Home› A Moving Train

Welfare, Gimmie, & Hypocrisy

BlockheadBlockhead Posts: 1,538
edited June 2011 in A Moving Train
Gimmie I saw you posted this in that death penalty cost thread:
"it is strictly my question as to whether or not you "fiscal conservatives" on here can justify spending that kind of money on something so ineffecient and so filled with flaws."
So my questions to you is the same, only with welfare.
My question is to whether or not your "liberals" on here can justify spending that kind of money on something so INEFFECIENT and so filled with flaws.
The poverty rate is continually rising, with welfare spending continually rising. Why do you support something that PROMOTES poverity?

http://www.cato.org/pub_display.php?pub_id=6698
http://www.cato.org/pubs/journal/cj16n1-1.html
http://www.heritage.org/research/report ... in-america
"The typical American defined as "poor" by the government has a car, air conditioning, a refrigerator, a stove, a clothes washer and dryer, and a microwave. He has two color televisions, cable or satellite TV reception, a VCR or DVD player, and a stereo. He is able to obtain medical care. His home is in good repair and is not overcrowded. By his own report, his family is not hungry and he had sufficient funds in the past year to meet his family's essential needs".
Post edited by Unknown User on
«134

Comments

  • keeponrockinkeeponrockin Posts: 7,446
    Blockhead wrote:
    Gimmie I saw you posted this in that death penalty cost thread:
    "it is strictly my question as to whether or not you "fiscal conservatives" on here can justify spending that kind of money on something so ineffecient and so filled with flaws."
    So my questions to you is the same, only with welfare.
    My question is to whether or not your "liberals" on here can justify spending that kind of money on something so INEFFECIENT and so filled with flaws.
    The poverty rate is continually rising, with welfare spending continually rising. Why do you support something that PROMOTES poverity?

    http://www.cato.org/pub_display.php?pub_id=6698
    http://www.cato.org/pubs/journal/cj16n1-1.html
    http://www.heritage.org/research/report ... in-america
    "The typical American defined as "poor" by the government has a car, air conditioning, a refrigerator, a stove, a clothes washer and dryer, and a microwave. He has two color televisions, cable or satellite TV reception, a VCR or DVD player, and a stereo. He is able to obtain medical care. His home is in good repair and is not overcrowded. By his own report, his family is not hungry and he had sufficient funds in the past year to meet his family's essential needs".
    The difference is... Welfare can actually, ya know, help people. Death Penalty has the chance to kill a man for a crime he didn't commit.
    Believe me, when I was growin up, I thought the worst thing you could turn out to be was normal, So I say freaks in the most complementary way. Here's a song by a fellow freak - E.V
  • Prince Of DorknessPrince Of Dorkness Posts: 3,763
    Yeah.

    Quoting such diverse sources as The Cato Institute and The Heritage Foundation... Both of which are owned and operated by the same small group of right-wing billionaires who pay for "research" that tells them what they want to hear.

    They then present "viewpoints from two sources" to back up whatever anti-American drivel they want to spew.

    Nobody has ever suggested that Welfare is a perfect system and that it doesn't need constant checks and balances. If the unregulated banking cluster fuck of the 2000s taught us anything, it's that without constant watching, pretty much anyone will take whatever they can get and screw everyone else.

    The difference is, to many of us, that the core idea of Welfare is to keep the people of our country from absolute poverty and starving to death in the streets. Not such a bad goal, if you ask me.

    The point of the death penalty is to violate the first commandment, kill for revenge and it's not even applied in any "fair" way. You're much more likely to get it if (a) you're black (b) poor and (c) kill a white person.

    A rich person never gets the death penalty. Poor black men often do and many of those men were later proven to be innocent.
    I can't drive without Pearl Jam
  • EmBleveEmBleve Posts: 3,019
    Blockhead, I don't know but you really seem to have a strong hatred for anything related to the provision of welfare and its recipients. It's rather sad to hear, and is a very sheltered viewpoint. And the issues of welfare and capital punishment are two totally different ones. keeponrockin said it pretty good.
    Do you have any suggestions or solutions to the flawed system, other than to eradicate it?
  • Who PrincessWho Princess out here in the fields Posts: 7,305
    Blockhead wrote:
    Gimmie I saw you posted this in that death penalty cost thread:
    "it is strictly my question as to whether or not you "fiscal conservatives" on here can justify spending that kind of money on something so ineffecient and so filled with flaws."
    So my questions to you is the same, only with welfare.
    My question is to whether or not your "liberals" on here can justify spending that kind of money on something so INEFFECIENT and so filled with flaws.
    The poverty rate is continually rising, with welfare spending continually rising. Why do you support something that PROMOTES poverity?

    http://www.cato.org/pub_display.php?pub_id=6698
    http://www.cato.org/pubs/journal/cj16n1-1.html
    http://www.heritage.org/research/report ... in-america
    "The typical American defined as "poor" by the government has a car, air conditioning, a refrigerator, a stove, a clothes washer and dryer, and a microwave. He has two color televisions, cable or satellite TV reception, a VCR or DVD player, and a stereo. He is able to obtain medical care. His home is in good repair and is not overcrowded. By his own report, his family is not hungry and he had sufficient funds in the past year to meet his family's essential needs".
    Whenever I see arguments such as this, my first response is to ask for some definitions. I like to say that the term "welfare" went the way of the 8-track and around the same time. Are you referring to TANF? Food stamps? Subsidized housing? Unemployment benefits? Medicaid? Social Security disability? These are all specific programs and simply being poor does not qualify an individual to receive money for nothing.

    I have spent about 25 years working in social services and have worked with numerous low income individuals, including interviewing and assessing them in their homes. The statistics cited are interesting; they also pick and choose the facts to support the agenda.

    A few things of note:
      Yes, it's entirely possible that someone living at the poverty level owns their home outright. These people typically are the elderly and disabled who are no longer able to work. They are "house-rich" in that their home is an asset but they are unable to afford other basic needs. They also may be unable to easily sell that asset because it's in disrepair or the value has dropped because it's in an "undesirable" location. As far as many of the other so-called luxuries, such as dishwashers, refrigerators, microwaves, and air conditioning, most live in apartments where these things are automatically provided. I'm not surprised that most own a color TV--have you seen many B&W models in stores recently? A color TV was once a status symbol; now it's the norm. In addition to all these luxuries, some of which may be leftover from a time before unemployment or ill health wrecked the family's finances, does the household consistently have electricity to operate them? Much of the work I did involved utility assistance, which required me to visit clients in their homes. I have been to many homes that lacked electricity or running water. Most people have phones but their service may often be disconnected. Most poor people own vehicles because--surprise, surprise--they need to get to work or to find employment. Where I live, public transportation is extremely limited. Their vehicles tend to be old clunkers held together by chewing gum and baling wire and they live in dread of a breakdown and the need for expensive repairs.
    Cherry-picking from the overall statistics cited paints a picture of a comfortably secure family that is leaching off the government so that they can have it easy. That's not what I've seen of poverty.

    Do you actually know what the federal poverty guidelines consist of? Check this link and scroll down to see the rates according to the number of people in the household: http://aspe.hhs.gov/poverty/11fedreg.shtml I don't know about you but my husband and I wouldn't be living too high on the hog at $14,710 a year which you seem to be suggesting is "sufficient funds for meeting a family's needs."

    I have encountered some individuals that tried to abuse the system. I came across far more people who were abused by the system.
    "The stars are all connected to the brain."
  • EmBleveEmBleve Posts: 3,019
    whoprincess wrote:
    Whenever I see arguments such as this, my first response is to ask for some definitions. I like to say that the term "welfare" went the way of the 8-track and around the same time. Are you referring to TANF? Food stamps? Subsidized housing? Unemployment benefits? Medicaid? Social Security disability? These are all specific programs and simply being poor does not qualify an individual to receive money for nothing.

    I have spent about 25 years working in social services and have worked with numerous low income individuals, including interviewing and assessing them in their homes. The statistics cited are interesting; they also pick and choose the facts to support the agenda.

    A few things of note:
      Yes, it's entirely possible that someone living at the poverty level owns their home outright. These people typically are the elderly and disabled who are no longer able to work. They are "house-rich" in that their home is an asset but they are unable to afford other basic needs. They also may be unable to easily sell that asset because it's in disrepair or the value has dropped because it's in an "undesirable" location. As far as many of the other so-called luxuries, such as dishwashers, refrigerators, microwaves, and air conditioning, most live in apartments where these things are automatically provided. I'm not surprised that most own a color TV--have you seen many B&W models in stores recently? A color TV was once a status symbol; now it's the norm. In addition to all these luxuries, some of which may be leftover from a time before unemployment or ill health wrecked the family's finances, does the household consistently have electricity to operate them? Much of the work I did involved utility assistance, which required me to visit clients in their homes. I have been to many homes that lacked electricity or running water. Most people have phones but their service may often be disconnected. Most poor people own vehicles because--surprise, surprise--they need to get to work or to find employment. Where I live, public transportation is extremely limited. Their vehicles tend to be old clunkers held together by chewing gum and baling wire and they live in dread of a breakdown and the need for expensive repairs.
    Cherry-picking from the overall statistics cited paints a picture of a comfortably secure family that is leaching off the government so that they can have it easy. That's not what I've seen of poverty.

    Do you actually know what the federal poverty guidelines consist of? Check this link and scroll down to see the rates according to the number of people in the household: http://aspe.hhs.gov/poverty/11fedreg.shtml I don't know about you but my husband and I wouldn't be living too high on the hog at $14,710 a year which you seem to be suggesting is "sufficient funds for meeting a family's needs."

    I have encountered some individuals that tried to abuse the system. I came across far more people who were abused by the system.
    Excellent post! And I also wondered about the 'welfare' term, but I think he classifies it all under that antiquated umbrella description (based on other threads).
  • Halifax2TheMaxHalifax2TheMax Posts: 39,545
    whoprincess wrote:
    Blockhead wrote:
    Gimmie I saw you posted this in that death penalty cost thread:
    "it is strictly my question as to whether or not you "fiscal conservatives" on here can justify spending that kind of money on something so ineffecient and so filled with flaws."
    So my questions to you is the same, only with welfare.
    My question is to whether or not your "liberals" on here can justify spending that kind of money on something so INEFFECIENT and so filled with flaws.
    The poverty rate is continually rising, with welfare spending continually rising. Why do you support something that PROMOTES poverity?

    http://www.cato.org/pub_display.php?pub_id=6698
    http://www.cato.org/pubs/journal/cj16n1-1.html
    http://www.heritage.org/research/report ... in-america
    "The typical American defined as "poor" by the government has a car, air conditioning, a refrigerator, a stove, a clothes washer and dryer, and a microwave. He has two color televisions, cable or satellite TV reception, a VCR or DVD player, and a stereo. He is able to obtain medical care. His home is in good repair and is not overcrowded. By his own report, his family is not hungry and he had sufficient funds in the past year to meet his family's essential needs".
    Whenever I see arguments such as this, my first response is to ask for some definitions. I like to say that the term "welfare" went the way of the 8-track and around the same time. Are you referring to TANF? Food stamps? Subsidized housing? Unemployment benefits? Medicaid? Social Security disability? These are all specific programs and simply being poor does not qualify an individual to receive money for nothing.

    I have spent about 25 years working in social services and have worked with numerous low income individuals, including interviewing and assessing them in their homes. The statistics cited are interesting; they also pick and choose the facts to support the agenda.

    A few things of note:
      Yes, it's entirely possible that someone living at the poverty level owns their home outright. These people typically are the elderly and disabled who are no longer able to work. They are "house-rich" in that their home is an asset but they are unable to afford other basic needs. They also may be unable to easily sell that asset because it's in disrepair or the value has dropped because it's in an "undesirable" location. As far as many of the other so-called luxuries, such as dishwashers, refrigerators, microwaves, and air conditioning, most live in apartments where these things are automatically provided. I'm not surprised that most own a color TV--have you seen many B&W models in stores recently? A color TV was once a status symbol; now it's the norm. In addition to all these luxuries, some of which may be leftover from a time before unemployment or ill health wrecked the family's finances, does the household consistently have electricity to operate them? Much of the work I did involved utility assistance, which required me to visit clients in their homes. I have been to many homes that lacked electricity or running water. Most people have phones but their service may often be disconnected. Most poor people own vehicles because--surprise, surprise--they need to get to work or to find employment. Where I live, public transportation is extremely limited. Their vehicles tend to be old clunkers held together by chewing gum and baling wire and they live in dread of a breakdown and the need for expensive repairs.
    Cherry-picking from the overall statistics cited paints a picture of a comfortably secure family that is leaching off the government so that they can have it easy. That's not what I've seen of poverty.

    Do you actually know what the federal poverty guidelines consist of? Check this link and scroll down to see the rates according to the number of people in the household: http://aspe.hhs.gov/poverty/11fedreg.shtml I don't know about you but my husband and I wouldn't be living too high on the hog at $14,710 a year which you seem to be suggesting is "sufficient funds for meeting a family's needs."

    I have encountered some individuals that tried to abuse the system. I came across far more people who were abused by the system.

    Thank you, well said.

    Peace.
    09/15/1998 & 09/16/1998, Mansfield, MA; 08/29/00 08/30/00, Mansfield, MA; 07/02/03, 07/03/03, Mansfield, MA; 09/28/04, 09/29/04, Boston, MA; 09/22/05, Halifax, NS; 05/24/06, 05/25/06, Boston, MA; 07/22/06, 07/23/06, Gorge, WA; 06/27/2008, Hartford; 06/28/08, 06/30/08, Mansfield; 08/18/2009, O2, London, UK; 10/30/09, 10/31/09, Philadelphia, PA; 05/15/10, Hartford, CT; 05/17/10, Boston, MA; 05/20/10, 05/21/10, NY, NY; 06/22/10, Dublin, IRE; 06/23/10, Northern Ireland; 09/03/11, 09/04/11, Alpine Valley, WI; 09/11/11, 09/12/11, Toronto, Ont; 09/14/11, Ottawa, Ont; 09/15/11, Hamilton, Ont; 07/02/2012, Prague, Czech Republic; 07/04/2012 & 07/05/2012, Berlin, Germany; 07/07/2012, Stockholm, Sweden; 09/30/2012, Missoula, MT; 07/16/2013, London, Ont; 07/19/2013, Chicago, IL; 10/15/2013 & 10/16/2013, Worcester, MA; 10/21/2013 & 10/22/2013, Philadelphia, PA; 10/25/2013, Hartford, CT; 11/29/2013, Portland, OR; 11/30/2013, Spokane, WA; 12/04/2013, Vancouver, BC; 12/06/2013, Seattle, WA; 10/03/2014, St. Louis. MO; 10/22/2014, Denver, CO; 10/26/2015, New York, NY; 04/23/2016, New Orleans, LA; 04/28/2016 & 04/29/2016, Philadelphia, PA; 05/01/2016 & 05/02/2016, New York, NY; 05/08/2016, Ottawa, Ont.; 05/10/2016 & 05/12/2016, Toronto, Ont.; 08/05/2016 & 08/07/2016, Boston, MA; 08/20/2016 & 08/22/2016, Chicago, IL; 07/01/2018, Prague, Czech Republic; 07/03/2018, Krakow, Poland; 07/05/2018, Berlin, Germany; 09/02/2018 & 09/04/2018, Boston, MA; 09/08/2022, Toronto, Ont; 09/11/2022, New York, NY; 09/14/2022, Camden, NJ; 09/02/2023, St. Paul, MN; 05/04/2024 & 05/06/2024, Vancouver, BC; 05/10/2024, Portland, OR;

    Libtardaplorable©. And proud of it.

    Brilliantati©
  • cincybearcatcincybearcat Posts: 16,495
    whoprincess wrote:
    I came across far more people who were abused by the system.

    how so?
    hippiemom = goodness
  • EmBleveEmBleve Posts: 3,019
    whoprincess wrote:

    Cherry-picking from the overall statistics cited paints a picture of a comfortably secure family that is leaching off the government so that they can have it easy. That's not what I've seen of poverty.
    This is a valid, albeit moot, point in this particular instance. People fake poverty and use it as a crutch in order to receive free handouts. Didn't you know? :roll:
  • Prince Of DorknessPrince Of Dorkness Posts: 3,763
    whoprincess makes a very good point.

    Welfare isn't just there for a poor "race," it's there for all of us. If we ever need it.

    When I was 21, I got my one and only Welfare check. I was about a year out of college and although I had worked steadily since I was 16 and paid into the system, after college I was unable to find any steady work.

    I refused to ask for unemployment because I had managed to save plenty of money to support myself for months. Which, for a 21 year-old man just out of college is pretty damn impressive, especially since my parents had decided that if they gave me money for school, it was an endorsement of my being gay... so I did it all on my own.

    Months later, unable to find any work, I finally had to eat shit and admit that I was out of resources... spent all my savings, ran up my debts and had no other options than to apply for UI.. which would take 6 weeks to kick in. I was sent to Welfare to ask for "an emergency check" which was THE most humiliating experience of my life.

    A case worker came to my small apartment and saw that it was clean. I had a nicely furnished place because I went to the Salvation Army store, bought old furniture and then bought cheap textiles at Fabricland and recovered it all myself, painted with paint I'd got on sale at Canadian Tire and took good care of the things I'd accumulated for the years I worked to put myself through school. My walls were decorated with the same Picasso prints I'd bought in high school.

    She asked me "if you're so broke, how can you afford a computer?" in a very rude tone. I explained that the computer was a gift from my parents three years before to help me with my school work. She exhaled loudly through her nose at that.

    After a few more rather obnoxious things ("you sure have enough time to clean this place, when are you out looking for a job?") I was granted a $600 check. It would have been enough to last me maybe a month.

    I found work not soon after that... but I'll never forget the way I got treated.

    If you've never felt like that or been in that situation... well, I hope you never find out what it's like.
    I can't drive without Pearl Jam
  • BlockheadBlockhead Posts: 1,538
    Prince Of Dorkness wrote:
    Yeah.

    Quoting such diverse sources as The Cato Institute and The Heritage Foundation... Both of which are owned and operated by the same small group of right-wing billionaires who pay for "research" that tells them what they want to hear.

    They then present "viewpoints from two sources" to back up whatever anti-American drivel they want to spew.

    Nobody has ever suggested that Welfare is a perfect system and that it doesn't need constant checks and balances. If the unregulated banking cluster fuck of the 2000s taught us anything, it's that without constant watching, pretty much anyone will take whatever they can get and screw everyone else.

    The difference is, to many of us, that the core idea of Welfare is to keep the people of our country from absolute poverty and starving to death in the streets. Not such a bad goal, if you ask me.

    The point of the death penalty is to violate the first commandment, kill for revenge and it's not even applied in any "fair" way. You're much more likely to get it if (a) you're black (b) poor and (c) kill a white person.

    A rich person never gets the death penalty. Poor black men often do and many of those men were later proven to be innocent.
    You can take away all the sources you want, It does not change the fact the more money is put in to these programs every year and the poverty rate rises accordingly.
  • BlockheadBlockhead Posts: 1,538
    EmBleve wrote:
    Blockhead, I don't know but you really seem to have a strong hatred for anything related to the provision of welfare and its recipients. It's rather sad to hear, and is a very sheltered viewpoint. And the issues of welfare and capital punishment are two totally different ones. keeponrockin said it pretty good.
    Do you have any suggestions or solutions to the flawed system, other than to eradicate it?
    What from my post qualifies as "hatred"
    Its sad to hear that you support a program that CAUSES and PROMOTES poverty. Welfare today is not doing with its intended to do. When there are very lenient regulations such as time frames, children, lack of work programs, etc, you are not HELP these people.
    I have proposed many soultions such as stricter regulations, community service requirements, voucher system (getting rid or cash/check) for all things gov. provided (school, health care, housing, food,) that way abuse is limited.
    How were the people in the great depression able to survive, what was the welfare program like then?
  • gimmesometruth27gimmesometruth27 St. Fuckin Louis Posts: 23,303
    wow i have my own thread.

    how humbling....
    "You can tell the greatness of a man by what makes him angry."  - Lincoln

    "Well, you tell him that I don't talk to suckas."
  • BlockheadBlockhead Posts: 1,538
    gimmesometruth27 wrote:
    wow i have my own thread.

    how humbling....
    You seem to be the leader of this "hypocrisy group" that posts here on AMT.
  • markin ballmarkin ball Posts: 1,075
    Blockhead wrote:
    Prince Of Dorkness wrote:
    Yeah.

    Quoting such diverse sources as The Cato Institute and The Heritage Foundation... Both of which are owned and operated by the same small group of right-wing billionaires who pay for "research" that tells them what they want to hear.

    They then present "viewpoints from two sources" to back up whatever anti-American drivel they want to spew.

    Nobody has ever suggested that Welfare is a perfect system and that it doesn't need constant checks and balances. If the unregulated banking cluster fuck of the 2000s taught us anything, it's that without constant watching, pretty much anyone will take whatever they can get and screw everyone else.

    The difference is, to many of us, that the core idea of Welfare is to keep the people of our country from absolute poverty and starving to death in the streets. Not such a bad goal, if you ask me.

    The point of the death penalty is to violate the first commandment, kill for revenge and it's not even applied in any "fair" way. You're much more likely to get it if (a) you're black (b) poor and (c) kill a white person.

    A rich person never gets the death penalty. Poor black men often do and many of those men were later proven to be innocent.
    You can take away all the sources you want, It does not change the fact the more money is put in to these programs every year and the poverty rate rises accordingly.

    Is it possible that more money goes into assistance programs because the poverty rate rises?
    "First they ignore you, then they ridicule you, then they fight you, then you win ."

    "With our thoughts we make the world"
  • inmytreeinmytree Posts: 4,741
    Blockhead wrote:
    You seem to be the leader of this "hypocrisy group" that posts here on AMT.

    why are you so angry all the time...?

    Cheer up, buttercup... :thumbup:
  • BlockheadBlockhead Posts: 1,538
    markin ball wrote:
    Blockhead wrote:
    Prince Of Dorkness wrote:
    Yeah.

    Quoting such diverse sources as The Cato Institute and The Heritage Foundation... Both of which are owned and operated by the same small group of right-wing billionaires who pay for "research" that tells them what they want to hear.

    They then present "viewpoints from two sources" to back up whatever anti-American drivel they want to spew.

    Nobody has ever suggested that Welfare is a perfect system and that it doesn't need constant checks and balances. If the unregulated banking cluster fuck of the 2000s taught us anything, it's that without constant watching, pretty much anyone will take whatever they can get and screw everyone else.

    The difference is, to many of us, that the core idea of Welfare is to keep the people of our country from absolute poverty and starving to death in the streets. Not such a bad goal, if you ask me.

    The point of the death penalty is to violate the first commandment, kill for revenge and it's not even applied in any "fair" way. You're much more likely to get it if (a) you're black (b) poor and (c) kill a white person.

    A rich person never gets the death penalty. Poor black men often do and many of those men were later proven to be innocent.
    You can take away all the sources you want, It does not change the fact the more money is put in to these programs every year and the poverty rate rises accordingly.

    Is it possible that more money goes into assistance programs because the poverty rate rises?
    If money has yet to solve the problem, why would putting more money into it solve the problem?
  • inmytreeinmytree Posts: 4,741
    Blockhead wrote:
    You can take away all the sources you want, It does not change the fact the more money is put in to these programs every year and the poverty rate rises accordingly.

    two things will always be around...poverty and prostitution....

    to think both will somehow go away completely is naive...but they can both be addressed...
  • BlockheadBlockhead Posts: 1,538
    inmytree wrote:
    Blockhead wrote:
    You can take away all the sources you want, It does not change the fact the more money is put in to these programs every year and the poverty rate rises accordingly.

    two things will always be around...poverty and prostitution....

    to think both will somehow go away completely is naive...but they can both be addressed...
    Why does prostitution need to be addressed?
  • gimmesometruth27gimmesometruth27 St. Fuckin Louis Posts: 23,303
    Blockhead wrote:
    gimmesometruth27 wrote:
    wow i have my own thread.

    how humbling....
    You seem to be the leader of this "hypocrisy group" that posts here on AMT.
    you might as well get it all out here, as i am sure you will be read only again soon enough...
    "You can tell the greatness of a man by what makes him angry."  - Lincoln

    "Well, you tell him that I don't talk to suckas."
  • UpSideDownUpSideDown Posts: 1,966
    whoprincess wrote:
    Whenever I see arguments such as this, my first response is to ask for some definitions. I like to say that the term "welfare" went the way of the 8-track and around the same time. Are you referring to TANF? Food stamps? Subsidized housing? Unemployment benefits? Medicaid? Social Security disability? These are all specific programs and simply being poor does not qualify an individual to receive money for nothing.

    This post (and I'm only quoting a section to be brieve) needs addressed by the OP. Things need defined in order to have an actual discussion.
  • BlockheadBlockhead Posts: 1,538
    gimmesometruth27 wrote:
    Blockhead wrote:
    gimmesometruth27 wrote:
    wow i have my own thread.

    how humbling....
    You seem to be the leader of this "hypocrisy group" that posts here on AMT.
    you might as well get it all out here, as i am sure you will be read only again soon enough...
    Get what all out? its pretty clear by reading your posts that your a hypocrite.
    And I am assuming by your second statement that you think i have been banned before. I would love KAT to comment on that, as many posters have assumed I have been banned, yet for some reason I NEVER have.
    Don't add Liar to your name...
  • gimmesometruth27gimmesometruth27 St. Fuckin Louis Posts: 23,303
    Blockhead wrote:
    Get what all out? its pretty clear by reading your posts that your a hypocrite.
    And I am assuming by your second statement that you think i have been banned before. I would love KAT to comment on that, as many posters have assumed I have been banned, yet for some reason I NEVER have.
    Don't add Liar to your name...
    ok heidijam.
    "You can tell the greatness of a man by what makes him angry."  - Lincoln

    "Well, you tell him that I don't talk to suckas."
  • UpSideDownUpSideDown Posts: 1,966
    UpSideDown wrote:
    whoprincess wrote:
    Whenever I see arguments such as this, my first response is to ask for some definitions. I like to say that the term "welfare" went the way of the 8-track and around the same time. Are you referring to TANF? Food stamps? Subsidized housing? Unemployment benefits? Medicaid? Social Security disability? These are all specific programs and simply being poor does not qualify an individual to receive money for nothing.

    This post (and I'm only quoting a section to be brieve) needs addressed by the OP. Things need defined in order to have an actual discussion.

    Back to the topic at hand :arrow:
  • BlockheadBlockhead Posts: 1,538
    gimmesometruth27 wrote:
    Blockhead wrote:
    Get what all out? its pretty clear by reading your posts that your a hypocrite.
    And I am assuming by your second statement that you think i have been banned before. I would love KAT to comment on that, as many posters have assumed I have been banned, yet for some reason I NEVER have.
    Don't add Liar to your name...
    ok heidijam.
    Yes... thats me ( I think everyone knew that)... and your point.
    Like I said, I have never been banned, a simple message to KAT could clear up an confusion you had...
  • BlockheadBlockhead Posts: 1,538
    UpSideDown wrote:
    UpSideDown wrote:
    whoprincess wrote:
    Whenever I see arguments such as this, my first response is to ask for some definitions. I like to say that the term "welfare" went the way of the 8-track and around the same time. Are you referring to TANF? Food stamps? Subsidized housing? Unemployment benefits? Medicaid? Social Security disability? These are all specific programs and simply being poor does not qualify an individual to receive money for nothing.

    This post (and I'm only quoting a section to be brieve) needs addressed by the OP. Things need defined in order to have an actual discussion.

    Back to the topic at hand :arrow:
    Abuse happens in all of them... I am mainly talking about TANF/Food Stamps, subsidized housing
    Unemployment is your money that your employer takes out of your pay.
    http://jfs.ohio.gov/owf/tanf/OhioTANF2010.pdf This is TANF from Ohio (my state)
    On top of all these benefits/grants/funding/cash assistance/additional pay for "good" school attendance.
    Public schools are now providing 2-3 meals A DAY for students with additional weekend pre-made meals.
    If these parents are not paying for School(education & supplies)/health care/day care/transportation/food/housing.
    What exactly are they spending their money on?
  • JonnyPistachioJonnyPistachio Florida Posts: 10,219
    Blockhead wrote:
    gimmesometruth27 wrote:
    wow i have my own thread.

    how humbling....
    You seem to be the leader of this "hypocrisy group" that posts here on AMT.

    Sorry, but that's just rude. There are some good discussions going on here, stay focused man.

    Blockhead, you do make some good points. But the way you keep comparing govt assistance to things like GPA and the DP, you're stretching man. Argue its flaws and how to fix it, fine. But this is a terrible comparison and a weak attempt to get Gimme to look hypocritical.

    my answer would be that the DP doesnt serve much of a purpose. And in my opinion, the flaws outweigh anything positive.
    As far as many govt assistance programs, I know they are flawed and it upsets me to hear some people take advantage of it, but the positive things it does seomtimes outweighs the negative.. gives innocent kids food and clothing, keeps some poor people from resorting to more crime, and generally is there to benefit your fellow human... not end their life.
    so, bottom line DP vs. Welfare?? not quite.
    Pick up my debut novel here on amazon: Jonny Bails Floatin (in paperback) (also available on Kindle for $2.99)
  • Prince Of DorknessPrince Of Dorkness Posts: 3,763
    markin ball wrote:
    Is it possible that more money goes into assistance programs because the poverty rate rises?


    no no... 5 out of 5 billionaires agree that the cart comes before the horse, dontchyaknow?
    I can't drive without Pearl Jam
  • BlockheadBlockhead Posts: 1,538
    Prince Of Dorkness wrote:
    markin ball wrote:
    Is it possible that more money goes into assistance programs because the poverty rate rises?


    no no... 5 out of 5 billionaires agree that the cart comes before the horse, dontchyaknow?
    5 self made billionaires...
  • Prince Of DorknessPrince Of Dorkness Posts: 3,763
    Blockhead wrote:
    5 self made billionaires...


    Ah yes... the conservative delusion.... "one day if I work hard enough I'll be a billionaire too so for now I'll just vote to protect my interests then... and not my own interests now."

    Do you NEVER feel like Charlie Brown running at that football?
    I can't drive without Pearl Jam
  • BlockheadBlockhead Posts: 1,538
    Prince Of Dorkness wrote:
    Blockhead wrote:
    5 self made billionaires...


    Ah yes... the conservative delusion.... "one day if I work hard enough I'll be a billionaire too so for now I'll just vote to protect my interests then... and not my own interests now."

    Do you NEVER feel like Charlie Brown running at that football?
    Well.... I don't vote, so there goes your theory.
    Do I need to post the stats of self made millionaires or can you look that up for your self?
Sign In or Register to comment.