Study: More Than Half a Trillion Dollars Spent on Welfare But Poverty Levels Unaffect

Government welfare programs, by assuming responsibility for performing the acts of charity which individual members of society should and would perform much more efficiently and effectively, only perpetuate the problems they set out to solve. The certainty that government will step in and provide help, reduces the necessity of one recognizing a responsibility to help themself, and eliminates allowing those who are charitable to give help or refrain from giving as each case might dictate.

 

we're givin it to em merican style

the one with the sharp knife

 

Are we now moving from Welfare programs to Veteran benefit programs? One topic at a time would be much easier to deal with, especially when they're unrelated, don't you think?

 

The agenda of the Cato Institute is multi-pronged. It's all welfare to them.

 

So you freely admit your animus is with the Cato Institute for providing facts which don't fit with your agenda?

 

I don't know what you're talking about.

 

Might be a trifle difficult for charity to clean up New York,New Jersey after--well--you know.

 

You'd be surprised just how much charity does help. I believe there was a story of help to restore power coming from Alabama, but was turned away because they were not unionized.

 

Ignorance is bliss.

 

I know Oregon sent several crews and some of the the Occupy folks are there helping feed those that are now practically indigent. Some situations are just too massive to fix without government(our) help.

But as far as welfare goes,I said (about a thousand posts ago,it seems) that welfare could be virtually eliminated IF there were enough jobs for people to get. Never mind the lazy people who would not work under any circumstances. Hell,there will always be those types. Anyone that has ever had room mates or lived communally can attest to that. Frankly,I'd rather pay for food stamps than grenades.

 

Turned away because they were not unionized? C'mon man--isn't that quite the stretch,there?

 

Nice thing about room mates is you can kick them out if they aren't contributung their share, and living communally you can always exit and live elsewhere. Are you saying our choices are ONLY between food stamps OR grenades? And food stamps is but one of MANY programs, what are the choices for each of the other welfare related programs? And I'm not thinking of social security, medicare, veterans services, or short term (26 week) unemployment benefits, which are programs in which the recipients have contributed to, as the means of entitlement.

 

Just an example. I was paying almost 50% of my hard earned money to help pay for that useless endeaver our glorious leaders got us into--Viet Nam. I told my employer in Hawaii that I was cutting way back on the amount of work I was going to do ,because I was tired of paying for grenades. As I said,I would much rather pay for help that people need than paying for a war machine.

 

delete

 

I'm sure that's true, but still, are you saying it's a choice between doing one or the other? Or are you in need of a distraction from the subject of welfare spending and poverty?

 

I'm not distracted at all over the welfare corporations and the wealthy make possible by finally getting their way with the supreme court and the regular perquisites afforded to themselves by the de-regulation of banking by sleights of hand.

And I'm aware of the results of the 1% owning 90 % or thereabouts ,of the wealth. I want to repeat=the middle class has NOT caused the mess this country is in. WE do not control the economy,except for the foolish ,continual buying of useless WANTS,as was shown this Friday. What it comes down to is --the poor and middle classes are easy targets as they do not have representation (much) for their interests.

 

False- all forms of welfare are funded by taxation. Anyone who pays taxes contributes to the various welfare programs. And yes, the poor pay taxes too so they're entitled to receive benefits.

 

I can understand wealth being opposed to all forms of welfare (veterans benefits, unempoyment benefits, social security benefits, medicare) because they don't need safety nets. Their wealth is their safety net.

So, I do understand your reasoning Individual.

 

No, it's not. Crews from Alabama, Georgia, and Florida were either turned away from New York and New Jersey, or told not to come unless they pay up to the unions. They told him that they weren't there to join a union, they were there donating their time and resources to help people in need.....but they were turned away because they wouldn't give in.

Well, maybe. I heard the story on the radio several times when it happened. But of course the union officials are denying it. It all depends on what website you look at whether or not it happened. It seems though, that at the very least crews returned home because of confusion with the union papers they had to sign before working in those states.

Personally, I don't doubt that they were turned away. But not by the hands of the union officials......more likely by low to mid level union members, making it seem like it was someone elae calling the shots. I know first hand how shitty union workers can be towards non union. I saw it happening when I was a union member, and I see it now that I'm not.

As far as I'm concerned, the unions can kiss my ass. They've done more harm to me and my family/friends than good.......by a long shot. I'd have to be hard pressed to join another one.




http://www.humanevents.com/2012/11/...ravaged-areas-turn-away-non-union-assistance/

 

I keep looking past this, but:

Invidividual, the Constitution of The United States of America says that it is the job of the federal government to provide for the welfare of the people, and to figure out how to do it.

Case closed.

It doesn't say it depends on how many are unemployed, and it doesn't say that the privilaged status of wealthy indivudials may not be slightly disrupted in order to provide for the welfare of those who are not faring well.

If you ARE faring well, you will not be thrown into poverty, and if you are not, you will have your welfare provided for. That's what the constitution says.

So, because he cares about the constitution and all it's intents and shit so much, what individual and Co. need to do is start arguing for a constitutional amendment that says that poor people don't need welfare, and it actually hurts them, and it's not the governments job to tax and provide them welfare with the taxes -- because right now, the constitution DOES say that taxes may be collected and that the welfare of the people must be provided for by the government.