Greece demanding 382 billion from Germany for WWII

Status
Not open for further replies.
I don't have anything to prove. I'm simply asking to ensure we are learning the entire truth and not the partial truth a policy organization may be tempted to present.

Also, funds to children are not given to the child. A parent or guardian receives the funds. Since parents really should be the responsible party for their children's expenses, I'd call any aid to children really aid to parents who can't or won't step up and take fiscal responsibility for their children.

Originally Posted By: Mykl
Originally Posted By: andrewg

In the U.S.....just about ANY type of welfare or socialistic endeavor is immediately leached upon by the vast amount of low-lives and dead beats. Those that work are given the burden of those that won't.


91% of welfare recipients in the US are elderly, disabled, or in working households.


Originally Posted By: Mykl
Originally Posted By: javacontour
And how much are states required to pay because of unfunded federal mandates? I don't think the federal government fully funds those programs.

Looking at federal numbers is only part of the picture.


http://www.cbpp.org/cms/?fa=view&id=3677


If you have numbers that go beyond "I saw a guy..." I'd love to see them.

I'm also unsure of what how much states have to pay has to do with this. I'm refuting the idea that "ANY type of welfare or socialistic endeavor is immediately leached upon by the vast amount of low-lives and dead beats." Unless you think of your parents/grandparents as low life deadbeat leeches.
 
Last edited:
Originally Posted By: javacontour
I don't have anything to prove. I'm simply asking to ensure we are learning the entire truth and not the partial truth a policy organization may be tempted to present.


Thank you for your good spirited skepticism.

This is the best source that I have found even when considering the possibility of bias. I am always open to new sources of information, because if there are better ones I'd like the opportunity to adjust how I view this particular subject.
 
It's salient if states are paying benefits to those not in the categories outlined in your 91 percent.

I know that programs such as SNAP and TANF are only a small part. The two biggest entitlement categories in the budget are SSI and Medicare/Medicaid.

If the recipients set up a sustainable program that ensured their FICA taxes collected would have grown to be sufficient to pay future benefits, we would have no problems today. Instead the generations currently receiving benefits let their political leaders plow that money into the federal budget, leaving IOUs for later generations. So the money didn't grow, it was plowed into the general fund and spent.

I am not really swayed by the fact that they are old. So, they set up an unsustainable program and now expect later generations to keep promises we were not even alive to consider when made. They made themselves a bad promise and now expect following generations to bail them out of their poorly crafted systems.

If they are so old, they should have had the wisdom to fix it and not try to pass on the consequences to current and future taxpayers.
 
Last edited:
You can drop that number to 81% to account for state programs that study may have missed and my point still stands.

Comments regarding sustainability are a different conversation.
 
Originally Posted By: Mykl
You can drop that number to 81% to account for state programs that study may have missed and my point still stands.

Comments regarding sustainability are a different conversation.


Not really. If one is bankrupting themselves doing 'a greater good' is what they are doing really good? Could it be a cancer, killing the host?

It's a very salient question, because if the programs do harm, then we must evaluation who, what, when , where and why we are doing what we are doing.

Saying x percent are compelling groups doesn't really judge the efficacy of the programs. If people cannot escape, or follow-on generations are stuck in the same programs, then are they really working? If we didn't wisely invest SSI funds at the same time we saw birth rates drop and manufacturing jobs leave our nation, then perhaps what we are doing with those SSI funds needs a review.

There has to be more than an emotional appeal, asking what about the children or grandma?

What about the parents of the child? Why didn't grandma say no to the political leaders who set up the SSI Ponzi scheme?
 
What does any of that have to do with my contention regarding the attitude that welfare recipients are lazy deadbeats? How is anything that you are saying at all relevant?

The merits of these programs is a different conversation. I am very specifically addressing the hateful, ugly, and unproductive attitude toward the people whom these programs benefit, not whether or not they should exist in the first place.
 
Well you could argue that not investing SSI funds such that they would grow to pay future benefits is a pretty lazy implementation.

If grandma allowed this to happen and expects follow on generations to provide what should have been saved and invested, then isn't grandma as lazy as those being described here?

After all, grandma voted for the political leaders who did this. She didn't do her homework to see if what she supported, either actively of tacitly, then she was politically lazy.

I don't feel compelled to carry the consequences of such political slackers.
 
Originally Posted By: Mykl
Originally Posted By: andrewg

In the U.S.....just about ANY type of welfare or socialistic endeavor is immediately leached upon by the vast amount of low-lives and dead beats. Those that work are given the burden of those that won't.


91% of welfare recipients in the US are elderly, disabled, or in working households.

http://www.cbpp.org/cms/?fa=view&id=3677




For some reason I don't believe that one bit... And I live in socialist Canada...
wink.gif
 
Originally Posted By: Mykl
What does any of that have to do with my contention regarding the attitude that welfare recipients are lazy deadbeats? How is anything that you are saying at all relevant?

The merits of these programs is a different conversation. I am very specifically addressing the hateful, ugly, and unproductive attitude toward the people whom these programs benefit, not whether or not they should exist in the first place.


You quote the "statistics" of the CBPP as though this leftist think tank designed to promote progressive viewpoints, is above reproach....simply because it supports your ideology.

You obviously have not been around welfare recipients first-hand. Or....you just choose to disregard reality.

So I'm "hateful and ugly" because I don't like to support those that won't??

Ok.
 
Originally Posted By: andrewg
Originally Posted By: Mykl
What does any of that have to do with my contention regarding the attitude that welfare recipients are lazy deadbeats? How is anything that you are saying at all relevant?

The merits of these programs is a different conversation. I am very specifically addressing the hateful, ugly, and unproductive attitude toward the people whom these programs benefit, not whether or not they should exist in the first place.


You quote the "statistics" of the CBPP as though this leftist think tank designed to promote progressive viewpoints, is above reproach....simply because it supports your ideology.

You obviously have not been around welfare recipients first-hand. Or....you just choose to disregard reality.

So I'm "hateful and ugly" because I don't like to support those that won't??

Ok.


No, you're hateful and ugly because you're lumping all welfare recipients in with the actual deadbeats and lazy people. You're lumping them all together without even entertaining the possibility that maybe people on these programs are in situations that are more complicated than "just wants to sit on the couch and watch Netflix."

It's fine to feel resentful towards people who game the system and abuse it. But it's not fine to show the same attitude towards the millions of people on these programs who built the country you're living in, giving you all the advantages you have. Nor is it fine to say such words about the disabled, many of whom literally can't survive without this assistance.

Originally Posted By: Mykl
This is the best source that I have found even when considering the possibility of bias. I am always open to new sources of information, because if there are better ones I'd like the opportunity to adjust how I view this particular subject.


Please, do feel free to offer up a better source with a more transparent system for evaluating the subject.

Because you haven't, I suppose I should either assume that it's because you don't have one, or because you're lazy.

I have actually been around welfare recipients, and I did not at all think that my parents or grandparents were lazy deadbeats. But to be fair, that's anecdotal, which is basically meaningless, much like the evidence you've offered up to back up your hateful comments.
 
Also, you should know "but they're biased!" isn't really a counter-argument. It's just you throwing a fit about not have any useful information to counter with.

"But I saw a guy!" is also not a counter argument. Sample size error, try again.
 
Originally Posted By: Mykl
Also, you should know "but they're biased!" isn't really a counter-argument. It's just you throwing a fit about not have any useful information to counter with.

"But I saw a guy!" is also not a counter argument. Sample size error, try again.


If I had more time at the moment...I could easily copy and past or post links in direct conflict with the information you posted. That's not very hard to do...and I'm sure you know that.

But the simple fact is....I am AT WORK right now.....supporting (in part) the abusers of our flawed welfare system. So...you'll need to forgive my time constraints being that I must make a living and provide for myself....and those leaches.
 
Last edited:
Originally Posted By: andrewg
Originally Posted By: Mykl
Also, you should know "but they're biased!" isn't really a counter-argument. It's just you throwing a fit about not have any useful information to counter with.

"But I saw a guy!" is also not a counter argument. Sample size error, try again.


If I had more time at the moment...I could easily copy and past or post links in direct conflict with the information you posted. That's not very hard to do...and I'm sure you know that.

But the simple fact is....I am AT WORK right now.....supporting (in part) the abusers of our flawed welfare system. So...you'll need to forgive my time constraints being that I must make a living and provide for myself.


My apologies. It's a shame the entire world can't be the rugged individualist you are. We should all be so lucky as to never encounter a bump in the road at some point in our lives and require the assistance of others. What bad people we are for our desire to take care of our fellow Americans, shame on us.

Now get back to work and stop screwing around on the internet before you get fired and have to draw unemployment.
 
I don't hate the recipients, I dislike a system where someone takes money from one, gives it to another and says they are showing compassion to the poor.

Compassion can only be measured by what you do with your time, talent and treasure. So I reject the faulty assertion that those against federal aid lack compassion. Being for such programs is not an act of compassion.

I see such programs as a lazy means of soothing guilt. If one is really concerned about the poor, then write a check, work in a soup kitchen or food pantry, tutor poor children, be a big brother, teach Sunday School, volunteer at the Y during their summer camp program, be a driver for meals on wheels, take a missions trip, donate your old baby clothes to a crisis pregnancy center, drive a senior citizen to her doctor appointments, donate your car, and so on.

We don't need big programs that allow political leaders to buy votes with your money.
 
Originally Posted By: javacontour
I don't hate the recipients,


I don't think you do.

I respect that you have a different outlook on welfare as a whole.
 
OK Mykl
Lets take a concrete example just one for now. WIC is a huge program funded by both state and federal dollars.

http://wic.fns.usda.gov/wps/pages/eligibility.jsf

Plug your own numbers. This is how the program works. It demonstrates a broken welfare system. I will provide more information later.

Senario: Couple has nice home, money in the bank. 3 young children living in WV. Hosehold income is 50K.

This couple will qualify for enough food to fill 3/4 of their needs. Is this a waste of Government money?
If you say "no" I truly know where you are coming from. And your standards of need don't fit mine.

Remember...one program only.
I personally know someone who fit this example.
 
Originally Posted By: Mykl
Originally Posted By: andrewg
Originally Posted By: Mykl
Also, you should know "but they're biased!" isn't really a counter-argument. It's just you throwing a fit about not have any useful information to counter with.

"But I saw a guy!" is also not a counter argument. Sample size error, try again.


If I had more time at the moment...I could easily copy and past or post links in direct conflict with the information you posted. That's not very hard to do...and I'm sure you know that.

But the simple fact is....I am AT WORK right now.....supporting (in part) the abusers of our flawed welfare system. So...you'll need to forgive my time constraints being that I must make a living and provide for myself.


My apologies. It's a shame the entire world can't be the rugged individualist you are. We should all be so lucky as to never encounter a bump in the road at some point in our lives and require the assistance of others. What bad people we are for our desire to take care of our fellow Americans, shame on us.

Now get back to work and stop screwing around on the internet before you get fired and have to draw unemployment.


I have no problem with helping those in real need. But if you want to paint a picture of me as a real "meany"....that's fine. Those that know me would tell you otherwise.

Also...I have ZERO problem with charity. I also have ZERO problem with anybody FREELY giving money to any person they choose. But when money is TAKEN from me...and handed out without regard to actual need...that is when I get disgusted and demand accountability.

In the U.S. we have very very little accountability when it comes to welfare. We have an ENTIRE culture raised on it and expecting it.

You can play the "I'm a wonderful person who believes in helping others" routine all you want. But....I am of the mindset that nobody has a right to take money from me and hand it out to others. That is my decision to make since I am the one who earned it...nobody else.
 
Originally Posted By: andrewg

I have no problem with helping those in real need. But if you want to paint a picture of me as a real "meany"....that's fine. Those that know me would tell you otherwise.

Also...I have ZERO problem with charity. I also have ZERO problem with anybody FREELY giving money to any person they choose. But when money is TAKEN from me...and handed out without regard to actual need...that is when I get disgusted and demand accountability.

In the U.S. we have very very little accountability when it comes to welfare. We have an ENTIRE culture raised on it and expecting it.

You can play the "I'm a wonderful person who believes in helping others" routine all you want. But....I am of the mindset that nobody has a right to take money from me and hand it out to others. That is my decision to make since I am the one who earned it...nobody else.

You sound like my long lost twin. If the majority of folks felt like you this country would survive for centuries. It would be a wonderful place..accountability of government, folks looking for a job instead of a handout, those in "true" need taken care of,...
What a pipe dream
cheers3.gif
 
Last edited:
There are generations of people on government assistance from cradle to grave that refuse to work....

Then point the finger at so called privileged folks that work and pay a boat load of taxes.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.

Similar threads

GON
For all the fans of “It’s A Wonderful Life” and Jimmy Stewart.
Replies
13
Views
1K
SammyChevelleTypeS3
GON
Treasury or annuity for retirement monies not needed?
2 3
Replies
45
Views
2K
zzyzzx
OVERKILL
Cameco and Brookfield to buy Westinghouse Electric Company
Replies
3
Views
754
jhellwig
The Critic
  • Locked
Silicon Valley Bank (SVB) Collapses
20 21 22
Replies
424
Views
15K
Astro14
OVERKILL
Offshore wind industry in dire straights
2
Replies
26
Views
2K
4WD
Back
Top