It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.

 

Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.

 

Is It Hippocritical For Tea Partiers To Collect Welfare?

page: 3
4
<< 1  2    4 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Sep, 21 2011 @ 06:28 AM
link   
reply to post by Bob Sholtz
 


"people seem to think the government has an unlimited supply of money. "

I was listening to a video a few days ago and some guy claimed that just the REAL cost of the wars, and the bailouts (including the $$ being quietly dispersed by the fed) ranges around about how much revenue that the gov't takes in!!!


so, well, it seems that the politicians and the bankers also think that we have an unlimited supply of money also!!!
both the dems and the republicans think we have an unlimited supply of money....

and they all think we have 40-50 money trees growing in our backyard that we can just go and pluck hundred dollar bills off of when tax time comes along! since most of the money that is being spent, isn't even going through the printing process...it's all just electronic bits and bites!




posted on Sep, 21 2011 @ 07:56 AM
link   
If a person is actually in need of government assistance, a person who has paid into the system their entire lives and finds themselves in an unfortunate situation and requires help, then no, it's not Hypocritical.

They of course are still free to whine and moan about having to take that assistance, and they are also free to refuse any assistance if their personal beliefs warrant it.

What in my opinion is hypocritical is elected officials who rally against things like "Obamacare" yet at the same time enjoy government run health insurance. That is hypocrisy, and these people *cough*Michelle Bachman*cough* should be called out for it.

But I wouldn't blame the brainwashed FOX News drone for hating something that they need when they need it. It's called eating crow, and I bet they are having a nice slice of humble pie to go with that crow.



posted on Sep, 21 2011 @ 08:20 AM
link   

Originally posted by beezzer

Originally posted by MrXYZ
reply to post by beezzer
 


Healthcare is already privatized! Even with Obamacare, it's private healthcare companies who get the $$$.


Which makes it baffling when the TP and other organizations call it "socialism" or "communism"


I'm confused. (normal condition with me)
You believe that healthcare is privatized even with government controlling/manipulating/governing/mandating
healthcare?


Of course it is, because all the $$$ is spent at PRIVATE HEALTHCARE COMPANIES, which means it's privatized. The government forcing the people to get healthcare (because it makes economic sense given the high costs uninsured people cost...and because having dying people in the street, or tons of people who can't get medical help and therefore can't work) from private company is still PRIVATIZED. It's not the government owning those companies.

In short: TP people can't seem to understand the definitions of "socialism" or "communism"...which isn't surprising



posted on Sep, 21 2011 @ 08:25 AM
link   

Originally posted by ThirdEyeofHorus
We have all been pushed to the brink with the insane ecomic policies of politicians, especially the current occupier. I have never seen this type of inflation. It's just insanity. Even the most avid T Partier is trapped by this economic downturn. Joblessness is really rampant. We are all in trouble and we have an out of touch group of crooks and thugs running things.


Joblessness as we know it today is a result of the credit bubble at last bursting after several decades of growth. Bush couldnt stop it, Obama cant stop it. It is a result of economic realities beyound their control. Tossing money at it will hardly help working people as has been demonstrated. Inflation is a natural result of this bursting bubble. Easy credit for so many years, which resulted in the large scale flow of "green" in the economy durring that time, kept prices down. The idea was volume, volume, volume, consume, consume, consume. But now prices are up on consumer goods, wages are stagnant, due to the "green" dryup and the lack of disposable income, so many being out of work or making little or otherwise not spending.



posted on Sep, 21 2011 @ 09:09 AM
link   
reply to post by thisisnotaname
 

I support the Tea Party and the return of power back to the states. Before my retirement started I had a state food card, housing and utilities help. Government help is based on income. No longer qualify for more than $10.00/month now that retirement stated. Part of a post I made back in August.


I'm retired, I'll take social security, medicare, medicaid and whatever else is available to make saving last longer because I paid my dues through taxes. I expect it go away because no one wants to touch entitlements and it will collapse under its own weight before long. I would hope it's after I start my dirt nap because although I have a tent, know how to use a bow and guns, set traps, find water and can pick out edible plants, it would suck not to have electricity, fridge, microwave, AC, computer and hundreds of other things. I’m no Daisy Crockett and don’t look forward to that existence. I shutter to think about being an old lady in the woods trying to live off the land. Can you say bear food?

As long as they give out free money with no strings attached, you would be an idiot not to get your share.



posted on Sep, 21 2011 @ 09:27 AM
link   
I don't know about hippocritical but it is definitly ironic.



posted on Sep, 21 2011 @ 10:37 AM
link   

Originally posted by MrXYZ

Originally posted by beezzer

Originally posted by MrXYZ
reply to post by beezzer
 


Healthcare is already privatized! Even with Obamacare, it's private healthcare companies who get the $$$.


Which makes it baffling when the TP and other organizations call it "socialism" or "communism"


I'm confused. (normal condition with me)
You believe that healthcare is privatized even with government controlling/manipulating/governing/mandating
healthcare?


Of course it is, because all the $$$ is spent at PRIVATE HEALTHCARE COMPANIES, which means it's privatized. The government forcing the people to get healthcare (because it makes economic sense given the high costs uninsured people cost...and because having dying people in the street, or tons of people who can't get medical help and therefore can't work) from private company is still PRIVATIZED. It's not the government owning those companies.

In short: TP people can't seem to understand the definitions of "socialism" or "communism"...which isn't surprising


Many also do not realize that in order to avoid "socialism", they'd have to stop using roads, parks, postal services, police services, and any other service our taxes pay for. Why we think we need to draw the line at healthcare or food is beyond me.

By that rationale, all pedestrians and bicyclists should demand we privatize our roads, tunnels, bridges, traffic light infrastructure and maintenance crews since they are being "forced" to have money "stolen" from them and given to "lazy" automobile drivers.



ps - @Beezer: You are one of the sensible Tea Party people and they'd be better for it if they shared your willingness to discuss and digest dialog as you do.



posted on Sep, 21 2011 @ 10:53 AM
link   
It's all irrelevant.

Government officials are not suppose to take opinionated or political positions and get into debates or criticize yours. It goes against all the rules of a fair government.

So I would have stepped up and said that. Time and place for everything, government buildings are not the time nor place for gov't employees to have political debates.

Citizens can protest, but government officials are servants and not in the position to take sides. They need to follow the law. Plain and simple.



posted on Sep, 21 2011 @ 11:16 AM
link   
reply to post by thisisnotaname
 


If the Tea Party member was recently unemployed, in other words had been paying taxes into the system and providing welfare for others then the answer is no. If the Tea Party member has never paid into the system then the answer is yes. There comes a time in most people's lives where one's beliefs are challenged, but when you have to put food on the table for your family sometimes one must swallow their pride and do whatever it takes and if that means applying for some unconstitutional benefit like food stamps then so be it. As the system stands right now, this Tea Party member is not a hypocrite as long as they have paid into the system. There is nothing wrong with trying to get some of your money back, because god knows it would be spent on someone that has never paid into the system or someone that just crossed the border yesterday.



posted on Sep, 21 2011 @ 11:23 AM
link   

Originally posted by OptimusSubprime
reply to post by thisisnotaname
 


If the Tea Party member was recently unemployed, in other words had been paying taxes into the system and providing welfare for others then the answer is no. If the Tea Party member has never paid into the system then the answer is yes. There comes a time in most people's lives where one's beliefs are challenged, but when you have to put food on the table for your family sometimes one must swallow their pride and do whatever it takes and if that means applying for some unconstitutional benefit like food stamps then so be it. As the system stands right now, this Tea Party member is not a hypocrite as long as they have paid into the system. There is nothing wrong with trying to get some of your money back, because god knows it would be spent on someone that has never paid into the system or someone that just crossed the border yesterday.


So let's say that is the case and that Tea Party member had been paying into the system for the last 10 years. Now let's take that same person and have him enter the workforce climate today instead of 10 years ago and he can't find a job. Through no fault of his own is he unemployed; he just didn't get the benefit of a job-rich economy that the rest of us did. Would it be hypocritical then?

The point is that it is hypocritical because the Tea Party condemns people who use the system to survive. Period. My wife's best friend's husband is a bit critical on obese people. He often makes remarks about them as the pass by. But he's a bit tubby. Now, he could say "well it's a thyroid problem and it's not my fault. Not like all those fatties walking by" but it still hypocritical.



posted on Sep, 21 2011 @ 11:41 AM
link   
Watching Tea Partiers scramble to rationalize and defend someone getting food stamps is hilarious. You see a lot of intellectual squirming on many issues here on ATS, but this is a gem. Its amazing to me how people can make contradictory posts within minutes of each other.



posted on Sep, 21 2011 @ 11:46 AM
link   
reply to post by thisisnotaname
 

It'll be interesting to see just what effect on the 2012 election, the Tea Party and current Republican attacks on social programs will be. Will they have lost a signifigant percentage of those receiving or soon to be receiving Social Security? Will they have lost a high percentage of those with a right-leaning philosophy that have used or still using any of the social programs?
Used to be that politicians would steer clear of being branded as a hater of social programs and the people using them.(typified as all lazy-assed thieves and abusers stealing their money) Now, it seems to be a 'badge of courage' to vilify not only the system, but the people who use it, and unabashedly attack them.
Costly error? I guess we'll see.



posted on Sep, 21 2011 @ 11:49 AM
link   

Originally posted by whaaa
It's hypocritical for TPM member to call on others to not rely on outside assistance, be self reliant and take personal responsibility when they themselves are standing in line at the welfare office or applying for food stamps or other assistance from the state.
A TPM who does not call on others to do without is not being hypocritical for accepting welfare. A TPM who supports private charities with their own money is willing to put their money where their mouth is. A TPM who is not for abolishing Welfare, but reorganizing it, is not being hypocritical. The only people who are making this a hypocrisy are those who are insisting on limiting the motivations of the people who are TPM. Since the welfare clerk jumped the gun without finding out the details--and has probably already decided on just exactly what a TPM is, she/he/it's going to see hypocrisy.



posted on Sep, 21 2011 @ 12:10 PM
link   

Originally posted by Southern Guardian

Originally posted by CynicalDrivel
1. Because the TP member wants FS to be run by their state, not by the centralized government.


They want welfare to be run by their state? This doesn't make any sense. You have a tea partier taking out welfare, which is in part federally funded, and they're doing this to make a political point that it should be a states issue?

By the way, states have every opportunity to go off and do this welfare thing themselves, infact, they'll take a load off the government. Maybe certain state officials can go ahead and cut ofutfederally funded welfare and medicare, we'll see how that goes from there.
This isn't an all TP members statement.

1. I agree that if we really want charity to be run by the state, then we should set the state's charity system up, and cut off federal aid in the state ASAP. This reactionary measure we're participating in is guaranteed to ensure that folks are going to fall through the cracks. But when you look at the health care system, my state already had great charity run hospitals and clinics. We never had the need for Obama-care to step in. He's messing up an already-working system. Now, does that mean that people are not helped by Obama-care, here in this state? No! I know 2 who were in desperate need of it when it came through. But number-wise, the vast majority of folks down here didn't need it, because we had a system in place.

2. I can fully believe that it's not the Feds job to support those in need, yet accept that we'll not be rid of the need for federal aid. The problem is that if a baby starves because of my ideals, their blood is on my head. Just like if my help ensures that the kid never learns any self reliability, the blood is still on my head. The welfare system is corrupt, broken, and in far more use than it ever should have been designed for. And at times, the broken, corrupt, and plain evil winds up doing good. this is not a one size fits all world.

3. For some TP members, there is a hypocrisy in this subject. Which is why I stated that the enslaved don't know how to be free men. They can see the need to be free, but they don't know what such freedom costs.

4. You can have an ideal and accept a compromise. We're never going to be free of welfare altogether, even if I want it gone.

This could go on, but, meh.



posted on Sep, 21 2011 @ 12:28 PM
link   

Originally posted by FallenWun
reply to post by beezzer
 


Please let me ask you an honest question.
Do you want to live in a society where the streets are littered with the dead and dying because they had bad luck, were a victim, or even just made poor choices in life?
People who feel that way about the downtrodden will do something THEMSELVES about the situation--forget the government.

We are kidding ourselves if we think that no one falls through the cracks with the system we have in place now. I know how much charity work is still done for people on medicare, medicaid, and food stamps, et. al. Do you have any earthly idea of how many people on food stamps I wind up having to feed out of my own pocket a year? Do you know how many I help that don't need permanent help and never seek welfare? Do you know how many who don't qualify that need help I wind up helping? We make under 40K a year, we can't supposedly support all these people. And it's not like we've never received help--I can't tell you how many times I've bailed my parents out and they've bailed us out. We're not even some of the ones that devote our entire life to at-home missionary work.

From the bottom of a private, individual charity-worker's heart, where there is not bureaucratic red-tape to dance through for help, the welfare system in this country is a corrupt monster set up to consume us all.



posted on Sep, 21 2011 @ 01:44 PM
link   
reply to post by Southern Guardian
 


"are they unconstitutional"

yes from this perspective whats the purpose of the us constitution?

to protect personal freedoms and liberties

what is ss,medicare and medcaid a government tax and a financial obligation forced at gunpoint.the payee doesnt get to decide when they get it or how much they get in return.

what is ss a 800 paycheck for miillions enslaving that person for the rest of their life with no future of anything ever getting better anything but freedom.

"to promote the general welfare" in that same constitution those programs do nothing of the sort

which means the welfare of the state and in the country not to deprive them and to keep them down.

1 day when people turn 65 they will find out how right i am about it all they are not going to be drinking champagne and having caviar dreams.

americans are in for a rude awakening which is why i preach other investments ira,401k, insurance policies that pay out over years.

private investment will keep with infaltion and those people who listen and who people who know the deal ALWAYS live a far better life than anyone on social ss and those other government programs.

and i take alot of flack for that position usuall retort is bankers just rip people off or they will lose their monies.

my answer is governemnt has been ripping people off for decades and they beg for more of the same.




edit on 21-9-2011 by neo96 because: (no reason given)



posted on Sep, 21 2011 @ 01:59 PM
link   
I would say its hypocritical, seeing how they hate the government doing anything, specially when it comes to taxes, and where does the welfare money come from?



posted on Sep, 21 2011 @ 03:25 PM
link   
Its not Obama's money and our money so he has a right to it. It does not matter how much money we try and pay to the evil fed to get out of debt America is #ed



posted on Sep, 21 2011 @ 03:32 PM
link   
reply to post by beezzer
 



You honestly believe that people can't take care of themselves?

No, and I think this is one attitude that separates left and right. Have we as a society been able to take care of ourselves? Only in an old west setting may this be true, where people genuinely took care of theirs and defended themselves with guns, in a semi-lawless environment. However, today's world is full of both lazy and apathetic individuals, and pregnancies keep occurring with irresponsible parents, so the wheel keeps turning. I'm not saying I am down with abortion, I am just trying to equate a reality, that imo, no, overall we can't take care of ourselves. Granted the 'system' doesn't help things out either. But all these humans being brought into the world as an 'accident', albeit considered a 'blessing' at times. continues to fill society with empty, desperate and unmotivated people that do/did not have a good upbringing, where it all begins. Then there are the sick, mentally ill and poor people that are unable to help themselves enough. There people laid off because of jobs sent over seas or co's reducing costs for better profit gains.

The answer is not either or, but rather this and that, and a balance has to be maintained. It makes me crazy when people say the parents should be more responsible, which I agree, but this is NOT reality! People keep having sex, people keep abusing substances, and people keep lying and cheating, this is part of humanity, like it or not. These human elements must be dealt with, and force does not work, historically, so let's create plans and come together for some solutions instead of trying to claim a stake in one ideology, then point fingers, we are too complex for that.

Would I like to see a self sufficient society? Hell yes, but we can't even do that these days because of both gov regulations, and some corporate policies. The answer? I don't know, but imho, no we can't take care of ourselves, overall.
Sometimes I think those that won't or can't pull up their bootstraps should live elsewhere if they refuse to better themselves after being provided with opportunity, and be separated from those that try to do good. Send them to an island or something. But that sounds pretty horrible no? I don't know man, but I still think it is a balancing act, not an 'either or' choice.

Peace,
spec

edit on 21-9-2011 by speculativeoptimist because: (no reason given)



posted on Sep, 21 2011 @ 03:39 PM
link   

Originally posted by speculativeoptimist
reply to post by beezzer
 



You honestly believe that people can't take care of themselves?

No, and I think this is one attitude that separates left and right.
I'm definitely on the Right, and right of the bat in this thread, I said that the enslaved don't understand the consequences of freedom. The difference is that the Left has the mentality of "since they cannot take care of themselves, we will take care of them". The Right, on the other hand, the mentality is "Teach the man to FREAKING FISH already." Making the 1st generation stand on it's own never works, especially without harsh lessons. Making the 2nd learn from the first's failures? Much better chance of success.




top topics



 
4
<< 1  2    4 >>

log in

join