Once again, Democrats stand in the schoolhouse door.

Inkara1 said:
One is not a handout because you have to pay in first and you have to look for a job (AKA give something in return). That is a simple concept.
Click to expand...

Sorry but looking for a job does not qualify as earning an income.


I guess the fact that all of this started because you were so desperate to make someone you don't like look bad that the facts didn't matter wouldn't count as "starting the insults" in SpikeWorld.
Click to expand...

I called out some hypocrisy. That is not the same as childsish insults that you resorted to right away. But I guess saying something that you don't agree with counts as insults in "Inkara World" and that justifies you acting like you're 5.

Give me an adult conversation to join sometime. Feel free. Don't let me stop you.
Click to expand...

There was some small posssibility for this to be an adult conversation before you jumped in.


So I guess you also didn't pay in years of friendship first? "You're" argument here is crap.
Click to expand...

Ah freindship is a burden for you. Doesn't matter you're trying to define handout by "not paying fisrt for anything" doesn't work.

There's a minimum amount the law says you have to buy. that makes it mandatory, even though earlier you claimed it's voluntary. You can buy more. There's also a minimum unemployment insurance, with the government as an administrator instead of a private company, but you can buy more (I noticed you ignored my link to a private unemployment insurance provider).
Click to expand...

Wow, still so many differences from unemployment.

You really think football and baseball are similar? :eek6: the objects of the games are a lot different and the processes required to get ready to play each game is a lot different. But also, cross country is a sport, and cheerleaders consider cheerleading to be a sport. Not many similarities between those.
Click to expand...

All are "sports" just like unemployment and welfare are both handouts.

Well, we can start off with your need to make someone you don't like look bad being so great that you're willing to ignore facts to continue your smear campaign.
Click to expand...

Let's please look at any facts i ignored. Please list them.

Maybe the fact that your preferred method of "debate" is to take a sentence someone wrote, change a word or two, re-post it and then act like you've totally pwned your opponent.
Click to expand...

Mo my preferred method is to prove someone wrong with facts.

For example that's take your previous statement "your preferred method of "debate" is to take a sentence someone wrote, change a word or two, re-post it" and just weigh that statement in this thread.

Add up how many times I've reworded a statement vs. how many times I've directly responded to something someone said. I think you'll find that the latter far outnumbers the former.

There, I have proved your statement wrong with a fact, My preferred method.

I could bring up everything else, but last time I brought up some things, you told me I was trolling and being insulting and personal instead of, oh, I don't know, showing me why I might be wrong.
Click to expand...

I'm going to prove you wrong again right now. Show me just a few examples of me insulting you or if you can't do that try anyone without them insulting me first. I'll bet I find a lot more examples of other board members being insulting first.

Not to mention this is hardly an excuse for you to act childish. Let's analyze your basic reasoning here. I think I have it...

Inkara said:
"Ooh! Ooh! They did it! That makes it OK!"
Click to expand...

;)
 
paul_valaru said:
If you had Income you would not need to receive UI payments.
Click to expand...
Depends on how much you're making... I did some freelance gigs the last time I was on UI..and some day-placements. Had to declare everything and have the amount removed from my UI disbursement..which also explains why there's so much under-the-counter work being done by people on UI and Welfare.
 
We are a nation of closet welfare junkies, which helps explain why we can't have an honest debate about Social Security. Social Security and Medicare are our biggest welfare programs, but because Americans regard "welfare" as shameful, we've found other labels for them. We call them "social insurance" or "entitlements." Anything but welfare. Democrats and Republicans alike embrace the deception. No one wants to upset older voters. Well, if you can't call something by its real name, you can't discuss it honestly.

Welfare is a governmental transfer from one group to another for the benefit of those receiving. The transfer involves cash or services (health care, education). We have welfare for the poor, the old, the disabled, farmers and corporations. Social Security is mainly welfare. Workers' payroll taxes pay the benefits of today's retirees. The taxes aren't "saved" for the workers' own retirement. There have been huge disparities between taxes paid and benefits received.
Click to expand...
Linky

UI and Social Security were created at around the same time..by Roosevelt during the depression. It did it's job..stopped rioting and a possible overthrow of the GVT.

Currently, UI payments by employed people isn't enough to cover UI payments going out to unemployed. Hasn't been for quite a while and is unlikely to ever change.

It falls into the same thing as welfare because the majority of the money you get back from it - is money you never put into it in the first place, regardless of how long you worked before going onto UI.
 
The thing is though if you cut those programs, what happens to the elderly? I know you idealists who really don't base your thinking in reality will say the childeren will take care of them. Not so, maybe a small minority of children will take care of their aging parents, then another large group would like to yet would not be able to afford to. Then there is the group that would not care at all, let their parents eat dog food and have no heat or maybe even a roof over their heads. Then there is the group that would actively try to rid themselves of the burden.
 
randomJACKASS said:
The thing is though if you cut those programs, what happens to the elderly? I know you idealists who really don't base your thinking in reality will say the childeren will take care of them. Not so, maybe a small minority of children will take care of their aging parents, then another large group would like to yet would not be able to afford to. Then there is the group that would not care at all, let their parents eat dog food and have no heat or maybe even a roof over their heads. Then there is the group that would actively try to rid themselves of the burden.
Click to expand...

Ice flows.

I still believe it is a gov't responsibilty to case for there citizens. I also think that is what they should be judged on, not how many guns they have.
 
Oh I realize this Paul, I am just saying it for the sake of those who would argue that these programs are wrong and shouldn't be supported by taxes. Some people unfortunately are incapable of putting themselves in another's shoes, and will only understand such programs when the need for one directly effects their lives.
 
randomJACKASS said:
Oh I realize this Paul, I am just saying it for the sake of those who would argue that these programs are wrong and shouldn't be supported by taxes. Some people unfortunately are incapable of putting themselves in another's shoes, and will only understand such programs when the need for one directly effects their lives.
Click to expand...

It is to the point where I wish we could allow certain people to opt out, so we can watch them starve to death because god forbide any of "their" money went anywhere but to them.

Yet they still drive on public roads etc.
 
It's only a "handout" because spike wants to run a smear campaign on Gonz. No other reason. The fact that it's called "unemployment insurance," the fact you can get private UI that is not the government program, the fact he paid into it for many years before drawing from it, the fact he was required to look for a job instead of being required to do nothing like on welfare, the fact he was taxed on the income instead of not being taxed on it like on welfare... none of that matters.

For the record, I don't consider worker's comp insurance payouts, state disability insurance or pensions to be "handouts" either.
 
Inkara1 said:
It's only a "handout" because spike wants to run a smear campaign on Gonz. No other reason.
Click to expand...

You can make shit up all you want but it's a handout because you receive money for not working from tax dollars.

It's a safety net handout just like welfare.

instead of being required to do nothing like on welfare
Click to expand...

You seem oblivious to the fact that you often are required to "do something" on welfare, including work. As opposed to unemployment where you are never required to work to receive benefits. ;)

To be counted as a work participant, a TANF recipient was required to work at least twenty hours a week in 1997 and 1998. This requirement rose to twenty-five hours in 1999 and thirty in 2000, unless the recipient has a child under six.
Click to expand...

http://www.libraryindex.com/pages/927/Welfare-Work-Programs-WORK-REQUIREMENTS-TANF-RECIPIENTS.html

Seems a little closer to the definition of "income" than unemployment benefits at that point.


Income :: The amount of money or its equivalent received during a period of time in exchange for labor or services, from the sale of goods or property, or as profit from financial investments.
 
MrBishop said:
No-what I'm saying is that since both parties gain support from the program, that 'fishing for votes' isn't the primary objective of Welfare
Click to expand...

Since both gain support from giving away government cheese, it seems as though my argument is strengthened.


randomJACKASS said:
The thing is though if you cut those programs, what happens to the elderly?
Click to expand...

Thye go on as always.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top