RE: Welfare vs Charity (Full Version)

All Forums >> [Community Discussions] >> Dungeon of Political and Religious Discussion

[Poll]

Welfare vs Charity


Welfare is theft.
  9% (8)
Welfare is moral and just.
  20% (18)
Welfare is theft, but in the service of a greater good, it's needed.
  5% (5)
The welfare state does more harm than good.
  23% (20)
Welfare given to big business is far more troubling to me.
  40% (35)


Total Votes : 86
(last vote on : 2/26/2013 10:50:04 AM)
(Poll will run till: -- )


Message


FrostedFlake -> RE: Welfare vs Charity (2/25/2013 10:23:10 AM)

Please allow me to make my point a little more difficult to avoid.

We are not where we are because we are stupid. We are here because we decided to be here.




Owner59 -> RE: Welfare vs Charity (2/25/2013 10:28:11 AM)

Isn`t that true about everything.....in general?




DesideriScuri -> RE: Welfare vs Charity (2/25/2013 11:24:59 AM)

quote:

ORIGINAL: Owner59
quote:

ORIGINAL: Notsweet
Excuse me, Joether. I don't know where you get these ideas about Republicans not giving to charity, or doing work, but maybe sometime you and I could chat privately about my own work. And I'd like to see the stats you found about Republicans not giving, or Democrats being more generous. Let's start with the President and the VP, and the last Democrat president and VP, as their tax returns state how much they were proud to give, shall we? Look that one up.

We aren`t talking about individual donations to charity.
We are talking about republicans cutting government aid to the poor,sick,elderly and homeless......while fighting to give away trillions of our tax dollars to the wealthy.
Both of those things are unacceptable and are going to be stopped.


Little known fake fact is that the owners of Solyndra were all homeless, elderly, poor, sick, or some combination thereof. [8D]




DesideriScuri -> RE: Welfare vs Charity (2/25/2013 11:29:37 AM)

quote:

ORIGINAL: Notsweet
Again, I would match my actual physical work here to anyone's. And not all Republicans claim their charitable donations either.
But I don't see why comparing politicians' reported contributions doesn't hold muster. Democrat politicians are famous for stingy donations while generously offering what others have worked for.
Clearly, I'm not against a safety net. What I'm against is vote buying.


I wasn't challenging your input to the aid. Not at all. I wasn't even saying that D's are just as giving as R's. I was simply pointing out that two examples from each side don't necessarily prove or disprove your point. And, I stated that I haven't been able to see any hard evidence from an unbiased source that confirms or refutes the claim (that I've heard many, many times from conservative talking heads).

I wonder how the top 2 donors from each side compare? Bill Gates is considered on the Democrat's side, isn't he?




Notsweet -> RE: Welfare vs Charity (2/25/2013 3:37:48 PM)

Here's my point. Joether stated that Republicans don't give to charity, or do charitable work. That is what he said.

Seeing as I do both, and have done so probably for more years than most of the liberals on these boards have been alive, and seeing as I am, in fact, a Republican, I was pointing out that his statement was untrue.

And I agree--I wish more people knew that Solyndra was elderly and poor. I wish we didn't need to subsidize all those poor and impoverished Hollywood directors and producers, too. It's so sad to watch them suffer.




LookieNoNookie -> RE: Welfare vs Charity (2/25/2013 5:35:26 PM)

quote:

ORIGINAL: TheHeretic


quote:

ORIGINAL: LookieNoNookie

Somehow I knew corporate welfare would take the top spot.



That is one way to look at it, Lookie. Another way to look at it, would be say that the majority have actual thoughts on the subject, while a minority would prefer to snark, and ignore the topic with the standard talking point answer.


Ya know...I get it...Exxon/Chevron/Shell etc., owe a bit more to society but...most corporate does not.

Most corporate doesn't make any money.

Most corporate isn't the bad guy.

Most corporate is the small guy.

Most....corporate....isn't the bad guy.

(MOST corporate...isn't the guy you think he is).

Most corporate...is the guy you live next door to.

Fact.




Notsweet -> RE: Welfare vs Charity (2/25/2013 6:11:14 PM)

quote:

ORIGINAL: LookieNoNookie


Ya know...I get it...Exxon/Chevron/Shell etc., owe a bit more to society but...most corporate does not.

Most corporate doesn't make any money.

Most corporate isn't the bad guy.

Most corporate is the small guy.

Most....corporate....isn't the bad guy.

(MOST corporate...isn't the guy you think he is).

Most corporate...is the guy you live next door to.

Fact.


Yes. Like me.




TheHeretic -> RE: Welfare vs Charity (2/25/2013 6:16:04 PM)

FR and in general:

Some of the ignorance getting spouted in this thread is really stunning, except in the case where it is deliberate, and agenda driven.




TheHeretic -> RE: Welfare vs Charity (2/25/2013 6:44:02 PM)


quote:

ORIGINAL: FrostedFlake

We are not where we are because we are stupid. We are here because we decided to be here.


So, I went back and gave your earlier post a more thorough read, with a more awake mind, and I'm just going to combine that reply with a reply to this.

Very often, when looking at situations where decisions and policies set up long ago have brought us to a particular set of circumstances today, I have to ask myself, "were they really that smart and evil, or were they just that fucking dumb?"

The latter is a whole lot easier to believe.




Owner59 -> RE: Welfare vs Charity (2/25/2013 6:57:29 PM)

Elitist is as elitist does...




slvemike4u -> RE: Welfare vs Charity (2/25/2013 7:06:29 PM)


quote:

ORIGINAL: TheHeretic

FR and in general:

Some of the ignorance getting spouted in this thread is really stunning, except in the case where it is deliberate, and agenda driven.

Basically.....yours,right ?




Marini -> RE: Welfare vs Charity (2/25/2013 8:29:43 PM)

quote:

Nixon went to China. To split the Communist block. By exporting our jobs. Which is a better idea than tossing missiles back and forth. But which leaves a bunch of unemployed people here in the U.S. Who would be ....difficult... if allowed to starve. So the welfare state is created. Which is a better idea than allowing starving millions to pull the house of cards down around out ears. But which costs money. That has to come from somewhere.

[sm=goodpost.gif]

The upshot of this thread seems to be, "Why me? And that might even be fair. But, ending the gravy train, as attractive as the idea might be to the guys with the jobs, is essentially equivalent to telling all those whose jobs were sacrificed for the greater good to go jump in the lake. This would make those folks ...difficult. This should make it plain that removing the solution, welfare, without replacing it with ...oh, I don't know, JOBS... is a prescription for ...is revolution too big a word to use here?

[sm=goodpost.gif]

If you want to end the welfare state, come up with a better idea.

That might sound like more of a challenge than it is. You don't have to come up with all the answers at once and you don't have to do it all by yourself. But you do have to at least try to visualize what the World is supposed to be like. Instead of trying to knock down the policy edifice built intentionally to prevent your Countrymen showing up at your house looking for a sandwich.

Is there one thing about the welfare state that is not a policy?

Is it not obvious that a policy of some sort is needed?

Do you know where to get a policy?

Can you describe the policy that would both please you and address the problem intentionally created to solve a much bigger problem we called The Cold War?

I can.

Clean sheet of paper. The Cold War is long over. China is in some ways a bigger threat to the United States now than Nuclear War was during the Nixon years. Fuck China. Tax their products sufficiently that we can work our own jobs again. Suddenly there are millions of jobs. NOW cutting welfare is possible. And there is no reason to stop there. Why should we pay income tax? Why shouldn't Income Tax be paid only by Corporations? Does it really sanctify anything to have Corporations pay people and then have the IRS tax people? Would it not be a lot simpler and more efficient and much, much more FREE to cut out the hundred million middlemen and have the IRS directly bill Monsanto? And why stop at this? Ditto Social Security. And why stop at that? Why not admit that health care is not optional and therefore demonstrably a constitutional right? That would disconnect healthcare from the world of work and put it where it belongs, in the hands of Doctors and the people they treat. Including the Bums. Insurance companies would never again be able to say, "Preexisting Condition" or "Your premium has increased", or "Your policy is cancelled", because there would be one payer and no argument.

What kind of Country would we be living in if we did that?

Why don't we do that?


Great post Frosted Flake.
What kind of Country would we be living in if we cared about people having more opportunities at decent paying jobs?

Putting the focus on creating thousands of good jobs in America?
What a novel idea!

[;)]




FrostedFlake -> RE: Welfare vs Charity (2/25/2013 11:43:51 PM)


quote:

ORIGINAL: TheHeretic


quote:

ORIGINAL: FrostedFlake

We are not where we are because we are stupid. We are here because we decided to be here.


So, I went back and gave your earlier post a more thorough read, with a more awake mind, and I'm just going to combine that reply with a reply to this.

Very often, when looking at situations where decisions and policies set up long ago have brought us to a particular set of circumstances today, I have to ask myself, "were they really that smart and evil, or were they just that fucking dumb?"

The latter is a whole lot easier to believe.


Thank you.




Page: <<   < prev  1 2 3 4 [5]

Valid CSS!




Collarchat.com © 2025
Terms of Service Privacy Policy Spam Policy
0.125