you don't care yet you try and then immediately justify yourself.
I asked you to identify these people. You say they are a problem.
You instead have posted what you think I advocate.
There are some questions that I would think are pretty important if you want to start changing policies, and they are pretty basic. You might even be able to get me to agree with you, were you to provide some tangible evidence.
Can you identify these people?
Which specific programs are they abusing?
How much do we spend on these programs?
I guess but it is besides the point. there is a food surplus and the share of the budget that goes to the en lements you deride is negligible. It just seems to me that you really do not like some of the people that you run into on your job and are projecting.
It's a policy discussion.
RG really missing some good examples of starvation from North Korea that also have nothing to do with food stamps in the US
https://www.google.com/search?q=nort...w=1920&bih=934
Your words are as empty as anybody else's on this site. Other than actually helping these people (like vy and I do), you just preach on and on about the same liberal talking points. Why are you online right now? Sell off all your assets and donate the money to those starving children. Each time you post, a child dies hungry.Mission accomplished.I doubt either's family, if shown their words, would be overly proud of that sentiment. I chalk it up to internet hyperbole made all too easy by the impersonal nature of forums like this.
It says a lot to me, though, that neither has the courage to admit the statements were abhorrent and reprehensible, or to explicitly admit to what is obvious to anybody with common sense. It takes courage for that.
You ask us for counter-policy proposals, when yours is "just throw more nom-noms at them!" You don't have a ing clue, and your african and eastern european pics are supposition at best and gross hyperbole (your word, not mine) at worst. Log off and feed the kids!
Fuzzy, by your standards that is an inappropriate response imo
http://www.nizkor.org/features/falla...d-hominem.htmlFallacy: Cir stantial Ad Hominem
Description of Cir stantial Ad Hominem
A Cir stantial ad Hominem is a fallacy in which one attempts to attack a claim by asserting that the person making the claim is making it simply out of self interest. In some cases, this fallacy involves subs uting an attack on a person's cir stances (such as the person's religion, political affiliation, ethnic background, etc.). The fallacy has the following forms:
Person A makes claim X.
Person B asserts that A makes claim X because it is in A's interest to claim X.
Therefore claim X is false.
Person A makes claim X.
Person B makes an attack on A's cir stances.
Therefore X is false.
Irrelevant, unless you want to commit another logical fallacy.
Do you want to commit another logical fallacy?
So you can't tell me what programs you want to get rid of?Your words are as empty as anybody else's on this site. Other than actually helping these people (like vy and I do), you just preach on and on about the same liberal talking points. Why are you online right now? Sell off all your assets and donate the money to those starving children. Each time you post, a child dies hungry.
You ask us for counter-policy proposals, when yours is "just throw more nom-noms at them!" You don't have a ing clue, and your african and eastern european pics are supposition at best and gross hyperbole (your word, not mine) at worst. Log off and feed the kids!
I agree. Note though how I talk to you differently than he?
It's 3 agencies of government that when I get there are gone
So you can't tell me what programs you want to get rid of.
Seems to me that someone who was serious about it would know.
Are you serious about stopping these programs wasting all your money?
It seems like you know as much about this as I do--but you sure do love to posture. As a supposed Nazi and child murderer, I'm all for the food stamp cuts. There will be collateral damage from this, but that's the fault of the system abusers--whom, without their wanton laziness--these cuts would've never been necessary.
Satisfied?
btw, 3 more kids just starved during your sermon
To receive benefits:
Require job training
Require community service
Strict limitations on uses of stamps (no junk food/no liquor/no tobacco)
here's another one borrowed from France: have to check in every week at local unemployment office, pick a some job offers from employers, go for interviews, come back with interview signed by employers.
If you don't show up next week with signed interview forms, benefits are cut.
(Shrugs)
I know more than you do, in all likelihood. I have read quite a bit of the commonly available peer-reviewed literature on the programs, during the 1990's reform process, and in the course of this discussion, looked up and skimmed a couple more recent papers. It isn't hard to find, and generally not overly lengthy.
I am not asking because I don't know and want to find out.
I am asking because I am virtually certain you don't know, and aren't really serious about this.
Which exact programs do you want to get rid of?
How much collateral damage?
I want to minimize as far as possible any abuse.
Who exactly is abusing the system, and how do we identify them?
Which benefits? What program or programs are you specifically are you talking about?
Three more crack users just abused the system while you were doing nothing.
I like that one, especially since it requires the interview and not just an application.
If you are already receiving benefits and pop out another kid, benefits are cut.
Food stamps, child care assistance, unemployment, cash aid, housing assistance.
we're never going to punish people for having a kid, NEVER.
more practical is to sue, garnish the impregnator for child support
To your first statement, that's unfortunately true...damn shame. To the second, that's impractical b/c the impregnator will have nothing to his name--unless you're referring to the government garnishing his nomnoms
Until people are held responsible they'll keep popping them out.
Since you're being serious, do you think that you have effectively argued for holding people responsible for their acts or for any sort of policy position that would curb parents from having children they can't afford? If a senior partner at you firm were to read this thread, would he or she consider your arguments persuasive?
There are currently 1 users browsing this thread. (0 members and 1 guests)
Posting Permissions
Reply With Quote
