NationStates Jolt Archive

No. but if they DID ask me to prove it, at least I COULD.
How excatly? Witnesses? Pictures? How could you possibly prove your life is as tough as you say it is? And why the hell would you want to? We're a bunch of strangers for Dob's sake!

Point is, in a situation like this, debating with strangers, you either believe or do not, and that's fine. But asking for proof and then acting as though that proves something in and of itself proves nothing.

Do you really not believe that some people who have been through horrible poverty could turn around and be selfish bastards when they get on their feet again? If so, you have a surprising faith in the human spirit. I've seen people in terrible situations go and do the same things to others. Some people just suck. Poverty does not create some sort of innate compassion or nobility.

I've seen people in terrible situations go and do the same things to others. Some people just suck. Poverty does not create some sort of innate compassion or nobility.

And nobility in one situation does not imply nobility in all situations.

1. Yes, you will STFU. You're going on my ignore list. That will insure that you do STFU.

Now who was it earlier in this thread that said "ignorance is bliss?"

2. I assumed nothing that wasn't justified by the reading of your words. Did I ever come out and SAY you were an asshole? No, I did not. I may well THINK it, but I never vocalized it.

Apparently you missed several posts in which I explicitly stated I do help the poor as much as I can but hey whatever, you didn't read them and you're not reading this, so your assumptions and misjudgements are faithfully preserved!

And this "I didn't really SAY you were an asshole, I just implied it, and think it!" is just plain coward bullshit. Mean what you say, or, as someone so tritely suggested, STFU.

God, sometimes the Rabid Left really pisses me off. "I'm a martyr, so I get to judge you and don't you dare judge me! La la la, I can't hear you!"

:headbang:

Yeah...well that is why I have an intake appointment with my state's Office of Vocational Rehabilitation next week. Maybe I can get some fucking happy pills, too.
Yeah, that's surely the way to solve all the problems!
No, it only treats the SYMPTOM...not the problem. I need my problems solved.

For me, all it will take is for someone to give me a fucking CHANCE!!!
They helped enough for me to MAKE my OWN chanse

I am not saying everyone can do it ... but they gave me enough of a head start to start taking controll of my life

I went from homeless clinicaly depressed teenager to double masters in Computer networking and information security and on my way to my doctorate

AND I DID IT MY FUCKING SELF!
Not a DIME was taken out on loan
Not a DIME of welfare was given to me
I did it BY MY FUCKING SELF you sit there and bitch and bitch While I try to be nice and understand that sometimes people need help (and they do)

But I am now fucking tired of the condecending beligerent attitude you have shown me and others

My situation might not be identical to yours but it was not fucking far off somehow you have managed to turn your low status into life into a point of deffinition
You have fallen for the trap of defining you are by how bad you are doing
That never leads to any good

Find something better about yourself to be your defining attitude rather then sticking with this poor fucking attitude

Some of the position you are in right now is because of things outside of your controll

But you know what if I had to guess a big chunk of why you are where you are is your fucking attitude

I personaly would never hire someone like you if I could help it ... you have a poor atitude that would lead to horrible employee relations ... no way I would jepordize whatever department I was in without you CLEANING UP YOUR ACT

God, sometimes the Rabid Left really pisses me off. "I'm a martyr, so I get to judge you and don't you dare judge me! La la la, I can't hear you!"

:headbang:Please for the love of god dont associate this behavior with the rest of the left (even though I am often not on the left ...)

Some of us do our best to understand how the fundies dont speek for the right
Accord us the same favor and try to understand

Holy shit this thread has descended into flames fast.

No...by limiting your options, he is making the challenge realistic! Because LIMITED OPTIONS is what causes most people to end up destitute. And when you are destitute, your options are even further limited.

By design, force, or circumstances beyond control, the poor often have very limited options. By limiting yours, he was trying to place you in the actual position poor people are in....you...on the other hand, are trying to solve the problems of the poor...from the position you are in, and the options available to you....AND GUESS WHAT?? THAT POSITION IS NOT WHERE THE POOR ARE!!! THE OPTIONS YOU HAVE AVAILABLE TO YOU IN YOUR CURRECNT POSITION...THOSE OPTIONS ARE NOT AVAILABLE TO THE POOR!!!

But, of course, you are too blinded by your greed and your exalted position to see this.

You always have the option to work hard and educate your self . It may limit your options in some things but it doesnt remove your ability to work your way out of it , Only you by your own personal choice can do that .
You can choose to fight to overcome obstacles ans make a better place for yourself .

Please for the love of god dont associate this behavior with the rest of the left (even though I am often not on the left ...)


I'm not, I specified the Rabid Left, and gave a conditional which meant only at times like these.

But really, the whole left/right thing is a misnomer most of the times, its ill-defined and subjective. Only in rare cases do people actually fit the stereotype, and unfortunately this is one of those cases so I felt it was OK to use the Rabid Left moniker. Personally, as I tend to believe in freedom and have a distrust of large and powerful organizations (like a government), I consider myself liberal and thus left. But it's subjective meaning when the "left" (as in US Democrats, or communist/socialists) comes up with "liberal" policies that, ironically, contradict and attack the notion of freedom I am forced to become "right" even though I am not a US Republican or equivalent.

I'm not, I specified the Rabid Left, and gave a conditional which meant only at times like these.

But really, the whole left/right thing is a misnomer most of the times, its ill-defined and subjective. Only in rare cases do people actually fit the stereotype, and unfortunately this is one of those cases so I felt it was OK to use the Rabid Left moniker. Personally, as I tend to believe in freedom and have a distrust of large and powerful organizations (like a government), I consider myself liberal and thus left. But it's subjective meaning when the "left" (as in US Democrats, or communist/socialists) comes up with "liberal" policies that, ironically, contradict and attack the notion of freedom I am forced to become "right" even though I am not a US Republican or equivalent.
I understand
And thanks for understanding

You always have the option to work hard and educate your self . It may limit your options in some things but it doesnt remove your ability to work your way out of it , Only you by your own personal choice can do that .
You can choose to fight to overcome obstacles ans make a better place for yourself .
Agreed ... and while I am not opposed to making sure you dont starve to death while you are there its up to you to raise yourself beyond basic survival

1. Yes, you will STFU. You're going on my ignore list. That will insure that you do STFU.

As a member of Lyric's ever expanding ignore list, I humbly welcome you, and would like to convey the advantages of Lyric ignoring you, you never get sweared at, lambasted, or screamed at in puerile terms. And you can argue your point without her disputing your points.... no wait, that already happens:p

Holy shit this thread exploded when I was gone.

The point was...when and if, Economic Associates reached the goal set for him...he would simply turn around and re-donate that money back to the charities he'd scraped it from.
The point was to challenge Economic Associates to even manage to GET that much out of charities, and the bet was that he could not.

And, whatever he DID manage to get out of them...he would just turn around and re-donate...so there would be no loss of funds for the people who REALLY need them.
And it was a stupid attempt full of fallacies that no one would ever do. It was a shitty debate tactic, instead of offering proof of why welfare should stay or why the government is obliged to help the poor he offered a loaded situation that was to be bad to anyone who would take it.

Bavaria tried to limit Economic's options, to make it a more realisitic challenge, by limiting his options to the options that most poor people have to work with. He would not be allowed, under this challenge...to use options that were not available to most poor people.
By limiting my opitions and making it seem like they were the only ones I had he presented an arguement with the fallacy of a false dilema. In reality there are far more ways I could go about that challenge then he put down.

Again....an attempt to make it more realistic! And, in the end, whatever monies were gleaned from charities...whatever he DID manage to get...would be re-donated back into the system. so as to not cause a loss for those who actually needed it.
If I were to make a thread on education and while you were arguing for a point say against state funded education and I was to make a bet saying okay you right now have to go and try to get a education now with limitations x,y,z you'd say thats bullshit and I need to provide an argument not some shitty bet no one would take. What that guy did is not a valid debate tactic.

Of course, Economic refused the challenge, because he knows that, to accept it...would cause him to have to re-think his views, and he does not want to do that. It would cause him to be better in touch with those less fortunate than he...and he does not want to do that.
Wow not only have you not been reading my posts your making generalizations about me when you don't even know who I am. I refused the challenge because A. its full of logical fallacies, and B. its a shitty debate tactic that is a cop out instead of offering any proof for the arguement.

Thus proving Bavaria's point that Economic is basically talking out of his ass when he proposes solutions for poor people. You can't solve the problems of the poor if you do not even understand the circumstances that caused them to become poor...and the circumstances that are keeping them poor!
We were talking about the solutions here? I was under the impression that this thread was soley about wheter or not the government was obliged to help the poor. Those are compeletely different topics and I've been talking about the why the government is not obliged to help rather private citizens are. And once again Bavaria's fallacious arguement proved nothing.

That challenge was an attempt to make people like Economic understand what it really IS to be poor.
No the challenge was a shitty try to get someone to be quiet instead of offering up proof that the government is obliged to help the poor.

No...by limiting your options, he is making the challenge realistic! Because LIMITED OPTIONS is what causes most people to end up destitute. And when you are destitute, your options are even further limited.
False dilema.

By design, force, or circumstances beyond control, the poor often have very limited options. By limiting yours, he was trying to place you in the actual position poor people are in....you...on the other hand, are trying to solve the problems of the poor...from the position you are in, and the options available to you....AND GUESS WHAT?? THAT POSITION IS NOT WHERE THE POOR ARE!!! THE OPTIONS YOU HAVE AVAILABLE TO YOU IN YOUR CURRECNT POSITION...THOSE OPTIONS ARE NOT AVAILABLE TO THE POOR!!!
There is no one standard case for poor people and their experiences are all different. The imposing limits is A. a false dilema fallacy, and B. an attempt to make the challenge unwinable. So stop with the damn challenge shit and show me why the government is obliged to help the poor through coercion.

But, of course, you are too blinded by your greed and your exalted position to see this.
More generalizations. Gee for someone so against that kind of thing you sure use it alot.

And your "solutions" most of which are NOT VIABLE for one reason or another, for the desperately poor...they AREN'T logical fallacies and strawmen??
We aren't talking about the solutions in this thread. Its wheter or not the government is obliged to help the poor. I've stated that no the government does not have the obligation and that it should fall on the shoulders of private citizens.

Yep. you have all the answers, don't you, Economic Associates??

Well, then, why don't you adopt me as a project, and see if YOU can improve MY life. Heaven knows I haven't managed to do shit with it!
Can't win the debate so you have to result to personal attacks.

So let's trade places. You take my circumstances, I'll take yours. You take your knowledge and whatever else you have...I'll take mine. and let's see if YOU can dig yourself out of the kind of hole I'm in??
What the hell does this have to do with the debate?

Of course he did! All elitist people like him who think their droppings don't stink, and think they are better than everyone else...and think they have all the answers...they always back down when challenged to actually TRY being the way some of us have ended up. Because they know their answers are full of shit, and they know that deep down inside, they have no feeling or compassion, whatever, for the plight of those less fortunate.
How is being a libertarian elitist? And the challenge was bogus. I know that and so does everyone else in the thread. You seem to think its some sort of silver bullet for the debate when its not.

Yeah? Well NOW you know what it feels like to me when YOU and others on this Forum make assumptions about ME when you don't know what I am like. tit-for-tat. Shoe don't feel so good on the other foot, does it, buddy?
Can you show me where I've made assumptions about you in the past?

That is the scenario I have set up for you! And that is the same scenario many people have to work with in the real world. But apparently they are too harsh and unfair for you, who cares about anyone else! The only option you had was to accept it or reject it. No customizing to your liking was an available option! Still want to participate and prove me wrong?
And finally your scenario is not based off some sort of average experience homeless and poor people face. It is a false dilema and I am not under any obligation to answer to a fallacious arguement. Not only that but its a bad debate tactic.

The Constitution of the United States of America makes congress responsible for the general welfare of the people .

I've yet to read all of my thread (yes, I'm Poopoosdf) but I'd like to clear this up right now.

First of all, the Preamble says "promote the general welfare" not provide. Thus, the Preamble cannot be used.

Section 8 of Article 1 does not imply responsibility. It does however (along with other powers) express what Congress CAN do, not what they HAVE to do.

Note:

Section 8. The Congress shall have power to lay and collect taxes, duties, imposts and excises, to pay the debts and provide for the common defense and general welfare of the United States; but all duties, imposts and excises shall be uniform throughout the United States;

I posted once before that I would have you come live in my house, and get a job down here in the Washington DC area, and you could live in my house until you got on your feet. I was posting under a different NS name.

You refused, saying that you could not leave your mother.

I recall that...but was not aware it was you. Yes, I mean that, too. I could not leave my mother. I spent over six years rebuilding a relationship with my mom that was torn to shit, thanks to my dad, and his refusal to accept my transgender status.
I will not place that relationship that I have so painstakingly rebuilt, in jeopardy.

I fear that, by taking you up on such an offer, I would alienate my mother, and ruin the relationship I built back up...and that is something I cannot do. I worked too hard to build that relationship back.

Incidentally, I apologize for cutting and running a few hours ago, earlier in this thread, but I got a call for a job interview...they gave me all of an hour and fifteen minutes notice, and I'm 25 miles from the job in question...and it was absolutely pouring down torrential rain! (I think they did it the way they did just to test me if I was available on short notice, and in any kind of weather, because that would be one of the job requirements. Incidentally, I DID make it on time, too!)
At any rate, I should know something more about that job by next week, possibly as early as this Friday. I all but got on my hands and knees and BEGGED for the job...not that I really want this specific job...but ANY JOB whatsoever.

The job I interviewed for is hardly my dream job, but it would at least provide some income, and the hours would totally not interfere with my ability to go back to school and finish my degree. The fact that my mother has a good reputation for reliability with the company in question (she is an independent contractor with this company, as a newspaper carrier - in addition to her full-time job) and that her district manager brought that to the attention of HR...and the fact that I mentioned this in the interview...the fact that there was no way I would do anything to harm my mother's rep....may well play in my favor.

The person who interviewed me DID say that persistence paid off with her, and noted that I had repeatedly called in since applying over two weeks ago, and that I had been able to come in on such short notice. Also noted was my willingness to accept a PT position, and move into a FT position once such an opportunity opened.

The job would involve driving a step van to deliver bundles of newspapers to carriers at set drop points. So, it is not a clerical office position like I would like, but at this point, I will take just about anything I can get, so long as it affords me the ability to return to school, so that one day I might better myself enough to crawl off the motherfucking shit heap once and for all.

Anyways, that is why I cut and ran so quickly.

snip
Glad to hear you have a job interview wish you the best with that

Good luck, Lyric.

I'm myself between gigs at the moment.

Hope you'll wish me luck, too.

I've yet to read all of my thread (yes, I'm Poopoosdf) but I'd like to clear this up right now.

First of all, the Preamble says "promote the general welfare" not provide. Thus, the Preamble cannot be used.

Section 8 of Article 1 does not imply responsibility. It does however (along with other powers) express what Congress CAN do, not what they HAVE to do.

Note:

Well once again as I said in the begining of the thread it depends on what the term welfare in there means. Do they mean that the government should take money from citizens to support those who can not do so for themselves. Or do they mean in a general term to provide serivces to the public such as utilties, roads, having a military/police force to protect people and the make their lives better.

How excatly? Witnesses? Pictures? How could you possibly prove your life is as tough as you say it is? And why the hell would you want to? We're a bunch of strangers for Dob's sake!

Point is, in a situation like this, debating with strangers, you either believe or do not, and that's fine. But asking for proof and then acting as though that proves something in and of itself proves nothing.

Do you really not believe that some people who have been through horrible poverty could turn around and be selfish bastards when they get on their feet again? If so, you have a surprising faith in the human spirit. I've seen people in terrible situations go and do the same things to others. Some people just suck. Poverty does not create some sort of innate compassion or nobility.

Well...I could prove that I am a transsexual. I can prove that a company discriminated against me for it. I could prove, thru former co-workers, that a different company lied to all of us about what our pay-scale would be. so there's a lot of shit in my life that, with minimal effort, I could prove.

And no, I cannot believe that anyone who has been thru horrible poverty could turn around and be a selfish bastard when they get on their feet again, because I SURE AS HELL COULDN'T!!

I would NEVER want to see someone having to go thru anything CLOSE to what I have, and would do anything in my power to prevent it.

And, when and if I DO get back on my feet, I can tell you, and you can mark my words...I damn well will be helping out, in any way that I can...those less fortunate than myself, BECAUSE IT IS THE RIGHT FUCKING THING TO DO!!

I personaly would never hire someone like you if I could help it ... you have a poor atitude that would lead to horrible employee relations ... no way I would jepordize whatever department I was in without you CLEANING UP YOUR ACT

Yeah...you wouldn't hire me, same as others won't...BECAUSE I AM A TRANSSEXUAL...and you damn well know it. If you cannot make a case for understanding WHY someone might have a shitty attitude...and realize that their attitude would improve as their life circumstances did, then I have no further use for you.

Well...I could prove that I am a transsexual. I can prove that a company discriminated against me for it. I could prove, thru former co-workers, that a different company lied to all of us about what our pay-scale would be. so there's a lot of shit in my life that, with minimal effort, I could prove.

And no, I cannot believe that anyone who has been thru horrible poverty could turn around and be a selfish bastard when they get on their feet again, because I SURE AS HELL COULDN'T!!

I would NEVER want to see someone having to go thru anything CLOSE to what I have, and would do anything in my power to prevent it.

And, when and if I DO get back on my feet, I can tell you, and you can mark my words...I damn well will be helping out, in any way that I can...those less fortunate than myself, BECAUSE IT IS THE RIGHT FUCKING THING TO DO!!

Why?

You always have the option to work hard and educate your self . It may limit your options in some things but it doesnt remove your ability to work your way out of it , Only you by your own personal choice can do that .
You can choose to fight to overcome obstacles ans make a better place for yourself .

Yeah? Then YOU fucking try it...with as limited resources as those who are in the shit-hole have!

Yeah...you wouldn't hire me, same as others won't...BECAUSE I AM A TRANSSEXUAL...and you damn well know it. If you cannot make a case for understanding WHY someone might have a shitty attitude...and realize that their attitude would improve as their life circumstances did, then I have no further use for you.
Um I DATED, a transexual dont assume Me thinks I have no problems with people of alternate lifestyles, I happen to be Bisexual myself

Yes but improving your life attitude could aso improve your life
It did to me

Yeah...you wouldn't hire me, same as others won't...BECAUSE I AM A TRANSSEXUAL...and you damn well know it. If you cannot make a case for understanding WHY someone might have a shitty attitude...and realize that their attitude would improve as their life circumstances did, then I have no further use for you.

Personally, I do feel for you, and cannot comprehend discrimination in the work place, however, do the examples of 5o cent and Mike Tyson not portray excellently quite why some poor who attain wealth are not altruistic, they live for themselves.

By limiting my opitions and making it seem like they were the only ones I had he presented an arguement with the fallacy of a false dilema. In reality there are far more ways I could go about that challenge then he put down.

Yes...IN YOUR CURRENT REALITY...there probably ARE more ways that you could go about that challenge. What he was trying to create for you...the conditions he was trying to create...ARE THE REALITY MOST POOR PEOPLE ARE ACTUALLY IN...AND THE LIMITED RESOURCES MOST POOR PEOPLE HAVE!!

But you still refuse to see it, you refuse to even try such a challenge, because, as you later note yourself...the challenge is unwinnable.

Precisely WHY government ought to continue to FORCE others into charity, because without that, it would be even that much fucking harder for poor people to EVER get off the shit-heap.

No, you'd rather kick rocks down on them, instead of giving them a hand up...or try seeing things from THEIR perspective instead of your own lofty position, and your own greed and selfishness.

So much easier to kick rocks down on others than it is to offer them a hand up, isn't it, E.A.??

I get the idea that lots of people like you even ENJOY kicking rocks down on people who are struggling, so that you can make their situation worse, so you can laugh and feel all that much more superior about yourself.

Well...I could prove that I am a transsexual. I can prove that a company discriminated against me for it. I could prove, thru former co-workers, that a different company lied to all of us about what our pay-scale would be. so there's a lot of shit in my life that, with minimal effort, I could prove.

And no, I cannot believe that anyone who has been thru horrible poverty could turn around and be a selfish bastard when they get on their feet again, because I SURE AS HELL COULDN'T!!

I would NEVER want to see someone having to go thru anything CLOSE to what I have, and would do anything in my power to prevent it.

And, when and if I DO get back on my feet, I can tell you, and you can mark my words...I damn well will be helping out, in any way that I can...those less fortunate than myself, BECAUSE IT IS THE RIGHT FUCKING THING TO DO!! It's good that you couldn't turn around and be a selfish bastard, and that you want to help when you are in a position to do so. But some people don't give a shit. Your tenacity on this point shows a surprising faith in humanity...but it doesn't necessarily reflect reality. Just because you could not do a thing does not mean someone else, in a similar situation, could not do that thing.

Glad to hear you have a job interview wish you the best with that

Well, that is all I want. someone to give me a goddamn CHANCE! A chance to make or break my own self. A hand UP...not a hand OUT.

Is that so fucking unreasonable to want?

and is it really all that unreasonable to be pissed off when, time and time again...people refuse to give you that chance...even after you have demonstrated your willingness by doing things such as driving EIGHTY FUCKING MILES ONE WAY to go to a goddamn job interview?? do you know how much fucking gas that costs?? and to get NOTHING in return??

It pisses me the hell off!!

Why call me for an interview, make me burn half a tank of gas (160 miles round trip) if you have no fucking intention of hiring me, and making it worth my goddamn while?!?!

Well, that is all I want. someone to give me a goddamn CHANCE! A chance to make or break my own self. A hand UP...not a hand OUT.

Is that so fucking unreasonable to want?
Nope if you can prove yourself a good worker and keep a good atitude at work I would absolutly offer you a job

Hell you come to minnesota and are willing to learn computer troubleshooting I have a job for you in the fall for as long as you go to collage

But the prerequisite is you NEED to keep that can do attitude I HAVE seen you embody rather then falling back on the bitchy poor you attitude we see

I cant afford the trouble of someone that can not work hard and deal with coustomers and fellow empoyees well

Good luck, Lyric.

I'm myself between gigs at the moment.

Hope you'll wish me luck, too.

I'll wish you good luck. Me, I am beyond luck. I need bigger help than that. I need fucking divine intervention at this point!

I mean, God, it pisses me off SO BADLY when I get called for an interview...and I use what limited resources I have left, to travel extraordinary distances to go to these interviews...and the interviewers KNOW how damn far I came, and what it cost me in terms of gas to do it...AND THEN THEY DON'T FUCKING HIRE ME TO MAKE IT WORTH MY GODDAMN WHILE!!

They are eating away at my limited resources, and giving me nothing in return for it! And that pisses me the hell off!

Why?

Jesus H. Christ on a fucking popsicle stick!! If you don't KNOW why helping others is the right fucking thing to do, then you are hopeless, and you are not even worth my time.
I got no further use for you.

Yes but improving your life attitude could aso improve your life
It did to me

Impasse. Improving my life circumstances is the only thing that is going to improve my life attitude.

It's good that you couldn't turn around and be a selfish bastard, and that you want to help when you are in a position to do so. But some people don't give a shit. Your tenacity on this point shows a surprising faith in humanity...but it doesn't necessarily reflect reality. Just because you could not do a thing does not mean someone else, in a similar situation, could not do that thing.
I just have no capacity, whatsoever...to understand how someone who has suffered that brutally, could sit there and complacently watch someone ELSE suffer that brutally, when it is within their power to prevent such suffering.

I know that I would never be able to sit by and watch someone else go thru what I have, if it were within my power to prevent it. and I cannot see how anyone else who has been where I have been, could possibly be such a heartless bastard, and watch someone else go thru it, and not lift a damn finger to help.

Impasse. Improving my life circumstances is the only thing that is going to improve my life attitude.
Then its going to be tough ... I was not able to do it untill I took care of my depression (at least in part)

I just have no capacity, whatsoever...to understand how someone who has suffered that brutally, could sit there and complacently watch someone ELSE suffer that brutally, when it is within their power to prevent such suffering. You don't need to understand it for it to happen. And it does. Oh, it does.

I'm guessing that having put a well reasoned and fair point across right when this thread was turing into a pyrotechnic display is why my post has been ignored

Impasse. Improving my life circumstances is the only thing that is going to improve my life attitude.
Just a guess, but maybe potential employers can sense the hatred radiating from you and don't want that in their workplace...? If I were an employer, I probably wouldn't want to hire someone I felt wouldn't think twice about slitting my throat for being prosperous, regardless of my actual condition. :/

Then its going to be tough ... I was not able to do it untill I took care of my depression (at least in part)

Why do you think I am going thru the Office of Vocational Rehabilitation? TO GET SOME HELP FOR THE DEPRESSION!!

Nevertheless, I suspect my form of depression is different from what you went thru.

I have what psychologists refer to as chronic, acute depression of the agitated type.

In layman's terms, what this means is...I am subject to frequent bouts of severe depression...but that my depression requires an outside trigger. In my case, that trigger has always been economic instability. It is the one thing in life that I absolutely cannot handle...any degree of insecurity in an economic sense sends me spiralling right down into hell.

My depression is not caused by any type of medical condition or chemical imbalance. It is caused ENTIRELY by outside forces.

I'm not bipolar or anything like that...where you cycle for no apparent reason (I have a friend who IS bipolar, and a rapid-cycler, so I know what I am talking about here) My situation, quite literally, is caused entirely by outside forces beyond my control in most cases.

And it sends me spiralling very quickly into a deep fucking hole.

ANY form of economic insecurity...is something I am absolutely unable to cope with.

Which is part of the reason I so badly hate capitalism, and want to live in a Socialist country. I want to know that if, God forbid....I need help...THE HELP WILL ACTUALLY BE THERE!!
That is why I am more in favor of government help, and forced charity. Because I cannot place my economic security in the hands of the whims of others...because that is not secure.

Understand? i need SECURITY!! Without it, I am rapidly depressed, and very badly. I get to the point where I cannot eat or sleep, or function hardly at all.

Just a guess, but maybe potential employers can sense the hatred radiating from you and don't want that in their workplace...?
Personaly if I see that sort of hatred i would hire the person not radiating such

Your impression is everything

Just a guess, but maybe potential employers can sense the hatred radiating from you and don't want that in their workplace...?
Who the fuck asked YOU?? You are already on my shit-list!
Damn, has your weeklong Forumban been served ALREADY??
Damn, and just as I was enjoying not having you around me....

Why do you think I am going thru the Office of Vocational Rehabilitation? TO GET SOME HELP FOR THE DEPRESSION!!

Nevertheless, I suspect my form of depression is different from what you went thru.

I have what psychologists refer to as chronic, acute depression of the agitated type.

Mine was the non agitated form of the same kind ... mine was not always triggered but agravated by relationship and sexuality issues

But my chemical balance was not TOO bad that whole priest thing kind of set it off in a massive downwards spiral

Like I said I am not trying to trivialize what you went through just let you know I can relate

Who the fuck asked YOU?? You are already on my shit-list!
Damn, has your weeklong Forumban been served ALREADY??
Damn, and just as I was enjoying not having you around me....
This is a public forum, and I read in Moderation that you had hijacked this thread. Nice. Yes. Pardon me.

Well, that is all I want. someone to give me a goddamn CHANCE! A chance to make or break my own self. A hand UP...not a hand OUT.

Is that so fucking unreasonable to want?

and is it really all that unreasonable to be pissed off when, time and time again...people refuse to give you that chance...even after you have demonstrated your willingness by doing things such as driving EIGHTY FUCKING MILES ONE WAY to go to a goddamn job interview?? do you know how much fucking gas that costs?? and to get NOTHING in return??

It pisses me the hell off!!

Why call me for an interview, make me burn half a tank of gas (160 miles round trip) if you have no fucking intention of hiring me, and making it worth my goddamn while?!?!

Because you don't have the exact skills/qualities/etc. they maybe looking for?

Because you're bad experience has now tainted your attitude towards all successful people and they can detect this?

I'm not saying this to insult you, just give you possible reasons that they may not be hiring you.

I don't appreciate yours (and everyone else's) generalizations about rich/successful people. I only mention those generalizations because I haven't seen any stereotypes of all welfare-users being lazy. So, if you could keep those out of the thread, I'd be appreciative.

I would really like to know why people should be forced into giving their money to charity?

It seems to me that there are plenty of people in this thread alone willing to give to charities voluntarily (myself included). There are a couple of "bad" apples, but in this case, they don't spoil the bunch. It's that person's choice to do what he wants with his money.

Most sensible libertarians do not advocate the complete abolition of welfare overnight. This would lead to massive riots, increase in crime, etc.

Rather, a gradual cutback of the program is to be expected. Every **** (unit of time here) more and more of the system would be taken away. Those using welfare would gradually be weaned from the government teat (teehee). They would learn to return to private charity, churches, etc.

As tax cuts would be running with the abolition of welfare, people would be getting more money back. Most people, I think, would be willing to donate some to charity.

The libertarian solution is not a perfect one; there are of course going to be some homeless and unemployed people -- unfortunately, that is needed for a capitalist society.

However, every other system has been weighed, measured, and been found wanting.

The libertarian solution is not a perfect one; there are of course going to be some homeless and unemployed people -- unfortunately, that is needed for a capitalist society.

However, every other system has been weighed, measured, and been found wanting.
And that is PRECISELY the problem with a capitalistic society. It artificially, and by design, creates PREVENTABLE deprivations! Now, if some people are deprived of owning a yacht or a country club membership...well, hard cheese on them...not everyone GETS to own a yacht or a country club membership. But when the deprivations lead to someone being deprived BASIC LIFE NECESSITIES that is the point at which capitalism has gone too fucking far, and needs to be reined in. Fast.

And that is PRECISELY the problem with a capitalistic society. It artificially, and by design, creates PREVENTABLE deprivations! Now, if some people are deprived of owning a yacht or a country club membership...well, hard cheese on them...not everyone GETS to own a yacht or a country club membership. But when the deprivations lead to someone being deprived BASIC LIFE NECESSITIES that is the point at which capitalism has gone too fucking far, and needs to be reined in. Fast.

Reined in, how? How exactly do you propopse to rectify the situation? Should the success of one man be penalized for the failure of another?

Well if you want security move out of the states and to ANY other first world country, america is rapidly degenerating to the third world, My fiance lives in NY and she agrees wholeheartedly and cant wait to get out. I mean lol laissez faire didnt do any good in the great depression ie it sort of caused it, and well history repeats. No controls = no hope for emergence from a recession or depression, why do the dems do better on economy? they raise taxes. Sorry you want a socialist nation it costs money, money that the government desperately needs to give back to the rich. american taxes are like reverse robin hood lol.



I was shocked and appalled when i discovered people making minimum wage [approx 60% of americans] pay 25% tax in the states <.<. I make minimum wage in canada and i pay 1 dollar for taxes, 5 if i make 1200 a month...but my dad who makes over 100k he pays alot lol. Thats why canada works, most of our population is middle class and they pay good taxes, the rich pay even more, the scale though is different in the states. AS most people arent middle classed they just make em pay 25% of the bill and have done with it. Simply put the american government steals from the poor top give to the rich, even when the country is an economic failure and losing a war, even as the people that bought the treasury bonds flee away from the sinking ship, the bush government moves intrepidly onward to the future, of windmill power, coach and buggies, and religous instruction. The country is failing cause it never took even a small bit of socialism like very other nation did, all it takes is a few little things like controls and regulations, but thats too much to ask someone like George Bush, Dick Cheney and their arab backers.

I was shocked and appalled when i discovered people making minimum wage [approx 60% of americans] pay 25% tax in the states have done with it.

Taxes are the problem here, I will agree with you on that.

Simply put the american government steals from the poor top give to the rich, even when the country is an economic failure and losing a war, even as the people that bought the treasury bonds flee away from the sinking ship, the bush government moves intrepidly onward to the future, of windmill power, coach and buggies, and religous instruction.


Steals from the poor, to give to the rich? I never knew that! It's not like we pay for welfare or anything... I didn't know Bill Gates is paying less than that 40-year old janitor at McDonalds in taxes... And on top of it all, Bill's getting money from the government? Hmph, well, I'll be darned.

The country is failing cause it never took even a small bit of socialism like very other nation did, all it takes is a few little things like controls and regulations, but thats too much to ask someone like George Bush, Dick Cheney and their arab backers.

Country is failing because our government is doing a poor job in general. Tax cuts and the most expensive thing a government can do (war) at the same time is never a good idea. If anything, the small bit of socialism that we have implemented (welfare/social security) seems to be causing more trouble than it's worth.

To answer the question: No, the U.S. government is not legally obliged to help the poor. However, the answer becomes confusing when you input morality. Which is what Lyric and others are ranting and raving about.

Here are my beliefs, which may be tainted due to the circumstances of half of my family. About half of the poor are poor because of circumstances beyond their control. An example is my nan (grandma) and papa (grandpa), who had to drop out of school and work at a young age in order to support their family. They never finished middle school. My papa has been unemployed several times, due to his jobs going overseas.

The other half, a good example is my cousin Robbie, are poor because they are really lazy and/or incredibly stupid. On his first day of work, my cousin (who is 16, under the legal drinking age here in America) showed up for work completely drunk. Despite being smart otherwise, he has flunked 9th grade twice because he puts no effort into it. He, like my Uncle Bradly (similar circumstances), will probably grow up to be poor, but could have been anything he wanted had he applied himself.

Now, having provided my two classes of poor people, I will answer the moral aspect of the question. The first example, the hardworking people who have been hurt by life's random chances, deserve aid of one form or another if they can't support themselves and/or their children. The second example, the lazy ass who fucked up by choice, deserve no aid. Their children, however, need to survive. So the kids deserve aid.

And that is PRECISELY the problem with a capitalistic society. It artificially, and by design, creates PREVENTABLE deprivations! Now, if some people are deprived of owning a yacht or a country club membership...well, hard cheese on them...not everyone GETS to own a yacht or a country club membership. But when the deprivations lead to someone being deprived BASIC LIFE NECESSITIES that is the point at which capitalism has gone too fucking far, and needs to be reined in. Fast.

Well, let's look into why you have trouble getting a job.

Can you tell us a little bit about your education, background, and skills, and the types of jobs you've had before? And what type of job you're looking for?

One of the big things I've noticed in this thread is that when someone says that they are opposed to welfare they are labeled selfish and lacking compasion immediately as if their reason is to say screw the poor. I don't think anyone here has taken that stance. I myself have taken the stance that the government is not obliged to take care of the poor and should not be allowed to use coercive means to take money from people to do so. Rather I believe the burden falls on private citizens to do so volunatrily through the use of charaties and other private institutions. No one here is saying that the poor need to stay poor and that people should help them only we are disagreeing on how to do so.

One of the big things I've noticed in this thread is that when someone says that they are opposed to welfare they are labeled selfish and lacking compasion immediately as if their reason is to say screw the poor. I don't think anyone here has taken that stance. I myself have taken the stance that the government is not obliged to take care of the poor and should not be allowed to use coercive means to take money from people to do so. Rather I believe the burden falls on private citizens to do so volunatrily through the use of charaties and other private institutions. No one here is saying that the poor need to stay poor and that people should help them only we are disagreeing on how to do so.
Because YOUR way will not work. Private charity will not fill all the need that is out there. We cannot allow the poor to be at the mercy of the whims of private citizens desire to be charitable at a given time. Help cannot wait until someone is willing to give it.

The US has neither moral nor legal requirement to provide welfare.

It just makes good sense to do so.

I support welfare specifically because I *am* selfish, and I've looked into the research around private charity.

The first thing you need to know, people who donate tend to donate regardless of their income, and donate at basically a fixed percentage of it once they're beyond their basic needs. If their income goes up, they tend to donate in the same proportion as they did before. If that proportion was zero before, then it is extremely likely that amount will continue to be zero as their income increases.

There is one caveat to that, however: A lot of people who do donate, donate specifically for the tax rebates you receive when doing so.

So, take those two facts and take a look at what really happens. Let's assume the government stops providing welfare and instead that money returns to the people. Since people tend to pay a fixed percentage of what they make, that means only a percentage of what was going to welfare before goes to welfare after. Or in other words, just because you pay $100 less tax doesn't mean you're going to spend $100 more on charity. Given that America donates about 2.5% of its GDP to private charity, you can make a reasonable estimate that of that $100 each person no longer gets taxed, an average of about $2.50 per person will go to private charity. Or in other words, what was previously spent on welfare would decrease around 97%, and that's being generous in that it's not accounting for those who donate for the tax rebates.

Now, no matter how efficient you think private charities are, do you really think they could make up that kind of shortfall?

The second thing you need to know is that private charity is actually amazingly inefficient for handling basic needs. You see, people have this habit of donating primarily to the cause celebre of the week. A wounded puppy shows up on TV, the next week donations to animal shelters soar, while donations to homeless shelters drop. Battered woman on the news? Same thing, donations to womens charities go up but donations elsewhere go down. Christmas? All charities get a little more, but the food-banks and "toy" charities receive the lions share by far, which is a good thing, because they get practically nothing in comparison the rest of the year.

In other words, rather than steady incomes that allow for efficient planning and use of the funds, private charities are generally in either feast or famine mode. This is not an efficient mode of operation as it requires much more complex planning and much better forecasting, both of which come with commensurately higher costs.

The third thing you need to remember is that the poor will not disappear if welfare is not there. They won't disappear if welfare is there either, but if their basic needs are met, neither will they riot in the streets and cause a disruption to the rest of society. However, if their basic needs are not met, they generally won't lie down and die. Some, hopefully a good many, will become more productive and maybe find a way to fit in. Others will resort to criminal means. As the number of those who can't meet their basic needs goes up, the number of those who might resort to criminal means also goes up.

The fourth thing is that, in a society where helping the poor is entirely voluntary, economic advantage accrues to those that do not do so. Meaning that the society is set on an economic down-spiral course where those who don't care will be able to take larger amounts of economic power, thus reducing the ability of those who do care even further.

You put all of those together, a society that makes giving to the poor more difficult because those that do get put in a worse situation, a society that has removed 97% of it's support for the poor, a society that concentrates its support for the poor into programs that have to operate in spurts, and top this up with the idea that if the basic needs of someone are not being met, there is a chance they will turn to violence and disrupt the society they are in -- especially if they can see how their basic needs could be met illegally, such as by stealing the stuff of those that have it, and you have a recipe for disaster.

Well, let's look into why you have trouble getting a job.

Can you tell us a little bit about your education, background, and skills, and the types of jobs you've had before? And what type of job you're looking for?

I believe I have gone into this a number of times already.

The US has neither moral nor legal requirement to provide welfare.

It just makes good sense to do so.

I support welfare specifically because I *am* selfish, and I've looked into the research around private charity.
Of course. No one thinks giving money to the poor is a bad move. Most people disagree on how to do so.

<snip>
Interesting stuff. You have any links I can look more into this?

As a member of Lyric's ever expanding ignore list, I humbly welcome you, and would like to convey the advantages of Lyric ignoring you, you never get sweared at, lambasted, or screamed at in puerile terms. And you can argue your point without her disputing your points.... no wait, that already happens:p

Thanks, I suspect it'll be an honor to join this fine crowd.
Do we have a bar? I could use another drink.

Thanks, I suspect it'll be an honor to join this fine crowd.
Do we have a bar? I could use another drink.
yeah...being ignored on the internet by children rules

Selfishness OUGHT to fucking be illegal!

And to your last statement, I counter with a quote from Jesus Himself..."as you do unto the least among you, so also you do unto Me."

In other words...TAKE CARE OF THE POOR, AND DO IT WILLINGLY!!

YOU don't seem willing. What's more, MOST people don't seem willing. which is why the government has to FORCE you to.

And I'm all in favor of it.

First of all, one would need to be a follower of Jesus for such a statement to make a difference. Making such an assumption on this forum is detremental.

Secondly, you assume that simply because I present opposite arguments to your emotive reactions that I follow and practice them. I have several sisters who are Wiccian and a brother who is a Druid. I support them in their works and am knowledgable in the basis of their spellwork and ritual. I have even help them to the physical set up. Doesn't mean that I practice magic. And I especially don't want the govt comming in and telling either of us what we can do.

I make my contributions to the poor and they are mine to make. I don't need to prove them or justify them to anyone. The Government's job is to protect each person from each other person and external non-natural threats. It is not a source of moral compulsion. I understand that you may feel it is so but that is the way towards Totalinarism and/or Dictatorship. My not aiding you doesn't not violate any of your rights. You taking my money away from me for your use (as opposed to the public good and the general welfare; i.e. roads, basic infrastructure and such) violates my rights of property. In addition your additude that I (and collectively everyone else) owe you in any way shape or form makes us less inclined to aid you. Why don't you just go put a gun to someones head and take money directly instead of having the government do it for you?

First of all, one would need to be a follower of Jesus for such a statement to make a difference. Making such an assumption on this forum is detremental.

Secondly, you assume that simply because I present opposite arguments to your emotive reactions that I follow and practice them. I have several sisters who are Wiccian and a brother who is a Druid. I support them in their works and am knowledgable in the basis of their spellwork and ritual. I have even help them to the physical set up. Doesn't mean that I practice magic. And I especially don't want the govt comming in and telling either of us what we can do.

I make my contributions to the poor and they are mine to make. I don't need to prove them or justify them to anyone. The Government's job is to protect each person from each other person and external non-natural threats. It is not a source of moral compulsion. I understand that you may feel it is so but that is the way towards Totalinarism and/or Dictatorship. My not aiding you doesn't not violate any of your rights. You taking my money away from me for your use (as opposed to the public good and the general welfare; i.e. roads, basic infrastructure and such) violates my rights of property. In addition your additude that I (and collectively everyone else) owe you in any way shape or form makes us less inclined to aid you. Why don't you just go put a gun to someones head and take money directly instead of having the government do it for you?

Would you really rather needy people get reduced to the point where that becomes a necessity for thier survival?

Trust me, plenty of poor people WILL do it...and WILL pull the trigger on you, and you will be DEAD...because their minimum survival needs were not met.

They will NOT just willingly curl up and die.

When their very survival is at stake, let me tell you, all morals, principles, laws, and ethics be damned, they will do whatever is necessary to survive even one more minute. And if that means blowing your head off in order to take your property, THEY WILL DO IT!!

Would you prefer someone who will actually KILL YOU to hold the gun to your head...or would you prefer the government to do it? In other words...would you rather "forfeit" your property against your will...or would you rather forfeit your LIFE against your will? (and if you forfeit your life, guarantee they won't leave your property alone)

As long as there is desperation and deprivation in the world, it will be this way. Civilization only works when everyone obeys the rules. Well, one someone has nothing left to lose, and has no other choice but to A - curl up and die...or B - Violate the rules...I guarantee you, they will violate the rules. And they will do it in a way you will not like.

So, I ask you again...would you rather someone who ACTUALLY WOULD blow your head off and take your property in order to survive, to hold a gun to your head...or would you prefer that the government do it?

I thought you'd see it my way!

Would you really rather needy people get reduced to the point where that becomes a necessity for thier survival?

Trust me, plenty of poor people WILL do it...and WILL pull the trigger on you, and you will be DEAD...because their minimum survival needs were not met.

Would you prefer someone who will actually KILL YOU to hold the gun to your head...or would you prefer the government to do it?

I thought you'd see it my way!

Appeal to fear.

Just curious, how do you "earn" the moral right to property?

I do work that I negotiate with another person or entity for compensation. It may be in the form of money, goods or serivces. When I complete the work they present me with the compensation. It is my labor that completed the task thus I earned that compensation. If I trade it to someone else for a material item (i.e. property) I have exchanged one thing I own for another which I now own instead.

Would you really rather needy people get reduced to the point where that becomes a necessity for thier survival?

Trust me, plenty of poor people WILL do it...and WILL pull the trigger on you, and you will be DEAD...because their minimum survival needs were not met.

Would you prefer someone who will actually KILL YOU to hold the gun to your head...or would you prefer the government to do it?

I thought you'd see it my way!
While like I said before I am all for suplying the minnimum need for people thoes that break the law steal or phisicaly assult others I have no qualms punishing to the full extent of the law regardless of the motivation

Appeal to fear.

No, appeal to REALITY!!!

Do you honestly believe that someone with nothing left to lose...and whose very survival hangs in the balance...is going to respect your property rights, when they can simply blow your head off and TAKE what they need to survive?

Trust me, they will do it. I have been there. I never had to do it, but I sure as hell know I'm capable of it. I'd do that before I would just curl up and die, I can tell you that!

Moral obligation? Absolutely. We all do.

Legal obligation? Well... American poor only. The US government must protect its citizens. So it helps them, not because they are poor, but because they are American poor.

And whoever thought of making charitable donations tax-deductible was both a righteous man AND a genius, for encouraging donations even from selfish people.

Oh, and thanks for reminding me of your presence, E.A. I forgot to put you on ignore where you belong.
I have no use for you.

No, appeal to REALITY!!!

Do you honestly believe that someone with nothing left to lose...and whose very survival hangs in the balance...is going to respect your property rights, when they can simply blow your head off and TAKE what they need to survive?

Trust me, they will do it. I have been there. I never had to do it, but I sure as hell know I'm capable of it. I'd do that before I would just curl up and die, I can tell you that!
I dunno...it seems hard to imagine somebody killing another in cold blood for their necessities ever becoming a valuable member of society. The guilt a person would probably feel when they reached the same place as the person they murdered seems like a very formidable thing. I imagine murder of this kind as the kind of thing a person does who has no plans on entering society.

Summary: Why does a poor person deserve to usurp a middle-class person's position by using murder? What is the difference between the middle-class person who reached that state by murder and the one who reached it by legitimate means?

It's getting nice and peaceful around here when I no longer have to listen to people who piss me the fuck off!!

Oh, and thanks for reminding me of your presence, E.A. I forgot to put you on ignore where you belong.
I have no use for you.

lol thats great. So your just going to try to surround yourself with posters who espouse your ideas. Perhaps if you could just listen to others without blowing up and making generalizations I'd care a bit more. But then again you don't so I really could care less about what you do. Good luck with life Lyric. Me I've got better things to do then worry about some bitter poster on NS.

I have a job, thank you. I have been in the grocery business for 29 years. I make roughly $20.00 an hour and work 40 hours. Most importantly however, is that I am a Christian, and I do care about my fellow man. I donate and help the poor on a DAILY basis. How about you?
Better make sure you send some of that money directly to Lyric...after all you're rich.

lol thats great. So your just going to try to surround yourself with posters who espouse your ideas. Perhaps if you could just listen to others without blowing up and making generalizations I'd care a bit more. But then again you don't so I really could care less about what you do. Good luck with life Lyric. Me I've got better things to do then worry about some bitter poster on NS.

You disagree with me for the sole purpose of pissing me off, and you know it!

You have never once even given me one fucking point. You do it solely to piss me off.

Well, screw it, I have had enough of your bullshit.

You care for no one but yourself, and your words prove it.

I have no use for people who do not care for others. I have no use for selfish, greedy people.

Goodbye.

Better make sure you send some of that money directly to Lyric...after all you're rich.

Did you want to join the list too?

One more fucking snarky comment like that, and you WILL.

I will not put up with people intentionally pissing me off.

You disagree with me for the sole purpose of pissing me off, and you know it!

You have never once even given me one fucking point. You do it solely to piss me off.

Well, screw it, I have had enough of your bullshit.

You care for no one but yourself, and your words prove it.

I have no use for people who do not care for others. I have no use for selfish, greedy people.

Goodbye.
You have hardly shown yourself to be what I call a caring person either

Did you want to join the list too?

One more fucking snarky comment like that, and you WILL.

I will not put up with people intentionally pissing me off.
Then dont ... why the whole dramaqueen-esque threat/announcements?

You have hardly shown yourself to be what I call a caring person either

You wanna join the list, too? Keep it up. Keep making snarky comments.

You will join the exiled.

I WILL NOT tolerate being intentionally pissed off. I have ENOUGH MOTHERFUCKING STRESS IN MY LIFE ALREADY...without a bunch of snarky, heartless, greedy, uncaring, unfeeling people adding more stress, thank you very much.

Ypu're criticising me for having a shitty attitude, and I am just telling you...hey...before you criticize me for having a shitty attitude, why don't you try walking a mile in my shoes, and see what kind of attitude YOU would develop?

Then judge me all you want. But until you have walked a mile in my shoes, STFU.

However, if we were to tell you that we've been in that situation and worked ourselves out of it by hard work and a positive attitude, your first reaction, historically, would be "bullshit...prove it!" For that matter why should we believe that you are in your current situation? What proof other that your own words have you to offer up? Heck you have internet...you can't be all that poor? $15 a month is a lot to a poor person. Do you have a cell as well?

You disagree with me for the sole purpose of pissing me off, and you know it!
So wait I don't have any ideals of my own I just exist for the sole point of pissing you off? Perhaps you don't realise there are people who have different views then you or the fact that there are so many different views you will always find numerous ones that come into conflict with you?

You have never once even given me one fucking point. You do it solely to piss me off.
Given you a point? If by that you mean agreeing with you I don't have to. I am allowed to espouse whichever views I would like just like you are. If we dont agree well it happens. I see no reason to have personal animosity over views.

Well, screw it, I have had enough of your bullshit.

You care for no one but yourself, and your words prove it.
Generalizing again are we. You don't know me or what I've done so right now your just grasping at straws.

I have no use for people who do not care for others. I have no use for selfish, greedy people.

Goodbye.
And I have no use for people who are bitter, self absorbed, who generalize others without knowing them, and are all around people you wouldn't want to know. I pity you Lyric I really do.

Then dont ... why the whole dramaqueen-esque threat/announcements?
Ignoring people beats letting them piss you off and ruin your day. Seems smart to ignore them, and I personally like to know when I'm being ignored. When one's already angry, it's hard to be polite talking to the people who pissed you off. :P

However, if we were to tell you that we've been in that situation and worked ourselves out of it by hard work and a positive attitude, your first reaction, historically, would be "bullshit...prove it!" For that matter why should we believe that you are in your current situation? What proof other that your own words have you to offer up? Heck you have internet...you can't be all that poor? $15 a month is a lot to a poor person. Do you have a cell as well?

Adios.

You wanna join the list, too? Keep it up. Keep making snarky comments.

You will join the exiled.

I WILL NOT tolerate being intentionally pissed off. I have ENOUGH MOTHERFUCKING STRESS IN MY LIFE ALREADY...without a bunch of snarky, heartless, greedy, uncaring, unfeeling people adding more stress, thank you very much.
Thats fine if you dont care to converse with me I have no wish to force you ... I will continue to respond to your posts for the sake of general debate anyways

You are always welcome to do as you please ... if sticking your fingers in your ears and closing your eyes is what you need to do to get through life so be it ... do it

Ignoring people beats letting them piss you off and ruin your day. Seems smart to ignore them, and I personally like to know when I'm being ignored. When one's already angry, it's hard to be polite talking to the people who pissed you off. :P

Precisely. First intelligent thing I have ever heard you say!

Wow...this got ugly and sad. What were we talking about, anyway? Wanna get back on track, anyone?

Thanks for providing us with your tired and useless rhetoric. Take the challenge and prove me wrong or move along to a thread with subject matter you might be a bit wiser and more knowlegeble with. Adress the issue and stop beating around the bush and trying to change the subject. I doubt that you are able to!
It's about as tired and usueless as your rhetoric....or this one for that matter. ;)

Wow...this got ugly and sad. What were we talking about, anyway? Wanna get back on track, anyone?

We were talking about wheter or not the government had an obligation to help the poor. I myself have espoused the view that the government should not be allowed to coerce money from people that will not be used to benefit the general good of all people ie those people who generate money get nothing from it. I personally believe more in the freedom aspect of the arguement that people should be allowed to give money when they want to rather then being forced. I think welfare should be phased out over a period of years until the burden can rest on private organizations and charaties.

Ignoring people beats letting them piss you off and ruin your day. Seems smart to ignore them, and I personally like to know when I'm being ignored. When one's already angry, it's hard to be polite talking to the people who pissed you off. :P
I know but whats up with the gradoise decrees of ignoring ... it seems like a cry for attention more then someone just doing what they need to do to

I know but whats up with the gradoise decrees of ignoring ... it seems like a cry for attention more then someone just doing what they need to do to
Let's all ignore it. It's not important. If people are ignored, they're ignored, no need to take it any farther than that.

Now, anyway!

What was the last thing you guys were talking about before this turned into "I'm finished with you" "fine" "fine" "that's great" "sure is" etc.

something having to do with the OP? :P

Well, I am up to 20 names now, on my Ignore list. anyone else wanna piss me off? I have HAD IT. Anyone who pisses me off goes to Ignore.

I cannot continue to function at the level of anger I am being goaded into.

Wow...this got ugly and sad. What were we talking about, anyway? Wanna get back on track, anyone?
Will do

Personaly while I would like to see private charity able to take up the position the government does I think that the most important thing is making sure they have they have what they need to survive first and formost

IF that means the governement has to take up that function then so be it but I would like to see it transfer hands if it is fesable to private charity

As long as the basics are being met

I know but whats up with the gradoise decrees of ignoring ... it seems like a cry for attention more then someone just doing what they need to do to

No, it is done in the hope that you, in turn, will also ignore ME...that way I never have to listen to you ever again. It is to let you know that I HATE YOU.

I see you are resorting to the usual namecalling. When all else fails.....

Sorry to see that you lack an extensive vocabulary to defend your positions. That is usually the case with many. Good day!
Lyric has certainally done her share of the name calling as well...will you take her to task? Failure to do so indicates an unwillingness to accept a logical argument, even if only to say "I see your point...I still disagree with it, but it was well presented"

Lyric has certainally done her share of the name calling as well...will you take her to task? Failure to do so indicates an unwillingness to accept a logical argument, even if only to say "I see your point...I still disagree with it, but it was well presented"

You can't insult a horse by calling it a horse.

I call 'em the way I see 'em. If someone is greedy and selfish, I damn well am going to point it out. and that is not calling names. Again, you cannot insult a horse by calling it a horse. If the shoe fits, wear it.

Will do

Personaly while I would like to see private charity able to take up the position the government does I think that the most important thing is making sure they have they have what they need to survive first and formost

IF that means the governement has to take up that function then so be it but I would like to see it transfer hands if it is fesable to private charity

As long as the basics are being met

I tend to agree with this position. For me the real issue is should the government be allowed to coerce money from people for things they themselves will not use. It has to be done by choice not by force.

No, it is done in the hope that you, in turn, will also ignore ME...that way I never have to listen to you ever again. It is to let you know that I HATE YOU.
Nope I am just fine debating with someone I do not agree with ... I have no need to ignore you ... I am most deffinatly strong enough to deal with the agitation

Even I dont agree with you that does not mean I cant learn from you ... and I cant do that if I am ignoring you

Only a fool thinks others, even thoes they dont agree with has nothing to share

Will do

Personaly while I would like to see private charity able to take up the position the government does I think that the most important thing is making sure they have they have what they need to survive first and formost

IF that means the governement has to take up that function then so be it but I would like to see it transfer hands if it is fesable to private charity

As long as the basics are being met
True dat. People can't be left helpless, no matter where the help winds up coming from. I'm interested in seeing this task moved to the private sector, however. How can this be done and preserve the channels made available by the government now?

I tend to agree with this position. For me the real issue is should the government be allowed to coerce money from people for things they themselves will not use. It has to be done by choice not by force.
I agree ... idealy absolutly but I feel their basic welfare overrides my dislike for people being charged for services they dont use

At least for now ... hopefully a better solution presents itself or the opertunity to let thoes that wish to pick up the slack

True dat. People can't be left helpless, no matter where the help winds up coming from. I'm interested in seeing this task moved to the private sector, however. How can this be done and preserve the channels made available by the government now?
Im not sure there is a way with the way it is designed ... I would like to see a slow takeover maybe region by region by some sort of private charity or organization

Maybe with a bare minimum goverment oversite to make sure that the charitys are infact effective and can continue being so

I agree ... idealy absolutly but I feel their basic welfare overrides my dislike for people being charged for services they dont use

At least for now ... hopefully a better solution presents itself or the opertunity to let thoes that wish to pick up the slack

Well I've always felt that people should try to help others who are in need. I want to do just as much to help end poverty as the next person. Its just that I tend to value freedom over having needs and wants met. I've become suprisingly libertarian over the past few years. In reality I guess the best solution is a working togehter between the government and the people. A consentual agreement between the two that tries to acomplish the goal. Welfare though being forced does a lot of good and for that reason it doesn't make me want to totally give up the system. If people want to pay the government to help the poor I'm all for it but I don't think the government should force people to.

Im not sure there is a way with the way it is designed ... I would like to see a slow takeover maybe region by region by some sort of private charity or organization

Maybe with a bare minimum goverment oversite to make sure that the charitys are infact effective and can continue being so
How about consolidating domestic charities and streamlining their distribution methods?

You've seen poor communities asking for contributions from within the community, right? This is bananas. With a sturdy nationwide network, the capital could be moved more efficiently from areas with few poor people to areas with more.

Well I've always felt that people should try to help others who are in need. I want to do just as much to help end poverty as the next person. Its just that I tend to value freedom over having needs and wants met. I've become suprisingly libertarian over the past few years. In reality I guess the best solution is a working togehter between the government and the people. A consentual agreement between the two that tries to acomplish the goal. Welfare though being forced does a lot of good and for that reason it doesn't make me want to totally give up the system. If people want to pay the government to help the poor I'm all for it but I don't think the government should force people to.
Agreed ... I am libertarian as well I just have to hold my priorities and moving it out of government hands comes second to their lifes

After that if we can manage to acomplish both thoes priorities ... I would be happy as hell

How about consolidating domestic charities and streamlining their distribution methods?

You've seen poor communities asking for contributions from within the community, right? This is bananas. With a sturdy nationwide network, the capital could be moved more efficiently from areas with few poor people to areas with more.
Yeah something like that regional charities streamlined with just an organizational and oversite structure

Also I would like to see the SERVICES and GOODS distributed rather then money ... there is less chanse of abuse
At that level a lot of people seem to not make smart decisions as to where their money is spent (not saying all but in a large number of cases things like drugs and other things seem to interfeere with good judgement)

Agreed ... I am libertarian as well I just have to hold my priorities and moving it out of government hands comes second to their lifes

After that if we can manage to acomplish both thoes priorities ... I would be happy as hell

Yep the problem really comes down to how to do so not wheter or not we should. I think the big problem to day is that when people think about wheter or not to keep or get rid of welfare its like when its gone nothing else is going to be done and people will just stop caring about the poor people. I think its that type of stigma thats really been hampering the debate on what to do about this system.

Yep the problem really comes down to how to do so not wheter or not we should. I think the big problem to day is that when people think about wheter or not to keep or get rid of welfare its like when its gone nothing else is going to be done and people will just stop caring about the poor people. I think its that type of stigma thats really been hampering the debate on what to do about this system.
Yeah but I question if we have the ability to do a quick transition to full charity

Even if we do transition to charity I would like to see the government with an emergency fund to imediatly step in if there are any faulters in the charity system

Yeah something like that regional charities streamlined with just an organizational and oversite structure

Also I would like to see the SERVICES and GOODS distributed rather then money ... there is less chanse of abuse
At that level a lot of people seem to not make smart decisions as to where their money is spent (not saying all but in a large number of cases things like drugs and other things seem to interfeere with good judgement)
COUPONS FOR FREE HAIRCUTS THAT WILL BE PAID FOR BY CHARITY

WICKED AWESOME

COUPONS FOR FREE HAIRCUTS THAT WILL BE PAID FOR BY CHARITY

WICKED AWESOME

I can see it now. Every dollar spent lets a poor person get a mullet.:rolleyes:

I cannot continue to function at the level of anger I am being goaded into.
Then you do not belong on the Internet.

Cool off NOW. I don't care what that entails; up to and including taking a deep breath, logging off, and taking a walk. You keep this up and things will not be pretty. Euro told you to stop, you didn't. Consider this one official.

Likewise, everyone, leave Lyric alone as she obviously does not currently have the tools to cope with stress. Same goes for everyone else; keep it up and things will not be pretty.

Who is to say he would have gotten himself into the situation you are in?
You are wanting him to recover himself from potentialy rock bottom, a situation that because of his work style he may never have gotten into

Personaly I have been there ... I have eaten food out of dumpsers ... I have slept on the streets in january in minnesota

But I have picked myself up out of that I am deffinatly proud of that fact

Has Lyric made a response to this?...I still have about 10 pages to catch up on (oh the dangers of missing a night).

I've just seemed to notice that UpwardThrust has a line from me in his sig. Awsome. That is all. :)

Holyfuck. What can I say?
I have no use for you.
You are the greediest link. Goodbye.
What? That they went from maybe worse than your situation and WORKED their way up out of it? Showing that it can be done? Or do you need proof of it?

KShaya back off of Lyric. A mod has already come in here and said to stop so I'd listen to him. Also aside from the little bit of spam lets try to keep this on topic.

2. Do you know what contribution to the human race that person might make, IF GIVEN A CHANCE?? For all you know, you just killed off the guy who would have invented a cure for cancer, had he been fed, and had his education been provided for. Perhaps he would have gone on to great things, including making a better future for humankind.


False assumption....It could be the next Hilter that ended up dying.

False assumption....It could be the next Hilter that ended up dying.
What's the difference lol

Has Lyric made a response to this?...I still have about 10 pages to catch up on (oh the dangers of missing a night).
Not that I am aware of but I am going to cool it for a bit so we can keep lyrics stress level down

I call bullshit! PROVE IT!! No one who has been where you CLAIM to have been, could possibly be so selfish and mean when he sees others where he once was!

No WAY do I believe your claims, not for a nanosecond.
I KNEW IT! OK Lyric. Prove you are actually as bad off as you are!

*fart*
Shut the fuck up. Did you hear Scolo?

Section. 8.

Clause 1: The Congress shall have Power To lay and collect Taxes, Duties, Imposts and Excises, to pay the Debts and provide for the common Defence and general Welfare of the United States; but all Duties, Imposts and Excises shall be uniform throughout the United States;

I'm pretty sure this is the one thing people have been using but no one has really touched upon in this thread. The question is what do they mean by the term general welfare.

In response to a request for some links..

Just a heads up, as a Canadian, most of my research has been done on the Canadian side of things. What's unfortunate is that I can't seem to find the report I read indicating that overall percentage of giving remains the same for a particular household as income changes anymore. I do remember it was somewhere on the statcan site, but the combination of keywords that gave me it now seems to elude me.

However, I found these ones again:

A report on general trends of charity giving in Canada.
It's interesting to note that poorer households, when they can give, tend to give a larger percentage of their income. And in particular how a great proportion of charitable donations come from an extremely small percentage of households. While almost everybody gives a little bit, the most comes from a very few.
http://www.statcan.ca/english/freepub/75F0033MIE/75F0033MIE2001004.pdf

A second report, notable in this one near the end of the first chapter is where it talks about the effects of tax credits on donations.
Note that even the group that has the lowest incidence of saying they would claim a tax credit (Those who donated less than $25) say that they would donate more if better tax credits were offered. From this we can deduce that if worse tax-credits were offered, they would donate less.
http://www.statcan.ca/english/freepub/71-542-XIE/71-542-XIE2000001.pdf

For the American side, this site seems to have it summed up quite well:
http://www.huppi.com/kangaroo/L-welfarecharity.htm

For the American side, this site seems to have it summed up quite well:
http://www.huppi.com/kangaroo/L-welfarecharity.htm

Its an interesting article and I'd respond more on it but I need to get some sleep for a class tommorrow. I'll reply sometime on this. Thanks for the links waterkeep.

In response to a request for some links..

Just a heads up, as a Canadian, most of my research has been done on the Canadian side of things. What's unfortunate is that I can't seem to find the report I read indicating that overall percentage of giving remains the same for a particular household as income changes anymore. I do remember it was somewhere on the statcan site, but the combination of keywords that gave me it now seems to elude me.

However, I found these ones again:

A report on general trends of charity giving in Canada.
It's interesting to note that poorer households, when they can give, tend to give a larger percentage of their income. And in particular how a great proportion of charitable donations come from an extremely small percentage of households. While almost everybody gives a little bit, the most comes from a very few.
http://www.statcan.ca/english/freepub/75F0033MIE/75F0033MIE2001004.pdf

A second report, notable in this one near the end of the first chapter is where it talks about the effects of tax credits on donations.
Note that even the group that has the lowest incidence of saying they would claim a tax credit (Those who donated less than $25) say that they would donate more if better tax credits were offered. From this we can deduce that if worse tax-credits were offered, they would donate less.
http://www.statcan.ca/english/freepub/71-542-XIE/71-542-XIE2000001.pdf

For the American side, this site seems to have it summed up quite well:
http://www.huppi.com/kangaroo/L-welfarecharity.htm
Good info. Sad, too. Clearly, private charity cannot provide the level of service the poor need to survive. However, it is a tragic fact that in a bureaucracy, the number one rule is to preserve the bureaucracy, even at the expense of the people you're supposed to be serving. Thus, we have to keep a bureaucracy that holds itself above the beneficiaries because to abandon the bureaucracy means basically shitting on the poor. Is there any way to drastically increase the amount of charity that people are giving? When the amounts are more substantial, perhaps consolidation will be given more thought, and money will move from rich to poor areas anyway.

In response to a request for some links..

Just a heads up, as a Canadian, most of my research has been done on the Canadian side of things. What's unfortunate is that I can't seem to find the report I read indicating that overall percentage of giving remains the same for a particular household as income changes anymore. I do remember it was somewhere on the statcan site, but the combination of keywords that gave me it now seems to elude me.

However, I found these ones again:

A report on general trends of charity giving in Canada.
It's interesting to note that poorer households, when they can give, tend to give a larger percentage of their income. And in particular how a great proportion of charitable donations come from an extremely small percentage of households. While almost everybody gives a little bit, the most comes from a very few.
http://www.statcan.ca/english/freepub/75F0033MIE/75F0033MIE2001004.pdf

A second report, notable in this one near the end of the first chapter is where it talks about the effects of tax credits on donations.
Note that even the group that has the lowest incidence of saying they would claim a tax credit (Those who donated less than $25) say that they would donate more if better tax credits were offered. From this we can deduce that if worse tax-credits were offered, they would donate less.
http://www.statcan.ca/english/freepub/71-542-XIE/71-542-XIE2000001.pdf

For the American side, this site seems to have it summed up quite well:
http://www.huppi.com/kangaroo/L-welfarecharity.htm


Great post! Logic and common-sense will take a person far in life, unfortunately, logic and common-sense interferes with all the greedy, selfish, ruthless and heartless people of the world. It would ruin their agendas! ;)

No, I don't think the consitution requires it. The constitution is more than 200 years old though - not sure what being poor or unemployed meant back then, when everyone basically owned their own little farm.
Read The Grapes of Wrath.

This issue was settled in a series of constitutional battles before the Supreme Court during the New Deal attempts to fight the Great Depression.

A welfare system should be a natural element of any modern democracy. It should be enocraging full employablity however, not full employment. Basicly meaning that if you dont have the qualifications/skills/experiance nessecary for current employment standards, to get the job you need then the government should sponser you to help you learn new skills. This is part of the British government's new deal

The government is not obliged. We as human beings are obliged. How many of those who argue for welfare walk by homeless people as if they weren't there? How many give them their pity and disdain and fear? And how many actually talk to them and treat them like the relatively normal people they often are?I suppose that some homeless people are relatively normal, but some are not at all.

Section. 8.

Clause 1: The Congress shall have Power To lay and collect Taxes, Duties, Imposts and Excises, to pay the Debts and provide for the common Defence and general Welfare of the United States; but all Duties, Imposts and Excises shall be uniform throughout the United States;


*rolleyes*


Your right! It doesn't say that it must. However, anyone with half a modicum of sense realizes that the government is needed in quite a few areas to provide for stability (eg, national bank).Congress is prohibited by the 10th Amendment from doing anything not specifically mentioned above. This would include a central bank, which is about as unecessary as you can get.

Yeah...and, as everyone knows, in this country, in this economy, there are just SO MANY JOBS out there that everyone already has one, let alone any second job...:rolleyes:
WHY IS IT SUCH A CONSTANT FUCKING PARADIGM THAT THE POOR ARE ALL LAZY...LET ME TELL YOU WHAT, GODDAMN YOU, WE AREN'T LAZY!!
We are victims of bad luck and bad circumstances...often circumstances beyond our control...and this somehow makes us "lazy??" God-DAMN this stereotype really pisses me the FUCK off!!I don't much care for your sterotype either.

I suppose that some homeless people are relatively normal, but some are not at all.

Yeah, just like non-homeless people. Some normal, some not.

Thats why I object when people paint homeless people as universally hapless victims of circumstance and wealthy people as silver spoons who sadistically oppress the worker. Or when people paint homeless people as lazy and crazy. It's just too wide a brush. My one commonator here is that I see everyone as being responsible for themselves. Personal responsibility.

A welfare system should be a natural element of any modern democracy. It should be enocraging full employablity however, not full employment. Basicly meaning that if you dont have the qualifications/skills/experiance nessecary for current employment standards, to get the job you need then the government should sponser you to help you learn new skills. This is part of the British government's new deal
Sounds alright to me ... I mean personaly I find the idea of private charity and organizations taking up that slack but a persons life is the highest priority so if the governemtn has to do it so be it but I would like to see a transition of the burden of charity being shifted to thoes that choose not forced to pay for the system

As far as education I believe that is absolutly KEY to helping people in life

IF the Constution required or prohibited poverty relief programs, it certainly would be relevant.

As it happens, the Constitution is silent on such matters of policy.

As for your first statement, that is a very sad morality.

The Constitution is not silent on the matter.

The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people.

My one commonator here is that I see everyone as being responsible for themselves. Personal responsibility.

The problem with that view is that there are too many forces in the world which act upon us beyond our control, and in many cases people may be in poverty situations through no fault of their own. The cultural and gerational problem of poverty can be seen in Britain clealy, IE your parents were poor, your poor and your children are likely to be poor as well. So the government here has been trying to break the cycle by encoraging full employabilty rather than full employment. Full employment is an economic practical impossibility because once you have full employment, the people in the employ become very powerful and wage demand inflation sets in, since the employers cannot fire people as there are not enough people to replace them. Instead full employabilty means people who dont have the qualifications are given a chance to get diffrent qualifications. However the key thing here maintained is meritocracy, because despite being given a chance to get the qualifications it is still up to you to do the work to achive them, and to achieve the highest pass on your test you can.

The problem with that view is that there are too many forces in the world which act upon us beyond our control, and in many cases people may be in poverty situations through no fault of their own.

This doesn't mean it is the governments job to carry the poor on it's shoulders. That is to say, a force beyond my control that may put me into poverty is crippling taxation!

So the government here has been trying to break the cycle by encoraging full employabilty rather than full employment. Full employment is an economic practical impossibility because once you have full employment, the people in the employ become very powerful and wage demand inflation sets in, since the employers cannot fire people as there are not enough people to replace them. Instead full employabilty means people who dont have the qualifications are given a chance to get diffrent qualifications.

Its just my belief people DO have a chance to get different qualifications, without need of direct government support.

However the key thing here maintained is meritocracy, because despite being given a chance to get the qualifications it is still up to you to do the work to achive them, and to achieve the highest pass on your test you can.

Of course I agree.

Not everyone is privileged, in fact few people are, just because one has the talents or the wealth or the luck to "make it" so to speak doesn 't mean everyone has. To suggest that goverments should do absolutely nothing to help the poor is to condemn a large part of the people of any nation to abject poverty and a downward spiral of crime and destitution.

If you desire a segregated country, then by all means foster inequality by ignoring those less fortunate. True people are responisble for themselves, but in the face of crime ridden neighbourhoods, poor education, poverty and little to no chance of employment people will start from a very backwards position, they'll have to work five six seven times as hard as those simply fortunate enough to have been born to wealthy parents or rich neighbourhoods and private schooling. And while it is a good thing to have people work hard for their earnings, it's never a good thing to have them slave over pennies.

Spirals of poverty and crime need to be broken, or else any country will end up in serious troubles

For all of you that are against helping the poor or anyone for that matter, I have a question for you: What would you do to better yourself and improve your financial situation being dirt poor or even worse homeless?I suppose that I would make my way down to the nearest Home Depot and hang out with the mexicans until someone hired me as day-laborer. That's not something I'd be too excited about since I don't speak Spanish and don't know how that would go over with guys who don't speak English. But you've got to do something.

For all of you that are against helping the poor or anyone for that matter, I have a question for you: What would you do to better yourself and improve your financial situation being dirt poor or even worse homeless?

I'm not against helping the poor - I just believe the ways that the US government is helping the poor are wasteful, useless, and corrosive. There are better ways, and some improvment has been made. I just don't want people to believe that "if we only spend a few billion more dollars, everything will be better".

As for your question, I would do what I did before - raise my right hand and join the Army.

Yes, it's a government check and government housing. But I'm working, and I may learn a trade or get educational benefits. I'll also get medical care that way.

This issue was settled in a series of constitutional battles before the Supreme Court during the New Deal attempts to prolong the Great Depression.I fixed your statement. I hope you don't mind.

I fixed your statement. I hope you don't mind.

I'm not sure how you arrived at that conclusion by any rational means, however. Hoover sat on his hands for three years, and yet things went poorly, so poorly in fact, that FDR was one of the more moderate choices for the presidency. In 1934, we were rapidly improving. In 1936, when the economy tanked again, even at a lull we were still in a better position than we were in 1931 under Hoover.

Is it true that FDR ended the Great Depression? Not really, no: it was WWII, sadly enough, that ultimately ended the GD rather than any of his policies. Did any of his policies help, at least compared to Hoover's head in the sand method of solving the economic crisis? Judging by the rapid decline of economic dropoff in 1933-1935, and again between 1937-1939, the answer is a fairly definitive "Hell Yeah". Have any of his policies been instrumental in warding off another crisis? Given that the worst crisis we've suffered was the aftershocks that came immediately after WWII, followed by periodic shocks in the 50's, yeah, it has. Have any of his contributions to the American public (the middle class was built on his watch, as were quite a few federal agencies to monitor and oversee the business sector) been beneficial. Damn straight. So I see it hard to understand how you arrive at the conclusion you do. Perhaps I'm just not looking at it through the same Fantasyland-esque prism that you are, however.

The Constitution is not silent on the matter.
Except congress is given the power to provide for the general welfare.

Except congress is given the power to provide for the general welfare.

Hell, what's most insulting is that the Federal government is tasked with providing for the general welfare in the first f-ing sentence of the document.


We the People of the United States, in Order to form a more perfect Union, establish Justice, insure domestic Tranquility, provide for the common defence, promote the general Welfare, and secure the Blessings of Liberty to ourselves and our Posterity, do ordain and establish this Constitution for the United States of America.

How do you miss that, which you must if you want to argue that it isn't the Fed's job to work for the benefit of all citizens.

The American government must care about the poor because they are a voting majority, thats the only reason.

The American government must care about the poor because they are a voting majority, thats the only reason.

and yet, given that they are situated in predominantly urban environments, their votes are worth less thsn those in a rural state.

What? That they went from maybe worse than your situation and WORKED their way up out of it? Showing that it can be done? Or do you need proof of it?

No bloody fair, I am so the most selfish poster here.:mad:

Hell, what's most insulting is that the Federal government is tasked with providing for the general welfare in the first f-ing sentence of the document.



How do you miss that, which you must if you want to argue that it isn't the Fed's job to work for the benefit of all citizens.

It says promote. Not provide. And the definition of welfare here is ambiguous.

The government is not obliged. We as human beings are obliged. How many of those who argue for welfare walk by homeless people as if they weren't there? How many give them their pity and disdain and fear? And how many actually talk to them and treat them like the relatively normal people they often are?
Most of the time, they're homeless because they're too lazy to get a job.

The government is not obliged. We as human beings are obliged. How many of those who argue for welfare walk by homeless people as if they weren't there? How many give them their pity and disdain and fear? And how many actually talk to them and treat them like the relatively normal people they often are?
Most of the time, they're homeless because they're too lazy to get a job.

Well, the ones who live alone. Generally, a homeless family would go to work if they could, although they generally also can't find much work, otherwise they wouldn't be homeless.

Well, the ones who live alone. Generally, a homeless family would go to work if they could, although they generally also can't find much work, otherwise they wouldn't be homeless.
Generally speaking, of course...:rolleyes:

It says promote. Not provide. And the definition of welfare here is ambiguous.

1) Since when is there a difference? We've tried bald capitalism, red in tooth and claw. It worked very well for a very few people named Vanderbilt and Rockefeller. It did not, however, serve the general welfare of the average citizen, nor did it build the middle class upon which the Pax Americana has been built. That required such dastardly communist measures as legalizing labor unions, establishing a 10-hour work day, and creating a minimum wage. Here, government is in effect providing for the general welfare, by directly taking money out of the pockets of business and forcing them to give it to their workers.

2) I'm quite aware that welfare in this sense is being used in a different sense than the policy of welfare. Nevertheless, the underlying ideas are based on the same principle: in order to provide (or promote, if you want to be asinine about it) for the general welfare best, you have to ensure a minimum level of income for all people, no matter what.

Most of the time, they're homeless because they're too lazy to get a job.

Well, the ones who live alone. Generally, a homeless family would go to work if they could, although they generally also can't find much work, otherwise they wouldn't be homeless.

Yes, I see it now. An immigrant who works a minimum-wage job gets thrown out on the street because he can't pay the $200 a month spike in monthly rent because of a rapidly inflating housing market, and the solution is just to choose something differently. Oh wait, he doesn't have the option too? Well, that's just his fault for taking a job from a hard-working real American. . .