Trump Continues to Lead After Debate

[fredtoast]

(09-06-2015, 10:33 PM)jakefromstatefarm Wrote: No, that doesn't exclude anything.

If I choose to give my money or time to a charity, that's my choice.  Who is more compassionate, the guy who pays 10k per year in taxes because he's forced to, or the guy that pays 8k per year in taxes and gives 2k to charities voluntarily?

Your second sentence makes zero sense.  Not every charitable donation is given to just the poor.  I've donated time and money to various causes, like youth groups, senior centers and citizens, disabled veterans, parks, zoos, youth athletics, etc...

Sorry, but when you say quite plainly that you have no responsibility to help anyone but you own family and that no one else is entitled to any of the money you earn it is impossible to believe you when you do a 180 and suddenly claim that you do give to charity.

[fredtoast]

(09-06-2015, 10:37 PM)jakefromstatefarm Wrote: I stopped reading and started laughing right there.  

Why?

[jakefromstatefarm]

(09-06-2015, 10:38 PM)fredtoast Wrote: Sorry, but when you say quite plainly that you have no responsibility to help anyone but you own family and that no one else is entitled to any of the money you earn it is impossible to believe you when you do a 180 and suddenly claim that you do give to charity.

That means that there's a difference between me VOLUNTARILY donating my money and time to charity and being FORCED to do it through government mandate, thanks to people like you that think it's compassionate to rob someone else of their money and give it to others.

Maybe if I explain this to you another hundred more times you'll finally grasp the concept. 

It's not compassion if it's done by force.  It's compassion if it's done voluntarily.  

[jakefromstatefarm]

(09-06-2015, 10:39 PM)fredtoast Wrote: Why?

Around 30 percent to 40 percent of the “work-eligible” adult TANF caseload is required to engage in work activities.


That's it?  Just 30 to 40 percent? 

Can I only send in 30 to 40 percent of my tax bill at the end of the year?  They could at least send one of those out of work over to mow my lawn or something.  

[fredtoast]

(09-06-2015, 10:47 PM)jakefromstatefarm Wrote: That means that there's a difference between me VOLUNTARILY donating my money and time to charity and being FORCED to do it through government mandate, thanks to people like you that think it's compassionate to rob someone else of their money and give it to others.

Maybe if I explain this to you another hundred more times you'll finally grasp the concept. 

It's not compassion if it's done by force.  It's compassion if it's done voluntarily.  

If you voluntarily donated money to charity then you would have NEVER said that you had no responsibility to help the poor and that no one but your own family was entitled to the money you earned.  

If you really were as compassionate as you are suddenly trying to claim then you would have said that you give money voluntarily instead of saying that no one is entitled to the money you earn other than your own family.

[GodHatesBengals]

(09-06-2015, 10:49 PM)jakefromstatefarm Wrote: Around 30 percent to 40 percent of the “work-eligible” adult TANF caseload is required to engage in work activities.


That's it?  Just 30 to 40 percent? 

Can I only send in 30 to 40 percent of my tax bill at the end of the year?  They could at least send one of those out of work over to mow my lawn or something.  

Yes, of course they should mow your lawn. Because you're just so damn awesome to yourself.

[fredtoast]

(09-06-2015, 10:49 PM)jakefromstatefarm Wrote: Around 30 percent to 40 percent of the “work-eligible” adult TANF caseload is required to engage in work activities.


That's it?  Just 30 to 40 percent? 

Can I only send in 30 to 40 percent of my tax bill at the end of the year?  They could at least send one of those out of work over to mow my lawn or something.  

You asked for a government program that motivated and required people to seek work instead of government benefits and I gave you one.

Whenever I prove you wrong all you do is try and change the question.

The fact is that you are just ignorant of all these facts and depend on nothing but speaking points and rhetoric.

[GodHatesBengals]

(09-06-2015, 11:26 PM)fredtoast Wrote: You asked for a government program that motivated and required people to seek work instead of government benefits and I gave you one.

Whenever I prove you wrong all you do is try and change the question.

The fact is that you are just ignorant of all these facts and depend on nothing but speaking points and rhetoric.

He doesn't need facts. He learned that while he was going to graduate school from his car.

[jakefromstatefarm]

(09-06-2015, 11:22 PM)fredtoast Wrote: If you voluntarily donated money to charity then you would have NEVER said that you had no responsibility to help the poor and that no one but your own family was entitled to the money you earned.  

If you really were as compassionate as you are suddenly trying to claim then you would have said that you give money voluntarily instead of saying that no one is entitled to the money you earn other than your own family.

You are seriously the most ignorant person I've ever encountered on the internet.

Nobody is entitled to my money, nor am I financially responsible for others.  I give to charities because I choose to, not because government overlords and anti-freedom people like you say that I have to.

It's my choice.  In your socialistic utopia, I would not have that choice. 

[jakefromstatefarm]

(09-06-2015, 11:25 PM)GodHatesBengals Wrote: Yes, of course they should mow your lawn. Because you're just so damn awesome to yourself.

First good point I've seen you make.  

[*rfaulk34*]

(09-06-2015, 11:22 PM)fredtoast Wrote: If you voluntarily donated money to charity then you would have NEVER said that you had no responsibility to help the poor and that no one but your own family was entitled to the money you earned.  

If you really were as compassionate as you are suddenly trying to claim then you would have said that you give money voluntarily instead of saying that no one is entitled to the money you earn other than your own family.

Strictly speaking, there's nothing inconsistent with what he said. That's not a for or against anything he believes on my part, simply stating he has no problem voluntarily giving but doesn't like having or being expected to give. 

[GodHatesBengals]

(09-07-2015, 09:00 AM)jakefromstatefarm Wrote: You are seriously the most ignorant person I've ever encountered on the internet.

Fred has actually been incredibly patient with you by explaining facts and sourcing his claims. The person with ignorance issues is the guy who is proud to declare that he has "no need to research" things before he spouts off about them as if he's an authority.

[GodHatesBengals]

(09-07-2015, 09:01 AM)jakefromstatefarm Wrote: First good point I've seen you make.  

And the evidence that you're a troll continues to stack up...

[jakefromstatefarm]

(09-07-2015, 06:07 PM)GodHatesBengals Wrote: Fred has actually been incredibly patient with you by explaining facts and sourcing his claims. The person with ignorance issues is the guy who is proud to declare that he has "no need to research" things before he spouts off about them as if he's an authority.

No, he hasn't.  He continues to insist that social programs don't create any dependence on them, but can't provide one statistic that proves this point. 

I've posted multiple social programs that are at their highest levels of enrolled EVER, and yet somehow I'm supposed to believe that these programs aren't creating dependence on them.  

[*PhilHos*]

(09-06-2015, 09:53 PM)GodHatesBengals Wrote:  You said government programs create dependency. 

They do, though. It's an unintentional side effect, but it's there. People can't be weaned off. They either receive benefits or they don't. If they get a job but it doesn't pay as much as the benefits they were receiving, there's no incentive for them to keep working.

(09-06-2015, 10:35 PM)fredtoast Wrote: For a guy who claims to be educated you really have a hard time with researching an issue for yourself.




TANF Work Requirements

In 1996, Congress enacted welfare reform through the Personal Responsibility and Work Opportunities Reconciliation Act (PRWORA). This law replaced AFDC with TANF. At the core of the TANF program were the work participation requirements in Section 407 of the act.

1. Around 30 percent to 40 percent of the “work-eligible” adult TANF caseload is required to engage in work activities.
2. Work activities are defined very broadly and include unsubsidized employment; subsidized employment; on-the-job training; up to 12 months of vocational education; community service work; job search (for up to six weeks) and job readiness training; high school or GED education for recipients under age 20; and high school or GED education for those 20 or over 20 if combined with other listed activities.
3. Individuals are required to engage in activities for 20 hours per week if a parent has a child under age six in the home and for 30 hours per week if all children are over six.
   

The 1996 reform also placed a five year limit on benefits.

The problem is that it's so easy to work around these requirements. I see it all the time, unfortunately.

[*bfine32*]

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=n64OY6XaxSY

[GodHatesBengals]

(09-07-2015, 06:46 PM)jakefromstatefarm Wrote: No, he hasn't.  He continues to insist that social programs don't create any dependence on them, but can't provide one statistic that proves this point. 

I've posted multiple social programs that are at their highest levels of enrolled EVER, and yet somehow I'm supposed to believe that these programs aren't creating dependence on them.  

Oh wow. Remember when you first said these programs create dependence? And then I told you you must prove YOUR claim? And you did NOT?

Highest enrollment ever does not prove dependence. Try again.

[Belsnickel]

(09-07-2015, 10:53 PM)PhilHos Wrote: They do, though. It's an unintentional side effect, but it's there. People can't be weaned off. They either receive benefits or they don't. If they get a job but it doesn't pay as much as the benefits they were receiving, there's no incentive for them to keep working.


The problem is that it's so easy to work around these requirements. I see it all the time, unfortunately.

I don't think many would say that we should rid ourselves of these programs entirely, but we definitely need to reform them. Make vocational training and education a more important part. Focus on the whole hand up rather than hand out, to use a common idiom.

[jakefromstatefarm]

(09-07-2015, 11:04 PM)GodHatesBengals Wrote: Oh wow. Remember when you first said these programs create dependence? And then I told you you must prove YOUR claim? And you did NOT?

Highest enrollment ever does not prove dependence. Try again.

Average Time on AFCD (Aid to Families with Dependent Children)

Time on AFDC
Percent of Recipients
Less than 7 months
19%
7 to 12 months
15.2%
1 to 2 years
19.3%
2 to 5 years
26.9%
Over 5 years
19.6%

Welfare Statistics

Total amount of money you can make monthly and still receive Welfare
$1000
Total Number of U.S. States where Welfare pays more than an $8 per hour job
39
Number of U.S. States where Welfare pays more than a $12 per hour job
6
Number of U.S. States where Welfare pays more than the average salary of a U.S. Teacher
8

http://www.statisticbrain.com/welfare-statistics/

[GodHatesBengals]

(09-08-2015, 12:45 AM)jakefromstatefarm Wrote: Average Time on AFCD (Aid to Families with Dependent Children)

Time on AFDC
Percent of Recipients
Less than 7 months
19%
7 to 12 months
15.2%
1 to 2 years
19.3%
2 to 5 years
26.9%
Over 5 years
19.6%

Thank you for demonstrating that the majority of people on AFDC are off of it in less than 2 years.

Did you know that anybody who has any property in the country is dependent on the government, and that if they weren't, "property" as a meaningful concept would cease to exist? I'll let you chew on the meaning of that one for a few minutes before you post some dimwitted dismissive response because you can't comprehend thoughts you don't read and listen to on a daily basis.