, you cannot defend welfare as a right to life....Welfare is nothing more than stealing property from one person and giving it to another....It should be abolished because helping people is a personal choice not a political policy.....

Welfare mentality addicts will always defend their drug.

Little history on welfare. I was there though part of the beginnings.

Once upon a time, Churches and civic organizations would go around and gather unsellable food items and distribute them to needy folks.

Then, one day, the mean, old, greedy, ogre Corporation woke up and saw his pile of gold wasn't coming in as large as it used to.

So, he, along with some ogre friends, Congress, came up with a plan to make Corporate ogre's gold pile large again.

They passed laws taxing the humble citizens of the land. They were much more humble and naive back the because the news stations were not allowed to show the true faces of the ogre Congress or ogre Corporations.

The taxes stopped the of free food to Churches and other organizations that fed the poor and needy.

The ogre Corp commanded that all foods that didn't sell be either returned to process for other things like pet foods, fertilizers, etc. Or dumped into the dumpsters.

One day, an innocent ogre employee reported that he has seen people diving into the dumpsters and retrieving food. The first action the ogre Corp commanded was for the outlets to taint, (poison), the food.

After some people got sick and some died, the lowly citizen sued ogre Corp. and the ogre fed fined them a meager amount and told them to stop.

They stopped and now, today, all the outlets throw their unsellable meats and veggies into sealed dumpsters. The only people who can get to it are some of the brave employees who steal it from the ogre Corp. They risk their job and jail to do it.

Ogre Corp and ogre Congress, including all of DC, are sitting fat. Laughing all the way to the bank while, the humble Tax Payer supports many who choose indulge in their welfare crack.

Ex ogre Presidents and other ogre politicians live happily ever after

The End


___________________________________________________________________

Welfare should be a moral obligation.
Not a legal one.
No more forced Welfare Tax!



no more forced school tax either, while we are at it,, it shouldnt be a 'legal' obligation

no more forced military pay (taxes) either, they shouldnt be 'legal' obligations

no more forced infrastructure tax either, they shouldnt be 'legal' obligations

people should choose to donate to schools if they are going to use them,,,see how many generations we will get through before we are overrun with embeciles..


people should choose to donate to military if they agree to having a military, ,, see how long those 'patriots' continue to serve....


people should also choose to donate to keeping up the roads and buildings,, see how long before we also 'look' like a third world country as our haves and have nots define a third world country divide,,,


heck, we can cut the budget by 1/8 getting rid of welfare and another 1/4 by getting rid of military,,,,,thats a whopping 3/8

we should certainly have a better BUDGET , damn what kind of COUNTRY we are left with though,,lol




when it happens ,I can move to any of the other WESTERN countries doing just as well and not GRIPING about taking care of their own,,,,


What do schools, military, and infrastructure have to do with welfare?what




the argument that being 'forced' to pay others with OUR money if we dont want to,,,the argument that some payments should be MORAL Decisions instead of obligationg

can be applied to the military and public education as well..

perhaps some of us feel having weapons and going to war is a moral issue,, or educating children,,,,,

perhapss some of us feel everyone should not be forced to contribute to the 'welfare' of the nations protection, or the 'welfare' of other peoples children being educated

if we follow the example set by withdrawing mandatory support for feeding children , we can withdraw mandatory support for educating them ......surely...




No, no, no Harmony...Your argument is void, empty...If you want to argue for welfare, do it...You don't need to use BS to make your point...The people contributing to your thread seem intelligent, concerned, engaged...Stop making this about feeding children...When you see people selling food stamps to get money to buy cigs and booze that argument sounds trite at best...The discussion is NOT about people being unwilling to help those that TRUELY need help, it is about "what we deserve" remember, you picked the topic....Stop trying to candy coat it...Stop trying to lump welfare in with everything every single tax dollar is spent on....IMO, you are just making the problems worse by pushing the idea that people who work should support people people who don't work because they have young children, or because they have children with fathers who don't pay, or because they are black, or because they are women, or because there is a recession, or because we tax people for schools, roads, bridges, military ...I know a woman who can't walk, she is paralized from the waist down, who makes a very good living typing medical transcripts from her home.....All she needed was a computer and some brain power........whoa


nope, you are using THIEVES to justify

Im not talking about thieves, Im talking about the predominant REASON and use for welfare which is to help people feed and take care of their families in hard times,,,

I know people who get through tough times too, but guess what, they all used some HELP from somewhere,, regardless of how many stubborn people REFUSE To believe it

people dont achieve in a vaccum, they have resources, assistance of some type,, although most never want to admit it and most prefer to claim they do it 'all by themself'

when the argument is about what someones 'tax' money goes to, the relevant comparison is of other things 'tax' money goes to,,,




This mentality is exactly what I am talking about...You have NO idea what people do, how they achieve what they achieve..Many DO do it by themselves Harmony!...The argument IS NOT about how tax dollars are spent, the argument is about "WHAT WE DESERVE".....



lol, wrong

give me an example of someone doing it 'themself' and I promise you I can show where SOMEONE helped them,,,by giving them the opportunity, or the reference, or the resource,,,,or some other resource they may not have PERSONALLY had,,,,


even your disabled friend, I imagine, received some RESOURCE to get her through the time it took to earn the proper certifications to type transcripts,,,


Yes, you imagine...but you really don't know do you...You're just h*ll bent on justifying forced handouts.....lol,lol,lol



nope, just hell bent on destroying the idea that there is anyone who doesnt or hasnt required 'help' at some point in their life,,,or that it makes them less 'deserving' than anyone else,,,


Hasn't needed help, or hasn't needed a welfare check....?



same thing, different resource

but still help just the same,,,


Not the same thing at all....lol



only to those who refuse to see it that way

still, noone has answered how my 'welfare' eheck was any less deserved than someones 'employment' check when I was likewise 'working' everyday,,,,,


are we supposed to only survive when others give us the 'opportunity' to earn a living,,?

and when that opportunity is not surfacing, what do we with families do then...? EVen though we have skills to offer and willing to work but not able to find an 'employer'?......

that welfare check is undeserved huh?





The problem with your reasoning is this...you are taking it personally, you can't be objective because it is a handout you feel you not only deserve, but earn.....This may very well be true Harmony, but it is not a valid argument for the the question "What we deserve"....Start a new thread and call it "What I deserve"...Defend it with some facts people can relate to.....Can you not see why some people might object to your reasoning when you continue to reference yourself as proof positive the welfare system works?...It is broken, it needs reform in the worst way....Are you saying this is not true?....

Conrad_73's photo
Tue 07/03/12 09:12 AM
Originally published in "The Life of Colonel David Crockett," by Edward Sylvester Ellis.

One day in the House of Representatives a bill was taken up appropriating money for the benefit of a widow of a distinguished naval officer. Several beautiful speeches had been made in its support. The speaker was just about to put the question when Crockett arose:

"Mr. Speaker--I have as much respect for the memory of the deceased, and as much sympathy for the suffering of the living, if there be, as any man in this House, but we must not permit our respect for the dead or our sympathy for part of the living to lead us into an act of injustice to the balance of the living. I will not go into an argument to prove that Congress has not the power to appropriate this money as an act of charity. Every member on this floor knows it.

We have the right as individuals, to give away as much of our own money as we please in charity; but as members of Congress we have no right to appropriate a dollar of the public money. Some eloquent appeals have been made to us upon the ground that it is a debt due the deceased. Mr. Speaker, the deceased lived long after the close of the war; he was in office to the day of his death, and I ever heard that the government was in arrears to him.

"Every man in this House knows it is not a debt. We cannot without the grossest corruption, appropriate this money as the payment of a debt. We have not the semblance of authority to appropriate it as charity. Mr. Speaker, I have said we have the right to give as much money of our own as we please. I am the poorest man on this floor. I cannot vote for this bill, but I will give one week's pay to the object, and if every member of Congress will do the same, it will amount to more than the bill asks."

He took his seat. Nobody replied. The bill was put upon its passage, and, instead of passing unanimously, as was generally supposed, and as, no doubt, it would, but for that speech, it received but few votes, and, of course, was lost.

Later, when asked by a friend why he had opposed the appropriation, Crockett gave this explanation:

"Several years ago I was one evening standing on the steps of the Capitol with some members of Congress, when our attention was attracted by a great light over in Georgetown. It was evidently a large fire. We jumped into a hack and drove over as fast as we could. In spite of all that could be done, many houses were burned and many families made houseless, and besides, some of them had lost all but the clothes they had on. The weather was very cold, and when I saw so many children suffering, I felt that something ought to be done for them. The next morning a bill was introduced appropriating $20,000 for their relief. We put aside all other business and rushed it through as soon as it could be done.
more

Conrad_73's photo
Tue 07/03/12 09:13 AM
"The next summer, when it began to be time to think about election, I concluded I would take a scout around among the boys of my district. I had no opposition there but, as the election was some time off, I did not know what might turn up. When riding one day in a part of my district in which I was more of a stranger than any other, I saw a man in a field plowing and coming toward the road. I gauged my gait so that we should meet as he came up, I spoke to the man. He replied politely, but as I thought, rather coldly.

"I began: 'Well friend, I am one of those unfortunate beings called candidates and---

"Yes I know you; you are Colonel Crockett. I have seen you once before, and voted for you the last time you were elected. I suppose you are out electioneering now, but you had better not waste your time or mine, I shall not vote for you again."

"This was a sockdolger...I begged him tell me what was the matter.

"Well Colonel, it is hardly worthwhile to waste time or words upon it. I do not see how it can be mended, but you gave a vote last winter which shows that either you have not capacity to understand the Constitution, or that you are wanting in the honesty and firmness to be guided by it. In either case you are not the man to represent me. But I beg your pardon for expressing it that way. I did not intend to avail myself of the privilege of the constituent to speak plainly to a candidate for the purpose of insulting you or wounding you.'

"I intend by it only to say that your understanding of the constitution is very different from mine; and I will say to you what but for my rudeness, I should not have said, that I believe you to be honest.

But an understanding of the constitution different from mine I cannot overlook, because the Constitution, to be worth anything, must be held sacred, and rigidly observed in all its provisions. The man who wields power and misinterprets it is the more dangerous the honest he is.'

" 'I admit the truth of all you say, but there must be some mistake. Though I live in the backwoods and seldom go from home, I take the papers from Washington and read very carefully all the proceedings of Congress. My papers say you voted for a bill to appropriate $20,000 to some sufferers by fire in Georgetown. Is that true?

"Well my friend; I may as well own up. You have got me there. But certainly nobody will complain that a great and rich country like ours should give the insignificant sum of $20,000 to relieve its suffering women and children, particularly with a full and overflowing treasury, and I am sure, if you had been there, you would have done just the same as I did.'

"It is not the amount, Colonel, that I complain of; it is the principle. In the first place, the government ought to have in the Treasury no more than enough for its legitimate purposes. But that has nothing with the question. The power of collecting and disbursing money at pleasure is the most dangerous power that can be entrusted to man, particularly under our system of collecting revenue by a tariff, which reaches every man in the country, no matter how poor he may be, and the poorer he is the more he pays in proportion to his means.

What is worse, it presses upon him without his knowledge where the weight centers, for there is not a man in the United States who can ever guess how much he pays to the government. So you see, that while you are contributing to relieve one, you are drawing it from thousands who are even worse off than he.

If you had the right to give anything, the amount was simply a matter of discretion with you, and you had as much right to give $20,000,000 as $20,000. If you have the right to give at all; and as the Constitution neither defines charity nor stipulates the amount, you are at liberty to give to any and everything which you may believe, or profess to believe, is a charity and to any amount you may think proper. You will very easily perceive what a wide door this would open for fraud and corruption and favoritism, on the one hand, and for robbing the people on the other. 'No, Colonel, Congress has no right to give charity.'

"'Individual members may give as much of their own money as they please, but they have no right to touch a dollar of the public money for that purpose. If twice as many houses had been burned in this country as in Georgetown, neither you nor any other member of Congress would have Thought of appropriating a dollar for our relief. There are about two hundred and forty members of Congress. If they had shown their sympathy for the sufferers by contributing each one week's pay, it would have made over $13,000. There are plenty of wealthy men around Washington who could have given $20,000 without depriving themselves of even a luxury of life.'


more

Conrad_73's photo
Tue 07/03/12 09:15 AM
"The congressmen chose to keep their own money, which, if reports be true, some of them spend not very creditably; and the people about Washington, no doubt, applauded you for relieving them from necessity of giving what was not yours to give. The people have delegated to Congress, by the Constitution, the power to do certain things. To do these, it is authorized to collect and pay moneys, and for nothing else. Everything beyond this is usurpation, and a violation of the Constitution.'

"'So you see, Colonel, you have violated the Constitution in what I consider a vital point. It is a precedent fraught with danger to the country, for when Congress once begins to stretch its power beyond the limits of the Constitution, there is no limit to it, and no security for the people. I have no doubt you acted honestly, but that does not make it any better, except as far as you are personally concerned, and you see that I cannot vote for you.'

"I tell you I felt streaked. I saw if I should have opposition, and this man should go to talking and in that district I was a gone fawn-skin. I could not answer him, and the fact is, I was so fully convinced that he was right, I did not want to. But I must satisfy him, and I said to him:

"Well, my friend, you hit the nail upon the head when you said I had not sense enough to understand the Constitution. I intended to be guided by it, and thought I had studied it fully. I have heard many speeches in Congress about the powers of Congress, but what you have said here at your plow has got more hard, sound sense in it than all the fine speeches I ever heard. If I had ever taken the view of it that you have, I would have put my head into the fire before I would have given that vote; and if you will forgive me and vote for me again, if I ever vote for another unconstitutional law I wish I may be shot.'

"He laughingly replied; 'Yes, Colonel, you have sworn to that once before, but I will trust you again upon one condition. You are convinced that your vote was wrong. Your acknowledgment of it will do more good than beating you for it. If, as you go around the district, you will tell people about this vote, and that you are satisfied it was wrong, I will not only vote for you, but will do what I can to keep down opposition, and perhaps, I may exert some little influence in that way.'

"If I don't, said I, 'I wish I may be shot; and to convince you that I am in earnest in what I say I will come back this way in a week or ten days, and if you will get up a gathering of people, I will make a speech to them. Get up a barbecue, and I will pay for it.'

"No, Colonel, we are not rich people in this section but we have plenty of provisions to contribute for a barbecue, and some to spare for those who have none. The push of crops will be over in a few days, and we can then afford a day for a barbecue. 'This Thursday; I will see to getting it up on Saturday week. Come to my house on Friday, and we will go together, and I promise you a very respectable crowd to see and hear you.

"'Well I will be here. But one thing more before I say good-bye. I must know your name."

"'My name is Bunce.'

"'Not Horatio Bunce?'

"'Yes

"'Well, Mr. Bunce, I never saw you before, though you say you have seen me, but I know you very well. I am glad I have met you, and very proud that I may hope to have you for my friend.'

"It was one of the luckiest hits of my life that I met him. He mingled but little with the public, but was widely known for his remarkable intelligence, and for a heart brim-full and running over with kindness and benevolence, which showed themselves not only in words but in acts. He was the oracle of the whole country around him, and his fame had extended far beyond the circle of his immediate acquaintance. Though I had never met him, before, I had heard much of him, and but for this meeting it is very likely I should have had opposition, and had been beaten. One thing is very certain, no man could now stand up in that district under such a vote.

"At the appointed time I was at his house, having told our conversation to every crowd I had met, and to every man I stayed all night with, and I found that it gave the people an interest and confidence in me stronger than I had ever seen manifested before.

"Though I was considerably fatigued when I reached his house, and, under ordinary circumstances, should have gone early to bed, I kept him up until midnight talking about the principles and affairs of government, and got more real, true knowledge of them than I had got all my life before."

"I have known and seen much of him since, for I respect him - no, that is not the word - I reverence and love him more than any living man, and I go to see him two or three times every year; and I will tell you, sir, if every one who professes to be a Christian lived and acted and enjoyed it as he does, the religion of Christ would take the world by storm.

"But to return to my story. The next morning we went to the barbecue and, to my surprise, found about a thousand men there. I met a good many whom I had not known before, and they and my friend introduced me around until I had got pretty well acquainted - at least, they all knew me.

"In due time notice was given that I would speak to them. They gathered up around a stand that had been erected. I opened my speech by saying:

"Fellow-citizens - I present myself before you today feeling like a new man. My eyes have lately been opened to truths which ignorance or prejudice or both, had heretofore hidden from my view. I feel that I can today offer you the ability to render you more valuable service than I have ever been able to render before. I am here today more for the purpose of acknowledging my error than to seek your votes. That I should make this acknowledgment is due to myself as well as to you. Whether you will vote for me is a matter for your consideration only."

"I went on to tell them about the fire and my vote for the appropriation and then told them why I was satisfied it was wrong. I closed by saying:

"And now, fellow-citizens, it remains only for me to tell you that the most of the speech you have listened to with so much interest was simply a repetition of the arguments by which your neighbor, Mr. Bunce, convinced me of my error.

"It is the best speech I ever made in my life, but he is entitled to the credit for it. And now I hope he is satisfied with his convert and that he will get up here and tell you so.'

"He came up to the stand and said:

"Fellow-citizens - it affords me great pleasure to comply with the request of Colonel Crockett. I have always considered him a thoroughly honest man, and I am satisfied that he will faithfully perform all that he has promised you today.'

"He went down, and there went up from that crowd such a shout for Davy Crockett as his name never called forth before.'

"I am not much given to tears, but I was taken with a choking then and felt some big drops rolling down my cheeks. And I tell you now that the remembrance of those few words spoken by such a man, and the honest, hearty shout they produced, is worth more to me than all the honors I have received and all the reputation I have ever made, or ever shall make, as a member of Congress.'

"Now, sir," concluded Crockett, "you know why I made that speech yesterday. "There is one thing which I will call your attention, "you remember that I proposed to give a week's pay. There are in that House many very wealthy men - men who think nothing of spending a week's pay, or a dozen of them, for a dinner or a wine party when they have something to accomplish by it. Some of those same men made beautiful speeches upon the great debt of gratitude which the country owed the deceased--a debt which could not be paid by money--and the insignificance and worthlessness of money, particularly so insignificant a sum as $20,000 when weighed against the honor of the nation. Yet not one of them responded to my proposition. Money with them is nothing but trash when it is to come out of the people. But it is the one great thing for which most of them are striving, and many of them sacrifice honor, integrity, and justice to obtain it."
END

no photo
Tue 07/03/12 09:33 AM
:thumbsup: :thumbsup: :thumbsup:

Great piece of history, one for each post!laugh

msharmony's photo
Tue 07/03/12 10:22 AM
















They don't contribute and saying working welfare recipiants contribute is not a valid arguement anyway....If a person who works can still qualify for welfare they are "contrubuting" very little or, in in most cases, nothing to the program.... Or, as Harmony said earlier, they are even getting money back....
Some facts...Welfare DOES foster dependence, it DOES compel people who work give money to people who don't work....
The real question is ethical..Are we morally "bound" to help the less fortunate?...OR....Is the real truth that someone else's need is not an automatic claim on those without need?....
I don't think most people take issue with helping those less fortunate, I think people take issue with government coercing them into supporting the poor...What gives government that right?...By what right do you use force to transfer money from those who have it to those who don't?...
The old and tired arguement that all people have a right to life does not mean welfare is intended to provide a means to sustaine life to those who can't or won't...The right to life means every person has the right to take what ever life sustaining measures necessary as long as they do not violate the rights of others...
Since you can't force people to be moral, you cannot defend welfare as a right to life....Welfare is nothing more than stealing property from one person and giving it to another....It should be abolished because helping people is a personal choice not a political policy.....

Welfare mentality addicts will always defend their drug.

Little history on welfare. I was there though part of the beginnings.

Once upon a time, Churches and civic organizations would go around and gather unsellable food items and distribute them to needy folks.

Then, one day, the mean, old, greedy, ogre Corporation woke up and saw his pile of gold wasn't coming in as large as it used to.

So, he, along with some ogre friends, Congress, came up with a plan to make Corporate ogre's gold pile large again.

They passed laws taxing the humble citizens of the land. They were much more humble and naive back the because the news stations were not allowed to show the true faces of the ogre Congress or ogre Corporations.

The taxes stopped the of free food to Churches and other organizations that fed the poor and needy.

The ogre Corp commanded that all foods that didn't sell be either returned to process for other things like pet foods, fertilizers, etc. Or dumped into the dumpsters.

One day, an innocent ogre employee reported that he has seen people diving into the dumpsters and retrieving food. The first action the ogre Corp commanded was for the outlets to taint, (poison), the food.

After some people got sick and some died, the lowly citizen sued ogre Corp. and the ogre fed fined them a meager amount and told them to stop.

They stopped and now, today, all the outlets throw their unsellable meats and veggies into sealed dumpsters. The only people who can get to it are some of the brave employees who steal it from the ogre Corp. They risk their job and jail to do it.

Ogre Corp and ogre Congress, including all of DC, are sitting fat. Laughing all the way to the bank while, the humble Tax Payer supports many who choose indulge in their welfare crack.

Ex ogre Presidents and other ogre politicians live happily ever after

The End


___________________________________________________________________

Welfare should be a moral obligation.
Not a legal one.
No more forced Welfare Tax!



no more forced school tax either, while we are at it,, it shouldnt be a 'legal' obligation

no more forced military pay (taxes) either, they shouldnt be 'legal' obligations

no more forced infrastructure tax either, they shouldnt be 'legal' obligations

people should choose to donate to schools if they are going to use them,,,see how many generations we will get through before we are overrun with embeciles..


people should choose to donate to military if they agree to having a military, ,, see how long those 'patriots' continue to serve....


people should also choose to donate to keeping up the roads and buildings,, see how long before we also 'look' like a third world country as our haves and have nots define a third world country divide,,,


heck, we can cut the budget by 1/8 getting rid of welfare and another 1/4 by getting rid of military,,,,,thats a whopping 3/8

we should certainly have a better BUDGET , damn what kind of COUNTRY we are left with though,,lol




when it happens ,I can move to any of the other WESTERN countries doing just as well and not GRIPING about taking care of their own,,,,


What do schools, military, and infrastructure have to do with welfare?what




the argument that being 'forced' to pay others with OUR money if we dont want to,,,the argument that some payments should be MORAL Decisions instead of obligationg

can be applied to the military and public education as well..

perhaps some of us feel having weapons and going to war is a moral issue,, or educating children,,,,,

perhapss some of us feel everyone should not be forced to contribute to the 'welfare' of the nations protection, or the 'welfare' of other peoples children being educated

if we follow the example set by withdrawing mandatory support for feeding children , we can withdraw mandatory support for educating them ......surely...




No, no, no Harmony...Your argument is void, empty...If you want to argue for welfare, do it...You don't need to use BS to make your point...The people contributing to your thread seem intelligent, concerned, engaged...Stop making this about feeding children...When you see people selling food stamps to get money to buy cigs and booze that argument sounds trite at best...The discussion is NOT about people being unwilling to help those that TRUELY need help, it is about "what we deserve" remember, you picked the topic....Stop trying to candy coat it...Stop trying to lump welfare in with everything every single tax dollar is spent on....IMO, you are just making the problems worse by pushing the idea that people who work should support people people who don't work because they have young children, or because they have children with fathers who don't pay, or because they are black, or because they are women, or because there is a recession, or because we tax people for schools, roads, bridges, military ...I know a woman who can't walk, she is paralized from the waist down, who makes a very good living typing medical transcripts from her home.....All she needed was a computer and some brain power........whoa


nope, you are using THIEVES to justify

Im not talking about thieves, Im talking about the predominant REASON and use for welfare which is to help people feed and take care of their families in hard times,,,

I know people who get through tough times too, but guess what, they all used some HELP from somewhere,, regardless of how many stubborn people REFUSE To believe it

people dont achieve in a vaccum, they have resources, assistance of some type,, although most never want to admit it and most prefer to claim they do it 'all by themself'

when the argument is about what someones 'tax' money goes to, the relevant comparison is of other things 'tax' money goes to,,,




This mentality is exactly what I am talking about...You have NO idea what people do, how they achieve what they achieve..Many DO do it by themselves Harmony!...The argument IS NOT about how tax dollars are spent, the argument is about "WHAT WE DESERVE".....



lol, wrong

give me an example of someone doing it 'themself' and I promise you I can show where SOMEONE helped them,,,by giving them the opportunity, or the reference, or the resource,,,,or some other resource they may not have PERSONALLY had,,,,


even your disabled friend, I imagine, received some RESOURCE to get her through the time it took to earn the proper certifications to type transcripts,,,


Yes, you imagine...but you really don't know do you...You're just h*ll bent on justifying forced handouts.....lol,lol,lol



nope, just hell bent on destroying the idea that there is anyone who doesnt or hasnt required 'help' at some point in their life,,,or that it makes them less 'deserving' than anyone else,,,


Hasn't needed help, or hasn't needed a welfare check....?



same thing, different resource

but still help just the same,,,


Not the same thing at all....lol



only to those who refuse to see it that way

still, noone has answered how my 'welfare' eheck was any less deserved than someones 'employment' check when I was likewise 'working' everyday,,,,,


are we supposed to only survive when others give us the 'opportunity' to earn a living,,?

and when that opportunity is not surfacing, what do we with families do then...? EVen though we have skills to offer and willing to work but not able to find an 'employer'?......

that welfare check is undeserved huh?





The problem with your reasoning is this...you are taking it personally, you can't be objective because it is a handout you feel you not only deserve, but earn.....This may very well be true Harmony, but it is not a valid argument for the the question "What we deserve"....Start a new thread and call it "What I deserve"...Defend it with some facts people can relate to.....Can you not see why some people might object to your reasoning when you continue to reference yourself as proof positive the welfare system works?...It is broken, it needs reform in the worst way....Are you saying this is not true?....



of course I take it personally, as I Would if people lumped women together, or blacks together, as I Am a member of both


when people continue perpetuating the stereotype of the 'lazy' welfare recipient getting paid to do nothing, of course it irritates me

its no worse than the stereotype that blacks are lazy or women are incapable

if we want to be intellectually honest and say there are some black people (as some of every type of people) who are lazy, I wont take it persona

if we say there are some women who are incapable(as are some of every other type of people), I wont take it personal

if we want to say there is fraud and misuse in the welfare system (As there is in every other system) I wont take it personal

I have conceded there are flaws in the system, I know of no system that isnt perfect,, but the constant attack on PEOPLE who need help is not the same as a discussion on how to improve the system

Chazster's photo
Tue 07/03/12 10:36 AM
Just like we take it personally when you steal our money and say you deserve it.

msharmony's photo
Tue 07/03/12 10:41 AM

Just like we take it personally when you steal our money and say you deserve it.



see what I mean

maybe I dont think people DSERVE My money to create wars

maybe I dont think people DESERVE my money to send their kids to school once mine get done with theirs


I sure as hell DESERVE the basics so long as I am a contributing (translate working in some fashion that helps others) member of society,,,

that you feel its not valid unless its from an employers payroll is part of the problem,,,

willing2's photo
Tue 07/03/12 11:02 AM
I would recommend to Gov., both parents, who pump out kids they can't afford be sterilized to qualify for welfare.

Boycott the Welfare Tax!!




no photo
Tue 07/03/12 11:09 AM

















They don't contribute and saying working welfare recipiants contribute is not a valid arguement anyway....If a person who works can still qualify for welfare they are "contrubuting" very little or, in in most cases, nothing to the program.... Or, as Harmony said earlier, they are even getting money back....
Some facts...Welfare DOES foster dependence, it DOES compel people who work give money to people who don't work....
The real question is ethical..Are we morally "bound" to help the less fortunate?...OR....Is the real truth that someone else's need is not an automatic claim on those without need?....
I don't think most people take issue with helping those less fortunate, I think people take issue with government coercing them into supporting the poor...What gives government that right?...By what right do you use force to transfer money from those who have it to those who don't?...
The old and tired arguement that all people have a right to life does not mean welfare is intended to provide a means to sustaine life to those who can't or won't...The right to life means every person has the right to take what ever life sustaining measures necessary as long as they do not violate the rights of others...
Since you can't force people to be moral, you cannot defend welfare as a right to life....Welfare is nothing more than stealing property from one person and giving it to another....It should be abolished because helping people is a personal choice not a political policy.....

Welfare mentality addicts will always defend their drug.

Little history on welfare. I was there though part of the beginnings.

Once upon a time, Churches and civic organizations would go around and gather unsellable food items and distribute them to needy folks.

Then, one day, the mean, old, greedy, ogre Corporation woke up and saw his pile of gold wasn't coming in as large as it used to.

So, he, along with some ogre friends, Congress, came up with a plan to make Corporate ogre's gold pile large again.

They passed laws taxing the humble citizens of the land. They were much more humble and naive back the because the news stations were not allowed to show the true faces of the ogre Congress or ogre Corporations.

The taxes stopped the of free food to Churches and other organizations that fed the poor and needy.

The ogre Corp commanded that all foods that didn't sell be either returned to process for other things like pet foods, fertilizers, etc. Or dumped into the dumpsters.

One day, an innocent ogre employee reported that he has seen people diving into the dumpsters and retrieving food. The first action the ogre Corp commanded was for the outlets to taint, (poison), the food.

After some people got sick and some died, the lowly citizen sued ogre Corp. and the ogre fed fined them a meager amount and told them to stop.

They stopped and now, today, all the outlets throw their unsellable meats and veggies into sealed dumpsters. The only people who can get to it are some of the brave employees who steal it from the ogre Corp. They risk their job and jail to do it.

Ogre Corp and ogre Congress, including all of DC, are sitting fat. Laughing all the way to the bank while, the humble Tax Payer supports many who choose indulge in their welfare crack.

Ex ogre Presidents and other ogre politicians live happily ever after

The End


___________________________________________________________________

Welfare should be a moral obligation.
Not a legal one.
No more forced Welfare Tax!



no more forced school tax either, while we are at it,, it shouldnt be a 'legal' obligation

no more forced military pay (taxes) either, they shouldnt be 'legal' obligations

no more forced infrastructure tax either, they shouldnt be 'legal' obligations

people should choose to donate to schools if they are going to use them,,,see how many generations we will get through before we are overrun with embeciles..


people should choose to donate to military if they agree to having a military, ,, see how long those 'patriots' continue to serve....


people should also choose to donate to keeping up the roads and buildings,, see how long before we also 'look' like a third world country as our haves and have nots define a third world country divide,,,


heck, we can cut the budget by 1/8 getting rid of welfare and another 1/4 by getting rid of military,,,,,thats a whopping 3/8

we should certainly have a better BUDGET , damn what kind of COUNTRY we are left with though,,lol




when it happens ,I can move to any of the other WESTERN countries doing just as well and not GRIPING about taking care of their own,,,,


What do schools, military, and infrastructure have to do with welfare?what




the argument that being 'forced' to pay others with OUR money if we dont want to,,,the argument that some payments should be MORAL Decisions instead of obligationg

can be applied to the military and public education as well..

perhaps some of us feel having weapons and going to war is a moral issue,, or educating children,,,,,

perhapss some of us feel everyone should not be forced to contribute to the 'welfare' of the nations protection, or the 'welfare' of other peoples children being educated

if we follow the example set by withdrawing mandatory support for feeding children , we can withdraw mandatory support for educating them ......surely...




No, no, no Harmony...Your argument is void, empty...If you want to argue for welfare, do it...You don't need to use BS to make your point...The people contributing to your thread seem intelligent, concerned, engaged...Stop making this about feeding children...When you see people selling food stamps to get money to buy cigs and booze that argument sounds trite at best...The discussion is NOT about people being unwilling to help those that TRUELY need help, it is about "what we deserve" remember, you picked the topic....Stop trying to candy coat it...Stop trying to lump welfare in with everything every single tax dollar is spent on....IMO, you are just making the problems worse by pushing the idea that people who work should support people people who don't work because they have young children, or because they have children with fathers who don't pay, or because they are black, or because they are women, or because there is a recession, or because we tax people for schools, roads, bridges, military ...I know a woman who can't walk, she is paralized from the waist down, who makes a very good living typing medical transcripts from her home.....All she needed was a computer and some brain power........whoa


nope, you are using THIEVES to justify

Im not talking about thieves, Im talking about the predominant REASON and use for welfare which is to help people feed and take care of their families in hard times,,,

I know people who get through tough times too, but guess what, they all used some HELP from somewhere,, regardless of how many stubborn people REFUSE To believe it

people dont achieve in a vaccum, they have resources, assistance of some type,, although most never want to admit it and most prefer to claim they do it 'all by themself'

when the argument is about what someones 'tax' money goes to, the relevant comparison is of other things 'tax' money goes to,,,




This mentality is exactly what I am talking about...You have NO idea what people do, how they achieve what they achieve..Many DO do it by themselves Harmony!...The argument IS NOT about how tax dollars are spent, the argument is about "WHAT WE DESERVE".....



lol, wrong

give me an example of someone doing it 'themself' and I promise you I can show where SOMEONE helped them,,,by giving them the opportunity, or the reference, or the resource,,,,or some other resource they may not have PERSONALLY had,,,,


even your disabled friend, I imagine, received some RESOURCE to get her through the time it took to earn the proper certifications to type transcripts,,,


Yes, you imagine...but you really don't know do you...You're just h*ll bent on justifying forced handouts.....lol,lol,lol



nope, just hell bent on destroying the idea that there is anyone who doesnt or hasnt required 'help' at some point in their life,,,or that it makes them less 'deserving' than anyone else,,,


Hasn't needed help, or hasn't needed a welfare check....?



same thing, different resource

but still help just the same,,,


Not the same thing at all....lol



only to those who refuse to see it that way

still, noone has answered how my 'welfare' eheck was any less deserved than someones 'employment' check when I was likewise 'working' everyday,,,,,


are we supposed to only survive when others give us the 'opportunity' to earn a living,,?

and when that opportunity is not surfacing, what do we with families do then...? EVen though we have skills to offer and willing to work but not able to find an 'employer'?......

that welfare check is undeserved huh?





The problem with your reasoning is this...you are taking it personally, you can't be objective because it is a handout you feel you not only deserve, but earn.....This may very well be true Harmony, but it is not a valid argument for the the question "What we deserve"....Start a new thread and call it "What I deserve"...Defend it with some facts people can relate to.....Can you not see why some people might object to your reasoning when you continue to reference yourself as proof positive the welfare system works?...It is broken, it needs reform in the worst way....Are you saying this is not true?....



of course I take it personally, as I Would if people lumped women together, or blacks together, as I Am a member of both


when people continue perpetuating the stereotype of the 'lazy' welfare recipient getting paid to do nothing, of course it irritates me

its no worse than the stereotype that blacks are lazy or women are incapable

if we want to be intellectually honest and say there are some black people (as some of every type of people) who are lazy, I wont take it persona

if we say there are some women who are incapable(as are some of every other type of people), I wont take it personal

if we want to say there is fraud and misuse in the welfare system (As there is in every other system) I wont take it personal

I have conceded there are flaws in the system, I know of no system that isnt perfect,, but the constant attack on PEOPLE who need help is not the same as a discussion on how to improve the system


I don't see a constant attack on PEOPLE who need help...I see a constant attack on welfare as being a program based on a flawed principle and an OP who refuses to address the issues presented ....I can only assume you have no redress, no defense, as you just keep hammering away at the fact that you deserve your welfare check and those with more money than you are obligated to help you...The truth is, they are not obligated to help you....they are forced by a law that is unconstitutional....Furthermore, the welfare program is not working for everyone, it is not working for nearly enough....It DOES foster dependence, it undermines enterprise and autonomy...Every society is going to have some who are so lacking in ability, energy, ambition that they will fail...Some can be helped by charity, BUT NOT ALL....

willing2's photo
Tue 07/03/12 11:14 AM

I don't see a constant attack on PEOPLE who need help...I see a constant attack on welfare as being a program based on a flawed principle and an OP who refuses to address the issues presented ....I can only assume you have no redress, no defense, as you just keep hammering away at the fact that you deserve your welfare check and those with more money than you are obligated to help you...The truth is, they are not obligated to help you....they are forced by a law that is unconstitutional....Furthermore, the welfare program is not working for everyone, it is not working for nearly enough....It DOES foster dependence, it undermines enterprise and autonomy...Every society is going to have some who are so lacking in ability, energy, ambition that they will fail...Some can be helped by charity, BUT NOT ALL....

Amen, sistah'!!

Anyone who don't see that light is batass blind! And, heavy into their addiction.

msharmony's photo
Tue 07/03/12 11:14 AM
Edited by msharmony on Tue 07/03/12 11:17 AM


















They don't contribute and saying working welfare recipiants contribute is not a valid arguement anyway....If a person who works can still qualify for welfare they are "contrubuting" very little or, in in most cases, nothing to the program.... Or, as Harmony said earlier, they are even getting money back....
Some facts...Welfare DOES foster dependence, it DOES compel people who work give money to people who don't work....
The real question is ethical..Are we morally "bound" to help the less fortunate?...OR....Is the real truth that someone else's need is not an automatic claim on those without need?....
I don't think most people take issue with helping those less fortunate, I think people take issue with government coercing them into supporting the poor...What gives government that right?...By what right do you use force to transfer money from those who have it to those who don't?...
The old and tired arguement that all people have a right to life does not mean welfare is intended to provide a means to sustaine life to those who can't or won't...The right to life means every person has the right to take what ever life sustaining measures necessary as long as they do not violate the rights of others...
Since you can't force people to be moral, you cannot defend welfare as a right to life....Welfare is nothing more than stealing property from one person and giving it to another....It should be abolished because helping people is a personal choice not a political policy.....

Welfare mentality addicts will always defend their drug.

Little history on welfare. I was there though part of the beginnings.

Once upon a time, Churches and civic organizations would go around and gather unsellable food items and distribute them to needy folks.

Then, one day, the mean, old, greedy, ogre Corporation woke up and saw his pile of gold wasn't coming in as large as it used to.

So, he, along with some ogre friends, Congress, came up with a plan to make Corporate ogre's gold pile large again.

They passed laws taxing the humble citizens of the land. They were much more humble and naive back the because the news stations were not allowed to show the true faces of the ogre Congress or ogre Corporations.

The taxes stopped the of free food to Churches and other organizations that fed the poor and needy.

The ogre Corp commanded that all foods that didn't sell be either returned to process for other things like pet foods, fertilizers, etc. Or dumped into the dumpsters.

One day, an innocent ogre employee reported that he has seen people diving into the dumpsters and retrieving food. The first action the ogre Corp commanded was for the outlets to taint, (poison), the food.

After some people got sick and some died, the lowly citizen sued ogre Corp. and the ogre fed fined them a meager amount and told them to stop.

They stopped and now, today, all the outlets throw their unsellable meats and veggies into sealed dumpsters. The only people who can get to it are some of the brave employees who steal it from the ogre Corp. They risk their job and jail to do it.

Ogre Corp and ogre Congress, including all of DC, are sitting fat. Laughing all the way to the bank while, the humble Tax Payer supports many who choose indulge in their welfare crack.

Ex ogre Presidents and other ogre politicians live happily ever after

The End


___________________________________________________________________

Welfare should be a moral obligation.
Not a legal one.
No more forced Welfare Tax!



no more forced school tax either, while we are at it,, it shouldnt be a 'legal' obligation

no more forced military pay (taxes) either, they shouldnt be 'legal' obligations

no more forced infrastructure tax either, they shouldnt be 'legal' obligations

people should choose to donate to schools if they are going to use them,,,see how many generations we will get through before we are overrun with embeciles..


people should choose to donate to military if they agree to having a military, ,, see how long those 'patriots' continue to serve....


people should also choose to donate to keeping up the roads and buildings,, see how long before we also 'look' like a third world country as our haves and have nots define a third world country divide,,,


heck, we can cut the budget by 1/8 getting rid of welfare and another 1/4 by getting rid of military,,,,,thats a whopping 3/8

we should certainly have a better BUDGET , damn what kind of COUNTRY we are left with though,,lol




when it happens ,I can move to any of the other WESTERN countries doing just as well and not GRIPING about taking care of their own,,,,


What do schools, military, and infrastructure have to do with welfare?what




the argument that being 'forced' to pay others with OUR money if we dont want to,,,the argument that some payments should be MORAL Decisions instead of obligationg

can be applied to the military and public education as well..

perhaps some of us feel having weapons and going to war is a moral issue,, or educating children,,,,,

perhapss some of us feel everyone should not be forced to contribute to the 'welfare' of the nations protection, or the 'welfare' of other peoples children being educated

if we follow the example set by withdrawing mandatory support for feeding children , we can withdraw mandatory support for educating them ......surely...




No, no, no Harmony...Your argument is void, empty...If you want to argue for welfare, do it...You don't need to use BS to make your point...The people contributing to your thread seem intelligent, concerned, engaged...Stop making this about feeding children...When you see people selling food stamps to get money to buy cigs and booze that argument sounds trite at best...The discussion is NOT about people being unwilling to help those that TRUELY need help, it is about "what we deserve" remember, you picked the topic....Stop trying to candy coat it...Stop trying to lump welfare in with everything every single tax dollar is spent on....IMO, you are just making the problems worse by pushing the idea that people who work should support people people who don't work because they have young children, or because they have children with fathers who don't pay, or because they are black, or because they are women, or because there is a recession, or because we tax people for schools, roads, bridges, military ...I know a woman who can't walk, she is paralized from the waist down, who makes a very good living typing medical transcripts from her home.....All she needed was a computer and some brain power........whoa


nope, you are using THIEVES to justify

Im not talking about thieves, Im talking about the predominant REASON and use for welfare which is to help people feed and take care of their families in hard times,,,

I know people who get through tough times too, but guess what, they all used some HELP from somewhere,, regardless of how many stubborn people REFUSE To believe it

people dont achieve in a vaccum, they have resources, assistance of some type,, although most never want to admit it and most prefer to claim they do it 'all by themself'

when the argument is about what someones 'tax' money goes to, the relevant comparison is of other things 'tax' money goes to,,,




This mentality is exactly what I am talking about...You have NO idea what people do, how they achieve what they achieve..Many DO do it by themselves Harmony!...The argument IS NOT about how tax dollars are spent, the argument is about "WHAT WE DESERVE".....



lol, wrong

give me an example of someone doing it 'themself' and I promise you I can show where SOMEONE helped them,,,by giving them the opportunity, or the reference, or the resource,,,,or some other resource they may not have PERSONALLY had,,,,


even your disabled friend, I imagine, received some RESOURCE to get her through the time it took to earn the proper certifications to type transcripts,,,


Yes, you imagine...but you really don't know do you...You're just h*ll bent on justifying forced handouts.....lol,lol,lol



nope, just hell bent on destroying the idea that there is anyone who doesnt or hasnt required 'help' at some point in their life,,,or that it makes them less 'deserving' than anyone else,,,


Hasn't needed help, or hasn't needed a welfare check....?



same thing, different resource

but still help just the same,,,


Not the same thing at all....lol



only to those who refuse to see it that way

still, noone has answered how my 'welfare' eheck was any less deserved than someones 'employment' check when I was likewise 'working' everyday,,,,,


are we supposed to only survive when others give us the 'opportunity' to earn a living,,?

and when that opportunity is not surfacing, what do we with families do then...? EVen though we have skills to offer and willing to work but not able to find an 'employer'?......

that welfare check is undeserved huh?





The problem with your reasoning is this...you are taking it personally, you can't be objective because it is a handout you feel you not only deserve, but earn.....This may very well be true Harmony, but it is not a valid argument for the the question "What we deserve"....Start a new thread and call it "What I deserve"...Defend it with some facts people can relate to.....Can you not see why some people might object to your reasoning when you continue to reference yourself as proof positive the welfare system works?...It is broken, it needs reform in the worst way....Are you saying this is not true?....



of course I take it personally, as I Would if people lumped women together, or blacks together, as I Am a member of both


when people continue perpetuating the stereotype of the 'lazy' welfare recipient getting paid to do nothing, of course it irritates me

its no worse than the stereotype that blacks are lazy or women are incapable

if we want to be intellectually honest and say there are some black people (as some of every type of people) who are lazy, I wont take it persona

if we say there are some women who are incapable(as are some of every other type of people), I wont take it personal

if we want to say there is fraud and misuse in the welfare system (As there is in every other system) I wont take it personal

I have conceded there are flaws in the system, I know of no system that isnt perfect,, but the constant attack on PEOPLE who need help is not the same as a discussion on how to improve the system


I don't see a constant attack on PEOPLE who need help...I see a constant attack on welfare as being a program based on a flawed principle and an OP who refuses to address the issues presented ....I can only assume you have no redress, no defense, as you just keep hammering away at the fact that you deserve your welfare check and those with more money than you are obligated to help you...The truth is, they are not obligated to help you....they are forced by a law that is unconstitutional....Furthermore, the welfare program is not working for everyone, it is not working for nearly enough....It DOES foster dependence, it undermines enterprise and autonomy...Every society is going to have some who are so lacking in ability, energy, ambition that they will fail...Some can be helped by charity, BUT NOT ALL....


it is not about helping ME

it is about putting back into the AMERICAN COMMUNITY

its not about forcing people to help any individual, its forcing a communityto contribute to a rainy day account so it can be there when needed for the less fortunate amongst them

just as education is an investment in future potential so is the resource to provide BASICS for families hitting hard times,,,

the terminology certainly attacks the character and value of INDIVIDUALS,, Im surprised there is anyone who doesnt see that,,,,

its such a non issue, that those continuing to make it an issue, help distract from bigger blows to our budget that need to be addressed

the constitutional argument continues to exist, it was there for those opposing the abolition of slavery too,,,

but that has little to do with being a democracy,,,

A healthy democracy requires a decent society; it requires that we are honorable, generous, tolerant and respectful.
Charles W. Pickering
Read more at http://www.brainyquote.com/quotes/topics/topic_politics.html#j5wPjxT9X16QgsjV.99

no photo
Tue 07/03/12 11:16 AM


I don't see a constant attack on PEOPLE who need help...I see a constant attack on welfare as being a program based on a flawed principle and an OP who refuses to address the issues presented ....I can only assume you have no redress, no defense, as you just keep hammering away at the fact that you deserve your welfare check and those with more money than you are obligated to help you...The truth is, they are not obligated to help you....they are forced by a law that is unconstitutional....Furthermore, the welfare program is not working for everyone, it is not working for nearly enough....It DOES foster dependence, it undermines enterprise and autonomy...Every society is going to have some who are so lacking in ability, energy, ambition that they will fail...Some can be helped by charity, BUT NOT ALL....

Amen, sistah'!!

Anyone who don't see that light is batass blind! And, heavy into their addiction.



smokin

willing2's photo
Tue 07/03/12 11:17 AM


it is not about helping ME

it is about putting back into the AMERICAN COMMUNITY

just as education is an investment in future potential so is the resource to provide BASICS for families hitting hard times,,,

the terminology certainly attacks the character and value of INDIVIDUALS,, Im surprised there is anyone who doesnt see that,,,,


Great point.
Allow communities to care for their own.
Don't force us to pay Welfare Taxes.
Your community should be of the moral quality to look out for the needy, no?
Is it?

msharmony's photo
Tue 07/03/12 11:20 AM



it is not about helping ME

it is about putting back into the AMERICAN COMMUNITY

just as education is an investment in future potential so is the resource to provide BASICS for families hitting hard times,,,

the terminology certainly attacks the character and value of INDIVIDUALS,, Im surprised there is anyone who doesnt see that,,,,


Great point.
Allow communities to care for their own.
Don't force us to pay Welfare Taxes.
Your community should be of the moral quality to look out for the needy, no?
Is it?



lol, who is going to define a community?

what constitutes a community? a block, a city, a state?

what if the block is impoverished without resources to look after the needy?

what if the city can afford to contribute more to its needy than other cities? wont people gripe about the ability of the impoverished to pick the best paying city or state?

dont you see,, the issues presented are smokescreens, people will ALWAYS find an excuse to moan and groan about 'giving back' into the bucket for things they may not personally get a benefit from?