Was Lazarus A 'Bum'?

[glassjester]

Voluntary charity would barely make a dent overall and any charitable organization would simply balk at what you suggest. Even with the safety nets in place charity can't reach everyone.

The very same system you bemoan so much is as much there for you should you find yourself out of a job or unable to work.

You're arguing for welfare as a sort of unemployment insurance.

And it can function as one. In which case, it should be entered into voluntarily.
You pay into it, and you can take from it. Voluntarily.

 

[Arthur Brain]

Everyone in the USA has access to a free high school education.
And you don't need responsible parents in order to get a job, or to not have kids before being married.

Yeah, and everyone lives in a nice house with a white picket fence and pies on the windowsill.

lain:

 

[Arthur Brain]

So's my savings account.

Fine, live on that then. Just don't demand that other people be left to live in poverty because you begrudge a system designed to aid those on hard times.

 

[Arthur Brain]

You're arguing for welfare as a sort of unemployment insurance.

And it can function as one. In which case, it should be entered into voluntarily.
You pay into it, and you can take from it. Voluntarily.

You can choose to avail yourself of it or not, that's up to you. Like everyone else you don't get to choose what your taxes are spent on and I notice that you have no rebuttal to the fact that voluntary charity alone would result in a surge of people living in poverty.

 

[glassjester]

Yeah, and everyone lives in a nice house with a white picket fence and pies on the windowsill.

What did I say that was incorrect?

What US citizen does not have access to a free high school education?

Or maybe it was the second part, that you think was wrong.
Was that it?

Do I need responsible parents in order for me to not have kids outside of marriage?

 

[glassjester]

You can choose to avail yourself of it or not, that's up to you. Like everyone else you don't get to choose what your taxes are spent on and I notice that you have no rebuttal to the fact that voluntary charity alone would result in a surge of people living in poverty.

You're arguing from consequences. Bad logic.

Because X solves problem Y, X is justified. No, sir. You're wrong.

 

[Crucible]

About 3/4 of people people on welfare work, and food stamps account for about 1% of government spending.

There's exaggeration about the matter, and bad judgements toward the people on them- it's not that they do not work, it's that the jobs they have are minimum wage and there are not enough high paying jobs which they qualify for to all obtain.

If you're looking for a problem in the system, beyond the job/wage issue, consider what is known as a 'welfare queen'- they are women who abuse welfare and don't do a damn thing, period. They collect the check, watch a couple of the neighbor's kids, and rob any man that sinks into their trap.
They are almost the entirety of the 25% who do not work.
But I suppose that's just plain misogyny, huh

 

[glassjester]

About 3/4 of people people on welfare work, and food stamps account for about 1% of government spending.

And I'm not saying they don't deserve help.

I am saying that the government doesn't have the right to take one citizen's money by force, and give it to others.

 

[musterion]

If you don't want to be permanently poor in America...

1. Graduate high school
2. Get a job.
3. Don't have kids before you're married.

Not committing crimes, and not doing drugs also helps.

And stay out of debt as much as possible.

And don't vote for Leftists.

 

[Crucible]

And I'm not saying they don't deserve help.

I am saying that the government doesn't have the right to take one citizen's money by force, and give it to others.

It's a bit more complex than that, I think. For one, the government is for the people- if it's going to exist beyond simply being an automation of taxes and foreign representation, it must exist as an entity that ultimately serves the interest of society.

It doesn't do well for a country to have poverty. Welfare and whatnot are the reason we don't have slums and people starving, which would cause an even bigger problem- society doesn't really want that, even if they fail to fully realize it.

As it stands now, people don't starve in this country, and people rarely ever die due to living in inhospitable conditions. 'Poverty' is really relative to the one's nearby with wealth- in many places of the world, a person in even the most critical of circumstances here would be considered lucky.

 

[musterion]

And I'm not saying they don't deserve help.

I am saying that the government doesn't have the right to take one citizen's money by force, and give it to others.

Anyone who COULD work...has intelligence, physical ability and opportunity to do something...but won't, and expects a handout, doesn't need help. That person is a loser and deserves to be hungry and homeless.

 

[glassjester]

Anyone who COULD work...has intelligence, physical ability and opportunity to do something...but won't, and expects a handout, doesn't need help. That person is a loser and deserves to be hungry and homeless.

And I'd be willing to help them anyway.

But the government shouldn't force me to.

 

[musterion]

And I'd be willing to help them anyway.

You would "help" those who CAN work, COULD work but WONT work? That's not help, that's subsidizing sloth and iniquity. But it's your money.

But the government shouldn't force me to.

That's the problem, communistic wealth redistribution falsely labeled "help."

 

[Grosnick Marowbe]

Delete.

 

[Grosnick Marowbe]

If all 'one' is going to do is reel off third grade insults then would one mind awfully to desist spamming up the thread and go do that crap on one's own?

:baby: I see you can't handle the truth.

 

[Grosnick Marowbe]

Will AB or any other Libs be attending the "Women's Rights March?" Perhaps, Ana?

 

[Grosnick Marowbe]

You would "help" those who CAN work, COULD work but WONT work? That's not help, that's subsidizing sloth and iniquity. But it's your money.



That's the problem, communistic wealth redistribution falsely labeled "help."

There appears to be a myriad of Libs on TOL? That's a shame.

 

[marhig]

You would "help" those who CAN work, COULD work but WONT work? That's not help, that's subsidizing sloth and iniquity. But it's your money.



That's the problem, communistic wealth redistribution falsely labeled "help."

Would you leave them hungry if you saw them in need?

 

[Grosnick Marowbe]

2 Thessalonians 3:10 "For even when we were with you, this we commanded you, that if any would not work, neither should he eat."

 

[marhig]

2 Thessalonians 3:10 "For even when we were with you, this we commanded you, that if any would not work, neither should he eat."

He's talking about spiritual food!