• 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!

Arizona Makes Painful Deficit Cuts, Including Welfare

I'm just going to go ahead and call bull**** on this right out of the blocks. I'm disputing the figure as I do not believe that what they are calling "subsidies" are actually subsidies and, furthermore, I WILL NOT be paying the $18 your link is charging to print a copy of this "study" so I can actually read it for myself.

IMF Bookstore: How Large Are Global Energy Subsidies?



:roll:

Golly gee. I hope you don't get too much on ya'.
 
Not stealing, a reflection of society and what must be done.
You OK with children starving in America?
Begging on the streets?

I'm OK with people not having to pay for others.

Kids would most likely go to an orphanage. It isn't pretty by any means.
 
I'm OK with people not having to pay for others.

Kids would most likely go to an orphanage. It isn't pretty by any means.

There is no excuse for not helping the most desperate among us in a country with more than enough food and resources to go around. Civilization was created so we could help each other survive. You can't use public roads and other services provided by our society and expect to not have to contribute anything back. Your life is comfortable partially because you worked for it and partially because you were lucky enough to be born in the United States. You do owe a debt to the society that has allowed you to thrive, whether you believe it or not. You will pay taxes and some of those taxes will go towards helping people that desperately need help. Get over it.
 
Last edited:
In a country with more than enough food and resources to go around there is no excuse for not helping the most desperate among us..

But they're not desperate. They just choose to sponge off others.
 
There is no excuse for not helping the most desperate among us in a country with more than enough food and resources to go around. The entire point of civilization was for people to come together and help each other survive. You can't use public roads and other services provided by our society and expect to not have to contribute anything back. Your life is comfortable partially because you worked for it and partially because you were lucky enough to be born in the United States. You do owe a debt to the society that has allowed you to thrive, whether you believe it or not. You will pay taxes and some of those taxes will go towards helping people that desperately need help. Get over it.

Will I?

Social security is bound to end. Welfare is getting cut in Arizona. Maybe something can come it. Something good. Who knows.

Doesn't mean we won't stop fighting it.
 
Poor people need to stop having kids. With the ready availability of birth control and abortion there is no excuse for it.
 
I'm OK with people not having to pay for others.

Kids would most likely go to an orphanage. It isn't pretty by any means.

Right back to merry old England style of society.
No thanks.
 
But they're not desperate. They just choose to sponge off others.

Why would somebody choose to be impoverished? People that hate the poor always imply that they're consciously making that decision, as if at any moment they could decide to launch themselves out of poverty. There are millions of impoverished people in the United States and there is a multitude of reasons for their poverty. It is truly the apex of ignorance to suggest that all of them are just lazy moochers.
 
Here's the real story on your handouts.

Fossil fuels subsidised by $10m a minute, says IMF | Environment | The Guardian

"Fossil fuel companies are benefitting from global subsidies of $5.3tn (£3.4tn) a year, equivalent to $10m a minute every day, according to a startling new estimate by the International Monetary Fund.

The IMF calls the revelation “shocking” and says the figure is an “extremely robust” estimate of the true cost of fossil fuels. The $5.3tn subsidy estimated for 2015 is greater than the total health spending of all the world’s governments."

LOL !

That article has already been thoroughly exposed as pure bunk leftist tripe.
 
Heard about this on the local news, suppose get to see if the "less welfare they'd work!" mantra actually happens or not. Meantime I'm predicting people starting to complain about an increase of beggars hanging out around the shops or freeway off ramps.

Note, because I'm going to hazard a guess the article doesn't, this comes as Arizona is "phasing in" a $112 million dollar corporate tax cut.
Ducey, GOP leaders reach state budget accord
 
Your mother is stealing.

If families in China can scrape by then so can your mother. If my dad who came here at 13 can scrape by then so can your mother.

I'd be ashamed to admit that my mother would have let me starve to death if she didn't get welfare
 
Heard about this on the local news, suppose get to see if the "less welfare they'd work!" mantra actually happens or not.

Nobody is saying that. Reducing welfare just means they'll reduce their standard of living. As it is you can live very well on $30,000 of free food and housing and health care. Why work.?
 
Nobody is saying that. Reducing welfare just means they'll reduce their standard of living. As it is you can live very well on $30,000 of free food and housing and health care. Why work.?

Most welfare recipients are full time workers, disabled, or elderly. Only a small amount are unemployed, which accounts for less than 10% of welfare. If your company pays you $7.50 an hour, and the average cost of a 1 bedroom apartment in your city is $750, something doesn't add up. That's why the taxpayer supplements these peoples incomes.

And in 1st world countries, it's generally frowned upon to punish the children of the poor by taking away their sustenance and ability to make it in life.
 
Don't buy this myth.

The idea that our government, or the American people would allow millions of retirees to be forced out onto the streets is laughable at best, and wishful thinking for the Ayn Rand's of the world who don't give a single thought to the social implications of such a world.
 
The idea that our government, or the American people would allow millions of retirees to be forced out onto the streets is laughable at best, and wishful thinking for the Ayn Rand's of the world who don't give a single thought to the social implications of such a world.

Conservatives keep trying to kill it and it just doesn't die. It's a government program that has not missed one single payment in its what... eighty years? It's currently running a $2.8 trillion surplus and that's with that stupid cap on the wealthy. Even with conservatives handicapping the program it can currently payout 100% payments as it always has for until 2037 no problem. Remove the cap and it would remain solvent.
 
The idea that our government, or the American people would allow millions of retirees to be forced out onto the streets is laughable at best, and wishful thinking for the Ayn Rand's of the world who don't give a single thought to the social implications of such a world.

The idea that the baby boomer generation retires in their sixties and expects everyone else to work until they're ****ing dead because they didn't save **** is laughable at best.

Save. Always save. If you're poor, practice austerity and save. I've seen poor people drive in camaros or have 4 kids. Priorities?
 
How far do you take that? Should all forms of welfare be stopped? Should we end social security?

How is social security "welfare" if we pay into it for a lifetime?
 
Here's the real story on your handouts.

Fossil fuels subsidised by $10m a minute, says IMF | Environment | The Guardian

"Fossil fuel companies are benefitting from global subsidies of $5.3tn (£3.4tn) a year, equivalent to $10m a minute every day, according to a startling new estimate by the International Monetary Fund.

The IMF calls the revelation “shocking” and says the figure is an “extremely robust” estimate of the true cost of fossil fuels. The $5.3tn subsidy estimated for 2015 is greater than the total health spending of all the world’s governments."

Propaganda bull**** with manufactured "data". Puh-leeze. :roll:
 
Sure. Welfare extends to corporate welfare. The only question now is what is the line between welfare and legitimate subsidizing for a job to be done.

Course if you have much of a clue about welfare you'd know a great deal of the money subsidizes WORKERS who, with double jobs, don't break above the benefit line. :doh

But it is fun to look at the 10% and rant the same old tired whines I have heard since the 70's when it comes to welfare.

Fact is the death of social security has been announced and denounced since it's very beginning, yet it continues to bounce along. I'd opine most who wail at it's failure WANT it to fail, it fix is easy enough IF done in a timely manner. our current 'troubles' come from a big bump in the birth rate after WWII, a big rat going down the belly of the python, more a one-off than a trend. IF those who use social security to arouse the under-informed on the CON rant wing were a bit more honest social security wouldn't be a big issue.

Another fun fact is most of our society lives paycheck to paycheck and if they stopped spending and started saving many who thought they were well to do would be out of work! :shock:

Try reading about a consumer based economy sometime before pronouncing a generation doesn't save is THE ill of our nation. :peace
 
Conservatives keep trying to kill it and it just doesn't die. It's a government program that has not missed one single payment in its what... eighty years? It's currently running a $2.8 trillion surplus and that's with that stupid cap on the wealthy. Even with conservatives handicapping the program it can currently payout 100% payments as it always has for until 2037 no problem. Remove the cap and it would remain solvent.

SS is also brazenly unconstitutional since setting up an old-benefits system is NOT one of the listed powers of congress. So is obamacare and 99% of what the feds do. The Supreme Court says otherwise but it's not their call to make.
 
Back
Top Bottom