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.

 

Before There Was Welfare There Was Charity

page: 18
53
<< 15  16  17    19  20  21 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on May, 27 2012 @ 10:55 PM
link   

Originally posted by timetothink
reply to post by Beanskinner
 


I do believe that may be a straw man argument right there!!

The constitution allows for infrastructure and defense NOT welfare as we have it now.


So you are a constitutionalist then rather than a republican?

Neither is the IRS or Federal Reserve part of the constitution, but guess what, both exist as well!

That is why a document written 230 years ago is quite irrellevant in the 21st century. Not saying it is null and void though because that would be blasphemy and traiterous. It just needs to be taken with a grain of salt.....




posted on May, 27 2012 @ 10:57 PM
link   
reply to post by neo96
 


You are right you got me on that one...state and local issues...the constitution allows for very little at the fed level almost nothing really exept keeping our God given rights secure.



posted on May, 27 2012 @ 11:00 PM
link   
reply to post by EarthCitizen07
 


I never said I was a Republican...I do believe in our constitution...I do not believe in the fed or the IRS or 95% of the alphabet soup we have.



posted on May, 27 2012 @ 11:02 PM
link   


That is why a document written 230 years ago is quite irrellevant in the 21st century. Not saying it is null and void though because that would be blasphemy and traiterous. It just needs to be taken with a grain of salt.....


That comment will be taken with a grain of salt feel free to say its blasphemy and call me a traitor.

Second.
edit on 27-5-2012 by neo96 because: (no reason given)



posted on May, 28 2012 @ 02:19 AM
link   

Originally posted by seabag
reply to post by Beanskinner
 



I think the more shocking thing is how you guys can demonize the idea of feeding

hungry Americans.


I have a simple question and expect a simple answer….

Why can’t those hungry Americans feed themselves like the rest of us??


What is the point of that question?

Do you think hungry people anywhere in the world

Do it for sport?

I'm not sure what hyperbolic answer you want.

Why don't you answer your own loaded "question"?



posted on May, 28 2012 @ 02:31 AM
link   

Originally posted by timetothink
reply to post by Beanskinner
 


I do believe that may be a straw man argument right there!!

The constitution allows for infrastructure and defense NOT welfare as we have it now.



I do believe, welfare has been practiced for several generations.

And I do believe the Supreme Court, which is a constitutionally

Mandated body has yet to overturn the legal framework of welfare

As it exists in America based upon Constitutional questions.

So why don't you bring suit (again) and try your hand.


I do believe you brought your own straw man to the party



posted on May, 28 2012 @ 02:39 AM
link   

Originally posted by neo96
reply to post by NoHierarchy
 





You serious right now? Ok, have it your way... let's have a government that invests all of our money into the 1%, corporate America, the police state, and militarism instead of renewables, space travel, universal healthcare, workers, education, and the poor. Yeah, that's extremely intelligent of you.


Why yes it is extremely intelligent of me for not being a communism or communist lite-socialist the problem there is money is being invested in bloated out of control government that serves no one but it's own self interest.


*reads your worn-out talking points, learns nothing new*



posted on May, 28 2012 @ 02:39 AM
link   

Originally posted by neo96
reply to post by Beanskinner
 


The fundamental rule is government is printing and borrowing and giving to people who take more out of that system than pay into it.

And i am talking about that welfare recipient and the most basic economic rule there is and one that makes the topic is when the cost of doing business is when your paying out more than your taking in:

You go bankrupt just like this nation is.


Well yes, are you surprised that unemployed and hungry

People put in less to the system? Isn't that the bloody point

And the reason they need assistance in the first place?



posted on May, 28 2012 @ 02:59 AM
link   
Wow this thread is still going strong... How? Don't take this the wrong way but it looks like most of you are crazier than even I am, and the psychologists that your "welfare" money paid for told me I was crazy when I was a child. It's obvious that none of you have the right answers or you would have already succeeded in doing something about this pi$$ poor situation that we are in now. So why continue to argue over this pointless crap when each of you could be doing something to make the area you live a better place? I mean you claim you know how to do so, talk is cheap, prove it or stop arguing over something that you don't care as much about as your claims would suggest.
I don't want to hear excuses as to why you can't, those contain no more validity than the excuses used in the arguments to support welfare, this is simply a factual statement.

Everything that has been said in this thread is merely theoretical. That of course includes both sides.

Now I have a question for those who are on the side against all forms of welfare and please do not use a counter argument as an answer because I am not intelligent enough to provide the answer you are looking for. I'm not asking for sources that you believe answer the question, rather your own opinions and explanations for why your idea is the right one and how it would work if placed in effect.

1) The government paying for any type of education is a form of welfare. So I'm assuming we should remove this. If the nation did not provide schools how would average middle class families and the poor families be capable of paying to send their children to a privately funded school? If the family cannot financially afford to send their children to school than those children should not attend school, am I correct in this assumption?

2) Stupid people, alcoholics, drug addicts, and those who full time at a job for minimum wage or only a few dollars more, may not be capable of providing all of the needs to their children. The government should not use tax payers dollars to pay to support these children or help the honest hard working families that are not making enough money to survive on their own. Please do not tell me that if there was no welfare system that the goodwill of others would handle tis problem because I believe that most of us here are intelligent enough to understand that in most cases only friends and family of those people would want to help them. What if their friends and family are in no better position than they are, then who helps them? Should we just let them rot?

3) Learning a trade or seeking any kind of post secondary education costs money and those costs continue to rise. It is all but fact that today in the U.S. finding a job that pays more than minimum wage without already knowing how to do something or at the very least the basics of how to do it, is damn near impossible and there are certainly nowhere near enough of those opportunities to go around for the new people entering the workforce every day. One cannot get a job for minimum wage and pay every bill and also save the money to pay for their own future education, not on minimum wage. So how would anybody who gorws up lower middle class or poor be able to learn how to do anything that would give them much of a chance at landing a job that pays an average middle class or above it wage? If they grow up poor should they always be poor and that be accepted as an unfortunate fact of life? Many of those poor people will undoubtedly possess the intellect and capabilities of doing the same jobs as those who grew up in a family with more money and might even be able to do great things for out nation. Should they not be given the chance because their simply isn't enough money to go around? How would our nation's poorer citizens such a lifestyle?

4) If support for the poor were instantly cut off, a large majority would turn to a life of crime to meet their needs and their children of such people would likely never see any chance to lead what most of you would consider a more "moral" lifestyle. So we throw the idiots in jail when they commit those crimes. Well the problem with that is that many of our jails are already overcrowded, just try to imagine the increase of crime rates when you cut off the poor. Where would we put these new criminals? I suppose we should just eliminate them? How is that not evil? Murder people who if it were not for the fact that they had absolutely no means of survival without turning to a life of crime they would have never done so in the first place, how is that justice? If we are not to eliminate them then how would we solve the problem?

Just provide me with your own personal opinion of possible solutions to the potential problems that I have just listed could arise, that is all I am asking for. If it is not too much trouble please be as in depth as possible and explain how and why your solutions would work well. Thank you for your time.



posted on May, 28 2012 @ 11:17 AM
link   

Originally posted by timetothink
reply to post by EarthCitizen07
 


I never said I was a Republican...I do believe in our constitution...I do not believe in the fed or the IRS or 95% of the alphabet soup we have.


I believe in the IRS but I don't believe in the Federal Reserve being semi-private.

Some of the alphabet soup is necessary but you should read some richard boylan material.



posted on May, 28 2012 @ 11:25 AM
link   

Originally posted by neo96


That is why a document written 230 years ago is quite irrellevant in the 21st century. Not saying it is null and void though because that would be blasphemy and traiterous. It just needs to be taken with a grain of salt.....


That comment will be taken with a grain of salt feel free to say its blasphemy and call me a traitor.

Second.
edit on 27-5-2012 by neo96 because: (no reason given)


Too many commercial codes have been added to the federal constitution over the years. It has become more of a corporate charter than any national document to be revered. I think it either needs to be edited or after the OWS revolution is complete the people will draft a new constitution, this time without the help of masons or right wing lunatics.

Sufficient enough feedback from me? Keep loving it though since I can't nor have any desire to stop you. You guys are delluding yourselfs and some people are using it to their advantage for personal gains, such as the twisted meaning of freedom of speech to include campaign donations or the second amendment that allows militias.



posted on May, 28 2012 @ 11:34 AM
link   
reply to post by NoHierarchy
 





*reads your worn-out talking points, learns nothing new*


"has read that same tired old excuse called welfare and has created the largest welfare state in existence and is on the path of Greece."

Before there was charity now their is entitlement because people "believe" they are owed something for merely existing in this world..

I agree haven't learned anything new,people are writing checks they can't cash and the money has dried up but hey let's keep doing what we have been doing for the greater good of the "great society".
edit on 28-5-2012 by neo96 because: (no reason given)



posted on May, 28 2012 @ 11:37 AM
link   
reply to post by Beanskinner
 





Well yes, are you surprised that unemployed and hungry People put in less to the system? Isn't that the bloody point And the reason they need assistance in the first place?


The bloody point as with any government program is that they are self sustainable meaning pay for themselves and the sheer number of people on them is ridiculous.

Government created the problem so they have no solution.



posted on May, 28 2012 @ 11:41 AM
link   
reply to post by EarthCitizen07
 





Too many commercial codes have been added to the federal constitution over the years. It has become more of a corporate charter than any national document to be revered. I think it either needs to be edited or after the OWS revolution is complete the people will draft a new constitution, this time without the help of masons or right wing lunatics.


Sorry thought we were talking about welfare and anyone point out where it shows that other people are suppose to pay for other people from cradle to grave?




Sufficient enough feedback from me? Keep loving it though since I can't nor have any desire to stop you. You guys are delluding yourselfs and some people are using it to their advantage for personal gains, such as the twisted meaning of freedom of speech to include campaign donations or the second amendment that allows militias.


Still don't see a connection to welfare all i have heard is peoples constitutional right to say," give people free stuff" from the I want it all,i want it now,from the I don't care how crowd.

edit on 28-5-2012 by neo96 because: (no reason given)



posted on May, 28 2012 @ 12:24 PM
link   

Originally posted by neo96
reply to post by Beanskinner
 





Well yes, are you surprised that unemployed and hungry People put in less to the system? Isn't that the bloody point And the reason they need assistance in the first place?


The bloody point as with any government program is that they are self sustainable meaning pay for themselves and the sheer number of people on them is ridiculous.

Government created the problem so they have no solution.



How did government create hunger? Did you realize people

Have been hungry since the down time, before government?

How does a million dollar bomb that blows up 1 time pay

For itself?



posted on May, 28 2012 @ 12:54 PM
link   
reply to post by neo96
 



Still don't see a connection to welfare all i have heard is peoples constitutional right to say," give people free stuff" from the I want it all,i want it now,from the I don't care how crowd.


You seem a little too Johnny One Note to have much credibility Neo

It's not just you of course, but you are consistently and completely unwavering in your arguments. I realize in here it's mostly for sport - but it's exhausting

I realize it's not much different in the other camp - but I gotta say, I read your posts and you won't budge. You won't even flinch - you give no quarter. So, you make no sense. This isn't a cage-match - we have real problems and you and so many others only see opponents

I'm singling you out because - I'd give anything to hear you say one reasonable thing about your opponents. Go ahead - say something nice about the progressives Neo - I know you have it in you :-)

Unfortunately, the discussion happening outside ATS isn't necessarily any more grownup than it is in here - I almost weep for my country

Almost :-)

Do you honestly believe that crowd you criticize with so much venom just wants and wants and wants...for no good reason? The left is only about entitlement? We're just a needy, selfish drain on socety?

Isn't that a little simple? Welfare is THE problem?

But a future full of war is sensible? And cost effective? Is it also intelligent, prudent and - get ready for this one - right?

The political debate in this country has been turned into a cartoon - which would be bad enough if we didn't have real problems and a lot of hard work ahead of us - then it would just be embarrassing. But, we do have a long hard road ahead of us and if anyone is at all interested in the good of their country - they'll realize it's going to involve some compromise - from both sides. And some sacrifice...

Grownups realize we don't live in a Marvel comic book. It took a lot of people with different points of view to create this mess - it's going to take all of us to get out of it

No cape-wearing savior is going to swoop in and save us - and the conservatives aren't going to save us either. We all know welfare has and would continue under the republicans exactly as it has under the democrats. And so will the wars...

It's going to take the left and the right working together if we want any real change. Of course - what could a hippie possibly know about life - right?

oh, and while I'm here - shout out to the fascists!

(that was for you Neo)

:-)

edit on Mon May 28 2012 by DontTreadOnMe because: Go After the Ball, Not the Player!



posted on May, 28 2012 @ 12:58 PM
link   
reply to post by Beanskinner
 





How did government create hunger? Did you realize people Have been hungry since the down time, before government? How does a million dollar bomb that blows up 1 time pay


Failed leadership,Failed policies,Failed regulations,Failed government agencies that have created more "hungry people" than there has ever been.

People have been hungry long before Roosevelt,Johnson and other government saviors that have created more people than they have ever saved.

Before entitlement that was charity that fed,clothed,educated.



posted on May, 28 2012 @ 01:08 PM
link   
reply to post by Spiramirabilis
 





Do you honestly believe that crowd you criticize with so much venom just wants and wants and wants...for no good reason? The left is only about entitlement? We're just a needy, selfish drain on socety? Isn't that a little simple? Welfare is THE problem?


Making a lot of assumptions there so to address the above quote since that was the only thing there close to being the topic of discussion.

So.the group I criticize "with so much venom" is Government welfare is a symptom of a larger disease of people whose only solution is to throw money at it, and then never look to see at the causation of those problems.

Put government in check and reduce it's power the rest will resolve itself millions of Americans have their own problems to deal with and then be saddle with someone else's.

Those who can help,will as in free will,but that is their choice to make not someone else's and not government's.
edit on 28-5-2012 by neo96 because: (no reason given)



posted on May, 28 2012 @ 01:12 PM
link   
reply to post by doomedtoday
 





Everything that has been said in this thread is merely theoretical. That of course includes both sides.


Theories are testable. The Welfare state has had its tests, and has been falsified.




1) The government paying for any type of education is a form of welfare. So I'm assuming we should remove this. If the nation did not provide schools how would average middle class families and the poor families be capable of paying to send their children to a privately funded school? If the family cannot financially afford to send their children to school than those children should not attend school, am I correct in this assumption?


We should absolutely take the monopoly of education out of government hands. Your use of language regarding "nation" is misleading. While the federal government does spend money on education - and they should not - they do not however "provide" schools. This is done by local communities and to a lesser degree the states. Next, your concern of "average middle class families and the poor"'s capability to send their children to school assumes that all parents want to do this. Every state comes with compulsory education laws that criminalize parents who do not send their children to school. By your rules you do not want links so you are going to have to take my word for this, but compulsory education laws in the U.S. did not begin until Massachusetts implemented such legislation in 1852. It would be 15 years before another state followed suit, and by 1918 all states had adopted compulsory education bills.

Teachers today complain of classrooms being too overcrowded, schools are filled with security guards and metal detectors, and this condition is not a condition caused by the willing students who go to school to learn, it is caused by the students who are compelled to go to school and do not want to be there. Take this condition away and you have less crowded school rooms, no need for security guards and metal detectors, and just willing students. For those who who cannot afford to send their children to private school there are now, and will be scholarships available for them.




2) Stupid people, alcoholics, drug addicts, and those who full time at a job for minimum wage or only a few dollars more, may not be capable of providing all of the needs to their children. The government should not use tax payers dollars to pay to support these children or help the honest hard working families that are not making enough money to survive on their own. Please do not tell me that if there was no welfare system that the goodwill of others would handle tis problem because I believe that most of us here are intelligent enough to understand that in most cases only friends and family of those people would want to help them. What if their friends and family are in no better position than they are, then who helps them? Should we just let them rot?


I all ready did tell you that the goodwill of others helped my drunk mother raise myself and my seven brothers and sisters, but apparently you ignored that post, or didn't bother to read it while you were spending all your time lamenting what would happen to stupid people.




3) Learning a trade or seeking any kind of post secondary education costs money and those costs continue to rise.


One simple word answers your entire paragraph: Apprenticeship.


If support for the poor were instantly cut off, a large majority would turn to a life of crime to meet their needs and their children of such people would likely never see any chance to lead what most of you would consider a more "moral" lifestyle.


The correlation between welfare recipients and crime is fairly high, so even on welfare these people are turning to a life of crime in order meet their needs, and if not able to meet their needs, and if not stealing or committing fraud, they turn to substance abuse, which the great and glorious government has deemed a crime.

Now, I've answered your questions sans links as you've demanded. I now have a demand, if you choose to argue these points - which is your right - I ask you to provide links with verifiable sources to back up your arguments.



posted on May, 28 2012 @ 01:20 PM
link   

Originally posted by neo96
reply to post by Spiramirabilis
 





Do you honestly believe that crowd you criticize with so much venom just wants and wants and wants...for no good reason? The left is only about entitlement? We're just a needy, selfish drain on socety? Isn't that a little simple? Welfare is THE problem?


Making a lot of assumptions there so to address the above quote since that was the only thing there close to being the topic of discussion.

So.the group I criticize "with so much venom" is Government welfare is a symptom of a larger disease of people whose only solution is to throw money at it, and then never look to see at the causation of those problems.

Put government in check and reduce it's power the rest will resolve itself millions of Americans have their own problems to deal with and then be saddle with someone else's.

Those who can help,will as in free will,but that is their choice to make not someone else's and not government's.
edit on 28-5-2012 by neo96 because: (no reason given)


Yet you are constantly bitching about the symptoms while ignoring the disease itself.

Government and big business are siammese twins! What more needs to be said?

Stop blaming government and blame BOTH if you are interested in credibility. I have said that welfare reform is necessary but without bringing back the jobs from india and china, it would prove to be a very stupid idea and actually worsten the already bad situation.

Our economy is in such shables(terminally ill) that only a multifaceted approach will prove useful. Anything else is willful ignorance and questions of evil agendas start coming into play. I am actually starting to think YOU WANT THE ECONOMY TO CRASH ON PURPOSE!



new topics

top topics



 
53
<< 15  16  17    19  20  21 >>

log in

join