• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every person's position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!
  • Welcome to our archives. No new posts are allowed here.

The Welfare Majority Coalition

Misterveritis said:
I understand. You advocate thuggery and theft in the hopes of becoming successful? It is this very attitude that is most at fault for preventing success to begin with. Why not come and rob me directly? Is it that you fear that I am armed and would shoot you as you attempt it? So you are a wealking and need an all powerful state to steal on your behalf. I get it.

You should consider that the same thinking that keeps you in chains to democrats and the welfare state is not going to change because they steal even more from me to give to you. You will still be in chains. And you will get to do this exactly once. Then we will either rebel or depart. We will go back to success and you will still be in chains.


Another alternative is that those who make the claims that you do lack the ability to think beyond the initial theft of another's property. If our government becomes so evil do you not think that we would hesitate to overthrow it? We have our roots in overturning tyranny through rebellion. I see no reason why we would not do the same again.


Well you really cannot fix stupid.

Why do you think it will take generations? Given the poor reasoning skills of your posts I cannot imagine that you and yours would keep your ill-gotten gains longer than a few months.


When you buy something that you want is someone threatening you?

LOL. You are the one who is giving the rich more money every time you buy something that makess your life a little bit better.

Thank you for this wonderful view into the sad, almost pathetic, soul of a taker.
Click to expand...

All that rant just for you to cry that your property or money can't be taken against your will? I assume you pay your taxes out of the goodness of your heart then. I see little difference between someone robbing you at gunpoint and a bank violating the law during a foreclosure and getting away with it. On second thought, there are a few differences. The gunman at least has the guts to conduct his thievery in person and it's unlikely he could abscond with your house. What is hilarious is the attempt to compare your pathetic, self proclaimed elite as equivalent to patriots. If there ever is a revolution, you won't be the ones who start it but you might become acquainted with Madam Guillotine.
 
Loki97 said:
All that rant just for you to cry that your property or money can't be taken against your will?
Click to expand...
You have revealed that you have the heart of a coward and a thug.

I assume you pay your taxes out of the goodness of your heart then. I see little difference between someone robbing you at gunpoint and a bank violating the law during a foreclosure and getting away with it.
Click to expand...
I am taxed too much. I am coerced. No doubt about it. You are the thug arguing that government should come take most of what I have earned. That is a very great evil. One who would suggest it is equally evil.

On second thought, there are a few differences. The gunman at least has the guts to conduct his thievery in person and it's unlikely he could abscond with your house. What is hilarious is the attempt to compare your pathetic, self proclaimed elite as equivalent to patriots. If there ever is a revolution, you won't be the ones who start it but you might become acquainted with Madam Guillotine.
Click to expand...
LOL. It continues to be clear that stupid cannot be fixed.

Are you unclear about our beginnings? Have you not heard that tyranny was faced initially with long suffering and finally great sacrifice and victory? Yeah, I thought not.

Some of us are former military. Some of us would not stand for such a great evil. Some of us will leave the takers to their fate. And some of us will stay and fight.
 
You obviously miss a very easy way to redistribute a power plant, nationalize it.
Click to expand...

and there ya go

vote obama, 2012!

nationalize the power plants!

LOL!
 
Nobody really knows where their power comes from if they are on the grid because, you know, its a grid.
 
today:

US importing welfare cases | The Daily Caller

The Department of Homeland Security missed their second deadline to explain the apparent dilution of immigration law barring those seeking entry to the United States from becoming “primarily dependent on the government for subsistence,” or a so-called public charge, to four GOP senators on Monday.

The ranking Republicans on the Senate Finance, Agriculture, Budget, and Judiciary Committees have been pushing DHS and the Department of State since early August for an explanation as to why reliance on only two of the nearly 80 federal welfare programs in America (Supplemental Social Security Income and Temporary Assistance for Needy Families) constitute a dependency risk and make an applicant unqualified for entry on public charge grounds.

An applicant’s participation in the Supplemental Nutrition Assistance Program (SNAP) or food stamps, housing benefits, energy assistance, child care services, Medicaid and a slew of other programs are all inadmissible, according to current immigration policy, when considering an individual’s application for citizenship, visa or a status adjustment.

In FY 2011, out of more than 10.37 million (immigrant and non-immigrant) applications processed by the State Department, just 7,069 applications were found to be ineligible on the basis of the applicant becoming a public charge, or .068 percent, according to the analysis.

Further, the net percentage of all visa applications denied on public charge grounds, subtracting those who were able to overcome the finding for fiscal year 2011 (as applicants can reapply), was just .003 percent. Thus, for those applications deemed to be inadmissible on the already finite definition of becoming dependent on the American government, nearly as many were able to overcome the finding.

The revelation follows a recent study of census data by the Center for Immigration Studies, which found that in 2010, 36 percent of immigrant-headed households were on at least one major welfare program — largely nutrition assistance and Medicaid (both considered inadmissible in determining one’s dependency risk according to current policy) — compared to 23 percent of native headed households.
Click to expand...
 
TurtleDude said:
The envy card has no relevance to me. And yes, giving the government that power is far more evil than at worst benign neglect. and those you whine about tend to be far more generous to charity than your leaders who think all that is required of them is to buy votes with other peoples' money
Click to expand...

THIS is the beauty (or the ugliness, if you are a DEM) of the situation. Conservatives tend to actually give THEIR money to charitable causes, while the DEMs tend to pass legislation to give OTHER people's money to those who 'need' it more (and who actually need to vote DEM.)

What DEMs conveniently ignore is that when a person gives their OWN money, the tend to support the values they believe in. Therefore, they are not obligated to support a lifestyle or culture they think is detrimental to the nation as a whole.

Now if the DEMs really want to subsidize people who have no intention of ever doing anything but wait for the next handout, they are certainly free to do so - with THEIR OWN money. Of course they would NEVER think of using THEIR money to satisfy all those 'needs' - but they have no problem using OTHER PEOPLE's money to buy those votes.

HUGE difference in the motives of the leftists vs conservatives.

btw - I use 'leftists' and DEMs interchangeably because the DEM party is now completely dominated by the fringe element of the leftist movement. I do not associate 'conservative' with the GOP universally - but the GOP is just the only alternative to the extreme leftist agenda.
 
The Prof said:
today:

US importing welfare cases | The Daily Caller
Click to expand...

this is what chaps my butt.

When you hear the DEMs wail that 'we are a country of immigrants' they completely ignore the monumental fact that the immigrants who built this country were never a leech on society. They either had a PRIVATE sponsor who would take care of them until they could support themselves - or even 'indentured servitude' - but they got ZERO money from the public treasury.

They came and EARNED their way up = usually taking a generation or two for the family to become anywhere near comfortable. But this is what DREW these people to America - they knew that with their OWN hard work they could make things better for their progeny.

Today, the 'needy' the DEMs harvest for votes only care about THEIR ease of daily existence - they won't put in a dime's worth of THEIR sweat to make things better for their progeny. They expect their progeny to just wait for the daily handout also - and so it goes. We are now entering the 4th generation of such thinking, and the takers are soon to be the majority - that is what the DEMs are waiting for - a complete strangle-hold on "democracy" based on taking stuff from the successful to buy the votes of the non-producers.

Leftists are actively and knowingly destroying the foundations of this great nation.
 
Rokkitsci said:
THIS is the beauty (or the ugliness, if you are a DEM) of the situation. Conservatives tend to actually give THEIR money to charitable causes, while the DEMs tend to pass legislation to give OTHER people's money to those who 'need' it more (and who actually need to vote DEM.)
Click to expand...

So you're just making **** up now? :roll:

The Republican theory is that all of the low income people in the country are Democrats. The fact is that lower income people give a higher percentage of their income to charity than do wealthy people. America's poor are its most generous givers | McClatchy

Therefore, if the Republican meme is true, then it's also true that Democrats are more charitable than Republicans. :shrug:
 
Jack Fabulous said:
I'm in the top 20%. I worked damn hard to get here, too. So, with all due respect, why don't you explain to me why someone that has not earned it is entitled to the things that I have worked so hard for?
Click to expand...

they can out vote you!!
 
AdamT said:
So you're just making **** up now? :roll:

The Republican theory is that all of the low income people in the country are Democrats. The fact is that lower income people give a higher percentage of their income to charity than do wealthy people. America's poor are its most generous givers | McClatchy

Therefore, if the Republican meme is true, then it's also true that Democrats are more charitable than Republicans. :shrug:
Click to expand...
How can you tell when a democrat is lying? When the democrat relies upon percentages...
 
AdamT said:
So you're just making **** up now? :roll:

The Republican theory is that all of the low income people in the country are Democrats. The fact is that lower income people give a higher percentage of their income to charity than do wealthy people. America's poor are its most generous givers | McClatchy

Therefore, if the Republican meme is true, then it's also true that Democrats are more charitable than Republicans. :shrug:
Click to expand...

:lol: actually you know what's funny? it's because those poor are conservatives :)


...Although liberal families' incomes average 6 percent higher than those of conservative families, conservative-headed households give, on average, 30 percent more to charity than the average liberal-headed household. Conservatives also donate more time and give more blood.

-- Residents of the states that voted for John Kerry in 2004 gave smaller percentages of their incomes to charity than did residents of states that voted for George Bush.

-- Bush carried 24 of the 25 states where charitable giving was above average.

-- In the 10 reddest states, in which Bush got more than 60 percent majorities, the average percentage of personal income donated to charity was 3.5. Residents of the bluest states, which gave Bush less than 40 percent, donated just 1.9 percent.

-- People who reject the idea that "government has a responsibility to reduce income inequality" give an average of four times more than people who accept that proposition...
Click to expand...

:mrgreen:
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom