Another yapping socialite politician, a former Varsity Cheerleader at that. Complaining about others being on the Govt's payroll .

How about some solutions ? How about earning your govt paycheck ?

I don't agree with welfare either because it doesn't remedy the problem, only propagates it.

Remember what the Bible says about teaching a man to fish...

What about giving people a job vs a welfare check ?
We've plenty of bridges and roads that need repairing.
Couldn't welfare recipient women help out at local schools for example ?

But there are circumstances that are beyond a person's control.
Not all welfare applicants are do nothings.

For example, what about our armed forces, when they are sent over to Iraq/Afghanistan leaving a family without a breadwinner ?

And might need assistance.

Should we simply Let them starve or have their home foreclosed upon ?

For that matter, How much is this jack a$$ earning, from the Govt. for doing what, only flapping his gums ??

Trash talking about people who weren't born wealthy ?
How about earning your paycheck and coming up with a few solutions ?

Why should a socialite elitist politician earn more than an individual , such as law enforcement, who actually risk their lives daily on the job anyway ?

He should be paid not a penny more than any other public servants. Especially those that risk their lives in the line of duty.

Originally posted by apacheman
H-e s-a-i-d h-e-'-s f-o-r s-t-a-r-v-i-n-g p-e-o-p-l-e t-o d-e-a-t-h b-ec-a-u-s-e t-h-e-y a-r-e p-o-o-r.

There, I've spelled it out for you. Understand now?

I hope you're above the poverty line or you and your children on his list to eliminated.

No he didn't.

He is against dependence on government. It does not say "starve" or "death" once in that article.

Aside from the overly emotional sobs posting on this, I've seen almost no one challenge his points.

Care to try again?

We are a society that is based on an individuals wants. Not on what we need or what is necessarily good for us. Provide the poor with what they need(food, clean water, shelter). For their wants they should be entirely on their own. We must provide an incentive. Otherwise the circle will never be broken.

Originally posted by nh_ee
I don't agree with welfare either because it doesn't remedy the problem, only propagates it.

Remember what the Bible says about teaching a man to fish...

So what would you do with the disabled?

I am surprised he didn't clarify if he
was referring to the inner-city ghetto
residents of Columbus, or the country
residents.

And yes that was meant as sarcasm
(sort of)

Not to cut in on this lovely philosophical discussion of legalized genocide or anything; but I feel some clarifications are in order on some points brought up.

1. People who apply for food stamps are given an amount based on their income. In one case here in MA, a family of 4 with both parents working jobs could not pay their bills. The max amount allowed to them of food stamps was 26.00 per month.

2. Those who apply for CASH assistance via welfare MUST search for employment. If they do not find employment within a set amount of time, they are sent to work at a minimum wage job provided by organizations within the community. If you do NOT find work, or refuse to report to a job they send you to, your benefits are terminated. All of them.

3. CAP babies. Though in the past, people on cash assistance may have had their checks added to with every successive mouth to feed, it is not that way in many areas now. Here in MA, if you become pregnant after 10 months of being on cash assistance- you are cut off. That baby is not covered with anything (medical, food stamps, cash), and they terminate your cash benefit. Those children within that 10 month window, are covered by medical and food stamps only.


Those people collecting their checks in their Escalades...hate to tell ya, but they're not getting that money from welfare.

For those who are NEEDY and need help temporarily, they are usually frustrated with this system, as it doesn't give much anymore.


The welfare systems have changed, drastically. People who apply for welfare should not be dehumanized because of it, because nowadays you cannot be lazy and exist off welfare. It is a supplement, not an income.



[edit on 25-1-2010 by cjcord]

[edit on 25-1-2010 by cjcord]

In all this infighting over welfare recipients many are not really looking at the full picture.

We have various groups who are on governmental subsidies .

1 You have the people who are really disabled . These people should receive help . Whine all you want this group is unable the help them selves and need assistance .

2 People due to economic troubles or other situations are not able to fend for them selves they do need a helping hand till they get back on their feet .

3 people who make it a life style these do not need our assistance they need to get a job if available .


Social economic and political changes over the last 100 years have shifted the safety net from the farm based , religious based and community based to the fed . Neighbors and clergy help has been withered to nonexistent and the fed has taken over the job . Most churches now use more of their money for a bigger churches and send the money over seas to help there.

When we shifted our population bases from rural to cities this created some of this mess . In years past starving out of work people could easily find work and a free meal and a place to sleep in exchange for picking fruit or working a field . Now many of these are filled with undocumented workers from countries from around the world but mainly from our neighbors to the south . Couple this with many of our large corporations shipping factories over seas and closing down our plants . Some on the reasons was pure profit but others were the American worker in a union had priced them selves out of the market .

Statements like from this guy in SC and many posters are not using all of their cognitive reasoning , This problem is larger than Us just giving money to the poor . We have created this larger mass of poor people . Is our solution to a problem we created is to let them starve ? When many of our policies have forced them out of work .

Under the system in place now the only way out is to ensure there is a job for every one and one that pays enough to buy the basics. And the ones who have made it a life style time period get a job in x time frame .

And for the old and the disabled yes spend my tax money on them and if it truly would go to them and not some of the harebrained half backside pork barrel project our congress makes I would even donate more money to that cause .

Originally posted by KrazyJethro

Originally posted by apacheman
H-e s-a-i-d h-e-'-s f-o-r s-t-a-r-v-i-n-g p-e-o-p-l-e t-o d-e-a-t-h b-ec-a-u-s-e t-h-e-y a-r-e p-o-o-r.

There, I've spelled it out for you. Understand now?

I hope you're above the poverty line or you and your children on his list to eliminated.

No he didn't.

He is against dependence on government. It does not say "starve" or "death" once in that article.

He says that poor people are like stray dogs and cats. If you feed them they multiply.

What do many people usually do when faced with populations of strays? They don't feed them.

Result = they starve to death.

How much clearer does that have to be?

[edit on 25-1-2010 by Sestias]

Originally posted by nh_ee
I don't agree with welfare either because it doesn't remedy the problem, only propagates it.

Remember what the Bible says about teaching a man to fish...

Not to put too fine a point on it, but that saying is not from the Bible. It's just a popular aphorism.

The Bible says much more about caring for the poor than many may be comfortable with.

Originally posted by Sestias
He says that poor people are like stray dogs and cats. If you feed them they multiply.

That is true. They do multiply.

What do many people usually do when faced with populations of strays? They don't feed them.

Result = they starve to death.

How much clearer does that have to be?

You think that if they don't get fed from the government that they will starve to death? That's the only option there is and it's a foregone conclusion eh?

That's pretty limited thinking and intellectually dishonest.

Originally posted by Arcane Demesne
I suggest you read Doc's previous posts. He used to be on the beach for TWO YEARS. He pulled himself up by the boot straps, like any decent human being (kudos Doc), and he didn't even bother using the welfare system (unlike many who love to live off the fruits of others).

The only person you should be disgusted with is you and the limo-liberals who STEAL from hard working folks like Doc, and give his earnings to people who...yes I'll say it....DON'T DESERVE IT!!!

Doc and Brainwrek, I tip my hat to you fellows. I can't stay in this thread without fuming.

While I'll agree on the Fed, like I said though, what would you do with the truly disabled? Allow TPTB get what they want and eliminate all the 'useless eaters'?