The rich know that warnings about making people 'dependent on government' are a scam

[moe]

The rubes always fall for this stuff because I see it repeated on the board regularly.

The rich know that warnings about making people 'dependent on government' are a scam

“When you give people something for nothing, they don’t value it and it just makes them lazy.”

In other words, if you think you’re helping people by providing them with food stamps or subsidized housing or free healthcare, you’re actually hurting them.

For things or life’s circumstances to be meaningful, this belief says, they must have been acquired through struggle. And by depriving people of the struggle, we’re depriving them of an opportunity to learn to “stand on their own two feet.”

Destructive cultural myths like this always start with a grain of truth; it’s what propels them to seeming credibility and then on to cliché status. We’ve all had the experience of treasuring something we worked really hard to get, so it just makes sense that things that come more easily aren’t considered as valuable.

But while that general rule of thumb often applies to discretionary things — hobbies, toys, and the like — nobody is thinking of valuing or not-valuing necessities like food, housing, or medical care. They’re always valued, regardless of how they’re acquired, because they’re essential to life itself.
Bizarrely, they even use religion to justify this worldview.

While Jesus had told his followers that when people are hungry, thirsty, or homeless we should provide them with food, water, and shelter — without trying to make a profit from it, but for the sheer joy of giving — Republicans who sanctimoniously call themselves Christians reject that advice, saying that if somebody is in need, that very desperation will become their motivation to do great things.

I still remember hearing Rush Limbaugh tell the crude Republican joke:

“What do you do when somebody’s down? Kick them! Otherwise, they’ll never get up!”

This idea that society helping its individual members to reach their highest potential is actually hurting them is one of the most pernicious lies conservative politicians and philosophers have spread in the past few centuries.

 

[30CAT]

Dumbass

 

[WVUALLEN]

Has Moe lied more than Joe?

 

[roadtrasheer]

The rubes always fall for this stuff because I see it repeated on the board regularly.

The rich know that warnings about making people 'dependent on government' are a scam

“When you give people something for nothing, they don’t value it and it just makes them lazy.”

In other words, if you think you’re helping people by providing them with food stamps or subsidized housing or free healthcare, you’re actually hurting them.

For things or life’s circumstances to be meaningful, this belief says, they must have been acquired through struggle. And by depriving people of the struggle, we’re depriving them of an opportunity to learn to “stand on their own two feet.”

Destructive cultural myths like this always start with a grain of truth; it’s what propels them to seeming credibility and then on to cliché status. We’ve all had the experience of treasuring something we worked really hard to get, so it just makes sense that things that come more easily aren’t considered as valuable.

But while that general rule of thumb often applies to discretionary things — hobbies, toys, and the like — nobody is thinking of valuing or not-valuing necessities like food, housing, or medical care. They’re always valued, regardless of how they’re acquired, because they’re essential to life itself.
Bizarrely, they even use religion to justify this worldview.

While Jesus had told his followers that when people are hungry, thirsty, or homeless we should provide them with food, water, and shelter — without trying to make a profit from it, but for the sheer joy of giving — Republicans who sanctimoniously call themselves Christians reject that advice, saying that if somebody is in need, that very desperation will become their motivation to do great things.

I still remember hearing Rush Limbaugh tell the crude Republican joke:

“What do you do when somebody’s down? Kick them! Otherwise, they’ll never get up!”

This idea that society helping its individual members to reach their highest potential is actually hurting them is one of the most pernicious lies conservative politicians and philosophers have spread in the past few centuries.

The projects all across the country says hello.... projects is proof liberal ideas of socialism is bags of bullshit.

 

[Gunny46]

The rubes always fall for this stuff because I see it repeated on the board regularly.

The rich know that warnings about making people 'dependent on government' are a scam

“When you give people something for nothing, they don’t value it and it just makes them lazy.”

In other words, if you think you’re helping people by providing them with food stamps or subsidized housing or free healthcare, you’re actually hurting them.

For things or life’s circumstances to be meaningful, this belief says, they must have been acquired through struggle. And by depriving people of the struggle, we’re depriving them of an opportunity to learn to “stand on their own two feet.”

Destructive cultural myths like this always start with a grain of truth; it’s what propels them to seeming credibility and then on to cliché status. We’ve all had the experience of treasuring something we worked really hard to get, so it just makes sense that things that come more easily aren’t considered as valuable.

But while that general rule of thumb often applies to discretionary things — hobbies, toys, and the like — nobody is thinking of valuing or not-valuing necessities like food, housing, or medical care. They’re always valued, regardless of how they’re acquired, because they’re essential to life itself.
Bizarrely, they even use religion to justify this worldview.

While Jesus had told his followers that when people are hungry, thirsty, or homeless we should provide them with food, water, and shelter — without trying to make a profit from it, but for the sheer joy of giving — Republicans who sanctimoniously call themselves Christians reject that advice, saying that if somebody is in need, that very desperation will become their motivation to do great things.

I still remember hearing Rush Limbaugh tell the crude Republican joke:

“What do you do when somebody’s down? Kick them! Otherwise, they’ll never get up!”

This idea that society helping its individual members to reach their highest potential is actually hurting them is one of the most pernicious lies conservative politicians and philosophers have spread in the past few centuries.

Moe going full commie and wanting to seize the means of production.

 

[ThePunish-EER]

The rubes always fall for this stuff because I see it repeated on the board regularly.

The rich know that warnings about making people 'dependent on government' are a scam

“When you give people something for nothing, they don’t value it and it just makes them lazy.”

In other words, if you think you’re helping people by providing them with food stamps or subsidized housing or free healthcare, you’re actually hurting them.

For things or life’s circumstances to be meaningful, this belief says, they must have been acquired through struggle. And by depriving people of the struggle, we’re depriving them of an opportunity to learn to “stand on their own two feet.”

Destructive cultural myths like this always start with a grain of truth; it’s what propels them to seeming credibility and then on to cliché status. We’ve all had the experience of treasuring something we worked really hard to get, so it just makes sense that things that come more easily aren’t considered as valuable.

But while that general rule of thumb often applies to discretionary things — hobbies, toys, and the like — nobody is thinking of valuing or not-valuing necessities like food, housing, or medical care. They’re always valued, regardless of how they’re acquired, because they’re essential to life itself.
Bizarrely, they even use religion to justify this worldview.

While Jesus had told his followers that when people are hungry, thirsty, or homeless we should provide them with food, water, and shelter — without trying to make a profit from it, but for the sheer joy of giving — Republicans who sanctimoniously call themselves Christians reject that advice, saying that if somebody is in need, that very desperation will become their motivation to do great things.

I still remember hearing Rush Limbaugh tell the crude Republican joke:

“What do you do when somebody’s down? Kick them! Otherwise, they’ll never get up!”

This idea that society helping its individual members to reach their highest potential is actually hurting them is one of the most pernicious lies conservative politicians and philosophers have spread in the past few centuries.

Everyday I come to this board and you never let me down. Another post dumber than the last. Bravo!!

 

[30CAT]

Has Moe lied more than Pedo-Joe?

Impossible.

 

[DvlDog4WVU]

The rubes always fall for this stuff because I see it repeated on the board regularly.

The rich know that warnings about making people 'dependent on government' are a scam

“When you give people something for nothing, they don’t value it and it just makes them lazy.”

In other words, if you think you’re helping people by providing them with food stamps or subsidized housing or free healthcare, you’re actually hurting them.

For things or life’s circumstances to be meaningful, this belief says, they must have been acquired through struggle. And by depriving people of the struggle, we’re depriving them of an opportunity to learn to “stand on their own two feet.”

Destructive cultural myths like this always start with a grain of truth; it’s what propels them to seeming credibility and then on to cliché status. We’ve all had the experience of treasuring something we worked really hard to get, so it just makes sense that things that come more easily aren’t considered as valuable.

But while that general rule of thumb often applies to discretionary things — hobbies, toys, and the like — nobody is thinking of valuing or not-valuing necessities like food, housing, or medical care. They’re always valued, regardless of how they’re acquired, because they’re essential to life itself.
Bizarrely, they even use religion to justify this worldview.

While Jesus had told his followers that when people are hungry, thirsty, or homeless we should provide them with food, water, and shelter — without trying to make a profit from it, but for the sheer joy of giving — Republicans who sanctimoniously call themselves Christians reject that advice, saying that if somebody is in need, that very desperation will become their motivation to do great things.

I still remember hearing Rush Limbaugh tell the crude Republican joke:

“What do you do when somebody’s down? Kick them! Otherwise, they’ll never get up!”

This idea that society helping its individual members to reach their highest potential is actually hurting them is one of the most pernicious lies conservative politicians and philosophers have spread in the past few centuries.

Except we can literally point to the decline of minority and impoverished communities directly with the Great Society. It destroyed the 2 parent household in African American communities.

 

[atlkvb]

Except we can literally point to the decline of minority and impoverished communities directly with the Great Society. It destroyed the 2 parent household in African American communities.

Amazing he quotes Jesus in that subterfuge. There isn't an atheist Leftist like @moe out there who values one word of what Christ taught. He also quoted the late Rush Limbaugh, who often said Liberals describe compassion by how many folks need government assistance while Conservatives judge compassion by how few people need government help.

 

[spartansstink]

The rubes always fall for this stuff because I see it repeated on the board regularly.

The rich know that warnings about making people 'dependent on government' are a scam

“When you give people something for nothing, they don’t value it and it just makes them lazy.”

In other words, if you think you’re helping people by providing them with food stamps or subsidized housing or free healthcare, you’re actually hurting them.

For things or life’s circumstances to be meaningful, this belief says, they must have been acquired through struggle. And by depriving people of the struggle, we’re depriving them of an opportunity to learn to “stand on their own two feet.”

Destructive cultural myths like this always start with a grain of truth; it’s what propels them to seeming credibility and then on to cliché status. We’ve all had the experience of treasuring something we worked really hard to get, so it just makes sense that things that come more easily aren’t considered as valuable.

But while that general rule of thumb often applies to discretionary things — hobbies, toys, and the like — nobody is thinking of valuing or not-valuing necessities like food, housing, or medical care. They’re always valued, regardless of how they’re acquired, because they’re essential to life itself.
Bizarrely, they even use religion to justify this worldview.

While Jesus had told his followers that when people are hungry, thirsty, or homeless we should provide them with food, water, and shelter — without trying to make a profit from it, but for the sheer joy of giving — Republicans who sanctimoniously call themselves Christians reject that advice, saying that if somebody is in need, that very desperation will become their motivation to do great things.

I still remember hearing Rush Limbaugh tell the crude Republican joke:

“What do you do when somebody’s down? Kick them! Otherwise, they’ll never get up!”

This idea that society helping its individual members to reach their highest potential is actually hurting them is one of the most pernicious lies conservative politicians and philosophers have spread in the past few centuries.

I'll tackle each of these points one at a time... just because I'm bored.

“When you give people something for nothing, they don’t value it and it just makes them lazy.”
Somewhat true and false. It can be false if one gives somebody something they need or value one time. At the least, sporadically. We see this all the time at Christmas. I always tear up watching the Secret Santa that East Idaho News does each year. However, when one gets something ALL THE TIME the value goes down and the expectation that it will continue goes up.

In other words, if you think you’re helping people by providing them with food stamps or subsidized housing or free healthcare, you’re actually hurting them.
Again, the depends. If one is "down on his luck", i.e. recently let go from a job, been in an accident, gotten TRULY disabled, then yes these things are good. They can help someone get back on his feet, keep the bills paid, and the wolves from the door. Yet, if this becomes their "career" and they don't meet the above characteristics, then yes, it is actually hurting them. We see hundreds of examples in each community where this becomes a generational thing.
For things or life’s circumstances to be meaningful, this belief says, they must have been acquired through struggle. And by depriving people of the struggle, we’re depriving them of an opportunity to learn to “stand on their own two feet.”
Generally speaking this is true. People always seem to value more of what the EARNED through struggle or work. I could pull dozens of examples to reflect this.
Destructive cultural myths like this always start with a grain of truth; it’s what propels them to seeming credibility and then on to cliché status. We’ve all had the experience of treasuring something we worked really hard to get, so it just makes sense that things that come more easily aren’t considered as valuable.
If it is true, then it isn't a myth nor destructive.
But while that general rule of thumb often applies to discretionary things — hobbies, toys, and the like — nobody is thinking of valuing or not-valuing necessities like food, housing, or medical care. They’re always valued, regardless of how they’re acquired, because they’re essential to life itself.

This is self-evident. These are needs - something most of us learned about in primary school - early primary school. But, in this country, how many people have you ever known that starved to death (not due to a mental condition such as anorexia or bulimia)? Most homeless are homeless by the choices they make or have made, are they not? Medical care - that can be discussed one way or the other.


Bizarrely, they even use religion to justify this worldview.
While Jesus had told his followers that when people are hungry, thirsty, or homeless we should provide them with food, water, and shelter — without trying to make a profit from it, but for the sheer joy of giving — Republicans who sanctimoniously call themselves Christians reject that advice, saying that if somebody is in need, that very desperation will become their motivation to do great things.
Can't stand it when people, who don't understand the Bible, try to use it as a source. They usually get it wrong - as the author of this piece did.
The Bible said that WE, as in WE THE PEOPLE, not We the Government, should help the needy. Christians know this. However, so do the receivers of the government's money, and they don't want to do anything that might jeopardize that train from coming in. Herein lies the rub - let the people, i.e. Christians and families, "help" the needy - they know whose needs must be met and which ones don't.
I still remember hearing Rush Limbaugh tell the crude Republican joke:

“What do you do when somebody’s down? Kick them! Otherwise, they’ll never get up!”

This idea that society helping its individual members to reach their highest potential is actually hurting them is one of the most pernicious lies conservative politicians and philosophers have spread in the past few centuries.

This is just garbage trying to strengthen a weak argument the author knows is inherently weak in its premise. A weak emotional appeal at that.

 

[30CAT]

Amazing he quotes Jesus in that subterfuge. There isn't an atheist Leftist like @moe out there who values one word of what Christ taught. He also quoted the late Rush Limbaugh, who often said Liberals describe compassion by how many folks need government assistance while Conservatives judge compassion by how few people need government help.

As mentioned by someone on this board. It's quite sad watching nonbelievers quote the gospel.

 

[roadtrasheer]

I'll tackle each of these points one at a time... just because I'm bored.

“When you give people something for nothing, they don’t value it and it just makes them lazy.”
Somewhat true and false. It can be false if one gives somebody something they need or value one time. At the least, sporadically. We see this all the time at Christmas. I always tear up watching the Secret Santa that East Idaho News does each year. However, when one gets something ALL THE TIME the value goes down and the expectation that it will continue goes up.

In other words, if you think you’re helping people by providing them with food stamps or subsidized housing or free healthcare, you’re actually hurting them.
Again, the depends. If one is "down on his luck", i.e. recently let go from a job, been in an accident, gotten TRULY disabled, then yes these things are good. They can help someone get back on his feet, keep the bills paid, and the wolves from the door. Yet, if this becomes their "career" and they don't meet the above characteristics, then yes, it is actually hurting them. We see hundreds of examples in each community where this becomes a generational thing.
For things or life’s circumstances to be meaningful, this belief says, they must have been acquired through struggle. And by depriving people of the struggle, we’re depriving them of an opportunity to learn to “stand on their own two feet.”
Generally speaking this is true. People always seem to value more of what the EARNED through struggle or work. I could pull dozens of examples to reflect this.
Destructive cultural myths like this always start with a grain of truth; it’s what propels them to seeming credibility and then on to cliché status. We’ve all had the experience of treasuring something we worked really hard to get, so it just makes sense that things that come more easily aren’t considered as valuable.
If it is true, then it isn't a myth nor destructive.
But while that general rule of thumb often applies to discretionary things — hobbies, toys, and the like — nobody is thinking of valuing or not-valuing necessities like food, housing, or medical care. They’re always valued, regardless of how they’re acquired, because they’re essential to life itself.

This is self-evident. These are needs - something most of us learned about in primary school - early primary school. But, in this country, how many people have you ever known that starved to death (not due to a mental condition such as anorexia or bulimia)? Most homeless are homeless by the choices they make or have made, are they not? Medical care - that can be discussed one way or the other.


Bizarrely, they even use religion to justify this worldview.
While Jesus had told his followers that when people are hungry, thirsty, or homeless we should provide them with food, water, and shelter — without trying to make a profit from it, but for the sheer joy of giving — Republicans who sanctimoniously call themselves Christians reject that advice, saying that if somebody is in need, that very desperation will become their motivation to do great things.
Can't stand it when people, who don't understand the Bible, try to use it as a source. They usually get it wrong - as the author of this piece did.
The Bible said that WE, as in WE THE PEOPLE, not We the Government, should help the needy. Christians know this. However, so do the receivers of the government's money, and they don't want to do anything that might jeopardize that train from coming in. Herein lies the rub - let the people, i.e. Christians and families, "help" the needy - they know whose needs must be met and which ones don't.
I still remember hearing Rush Limbaugh tell the crude Republican joke:

“What do you do when somebody’s down? Kick them! Otherwise, they’ll never get up!”

This idea that society helping its individual members to reach their highest potential is actually hurting them is one of the most pernicious lies conservative politicians and philosophers have spread in the past few centuries.

This is just garbage trying to strengthen a weak argument the author knows is inherently weak in its premise. A weak emotional appeal at that.

Reasoning and accountability.... the author of Moe's article had none.
Well said .