This is where you really piss me off. You are interpreting something incorrectly here, and it needs to be pointed out before you get punched in the mouth. Republicans are NOT OPPOSED TO HELPING PEOPLE! Republicans contest continually and endlessly extending UI benefits, because we have to be realistic. At some point, we have to draw the line and say, sorry... can't do any more UI! We just can't keep paying people not to work, Apple. This is a classic example of how Liberalism clashes with reality and the viewpoint of conservatives. Many moons ago, Republicans and Democrats came together and agreed, we need to have some safety net in place for people who lose their jobs, so we invented unemployment insurance. We talked about it, and decided that 12 weeks was an appropriate amount of time for someone to look for another job and find something reasonably acceptable. Everyone should have been happy! The Liberals got what they wanted, to help people in need, the Republicans capitulated and allowed the program to be established.... but everyone was not happy, were they, Apple? Since then, Liberals have pushed for more and more time... 18 weeks... 24 weeks... 52 weeks... and we are now over 2 years, and pressing for more! When Republicans stand up and say, wait a minute.... they are hooted down by miscreants like you, claiming they don't want to help people!
I understand I piss you off because I expose your lies. I say lies because it can't be a lack of understanding as it's been explained to you multiple times.
You wrote,
Republicans contest continually and endlessly extending UI benefits, because we have to be realistic. At some point, we have to draw the line and say, sorry... can't do any more UI! We just can't keep paying people not to work, Apple.
That is a lie. We can pay people not to work. As I explained to you before there was a time when all work was done by hand. No machinery. One person could not plant and weed and water and harvest a garden big enough to feed a large number of people. It was humanly impossible. Today, with tractors and fertilizer and other machinery/technology one person can look after fields! Fields compared to a small garden.
Take building a house. Chopping one tree at a time with an ax. Dragging it out of the forest with a horse. Compare that to today.
Take families in the 50s and 60s. The mother stayed home. She didn’t feed the chickens, wash clothes by hand, gather fire wood to cook diner….all the things women did 100 years prior. In fact, the necessary jobs a woman/mother had to do decreased to the point they could work outside the home and still be a responsible, capable mother. So, in effect, in the 50s, the majority of men could support another human being (their wife) as well as their children.
Fast forward another 50 years. Considering the advances in technology and automation it’s a lie to say we can’t support the people who are unemployed. It doesn’t even make sense as millions and millions of unemployed people were supported in the 50s and 60s. If there was sufficient food and clothing in the 50s and 60s and technology and automation has greatly increased your assumption is illogical. It’s more than illogical. It’s a deliberate lie. So the only logical conclusion to be drawn is "REPUBLICANS ARE OPPOSED TO HELPING PEOPLE!"
IF there were any way to verify and confirm it, I would love to compare what I do yearly for the needy to what you do. I'd be willing to bet everything I own, that I am more benevolent than you in my personal life. And that's how it often is with Conservatives and Liberals, because while Conservatives believe in rolling up their sleeves and helping others with their individual effort, Liberals believe in stealing the money out of the pockets of others and giving it to someone else....that's how they help! You don't want to have to lift a finger to help anyone, because you know that you won't help anyone, and it makes you think that everyone is as selfish and self-centered, and so you've developed a political philosophy around that.
Here we go, again, with the Conservative benevolence. I’m sure they’re really, really benevolent when it comes to helping their wife and their friend and supporting causes dedicated to restricting other people’s freedoms like abortion and gay marriage. If, as you say, Conservatives give so much more then the logical solution would be to make contributions mandatory for all.
What you have difficulty understanding is the definition of help. It is NOT doing what YOU think is right and/or necessary. It is doing what the person requiring help deems to be right and/or necessary. Stated another way there is fine line between helping and interfering. While charities and other tax-exempt groups with specific mandates are fine they do not address the overall need. That’s why government programs are necessary. A children’s charity is not going to support a shelter for homeless men even if it means a homeless man may freeze to death on the street.
(Excerpt) A phony beard, a fake tattoo and clothes dragged through grass and stained with coffee were all it took to transform former New Jersey Governor Richard Codey into a homeless man looking for shelter on a frigid night this week.
His self-appointed undercover mission to spotlight what he calls discrimination against men by shelters took about three months of planning before Codey stood at the door of the Goodwill Rescue mission in Newark, New Jersey at 8 p.m. on Monday, asking to be let in.
Codey, 65, who is a state senator but disguised himself as a homeless man, had already been denied admission to about 25 other local shelters because he was not receiving welfare or other government assistance, he told Reuters on Wednesday…….
The National Alliance to End Homelessness said more than 636,000 people were homeless in the United States in 2011.
http://www.chicagotribune.com/news/sns-rt-us-homeless-undercovertre82623m-20120307,0,7741306.story
Twenty-five shelters refused him admission. Do you donate to shelters for homeless men? How many people do you know who donate to men’s shelters? Well, you can always say you heard of someone because I have done so.
Conclusion: Stop the lying. There is no reason anyone should be homeless or hungry in today's society. To say the US can not afford to feed and house and clothe the needy is a lie.
The article also states, "Government statistics show that a vast majority of homeless people suffer mental illness."
Where the hell are the medical services for those people? You, along with other anti-ObamaCare protesters, keep saying medical care is available for the poor. Does having a cardboard box as a bed in a back alley disqualify them as not being poor enough?
You're pissed off because you've been exposed as a typical selfish, greedy, lying Repub/Con. You accuse those who want to help others as being Socialist tyrants when they try to implement programs that will prevent people from freezing to death on the street. You oppose ObamaCare while 45,000 people die every year due to a lack of medical insurance. You claim you're pro-life while your posts show you're pro-death. You lie while others die.
You have good reason to be pissed off, at yourself!
