Why do leftists always invoke 'starving children' when talking about welfare?

I thought I did. If people were simply using welfare as a springboard to better themselves then the welfare rates for all categories should be falling. Instead they are skyrocketing which means that either the birth rate for the poor is insanely high or that people are simply sitting on it and not moving off.

 

Exactly this. I never see any reliables sites for a percentage of people on these programs that are abusing the system.

Without reliable numbers, how do we really know how many people are abusing the system?

- - - Updated - - -

Or, it could mean the poor are TRYING to better themselves, but are not able to, for a variety of reasons. Not all of those reasons are under their control, by the way.

 

So your contending that the majority of people collecting welfare are trying to better themselves but none of them are able to do it?

And as time passes we keep adding more and more who are desperately trying to get off but just simply can't?

Or is it more likely that they are comfortable with what they have and are content to sit there and not move on?

Which one do you think honestly is more reasonable.

On a side note: I wanted a new gaming computer and my wife wouldn't let me use the savings for a "toy" so she told me to get a part-time job. Took me less than a week and I found one working at the local museum just keeping the grounds clean and picking up trash and stuff.

Worked for about 4 months, got my computer, and quit.

Do not tell me that these pukes on welfare cannot find any type of job. They simply are not looking.

 

It is kind of interesting that in order to fool the public into thinking that they're really serious, politicians invoke the metaphor of GOING TO WAR - as if that's the only thing anyone can get serious about. I guess if they just came out and stated the truth of the matter, they'd get booted out of office.

Imagine some goofuss Senator or Congress-butt going on record as saying,

Yeah - I guess they really can't be honest about these so-called "Wars on Blah".

 

Yeah, because a massive recession wouldn't have a significant impact on welfare rolls.

 

You can't avoid talking in absolutes, and you certainly can't avoid dehumanizing people who have worse lots than you in life.

It's clear that you aren't able to hold a rational conversation on this topic. How sad.

 

Do you have a cite showing the percentage of people that are abusing welfare and other such services?

If not, then this is just your opinion, which is no less or more valid than mine.

 

I sincerely believe that wartime tax rates even for a war on drugs would change that.

 

Anecdotal experience IS NOT EVIDENCE! Holy crap.

 

Why does the right refuse to even discuss simplifying our social safety net so that it can draw participants from more expensive means tested programs into something as easy to administer as minimum wage laws are now, and that would require a work ethic to "abuse"; if they want us to confide in even their moral sincerity?

 

Does anyone want to look up statistics of when the unemployment rate was the lowest in thirty years and we were running massive surpluses? I bet a lot less people were applying for public assistance then.

 

I think you need to look up what anecdotal means.

 

I think they should just knock off the "War on [whatever]" bs. But they won't, since there really are an unbelievably large number of numbskulls dwelling in this land - and unfortunately, they vote.

 

I agree. If we can afford to lower our tax burden, it must not be a real time war and we should "demobilize" our "wartime" economy in favor of the welfare-state we should have, whenever it isn't a real time of war.

 

Why does the right always invoke the "welfare queens" when talking about welfare?

 

A very good point. If a study was ever done that prooved things one way or another, it would certainly help to alter my opinions on the subject. I just wish someone had the money and will to actually do this.

 

Yeah, they poll ONE person and pass it off as "evidence."

You have plenty of shortcomings; vocabulary is merely one of them.

 

Your anecdotal experiences are somehow a legitimate, empirical source of data.

No. No. No. Take a remedial statistics class, then retake the class because you can't pass it the first time.

Until you manage to do that, do some basic research on legitimate types of data and come back when you can provide actual sources for your claims.

 

What the? Two Obama freaks fighting each other? Do I have to call in the Fuhrer?

 

Of the five people I know who own vehicles, four own pickup trucks.

Therefore, 80% of all vehicles in the world are pickup trucks.