Barbara Feinman wrote the book. It had Hillary's mugshot on the cover. Their message one of taking away the family responsibility of raising their child and handing it over the individuals and groups outside the family. It is one of the worst books written ever about how to raise kids. Hillary pawns herself off as a warm motherly caring woman in an effort to disguise how to communalise socialism for our children. This book is found on public library bookshelves filed under propaganda.. There's a difference...
I understand completely. I was just pointing out that the premise of the statement, applies to this topic even better than with the raising of children is all.
Lol you mean the same Supreme Court that ruled that corporations are people? And who cares what the Supreme Court thinks or what's in the constitution? The government is we the people, and it's role is to carry out the policies and beliefs as we see fit. If YOU don't give sh-t about the poor than own that belief, don't hide behind a corporatists interpretation of a 250 year old document.
Why not include government controlled production, distribution, and exchange of energy, clothing, housing, and food; and call it total socialism...
Christian values apply to you as an individual and I am not sure how you can argue that the general welfare language applies considering these programs do not directly benefit most of the people i.e. the general population. Surely you can find a better constitutional provision than that broad rhetoric.
Says promote not provide and as indicated above, the general population isn't receiving the benefits so it is not the general welfare.
You better tell republicans that their Christian beliefs are irrelevant as it pertains to our laws. And taking care of the poor and needy benefits all of society.
We can make any law we want, so why do people like you hide behind what you interpret the constitution says on the matter? Too cowardly to admit your amoral selfish apathy towards your fellow man?
No advanced nation espouses, as a matter of policy, neglect of its members in need. Perhaps ideologues who differ can provide an example, but I can't. A democratic society, as a matter of human decency, expresses its ethical commitment to its members through the representative government it elects and the legislation it enacts. People are expressing the collective morality of a nation when they support Social Security, Medicare, Medicaid, and other means of achieving the level of human decency upon which they concur. "...the moral test of government is how that government treats those who are in the dawn of life, the children; those who are in the twilight of life, the elderly; those who are in the shadows of life; the sick, the needy and the handicapped. " Everyone "takes" from society. There but for fortune...
It is unrealistic to expect non government organisations to care for the needy. We are not living in Victorian England when it was the fault of the poor that they weren't successful, and well off. There must be federal intervention to support people so they don't starve or freeze to death if they are unable to work. I said unable, not don't want to.
This is not an area where the people should trust the federal government to mismanage programs designed to redistribute the wealth of producers to non-producers. The federal government cannot balance its own checkbook nor pay off its credit card. People and organizations (private and public) closer to the needy are in a better position to deliver resources directly to the needy. Everyone should have some skin in the game taking responsibility for their individual needs. Family, friends, the local community of churches and charitable organizations, the towns, cities, counties, and states should be the order of operation in collectively supporting the poor and others who cannot provide for themselves and their families...
Our current welfare system was designed by Democrat LBJ and his "Great Society." To try to offset Democrats losing the South and to deal with black civil rights rioters, he decided to give "uppity n.ggers" (his word choice) just enough welfare to placate them and shut them up, while not enough to ever allow them to advance - but instead become trapped in a reliance upon government just enough that they could not justify taking entry level jobs. The system was also designed to pay significantly higher benefits IF poor people do not have two parent households - destroying black families. This has evolved to tens of millions of Americans who decide that their life career will be a welfare life. Knowing this is going to be their career, they see no reason to be educated and therefore are only disruptive in schools, destroying the inner city school systems as well. Nor does this address the massive levels of welfare fraud, of which we know at least two dozen adults involved in social programs fraud, even including every member of the same family for 3 generations. ALL of them live on social programs fraud. Fake disability to allow drawing huge benefits from the government, while secretly working an off the record job is the new highly sought after golden goose. Since government agencies budgets and staffing is based upon the number of people receiving "benefits," their incentive is to promote fraud rather than to try to prevent it. There are many questions the poll does not ask. Rather it just asserts "the poor" are really poor due to no fault of their own, and then asked if the government should help them - meaning taking money from hard working people and giving it to people how are not. A REAL poll question would "How many hours a week should the government require working Americans to work for free to benefit other people?" - since that is what it REALLY comes down to. How many hours a week are YOU willing to work so instead someone faking being disabled or an alcoholic druggies can play video games instead of working? 5 hours a month of free labor for that person? 10 hours a month? 20 hours a month? 40 hours a month? 1 hour every day? It is not about the government helping anyone. It is about you required to work for free so other people get part of your paycheck as a reward for not working.
You can make any law you want, but if the courts and the fellows with the guns are not willing to enforce them, they are pointless laws.
That is between them and their God. Not my place to tell them anything. Doesn't seem to be benefiting the people paying for it.
A black preacher asked "what's wrong with you people in Iowa? Why are you paying for a black man to have babies he won't father in Harlem? What's up with that?" He makes a good point in my opinion. Why are we paying via the government rewards (big rewards) to single women to have babies by multiple men for the purpose of the welfare money this then brings that woman? That is literally a career choice many women make - to have welfare babies who then also will live their entire lives on welfare doing the same. I wonder how many Americans understand how much the government punishes two parent families with it comes to social programs. Most could not afford to marry or live with the father if they wanted to, plus it is more profitable to have each baby by a different man anyway. This is how the Democratic Party - a racist and segregationist party for its birth - controls and entrapped blacks in their welfare-for-votes amorality. So another poll question is should the government promise pay poor single women a monthly salary to have babies they can not afford and with no father in the children's lives as a career choice?
Gool old LBJ was always ready to make a deal in exchange for a vote from a non-producer at the expense of a producer. Helping the needy is one thing--at the local level. Creating a culture of welfare from the highest levels of government in the land is un-american.
The OPer is sobbing that all welfare recipients aren't receiving over $50,000 tax free a year, although some receive even far more. Most American "poor" people - as defined by the federal government - aren't poor at all. MOST have more welfare income than people working full time or even double entry level jobs.
Hey sport, have you even been in a country that doesn't have social programs for the poor and basic economic safety nets? Tell you what, pack a bag and go visit one, and don't forget to pack a gun and write a will before you leave.
Uggg. Show me one country that doesn't have robust government sponsored social safety nets and programs for the poor and needy that isn't a hellhole. You can't, and you never will be able to because yours is a fantasy that requires a childlike ignorance of reality.
