A final word on welfare
I just looked at its' profile, and there is nothing there.
This person(?) is hiding from something and trying to get us worked up.
It is obvious the it doesn't know what it's talking about.
It's preaching eugenics, no matter what it's cloaking it under.
I'm sure it makes next to nothing and it wants a bigger piece of the pie without earning it.
Let's see - black people have a lot of folks on welfare - let's just make sure they die out, oh, yeah, hispanics too, and while we're at it, let's finish cleaning up the Jews, and, oh, yeah...
If it looks like a NAZI, and talks like a NAZI, and walks like a NAZI...
Drop by anytime to get rid of me: 32345 Savage Road, Sheridan, Orygun 97378.
Anytime, day or night - you will be welcomed, and maybe I'll give you some pie and coffee that you bought.
Doug(and I thought I was right-wing) Wilson
Doug, really, you give me too much credit. I can barely keep up with the lawn, my garden, work, overdue library books, and the laundry. The fact that you think that I have the time, inclination, and energy to also personally resurect the Nazi party here in America is flattering--in an odd way--but totally wrong.
I NEVER, NEVER, NEVER said I wanted to kill somebody or that somebody should be killed. Really. Take the time and go back and read the original posts and you'll see that. All I said was that people should be self-reliant, and that those who can not take care of themselves should not expect others to take care of them. To use my example once again, if you're 78, broke, in need of expensive medical care to stay alive and you don't have a dime to pay for it, then it's time for you to die.
You see, Doug, those Nazis had some very nasty ideas about gays, the mentally retarded, Jews, and many other "undesireables," and the Nazis went out and MURDERED them. The Nazis went out and shot, burned, clubbed, and gassed them to death. I am totally, 100% against murder, and I never advocated it.
All I said is that people should be self-reliant. That's it. Self-reliant. Take care of yourself and don't demand that others take care you.
And that's all it is, right there, simple as could be. I could point other things out, and probably most important would be how welfare programs ALWAYS expand. They start out for the most needy, pathetic cases anyone could imagine, and the next year the standards are relaxed a little bit and more people get in, and the next year more after that, and so on. Can you imagine what welfare, disability, and such will look like in another 20 years? Can you imagine what percentage of the population will be getting money? I mean, people with a bad case of acne will be getting a check.
So all the best, Doug, and while you didn't show much restraint in calling me a Nazi and a racist and so forth, at least you didn't email me a picture of yourself with your panties in a wad and screaming, "Think of the children!" Oh wait, Outlook says I have a new message. . .
This person(?) is hiding from something and trying to get us worked up.
It is obvious the it doesn't know what it's talking about.
It's preaching eugenics, no matter what it's cloaking it under.
I'm sure it makes next to nothing and it wants a bigger piece of the pie without earning it.
Let's see - black people have a lot of folks on welfare - let's just make sure they die out, oh, yeah, hispanics too, and while we're at it, let's finish cleaning up the Jews, and, oh, yeah...
If it looks like a NAZI, and talks like a NAZI, and walks like a NAZI...
Drop by anytime to get rid of me: 32345 Savage Road, Sheridan, Orygun 97378.
Anytime, day or night - you will be welcomed, and maybe I'll give you some pie and coffee that you bought.
Doug(and I thought I was right-wing) Wilson
Doug, really, you give me too much credit. I can barely keep up with the lawn, my garden, work, overdue library books, and the laundry. The fact that you think that I have the time, inclination, and energy to also personally resurect the Nazi party here in America is flattering--in an odd way--but totally wrong.
I NEVER, NEVER, NEVER said I wanted to kill somebody or that somebody should be killed. Really. Take the time and go back and read the original posts and you'll see that. All I said was that people should be self-reliant, and that those who can not take care of themselves should not expect others to take care of them. To use my example once again, if you're 78, broke, in need of expensive medical care to stay alive and you don't have a dime to pay for it, then it's time for you to die.
You see, Doug, those Nazis had some very nasty ideas about gays, the mentally retarded, Jews, and many other "undesireables," and the Nazis went out and MURDERED them. The Nazis went out and shot, burned, clubbed, and gassed them to death. I am totally, 100% against murder, and I never advocated it.
All I said is that people should be self-reliant. That's it. Self-reliant. Take care of yourself and don't demand that others take care you.
And that's all it is, right there, simple as could be. I could point other things out, and probably most important would be how welfare programs ALWAYS expand. They start out for the most needy, pathetic cases anyone could imagine, and the next year the standards are relaxed a little bit and more people get in, and the next year more after that, and so on. Can you imagine what welfare, disability, and such will look like in another 20 years? Can you imagine what percentage of the population will be getting money? I mean, people with a bad case of acne will be getting a check.
So all the best, Doug, and while you didn't show much restraint in calling me a Nazi and a racist and so forth, at least you didn't email me a picture of yourself with your panties in a wad and screaming, "Think of the children!" Oh wait, Outlook says I have a new message. . .
0
-
Very Interesting!![:0][:0][:0][:0]
[img][/img]
0 -
Quote: So all the best, Doug, and while you didn't show much restraint in calling me a Nazi and a racist and so forth,
Did you do that Doug??? Shame on you!![V][V]0 -
One of the problems is - Who makes the decision to urge death upon one??
I agree with what you are saying with respect to self reliance, but in practical terms, how can our society say that financial well-being is the only criteria by which one's ability to continue living should be judged ??
And... even with iron-clad rules for euthanasia, how can it be fairly implemented??
My plan is in place: if I reach the point we are talking about, I will either take my own life or one of my relatives will. They have promised. But, right now, that "point" is based on my judgment. Maybe someone else COULD make the decision, but how could they be trusted to be correct - 100 percent of the time??
I believe in swift capital punishment, and a host of other right-leaning concepts - I just think you are going too far with this one.
In this instance, I think you need to have the answer before you ask the question.
Doug0 -
i think i actually have to agree with you Doug.
first time for everything...0 -
m pretty much said he wanted to leave helpless people to die of exposure. 0 -
quote:Originally posted by Msut77
m pretty much said he wanted to leave helpless people to die of exposure.
Nope. You thought it, interpreted his words this way and said it out loud.0 -
what an arse. 0 -
quote:Originally posted by thesneakyrussian
quote:Originally posted by Msut77
m pretty much said he wanted to leave helpless people to die of exposure.
quote:Nope. You thought it, interpreted his words this way and said it out loud.
quote:If you can't take care of yourself then it is time for you to die. Yes, to die. If you don't, you just become a parasite.
---
quote:I did say that if someone can't support himself, than it makes sense for that person to die. A 78 year old who is no longer able to work, who requires expensive medical care, who needs all sorts of attendents to change his diapers and feed him--it's time for that person to die.
He did not make any exceptions and neither did you.0 -
As Doug said on the other thread,..........I have gotten it from both sides, so to finish up with this, as it IS getting old, I wish to clarify![8D]
First off, without writing a novel,.....I come from very a meager background. I have only a HS diploma, and trade school, and I am FAR from being what would be considered "rich" nowadays.
I AM a conservative though, and of the "Constitutionalist" variety.
I do not feel that our federal or state governments,........especially the feds, were EVER meant to be a means to provide for the "sustenance" of the population. I think SS from FDR was a mistake. I also don't believe it is the governments job to worry about some folks lack of judgement, and inability to save anything, unless forced to by mandated withdrawals from their paychecks.
How did this country survive to the point of the wonderful "programs"?
I am not a cold-hearted person, with no sympathy for my fellow man, nor do I harbor ill will for many, no matter what has been done to me. It is life, you pick yourself up, and move on,.......plus hatred is a very negative energy, that will eat one alive, if given the chance to thrive.
I give money to charities all the time, and am a committed giver to St. Judes Childrens Research Hospital, even though I have no children of my own. I have helped many friends, and family, without any expectation of ever being repayed,...........money cannot buy happiness, nor love, nor your very life.
That is how things used to be,..........families helped each other, churches, and charities picked up the slack, and we did not have the numbers of so-called "needy" people before the programs started.
Why do you all believe that is??
Human nature, in and of itself, is prone to laziness, if the opportunity presents itself to transfer your "woes" to someone else, and to ease your responsibility, oftentimes that is what happens, and I believe is the core of the problem.
We have many people on programs, that have made a lifestyle of it, and even pass it on to their children. They know how to milk the system, and use every opportunity to do so!
Social Security is a "forced" program. If you have paid by force, you should expect what you were promised,..........I personally though, think it never had a place in a capitalist society. It was the first step to socialism IMHO, and the start of the long slide into a "dependency" abyss.
I will probably never see anything from mine,.......and as I have said before, I would be happy to have my stolen money, returned to me, and I will sign anything, to opt totally out of the system,..........I will be responsible for myself, and if I fail, I will live with the consequences of my own behaviour.
I still believe there is a difference between SS/MC, and welfare, as welfare is not paid into, and is being funded from many different sources, including IOU's to the SS trust fund.
Truly handicapped individuals, veterans, and someone that has just been hit in the face, by life, temporarily,..........I have NO ISSUE with, even though, I will still say, it is NOT the governments job to do this.
Abuse, and fraud, is rampant,.........if you don't believe that, you are living in fantasy land! And I DO call abuse, someone that has 3 children by the age of 20, with no education, or job prospects. Other peoples children, are NOT my responsibility to provide for. If you can't take care of them,.........don't have them, or put them up for adoption, as there are many loving couples that are unable to have children of their own.
Remember what our governments role was "supposed" to be, and what it has become, and then tell me that what is taking place today, is correct!
Novel finished.[;)]0 -
quote:Originally posted by Msut77
quote:Originally posted by thesneakyrussian
quote:Originally posted by Msut77
m pretty much said he wanted to leave helpless people to die of exposure.
quote:Nope. You thought it, interpreted his words this way and said it out loud.
quote:If you can't take care of yourself then it is time for you to die. Yes, to die. If you don't, you just become a parasite.
---
quote:I did say that if someone can't support himself, than it makes sense for that person to die. A 78 year old who is no longer able to work, who requires expensive medical care, who needs all sorts of attendents to change his diapers and feed him--it's time for that person to die.
He did not make any exceptions and neither did you.
You gotta learn to read and think, boy.0 -
quote:Originally posted by thesneakyrussian
quote:Originally posted by Msut77
quote:Originally posted by thesneakyrussian
quote:Originally posted by Msut77
m pretty much said he wanted to leave helpless people to die of exposure.
quote:Nope. You thought it, interpreted his words this way and said it out loud.
quote:If you can't take care of yourself then it is time for you to die. Yes, to die. If you don't, you just become a parasite.
---
quote:I did say that if someone can't support himself, than it makes sense for that person to die. A 78 year old who is no longer able to work, who requires expensive medical care, who needs all sorts of attendents to change his diapers and feed him--it's time for that person to die.
He did not make any exceptions and neither did you.
You gotta learn to read and think, boy.
You should learn to not lie.0 -
quote:Originally posted by Marc1301
As Doug said on the other thread,..........I have gotten it from both sides, so to finish up with this, as it IS getting old, I wish to clarify![8D]
First off, without writing a novel,.....
Too late.[:)]0 -
quote:Originally posted by Marc1301
<scroll up for the entire post>
+1 Marc. However, I don't think you can convince or even make someone doubt their belief system, no matter how methodical and logical you can be.0 -
quote:Too late.
Yeah,........I know![;)]0 -
quote: All I said is that people should be self-reliant. That's it. Self-reliant. Take care of yourself and don't demand that others take care you.
I don't see how anyone could argue that.0 -
quote:Originally posted by Kodiakk
quote: All I said is that people should be self-reliant. That's it. Self-reliant. Take care of yourself and don't demand that others take care you.
I don't see how anyone could argue that.
Imagine that, some people believe it's a form of fascism.0 -
One of the problems is - Who makes the decision to urge death upon one??
I agree with what you are saying with respect to self reliance, but in practical terms, how can our society say that financial well-being is the only criteria by which one's ability to continue living should be judged ??
And... even with iron-clad rules for euthanasia, how can it be fairly implemented??
Good questions. Bear in mind, though, that my whole point is that nobody should be urging anybody to do anything. People themselves should be take a full measure of their lives and make a decision, and should not expect others to take care of them.
It's one thing if a pauper with a terrible illness says, "I want to live another twenty years." It's something else entirely if that same person says, "I want to live another twenty years, and I want everybody else to pay the bills."
Since you're now giving this a fair consideration, I'll allow that it's full of all sorts of difficult, heart-wrenching questions. What to do with the child who is profoundly retarded and will never be able to care for herself? Or with the old fellow who is beyond the point of rational thought and action, and who can no longer make a decision for himself? And a person could very easily argue that the most wealthy nation in the history of the world can surely afford to pay for a bed and a meal for a cripple.
I think, though, that the presence of welfare in almost any form breeds long-term dependence and a sense of entitlement among a large portion of our population. People come to expect the government to just take care of things, and they stop planning ahead. Look at the massive amounts of consumer debt and the incredible reluctance of the population (and kuddos to Bush for trying) to make some sort of sensible reform to social security. Nobody is planning for a rainy day, and as a society we refuse to accept that sometimes life deals us a bad hand.
My plan is in place: if I reach the point we are talking about, I will either take my own life or one of my relatives will. They have promised. But, right now, that "point" is based on my judgment. Maybe someone else COULD make the decision, but how could they be trusted to be correct - 100 percent of the time??
I do not believe the government or any other such entity should have the right to kill someone, except in cases of capital punishment and civil order and other such accepted situations. I also, though, don't believe that the government has the right to stop people from killing themselves. If I get to 65 or 75 or 85 and I hurt and I'm miserable, I should have the right to have a doctor help me end my life in a dignified and painless manner.
What I think is the issue here, though, is that you think that I'm saying that the government should examine people and should decide who's fit to live and die. I don't think any such thing. I do think, though, that the government (and by government I mean taxpayers) should not be required to support other people.
And again, it's a difficult question. Joe is penniless, sick beyond the point of ever getting fully better, and when told so by his doctor Joe says, "Well, I want to keep on living." The doctor says that Joe can't stay in the hospital, so Joe staggers out to a park bench and over the next couple of day dies of dehydration. Not a pretty sight, and one that seems too likely to ever have such a plan be adopted. Then again, think about our inner cities and Appalachia and all the other sickening pockets of poverty in America, all existing even with our "humane" present system. Are those a pretty sight? Do they breed independence and self-sufficency, or generation after generation of people nibbling away at government cheese?
Forgotten in this whole question is that of private charity. For centuries private charity looked after the helpless. Private charity can do something that government really can't: enforce reason. A church will quite willingly take meals to and pay the heat bill of a broke retiree. It will also probably help out a young man trying to find a job and get back on his feet, until the person bringing the groceries shows up and finds the young man drunk and stoned. Then the church will cut things off immediately and the man will be cast into the street. The government, on the other hand, simply can't bring that kind of oversight to bear and won't be as strict as necessary. Money is best spent by those who have earned it. I would glady help a disabled vet. I wouldn't give a penny to a drunk in the street.
I believe in swift capital punishment, and a host of other right-leaning concepts - I just think you are going too far with this one.
In this instance, I think you need to have the answer before you ask the question.
I hope I've shed more light on things, and I've enjoyed the exchange. I also apologize for taking a cheap shot at you at the end of one of my posts. That's uncalled for. Have a good day.
Doug0 -
Sometimes, I revise my attitude immediately after committing myself to it.
If you look at this from an historic perspective, the problem/solution is even more complex.
The socialist programs that FDR put in place to help bring Our Country out of the Great Depression would certainly be viewed differently today - if only from the point of vastly increased life spans. I'm too lazy to look it up, but I suspect our life expectancy is nearly double today what it was in 1930 - that creates huge problems when looked at actuarially. In those programs the wars were not taken into account, the place of women in the workforce was not even conceived, and of course the baby boom could not have been thought of.
When you roll all those wildcards and more into the equation, it seems almost impossible that we continue to exist.
It almost makes me want to call for a new Constitutional Convention - but the horrors that would bear are not things I can even contemplate.
I just dunno.
My head hurts, again.
Doug0 -
quote:A final word on welfare
Promise?0 -
quote:My head hurts, again.
I understand,..........mine does too, and often!0 -
I think the main problem people have when considering the "welfare" isssue lays here:
People tend to think about the "worst case senerio", not the majority whom are actually abusing, is say ABUSEING the social system.
YES I agree with marc, that the government HAS NO PLACE in implementing a social "welfare" system in a capitolist society. It is tremendiously hard to think about terminating this system when we invision "starving Grandmothers" or "emaciated babies" or even "hordes of lepars", but in reality those problems won't exist, because we ARE a charitable society. Even after the government steals our money, takes 75% in administration costs, and gives to those we probably would NOT, we STILL find money enough to donate to causes we deem fit.
Our system, if it were to remain, should have an extemely LIMITED scope.
Personally I belive if you can live on your own unassisted, you do NOT deserve disability. There MUST be some job a person COULD do. I belive if you can poop out babies or even just drop the seed to make them, you are plenty old enough to support your NEW family. Life IS what you make of it, and while I may not have as much as many here, I know I EARNED each and every thing I have, welfare has never provided me the first dime. I bust my rump all day every day, and cannot see why people run around with their hands stuck out demanding "entitlements". I don't and have no pitty for those whom don't want to work to have something they EARNED.0 -
I doubt this will be the FINAL WORD. 0 -
quote:Originally posted by Doug Wilson
The socialist programs that FDR put in place to help bring Our Country out of the Great Depression.....
Another problem with all of this is that the socialist programs that FDR put into place did not help the country out of the Great Depression. In fact, there are stats that say they were actually making it worse. It was WWII that finaly got the country pointed in the right direction (economically anyway) again.
mlincoln - what about a child that is born with a birth defect or some debilitating (but not lethal) disease? What if that child is born to a family that was sustaining itself and would be able to continue sustaining itself, except that it has huge medical bills to pay now? Should they just leave their child out on a rock to die? Or should they accept the help that the government gives?0
Please sign in to leave a comment.
Comments
23 comments