New Posts
By:
Filters
  • Hi there guest! Welcome to PoliticalJack.com. Register for free to join our community?

Moochers dependent upon handouts......

KnotaFrayed

KnotaFrayed

Mayor
Homeless-in-Dallas.jpg

http://blogs.reuters.com/talesfromt...us-leaders-urge-moral-solution-to-debt-talks/

It would appear some Americans simply want to cut out the "dependency" of others by cutting the "dependent" loose, but for some reason people are only "dependent" when their government offers them assistance, they are the "truly needy" when they seek and get assistance from a "church" or "charity".

So why is the government evil for assisting people in need, churches and charities "saintly" for doing so?

Is there someone arguing that there are NOT corrupt people gaming all systems, governments, churches, charities and business at the bottom, the top and everywhere else in between?

Were these folks living "high off the hog" on food stamps?
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_scandals_involving_evangelical_Christians

How about these folks? Enjoying "life at the top" because they're gaming food stamps?
http://www.law.umaryland.edu/marshall/crsreports/crsdocuments/RL31866.pdf

Yeah, we hear daily about the bums at the bottom drinking champagne and eating cavier in their gated community mansions they aquired from ripping off the government food stamp program. What about the other corrupt people?

Why a need to toss out programs that truly assist the truly needy? Why not instead, work to curb, decrease and even to eliminate fraudulent use of any program or charity and cut out unethical business behavior, including bilking the government at the high end or on government contracts while decrying government spending at the same time?
 
In reality, I do not think republicans or whomever are saying government assistance is not necessary or is a bad thing. I think they are suggesting some hand outs are. For example: certain people could stay on welfare indefinitely until Clinton caved in and signed a republican proposal to limit it to five years for some able bodied males or single females. Who would argue that was not a step in the right direction to initiate self-subsistance? Also, the incentives to stay on unemployment insurance are so enticing that many will milk that as long as they can versus getting a lower paying job than the one they had.

I prefer that the able-bodied receiving high levels of government assistance work a government sponsored job, instead of hanging around, until they can find a better means to support themselves. And if someone needs day care then we should provide that, too.
 
The highest amount a person can get on Food Stamps is $6.65 A DAY. A DAY! No one is getting rich on Food Stamps.

Meanwhile Major Corporations get Corporate Welfare in the BILLIONS a year and Republicans scream "We built this!"
 
JV-12 said:
What church has insisted upon your money in order for you to attend services? I have never heard of that in the Catholic Church.
Click to expand...

September 27, 2012

(Newser) – You can't be a Catholic in Germany if you don't pay "church tax," a federal court has ruled. Germany requires people registered as Catholics, Protestants, or Jews to pay an extra tax worth 8% to 9% of their income tax bill, but the law was challenged by a retired professor who said he wanted to remain within the Catholic faith without paying the tax, the BBC reports. The professor argued that church membership was determined by a person's beliefs, not by a financial relationship.

The church, which received $6.4 billion from German taxpayers last year, warned that anybody who refused to pay up would be denied Holy Communion and a religious burial, as well as being barred from working for the church and its schools. Critics of the ruling said Germany's bishops were sending the wrong message by taking a hard line on the tax when the church is already in crisis. As in other countries, large numbers of Catholics in Germany have left the church in recent years amid sexual abuse scandals.
 
To get back to the OP, certainly church, charity and government should help when people are in need.
 
The pubbies are well aware of "The poor you shall always have with you." Its that they're not too fond of encouraging the poor to stay poor which is where the Democrat's election philosophy comes into play.
Baracky Obammunist was far too smart to use the word 'Communist' in 1998 at Loyola U, so he used the word Liberal instead, but after four years of Baracky, we know what he really meant.
Those receiving Government welfare and other forms of Government largesse, along with the working poor, constitute a critical mass which if manipulated properly could lead to placing a Communist in this nation's highest office and maintaining him there for a considerable time.
"Never let a legitimate crisis go to waste!" attaboy Rahm!
Forty nine million on Food stamps, defintely critical mass category and toss in the 'don't you touch my free cell phone' lady and the "He's going to pay for my groceries lady"
Interestingly, the Seattle Times endorsed Baracky Obammunist today saying that even though his first four years have been abysmal, we need to give him another four more to give him a chance to improve on his record. Forksuckers! What if it goes even further south from here?
How about this for a reprise of the first term in his second, free dildos for all the ladies? We know Sandra Fluke will heartily approve.
Interestingly, someone pointed out that in the sixty three years between Harry S Truman, "The buck stops here" President, (How refreshing) and George W Bush, the nation amassed a grand total of 39 months of unemployment above eight per cent. Barry accumulated a total of forty four months of unemployment of eight per cent or over so far just in his first four years plus he knocked five million additional workers out of the labor force. Not bad for a beginner.
 
Guess who endorsed 'Bam besides the Seattle Times today? Hugo Chavez. The Left will be all aglow and a twitter on that one. Its almost like hearing a rendition of "Happy Days Are Here Again" So wonderful having Hugo on board, too. Another report out of Venezuela says that two of Chavez's opponent's supporters were shot dead last night at a political rally for their candidate. Fortunately, Barack hasn't introduced that tactic into American politics yet. Did somebody say Andrew Breitbart's name?

http://weaselzippers.us/2012/09/30/hugo-chavez-id-vote-for-obama-he-is-a-good-guy/
 
Tobaccy: You simply REFUSE to accept the US was shedding 850,000 JOBS a month when Bush was in and just as Obama was coming into office. The US economy Collpased in early fall of 2008.

You don't just FIX THAT in a couple of years especially when CONGRESS is being OBSTRUCTIONIST.
 
Zoar said:
Tobaccy: You simply REFUSE to accept the US was shedding 850,000 JOBS a month when Bush was in and just as Obama was coming into office. The US economy Collpased in early fall of 2008.

You don't just FIX THAT in a couple of years especially when CONGRESS is being OBSTRUCTIONIST.
Click to expand...

AND OBAMA ELECTED!

Don't forget, Obama lost 600K jobs in March of '09 when OBAMA WAS IN.

BTW: Since the faux recovery of June, 2009.. 15M new food stamp recipients have been created.

AND... If you count those who gave up looking for work since the June '09 recovery, unemployment rate would be close to 17%
 
There will always be people who play the system, I will give you that but that is no reason to not look for ways to stop it and not to give to those that need it.

I disagree with this.

"Interestingly, the Seattle Times endorsed Baracky Obammunist today saying that even though his first four years have been abysmal, we need to give him another four more to give him a chance to improve on his record. Forksuckers! What if it goes even further south from here?[end quote]

Well there is no 'what if' with Romney, it's darn sure with Romney. TR you know things are beginning to turn around for us here and a unknown to politics other than his short time as governor and his knowledge of economy being robbing people blind to feed his own bank account should give you some pause....I would think.
 
To Tithe:
http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/tithe

http://openchannel.nbcnews.com/_new...n-a-year-from-tithing-analysis-indicates?lite

http://www.liberalbaptistrev.com/wp-content/uploads/2012/05/offering-plate1.jpg

http://specialgathering.files.wordpress.com/2011/08/offering1.jpg


Uncle Sam wants YOU to "promote the general welfare":

Representative government (that's a government of the people, by the people and for the people) Kinda like human run churches and their representatives.

Preamble of the Constitution of the United States of America:

"We the people of the United States, in order to form a more perfect union, establish justice, insure domestic tranquility, provide for the common defense, promote the general welfare, and secure the blessings of liberty to ourselves and our posterity, do ordain and establish this Constitution for the United States of America."

Poverty is growing, so are incomes of wealthiest. Are "freely giving" people giving enough or do they prefer to spend their money on another mansion and automobile elevators? If elected representatives of "the people" vote to raise revenue to do all manner of things to "promote the general welfare" who are they going against? A majority or a minority?

Can Mr and Mrs. Romney live in all of these different homes simultaneously?

http://www.zillow.com/blog/2012-01-24/mitt-romneys-6-homes/

In what scriptures is it said that owning 6 homes will ensure your place in heaven or is a very Christian thing to do? I'm curious and I know lots of other people are too.
 
JV-12 said:
In reality, I do not think republicans or whomever are saying government assistance is not necessary or is a bad thing. I think they are suggesting some hand outs are. For example: certain people could stay on welfare indefinitely until Clinton caved in and signed a republican proposal to limit it to five years for some able bodied males or single females. Who would argue that was not a step in the right direction to initiate self-subsistance? Also, the incentives to stay on unemployment insurance are so enticing that many will milk that as long as they can versus getting a lower paying job than the one they had.

I prefer that the able-bodied receiving high levels of government assistance work a government sponsored job, instead of hanging around, until they can find a better means to support themselves. And if someone needs day care then we should provide that, too.
Click to expand...

So do some people stay on charitable and church "handouts" "indefinitely". What's the difference between who's handing out, if one is trying to suggest that offering handouts produces some sort of dependency?

Are there "incentives" for CEO's to not want to pay more in taxes or take less in pay??? Why are they "worth it" and those at the bottom, especially those working two jobs, but at wages too low to get out from under poverty NOT worth a living wage? People want everyone to have children, yet when it comes to supporting those who have children, they suddenly back up and start claiming they can't afford that because they have plans to buy another mansion instead and "need" that money to "survive" all the "hardships" they face compared to those trying to feed their children on wages and benefits that those at the top keep shrinking for those at the bottom and middle. The more those at the bottom and middle give up, the more those at the top pocket the "savings".
 
Is Obama a socialist? Is he a communist?
http://www.politicsdaily.com/2009/09/09/top-u-s-socialist-says-barack-obama-is-not-one-of-them/

Is the "communist" card something new in politics? http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/McCarthyism

What are checks and balances and what purpose do they serve? They are checks and balances to what and whom? This nation's founders wanted to check and balance what? They designed our government with 3 branches why?

Simply put, they didn't want any individual or group to hold ALL the power, thus what they worked for was a system and a society where no individuals or groups were able to accumulate enough power to dictate without objection, means for redress and change. They knew the power of money. There is also nothing secifically mentioned anywhere in regarding "size of government" as a formula or a directive for measuring what that is and what it must be restricted to. There are limitations and scopes, but nothing short of a supreme court case to decide what fits within the general scope of those upholding the Constitution and what does not.

As already pointed out, the Preamble of the Constitution sets out its purpose and what those who are elected FROM the people to REPRESENT the people, are charged with FOR the people.

A "Republican" form of government describes one that is NOT a hereditary monarchy and where representatives are elected. It does not define a government "size" or purpose.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Latest posts

Back
Top