If You're Poor, You Didn't Get There On Your Own. Government Helped You Get There...

Originally posted by pisssss

Originally posted by The Old American
reply to post by pisssss

 

America spends hundreds of billions of dollars a year keeping people on welfare. That's not propaganda, that's disgusting.

And I'm not a conservative.

/TOA

Oh I see, and I guess feeding people is detrimental to those people because it makes them
dependent on food.

I am glad you are an OLD American -

I understand that you're ignorant, I just can't figure out why. Feeding people is fine. But when was it again they were going to be encouraged to feed themselves? Perhaps the day after your lord and masters in D.C. decide that creating a better environment for job creation will help the poor get those much-needed jobs.

/TOA

Well now ! I was taking this in a slightly different way than others did.

I was taking it a rather well done parody of the original Obama speech, with the point being that the government tends to create poverty and perpetuate it. If business success has the government infrastructure to thank, then poverty does too.

Government has created poverty and perpetuates it through both the favoritism of crony capitalism and the destruction of local communities, unequal protection under the law, and through a web of poverty programs that tend to keep the poor enslaved.

I am not wealthy, and I personally know many who are far worse off than I. For all the positive infrastructure those in Washington like to claim credit for, there is a far more sinister infrastructure that serves to keep many Americans in abject poverty and hopelessness. And yes, the poverty pimps in Washington and in the corporate boardrooms like to salve whatever dim consciences they have by pretending to care, but the one thing they will not do is relinquish the hold they have over the underclasses. They'd rather feed the caged pigeons than allow the birds to fly on their own.

To some extent, we all have the power as individuals to succeed in some small way or succumb to failure. Obama was correct in that government infrastructure does aid in our success, but what he refused to acknowledge was the negative role of government, which actually presents a huge obstacle to success for most Americans.

This is what I took this thread to be about.

reply to post by seaside sky


And you would be exactly right.

Unfortunately, it isn't satire.

/TOA

Originally posted by The Old American

Originally posted by pisssss

Originally posted by The Old American
reply to post by pisssss

 

America spends hundreds of billions of dollars a year keeping people on welfare. That's not propaganda, that's disgusting.

And I'm not a conservative.

/TOA

Oh I see, and I guess feeding people is detrimental to those people because it makes them
dependent on food.

I am glad you are an OLD American -

I understand that you're ignorant, I just can't figure out why. Feeding people is fine. But when was it again they were going to be encouraged to feed themselves? Perhaps the day after your lord and masters in D.C. decide that creating a better environment for job creation will help the poor get those much-needed jobs.

/TOA

Welfare has had people on it's rosters even when the economy was at it's strongest points.
You assume that people like to be subsistent and feel like crap because people like you are
about as Christian in spirit as Osama Bin Laden.

I believe most people are good, and I believe most people would rather have esteem than
a hand out. Your perspective says a lot about YOU not them.

Out of 100 people, 51 pay for 100.

Out of 100 people, 51 pay for our military,and the other 49 percent who are payed government employees to direct and spend the money from the 51%. Teachers, Garbagemen,ROCKET Scientists)

Add the Corporate Off Shore Tax benefits and lobbiests to make it happen. It get's annoying.

I don't mind being a sheeple. I mind the congressman and senators being excluded from the same mandated healthcare.
They and their families are exempt. After being payed 100 to 200 thousand a year as our representives, and they get to do insider trading as a perk for the job?

It just get's annoying.
news.yahoo.com...

reply to post by The Old American

Request permission to plagerize you sir. That has to be the most profound realization I've seen in years.

The government didn't put you there. The GOP says the unions put you there. Damn unions wanting people to make a decent livable wage. How dare they want to cut into the owners record profits.

reply to post by GoldenRuled


Have at, sir!

You're welcome to it.

/TOA

Department of natural resource DNR was proud of the rise in food aid in our public aid offices..on the other hand... .theres a sign in the parks they posted in all there natural resources it says" please do not feed the animals they will become dependent" labors cheaper out of the USA if they can get it passed we wont have cash just plastic it works for public aid exsept that with out the service charge they will tack on...i allready told my boss i wont use plastic ill have to have a derect deposit plastic comeing people...i can wate untill all the golden eggs are used up and the giant pukes.lol

reply to post by boot2theface


I know it's been said before but I think most conservatives are completely okay with a social safety net. It's when it becomes a hammock that i have a problem. I don't know you any more than you know OP, so I really don't know what "very poor" means to you. I can definitely say that there are very poor people in many countries that don't have food or shelter, much less a computer.

reply to post by glasshouse


As I've said, I'm not a conservative. I have a libertarian political and social ideology. But I'm OK with a safety net. If someone is truly in need, I can spare a few bucks for them. But, just like congress, there need to be term limits. But the only way to do that is for the government to stop making it so hard for business owners to create jobs.

/TOA

reply to post by buster2010

Public sector unions, in my opinion, create more problems than they fix, in some cases working in direct contradiction to the best interests of the union's respective government.

F.D.R. on collective bargaining in public sector unions:

“The process of collective bargaining, as usually understood, cannot be transplanted into the public service,” Roosevelt wrote in 1937 to the National Federation of Federal Employees. Yes, public workers may demand fair treatment, wrote Roosevelt. But, he wrote, “I want to emphasize my conviction that militant tactics have no place” in the public sector. “A strike of public employees manifests nothing less than an intent on their part to prevent or obstruct the operations of Government.”

www.outsidethebeltway.com...

I'm not willing to say that public unions don't do anything positive but I do think, in particular, the American education system has been negatively impacted by them

reply to post by The Old American
I hear ya. Not trying to pigeon hole.

I guess people didn't get the memo about the "Personal Responsibility and Work Opportunity Act" which placed a lifetime limit on federal welfare programs. It's hard for the federal government to keep people poor as you suggest when they can only be on the program for a limited amount of time.

I hope we're narrowing this to first world nations, because the reasons for the poverty of those who once had access to land and resources is due to our pitpbulls, and we don't seem to chain them, ie. World Bank, Bildenburgs and the whole hellish demons they serve who really like suffering alot and are basically trying to dump alot of karma on souls in their tests, to prevent them progressing.

In any case, in Canada for example poverty occurs for a variety of reasons.

High rental prices. So even the working poor can't afford food, and if you don't have familie to share better properties, you are really living on the fringe of life dangling from a thread.

Unequal physical or mental abilities, illness, mental illness, race, for example Natives tend to be alot poorer overall than whites.

Thank God for some of the programs though, they're a matter of life and death to many.

Now if you were born healthy, and attractive and very outgoing, you may find yourself turning down jobs. Don't forget to pat yourself on the back and primp in front of the mirror. You're all that and so much better than everyone else, that is a given.

Well, most smoozers are fake, and liars and cons, and alot of people who make it the top, are quite crooked, its just the way they operate.

Those shy humble ones have hearts of gold and are terrific people.

IN fact, I've met down and out, black market criminals that had more integrity than the group that thinks its all that.

The reason they have such a huge program of silencing the poor, is because if everyone was taught from childhood, in shcools and in church's (surprise surprise because Christ did teach some things, but most ignore), that all equal and all need to be respected and listened too, why then they would gain in understanding how different the circumstances and health are for all, how this system is unethical, cirminal and needs to be changed.

That its slavery.

reply to post by Kaploink

I guess you didn't get the memo that its in the process of being gutted.

Obama Reforming Welfare? July 16, 2012: With the stroke of a pen last week, President Obama gutted the 1996 Welfare Reform Act which was signed into law by fellow Democrat Bill Clinton. The act also know as The Personal Responsibility and Work Opportunity Reconciliation Act of 1996, was one of the few if only entitlement programs that was doing what it was set out to do.

The underlying reason that the Welfare Reform Act was working is that it required those adults who are able to work, to work, or be enrolled in a training program for work, as a requirement of receiving welfare benefits. Overall the Welfare Reform Act aims and goals were,
• Aiming to encourage two-parent families and discouraging out-of-wedlock births.
• Ending welfare as an entitlement program.
• Enhancing enforcement of child support.
• Placing a lifetime limit of five years on benefits paid by federal funds.
• Requiring recipients to begin working after two years of receiving benefits.

In the 40 years prior to welfare reform, welfare caseloads never saw any sort of significant decline. However from 1996 when the law was signed and until the year 2000, welfare caseloads were cut by nearly 50%. Other positive benefits saw increased employment of those on the program and a decline in child poverty.

This progress has been undone by the new directive from President Obama and handed down in a memo by the Secretary of Health and Human Services, Kathleen Sebelius. The memo, titled, Temporary Assistance for Needy Families Information Memorandum, advises States administering the Temporary Assistance for Needy Families (TANF) Program and other interested parties, that traditional TANF work requirements can be waived or overridden by a legal device called the section 1115 waiver authority under the Social Security law (42 U.S.C. 1315).
The problem with this memo, slight of hand, is that the TANF program requirements are not a part of section 1115. The legal reasoning that the President and HHS are using is called the section 1115 waiver authority under the Social Security law (42 U.S.C. 1315), and any of the laws provisions that can be waived must therefore be contained in Section 1115. The TANF work provisions requirements are contained in section 407 which is entitled, mandatory work requirements. This section as with most other TANF requirements, are deliberately not listed in section 1115, and therefore they are not waivable.

theaxiomreport.com...

How will this effect welfare caseloads, employment levels and child poverty?
I guess we're about to find out

reply to post by glasshouse


Most states have their own time limit laws in place for welfare. Ohio has even stricter time limits than what the Federal law says.

Promising to "end welfare as we know it," President Bill Clinton signed legislation in 1996 to abolish Aid To Families With Dependent Children, replacing it with Temporary Assistance for Needy Families. The new program has a strict five-year limit for cash assistance and requirements that recipients work or participate in job-training programs.

A year later, Ohio enacted its version of welfare reform, Ohio Works First, limiting cash assistance to three consecutive years with two more years available after recipients have been off the program for at least two years. Under eligibility rules, families with household incomes up to 50 percent of the federal poverty level are eligible for cash assistance. For a family of four, that's $884 a month.

www.dispatch.com...

reply to post by RealSpoke
You're right about Ohio, and probably some others, but do you know how many states have stricter work requirements than the Feds? I looked around for a minute but wasn't able to find a whole lot.

75% of Food Stamp recipients are families with children and most of them are what are called the "Working Poor". There's nothing that the Government does that keeps these people from going to school, or to seek out better employment.

The problem is that Republicans love to give tax breaks to corporations that are actively shipping jobs overseas. Recently the Republicans blocked a bill that would give tax break incentives to companies that bring jobs back to the U.S.

Senate Republicans on Thursday blocked the No.1 item on the president's congressional "to-do-list," refusing to allow a vote on a bill that would give tax breaks for companies that "insource" jobs to the U.S. from overseas while eliminating tax deductions for companies that move jobs abroad. In voting against the bill, Republicans raised both substantive and procedural problems with the measure.

Government loves poor people...that's why they keep making so many.