Page 11 of 11 FirstFirst ... 91011
Results 101 to 108 of 108
  1. #101  
    Quote Originally Posted by Rockntractor View Post
    Lanie may be illogical much of the time but I do believe she is a giving person that helps others whenever she can.

    From Tapatalk
    Thanks, I think.

    Quote Originally Posted by Elspeth View Post
    That's all I asked for Lanie. There was no need to be so nasty about things.

    Now, here is my question. If people were like you (and many of us here) and gave to charities on a regular basis, and government could stop regulating (especially small) businesses which produce jobs in this country, we could have both the able-bodied working and the poor cared for. THIS is the conservative ideal.
    Quote Originally Posted by Elspeth View Post
    No one was baiting you. It was an honest question and it was asked to demonstrate a point.

    If you're obsessed with middle school, I recommend a therapist. The rest of us have moved on into adult life.
    Has it ever occured to you that MAYBE I was attempting to follow the "Don't go telling people what you do" rule I mentioned? No, and you didn't care. Here's how I interpreted things. I said your political pov was extreme. You then started talking about how my perspective was usually bad in some way (can't remember how). That was the beginning of you getting nasty with me. Then, you started demanding to know more about how I give and said I don't give if I don't talk about it. Yes, I do think you were baiting because you got mad at me for saying your political perspective was extreme and wanted to get back at me for it. As for not being in middle school, act like it. As far as I'm concerned, you acted exactly like that one girl.

    I agree that more people should give to charities more often. I don't think it would be enough because too many people are ending up without jobs for too long. Too many people are considered to not be skilled enough. I think a start would be a law demanding everybody finish high school. I can't believe kids still quit in this day and age. The next step would be getting single mothers (most welfare recipients) and others who have trouble finding work trained for a job high in demand.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  2. #102  
    LTC Member Odysseus's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2008
    Location
    FT Belvoir, VA
    Posts
    15,638
    Quote Originally Posted by Lanie View Post
    Oh the drama.

    To clarify, are you against all welfare programs to temporarily help those who are down on their luck?
    This is a common liberal mistake. A conservative argues against a specific program, so the liberal assumes that the conservative is against anything remotely resembling the program. In the case of welfare, the problem is not that there are programs to assist those who are going through a rough patch, the problem is that the farther away from the recipient that the program is administered, the harder it is to oversee the program and deliver the services. Local charities, even government-administered ones, are more efficient than federal ones because the people engaging with the recipients tend to know them, or at least can look at them face to face and see who they are helping out. Charity was federalized under LBJ with the Great Society programs, which vastly expanded both the size and scope of government and the cost of administering it, but also oversaw a vast expansion of poverty. Payments to single mothers had disastrous consequences for families, as illegitimacy doubled (and even tripled) in every demographic group. A local charity could provide more effective support, for less money, and would not create perverse incentives to game the system.

    So, no, conservatives don't oppose all welfare programs. We do, however, oppose needless expansions of government that take responsibility away from those closest to a problem and hence in the best position to fix it.
    --Odysseus
    Sic Hacer Pace, Para Bellum.

    Before you can do things for people, you must be the kind of man who can get things done. But to get things done, you must love the doing, not the people!
    Reply With Quote  
     

  3. #103  
    Sin City Moderator RobJohnson's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2006
    Location
    Nevada
    Posts
    17,422
    Quote Originally Posted by Lanie View Post
    Alright now. lol.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  4. #104  
    Sin City Moderator RobJohnson's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2006
    Location
    Nevada
    Posts
    17,422
    Quote Originally Posted by Elspeth View Post
    As I said, it wasn't an answer.

    I will assume that you don't give to charity and do nothing to help the poor since you clearly don't want to answer the question I asked. You merely use "the poor" as a rhetorical battering ram because you have no real argument.
    She did actually answer your question here:

    http://www.conservativeunderground.c...l=1#post581553
    Reply With Quote  
     

  5. #105  
    Quote Originally Posted by Odysseus View Post
    This is a common liberal mistake. A conservative argues against a specific program, so the liberal assumes that the conservative is against anything remotely resembling the program. In the case of welfare, the problem is not that there are programs to assist those who are going through a rough patch, the problem is that the farther away from the recipient that the program is administered, the harder it is to oversee the program and deliver the services. Local charities, even government-administered ones, are more efficient than federal ones because the people engaging with the recipients tend to know them, or at least can look at them face to face and see who they are helping out. Charity was federalized under LBJ with the Great Society programs, which vastly expanded both the size and scope of government and the cost of administering it, but also oversaw a vast expansion of poverty. Payments to single mothers had disastrous consequences for families, as illegitimacy doubled (and even tripled) in every demographic group. A local charity could provide more effective support, for less money, and would not create perverse incentives to game the system.

    So, no, conservatives don't oppose all welfare programs. We do, however, oppose needless expansions of government that take responsibility away from those closest to a problem and hence in the best position to fix it.
    Thank you, Ody. I agree that help is probably better at a local level. I think there's some question as to whether the state and local government want to help in some cases. During our recent shutdown, my state declared no more WIC. I know we had other resources to help out the parents who need it. The concerns I have about less government help creating less "illegitimate" children is that I fear that people will be forced to stay with abusive spouses. In theory, the law can take care of that, but our DV laws are 125% nothing but a joke. They do nothing to stop abusers from going further. It's scary.

    The obvious answer would be not to get married or have sex until one is completely sure that the person they're with can be trusted to be the father/mother of their children and can be trusted financially speaking. Thing is I don't see hardly anybody (conservatives included) practicing what they should on this subject.

    I don't mean to change the subject. I'm just explaining some of my thinking for supporting certain programs. People need a financial way to get out of certain situations if they have to. I don't think it should be permanent though. Welfare only lasts five years.

    on edit: I do want to say that some conservatives are against any government help. My sister is friends with one on FB. I think she knew him in high school. He constantly rants about how he doesn't want the government helping in any way.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  6. #106  
    Sin City Moderator RobJohnson's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2006
    Location
    Nevada
    Posts
    17,422
    Quote Originally Posted by Lanie View Post
    Welfare only lasts five years.
    I don't think that is true. Especially when it comes to SNAP.

    So many mothers continue to have children so they get a raise from Uncle Sam. Each child would essentially extend the benefit limit if there was one.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  7. #107  
    Quote Originally Posted by RobJohnson View Post
    I don't think that is true. Especially when it comes to SNAP.

    So many mothers continue to have children so they get a raise from Uncle Sam. Each child would essentially extend the benefit limit if there was one.
    I mean the official welfare check. I think I might know one person who kept having kids to receive more benefits, but that's just stupid. Kids cost money. You have to use what you get or neglect the kid.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  8. #108  
    Sin City Moderator RobJohnson's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2006
    Location
    Nevada
    Posts
    17,422
    Quote Originally Posted by Lanie View Post
    I mean the official welfare check. I think I might know one person who kept having kids to receive more benefits, but that's just stupid. Kids cost money. You have to use what you get or neglect the kid.
    Having additional children to increase benefits was such a problem it was addressed in the reform bill that President Clinton signed.


    You have to remember more children means more chances for SSI on the children and other social programs.
    Reply With Quote  
     

Bookmarks
Bookmarks
Posting Permissions
  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •