You don't have me on ignore, or at least you show hidden content often enough. I guess that answer will have to do.I'm not gonna hold my breath waiting for that fine liberal that uses the word retard as an insult to respond.
I don't have anyone on ignore. And if i was going to put someone on ignore, it wouldn't be you. barfo
I accept the challenge. I actually thought about starting a thread/contest to see who could guess the most ignored poster (not counting HCP) Would be fun
I look forward to your efforts, but you shall not prevail. Indeed, I'd like to know the answer to that one. barfo
Sorry, but there is a difference between paying taxes to the federal government so they can put money aside for national emergencies and paying taxes to the government so they can pay for a physically and mentally abled individual to sit at home and have kids to collect more welfare and foodstamps. There is a difference between paying taxes to the federal government to help the funding of maintaining safe streets and highways, vs paying taxes to the federal government so individuals can not have to worry about their own physical health and abuse their bodies because they have universal health care. And this is really one of the fundamental differences of why I am a republican and not a democrat. You (I assume you, because you rarely speak your mind, but post others' thoughts and I assume you are backing them in that) want to swoop everyone up in one complete package, some safe cocoon, all the while dismissing those that are self destructive and thus costing everyone else more. I do not believe in blanket judgement, blanket laws, or blanket support. I would rather have my government spend more on research of the funding to determine who is in actual need and who is choosing to waste away, and put MORE funds into those who truly are in need, do to disabilities, etc., and let those who care to waste away...waste away. It's their choice and not mine, so why should I have to pay for their choice? You want to see breadlines? Start rolling out universal funding of health care. Unless you plan on letting the government go sooo deep into debt we will lose all status and be considered a liability by any other industrialized nation in the world? Sorry. Not paying for it.
Fuck CNN. I saw this on TV. If the woman wasn't suffering so much, this would have been hilarious. http://dailycaller.com/2017/08/29/rescued-woman-goes-off-on-cnn-for-hurricane-harvey-coverage-video/
Stop. First of all, Foodstamps and welfare is a drop in the bucket and is NOT making us go in debt. THAT would be "defense" spending. If you think we are anywhere close to a majority of people on are welfare gaming the system then I have a bridge to sell you. "Welfare” is a broad term and can apply to people who are working but receiving some government assistance. If someone is receiving means-tested assistance, it doesn’t necessarily mean they are not working. Not all people eligible for welfare collect benefits. When they do, many of the benefits are contingent on the recipients working or actively searching for jobs, as a result of an overhaul of welfare signed into law by President Bill Clinton in 1996. And even low-income families receive some level of public assistance. And maybe you're unaware that participation has declined in means-tested programs such as TANF and SNAP. A few myths to dispel: 1. Poor women have more children because of the “financial incentives” of welfare benefits. Repeated studies show no correlation between benefit levels and women’s choice to have children. (See, for example, Urban Institute Policy and Research Report, Fall/93.) States providing relatively higher benefits do not show higher birth rates among recipients. In any case, welfare allowances are far too low to serve as any kind of “incentive”: A mother on welfare can expect about $90 in additional AFDC (Aid to Families with Dependent Children) benefits if she has another child. Furthermore, the real value of AFDC benefits, which do not rise with inflation, has fallen 37 percent during the last two decades (The Nation, 12/12/94). Birth rates among poor women have not dropped correspondingly. The average family receiving AFDC has 1.9 children — about the same as the national average. 2. We don’t subsidize middle-class families. Much of the welfare debate has centered around the idea of “family caps”—denying additional benefits to women who have children while receiving aid. This is often presented as simple justice: “A family that works does not get a raise for having a child. Why then should a family that doesn’t work?” columnist Ellen Goodman wrote in the Boston Globe (4/16/92). In fact, of course, families do receive a premium for additional children, in the form of a $2,450 tax deduction. There are also tax credits to partially cover childcare expenses, up to a maximum of $2,400 per child. No pundit has suggested that middle-class families base their decision to have children on these “perks.” 3. The public is fed up with spending money on the poor. “The suspicion that poorer people are getting something for nothing is much harder to bear than the visible good fortune of the richer,” wrote columnist Mary McGrory (Washington Post, 1/15/95). But contrary to such claims from media pundits, the general public is not so hard-hearted. In a December 1994 poll by the Center for the Study of Policy Attitudes (CSPA), 80 percent of respondents agreed that the government has “a responsibility to try to do away with poverty.” (Fighting Poverty in America: A Study of American Attitudes, CSPA) Support for “welfare” is lower than support for “assistance to the poor,” but when CSPA asked people about their support for AFDC, described as “the federal welfare program which provides financial support for unemployed poor single mothers with children,” only 21 percent said funding should be cut, while 29 percent said it should be increased. 4. We’ve spent over $5 trillion on welfare since the ’60s and it hasn’t worked. Conservatives and liberals alike use this claim as proof that federal poverty programs don’t work, since after all that “lavish” spending, people are still poor. But spending on AFDC, the program normally referred to as welfare, totaled less than $500 billion from 1964 to 1994—less than 1.5 percent of federal outlays for that period, and about what the Pentagon spends in two years. To get the $5 trillion figure, “welfare spending” must be defined to include all means-tested programs, including Medicaid, food stamps, student lunches, scholarship aid and many other programs. Medicaid, which is by far the largest component of the $5 trillion, goes mostly to the elderly and disabled; only about 16 percent of Medicaid spending goes to health care for AFDC recipients. (“What Do We Spend on ‘Welfare’?,” Center for Budget and Policy Priorities) Furthermore, the poverty rate did fall between 1964 and 1973, from 19 percent to 11 percent, with the advent of “Great Society” programs. Since the 1970s, economic forces like declining real wages as well as reduced benefit levels have contributed to rising poverty rates. 5. Anyone who wants to get off welfare can just get a job. Many welfare recipients do work to supplement meager benefits (Harper’s, 4/94). But workforce discrimination and the lack of affordable childcare make working outside the home difficult for single mothers. And the low-wage, no-benefit jobs available to most AFDC recipients simply do not pay enough to lift a family out of poverty. Although it is almost never mentioned in conjunction with the welfare debate, the U.S. Federal Reserve has an official policy of raising interest rates whenever unemployment falls below a certain point—now about 6.2 percent (Extra!, 9-10/94). In other words, if all the unemployed women on welfare were to find jobs, currently employed people would have to be thrown out of work to keep the economy from “overheating.”
