Warning

 

Close

Confirm Action

Are you sure you wish to do this?

Confirm Cancel
BCM
Member Login

Arrow Left Previous Page
Page / 3
Posted: 1/24/2014 1:47:01 PM EDT
What do you think?
Link Posted: 1/24/2014 1:47:31 PM EDT
No.
Link Posted: 1/24/2014 1:47:47 PM EDT
Discussion ForumsJump to Quoted PostQuote History
Originally Posted By DPeacher:
No.
View Quote


Hit it out of the park, you did.
Link Posted: 1/24/2014 1:48:45 PM EDT
Take away all the drug rehab programs first.the druggies will die off and save us billions!!!
Link Posted: 1/24/2014 1:48:57 PM EDT
Let we finish the moat before you flip the switch.
Link Posted: 1/24/2014 1:49:56 PM EDT
Link Posted: 1/24/2014 1:50:50 PM EDT
For the absolute very few who truly cannot work, or for vets that are truly disabled in combat yes. Everyone else can suck it up like the rest of us.
Link Posted: 1/24/2014 1:50:53 PM EDT
[Last Edit: 1/24/2014 1:51:46 PM EDT by governmentman]
Yes, but very limited in scope and duration and must be repaid with interest. Repayment enforcement would be handled the same as back taxes
Link Posted: 1/24/2014 1:51:28 PM EDT
Discussion ForumsJump to Quoted PostQuote History
Originally Posted By MK4Mod0:
Take away all the drug rehab programs first.the druggies will die off and save us billions!!!
View Quote


I like you.
Link Posted: 1/24/2014 1:51:38 PM EDT
Discussion ForumsJump to Quoted PostQuote History
Originally Posted By jerrwhy01:
For the absolute very few who truly cannot work, or for vets that are truly disabled in combat yes. Everyone else can suck it up like the rest of us.
View Quote


I don't see taking care of vets as a government safety net, I see it as repayment for services rendered.
Link Posted: 1/24/2014 1:52:23 PM EDT
Link Posted: 1/24/2014 1:53:05 PM EDT
Only for the TRULY disabled.
Link Posted: 1/24/2014 1:53:58 PM EDT
Discussion ForumsJump to Quoted PostQuote History
Originally Posted By Undefined:


I don't see taking care of vets as a government safety net, I see it as repayment for services rendered.
View Quote View All Quotes
View All Quotes
Discussion ForumsJump to Quoted PostQuote History
Originally Posted By Undefined:
Originally Posted By jerrwhy01:
For the absolute very few who truly cannot work, or for vets that are truly disabled in combat yes. Everyone else can suck it up like the rest of us.


I don't see taking care of vets as a government safety net, I see it as repayment for services rendered.

Even the ones that get disability checks despite being able to hold down good jobs?
Link Posted: 1/24/2014 1:54:59 PM EDT
I'd like to see someone design a safety net program that actually functions before we even have the debate about if we "should" implement it or not.

I can't think of a single government safety net program which wasn't fraught with unintended consequences.
Link Posted: 1/24/2014 2:00:10 PM EDT
[Last Edit: 1/24/2014 2:02:13 PM EDT by Andr0id]
The .gov should not provide subsidies to individuals, corporations or other countries.
By subsidies, I mean incentives, aid, benefits or other forms of payment for which no goods or services are received in return.

Veterans should be covered by a disability insurance plan into which they made payments while serving.
(Oh, just like my disability plan.)


Link Posted: 1/24/2014 2:00:18 PM EDT
Discussion ForumsJump to Quoted PostQuote History
Originally Posted By woodsie:
I'd like to see someone design a safety net program that actually functions before we even have the debate about if we "should" implement it or not.

View Quote


It's been done with a very high level of success, but by people that are into God and stuff, so it doesn't count.  
Link Posted: 1/24/2014 2:01:00 PM EDT
Originally Posted By gym007:
What do you think?
View Quote


Federal or State?

From the Fed.gov, absolutely not.

States can do as they please.
Link Posted: 1/24/2014 2:01:21 PM EDT
Discussion ForumsJump to Quoted PostQuote History
Originally Posted By governmentman:
Yes, but very limited in scope and duration and must be repaid with interest. Repayment enforcement would be handled the same as back taxes
View Quote


I kinda go with this.  Didn't see a poll reply near to this, so I couldn't vote.  I'd like to see a SHTF safety net, for when, well, SHTF.  Got food, water, ammo, and other preps salted away, but there is always that "WHOA!  Didn't see THAT one coming! " kind of events.  That is about as much as I ever want the Goobermint taking care of me.

But just like any other loan, I have no problem with "You need some money to tide you over?  Fine, but Gotdamnit, I WANT IT BACK!!!"
Link Posted: 1/24/2014 2:01:46 PM EDT


Going to be a lot of liars in this poll.
Link Posted: 1/24/2014 2:02:42 PM EDT
Net ..Yes
Foundation ...No
Link Posted: 1/24/2014 2:03:04 PM EDT
Discussion ForumsJump to Quoted PostQuote History
Originally Posted By Undefined:


I don't see taking care of vets as a government safety net, I see it as repayment for services rendered.
View Quote View All Quotes
View All Quotes
Discussion ForumsJump to Quoted PostQuote History
Originally Posted By Undefined:
Originally Posted By jerrwhy01:
For the absolute very few who truly cannot work, or for vets that are truly disabled in combat yes. Everyone else can suck it up like the rest of us.


I don't see taking care of vets as a government safety net, I see it as repayment for services rendered.

Link Posted: 1/24/2014 2:04:07 PM EDT
no. That's the job of private charities.
Link Posted: 1/24/2014 2:04:31 PM EDT
I have no problem with social programs if they are funded BY CHOICE.


Link Posted: 1/24/2014 2:04:53 PM EDT
Did I make it before people grossly misapply evolutionary theory?
Link Posted: 1/24/2014 2:05:08 PM EDT
Discussion ForumsJump to Quoted PostQuote History
Originally Posted By jerrwhy01:
For the absolute very few who truly cannot work, or for vets that are truly disabled in combat yes. Everyone else can suck it up like the rest of us.
View Quote


Link Posted: 1/24/2014 2:06:35 PM EDT


When I read "a safety net ... from the government" I read that as a safety net to protect us from the government.  That I can support.
Link Posted: 1/24/2014 2:07:15 PM EDT
I think we have a moral obligation to a  limited few......children mostly.....some that are extremely mentally impaired however this FSA stuff is way out of line......
Link Posted: 1/24/2014 2:10:35 PM EDT
Discussion ForumsJump to Quoted PostQuote History
Originally Posted By I_am_Dan:

Even the ones that get disability checks despite being able to hold down good jobs?
View Quote View All Quotes
View All Quotes
Discussion ForumsJump to Quoted PostQuote History
Originally Posted By I_am_Dan:
Originally Posted By Undefined:
Originally Posted By jerrwhy01:
For the absolute very few who truly cannot work, or for vets that are truly disabled in combat yes. Everyone else can suck it up like the rest of us.


I don't see taking care of vets as a government safety net, I see it as repayment for services rendered.

Even the ones that get disability checks despite being able to hold down good jobs?


Kind of a different issue, but yeah the VA disability system is a wreck.
Link Posted: 1/24/2014 2:12:41 PM EDT
Unfortunately any .gov program will be abused to buy votes.
Link Posted: 1/24/2014 2:13:08 PM EDT
Federal government?  No.  State governments?  Sure, if they want.





It shouldn't be a Federal thing; Federalism was specifically designed to leave things relating to the health, safety, welfare, and morals of the people to the individual state governments.



Do I want government run healthcare?  No.  Do I want Federally-run healthcare?  Fuck no.  Can I bitch about Romneycare?  Well, no, since it follows the intent of the Constitution....I'm just glad I don't live there.
Link Posted: 1/24/2014 2:13:42 PM EDT
No; none.

The .gov should not be in the charity business.  It is today, and look where we are.
Link Posted: 1/24/2014 2:16:27 PM EDT
None of those answers reflects my belief.

People in need should look to their families.
If family is unable/unwilling/nonexistenet to help, people should look to their friends.
If friends are unable, etc., to help, people should look to religious and charitable groups.
If those groups are unable to help, people should look to their cities.
If the city is unable to help, people should look to their states.
And if the state can't help, then and only then should they look to the fed.gov.

It would be the tiniest, tiniest percentage of people who'd ever reach that last step.
Link Posted: 1/24/2014 2:25:35 PM EDT
Link Posted: 1/24/2014 2:36:14 PM EDT
Keep the benefits, but closely monitor what they're used for.  No spending them on cigs and beer or energy drinks at the local 7-11.  Good wholesome food only.  People shouldn't go hungry or homeless, but that's as far as my sympathy extends.
Link Posted: 1/24/2014 2:37:05 PM EDT
Private charity.
Link Posted: 1/24/2014 2:38:27 PM EDT
Discussion ForumsJump to Quoted PostQuote History
Originally Posted By dillehayd:


Federal or State?

From the Fed.gov, absolutely not.

States can do as they please.
View Quote View All Quotes
View All Quotes
Discussion ForumsJump to Quoted PostQuote History
Originally Posted By dillehayd:
Originally Posted By gym007:
What do you think?


Federal or State?

From the Fed.gov, absolutely not.

States can do as they please.


this

poll fail
Link Posted: 1/24/2014 2:40:05 PM EDT
[Last Edit: 1/24/2014 2:42:43 PM EDT by chadjetlag]
Private charities do a fantastic job of weeding out the lazy bums and providing help where it is really needed.
Food stamps or whatever BS program it is this week should only provide for bread, peanut butter, milk, and broccoli.  You won't starve...you won't be happy, but many people on the dole could stand to lose a few lbs anyway.
Link Posted: 1/24/2014 2:41:37 PM EDT
Discussion ForumsJump to Quoted PostQuote History
Originally Posted By Visionary:
Keep the benefits, but closely monitor what they're used for.  No spending them on cigs and beer or energy drinks at the local 7-11.  Good wholesome food only.  People shouldn't go hungry or homeless, but that's as far as my sympathy extends.
View Quote



So spend even more money? Great plan.


Link Posted: 1/24/2014 2:42:58 PM EDT
Nope.  If you want a safety net, buy private unemployment insurance.
Link Posted: 1/24/2014 2:43:18 PM EDT
yes, help the helpless.....not the clueless
Link Posted: 1/24/2014 2:44:00 PM EDT
Nope.  And I chose my words carefully after getting stuck behind an EBT Jenny for the second day in a row at the grocery.  Lady had two carts of snacks, junk, etc.  Two friggin carts.  By time all was said and done she had to pay $0.06 and couldn't understand why.  I had a carry basket full of fruit and an aneurysm.
Link Posted: 1/24/2014 2:45:24 PM EDT
Federal or State or Local?

State or Local would be better for food, clothing and shelter.

Feds not so good.

Real Insurance is better than what government likes to call insurance...just a ponzi.

Maintaining your unrealistic lifestyle should not be a government service or goal.
Link Posted: 1/24/2014 2:50:19 PM EDT
[Last Edit: 1/24/2014 2:52:49 PM EDT by Visionary]
Discussion ForumsJump to Quoted PostQuote History
Originally Posted By Tomislav:



So spend even more money? Great plan.


View Quote View All Quotes
View All Quotes
Discussion ForumsJump to Quoted PostQuote History
Originally Posted By Tomislav:
Originally Posted By Visionary:
Keep the benefits, but closely monitor what they're used for.  No spending them on cigs and beer or energy drinks at the local 7-11.  Good wholesome food only.  People shouldn't go hungry or homeless, but that's as far as my sympathy extends.



So spend even more money? Great plan.



Better idea.  Remove benefits and allow people to go and pick up their govt approved food at local 'pick-up' areas.  The food would include things such as rice, beans, corn, cheap meat and some vegetables/fruits.  Absolutely zero soda, sugary snacks or general junk food.  If people don't like their govt approved diet they can find a job.
Link Posted: 1/24/2014 2:53:10 PM EDT
The only .gov safety net I even consider reasonable is fire services.
Link Posted: 1/24/2014 2:55:55 PM EDT
Discussion ForumsJump to Quoted PostQuote History
Originally Posted By Old_Painless:
Nothing at all.

People can contribute to charity of they voluntarily prefer.
View Quote


Absolutely correct.  

Americans are generous and there would be no shortage of care for the helpless, in fact, the standard of living and quality of life would be greatly increased.

It is the decent thing to do.
Link Posted: 1/24/2014 2:56:56 PM EDT
10th Amendment.
Link Posted: 1/24/2014 2:57:00 PM EDT
I think there should be some benefits for veterans.
Link Posted: 1/24/2014 2:59:46 PM EDT
Extremely limited benefits for an extremely limited time.

Extreme social stigma should be attached to receiving ANY benefits, excluding ACTUAL disabilities.

Link Posted: 1/24/2014 3:01:04 PM EDT
Discussion ForumsJump to Quoted PostQuote History
Originally Posted By California_Kid:
I think there should be some benefits for veterans.
View Quote

Same here.
Link Posted: 1/24/2014 3:04:24 PM EDT
Discussion ForumsJump to Quoted PostQuote History
Originally Posted By Master_of_Orion:
no. That's the job of private charities.
View Quote

This.
Link Posted: 1/24/2014 3:04:25 PM EDT
You can have regional downturns so I would permit a year of help.
Arrow Left Previous Page
Page / 3
Top Top