I don’t have a problem with feeding the poor. But donations should be voluntarily. Forcing me at gun point to give money to someone is BS.
Do you feel the same way about *all * the things that are paid for by your taxes?
Is your objection to giving up your money at gunpoint universal, or do you support taxation to pay for the military?
ETA:
Damn, DianaG, too quick for me!
I specifically mentioned the military because Carfter_Man has said before that he’s a research engineer who does most of his work for the military. Chances are pretty good that some of his income has come from our taxes.
I know the question was directed at Crafter_Man, but I see a big difference in the military and a woman who has had 7 children before she is 21.
As a person who has held a job since I was 16 and who has paid thousands of dollars in taxes, I think I have a right to voice my opinion. I don’t believe that every welfare recipient is an abuser of the system, nor do I believe the program should be dismantled. But it does chap my ass when I read about people like the Gonzalezes because they take away money that could be used toward education and job training programs. I’m all for a hand UP but not a hand-out.
So do I, but just like most military personnel aren’t The Great Santini, most welfare recipients aren’t Ms. Gonzalez.
I never said there wasn’t a difference, moron.
Crafter_Man, however, was not talking specifically about the person described in the OP; he was making a general point about how the poor are cared for in our society. If it’s not beyond your limited intelligence, go back and read what he actually wrote, which was:
Do you get it now? He was making a general observation, and DianaG and i merely asked him to clarify how far he would take this particular position.
Happy to help.
Well, i’m glad you made that point. I’m very sorry for telling you that you don’t have the right to voice your opinion.
Oh wait, i never told you that.
Well, it seems then that you were not one of the people i was talking about. I never said that all welfare opponents felt that way. In my experience, quite a few do, but by no means all. If you don’t feel that way, you may consider yourself omitted from the people whom i was talking about.
Personally, if someone starts complaining about red light runners, i don’t generally feel the need to defend myself because i’m not a red light runner. Do you see what i mean?
Every dollar the government spends on something else takes money that could be used on education and job training programs. That’s what budgets do; they allocate resources. Am i happy with the Gonzalez family’s situation? No. Do i think they have been irresponsible? Yes. Should there be a mechanism in place for trying to reduce or eliminate incidents like this? Absolutely. But the level of extrapolation, and the dramatic conclusions being drawn from this one incident are pretty silly.
If you’re really concerned about money for education and job training programs, there are plenty of places that money might come from other than from the small percentage of welfare recipients who are in situations similar to the one described in the OP.
Congratulations. You’ve shown yourself capable of parroting a bromide. You should be proud.
Hey, how about sticking a chuck roast up your ass? You’re like a human pressure cooker. Bet it would be done in no time…then you can relax, have a nice meal, get in a better mood, and come back and get pissed off again with a shiny new refreshed frame of mind.
I’ll have to join Ensign Edison on this one; there sure is a lot of mean spirited ignorance being spewed in this thread. Unnecessary ignorance at that. Did everyone hear get a sudden case of amnesia or something? The welfare system Alice described happens to be the same for all 50 states. The Gonzalez’ will be kicked off soon enough. Don’t let that get in the way of kicking poor people while their down though.
Oh kiss my ass. No one on here is “kicking poor people while their down” except for the stupid bitch referred to in the OP who seems to not understand birth control. No one on here is against helping people break the cycle of poverty. Maybe you don’t see a woman who doesn’t work having 7 kids by the age of 20 as irresponsible, but I do.
I love the Pit. I am always amazed by the stupid things some people will either defend or twist until they can get outraged by.
Kiss Mine!!!
Our federal constitution enumerates specific duties and responsibilities of the federal government. I don’t have a problem with my federal taxes going to these. But I do have a problem with my federal taxes funding programs that are *not * listed in the federal constitution. Yes, “general welfare” is mentioned. But the key word is general. No where does the constitution give the federal government the power to take my money and give it to a specific group of people. This is why I’m completely against all federally-funded welfare programs, including SS, Medicaid, and Medicare.
Keep in mind that I’m talking about the *federal * government here, not *state * governments. Any and all welfare should be at the *state * level, not the federal level.
Well, of course they don’t. But it’s not that they hate the poor, they’re just overfunding them (i.e. unconditionally giving them welfare) in an attempt to look extra compassionate. After all, if giving welfare if the recipient has a part-time job is compassionate, giving them welfare with or without a job is even more compassionate!
What am I ignorant about?
But the original argument you made was not a Constitutional one, it was a moral one. You said:
Welfare at the state level, funded by state taxes, involves very similar measures of coercion as welfare at the federal level. If you don’t pay, or if you make unlawful efforts to avoid your tax responsibilities, the State has force on its side that is capable of punishing you.
I understand the Constitutional issues (although your literalism is, in my opinion, the sort of Constitutional reading that retards America rather than helps it), and i also understand that some people prefer State over Federal level administration. But your original point was about the ability to coerce you into giving over your money for welfare, and the State folks can do that just about as well as the Federal.
I think you’re on to something. Do away with the current welfare system, offer free hysterectomies or vascecomies, and the opportunity to run on treadmills 40 hours a week generating electricity to all and sundry. This gets around Catholic objections to birth control. Render unto Ceasar what is Ceasar’s, and if you want public money, Ceasar claims your gonads.
Yes, this is sarcasm.
I was primarily talking about the people bitching about a “broken” welfare system that has in fact been reformed for nearly a decade now, hence my link.
I absolutely DON’T want to jump in this one, but why does SS get lumped in here? I mean, I’ve been paying into it since I was 15. When I turn 65, I’ll be getting my own money back*. That’s not welfare.
(*well, actually, I’ll never see a dime of it, but that’s neither here nor there…)
Cite? Preferably with a definition for “reformed”.
Sigh See my first post this page.