Al Bundy;1151519 wrote:I don't think you will find anyone who doesn't think that we shouldn't help those that can't work because of handicaps, the extremely old, or the extremely young.

We should also help people that have temporary difficult times because of things such as unemployment. We should not allow people to live off of the government their entire lives. There are many people who choose not to work because they would rather take handouts. I often see people on food stamps using a cell phone. People on food stamps and welfare should not have many of the extras that they have such as cell phones, cable, etc.

Yes Mr Bundy there are people some who contribute at this site who would deprive the needy of coverage. I am interested in couple of the terms you use, "extremely old" and "extremely young" to qualify for benefits. What is "extremely old" you have to be 65, 75, 90 or centenarians to qualify? "Extremely young" 18, 16, 12, 8, 5, 2 before we throw the parasites off the dole.
And this parasites who suck off money off us to feed their children while actually having a cell phone. Bring back the hair shirts.

isadore;1151905 wrote:No sir, you are practicing duplicity. You claim you support the programs then you claim they enslave people and that the recipients can survive without them

??

Are you suggesting that's not possible.

Think a little bit.

isadore;1151911 wrote:Yes Mr Bundy there are people some who contribute at this site who would deprive the needy of coverage. I am interested in couple of the terms you use, "extremely old" and "extremely young" to qualify for benefits. What is "extremely old" you have to be 65, 75, 90 or centenarians to qualify? "Extremely young" 18, 16, 12, 8, 5, 2 before we throw the parasites off the dole.
And this parasites who suck off money off us to feed their children while actually having a cell phone. Bring back the hair shirts.

So in your world, if I am tired of going to work every day, I should just be allowed to sit home and collect a check from the government.

Al Bundy;1152204 wrote:So in your world, if I am tired of going to work every day, I should just be allowed to sit home and collect a check from the government.

for sure if you are 94 or 6.

Con_Alma;1152177 wrote:??

Are you suggesting that's not possible.

Think a little bit.

thinking about it..... thinking about it.....thinking about it..... thinking about it ...... it is not possible.

isadore;1152217 wrote:for sure if you are 94 or 6.

Most of the people that live off of the government are adults between the ages of 18-65. With the exception of the very small percentage that have disabilities, most of them just choose to collect a check instead of working. If their poor behavior is rewarded with a comfortable lifestyle just given to them, what incentive do they have to change?

We have an 8% unemployment rate, that might have an effect.
and we have
"Nearly 15 million children in the United States – 21% of all children – live in families with incomes below the federal poverty level – $22,050 a year for a family of four. Research shows that, on average, families need an income of about twice that level to cover basic expenses. Using this standard, 42% of children live in low-income families."
http://nccp.org/topics/childpoverty.html
What a bunch of deadbeats.
If you are single with no children and in good health you do not qualify for tanf.

isadore;1152223 wrote:thinking about it..... thinking about it.....thinking about it..... thinking about it ...... it is not possible.

Sorry. I disagree. A person can certainly see the need for a saftey and yet understand that there are costs to such a safety net. That position is hardly condemning they safety net.

Get it?

The cost of a person being dependent ont the saftey is one. Do you not think those people you define are dependent and in need of said saftey net? That dependencey doesn't enable a person to be truly free with their lifestyl and ability to do as they wish. Do you believe that the amount people receive with thesaftey nets are so significant that they are not limited in their choices?

Con_Alma;1152282 wrote:Sorry. I disagree. A person can certainly see the need for a saftey and yet understand that there are costs to such a safety net. That position is hardly condemning they safety net.

Get it?

The cost of a person being dependent ont the saftey is one. Do you not think those people you define are dependent and in need of said saftey net? That dependencey doesn't enable a person to be truly free with their lifestyl and ability to do as they wish. Do you believe that the amount people receive with thesaftey nets are so significant that they are not limited in their choices?

Yes people starving to death are truly free. Children that go to bed unfed know the true exhilaration of complete liberation. I don’t believe the fact that a person uses those benefits cripples them for life. Starvation on the other hand does. As can living unsheltered and without medical treatment. I have known lots of people including members of my own family who have at times used food stamps or collected unemployment benefits. And guess what they were hardly enslaved. Unbelievable as it may sound to you, they went to work. If you are talking about the aged and the very young. Guess what they are already dependent. That is the nature of being in those age groups. What benefits does is make them freer. You know before Social Security the aged were the largest group living in poverty in America. Of course to you, that meant they were free. Yeh they had a lot of choices. Just like those American children living near the poverty level. Taking benefits away from them would sure make them free. You just don’t get it.

isadore;1152324 wrote:Yes people starving to death are truly free. Children that go to bed unfed know the true exhilaration of complete liberation. I don’t believe the fact that a person uses those benefits cripples them for life. Starvation on the other hand does. As can living unsheltered and without medical treatment. I have known lots of people including members of my own family who have at times used food stamps or collected unemployment benefits. And guess what they were hardly enslaved. Unbelievable as it may sound to you, they went to work. If you are talking about the aged and the very young. Guess what they are already dependent. That is the nature of being in those age groups. What benefits does is make them freer. You know before Social Security the aged were the largest group living in poverty in America. Of course to you, that meant they were free. Yeh they had a lot of choices. Just like those American children living near the poverty level. Taking benefits away from them would sure make them free. You just don’t get it.

It is very believable that these folks went to work. I have never disputed that nor even questioned it.

What I dispute is that I am condemning such programs, which I have not. I dispute that you state it's impossible to believe these programs in question are necessary yet can rob a person of freedom. It's not impossible to believe those things, for I do.

I dispute that I have ever stated these peope are enslaved, for I have not.

Because these people are already dependent does not not mean they are not still dependent when they begin government assistance.

I get it. I get it very clearly. What you don't get is the mass scale that you assume things. Have you found one post of mine stating that I would take benefits away from anyone?

I didn't think so.

isadore;1152268 wrote:We have an 8% unemployment rate, that might have an effect.
and we have
"Nearly 15 million children in the United States – 21% of all children – live in families with incomes below the federal poverty level – $22,050 a year for a family of four. Research shows that, on average, families need an income of about twice that level to cover basic expenses. Using this standard, 42% of children live in low-income families."
http://nccp.org/topics/childpoverty.html
What a bunch of deadbeats.
If you are single with no children and in good health you do not qualify for tanf.

What are you defining as basic expenses? If the family of 4 lives in a 2 bedroom apartment, eats their meals at home, buys clothes at Goodwill, and goes to the clinic for medical needs, there is no way that costs $44,000 a year.

The unemployment may be a temporary reason, but when we have families that have been on welfare for generations, it is more than just the unemployment. Many of theses same families were also taking welfare during times of economic boom.

Al Bundy;1152396 wrote:...
The unemployment may be a temporary reason, but when we have families that have been on welfare for generations, it is more than just the unemployment. Many of theses same families were also taking welfare during times of economic boom.

They have lost their freedom to the dependency of others providing for them.

Con_Alma;1152398 wrote:They have lost their freedom to the dependency of others providing for them.

From cradle to grave, Uncle Sam is here to save. :thumbup:

Con_Alma;1152347 wrote:It is very believable that these folks went to work. I have never disputed that nor even questioned it.

What I dispute is that I am condemning such programs, which I have not. I dispute that you state it's impossible to believe these programs in question are necessary yet can rob a person of freedom. It's not impossible to believe those things, for I do.

I dispute that I have ever stated these peope are enslaved, for I have not.

Because these people are already dependent does not not mean they are not still dependent when they begin government assistance.

I get it. I get it very clearly. What you don't get is the mass scale that you assume things. Have you found one post of mine stating that I would take benefits away from anyone?

I didn't think so.

Con_Alma wrote:I dispute that I have ever stated these people are enslaved, for I have not.

Con_Alma wrote:They have lost their freedom to the dependency of others providing for them.

Definition slave-
One who is abjectly subservient to a specified person or influence
http://education.yahoo.com/reference/dictionary/entry/slave
in other words, dependent.
I would like to call what you do as damning the programs with faint praise but its not even that. After minimal lip service, you condemn those programs.
　
And you falsely deny them their most vital function, preventing mass suffering in our nation.

Con_Alma wrote:I don't believe, however, that there would be suffering on a monumental scale.

Con_Alma wrote:They wouldn't starve to death any more than those people not being fed by the government starve to death.

　
Part of your continuing effort to undermine the program.
　
　

believer;1152856 wrote:From cradle to grave, Uncle Sam is here to save. :thumbup:

or Uncle Scrooge, let them starve and decrease the excess population

Al Bundy;1152396 wrote:What are you defining as basic expenses? If the family of 4 lives in a 2 bedroom apartment, eats their meals at home, buys clothes at Goodwill, and goes to the clinic for medical needs, there is no way that costs $44,000 a year.

The unemployment may be a temporary reason, but when we have families that have been on welfare for generations, it is more than just the unemployment. Many of theses same families were also taking welfare during times of economic boom.

Gosh lets take a little look at those numbers you are playing around with. $44,000 for the family of four is the peak for them. Half these families get by on between $22,000 to $44,000. Getting barely by on generic foods at home, goodwill clothing and emergency treatment at the clinic. Then you have the other half living below the poverty level. 15 million children living below that level. Damn parasites.
Then we have TANF that maxes out after 5 years.

isadore;1152888 wrote:Gosh lets take a little look at those numbers you are playing around with. $44,000 for the family of four is the peak for them. Half these families get by on between $22,000 to $44,000. Getting barely by on generic foods at home, goodwill clothing and emergency treatment at the clinic. Then you have the other half living below the poverty level. 15 million children living below that level. Damn parasites.
Then we have TANF that maxes out after 5 years.

The $44,000 came directly from your post of "$22,050 a year for a family of four. Research shows that, on average, families need an income of about twice that level to cover basic expenses". That is over $3600/month. If a family of 4 cannot get by on that, they are wasting money on things that are not basic needs.

Al Bundy;1152933 wrote:The $44,000 came directly from your post of "$22,050 a year for a family of four. Research shows that, on average, families need an income of about twice that level to cover basic expenses". That is over $3600/month. If a family of 4 cannot get by on that, they are wasting money on things that are not basic needs.

Again for you
Double the poverty level for a family of 4 is $44,000,
42% of the children are in families that earn less than double the poverty level
21% of the children live in homes below the poverty level,

Al Bundy;1152933 wrote:The $44,000 came directly from your post of "$22,050 a year for a family of four. Research shows that, on average, families need an income of about twice that level to cover basic expenses". That is over $3600/month. If a family of 4 cannot get by on that, they are wasting money on things that are not basic needs.

They can get by on $22k, if they take advantage of the "free" healthcare. Yeah, they're poor but it's only the poverty level because the US chooses to define it that way. Every country defines it's standard. $600/month for housing and $150/wk for food ain't too shabby for poverty. Below that I don't have qualms with the definition. But above that level you really don't need any sort of handout, though there is plenty.

And what does $22k work out to? 60 hours/wk at minimum wage. Between two people. That doesn't strike me as a particularly tough hurdle to meet. But it should be obvious that benefits are such that there's no incentive to work for minimum wage. I'd be interested to know how many such couples work the system - you go work until you qualify for benefits again, and then I'll go work until I qualify....wash, rinse, repeat.

isadore;1152863 wrote:
Definition slave-
One who is abjectly subservient to a specified person or influence
http://education.yahoo.com/reference/dictionary/entry/slave
in other words, dependent.
I would like to call what you do as damning the programs with faint praise but its not even that. After minimal lip service, you condemn those programs.
　
And you falsely deny them their most vital function, preventing mass suffering in our nation.


　
Part of your continuing effort to undermine the program.
　
　

Lets see if the definition of "subservient" is subordinate in capacity or function you then it doesn't correlate to any of my posts. I have not stated the people are enslaved. They have lost their freedom. They are not subordinate in capacity or function.

I dent them nothing...absolutely nothing. I have no capacity to deny anyone anything. You give me far too much credit. Lol I couldn't undermine a program the mass scale of this if my life depended on it.

You routinely try and exaggerate for effect.

I believe we need safety nets in place for people in this country and we do. These safety nets have created a dependency on them that take away people's freedom.

isadore;1152888 wrote:Gosh lets take a little look at those numbers you are playing around with. $44,000 for the family of four is the peak for them. Half these families get by on between $22,000 to $44,000. Getting barely by on generic foods at home, goodwill clothing and emergency treatment at the clinic. Then you have the other half living below the poverty level. 15 million children living below that level. Damn parasites.
Then we have TANF that maxes out after 5 years.

Getting barely by is still getting by. Let these people have some dignity for crying out loud. Led them feel good about earning their keep.

Why do you post "getting barely by" as if it's some sort of bad thing?

gut;1152947 wrote:They can get by on $22k, if they take advantage of the "free" healthcare. Yeah, they're poor but it's only the poverty level because the US chooses to define it that way. Every country defines it's standard. $600/month for housing and $150/wk for food ain't too shabby for poverty. Below that I don't have qualms with the definition. But above that level you really don't need any sort of handout, though there is plenty.

And what does $22k work out to? 60 hours/wk at minimum wage. Between two people. That doesn't strike me as a particularly tough hurdle to meet. But it should be obvious that benefits are such that there's no incentive to work for minimum wage. I'd be interested to know how many such couples work the system - you go work until you qualify for benefits again, and then I'll go work until I qualify....wash, rinse, repeat.

above that level you want to deny them benefits. So at $23,000 no benefits and nothing left over for things like medical care for the parents and their children. Nice guy.

Con_Alma;1153226 wrote:Lets see if the definition of "subservient" is subordinate in capacity or function you then it doesn't correlate to any of my posts. I have not stated the people are enslaved. They have lost their freedom. They are not subordinate in capacity or function.

I dent them nothing...absolutely nothing. I have no capacity to deny anyone anything. You give me far too much credit. Lol I couldn't undermine a program the mass scale of this if my life depended on it.

You routinely try and exaggerate for effect.

I believe we need safety nets in place for people in this country and we do. These safety nets have created a dependency on them that take away people's freedom.

QUOTE=Con_Alma]
These safety nets have created a dependency on them that take away people's freedom. [/QUOTE] Enslavement by any other name is still enslavement.
In a democracy you working with others of your ilk do undermine the safety net. To have it disintegrate from a death of a thousand small cuts. Just read this and several other threads and you can see the large support among the “haves” have for cutting or destroying these programs because it might actually allow a poor person a life slightly above the subsistence level. You are kind of their Mitt Romney saying you support the programs but then consistently undercutting them, claiming there is no real threat of mass starvation and need and claiming they deprive recipients of their freedom.

Con_Alma;1153227 wrote:Getting barely by is still getting by. Let these people have some dignity for crying out loud. Led them feel good about earning their keep.

Why do you post "getting barely by" as if it's some sort of bad thing?

Barely getting by in where you live, Barely getting by in what you eat, Barely getting by in the health care you receive, those are good thing? Those that have really seem to think that living like is so dignified. Eating well, living comfortably, receiving quality healthcare has much more dignity.

isadore;1153265 wrote:...Enslavement by any other name is still enslavement.
In a democracy you working with others of your ilk do undermine the safety net. To have it disintegrate from a death of a thousand small cuts. Just read this and several other threads and you can see the large support among the “haves” have for cutting or destroying these programs because it might actually allow a poor person a life slightly above the subsistence level. You are kind of their Mitt Romney saying you support the programs but then consistently undercutting them, claiming there is no real threat of mass starvation and need and claiming they deprive recipients of their freedom.

We don't libve in a democracy. It's a constitutional republic.

Your inturpretation of my views is nothing more than an opinion. I appreciate you sharing it with me.

I fund and publicly state that I believe we have a need dor social safety nets.

When I look at the length of time and the numbers we provide those services to it is clear to me that people lose their freedom to the dependency on those programs. Mass starvation is not a threat in this country. That belief does not mean that certain programs are not needed nor shouldn't be in place.

There's no reason to associate me as the Mitt Romney of the social services we provide for it leaves to much uncertainty in what that means. Just call me the Con_Alma of the approach. We can be more accurate with that.

Your exaggeration for effect continues to be entertaining and I thank you for it.