Now we're TALKING!

If it is a matter of fact then we certainly do not make it a pillar of society to subsidize stupid, poor, short sighted human trash. I've literally heard people speak about having children like a paycheck, it's not just some meme.

Welfare institutionalizes welfare: I think it would be far better off if it was given willingly instead of compulsory. I want to help out the 90 year old widow ( I don't want her to have my tax dollars, but money donated through charity ), but the douche buying cheetos, steaks, and cigarettes should get no help from me. If he does not want to work, he can ask for charity or eat dirt. Society is too important to bow to the whim of the worst among us. And it is sad that this is not a common sentiment.

posting in a history revisionist thread

How do you respond to the fact that the number of people who abuse welfare are a small percentage of all users?

At any given time the number of people habitually on welfare is quite a large percentage, but over any two year period the number of people who have come on and gone off of welfare as temporary assistance greatly outnumbers the habitual users.

http://phdn.org/archives/holocaust-history.org/auschwitz/chemistry/iffr/report.shtml

Study on the existence of cyanide ions in the crematoria, and not in the living quarters.

I've met a lot of lazy not disabled people getting SSI...more than the average bear considering my work and I just roll my eyes sometimes. The mentally retarded? They work their ass off in their programs...they pay their way as much as they can.



This is true. SSI is what fosters dependence rather than independence like other welfare programs. In my opinion.

This post was edited by Skinned on Jul 19 2017 08:44pm

I still say the money would be better left in private hands. There are plenty of "welfare" jobs that exist behind the scenes who live off of the taxpayer dime in order to administer free shit. I am much more in favor or returning charity to a function of the community. It is much better at self policing and gets to those who really need it.

As a function of government? It is not their place to redistribute resources. This might be too hard of a concept to understand if you are prone to multiculturalism, because everything a graffiti all over it, but it is a much better more efficient system.

Why do you think Charity is more effective?

As an example of charity being insufficient, we have more food insecurity today despite having tens of times more food pantries and charities dedicated to feeding families. The food insecurity can be traced back to Reagan massively cutting food programs by the government.

The era where charities took care of people effectively never actually existed. It's just looking at the past with rose-colored glasses.

Just do your own research on what happened before the government distribution of welfare. Don't want to? Go read a letter written by a soldier before public education. Go find an 8th grade test from the 1800's. How bad off were they?

I can google just as quick as you can, Thor.

Dude we were crushing it in the 70's....eradicated hunger...what a utopia. Reagan was awful. Most whitewashed president in history.

Aside from all that crime , yeah sure you were crushing it.