But I don't want to eliminate social programs. I just don't want it to be a lifestyle.
Yes
No
double rainbow all the way
The case for anyone needing subsidies long term should be rare. Not normal. The acceptance of long term social welfare is a serious breakdown in the fabric of society.
But I don't want to eliminate social programs. I just don't want it to be a lifestyle.
EDIT: Forget it, another topic
Then why do you say you want to eliminate food stamps?
Damn right. So get capitalism to generate some economic engines (besides drugs) in utterly third world American neighborhoods. Or accept the mitigating welfare that you don't want to.
Did I have a clear context with this?Now the cuts we need are the handouts. When we cannot afford them, we stop subsidizing the poor who are capable of working. Reduce or eliminate things like food stamps. Make people go back to work, even if they don't like minimum wage jobs. make it impossible for illegals to work, opening up these jobs at fast food restaurants and other places.
No.
I don't have a solid gameplan except that we have too many people who rely on social programs that are capable of supporting themselves, if they would.
"Reduce or eliminate things like" does not necessarily mean to eliminate it for all cases now, does it.
What is your reading comprehension level anyway? 4th grade?
Eliminating food stamps only makes sense in some fantasy world where everyone who works gets lots of hours and makes good money, where cost of living and cost of raising a child aren't large, or where you can stay in a low-income neighborhood and not have to worry about your kids being raised by gangs because you're working two jobs to pay basic expenses like rent, food, transportation, clothing, and utilities.
Stop taxing the out of productivity and stop giving it to the unproductive. Businesses will boom, and people will have jobs. Stop allowing the illegal immigrants working at jobs Americans don't want, and make the supply and demand pricing work for wages. Places will have to pay more money until they have the workforce they need.
Everything is connected. Stop unlimited subsidies and take the noose off the free market.
Maybe the hard facts that you shouldn't have children until you can afford them will set in.
Then why did you use the word eliminate? Surely someone with 4th grade writing skills wouldn't write about eliminating a program he doesn't want eliminated.
I forgot that unforeseen hardships don't happen in your fantasy world. That there are no deadbeat dads who talk the talk but don't walk the walk. There are no parents who get sick, seriously injured, or killed after having kids. Nobody ever has their job shipped to India or replaced by someone in China, never to come back and therefore forcing them into something low-wage.
"OR eliminate things like."
That does the word "or" mean?
What does "things like" mean?
The way I made the sentence, is "foodstamps" exclusive?
no.
Again. What is your reading comprehension level?
You lost this argument long ago. The more you keep it up, the more you flaunt your stupidity.
Look...
I have no problems with a wide variety of social programs for short term help of people and families in need. The only long term social programs acceptable to me are for the disabled and elderly. We need to promote the idea to children that they are responsible for their own actions. If they know they will not have such long term safety nets, teen and young woman birth rates will decrease. Let kids know that having a child while not being able to support one amounts to child abuse. As it stands now, we have teens getting pregnant just to get the government to pay for them to live away from home. It has definitely gone too far when that happens.
Bull .
I've had several setbacks in my life. I just step up to the plate, and deal with it.
Congrats on the win!
![]()
Spoken like a true politician. I don't want to eliminate foodstamps even though I brought them up as an example of a program that should possibly be eliminated.![]()
You really think his, and my, mom would starve if not for govt. assistance? That the only thing that will save people is the machine style govt atm that i guess gives out money with pity?
why does your govt. help just mean pity?
Removing unemployment payments, WHICH AREN'T WELFARE HANDOUTS but paid-for unemployment insurance payouts...
How much do Feds pay out in pure welfare payments?
Last edited by boutons_deux; 08-16-2010 at 04:47 PM.
There are currently 1 users browsing this thread. (0 members and 1 guests)