micro 0 #76 October 14, 2007 Quote Define "completely pro-welfare". My school hires lots of people who have previously been on welfare, and I believe we still need a welfare system. Are some of the recipients sponging off the system? Probably, but they are a small minority. Unfortunately they are the ones that the media highlights in its exposes. Is the system perfect? No, but with all its warts it's still preferable to having people starving in the streets like in the 1930s. And from where exactly did you get your stats that the ones "sponging off the system... are a small minority?" And i notice that you have ignored my previous post to you... am I surprised? no I miss Lee. And JP. And Chris. And... Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
kallend 2,106 #77 October 14, 2007 QuoteQuote Define "completely pro-welfare". My school hires lots of people who have previously been on welfare, and I believe we still need a welfare system. Are some of the recipients sponging off the system? Probably, but they are a small minority. Unfortunately they are the ones that the media highlights in its exposes. Is the system perfect? No, but with all its warts it's still preferable to having people starving in the streets like in the 1930s. And from where exactly did you get your stats that the ones "sponging off the system... are a small minority?" From working in the inner city for 30 years, dealing with inner city parents, teaching inner city kids in summer school, hiring inner city residents, shopping in inner city shops... Now, what is "completely pro welfare"?... The only sure way to survive a canopy collision is not to have one. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
micro 0 #78 October 14, 2007 QuoteQuoteQuote Define "completely pro-welfare". My school hires lots of people who have previously been on welfare, and I believe we still need a welfare system. Are some of the recipients sponging off the system? Probably, but they are a small minority. Unfortunately they are the ones that the media highlights in its exposes. Is the system perfect? No, but with all its warts it's still preferable to having people starving in the streets like in the 1930s. And from where exactly did you get your stats that the ones "sponging off the system... are a small minority?" From working in the inner city for 30 years, dealing with inner city parents, teaching inner city kids in summer school, hiring inner city residents, shopping in inner city shops... Now, what is "completely pro welfare"? Thank you for your reply. I recognize that your experience has merit. I have noticed however that you seldom recognize anyone elses experience as having any merit at all if it doesn't fit into your worldview. Previous posts from today come to mind. As for "completely pro welfare," I'll answer that question (which should be self-explanatory) when you answer my questions from a previous post in this thread. I miss Lee. And JP. And Chris. And... Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
kallend 2,106 #79 October 14, 2007 Quote As for "completely pro welfare," I'll answer that question (which should be self-explanatory) when you answer my questions from a previous post in this thread. I think the phrase "completely pro welfare" is meaningless, but I'm giving you an opportunity to explain what you mean. Is there such a thing as "incompletely pro-welfare"? If you don't tell us what you mean, how can you possibly expect a response?... The only sure way to survive a canopy collision is not to have one. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
skycop 0 #80 October 14, 2007 From working in the inner city for 30 years, dealing with inner city parents, teaching inner city kids in summer school, hiring inner city residents, shopping in inner city shops... *** Those sound like anecdotes to me.................... They certainly add no clarity, unless you are making the point of course, my mistake, guess I need an edumacation. Ahh.. the ivory towers. "Just 'cause I'm simple, don't mean I'm stewpid!" Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
micro 0 #81 October 14, 2007 QuoteQuote As for "completely pro welfare," I'll answer that question (which should be self-explanatory) when you answer my questions from a previous post in this thread. I think the phrase "completely pro welfare" is meaningless, but I'm giving you an opportunity to explain what you mean. Is there such a thing as "incompletely pro-welfare"? If you don't tell us what you mean, how can you possibly expect a response? quit stalling. i was talking about these questions that you haven't yet answered... Since you insist on living in the past (i.e. the inquisition, now the depression), let's go ahead and look at it... let me ask you some questions John... 1. Why was charity not up to the task during the depression? 2. Was the welfare program intended to be a permenant or temporary solution? 3. Does it make fiscal sense to tax people during a depression to finance forced charity? 4. Is the government effective in distributing it's charitable monies? 5. Are you ever capable of NOT trying to insult someone's religion or ascribing nefarious motives to their posts? (By the way, have you ever heard the phrase, "you spot it, you got it?") 6. Are personal anecdotes really meaningless in this debate if they could inspire others to make charitable giving a priority in their lives, thus rendering government programs obsolete? As for you not being able to discern what completely pro welfare means, let me give you a hint... look in the mirror. I miss Lee. And JP. And Chris. And... Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
kallend 2,106 #82 October 14, 2007 QuoteQuoteQuote As for "completely pro welfare," I'll answer that question (which should be self-explanatory) when you answer my questions from a previous post in this thread. I think the phrase "completely pro welfare" is meaningless, but I'm giving you an opportunity to explain what you mean. Is there such a thing as "incompletely pro-welfare"? If you don't tell us what you mean, how can you possibly expect a response? quit stalling. i was talking about these questions that you haven't yet answered... Since you insist on living in the past (i.e. the inquisition, now the depression), let's go ahead and look at it... let me ask you some questions John... 1. Why was charity not up to the task during the depression? because people didn't give enough to the right causes. Quote 2. Was the welfare program intended to be a permenant or temporary solution? I am unable to read the minds of the dead. Quote 3. Does it make fiscal sense to tax people during a depression to finance forced charity? The government owes a duty to prevent its people from starving, and should raise money by whatever means necessary to do this. Quote 4. Is the government effective in distributing it's charitable monies? How should I know that? Do you? Quote 5. Are you ever capable of NOT trying to insult someone's religion or ascribing nefarious motives to their posts? (By the way, have you ever heard the phrase, "you spot it, you got it?") I expect people who preach Christianity to practice it. The Sermon on the Mount is a good place to start. Quote 6. Are personal anecdotes really meaningless in this debate if they could inspire others to make charitable giving a priority in their lives, thus rendering government programs obsolete? The purpose of debate is not to inspire others to be like you. No-one cares how much you give to your church. Quote As for you not being able to discern what completely pro welfare means, let me give you a hint... look in the mirror. How about telling us what you mean, and how "incompletely pro-welfare" is different?... The only sure way to survive a canopy collision is not to have one. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
kallend 2,106 #83 October 14, 2007 QuoteFrom working in the inner city for 30 years, dealing with inner city parents, teaching inner city kids in summer school, hiring inner city residents, shopping in inner city shops... *** Those sound like anecdotes to me.................... . I didn't tell a single anecdote. He asked a question, I answered it.... The only sure way to survive a canopy collision is not to have one. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
micro 0 #84 October 14, 2007 QuoteQuoteQuoteQuote As for "completely pro welfare," I'll answer that question (which should be self-explanatory) when you answer my questions from a previous post in this thread. I think the phrase "completely pro welfare" is meaningless, but I'm giving you an opportunity to explain what you mean. Is there such a thing as "incompletely pro-welfare"? If you don't tell us what you mean, how can you possibly expect a response? quit stalling. i was talking about these questions that you haven't yet answered... Since you insist on living in the past (i.e. the inquisition, now the depression), let's go ahead and look at it... let me ask you some questions John... 1. Why was charity not up to the task during the depression? because people didn't give enough to the right causes. Quote 2. Was the welfare program intended to be a permenant or temporary solution? I am unable to read the minds of the dead. Quote 3. Does it make fiscal sense to tax people during a depression to finance forced charity? The government owes a duty to prevent its people from starving, and should raise money by whatever means necessary to do this. Quote 4. Is the government effective in distributing it's charitable monies? How should I know that? Do you? Quote 5. Are you ever capable of NOT trying to insult someone's religion or ascribing nefarious motives to their posts? (By the way, have you ever heard the phrase, "you spot it, you got it?") I expect people who preach Christianity to practice it. The Sermon on the Mount is a good place to start. Quote 6. Are personal anecdotes really meaningless in this debate if they could inspire others to make charitable giving a priority in their lives, thus rendering government programs obsolete? The purpose of debate is not to inspire others to be like you. No-one cares how much you give to your church. Quote As for you not being able to discern what completely pro welfare means, let me give you a hint... look in the mirror. How about telling us what you mean, and how "incompletely pro-welfare" is different? Oh that was nice John. And it tells me how entirely ignorant YOU are of history. lol!!! And it tells me that you do NOT read peoples posts! I'll respond a) when I quit laughing and b) when I return. I miss Lee. And JP. And Chris. And... Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Amazon 7 #85 October 14, 2007 QuoteI'm still trying to get a grasp of what this thread is or should be about. I see a lot of PAs and rhetoric without actually talking about welfare. I don't claim to be an expert, but here is where I have no issues whatsoever towards my tax dollars going towards welfare receiptients: Those who support the right wing have a propensity for complaining about ALL of those taxes they have to pay . They see the social programs that are there to help those who NEED help strictly as a way of buying votes by those they deem THE LEFT. Its always social programs that do some good that are cut first in EVERY budget .. or blamed for the deficit. The same people do not have any issue with the politicians and the administration on the RIGHT who have squanderd billions in waste in Iraq. It boils down to Corporate welfare for Halliburton, Bechtel, Blackwater, et al. Where is the outcry from all of our rightwingers about THAT much waste that is helping to enrich a few FRIENDS of the ADMINISTRATION. Personally... I think there needs to be ongoing oversight and prosecutions for fraud in the welfare system( peanuts) There also has to be oversite and a prosecution for those who have defrauded the treasury of billions to enrich themselves.... and the people who allowed and encouraged it to happen. If you want to bitch about people getting money from the government that they do not deserve... at least start in the right place. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
kallend 2,106 #86 October 14, 2007 It's really simple question that you keep ducking: What is the difference between ""incompletely pro-welfare" and "completely pro-welfare"? ... The only sure way to survive a canopy collision is not to have one. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
warpedskydiver 0 #87 October 15, 2007 QuotePersonal anecdotes certainly aren't meaningless, there are people here who deal with the welfare system and see the good, the bad and the ugly. You may dismiss them, but they add some color and clarity. He is merely dismissive of the anecdotes due to the identities of the authors. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Royd 0 #88 October 15, 2007 QuoteYou will need to fix the K-12 educational system in the inner cities before that problem goes away.But don't the liberals have control of the education system? Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
warpedskydiver 0 #89 October 15, 2007 QuoteQuoteYou will need to fix the K-12 educational system in the inner cities before that problem goes away.But don't the liberals have control of the education system? Yes, unless you consider men like Professor John Kallend to be conservatives. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
skycop 0 #90 October 15, 2007 I didn't tell a single anecdote. He asked a question, I answered it. *** With personal experiences, very similar to anecdotes in a double talk sense "Just 'cause I'm simple, don't mean I'm stewpid!" Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
kallend 2,106 #91 October 15, 2007 Quote Quote Quote You will need to fix the K-12 educational system in the inner cities before that problem goes away. But don't the liberals have control of the education system? Yes, unless you consider men like Professor John Kallend to be conservatives. I am a life member of The Conservative Party. Paid my party dues in full.... The only sure way to survive a canopy collision is not to have one. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
kallend 2,106 #92 October 15, 2007 QuoteQuoteYou will need to fix the K-12 educational system in the inner cities before that problem goes away.But don't the liberals have control of the education system? What makes you think that?... The only sure way to survive a canopy collision is not to have one. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Royd 0 #93 October 15, 2007 Reply To -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- You will need to fix the K-12 educational system in the inner cities before that problem goes away. -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- But don't the liberals have control of the education system? -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- QuoteWhat makes you think that? Unions are overwhelmingly liberal and there aren't too many teachers outside of the union. If it walks like a duck..... Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
NCclimber 0 #94 October 15, 2007 Quote I truely got my answer.. most of you in the right wing would allow for starvation of the needy if it meant a new weapons system for the greedy. You really do have squint to see the world in such a myopic way. Unbelievable. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
NCclimber 0 #95 October 15, 2007 Quote Quote I'm still trying to get a grasp of what this thread is or should be about. I see a lot of PAs and rhetoric without actually talking about welfare. Those who support the right wing..... Wow. I bet no one saw that coming. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
kallend 2,106 #96 October 15, 2007 QuoteReply To -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- You will need to fix the K-12 educational system in the inner cities before that problem goes away. -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- But don't the liberals have control of the education system? -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- QuoteWhat makes you think that? Unions are overwhelmingly liberal and there aren't too many teachers outside of the union. If it walks like a duck..... Well, you are assuming that the teachers have control of the system. Bad assumption.... The only sure way to survive a canopy collision is not to have one. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
NCclimber 0 #97 October 15, 2007 Quote Quote Reply To ------------------------------------------------------------ You will need to fix the K-12 educational system in the inner cities before that problem goes away. ---------------------------------------------------------- But don't the liberals have control of the education system? ---------------------------------------------------------- Quote What makes you think that? Unions are overwhelmingly liberal and there aren't too many teachers outside of the union. If it walks like a duck..... Well, you are assuming that the teachers have control of the system. Bad assumption. Seems like he was assuming the teacher's UNIONS have some control of the system. Is that a bad assumption? Perhaps you intentionally (and conveniently) missed that point. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
kallend 2,106 #98 October 15, 2007 Quote Quote Quote Reply To ------------------------------------------------------------ You will need to fix the K-12 educational system in the inner cities before that problem goes away. ---------------------------------------------------------- But don't the liberals have control of the education system? ---------------------------------------------------------- Quote What makes you think that? Unions are overwhelmingly liberal and there aren't too many teachers outside of the union. If it walks like a duck..... Well, you are assuming that the teachers have control of the system. Bad assumption. Seems like he was assuming the teacher's UNIONS have some control of the system. Is that a bad assumption? Perhaps you intentionally (and conveniently) missed that point. Are you now saying that some liberals have some level of control of the system? That was not the original claim that I disputed.... The only sure way to survive a canopy collision is not to have one. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Royd 0 #99 October 15, 2007 -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Unions are overwhelmingly liberal and there aren't too many teachers outside of the union. If it walks like a duck..... -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- QuoteWell, you are assuming that the teachers have control of the system. Bad assumption. The teachers' unions surely don't encourage the cream to rise to the top, or makes serious attempts at getting rid of the riff raff. Sounds pretty socialistic to me. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
NCclimber 0 #100 October 15, 2007 Quote Quote Quote Quote Quote What makes you think that? Unions are overwhelmingly liberal and there aren't too many teachers outside of the union. If it walks like a duck..... Well, you are assuming that the teachers have control of the system. Bad assumption. Seems like he was assuming the teacher's UNIONS have some control of the system. Is that a bad assumption? Perhaps you intentionally (and conveniently) missed that point. Are you now saying that some liberals have some level of control of the system? That was not the original claim that I disputed. No. The point is that teachers unions have an obvious liberal leaning and they have a major influence over most of the education systems in this country. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
