What you call "today's safety nets" are what BlackRams said we should do away with. he claimed that the only reason people need help is because of bad decisions so we should not help them.
So I was never comparing today's safety nets with what was in place 100 years ago. I was just pointing out the result of haveing NO safety nets like Black Rams suggests.
Wow! Please do find that statement where I stated that and quote it. Your interpretation isn't even close to accurate. While I do have issues with many Social Programs, I never said that.
If you're going to start lying, run for office.
------------------ Rams Learning most of life's lessons the hard way. . You are only young once but, you can be immature indefinitely.
Originally posted by blackrams: Please do find that statement where I stated that and quote it. Your interpretation isn't even close to accurate.
My interpretation is dead on accurate because it is the same line every conservative tries to pass off. You claim that the only way anyone ever becomes disadvantaged is by choice. Then you claim that you are willing to help anyone who has made the right choices except all the people you claim have made the right choices don't need help.
quote
Originally posted by blackrams: Maybe we should let those who made the decision to party their life away until they OD?
quote
Originally posted by blackrams: No problem providing a helping hand but, tired of being forced to provide handouts to those who won't pull their own weight.
Then you move on to the next conservative lie that all help is guaranteed for a lifetime.
quote
Originally posted by blackrams: Hopefully, someday you'll figure out that handouts are only good for a day and not for a lifetime unless you want to provide those handouts forever.
This is a complete lie. People don't need to live in drug treatment facilities for their entire life. There are millions of examples of people who needed government assistance for e short period but moved on to a productive life.
This ties in directly with the Conservative isea that poor people are "bad" people and "bad" people never change.
And your final comment wraps it up pretty nicely.
quote
Originally posted by blackrams: A good example is Biden's Student Loan forgiveness.
So now people who go to college and get good productive jobs are not "pulling their own weight".
See how silly this all sounds?
People can have financial struggles for all sorts of reasons that are not a "choice". Poor health/illness/disability/death of family members. Addiction/mental health problems. Job loss due to outsourcing or corporate reorganization/bankruptcy. Business failure. Conservatives love to preach about people having the initiative to start their own business, but 2/3rds of all new businesses fail.
So if you are REALLY willing to offer a helping hand then describe what the government safety net would look like if you designed it. Because all I hear from you is thge people that you will NOT help.
So if you are REALLY willing to offer a helping hand then describe what the government safety net would look like if you designed it. Because all I hear from you is thge people that you will NOT help.
My goodness, you must have taken several servings of the Kool Aid.
Any government program I would design would involve the recipient earning the benefits that program offered in one way or another. Obviously, there would be exceptions to that but, very few of those. Regardless, maybe someday you will figure out that those who choose to fail by the path they take will always take advantage of those willing to spend other people's money. The more one gives, the more the losers will take with no ROI. Have seen it way too many times. Exceptions? Some but not a large percentage. ------------------ Rams Learning most of life's lessons the hard way. . You are only young once but, you can be immature indefinitely.
[This message has been edited by blackrams (edited 08-21-2024).]
My goodness, you must have taken several servings of the Kool Aid.
Any government program I would design would involve the recipient earning the benefits that program offered in one way or another. Obviously, there would be exceptions to that but, very few of those. Regardless, maybe someday you will figure out that those who choose to fail by the path they take will always take advantage of those willing to spend other people's money. The more one gives, the more the losers will take with no ROI. Have seen it way too many times. Exceptions? Some but not a large percentage.
Just what I expected. No help for people who need help.
Followed by a bunch of lies about how the only people who are poor are lazy and refuse to work. That just is not true. that is what you have been told by the right-wing media. The truth is poverty is a very complicated issue with lots of factors involved.
The poorest children go to the worst schools which creates a loop of poverty that is difficult to escape. There are also mental health/addiction problems that lead to poverty. Also problems with physical health/disability/death that cause poverty. Jobs are lost due to outsourcing or corporate failures.
But there are millions of stories of people working multiple jobs to make ends meet. There are millions of people who have risen out of poverty thanks to government programs. To claim that they all quit working if you help them out is not just a lie it is an "evil" lie.
To me a government safety net would concentrate more on "services" than cash payments.
- First and most important would be some sort of government health care. The United States should be embarrassed that they are the only developed industrial country on earth that claims they can no provide health care for their citizens. The number one cause of bankruptcy in the United States is medical bills.
-Next would be food and housing. Healthy recipients would be required to either be providing child care or seeking employment to receive benefits.
-For working people we need to provide more public transportation and child care.
so·cial·ism [ˈsōSHəˌlizəm] noun a political and economic theory of social organization which advocates that the means of production, distribution, and exchange should be owned or regulated by the community as a whole as opposed to private ownership
so·cial·ism [ˈsōSHəˌlizəm] noun a political and economic theory of social organization which advocates that the means of production, distribution, and exchange should be owned or regulated by the community as a whole as opposed to private ownership
Originally posted by BingB: so·cial·ism [ˈsōSHəˌlizəm] noun a political and economic theory of social organization which advocates that the means of production, distribution, and exchange should be owned or regulated by the community as a whole as opposed to private ownership
I asked "please define authoritarian socialist." Kamala Harris is a name not a definition. I asked to help me understand your view point. Please attempt to answer the question in a way that explains your viewpoint.
Originally posted by BingB: You are golden when it comes to proving stereotypes about people brainwashed by the right.
They are incapable of explaining the meanings of the speaking points they are programmed to repeat. And you prove it over and over again.
Substitute Left for right and you've described yourself perfectly.
I've paid attention to politics since my teens. I've made up my mind based on the actions of the politicians, not the reporting in the news. I've seen both parties suck the American taxpayers dollars into their own pockets, and spend like drunken sailors.
Nothing you say or write can deny what I have observed, or sway my opinion of our political class.
Think how much better off our country would be if Ross Perot had won the presidency instead of either politician.
A businessman gets into politics for the betterment of the country that gave him the ability to succeed. A politician gets into politics to enrich himself.
Substitute Left for right and you've described yourself perfectly..
Look, you can keep making personal opinion comments like this as much as you want to, but they are meaningless without proof.
When it comes to "proof" you have "proven" that you are incapable of giving a definition of "socialist authoritarian" that applies to Kamal Harris. This PROVES that you do not even understand what you say.
You post your meaningless personal opinions.
I post PROOF that what I am saying is true i.e., you are unable to understand why Kamala Harris is an "authoritarian socialist". You just repeat what you are told to say.
You will NEVER be able to prove something like that about me. I understand what I am talking about and can explain my positions.
[This message has been edited by BingB (edited 08-22-2024).]
Originally posted by BingB: Just what I expected. No help for people who need help.
Followed by a bunch of lies about how the only people who are poor are lazy and refuse to work. That just is not true. that is what you have been told by the right-wing media. The truth is poverty is a very complicated issue with lots of factors involved.
The poorest children go to the worst schools which creates a loop of poverty that is difficult to escape. There are also mental health/addiction problems that lead to poverty. Also problems with physical health/disability/death that cause poverty. Jobs are lost due to outsourcing or corporate failures.
But there are millions of stories of people working multiple jobs to make ends meet. There are millions of people who have risen out of poverty thanks to government programs. To claim that they all quit working if you help them out is not just a lie it is an "evil" lie.
To me a government safety net would concentrate more on "services" than cash payments.
My Goodness, that post reminds me much of the LEFT WING of the Democratic Party. Tell me again where you get your information.........
Bing, you draw a lot of inaccurate conclusions or have again drank too much of the Progressive/WOKE Kool Aid.
The decisions we make and the paths we take says a lot about who we are. You conclude that I'm against public assistance using some very poor reasoning. There are some who do need and deserve some assistance but, there are many just using the system. I know several personally but can't say I'm proud of that fact.
Some of the people I have hired came from those poorest schools and poorest families but had the desire to make something of themselves, I consider them to be very good productive citizens and friends. Too many expect a free ride with lots of freebies along the way. You're more than welcome to bring those needy souls into your own home and help them out. Just curious but, how many live with you that you support? Then, your desire to help all those (who you feel deserve more) will be much more respected but, it appears you believe we the taxpayer should be providing for those who (apparently) lack the internal fortitude to try and make it on their own.
We have many rights guaranteed by our Constitution but, nowhere have I found where anyone has a right exceeding the Constitution. Liberal reforms will eventually bankrupt this nation. Then, who's going to get blamed? It won't be Conservatives, you know, the ones serving this country and paying the bills.
------------------ Rams Learning most of life's lessons the hard way. . You are only young once but, you can be immature indefinitely.
[This message has been edited by blackrams (edited 08-22-2024).]
Originally posted by blackrams: It won't be Conservatives, you know, the ones serving this country and paying the bills.
Blue states make all the money in this country and pay the bills for the poor Red states. Conservatives claiming Democrats don't know how to work or do business are like children calling their parents stupid while still living in their basement and depending on them to pay the bills.
The rest of your post was just the same old same old. Claim you are willing to help people who deserve it but ABSOLUTELY REFUSE to explain how to tell which ones qualify. So that means no help to anyone who actually needs help.
[This message has been edited by BingB (edited 08-22-2024).]
Originally posted by BingB: All we should be allowed to talk about is FEAR! FEAR! FEAR! FEAR! FEAR!. The Mexican/Muslim/"Dark skinned people" are taking over our country. The democrats are both socialist AND oligarchs. Somehow they are going to give everything to the poor people but at the same time keep everything for themselves. And they are also pedophiles out to turn all of our children into transgender sex slaves. Not sure if that is part of the socialism or the econimic fascism, but no matter what you have to be AFRAID!!!!!!
You are allowed already to talk about is FEAR! FEAR! FEAR! FEAR! FEAR!. And you do.
The polar bears are going to die. The Poles will have no ice. Islands will be submerged. The rich with beach front property will be screwed (yet they still are purchasing beach front property).
We have a nimrod on this very forum who says ...
quote
Originally posted by BingB: Here is a tip you should follow whenever reading a story from a biased source. When they claim to tell you what people said instead of giving exact quotes they are usually lying.
At the DNC this week, FEAR! FEAR! FEAR! FEAR! FEAR! ...
Republicans—those enemies of freedom—want to ban your books. They want to get between a woman and her doctor. They even, in Democrats' telling, have such a control fetish that they don't want to limit their interventions to abortion, but make a whole host of other things illegal, in vitro fertilization and possibly contraceptives included. And they keep it all organized in some sort of evil scripture, this "Project 2025" book, that contains all their plotting.
Fear and folksiness: The vibe of last night was very aww shucks, politics shouldn't be so acrimonious coupled with aggressive fearmongering about how Republicans will take away everything the American people know and love.
Look, you can keep making personal opinion comments like this as much as you want to, but they are meaningless without proof.
When it comes to "proof" you have "proven" that you are incapable of giving a definition of "socialist authoritarian" that applies to Kamal Harris. This PROVES that you do not even understand what you say.
You post your meaningless personal opinions.
I post PROOF that what I am saying is true i.e., you are unable to understand why Kamala Harris is an "authoritarian socialist". You just repeat what you are told to say.
You will NEVER be able to prove something like that about me. I understand what I am talking about and can explain my positions.
Blue states make all the money in this country and pay the bills for the poor Red states. Conservatives claiming Democrats don't know how to work or do business are like children calling their parents stupid while still living in their basement and depending on them to pay the bills.
The rest of your post was just the same old same old. Claim you are willing to help people who deserve it but ABSOLUTELY REFUSE to explain how to tell which ones qualify. So that means no help to anyone who actually needs help.
Harris supports "freedom" of choice for women's reproductive rights, and protects citizens freedom to vote as opposed to the rights authoritarian laws that want to limit the ability to vote.
Again the opposite of "authoritarian"
Proof that you are wrong. But since you did not even understand what "socialist authoritarian" meant you still might not understand.
Harris supports "freedom" of choice for women's reproductive rights, and protects citizens freedom to vote as opposed to the rights authoritarian laws that want to limit the ability to vote.
Again the opposite of "authoritarian"
Proof that you are wrong. But since you did not even understand what "socialist authoritarian" meant you still might not understand.
It's simply amazing, shocking in fact how Harris now supports so many things she didn't support in her past. Simply amazing. She's a fringing lier. While some won't admit it, we all know a leopard doesn't change it's spots.
Trump used to be a Democrat and a few years ago JD Vance called Trump "Hitler".
So that means you are not voting for them, right?
I will exercise my option to vote. That vote will be Anti-Harris and everything she stands for but lies about. I've never been a fan of DJT but I liked the majority of the policies he put into place. Hope that answers your question.
Originally posted by blackrams: I will exercise my option to vote. That vote will be Anti-Harris and everything she stands for but lies about. I've never been a fan of DJT but I liked the majority of the policies he put into place. Hope that answers your question.
