• We are now running on a new, and hopefully much-improved, server. In addition we are also on new forum software. Any move entails a lot of technical details and I suspect we will encounter a few issues as the new server goes live. Please be patient with us. It will be worth it! :) Please help by posting all issues here.
  • The forum will be down for about an hour this weekend for maintenance. I apologize for the inconvenience.
  • If you are having trouble seeing the forum then you may need to clear your browser's DNS cache. Click here for instructions on how to do that
  • Please review the Forum Rules frequently as we are constantly trying to improve the forum for our members and visitors.

Gun Violence Is A Disease...

georg jetson

Regular Member
Joined
Sep 14, 2009
Messages
2,416
Location
Slidell, Louisiana
Poverty is a matter of numbers, and degrees. Without Government, poverty would be much higher than it is; fortunately, we won't know since Government will always be there. And your times of yore that never existed, will not come to frution.

You "claim" poverty would be much higher without government and then say "we won't know". Ridiculous statement and irrelevant to the point.

Of course what we're speaking of is government involvement in solving poverty by stealing from some and giving some of that to whom they qualify... AND of course keeping a significant portion of its plunder for itself. This type of involvement does exactly what I said it does. Our government was not always in such criminal business.


Nothing to concern yourself with.

I see. So you denounce what I stated in my post, then offer Right-wing Self-Determinist crapola--good call.

No. I was just making the point that it would be useful to include REAL reasons for crime when explaining. Though I waste my keyboard tapping... your politics and your religion won't allow it
 

Gil223

Regular Member
Joined
Jan 5, 2012
Messages
1,392
Location
Weber County Utah
Poverty is that cause of welfare/food-stamps.

To which georgjetson asked:
What does this mean?

And your response:
Nothing to concern yourself with.

Do you not know what your statement meant, or do you believe the answer to be so complex as to exceed the intellectual capacity of 'normal people' to understand?

As I see it, poverty and welfare have a symbiotic, circular relationship, where each feeds off the other - which is exactly what the "Nanny-State" manipulators desire. Keep the welfare recipients dependent upon the government for basic subsistence, and they will acquiesce to virtually any governmental demands. Welfare, as Obama wants it structured, reverts to a total handout, not a 'hand up'! It will not help people to change their lot through job skills development, nor will it increase their motivation to become self-sufficient.

What welfare does do, is it gives the productive, working citizen a not undeserved sense of pride, because s/he is self-supporting. However, along with the good comes the not-so-good... the self-inflicted 'pat on the back' is frequently accompanied by some degree of resentment, in the form of "Why should those who choose not to work, benefit from the taxes taken from my earnings?" And, as has been said many times, eventually we may reach the point where those who choose not to work outnumber those whose work supports them - then what? (Google 'Cloward-Piven Strategy of Orchestrated Crisis' - a strategy of premeditated, manufactured crisis, designed to create the collapse of a Democratic Republic.) :eek: Pax...
 

twoskinsonemanns

Regular Member
Joined
Apr 12, 2012
Messages
2,326
Location
WV
Apparently it's enough to keep them dependent. A dependency that deteriorates family values, creates a culture of "entitlements". It's further exacerbated by government housing which, when put together with the other subsidies, offers just enough of a living not to have to worry about food or shelter.

However, it is a concern for these basic needs that builds character. Having to rely on real people with faces that you have to ask face to face for help... this relationship works toward having one rely on themselves to solve their problems.

Government does NOTHING to help poverty but removes the one thing that can reduce crime statistics. It removes personal responsibility. It removes the needy/helper relationship which also works to prevent crime because it works at the person to person(relationship) level.

Good points georg.

We recently hired a gentleman at my facility. About a week after he was hired he quit because his government subsidized housing went up from $75 a month to $125 a month. So he quit! HA! This is what our government does.
 

SFCRetired

Regular Member
Joined
Oct 29, 2008
Messages
1,764
Location
Montgomery, Alabama, USA
Teach a man to fish and he will provide for himself.

Give a man a fish and tell him he needs to vote for you for more fish..............

Actually that is supposed to read: "Teach a man to fish and he will spend all day in a boat drinking beer and catching nothing!!"

I have no argument with the second part of the statement, however.

Welfare, as it was originally instituted (I'm not that old, but Mom and Dad lived through the Great Depression), was intended to allow a man to stay with and provide for his family until he could get a job and get back on his feet.

What it has become for far too many is a way of life that is passed down to the next generation. There has got to be a way to humanely wean these people off the government welfare rolls and restore a sense of dignity and self-worth. Being given your livelihood, without having to do any meaningful work for it, has got to be one of the most degrading and dehumanizing acts that a government is capable of against its own citizenry.
 

Jack House

Regular Member
Joined
Jun 12, 2010
Messages
2,611
Location
I80, USA
I agree, SFC. The biggest problem with welfare is that it's too easy to stay on, while being too hard to get off. The issue is opportunity, there's little to no opportunity for poorly educated people to make enough money to support themselves and their families. There is little opportunity for poor children to receive a good education. And in some, possibly rare, case, it's better not to take extra hours because the benefits you will lose over it, will be more than what you gain.

These cases might be rare, but I've seen them happen. There's another issue as well, recipients being misinformed by their agents in such a way as for them to believe that would be the case. If you know or even believe that taking extra hours at your job is going to result in no longer being abler to feed your family, what are you going to do?
 

Beretta92FSLady

Regular Member
Joined
Dec 14, 2009
Messages
5,264
Location
In My Coffee
I agree, SFC. The biggest problem with welfare is that it's too easy to stay on, while being too hard to get off. The issue is opportunity, there's little to no opportunity for poorly educated people to make enough money to support themselves and their families. There is little opportunity for poor children to receive a good education. And in some, possibly rare, case, it's better not to take extra hours because the benefits you will lose over it, will be more than what you gain.

These cases might be rare, but I've seen them happen. There's another issue as well, recipients being misinformed by their agents in such a way as for them to believe that would be the case. If you know or even believe that taking extra hours at your job is going to result in no longer being abler to feed your family, what are you going to do?

I have an example: State Health Insurance, cash assistance, food assistance, and a part-time job; or: Full-time job (not able to put food on the table), no Health Insurance for the family. Gee, let me think about this, 'my friend', has this problem. It's unfortunate that you are actually poorer, and more vulnerable when you are working, than when you are not. And the solution: Cut Government assistance. But the underlying issue remains, and the individuals that need help, are cut-off from it, if they do what they prefer to do, which is work full-time.
 
Last edited:

Jack House

Regular Member
Joined
Jun 12, 2010
Messages
2,611
Location
I80, USA
I have an example: State Health Insurance, cash assistance, food assistance, and a part-time job; or: Full-time job (not able to put food on the table), no Health Insurance for the family. Gee, let me think about this, 'my friend', has this problem. It's unfortunate that you are actually poorer, and more vulnerable when you are working, than when you are not. And the solution: Cut Government assistance. But the underlying issue remains, and the individuals that need help, are cut-off from it, if they do what they prefer to do, which is work full-time.
Exactly, some people pigeonholed into it. Getting a better paying job is almost never an option, because if it was I'm sure they'd take it.
 
Top