For the last couple of days I have been reading the fanatical rants of someone here who keeps telling us society has a "responsibility" to help people, and that the federal government should "help" middle and low income class people.  Why?

Now I have no problem helping people, I just don't believe it's the responsibility of the federal government.  America has unfortunately already turned into a nanny state, it's just not as bad as other countries.  We waste billions and billions of dollars on programs like welfare and food stamps, that only create more dependence on the government and does nothing to entice people to help themselves. 

I would be willing to bet that most people who are supported by the government now, are more than capable of working for themselves, but choose not to because of their irresponsibility or just plain laziness.  The worst part about this is that many of these people keep having children.

It seems every time I go to my local Wal-Mart I see a family who is obviously poor, but has several small children and the mother is pregnant again.  I have seen this countless times and it infuriates me.  If you are supposedly "poor", there is absolutely no reason to keep having children.  This is what you want more tax dollars for?  I don't think so.

Now the fanatical ranter has also been claiming that someone who makes under $22,000 a year, cannot support a family.  Complete BS.  I know from experience it can be done, it might not be the best life, but there is still no reason for the federal government to intervene.  The real problem is this ranter believes everyone should live equally and have a certain amount of "necessities" before they are happy.  Giving the biggest waste machine, the federal government, more money to "help" people is quite ridiculous.  We need to start encouraging people to do better for themselves, and not have them rely on the government for help.

There are people that truly need help, but charities can more than handle people who need it.

 


Comments (Page 2)
2 Pages1 2 
on Nov 06, 2007
If they are working and supporting their family, they can have as many children as they want and that's the way it should be.


True, but you shouldn't have children beyond your means. If your kids are starving because you have too many, then that is a problem.

In Europe they used to downsize the family in cases like that. Many fairy tales feature child abandonment.

~Zoo
on Nov 06, 2007

The fact is that the FEDERAL government has become too distant from the people and have forgottent that it's not theirs to give [http://patriotpost.us/histdocs/crockett_not_yours_to_give.asp].

If people need assistance, let me give it at a local level where I have more control.

on Nov 06, 2007
this has been asked but i am going to ask again. who are you to tell anyone that the can or cannot have kids. even the people who are "leeching off of the government" are tax payers.


Again I point out how Col dislikes people who work hard and make a decent or better life for themselves and their families yet he does not point a single finger at those who bring children to this world while not being responsible enough to care for them. And Col claims to care for children when he screamed about the SCHIP program yet he won't fault the parents who put them in these situations.

I got my wife pregnant when she was 20 and I was 21. She was going to school and I was working a $10 an hour job. Shame on me for bringing a child to this world without being prepared or ready to take care of the child. I was even more reckless when I brought a second child to this world while struggling to maintain a family of 3. I do not regret any of my children, but I wish I would have prepared myself better before I had them. Today I work my butt off and am currently seeking a part-time job and my wife is also working to make sure our children have the necessities in life and maybe a little more. After all they are children and they don't understand the struggle, but I will make sure they do as they grow up.

I will never understand why Col chooses to look at statistics and ignore the people who live the reality of this country. He claims to fight for my rights (I am one of those low income people you speak of) but ignores everything I say. Come to think of it Col is a great politician, has the role down packed.
on Nov 06, 2007
gene is an idiot and if he was a col. he was so only in title.

on Nov 11, 2007
Reply By: Dr GuyPosted: Tuesday, November 06, 2007Yes. Sure. And if we had enough decent people, a decent society, the government wouldn't HAVE to help. So why is the government helping?I think the statistics on giving indicate a good idea of why. First, most people are no longer allowed to help. The government is there first. In areas where people always helped.Second, In areas where people did not choose to help, they got together and made sure their politicians took the option out of their hands (they bought indulgences), and passed laws to do the helping for them. A sad testament on why Kitty Genovese is not an exception, but a symptom.


This is pure BS.

NOTHING our government is doing prevents people to help others. In fact we encourage such help by allowing contributions to be deducted from our income tax. We also have all the hype by Bush and the GOP supporting faith biased help. It is also not because of anything the government is doing. The simple fact is that what people choose to give to help others is not enough to meet the needs and that is why we collectively as a society need to help when the gifts from the many fine charities fall short!
on Nov 11, 2007
Reply | Reply By: danielostPosted: Tuesday, November 06, 2007gene is an idiot and if he was a col. he was so only in title.


Another statement that proves you are a FOOL and an IDIOT that does not what you are talking about!
on Nov 11, 2007
It seems every time I go to my local Wal-Mart I see a family who is obviously poor, but has several small children and the mother is pregnant again. I have seen this countless times and it infuriates me. If you are supposedly "poor", there is absolutely no reason to keep having children. This is what you want more tax dollars for? I don't think so.


Here's what I don't like about this, ID. In this paragraph, you could well be describing my family at various junctures. Because the family is "obviously poor", you assume they are receiving government aid. That doesn't necessarily follow (although it does, more often than not).

I'll tell you something, though. If you want a remedy to the problem, start with the government itself. I know MANY low income families FORCED onto government assistance with the threat of losing their children if they don't take them. These families tried to make it on their own, the government TOLD them it wasn't allowing that as an option.

Sometimes, things aren't as they appear to be.

on Nov 11, 2007
Reply | Reply By: danielostPosted: Tuesday, November 06, 2007gene is an idiot and if he was a col. he was so only in title.


Another statement that proves you are a FOOL and an IDIOT that does not what you are talking about!



fine then how come has a col you don't know the first thing in how to fight a war.
on Nov 11, 2007

This is pure BS.

NOTHING our government is doing prevents people to help others. In fact we encourage such help by allowing contributions to be deducted from our income tax. We also have all the hype by Bush and the GOP supporting faith biased help. It is also not because of anything the government is doing. The simple fact is that what people choose to give to help others is not enough to meet the needs and that is why we collectively as a society need to help when the gifts from the many fine charities fall short!

No, the above is pure BS.  You deny what happened to Kitty?  Just to prove your point?  You are not worthy of scorn as that is a waste of energy to a caricture that only exists in demented minds.

Now, once you get off that stuff you are sniffing, reread my response.  Note I am not talking about Bush.  Note also that I said "allowed".  When you confiscate the means to help in the name of some greater good (for whatever reason), you are removing the ability to help.

Now calmly back away from that bong, and quit trying to play with the big dogs while you are high on your opiate of choice.

on Nov 11, 2007
Reply • Quote danielostNovember 11, 2007 09:47:44Reply #23
Reply | Reply By: danielostPosted: Tuesday, November 06, 2007gene is an idiot and if he was a col. he was so only in title.


Another statement that proves you are a FOOL and an IDIOT that does not what you are talking about!



fine then how come has a col you don't know the first thing in how to fight a war.


I do know how to fight a war just like most of our generals who did not agree with the way Bush fought the Iraq War. I knew and said from day one that to try and fight the Iraq War without the resources needed was a mistake. It is Bush that does not know how to fight a war and did not listen to those with that knowledge.

I have maintained from day one that to attack Iraq was a strategic mistake. The advice Bush received BEFORE he invaded Iraq from the foreign policy experts proved that. I also said his tactical choices to not send the troops needed and disbanding the Iraqi military, police and civilian government were mistakes that compounded the error of invading Iraq have resulted in MOST of the dead and injured American Troops! If Bush had sent the 500,000 troops and simply changed the leadership of the Iraqi Army, Police and Civilian government, we would not have lost over 3,800 troops, sustained over 28,000 injured and most likely be out of Iraq Today!
on Nov 11, 2007
COL GeneNovember 11, 2007 12:29:26


Now I know why all the others call you clueless.

Hey CLueless! This is not about Bush! Get a clue moron.
2 Pages1 2