Motts growing nightmare

[SmarterthanYou]

Sure, people have a right to ownership. They also have an obligation to help others.

can you cite where I'm legally obligated to help others?

 

[apple0154]

Not all of them have "bad" homes apple...just non incentivised ones...but yeah, throw drugs into it and it's another entire layer of dysfunction.

Welfare is not good, it's addictive. Welfare was our nations early public employee plan...now those jobs are permanent, pay more are unionized and have more security then many of their private counter parts and public welfare is now unrelated to work...bad.

"Not all of them have "bad" homes apple...just non incentivised ones."

Exactly, but rather than the government helping those kids they make it a jump-through-the-hoops program. Many drop out of school, for whatever reason. They will never have a decent life unless they get an education. Where is the program to offer them an education? A free education because, obviously, being on welfare they don't have any money.

We can't expect those who start out in life with strikes against them to view life the same way as a privileged person. Without an education they'll never get anywhere regardless of how much they work (in most cases). That's why they remain on welfare. They don't see any way out.

 

[apple0154]

Government should have no right to force one man to be anothers keeper

Then the government should have no right to force a person to sacrifice their life for their country (draft). Why would anyone die for their country when their country doesn't give a damn if they're fed or housed?

Who would give their life for their country when their country would sit by while the person goes hungry? Who would give their life for their country when their country would watch their spouse die because of lack of medical care? Or watch a family member suffer because they can't afford medical care?

...what we have is government playing the role of the church and they suck at it.

Government should be for the benefit of people. All people.

 

[Canceled2]

"Not all of them have "bad" homes apple...just non incentivised ones."

Exactly, but rather than the government helping those kids they make it a jump-through-the-hoops program. Many drop out of school, for whatever reason. They will never have a decent life unless they get an education. Where is the program to offer them an education? A free education because, obviously, being on welfare they don't have any money.

We can't expect those who start out in life with strikes against them to view life the same way as a privileged person. Without an education they'll never get anywhere regardless of how much they work (in most cases). That's why they remain on welfare. They don't see any way out.

They stay on welfare 'cause it's easy. They don't "see" a way out because they have not learned by "example" growing up, that they got nothing coming except that which they are willing to work for. Dignity is a motivator; dignity is earned; without dignity people have no inner drive. Lacking dignity people can become very self destructive and selfish.

 

[Canceled2]

Then the government should have no right to force a person to sacrifice their life for their country (draft). Why would anyone die for their country when their country doesn't give a damn if they're fed or housed?

Who would give their life for their country when their country would sit by while the person goes hungry? Who would give their life for their country when their country would watch their spouse die because of lack of medical care? Or watch a family member suffer because they can't afford medical care?

Government should be for the benefit of people. All people.

I have never supported the draft...the draft tends to be a liberal pet.

I do not say people should not help other people...I say government has no right to force someone to do so...big difference. Government is supposed to protect people from an outside force that wishes to cause them harm. In that way all people are free to pursue happiness...not have it handed to them.

Our truly poor and needy have a multitude of food, shelter, and medicine available to them through our community based charities, clinics, and hospitals. What people like you want is for everyone to agree to government creating a free middle class lifestyle...it does not work because people are easilly conditioned to be lazy and just be satisfied with a mediocre free lifestyle as proven via our multiple generational welfare system. Pie in the sky does not work and every social system that has been created to bring it about has failed.

 

[WinterBorn]

Well who does? Fact is, taxation is at historic lows. If we wish to keep it that way we need to give up on some spending. What are you willing to cut spending on? Defense? Social Security? Infrastructure? What program or service near and dear to you are you willing to cut back on or do with out?

How about the special medical insurance and retirement for the senate? Let them draw social security like their constituents. That would at least prod them into being more careful with that money.

Defense spending could be cut.

How about corporate welfare? There are millions wasted there that could be cut.

We spend $25 billion maintaining unused or abandoned federal properties. Sell the damned things. In addition to the income from the sale, it would save us a bundle.

We are spending $2.6 million of our tax dollars to train chinese prostitutes to drink responsibly on the job. I am betting that program could be cut. http://www.cnsnews.com/public/content/article.aspx?RsrcID=47976

A GAO audit found that 95 Pentagon weapons systems suffered from a combined $295 billion in cost overruns.

Congress recently gave Alaska Airlines $500,000 to paint a Chinook salmon on a Boeing 737.

The Defense Department wasted $100 million on unused flight tickets and never bothered to collect refunds even though the tickets were refundable.




The idea that budget cuts will cause problems is just a ploy used by those who have a stake in the game. Don't fall for it, Mott.

 

[DamnYankee]

They stay on welfare 'cause it's easy. They don't "see" a way out because they have not learned by "example" growing up, that they got nothing coming except that which they are willing to work for. Dignity is a motivator; dignity is earned; without dignity people have no inner drive. Lacking dignity people can become very self destructive and selfish.

Wise words.

 

[apple0154]

can you cite where I'm legally obligated to help others?

I can cite where the government is obliged to help others and considering we are the government (democracy) then it follows we are all responsible.

"We the People of the United States, in Order to form a more perfect Union, establish Justice, insure domestic Tranquility, provide for the common defence,[1] promote the general Welfare, and secure the Blessings of Liberty to ourselves and our Posterity, do ordain and establish this Constitution for the United States of America."

Promote the general welfare. When one is charged with promoting a person's general welfare what does it mean?

Should one argue it means the general welfare of the country as opposed to the general welfare of individual citizens I'd like to know the difference? The citizens are the country. Citizens in poverty means part of the country is in poverty. Surely having citizens suffering from a lack of basic food and shelter and health care is not beneficial to the general welfare of a country.

Today, we have limits on certain crops to ensure prices remain high. Does anyone believe the Founding Fathers had that in mind? Today, we have medications and procedures to cure all types of ailments. When people say medical care was not included in the Constitution what care are they talking about? What care was available to be mentioned?

(Excerpt)"The Preamble to the United States Constitution is a brief introductory statement of the fundamental purposes and guiding principles that the Constitution is meant to serve. In general terms it states, and courts have referred to it as reliable evidence of, the Founding Fathers' intentions regarding the Constitution's meaning and what they hoped it would achieve."(End)
[ame="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Preamble_to_the_United_States_Constitution"]Preamble to the United States Constitution - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia@@AMEPARAM@@/wiki/File:US-GreatSeal-Obverse.svg" class="image" title="Great Seal of the United States"><img alt="Great Seal of the United States" src="http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/thumb/b/be/US-GreatSeal-Obverse.svg/125px-US-GreatSeal-Obverse.svg.png"@@AMEPARAM@@commons/thumb/b/be/US-GreatSeal-Obverse.svg/125px-US-GreatSeal-Obverse.svg.png[/ame]

The Founding Fathers' intentions. They couldn't be specific about things they knew nothing about such as the advances in medicine or the industrial revolution to the point where food production soared. Does anyone believe the Founding Fathers' had any idea more food would be produced than necessary and then quotas placed on that food which has resulted in some going hungry?

Is that the kind if country the Founding Fathers' imagined, wished for, strived to build?

Is there anyone here who believes the general welfare and securing the blessings of liberty mean deliberately lessening food production so others go hungry?

Is there anyone here who believes the general welfare and securing the blessings of liberty encompass watching others suffer and, in some cases, die when medical care is available?

Is there anyone here who believes that was the Founding Fathers' idea of a "more perfect union"?

 

[Mott the Hoople]

How about the special medical insurance and retirement for the senate? Let them draw social security like their constituents. That would at least prod them into being more careful with that money.

Defense spending could be cut.

How about corporate welfare? There are millions wasted there that could be cut.

We spend $25 billion maintaining unused or abandoned federal properties. Sell the damned things. In addition to the income from the sale, it would save us a bundle.

We are spending $2.6 million of our tax dollars to train chinese prostitutes to drink responsibly on the job. I am betting that program could be cut. http://www.cnsnews.com/public/content/article.aspx?RsrcID=47976

A GAO audit found that 95 Pentagon weapons systems suffered from a combined $295 billion in cost overruns.

Congress recently gave Alaska Airlines $500,000 to paint a Chinook salmon on a Boeing 737.

The Defense Department wasted $100 million on unused flight tickets and never bothered to collect refunds even though the tickets were refundable.




The idea that budget cuts will cause problems is just a ploy used by those who have a stake in the game. Don't fall for it, Mott.

Look, that's not what I'm getting at. Riding waste and corruption from the system is important and we all want that but it won't solve the problem.

We, as a people, either need to tighten our belts and make some tough decisions about cutting popular programs or we will need to raise taxes. You can't have your cake and eat it too.

Some suggestions I would have.

1. Cut military expenditures by about half. Were still fighting the cold war and it's been over for 20 years. We could cut our military in half and still have the largest military in the world. Let Japan and Western Europe and other nations pay for their own defence. It's time for us to reap the peace dividend.
2. Raise the cap on the pay roll tax for Social Security to $250,000 and, if needed, means test SS so those making over $100,000/year in retirement income recieve reduced benifits on a sliding scale upwards.
3. Complete reforming and moderninizing our health care system. Our present system is to costly and to inaffective. We need to modernize our system, as the rest of the industrialized nations have done, while improving outcomes.

These 3 steps combined with reducing/eliminating waste and corruption would fix our budget deficit problem.

 

[SmarterthanYou]

I can cite where the government is obliged to help others and considering we are the government (democracy) then it follows we are all responsible.

Time to put this crap out of its misery. WE THE PEOPLE are no more the 'government' than charles manson is jesus christ. We are not a democracy, we are a representative republic. That means that we elect people to represent us in government, which hardly ever works out anyway.

Promote the general welfare. When one is charged with promoting a person's general welfare what does it mean?

Should one argue it means the general welfare of the country as opposed to the general welfare of individual citizens I'd like to know the difference? The citizens are the country. Citizens in poverty means part of the country is in poverty. Surely having citizens suffering from a lack of basic food and shelter and health care is not beneficial to the general welfare of a country.

'general welfare' is not a clause to ensure every individual has a lifetime job, home, pension, or any other entitlement. You should humbly apologize for your misconstrued misconstruction.

Today, we have limits on certain crops to ensure prices remain high. Does anyone believe the Founding Fathers had that in mind?

created and maintained by FDR and the 'new deal'.

Today, we have medications and procedures to cure all types of ailments. When people say medical care was not included in the Constitution what care are they talking about? What care was available to be mentioned?

there wasn't, and isn't. People can get an education to become a doctor and provide that care while getting paid for their services. capitalism at its finest. the government has no authority to mandate any care at all.

The Founding Fathers' intentions. They couldn't be specific about things they knew nothing about such as the advances in medicine or the industrial revolution to the point where food production soared. Does anyone believe the Founding Fathers' had any idea more food would be produced than necessary and then quotas placed on that food which has resulted in some going hungry?

The founding fathers knew this could happen in a central government that didn't stay within the bounds of the powers authorized them. Because the feds went outside those powers, we now have the problems you complain about and want government to fix. Homelessness, poverty, hunger....these are all a result of federal manipulation of the markets. That is most certainly not what the founders wanted.

Is there anyone here who believes the general welfare and securing the blessings of liberty mean deliberately lessening food production so others go hungry?

appeal to emotion

Is there anyone here who believes the general welfare and securing the blessings of liberty encompass watching others suffer and, in some cases, die when medical care is available?

appeal to emotion

 

[WinterBorn]

They stay on welfare 'cause it's easy. They don't "see" a way out because they have not learned by "example" growing up, that they got nothing coming except that which they are willing to work for. Dignity is a motivator; dignity is earned; without dignity people have no inner drive. Lacking dignity people can become very self destructive and selfish.

http://hcom.csumb.edu/welfare/resources/myths_facts.html

"Less than half of the families that receive AFDC receive it for more than 36 months overall and most families receive aid for no more than two years at a time."

"AFDC and Food Stamp benefits combined provide less than a poverty level income in all states and their value has been going steadily downward for many years."

"The most typical family size is a mother and one child and the birthrate among women receiving AFDC is lower than that in the rest of the population."

"Spending on all the public assistance programs that provide poor families with aid to meet their basic living needs, including medical needs, amounts to about 6% of the total federal budget."




Granted, the study is a few years old. But the popular myths concerning welfare are wide spread.



http://www.huppi.com/kangaroo/L-welfareblack.htm

From that link you can see:

"Time on AFDC
---------------------------
Less than 7 months 19.0%
7 to 12 months 15.2
One to two years 19.3
Two to five years 26.9
Over five years 19.6

Number of children
-------------------
One 43.2%
Two 30.7
Three 15.8
Four or more 10.3"


So just over 80% of those receiving AFDC are on it for less than 5 years.

 

[WinterBorn]

Look, that's not what I'm getting at. Riding waste and corruption from the system is important and we all want that but it won't solve the problem.

We, as a people, either need to tighten our belts and make some tough decisions about cutting popular programs or we will need to raise taxes. You can't have your cake and eat it too.

It can solve some of the problem. If the money were spent carefully and the waste eliminated, we could avoid many of the shortfalls we currently face.

Cost overruns of $295 Billion??



The fact that the gov't continues to waste money at such an astounding rate, and nothing is done, shows a trend of fiscal irresponsibility.

How about a gov't version of the Sarbanes-Oxley? Hold the top people responsible for waste & fraud.

 

[Canceled2]

http://hcom.csumb.edu/welfare/resources/myths_facts.html

"Less than half of the families that receive AFDC receive it for more than 36 months overall and most families receive aid for no more than two years at a time."

"AFDC and Food Stamp benefits combined provide less than a poverty level income in all states and their value has been going steadily downward for many years."

"The most typical family size is a mother and one child and the birthrate among women receiving AFDC is lower than that in the rest of the population."

"Spending on all the public assistance programs that provide poor families with aid to meet their basic living needs, including medical needs, amounts to about 6% of the total federal budget."




Granted, the study is a few years old. But the popular myths concerning welfare are wide spread.



http://www.huppi.com/kangaroo/L-welfareblack.htm

From that link you can see:

"Time on AFDC
---------------------------
Less than 7 months 19.0%
7 to 12 months 15.2
One to two years 19.3
Two to five years 26.9
Over five years 19.6

Number of children
-------------------
One 43.2%
Two 30.7
Three 15.8
Four or more 10.3"


So just over 80% of those receiving AFDC are on it for less than 5 years.

So about 50% of families recieve it for longer than 36 mos. Likewise we are on the 6th generation of families that have grown up on welfare and stayed on welfare. These stats do not account for women who return to welfare after a short time off... Welfare is a way of life for generations. That some are able to use it as a stop-gap and manage to get away from it for good is not the norm, but always a good thing.

Ask any social worker who works with welfare recipients and I guarentee that they'd agree with my viewpoint.

I do not see welfare recipients as bad people...I see welfare as a bad system.

 

[WinterBorn]

So about 50% of families recieve it for longer than 36 mos. Likewise we are on the 6th generation of families that have grown up on welfare and stayed on welfare. These stats do not account for women who return to welfare after a short time off... Welfare is a way of life for generations. That some are able to use it as a stop-gap and manage to get away from it for good is not the norm, but always a good thing.
Ask any social worker who works with welfare recipients and I guarentee that they'd agree with my viewpoint.

I do not see welfare recipients as bad people...I see welfare as a bad system.

I am sure there are some that get off and return to the system. But I couldnt find any hard statistics or documented facts to show that is the norm.

What every site I found shows is that the majority use it as a stop-gap and get off the system.

 

[USFREEDOM911]

Then the government should have no right to force a person to sacrifice their life for their country (draft). Why would anyone die for their country when their country doesn't give a damn if they're fed or housed?

Who would give their life for their country when their country would sit by while the person goes hungry? Who would give their life for their country when their country would watch their spouse die because of lack of medical care? Or watch a family member suffer because they can't afford medical care?



Government should be for the benefit of people. All people.

Strawman argument.
There is no draft.

Failure

 

[apple0154]

Time to put this crap out of its misery. WE THE PEOPLE are no more the 'government' than charles manson is jesus christ. We are not a democracy, we are a representative republic. That means that we elect people to represent us in government, which hardly ever works out anyway.

Regardless, we are ultimately responsible.

'general welfare' is not a clause to ensure every individual has a lifetime job, home, pension, or any other entitlement. You should humbly apologize for your misconstrued misconstruction.

Time to consult your dictionary. When responsible for the welfare of anything it means the well-being.

there wasn't, and isn't. People can get an education to become a doctor and provide that care while getting paid for their services. capitalism at its finest. the government has no authority to mandate any care at all.

Of course the government has the authority. That is it's obligation, to promote the general welfare. That is one of the "fundamental purposes and guiding principles" of the Constitution. It is so written.

appeal to emotion

No, straight forward questions. If the ones I asked are not the intentions of the Founding Fathers then changes need to be made.

 

[apple0154]

Strawman argument.
There is no draft.

Failure

That doesn't change the fact a draft can be implemented at any time.

 

[Minister of Truth]

Then the government should have no right to force a person to sacrifice their life for their country (draft). Why would anyone die for their country when their country doesn't give a damn if they're fed or housed?

Who would give their life for their country when their country would sit by while the person goes hungry? Who would give their life for their country when their country would watch their spouse die because of lack of medical care? Or watch a family member suffer because they can't afford medical care?

Americans would. One might die for their family, which feeds, clothes, and houses them, but one might also die for their country, which maintains ordered liberty, so that they have the ability to live an existence not befuddled with chaos and barbarism.

 

[SmarterthanYou]

Regardless, we are ultimately responsible.

but WE are not the government.

Time to consult your dictionary. When responsible for the welfare of anything it means the well-being.

general welfare of the united states, not united states citizens. key point you're ignoring.

Of course the government has the authority. That is it's obligation, to promote the general welfare. That is one of the "fundamental purposes and guiding principles" of the Constitution. It is so written.

can you cite to any piece of historical documentation that points to 'general welfare' as being authority for the government to provide anything for an individual citizen?

 

[USFREEDOM911]

That doesn't change the fact a draft can be implemented at any time.

HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA

MAJOR FUCKING FAILURE ON ROADAPPLES LOGIC