So I know we're not supposed to talk politics - Presidential Election - Poll

Annnnnd. I'm THIS close to pulling the plug on this thing. Not because of anything in the last post. But because ISTILL don't have an answer to the question I posed two days ago to Pashiko. And now open to ANYBODY who agrees with him.

 

 

Does the United States have a moral and legal obligation to take care of its less fortunate? Welfare? Wic? Disability? Social security? And if so- who should pay for it and how?

 

 

The next fucker who posts in this thread better answer that. Please!!!! With sugar on top.

 

 

I don't ask for much in return for whhat I do here. An answer to my questions and sharks with laser beams on their head.

Does the United States have a moral and legal obligation to take care of its less fortunate? Welfare? Wic? Disability? Social security? And if so- who should pay for it and how?

 

 

NO

Does the United States have a moral and legal obligation to take care of its less fortunate? Welfare? Wic? Disability? Social security? And if so- who should pay for it and how?

 

 

NO

 

 

Anybody disagree with him?

I'm happy to pay for vets. But over all, no.

fcuk off wheels. Everybody recognizes eminent domain.

 

Where in my post did I say I was at all interested in your opinion or help?

 

Stay in your lane. (And these threads are never it)

 

You offered your opinions on how to respond to criticisms about the border wall, I was just responding with some disagreements. And yes, everyone recognizes eminent domain, but you said that the Left have no problem with abusing it. My point was that conservatives should be careful not to abuse it as well. Not sure what my "lane" is.

 

My response to wheels has to do with a long standing policy that everybody who has followed these types of threads here for any length of time is well aware of.

 

Wheels like to respond in incredibly verbose responses... to EVERY. SINGLE. POST. IN. A. THREAD. And sometimes needs a time out to allow him a chance for the rest of the forum to breath. There is a reason I get to tell him to fcuk off. Because IAM THE ONLY REASON HE IS STILL HERE.

 

YES and I appreciate you keeping me here very much (and capt_chaos). I have been trying to keep my posts less verbose as of late. I haven't been posting any walls of text. I do tend to post a response to every post a lot of times, but if I do, I try to keep them shorter. I am honestly not aware of what the long-standing policy you mention is. If there is an implied policy for people to not respond to all posts, I wasn't aware of it. I will try to not do so from now on if that is the case.

Anybody disagree with him?

No... Orban the Hungarian Premier said it best (speech to EU leaders). "Its a great concept to help less fortunate countries, but not when it comes to the expense of your own citizens. I look around and see refugee men in their 20's on iphones in café's yet I should send my troops to die for their country? How many of you asked the people you represent what they want"? Dingleberry Trudeau must have ejaculated in his pants when he got to tweet that canada welcomes all the refugees... who the fcuk did he ask? This is what a dictatorship looks like... Im glad a 30 year old whos never had a job in his life is deciding what millions of people want

 

Anybody disagree with him?

Yes, I definitely do. No, I don't agree with every current program or the rampant abuse of some of the systems (the number of people being declared disabled in particular). I do however believe in taking care of those who can't take care of themselves.

 

Perhaps you'll be able to identify with this story Erik. My dad was diagnosed with colon cancer at age 32. This was almost thirty years ago. He was the Vice President of the company he had helped build and making decent money. Over the next six years he underwent a multitude of surgeries and eventually succumbed to the disease at age 38.

 

During his fight he was dropped by his insurer and would not be able to find another due to his "pre-existing" condition. My mother was left with three boys ages 11, 8, and 3 along with a six figure dept due to medical bills. If it wasn't for the social security checks that came in to help support us after he was gone we would have lost our house, no doubt about it. She was working full time plus overtime as a nurse and managed to get us through and pay off the dept.

 

I know that my father probably didn't pay as much in to social security as we collected back, but I would hope others would understand this type of situation is exactly why the system is there. Yes it is flawed, but I'd rather pay into a flawed system than see those in similar situations fall by the wayside in the name of greed.

 

I'm sure it wouldn't be hard for most of us to imagine a time in our lives when an unforseen disaster could have left those we love in a situation where they may have needed the same support.

 

Do I also think huge improvements can be made to these systems? Yes.

 

 

Annnnnd. I'm THIS close to pulling the plug on this thing. Not because of anything in the last post. But because ISTILL don't have an answer to the question I posed two days ago to Pashiko. And now open to ANYBODY who agrees with him.

 

 

Does the United States have a moral and legal obligation to take care of its less fortunate? Welfare? Wic? Disability? Social security? And if so- who should pay for it and how?

 

 

The next fucker who posts in this thread better answer that. Please!!!! With sugar on top.

 

 

I don't ask for much in return for whhat I do here. An answer to my questions and sharks with laser beams on their head.

 

Okay I will respond, only because you are begging I believe that morally, yes, the United States has an obligation to help its less fortunate, provided they cannot fix their situation solely by themselves. I do not believe in a system that allows people to just freeride, but I do believe in a system of safety nets. For example, welfare as it used to be (and to a degree still is) where you had three generations of people who had all been living off of welfare for no reason I do not believe in. Welfare to help someone who really needs it I am okay with. Disability I am fine with for those who are legitimately disabled. I believe in a form of retirement program, perhaps not structured like Social Security, but something to help people. Not however a system where people retire at like 45 or 50 though and then ride the system.

 

As for how to pay for these things, well the major consumers of the federal budget are Medicare, Medicaid, Social Security, and defense. Writing out how to pay for them all could be a thread unto itself.

 

.

Okay I will respond, only because you are begging I believe that morally, yes, the United States has an obligation to help its less fortunate, provided they cannot fix their situation solely by themselves. I do not believe in a system that allows people to just freeride, but I do believe in a system of safety nets. For example, welfare as it used to be (and to a degree still is) where you had three generations of people who had all been living off of welfare for no reason I do not believe in. Welfare to help someone who really needs it I am okay with. Disability I am fine with for those who are legitimately disabled. I believe in a form of retirement program, perhaps not structured like Social Security, but something to help people. Not however a system where people retire at like 45 or 50 though and then ride the system.

 

As for how to pay for these things, well the major consumers of the federal budget are Medicare, Medicaid, Social Security, and defense. Writing out how to pay for them all could be a thread unto itself.

The US and Canada have actively worked at outsourcing jobs, and run a bloated top heavy political system. The economy can only work if as Trump is doing, work is brought back to the US and immigration is curbed. If companies thrive, people work, pay into the system, and we don't have corrupt as fcuk politicians bleeding the coffers dry.. it will work. This is the first president who hasn't looked at his job like a blank check. As Audibulls fathers situation, we need a system that yes takes care of it hard working law abiding citizens.. that's why we pay taxes... but currently the system is being bled dry by bottom feeders and people who shouldn't be here in the first place. In Canada yes the healthcare is "free" if you consider 42% of your income being free.... but the quality is terrible, wait times atrocious. We have your utopian theory in place wheels.. yet look what happens... does the money go to education... NO does it go to health care.. NO it goes to other countries as cock suck payments, keeping 100,000's thousands of migrants in hotels and god knows where else. Trumps idea is sound. Bring back work, people pay taxes, set up a health system that's fair, shut the gates to drains on the system, but its a big picture thing

The US and Canada have actively worked at outsourcing jobs, and run a bloated top heavy political system. The economy can only work if as Trump is doing, work is brought back to the US and immigration is curbed. If companies thrive, people work, pay into the system, and we don't have corrupt as fcuk politicians bleeding the coffers dry.. it will work. This is the first president who hasn't looked at his job like a blank check. As Audibulls fathers situation, we need a system that yes takes care of it hard working law abiding citizens.. that's why we pay taxes... but currently the system is being bled dry by bottom feeders and people who shouldn't be here in the first place. In Canada yes the healthcare is "free" if you consider 42% of your income being free.... but the quality is terrible, wait times atrocious. We have your utopian theory in place wheels.. yet look what happens... does the money go to education... NO does it go to health care.. NO it goes to other countries as cock suck payments, keeping 100,000's thousands of migrants in hotels and god knows where else. Trumps idea is sound. Bring back work, people pay taxes, set up a health system that's fair, shut the gates to drains on the system, but its a big picture thing

 

Utopian theory? All I said is I am fine with a basic system of social services to help people who need it. I said it should not be for bottom-feeders and I support the wall, so not sure what you are talking about here. Corrupt politicians will always be there, that is part of the problem, how to make the system work with such politicians.

Every country should take care of the less fortunate at the same time it has to make sure that the systems they put in place to do so are not being abusesed by fraudsters, it's extremely difficult to police such things but it has to be done.

 

AudiBull I am extremely sorry to hear about your dad's situation

Ive yet to hear from the left hand side of this thread... Who are the ones I'm really interested to hear from.

 

I should almost make it a poll... to keep the added commentary to a minimum as not to confuse the issue... Im really looking for succinct "Yes/nos"

Anybody disagree with him?

 

 

No. With Sugar on Top.

yes.

 

tax payers.

 

and wage earners who contribute(d) to social security and have put $$$$ in the lock box.

 

but.... not sure if I'm allowed to go any further than my succinct "yes" and "tax payers"..

How come Trump didn't include Afghanistan or Saudi Arabia on the list of countries that he banned immigration from? Also Tunisia has the highest number of jihadists fighting for isis in the middle east. Last I checked saudis inflicted the most pain on the US through terrorism. It seems suspect that he didn't. If he really wanted to keep his word on banning people from high risk countries, Saudi Arabia would be top of the list no? Perhaps he just wants to give the appearance of keeping his word without really being serious about it. Or is there extreme vetting already in place for Saudis in some way?

+1.

Problem with usa is that they are in bed with Saudi Arabia. It is easier to tell someone who has never entered your house to "you are not allowed". Kicking a partner out off bed and saying "you are not allowed" would need bigger balls.

 

He needs to put import ban on Allah. And I hope europe could follow soon.

+1.

 

 

He needs to put import ban on Allah. And I hope europe could follow soon.

Import ban, no. Thorough vetting yes. Skilled, intelligent and educated people who wish to live in the west, contribute and integrate yes, stupid uneducated people who come to mooch off others and don't respect our cultures and don't make an effort to integrate into mainstream society, no. Melting pot welcome, multiculturalism is not.

 

Welfare? Long term absolutely not. Short term yes. Anyone can loose a job, get downsized, go bust or whatever. We are civilized people, we have certain moral values and we help each other out in dire times, but abuse of this goodwill must not be tolerated.

7. Airplanes:

 

Yes a lot of people come here and overstay their visas... The wall makes it so they cant come BACK after we deport them for that. And... There are reasons some people sneak across the border. They cant afford plane tickets or get visas because they are criminals... AND THATS who we want to keep out.

Boats?

 

 

or Dress like moose and waltz right in from wall-less Canuckistan?

While I'm no Trump fan for a myriad of reasons, I have to say watching the Left completely unhinge themselves from reality has been a real treat!

 

It's hilarious and I hope the next four, possibly eight, years of seeing the liberal hysteria will be a wonderful fulfilling experience.

 

Case in point, I've seen some Lefty's post stories from "News Sources" about how Trump's ban is only with countries he doesn't do business with

 

And while that may be a convenient coincidence to push their narrative, it's hilarious to watch the expressions when you tell them that this latest Executive Order is the enforcement of a 2015 Obama Administration Policy from the omnibus spending bill called "Visa Waiver Program Improvement and Terrorist Travel Prevention Act". Watch the color leave their faces when you tell them that, it's truly priceless.

 

Not to mention the sheer amount with the capacity of 50,000 refugees falls right in line with Obama's average from 2013-2015 (2016 he really ramped up the numbers). So it's nothing really much different than Obama's policy with the Trumpster enforcing it. PRICELESS!

yes.

 

tax payers.

 

and wage earners who contribute(d) to social security and have put $$$$ in the lock box.

 

but.... not sure if I'm allowed to go any further than my succinct "yes" and "tax payers"..

 

 

OK... So... The U.S. has an obligation to take care of, feed, cloth, house, educate its poor?

 

And the U.S. tax payers should pay for it? Correct?

 

 

Believe it or not, I agree with this.

 

 

And can I assume, since this has been the stance of the democrat party since 1928 and the left since MARX, that Pashiko and the rest on the liberal side of the forum who won't answer me, agree with this as well?

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

But...If that's the case, then:

 

WHY DOESN'T MEXICO HAVE THE SAME OBLIGATION WITH REGARD TO ITS POOR PEOPLE???

 

Mexico's welfare system is "send them to the U.S. and let them struggle there." (or, collect from the same American welfare/education systems that American taxpayers already pay for).

 

Under what theory or justification is the Mexican taxpayer absolved from this burden to care for HIS fellow citizens?

 

 

And don't tell me there aren't rich tax payers in mexico... One of the richest men in the world is Mexican- Carlos Slim.... Mexico city has a metric crap ton of RICH people. They have as much coastline as the U.S. and its a tourism haven! THEY CAN AFFORD TO CARE FOR THEIR OWN!!!!

 

 

So its really just a matter of Mexico not wanting to do it? And GUILTING American liberals into thinking somehow its OUR obligation to do it for them!

 

 

Christ! What a fantastic IDEA!!!!

 

The U.S. should adopt the same welfare system!!! We can round up all of the dregs on skid row, all the poor Apalchians, empty all the inner city projects, and put them all on buses to Vancouver and let the Canadian tax payer and economy provide for them!!!!

 

 

 

We can call it "The War on Poverty (via I-5 and greyhound)".

Boats?

 

 

or Dress like moose and waltz right in from wall-less Canuckistan?

 

 

Believe it or not, its actually pretty difficult to come in from boat... The Coast Guard does a pretty good job. They treat every contact as a drug interdiction. And the cost per smuggled person of a boat, is too high to make it worth while. Better to fill the boat with cocaine... Much more payoff for the risk.

 

 

 

 

 

Canada- If you can get into canada, youre going to stay there. They are even a bigger welfare paradise than we are...

Oh... And BTW... I have a theory about why Trump didnt ban Pakistan and Saudi Arabia....

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

He was waiting for the hugh and cry from the left screaming "why didnt he ban pakistan and saudi arabia?!?!" So he can say "That's a good point!"

 

 

 

The left in this country have become thoroughly predictable.

 

Hes a step ahead of all of you...

 

 

It's the same thing with the voter fraud thing.

 

Elected Democrats- (trying to delegitimize him) "You lost the popular vote!!!"

 

Trump- "(I think I won by more than I did...)"

 

The press- (thinking they can make him look stupid) "are you going to call for an investigation into voter fraud? (Hahaha!)"

 

Trump- "that's a good idea!!!"

 

Elected democrats-" oh. fcuk! No no no!!! Nothing to see here!!! Move along!!! Waste of time. Too expensive! Uh. No proof? Oh. Shit...."

Oh... And BTW... I have a theory about why Trump didnt ban Pakistan and Saudi Arabia....

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

He was waiting for the hugh and cry from the left screaming "why didnt he ban pakistan and saudi arabia?!?!" So he can say "That's a good point!"

 

 

 

The left in this country have become thoroughly predictable.

 

Hes a step ahead of all of you...

 

 

It's the same thing with the voter fraud thing.

 

Elected Democrats- (trying to delegitimize him) "You lost the popular vote!!!"

 

Trump- "(I think I won by more than I did...)"

 

The press- (thinking they can make him look stupid) "are you going to call for an investigation into voter fraud? (Hahaha!)"

 

Trump- "that's a good idea!!!"

 

Elected democrats-" oh. fcuk! No no no!!! Nothing to see here!!! Move along!!! Waste of time. Too expensive! Uh. No proof? Oh. Shit...."

 

But Hil only got approximately 800,000 votes from illegal immigrants,

Word is even Canada isn't letting single male "refuges" in anymore.

 

btw AK47's are banned in Canada right?. . .

Word is even Canada isn't letting single male "refuges" in anymore.

 

btw AK47's are banned in Canada right?. . .

 

Everything's banned in Canada.