I Know -I Know

[thethe]

Why is the defense of social welfare programs, "LOOK AT ALL THIS OTHER MONEY WE SPEND!"

Can't we talk about how awful both are?

[thethe]

Further, while those subsidies are ridiculous and I have gone off many times about how the wealthy are really the ones that are running the world, at least the taxpayer sees a return on those subsidies. These companies employ us, we make money on their equities/bonds, and some contribute to the tax revenue of this country.

[yeezus]

Further, while those subsidies are ridiculous and I have gone off many times about how the wealthy are really the ones that are running the world, at least the taxpayer sees a return on those subsidies. These companies employ us, we make money on their equities/bonds, and some contribute to the tax revenue of this country.

LOL.
LOL.

[thethe]

What is not accurate about that statement?

[CK86]

Would much rather spend boatloads of money on helping the poor in this country rather than spending so much on defense.

[Krgrecw]

I would much rather have the recipients of welfare that don't have jobs; pick up trash, paint, habitat for humanity. At least make them do something. Even if it only improves thier neighborhood

[goldfly]

I would much rather have the recipients of welfare that don't have jobs; pick up trash, paint, habitat for humanity. At least make them do something. Even if it only improves thier neighborhood

i could get down with this

[thethe]

I would much rather have the recipients of welfare that don't have jobs; pick up trash, paint, habitat for humanity. At least make them do something. Even if it only improves thier neighborhood

Agreed. If there was some return on that investment it would be much more palatable.

[57Brave]

i could get down with this

That would have been the National Relief Organization that operated for a little over a year before being thrown out by the Supreme Court.
That would have been 1935-6 or 7

These controversies keep circling two issues: 1st) complete repudiation of the New Deal and later programs and 2nd) Race

I don't think the first really has anything to do with government assistance programs but more on regulation put on big business. But as long as Palin,Rush and Fox can keep voters coming to the polls to vote against assistance well, big business is more likely to get their way. Look at Wisconsin in the past coupe years. Who has benefitted from Scott Walker? The second is the driving vehicle -- or I guess you could say gateway drug. Keep the mobs agitated any way you can -- and what better way than black vs white.

You see , it's not about people getting free stuff - it is which people get free stuff=how they get free stuff and how it affects all of us. In very major ways In this case support seems to be going goes to the people that just as soon abolish weekends and child labor laws

[Krgrecw]

It's not about race 57. It's about people who get but don't give. They call in all sizes and colors.

[weso1]

Would much rather spend boatloads of money on helping the poor in this country rather than spending so much on defense.

I'd rather just have the money back in my wallet and spend more on my own charity of choice.

[weso1]

It's almost like everyone grows up in different circumstances and have different things happen to them.

Almost. Most people just grow up in cushy environments, and every mistake they make is completely their own.

I think it's hilarious, and this isn't directed at any one on here, but how republicans are the more bible-thumping jesus lovers, but truly lack compassion and understanding, two things jesus preached.

Because you don't seem to understand that there are other ways to provide compassion to folks other than through federal assistance programs which meet your standards of compassion. Again this idea that liberals have that just because you are against current FEDERAL WELFARE policy automatically makes you callous is incredibly short sighted.

Why not argue actual points conservatives have about enabling than trying to find meaningless hypocrisies that don't exist to score some internet points. I mean you wouldn't give money to your drug addicted family member without some sort of path toward sobriety, right? So why is it so harsh when I expect something similar whilest giving money to complete strangers?

[weso1]

I would much rather have the recipients of welfare that don't have jobs; pick up trash, paint, habitat for humanity. At least make them do something. Even if it only improves thier neighborhood

Drug test them and give them jobs people don't want to do. Crump keeps talking about compromise, well here it is. The only negative is that you create a slippery slope toward socialism. But are the people who are receiving benefits without working going to vote for those who support this? What do you do with those who are able, but just simply refuse to work. The guilty conscious of liberals will never let them live without making others pay for the lazy lives of a few.

[weso1]

That would have been the National Relief Organization that operated for a little over a year before being thrown out by the Supreme Court.
That would have been 1935-6 or 7

These controversies keep circling two issues: 1st) complete repudiation of the New Deal and later programs and 2nd) Race

I don't think the first really has anything to do with government assistance programs but more on regulation put on big business. But as long as Palin,Rush and Fox can keep voters coming to the polls to vote against assistance well, big business is more likely to get their way. Look at Wisconsin in the past coupe years. Who has benefitted from Scott Walker? The second is the driving vehicle -- or I guess you could say gateway drug. Keep the mobs agitated any way you can -- and what better way than black vs white.

You see , it's not about people getting free stuff - it is which people get free stuff=how they get free stuff and how it affects all of us. In very major ways In this case support seems to be going goes to the people that just as soon abolish weekends and child labor laws

So the compromise is don't give anyone free stuff. I'm down with that. Problem solved.

[Tapate50]

If I raise my child by coddling them at every turn, and rewarding them for bad behavior, what kind of child will I produce most likely? (Besides a child with terrible comma usage)

[50PoundHead]

I think there is a big difference between coddling and rewarding for bad behavior, but I get the basic drift of what you're saying.

[57Brave]

So the compromise is don't give anyone free stuff. I'm down with that. Problem solved.

I should have put free stuff in quotes to read "free stuff"

[Tapate50]

I think there is a big difference between coddling and rewarding for bad behavior, but I get the basic drift of what you're saying.

Thank you. I am not necessarily a wordsmith like weso and Julio. Give me a little leeway.

I would much rather give people the tools to improve than toss them a few bucks and hope the problem goes away. Handouts just foster a hand out mentality.

[The Chosen One]

Thank you. I am not necessarily a wordsmith like weso and Julio. Give me a little leeway.

I would much rather give people the tools to improve than toss them a few bucks and hope the problem goes away. Handouts just foster a hand out mentality.

I think most progressives/liberals here and in general would agree with you.

Too bad the conservative media wants you to believe we don't believe in hard work nor capitalism.

[jpx7]

Why not argue actual points conservatives have about enabling

Because I find this whole "enabling" excuse that you're crowing about to be the exactly as "short-sighted" as you find my anti-callousness rhetoric to be; indeed, it seems exactly like "meaningless hypocrisy" to me.

So: impasse.