What, me Welfare?

I characterize myself as a republican, as can be seen in my other posts, and am seeking alternate points of view on welfare, medicare, social programs in general. I'll be back shortly to post my thoughts, but am curious on the thoughts of others regarding this issue.
(Colonel and TC this means you)

[Edited on 11-10-2003 by Dreamstone]

Clinton fixed the welfare with his welfare to work program---so you can drop the "welfare queen" mentality.

Colonel, as if it was Clinton's idea to fix welfare....like he fixed terrorism by 'warning' Bush during his exit interview, riiiiiiight.

Furthermore, while we ARE in the mudpit, perhpaps we can have an honest, intelligent subject about this topic BEFORE jumping to conclusions? what do you say, Colonel?

As far as welfare, I think You cannot help men permanently by doing for them what they could and should do for themselves - if they can't do for themselves than society should take care them, hence welfare.

Though Colonel has chosen to take this opportunity that begs for substance to do nothing but call you names, I believe I would like to do a bit more:

Social Programs:

welfare, medicare, and in general

Most social programs were initiated by the Democrats. In fact, most were initiated under ONE democrat - FDR...asshole. (brb I'm digging him up to slap his face)

Welfare if viewed as it should be, a temporary assistance program for those who are trying to help themselves, but need a little bit more, is an excellent concept. Unfortunately, it is not managed properly, and I am unclear as to whether it has ever been. Welfare is not a way of life, and especially not a heritage. But that is how it has been. Welfare SHOULD BE a means to an end; to help a family through rough times as the primary (and/or secondary) bread winner aims for a goal of providing for their own family.

Medicare: I personally have no problem with us having a system that ensures that the elderly, no longer capable of group insurance coverage through employment, has medical assistance. HOWEVER, this evolved into medicaid, and SSI coverage which has been abused ad nauseum. If we decide to go with socialized medicine it will not offend me. What DOES offend me is that we have a large, nonproductive, fraudulent portion of society reaping the benefits of socialized medicine paid for by those of us that 1. pay our bills, and 2. pay our premiums.

And then the grandest rape of all: Social security...PLEASE give me my money. I have said several times before on this board. I will relinquish the money stolen from me to date, through taxation without representation if they will just STOP NOW. What a thievery!

Originally posted by Bob88
Colonel, as if it was Clinton's idea to fix welfare....like he fixed terrorism by 'warning' Bush during his exit interview, riiiiiiight.

Furthermore, while we ARE in the mudpit, perhpaps we can have an honest, intelligent subject about this topic BEFORE jumping to conclusions? what do you say, Colonel?

As far as welfare, I think You cannot help men permanently by doing for them what they could and should do for themselves - if they can't do for themselves than society should take care them, hence welfare.

The spirit of Cain really comes of you people on subjects like this.

In any event, really think you people need to stop watching FOX News. Clinton's welfare-to-work program last for 2 years only. By that time, one should be off welfare and working b/c they help you FIND a job while your getting welfare.

But, I don't know why you're dissing it. With the way Bush is running thigs, some of you might be needing pretty soon.

Then, what're you gonna say?

[Edited on 8-11-2003 by Colonel]

Originally posted by Colonel

The spirit of Cain really comes of you people on subjects like this.

In any event, really think you people need to stop watching FOX News. Clinton's welfare-to-work program last for 2 years only. By that time, one should be off welfare and working b/c they help you FIND a job while your getting welfare.

But, I don't know why you're dissing it. With the way Bush is running thigs, some of you might be needing pretty soon.

Then, what're you gonna say?

[Edited on 8-11-2003 by Colonel]

Is this it? Is this all you've got? Is this the way you handle a true dilemma? You just "BLAH" at people. And use the "you people" mantra? I mean this borders on blather!

piffle!

Salon.com January 15, 2002

Don't Blame Clinton

Conservatives who once ridiculed and obstructed the former president's aggressive efforts to fight terrorism are now trying to pin Sept. 11 on him. They have a lot of nerve.

On Clinton's watch, the CIA instituted a special al-Qaida unit that thwarted several deadly conspiracies, including a scheme to blow up Los Angeles International Airport on Millennium Eve, and plots to bomb the Holland and Lincoln tunnels in New York as well as the United Nations building. Timely intelligence also prevented a deadly assault on the Israeli embassy in Washington. As early as 1996 -- as reported by the Post and other publications -- the State Department and the CIA began to neutralize dozens of terrorist cells overseas through prosecutions, extraditions and executions quietly undertaken by allies on every continent, from Albania to the Philippines.

A month before Clinton left office -- and nine months before the planes hit the World Trade Center and the Pentagon -- those successful operations were praised by the nation's most experienced diplomats in this field, including conservatives. "Overall, I give them very high marks," said Robert Oakley, who served as ambassador for counterterrorism in the Reagan State Department, to a reporter for the Washington Post. "The only major criticism I have is the obsession with Osama, which has made him stronger." Paul Bremer, who also held the same post under Reagan and later was chosen by congressional leaders to chair the National Commission on Terrorism, disagreed slightly with his colleague. Bremer told the Post he believed that the Clinton administration had "correctly focused on bin Laden."

vander.hashish.com...

So, maybe you all can shut the # up about the Clinton thing and terrorism?

Originally posted by Valhall


Is this it? Is this all you've got? Is this the way you handle a true dilemma? You just "BLAH" at people. And use the "you people" mantra? I mean this borders on blather!

piffle!

Listen, I KNOW the welfare-to-work program lasts for 2 years. I KNOW it was started by Clinton. And I KNOW that it was to cut the welfare rolls so we can stop hearing from people like you.

I also KNOW that the program was altered by Bush. He wanted federal oversite for every state---if the new rules aren't complied with they loose funding, destroying the program.

EVERY state in the union said that it was better served under Clinton who allowed the States to dictate the riles of the program b/c each state is different, each has different problems.

Yet, this is just another way for Bushto cut more funding to the states so more money can be given to those needy $500,000+ a year families.

and you bring up another form of welfare, Colonel. State and city welfare. I'm amazed at how much fed money comes into my city, well former city, for stuff that should be paid for on a local level. Instead, when they want put in new sidewalk they need to troll for federal grants. sometimes they don't come. YET, we have fancy shmancy local services that look good on the mayor's re-election campaign brochure, but still no sidewalks.

1. When the last Democrat Govenor is BOOTED out of office (what is there like 2 left? heh heh) AND the "State" is able to TAKE CARE OF and PAY for their Own welfare THEN and ONLY then will they be free of Federal Regulation.

2. The Federal Government, under a Fiscally LOGICAL THINKING President who is NOT looking for personal kick backs from his "buddy Govenors" for the billions sent their way, will always seem like a bad guy to people like YOU Colonel ..
I can't HELP but notice you used the $500,000.00 a year figure for the "rich" guideline.. A DAMN FAIR figure indeed.

PROBLEM is YOUR BUDDIES, the Demoncrats, consider ANY family with a mean annual income above $90,000.00 a year RICH!!!!???!!!!

Are you KIDDING ME?!?!?!?!?!?!? $90,000.00 a year TOTAL household income?!?!?!?!? RICH?!?!???!?!

Sooooooo OUT OF TOUCH, it's a laughing stock!

P...
m...

Sorry people, I'm communist. Humans are too chaotic to make decisions for themselves, bring on the bashing, here it comes!

But communism will never work because like the saying says (or doesn't say) there is strength in numbers.

If everyone worshipped their ruler as God, it would work.

As for my views on abortion, medicare, and so on:

LET THE STUPID HUMANS DO WHAT THEY WANT!!!

[Edited on 8-11-2003 by eagle]

you're a communist yet think it'll never work??? huh?? wha?

Originally posted by Bob88
you're a communist yet think it'll never work??? huh?? wha?

I think communism is a great idea, if I had the choice I'd create my own communist country, but it simply won't work, so there.

Honestly I like the idea, but you know, it's failing. Maybe the NWO will bring it back to life...

The welfare system has costed 3 trillion dollars in the last 30 yrs ,unfortunately has done nothing for poverty.

Originally posted by Springer
1. When the last Democrat Govenor is BOOTED out of office (what is there like 2 left? heh heh) AND the "State" is able to TAKE CARE OF and PAY for their Own welfare THEN and ONLY then will they be free of Federal Regulation.

2. The Federal Government, under a Fiscally LOGICAL THINKING President who is NOT looking for personal kick backs from his "buddy Govenors" for the billions sent their way, will always seem like a bad guy to people like YOU Colonel ..
I can't HELP but notice you used the $500,000.00 a year figure for the "rich" guideline.. A DAMN FAIR figure indeed.

PROBLEM is YOUR BUDDIES, the Demoncrats, consider ANY family with a mean annual income above $90,000.00 a year RICH!!!!???!!!!

Are you KIDDING ME?!?!?!?!?!?!? $90,000.00 a year TOTAL household income?!?!?!?!? RICH?!?!???!?!

Sooooooo OUT OF TOUCH, it's a laughing stock!

P...
m...

You are so out of touch, Mr. Spirit of Cain.

1) Each state is in the red financially because of the tax giveaway to the rich. So, all those grants that the states normally got from the 1 trillion Clinton surplus are gone. The states CAN'T do for themselves...unless they raise taxes which you repugnants will blame the Dems for when ii is really b/c of Bush's inept fiscal policy.

2) "The Federal Government, under a Fiscally LOGICAL THINKING President?" You mean like Bush and his "Let's just go into trilion dollar debt and threaten the stablility of the dollar policy?" Is that the logical thinking you're talking about? Or are you talking about creating the CLINTON trillion dollar surplus policy? I mean, do YOU run your business like Bush? Is this what your basing this on?

Some of you have no idea how your economy stays in balance. Anyone who knocks FDR for creating the social programs that basically saved america and lifted it to the super power that we enjoy today is horribly deluded by the propaganda of those that promote class warfare. Our economy was not working--it toppled over six times before the great depression. Pure capitalism is too top heavy to sustain a society. There has to be social programs to balance it out. There has to be a healthy middle and basically there has to be poverty too.

And some you run around supporting the welfare in Iraq and won't even support the programs in this country that takes care of ya own people. There are some problems within the system and there are those that abuse the system. But, it's better we feed one lazy azzhole than we let millions of poor children starve. Grow a #ing heart tin men and women.

Saph, there was quite a bit more to the financial woes that happened before FDR created the beginning of the monster that has been eating us, and capitalism was not at fault. that is an entirely different thread, and many days to cover it though, with several interruptions by various anticonspiracy people along the way. Point is, when the nation goes bankrupt, the international bankers collect your gold, and you have nothing to back your currency, you go belly-up, just as we did. It was not capitalism that caused this.

What is being done by the government should be done by the churches and communities. This holds each community accountable for itself, and each community member accountable for itself. Give an unseen human a credit card looking item, tell him he has a limit on it, but is not responsible for paying it, give him a place to live and see what happens. Worse yet, see what happens to his family, and the next generation. No accountability to force him to become a productive member of the community, and as time goes by, a stripping of his self-respect and esteem, his manhood, and then the deterioration of his family.

Of course, this is not theoretical, we see it in every city. Male humans that are not men, out of wedlock children, males not being financially responsible for their offspring, a total breakdown of family structure and moral structure...no, the government controlled welfare system has caused more chaos than it has anything good.

And, Colonel, you can lay off your Cain BS. You want to do good for the community? Donate to charities and items and food to shelters, as my family does. Don't do it by stealing my money and then donating it. That is the difference between conservatives and liberals. Another thing, the liberal measures success by the number of people he has fed today (thereby controlling and owning that person), whereas the conservative measures success by the number of people he has helped in feeding themselves (thereby freeing that person).

Well, I'll be darned!!!
There's no telling what you might come across if you venture out of the mudpit!

There's a fella named Smirkley that has compiled a bunch of sites that can help you get an idea of where the government went bankrupt and how that helped cause the crash.
It's over in Political scandal section.

www.abovetopsecret.com...

[Edited on 8-11-2003 by Thomas Crowne]

Originally posted by Saphronia

And some you run around supporting the welfare in Iraq and won't even support the programs in this country that takes care of ya own people. There are some problems within the system and there are those that abuse the system. But, it's better we feed one lazy azzhole than we let millions of poor children starve. Grow a #ing heart tin men and women.

Hey, Saphronia...I happened to get a receipt twice every month that proves I support every lazy-ass on the dole...so take it back.

There are ways to make sure children do not go unfed WITHOUT keeping the lazy-asses. There is no one here advocating leaving children to starve. This is typical liberal bullcrap. Scare tactics and attempts at shaming. Very few members participating in this thread are all out idiots, so try speaking to us as if we can think for ourselves.

Concerning FDR - you have a point. I've decided I'm going to hate his guts half as much as I used to. He DID do somethings that helped the economy. Things that SHOULD have been temporary, unfortunately, they stuck araound, didn't they?

BUT, I still hate his guts for Social Security and I would just love to hear you logic on how that ill-conceived notion helped the economy of FDR's time.



[Edited on 8-11-2003 by Valhall]

TC, what's the matter? I hit to close to your fundementalist heart?

Takin' too much damage?

So, you give your old things to charity and that makes you feel benevolent? You really don't have to SEE those people tho. You don't have to talk to them, tho. You have no idea what those people go through or how they got there.


And, don't you get a tax write off for giving to charities?

Well, I give to the homeless in person and I talk to them (if they're not crazy or running a scam---some do)....

And I don't write it off on my taxes. No one knows but me, the homeless guy, and God.