DEFUND WELFARE - Politics Discussion

[–] dteam6 (5073) 4 years ago

LMAO!!! There's an idea! Defund the very service that red states statistically use the most. That makes sense. XD

reply

[–] Wuchak (8857) 4 years ago

1. "DEFUND WELFARE" is obviously an amusing play on Leftwinger's absurd "DEFUND POLICE" proposal. Apparently you didn't get that.
2. Just like "DEFUND POLICE" isn't meant in an absolute sense neither does "DEFUND WELFARE." Basically if you're healthy and can work, get a freakin' job. This will give something more productive to do for the Burn/Loot/Murder crowd. They clearly have too much time on their hands.

reply

[–] dteam6 (5073) 4 years ago

No, your comparison was stupid and factually incorrect, making it stupid to use as an analogy. Red states suck up more welfare in general and you're using welfare as a form of mockery to apply to the left. You'd have been better off and sounding less ignorant if you said "All lives matter". That would have at least been a true statement.

reply

[–] Wuchak (8857) 4 years ago

The error in your reasoning is that you imply a "red state" consists of 100% Conservatives (i.e. wise people with common sense). There are plenty of Lib parasites (which shouldn't be misinterpreted to mean that there aren't legit people who require welfare; I'm denouncing healthy, able-bodied people absurdly making a living off of welfare). Even in Dem-controlled California, half the counties are red.

I live in a swing state that chose Trump in 2016. The bulk of the counties are red, except for the more urban areas. I live in a blue county, but -- don't have a coronary -- the Trump vs. Biden signs are roughly 80/20 respectively.

By the way, ALL LIVES MATTER, ALL LIVES MATTER, ALL LIVES MATTER, ALL LIVES MATTER, ALL LIVES MATTER.

reply

[–] [deleted] 4 years ago

Sounds great ! Who's going to tell the red states your brilliant idea ?

reply

[–] Bubbathegut (18242) 4 years ago

just have to follow the looting...

reply

[–] ultravioletx (10237) 4 years ago

You mean defund welfare just for black people. Though you probably assumed only black people were on welfare.

reply

[–] Wuchak (8857) 4 years ago

Are all these thug rioters black people? Obviously not. But -- like all Lefties -- you like to assume things so you can slander opponents as "racist."

The greatest racists are those who perceive racism in anything & everything all the time. Who does this? Not Conservatives or Independents; only Dems/Libs. 'Nuff said.

reply

[–] ultravioletx (10237) 4 years ago

"Are all these thug rioters black people?"

If they were majority white, you wouldn't have a problem with them.

reply

[–] Rorikon (18391) 4 years ago

Agreed. Handouts are bad to the bone. No more lazy whites. I actually want this to happen just to see how the vote goes because it'll surprise you when you least expect it how many rely on it of a particular party.

reply

[–] elcamino (15540) 4 years ago

People won't be able to get pudgy if you take money from welfare.

reply

[–] Wuchak (8857) 4 years ago

That's certainly another positive.

reply

[–] [deleted] 4 years ago

A compassionate society will never remove welfare. A competent society won't need it.

reply

[–] Wuchak (8857) 4 years ago

The appropriate medium is welfare for those who genuinely need it, but not for healthy able-bodied people who lazily want to live off it perpetually.

reply

[–] Kowalski (79132) 4 years ago

THATS THE IDEA...ANY IDEAS ON HOW TO ACCOMPLISH THAT GOAL...IVE SEEN THE SYSTEM...ITS BROKE BEYOND FIXING...IT WOULD HAVE TO BE BURNED DOWN AND REBUILT.

reply

[–] NormaAndNorman (3900) 4 years ago

The only way to accomplish that goal is to get Democrats out of power. They WANT people, especially minorities to be dependent on them (so they will vote for them). They give incentive to keep the family unit broken (which leads to other problems).
The Democrats don't want to "fix" it.
Many minorities don't even realize what bondage they're actually in. It keeps them where they're at, giving them only so much and in turn they keep voting Democrat.

reply

[–] [deleted] 4 years ago

That’s a better way of putting it.

There will always be those who are disadvantaged beyond their control. There’s also mental health issues to consider for the long term unemployed. Even at my age and being someone who has been employed constantly in some way since the age of 14, the thought of having to face off against people less than half my age for a new job position is daunting to say the least. If I’d been unemployed for a while it would be pretty bloody terrifying and defeating if I got knocked back a few times.

In any case I don’t think removing welfare is the best suggestion for anybody in this new lockdown/open-up/lockdown merry go round we’re on. There but for the grace of God, you know?

reply

[–] Wuchak (8857) 4 years ago

I have a few friends with mental issues who are on SSI welfare; they're allowed to work a part-time job if they want. It's generally a good thing because, otherwise, these guys would be homeless. But, for some of them, it could be argued that it holds them down and destroys their ambition. Need can be a great motivator.

I don't have all the answers, but this I know: If a person is healthy & able-bodied, s/he shouldn't be on welfare for the rest of their life. If they need a helping hand up for a reasonable season, it's great that welfare is there for them, but not forever & ever.

reply