Questions about unemployment from a conservative.

[ErikJ]

I was posed these questions from a RW Christian woman this morning. I dont know much about UE except I do have a 55ish yr old acquaintance friend that was employed for 30 years as a bookkkeeper/acct at a company that went out of business and 7 months later he has found it impossible to find another job even though he's been applying to a lot of companies. He sounds like he's getting kind of desperate which is unusual for him.

Here they are:
------------------------
Once again -- you did not answer my questions or reply to this at all (see my email below). You skirt my questions and comments by sending me a bunch of CRAP about China. This is what Dems do best. They parse and skirt -- THEY DO NOT ANSWER IMPORTANT QUESTIONS.

PLEASE COMMENT ON THE QUESTIONS BELOW ONE AT A TIME:
1.) How many months or years do you think unemployment should be granted to a person who is fired or laid off?

Your answer: ____________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________

2.) Is it okay with you that many unemployment recipients cheat the system?

Your answer: ____________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________

3.) Do you think Obama's motives to fundamentally transform America are pure? Is he doing it for America -- or HIMSELF??? (Now, be honest here. You are absolutely brainwashed so I already know I won't get an honest answer.)
Answer this, then: Do you think MOST men who want to make all people dependent on them are doing it for the people? Or to further themselves and their own agendas?

Your answer:
______________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________

4.) Why do you think dems like people to be dependent? Do you seriously believe they are trying to help "the least of these?" Even when the middle class is being hurt by their antics the MOST??? They want to make middle class people dependent as well. WHAT message does that send to you specifically?

Your answer:
____________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________

[TomClash]

1. Answers

1. Until they find a job.

2. No.

3. What fundamental transformation is she talking about? What dependency is she talking about?

4. No, yes, middle class is not being hurt by Dems, Dems do not want to make the middle class "dependent."

[MrScorpio]

2. Gawd, I would hate to know this person first hand. nt

[gcomeau]

3. Answers...

1) It depends on economic conditions. If there is plenty of job availability and labor demand in the economy then benefit lengths should be kept shorter to increase incentive for them to energetically seek re-employment. On the other hand if there is no labor demand in the economy and people are out of work because there are no jobs cutting their unemployment benefits tanks the economy further and makes things worse in a self perpetuating cycle.


2) Some people will always cheat any system where they can. No it's not ok but that doesn't mean you abolish all systems because some people aren't honest. You just go after the cheaters.


3) The idea that Obama is trying to "fundamentally transform america" is ridiculous. About the closest he's come is getting a lot of people health insurance and not starting so many wars. You can consider that "fundamentally changing America" if you want... if so what objections to that specific fundamental change are we supposed to have?

And making people go buy THEIR OWN insurance is not making people more dependent, it's making them take more personal responsibility instead of free riding on the system. That was a Republican demand for health care reform btw, right up until the second Obama agreed to do things that way and then it suddenly became communism. Right that second. Purely by coincidence of course.

4) They don't like people to be dependent. They just don't object to helping their fellow citizens when they need it. End of answer.

[FreeJoe]

10. +1

You said everything I would have said, only you said it better than I would have.

[notadmblnd]

30. I liked that answer too.

But I might have added, go ahead and lose your job in your 50's and see what happens. Or better yet, have that man who takes financial responsibility for your Fundy ass die with little or no life insurance and see where you end up lady.

[ProfessorGAC]

26. Superb Set of Answers

Well said. And in a way that a drone like the lady in the OP would actually comprehend. Well, maybe.

[gcomeau]

28. Yeah I've met the type plenty...

I'll take a wild guess and bet she came into her political awareness right around the time Reagan was becoming or had just become president. And then she just kind of froze there and let the decades pass her by while never registering any of the changes.


(I could be wrong, there are some that post nonsense like this and don't fit the stereotype, but the odds are in my favor. And generally those exceptions are kids raised by the people that fit the description.)

[ErikJ]

33. She was coming of age during Eisenhower Kennedy

And John Birch Society! at a very early age. My mom was a John Bircher, terrified of communism. Dad was much more moderate GOP. This particular extremely talkative opinionated sister sopped it all up before 10 years old somehow and has been that way ever since. A commy is hiding under every rock type.
Ironically, my oldest sister who has been the most successful and educated of all 7 sisters, is an agnostic extreme liberal. She agrees with everything I say and send her. She's also the "responsible leader" of the family who takes care of everything family-oriented. So she doesnt discuss politics with the RWer at all as far as I know.

I agree you have very good answers, and in a way she might understand.

[Matariki]

4. That is so arrogant and condescending I would never speak to the person again

The whole format with "Your answer" for starters.

And this: "Now, be honest here. You are absolutely brainwashed so I already know I won't get an honest answer."

I would never reply to someone that talks to me that way except the let them know why. This woman is an abusive jackass. If she's some random internet person, ignore her. If she's a 'friend' or family cut her out of your life and tell her why. You'll be happier.

[Blanks]

25. I don't know...

This is where I would say something like "a majority of Americans voted for Obama so if his plan is to fundamentally change America and a majority of Americans have signed on - maybe you should seek out somewhere else to live if you are so opposed to him."

I usually recommend Somalia, because they seem to have the kind of laws and rules that conservatives lust after.

I find that if you piss them off more than they can piss you off -after a few responses you can make fun of their spelling and punctuation.

It's a good idea to give yourself plenty of time before you knowingly piss someone off. Make sure you want to go down that path.

Of course, I live in Arkansas and most of the people I interact with are in Idaho. One should be ever mindful of the proximity of the folks that they're antagonizing. It's also a good idea to try not to take yourself too seriously.

[bonzaga]

5. Oh Gawd

This nut sounds like she watches Fux news 24/7. I honestly don't know how you can help people like this. Every single question except the first one has several false premises in it.

[Skittles]

36. CORRECT

welcome to DU, bonzaga

[CJCRANE]

6. Of course Jesus never used to help the poor, the needy, the sick

widows and orphans because they might become dependent.

And he used to hand out questionnaires to his disciples to make sure they understood his rationale.

[bvar22]

22. That is because Jesus wanted them to become dependent.

Clearly.

[Egalitarian Thug]

43. See? They're completely dependent on him to excuse their daily behavior.

It worked really well.

[Blanks]

29. The example from the bible that I like best...

Is when god led the Israelites out of Egypt. Manna from the heavens and birds that just dropped out of the sky.

11 The Lord said to Moses, 12 “I have heard the grumbling of the Israelites. Tell them, ‘At twilight you will eat meat, and in the morning you will be filled with bread. Then you will know that I am the Lord your God.’”

13 That evening quail came and covered the camp, and in the morning there was a layer of dew around the camp. 14 When the dew was gone, thin flakes like frost on the ground appeared on the desert floor. 15 When the Israelites saw it, they said to each other, “What is it?” For they did not know what it was.

Moses said to them, “It is the bread the Lord has given you to eat. 16 This is what the Lord has commanded: ‘Everyone is to gather as much as they need. Take an omer[a] for each person you have in your tent.’”

Does that sound like a god that wants to starve freeloaders?

http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=Exodus+16

[Shandris]

7. These people are a dime a dozen...

...and interestingly enough, they -all- think that their 'questions' are useful. Sigh.

1. It depends on many factors. 'One size fits all' seldom does fit all.
2. Loaded question. It is not shown that 'many' UE recipients 'cheat' the 'system'. To even -begin- to discuss this topic, you will need to quantify AT LEAST the meaning of those three words so that we're talking about the same thing. Do get back with me on that, though.
3. Define 'fundamentally transform America' and demonstrate evidence that this is actually occurring. In order to answer yes or no to the question as asked, I have to stipulate that the rest of it is true -- which I don't, but I'm willing to be shown otherwise. Subquestion: No, most people who want to make others dependent on them don't have pure motives. However, (again), there is no demonstration that this is occurring.
4. The reason no one answers your 'questions' is because they are so incredibly slanted and presumptuous to begin with. So, in keeping with that, I'll (once again) have to ask you for evidence regarding this so-called 'dependency'. Also clarify 'antics'. One cannot begin to decide what message any action makes until the action itself is defined.

If you consider being unable to answer based on weasel words, faulty insinuations, vague definitions, and abject failure to choose a topic, then I am guilty as charged. I await the expounded answers, preferably rephrased into your questions so I can answer them as you've asked. Do try to avoid presumptions in the questions please. Have a nice day!

(Shandris)

[LWolf]

8. My answers:

1.) How many months or years do you think unemployment should be granted to a person who is fired or laid off?

Your answer:

For as long as it takes to get them a living-wage job and back on their feet. In reality, I'd like to see a safety net of a minimum amount of money, enough to live on, granted to every person who isn't working, whether or not they ever had a job or can get a job. That covers the disabled. I'd like to see a job guaranteed to anyone who wanted one; a job at a true living wage.

2.) Is it okay with you that many unemployment recipients cheat the system?

Your answer:

First of all, I think the statement that "'many' unemployment recipients cheat the system" is false. Do you have some verifiable data for that? If not, you should rephrase the question to leave the unsupported assumption out of it. Second, it's okay with me that there might be some that cheat. I'd rather fund all the cheaters than let one person fall through the cracks. It's called compassion and generosity.

3.) Do you think Obama's motives to fundamentally transform America are pure? Is he doing it for America -- or HIMSELF??? (Now, be honest here. You are absolutely brainwashed so I already know I won't get an honest answer.)
Answer this, then: Do you think MOST men who want to make all people dependent on them are doing it for the people? Or to further themselves and their own agendas?

Your answer:

I'm not sure what the question about Obama, or about "MEN" has to do with unemployment. I don't think I've ever seen Obama motivated to "fundamentally transform America." He's a politician. He's a politician that Republicans SHOULD be loving, because he's friendlier to Republicans and DINO "Reagan Democrats" than he is to the principles and issues that bring me to the polls. If he's "transforming" America, he's doing it to benefit neoliberals, and that's not something I support. Your brainwashing statement is ironic, to say the least. I, at least, am not brainwashed into thinking that the world is polarized into good/evil, black/white, republican/democrat absolutes.


4.) Why do you think dems like people to be dependent? Do you seriously believe they are trying to help "the least of these?" Even when the middle class is being hurt by their antics the MOST??? They want to make middle class people dependent as well. WHAT message does that send to you specifically?

Your answer:

I don't think Democrats like people to be dependent. I think your perception of Democrats is wildly ludicrous, and that you spend too much time listening to people like Beck, Limbaugh, and others like them. See my comment about "ironic" above. I think SOME Democrats, myself among them, like a more equal playing field and would like to give everyone more equal opportunities to take their lives where they choose. I think it is neo-conservatives and neo-liberals who are hurting the middle class, and that the neo-conservatives and the tea party faction in the Republican party and the neoliberal faction in the Democratic party are those damaging the middle class. I'm not a partisan bigot; I don't find either "side" innocent in destroying America's middle class. And again, the notion that "they want to make middle class people dependent" is delusional. What "they" want is a large population of ill-educated cheap labor and cannon fodder who believe and do what they are told, whose quality and quantity of life is sacrificed to benefit those at the top of the heap.

[Motown_Johnny]

9. My answers

1) So long as they are attempting to find a new job, there should be no limits on unemployment payments.

2) Please prevent evidence that "many" unemployment recipients cheat the system, I do not believe this to be the case and your misconceptions are not something that I can answer in the abstract. Provide specifics so your question can be answered.

3) I believe that PRESIDENT Obama is trying to restore this country to the greatness it possessed before the failed economic policies of Ronald Reagan were attempted. He is not trying to fundamentally transform America. He is attempting to restore America. Nobody is trying to make all people dependent on anything. Again, your misconceptions are the problem. Unemployment payments are not enough to have a decent life. People want a decent life and they want to work for a living. Nobody wants to be dependent on these scraps. So long as there are 3 people for every job opening (due to the economic collapse the Republicans caused) there is no evidence that anyone wants to try and abuse the system.

4) I don't think people, any people, like to be dependent. Nor does anyone want them to be dependent. We may as well be asking why Republicans want children to starve or freeze or be homeless. Nobody wants these things either. Democrats simply believe that you cannot increase prosperity by increasing poverty. Republicans seem to think that increasing poverty somehow increases prosperity. I would love to see some evidence of that (good luck).

[ErikJ]

13. Thanks to all! Good answers.

I might just copy and send her these exact responses as I'm getting tired of reasoning with. She's an older sister of 7. My OLDEST sister is an extreme liberal though. ha! But she remains friendly to all and never mentions politics with her.
I can send the RWer sis specific stats that blows her arguments and she'll "forget" it a day later. Maybe these responses will help. I found some UI facts and myths that might help educate her about the subject better too.

[Motown_Johnny]

35. Reasoning with a Conservative is like wrestling with a pig

you get covered in slop, and the pig likes it.


At some point you need to just let it go (and take a shower).

[Chan790]

11. Answers in italics.

1.) How many months or years do you think unemployment should be granted to a person who is fired or laid off?

As a political scientist with a substantial economics background, I am well-aware that at this point in human advancement the amount of labor needed to sustain and further human advancement substantially and permanently is exceeded by the workforce available. This leaves us with three bad options:
a.) We continue to auction labor for decreasing wages until enough people drop out of the work force to stabilize wages.
b.) We create a permanent dole in order to encourage people out of the workforce until labor meets demand. This differs from UI in that you're not holding people over until they have work again but paying them to never work again in exchange for an allowance for life.
c.) We ration work by reducing the number of hours and days a person is allowed to work in order to insure there is enough work to meet the systemic-capacity for workers partially for everybody.

Whichever we choose, the end result is the same. The end of the regularized workforce, the perpetual growth of the economy and capitalism are all upon us.

2.) Is it okay with you that many unemployment recipients cheat the system?

I dispute the premise of the question. The system works as intended and as we lie to those that would not accept such a system as actually operates in order to assuage them. Nobody is cheating the system, some people are not utilizing it to full capacity.

3.) Do you think Obama's motives to fundamentally transform America are pure? Is he doing it for America -- or HIMSELF??? (Now, be honest here. You are absolutely brainwashed so I already know I won't get an honest answer.)
Answer this, then: Do you think MOST men who want to make all people dependent on them are doing it for the people? Or to further themselves and their own agendas?

Yes, but what does that have to do with the price of tea in China, Bob? I think he does it for the betterment of humanity by destroying the legacy of Reagan and ending conservatism forever by giving us the just and communitarian society we deserve.

4.) Why do you think dems like people to be dependent? Do you seriously believe they are trying to help "the least of these?" Even when the middle class is being hurt by their antics the MOST??? They want to make middle class people dependent as well. WHAT message does that send to you specifically?

"Like" is not the same as "acceptance of reality." People are dependent upon society and have been since Jean-Jacques Rousseau said "Man is born free and everywhere is in chains." (Really, man has been dependent upon man since before Plato babbled about Caves and Philosopher-Kings and Hobbes spoke of the tyranny of Leviathan.) Those chains, Bob, are society. The cost of living in society is subjugation of some portion of your own free will to the best interests of the public and the surrender of some portion of your goods to public trust; you in turn receive from the public interest and the spoils of the public trust--the only way to not be dependent upon the state is to not live in any society whatsoever. That is the great joke of Objectivism...Galtian Libertarian freedom is less achievable than blowing yourself. If man could blow himself, society would end. Short of that, the only way to not be dependent upon the state is to abandon all your property to the state, walk out into the woods, blow your brains out and wait to rot finally free of state interference.

[Demo_Chris]

12. Answers

1.) How many months or years do you think unemployment should be granted to a person who is fired or laid off?

Six months unemployment, indefinite welfare. Unemployment is intended to be temporary short term assistance, and thus is based on income while employed. A system like that, if allowed to continue indefinitely, could hardly be less fair to the poor.


2.) Is it okay with you that many unemployment recipients cheat the system?

Yes


3.) Do you think Obama's motives to fundamentally transform America are pure?

Obama isn't transforming a damn thing. He's Bush with charisma.


4.) Why do you think dems like people to be dependent?

We don't.

[Bandit]

14. Did Jesus want to make people dependent? What other motivation could he have had?

Are you dependent upon Jesus? Is a "Christian Nation" Dependent upon Jesus? Is helping people buy "Private" Health Insurance a communist plot. If Obama is so socialistic why has the Stock Market soared under Obama? The NYSE is the epitome of Capitalism and yet under Obama it is doing better than under any Republican President in recent history.

[Populist_Prole]

15. It's pointless because she's framing the ( very loaded ) questions through her own confirmation bias

For all her accusations about parsing and skirting, she is in fact doing exactly that as the questions are strawmen arguments, and deliberately worded to more or less force the answerer to make a choice of sounding like either a deliberate contrarian or a caricature of what she thinks liberals sound like.

I would have liked to known just what she was referring to about the "crap" regarding China. My assumption is that you ( or whoever she is directing her comments at ) nailed her down on a point she would have to concede, and so she is tying to make that irrelevant. I surmise it's about trade policy and off-shoring and the resultant job loss and downward pressure on wages. Being a conservative, she no-doubt would not want to touch that issue with a ten foot pole.

[JHB]

16. Would this "fundamentally transform America"?:

24 income tax brackets. For a married couple filing jointly:
16 of those brackets only affect incomes over $250,000
11 of them only affect incomes over $500,000
The top rate affects income over $3.5 million.

The tax rates run from 20% at the bottom to 91% at the highest bracket (the 3.5 million one).

Is that 'socialist'? Is that 'communist'?

It's the US income tax code that was in effect in 1955, adjusted for inflation. Before the "Great Society" programs, in the thick of the Cold War.

Is she one of those people who thought Ike was a communist?

[el_bryanto]

17. Why would you waste your time with this?

The answers to questions 3 and 4 are "Fuck you and the horse you rode in on." Right?

Once they've declared us all Monsters, there's no point to discussion.

Bryant

[Gidney N Cloyd]

18. Sheesh. 2, 3 & 4 the very premise of the "question" is loaded bullshit.

[uppityperson]

19. Have you stopped beating your children yet? Loaded questions based on false assumptions.

[Xyzse]

20. Alright, I'll take a crack at this:

PLEASE COMMENT ON THE QUESTIONS BELOW ONE AT A TIME:
1.) How many months or years do you think unemployment should be granted to a person who is fired or laid off?

Your answer:
I'd have initially said a Maximum of 2 years. However, nowadays? I'd try to extend it till they actually get a job. Think of it this way, the more money goes around the actual economy the better. Currently there is a huge vacuuming sound of actual funds getting stuck at the bank level. The Federal Reserve issues money that they keep in the system which then earns them a percentage while it is kept there, rather than being used for lending to businesses. Bottom line, businesses close, less people work, money is stuck in that spot. It is also the reason why we are not really having much inflation even if there is a heck of a lot more money made. Banks kept a spigot on those funds, and kept things down. Now in a better economy and with more jobs, like I said, I'd have said a maximum of 2 years, and create a system of unemployment insurance that everybody pays in to.

Simple Answer: In a better economy 2 years, right now, till they get a job.

2.) Is it okay with you that many unemployment recipients cheat the system?

Your answer:
No, it is not ok that there are recipients that cheat the system. However, one out of millions that do cheat the system, doesn't mean I would stop helping the vast majority that needs it. Doing so is stupid, and you're better off going after the outliers than that. The welfare queen that Reagan was mentioning was not a welfare queen, she was a grafter who created multiple fake identities. Average welfare recipient is not a criminal.

3.) Do you think Obama's motives to fundamentally transform America are pure? Is he doing it for America -- or HIMSELF??? (Now, be honest here. You are absolutely brainwashed so I already know I won't get an honest answer.)
Answer this, then: Do you think MOST men who want to make all people dependent on them are doing it for the people? Or to further themselves and their own agendas?

Your answer:
"Fuck You&quot to that person). Obama is not fundamentally transforming America. In many ways he is instrumental in preserving the status quo "you moron&quot to that person again). We are not more dependent, we are being pushed out "you asshole&quot that person again). If you think the ACA is for making people more dependent you are an absolute waste of space. What it did was make people more accountable for their health and pay in to the system. If a person with no health insurance goes to the Emergency Room, which costs a heck of a lot more than preventative care and other sorts of medical care, who the hell do you think gets stuck with the bill? We do jerk.


4.) Why do you think dems like people to be dependent? Do you seriously believe they are trying to help "the least of these?" Even when the middle class is being hurt by their antics the MOST??? They want to make middle class people dependent as well. WHAT message does that send to you specifically?

Your answer:
Of course not, I am an Independent and know that no one wants people to be dependent. No one wants to be dependent and would want to get out of that as much as possible. No one is in welfare because they want to.

---

Thing is, that person won't be convinced until they go through what others have been suffering through. I hope she stays lucky enough to avoid hardship, but she really needs to walk in the shoes of others before going off like that.

[CoffeeCat]

21. The underlying suppositions in EACH of these questions--is BULLSHIT!!!

Do not even answer these fuckwad questions.

These questions don't address real issues. They are not reality-based. These questions
are lies perpetuated by the right-wing in order to cultivate HATE and LIES about people
who need help.

Let's take the first question. This question casts doubt and negative attitudes toward unemployment
recipients. They're cheaters. They cheat the system. Excuse me, the overwhelming majority of people who are unemployed, are good and decent people who need temporary help until they gain employment again.

Think about it. These are people who were working full time. Thorough research is done on their employment history and salary. Then, when it is determined that they meet the criteria, they are given a check each month. In most cases, these checks don't even cover 25 percent of what they were earning. It helps families to avoid starvation while they look for work.

Furthermore, you have to PROVE and DOCUMENT that you are actively looking for work and applying for work--while you receive unemployment compensation.

These are GOOD PEOPLE!! I am so sick and tired of these pseudo-lie-based-bullshit starters that are nothing but backstabbing and lashing out that has NOTHING to do with reality on the ground!

Conservatives want unemployment to cease to exist. They detest those who need help. Anyone who doesn't have a 100,000 cushion and a seven-figure 401k is a worthless human being in their minds. They want NO HELP for anyone. So they demonize the people and these programs.

It's really disgusting. Don't answer these questions. Don't play their games.

[Populist_Prole]

23. Another thought: These aren't "questions" at all. It's more akin to a "push poll"

After my first post above I did some more thinking: She isn't interested in anything you or anybody else has to say. She's just trying to make "I'm mad as hell, this is what I think" rants by disguising them as questions, with an added "nya nya nya NYA nya" defiant vibe to it.

The comments made by other posters are spot on, I might add.

[Chisox08]

24. Answers

1. As long as it takes for that person who needs unemployment to find a job.

2.There are very few people who cheat the system and I'm OK with it as long as the people who really needs help gets that help.

3. What!?

4. Nobody is trying to make anybody dependent on them. I believe that in the richest country in the history of the world that there shouldn't be anyone living in poverty. Even the little help that we give to the poor is a major boost to our economy because all of that money is being used to create demand and keeping more people off of unemployment. If your friend is a Christian, I do believe that Jesus said the he will judge the nations by how they treat the people who are the worst off.

[Jazzgirl]

27. I would ask the following.

1) Until the get employment
2) Provide statistics/links that show "many" people drawing unemployment cheat the system
3) what are you fucking talking about?
4) State information (facts only) to back up Dems wanting to make people dependent

Seriously, pukes are good at regurgitating crap but they never have any reliable information to back up what they say. Screw 'em. Oh and that demand to answer their question, really I'd just answer "bite me" to the whole thing and block their emails.

[The Second Stone]

31. subject

1. Until they find a job.

2. It is not okay with me if anyone cheats the unemployment system. People who have been proven, beyond a reasonable doubt and to a moral certainty, cheated the unemployment system should be prosecuted. It is not okay to "beg the question" and smear all recipients with "many". Many banks cheated the system during the meltdown of 2008 and 2009. They have had to pay back pennies on the dollars that they illegally profited. Nobody charges them. Is that okay? No. Is it a bigger problem? Yes, it compares trillions to millions lost.

3. This isn't a clear question. I don't know Obama's inner motives any better than I knew Ronald Reagan's. I know what they say publicly, and in Reagan's case, I see after 30 years of those policies what the results are. You assume that Obama wants to make people dependent on him personally. I see no evidence of that. I am not dependent on Obama, you are not dependent on Obama. I know of no person who is dependent on Obama.

4. Dems would prefer people to be independent, so the starting premise is false. Dems want a strong middle class, and want the poorer class to have an opportunity to succeed. The fact is that many people are poor, and as Christians, we are commanded to heal the sick and feed the hungry. Give the cloak off your back, no questions asked. The questions you ask indicate that you have made a judgments about poor people and not kind ones. We are commanded as Christians not to make these judgments, because we too are sinners.

Christ said that if you want to enter the kingdom of heaven, sell all your possessions and give the proceeds to the poor. Do you do that? Do you feed the poor out of your own pocket without considering skin color, mental health issues, drug abuse, alcoholism and other deservedness?

Pat Robertson is a very wealthy man because he uses the Holy Spirit to convince people a lot poorer than he is to give him money. I couldn't do this because it is blaspheming the Holy Spirit. I'm a sinner, but I'm not going to ask an elderly person on social security to send me money if I'm a billionaire because of Christ. It doesn't work that way.

You may think of yourself as a Christian, and I am not to judge you, but I could not hold your views and pray with others thinking that was anywhere near the best I could do.

[haele]

32. Those questions are only important to someone who has an agenda to sell for their own profit.

They aren't questions that apply to reality. Instead, I've got you 10 questions based in the reality of the job market and economics to give back to your conservative friend.

1) How important is a robust middle class to the wellbeing of the "free market" and both the economy and the ideals of the United States of America as the Declaration of Independence describes it - that every citizen is "free to pursue life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness".

_________________________________________________________________________________________

2) What do we do as a nation to ensure that every adult has the opportunity to make a living wage that can support a small family when they are employed and be able to strive to move up the economic ladder on his or her hard work, skills and talents?

________________________________________________________________________________________


3) Do you are you happy with the current political distance between capital and labor? Do you think having money and property, no matter how you attained it, is more important politically than having a skill or a trade and the opportunity and ability to work?

__________________________________________________________________________________________


4) It is a known fact that not every person has the opportunity, skills, or talent to be a manager or business owner (we are as we were made), and that realistically there are only so many economic positions in a community or society available that require management or specialty skills, and only so many feasible markets or business that can be owned. The reality is that the majority of realistic economic opportunity available to 75% of citizens who are able to make a living is found in the capability to earn a wage while working for others.

Do you think it prudent to make a politically economic decision that working is far less important than already having wealth- and wealth should be given greater social value and economic benefits than production and work?

________________________________________________________________________________________

5) When there is not enough private sector interest in providing enough living wage jobs or endowments to social charities, and not enough charitable resources to provide "a safety net" to the poor or unlucky families within a community who are not headed by "criminals or cheats", what, then, is the best interest of government to deal with a surplus of capable adults who are willing to work?
Remember - in this question, the private sector "free market" and charities are either unwilling or unable to deal with that surplus amount of capable working adults who are looking for jobs to support themselves and their families.___________________________________________________________________________________________

6) While it is apparently acceptable for a government is required to support state, national, and international businesses, corporations and organizations that are of national economic interest and security with subsidies and bail-outs to the tune of billions of dollars when they make poor decisions or are affected by disasters or market instability, why is it not acceptable for the government to temporarily support individual citizens when they are affected by disasters, job or economic instability in large enough numbers to affect local community and state interests and security?

____________________________________________________________________________________________

7) If individuals do not have the ability or opportunity to survive on their own or provide for their own independent well-being through work for others, should they still be considered a citizen and have equal value as a member of society as those who can survive or provide for their own independent well-being? Do not limit the the confines of question to capable adults; include the 60% of the citizenry who are underage children, elderly, and disabled.

________________________________________________________________________________________

8 - a two-part question:
8a) What is the actual percentage of individual "cheats" within a subsidy or assistance system that are allowable before a system is deemed a failure or a waste of money?

____________________________

8b) Is this percentage applicable to the cheaters in the overall system, or a local perception of cheaters within a particular subset of that system?

______________________________

9 - a two-part question:

9a) Which is a more important concern - taxation without representation or representation without taxation?

_______________________________________________________________________________________

9b) As these are absolutes, what should the boundary be drawn between the two?

________________________________________________________________________________________

10) Is it better to be merciful and mistaken or mis-led, or to be cruel and mistaken or mis-led?

_______________________________________________________________________________________



When a group has a vested interest in telling you what you want to hear, making you outraged or fearful against fellow citizens who are only living their own lives to make a profit or score political points, should you give them your complete, blind loyalty?
And too many so-called Conservatives forget history for their own sense of pride and grasping for social standing. In the "good old days" before unions or worker's movements, most people starved during a good portion of their lives, and never made it out of poverty, while a few people who had silver tongues or silver spoons were able to con or buy their way into great fortunes and access to the majority of resources. There were the very rich and the people who lived off crumbs thrown their way, the struggling and thrifty family business owners who usually lost their hard - worked businesses within two generations at a rate of 90%, individual farmers who maintained their living through subsistance, the good-will of neighbors, and the vagarities of the climate, and the very poor.
Until we had unions, the New Deal, and social safety nets, we didn't have a large thriving middle class.

What the current Neo-liberal (Free Market), and Neo-Conservative (Moral Majority) types forget is if a majority of people are able to survive and hope for a future while in some comfort, they will not turn to crime or to destructive habits. If that means that due to the lack of resources, or the free-market worship of the bottom line, some people will be have to be dependent if we are going to retain a "free" and "civilized" society - like older people who have been laid off who will not get re-hired because too many younger people also need the work, or skilled people who have gone through years of training, to find out most of the available jobs and opportunities are going to the lowest bidder (off-shoring or H1Bs), or the just average people who are just average that don't have the personal mental or physical capabilities to work the few above minimum wage service or retail jobs that are still available in today's economy.

Retirees or workers with property or less than $2 mil. in the bank better hold on to their hats.
If we don't do something about the increasing amount of worshipers of Mammon, who hold a greedy prosperity gospel above justice, mercy, respect, and patience, there's going to be nothing left after those few with the money to buy have bought all the resources necessary for survival available (or access to them)- and will sell them back to the rest of us at a high price.
That is the way to a Feudal State, where Money is King, and will lead to a painful, bloody end to a large number of fellow citizens and family members. And it's being done through pure spite, greed and ambition, not because of any prophecy or natural condition. Tell people what they want to hear, tell them they're "special", and they'd be perfectly happy to murder and enslave their fellow citizens to keep their "special" status. The very wealthy have always known this.


Haele

[Skittles]

34. why do you bother with that hateful woman?

she is DISGUSTING

[pa28]

37. She thinks Obama is fundamentally trying to change America and then calls *you* brainwashed?

Seriously, don't waste your time giving this person a sincere response. You'll just get another gigantic, misinformed word salad screaming at you in ALL CapITAL LETTERZ!@@!!!

[ErikJ]

39. Yes, my oldest liberal sister says she has "the Mom gene". Her mind was made up by 10 and has become

increasingly ossified and brainwashed over the decades.

[Pretzel_Warrior]

40. My answer to all 5 q's: "fuck off".

Listen conservative jerk, you clearly have answers already spoon fed to you by Rush and Hannity so anything I say to try actually answering you with intelligent fact will be ignored or mischaracterized. So I will keep it simple. Fuck off.

[jmowreader]

41. Let me try

1. As long as the person is actively looking for work, as long as it takes for the person to find employment suitable for his or her needs.

Let's go one better: in cases where there is a labor surplus in one area and a labor shortage in another, we should be willing to move people on the government's dime. We could easily move sixteen families at $10,000 per move for less than we pay Steve Stockman to unsuccessfully attempt to repeal Obamacare fifty times.

2. There is fraud in the unemployment system but far less than you think.

3. The theory that Obama is trying to fundamentally transform America was pulled out of Rush Limbaugh's ass and it smells just as bad as the pus from the boil on his butt he used to evade the draft. If you want to see a president who fundamentally transformed America look at Ronald Reagan: he turned one of the world's great industrial powers into a service economy.

4. Democrats don't like people to be dependent, but we have a problem: the Republicans love high unemployment because it lowers the cost of labor. (Desperate people will take any job and any wage they can get, and the GOP knows this.) It would be nice if you could deflate and store unemployec people, but you can't, which brings us to the problem: people need to eat and wear clothes. If the government's manipulations prevent people from getting those things through work, the government needs to pay for them.

[FatBuddy]

42. this person's questions do not warrant an answer

they are not an honest dealer, plus they are blindsided by ideology and suffer from being a "true believer."

anything you say will not even be heard.