• Welcome to Religious Forums, a friendly forum to discuss all religions in a friendly surrounding.

    Your voice is missing! You will need to register to get access to the following site features:
    • Reply to discussions and create your own threads.
    • Our modern chat room. No add-ons or extensions required, just login and start chatting!
    • Access to private conversations with other members.

    We hope to see you as a part of our community soon!

Trump Admin Policy Screws the Poor. Again.

Revoltingest

Pragmatic Libertarian
Premium Member
Judge? Maybe. Decide? Not even. I, also, believe in helping out when needed, I'm not a monster. But I did a little growing up in the heart of Appalachia in the pre-food stamp days; sometimes you've just got to find a way to help yourself.
I'm very judgemental of others' morality.
The judging of mine you see is just the tip of the iceberg.
 

Guitar's Cry

Disciple of Pan
Oooohhh...you're going to the bad place.....


...lower...

B5y0LJ-CEAA2UHQ.jpg
 

Evangelicalhumanist

"Truth" isn't a thing...
Premium Member
I'm OK with assisting the poor. But if what they're given is being
reduced, to say this is to "steal" from them is misrepresenting
the reality, ie, it wasn't their money. It was someone else's,
which was to be taken from them, & then given to the poor.
The question is how much & in what form they get largesse.
For the record, there are those of us who think there are better descriptions than "largesse." That smacks too much of virtue signalling.
 

Evangelicalhumanist

"Truth" isn't a thing...
Premium Member
To be fair, we all get to judge the morality of others.
But this should be done fairly. It seems from some comments
that if some benefits have a work requirement, that the resulting
reduction in payouts is a refusal to support the poor at all.
Such polarization is merely divisive.
Instead, the discussion should be about how best to help them.
If the work requirements are unreasonable, then that should be
the issue.
One problem with our welfare system I've criticized is that when
the poor begin earning more money, their benefits are cut back by
even more than they earn, thereby keeping many of them down.
I actually like your point on this.

I've noticed for years that there is a lot of work that could be done by the able-bodied that is simply not done because that work is under the control of unions, and they want more money than is considered worth it. One example in my own city of Toronto, in parks all over this city, warning signs are put up saying "warning: walkways and stairs are not cleared of snow and ice." This is because union workers get paid quite a lot of money for outside work, and the city has determined it simply isn't worthy it.

But I notice that in many neighbourhoods, kids get out with shovels and earn some extra cash by shoveling the driveways oft those who don't care to, or who can't, through being elderly or disabled. I think that a lot of people in need would be very glad of the work, and would do that work at a fairly minimal rate. And there is a corollary benefit that goes with that -- a whole lot more people would then use those parks in winter to get some healthy exercise -- which tends to lower costs of medical care and so forth.

But alas, the unions won't allow it...
 

Revoltingest

Pragmatic Libertarian
Premium Member
For the record, there are those of us who think there are better descriptions than "largesse." That smacks too much of virtue signalling.
I guarantee that I was not signalling any virtue.
My suggestions are about common sense, not caring.
 
Last edited:

sun rise

The world is on fire
Premium Member
Yeah? And? Do you think it's your place to decide their morality?
As a voter, yes, it's my place because my vote is to a great deal determined by morality. So it's my duty as a free citizen of the USA to exercise my best judgement in choosing who will govern the country.
 

BSM1

What? Me worry?
As a voter, yes, it's my place because my vote is to a great deal determined by morality. So it's my duty as a free citizen of the USA to exercise my best judgement in choosing who will govern the country.

Uhhhh...that works both ways if we were to take your answer seriously.
 

sun rise

The world is on fire
Premium Member
Uhhhh...that works both ways if we were to take your answer seriously.
Both ways? And why would you not believe that I'm serious in using ethics and morality as a criteria for fitness in leaders?
 

BSM1

What? Me worry?
Both ways? And why would you not believe that I'm serious in using ethics and morality as a criteria for fitness in leaders?

You've sorta shot yourself in the foot with this one. Being that 'ethics and morality' are highly subjective and fluid, anyone can say the exact same thing to support their particular snake oil salesman.
 

SoyLeche

meh...
You've sorta shot yourself in the foot with this one. Being that 'ethics and morality' are highly subjective and fluid, anyone can say the exact same thing to support their particular snake oil salesman.
And one would assume they do.

what other criteria would you suggest?
 

wandering peacefully

Which way to the woods?
Premium Member
Trump administration changes to work requirements needed receive SNAP benefits (ie food stamps) are likely to leave many more people hungry, and are unlikely to significantly increase the number of people working.

Food stamp change fuels anxiety as states try to curb impact

Classic example of the damage done by Trumpist policy.

He wanted to take most of the money for our state heating assistance program for those who need it, in a very cold climate, to pay for the Corona virus endeavor. This does not seem to be a caring or informed in reality, man.
 

Stevicus

Veteran Member
Staff member
Premium Member
Trump administration changes to work requirements needed receive SNAP benefits (ie food stamps) are likely to leave many more people hungry, and are unlikely to significantly increase the number of people working.

Food stamp change fuels anxiety as states try to curb impact

Classic example of the damage done by Trumpist policy.

There may be further problems as a result. Homelessness will likely increase, as will the crime rate. That will lead to more people wanting guns, as well as calls for more police, more prisons, etc.

The U.S. has the highest incarceration rate in the world. We have more people in prison than China and Russia. (List of countries by incarceration rate - Wikipedia)
 

sun rise

The world is on fire
Premium Member
You've sorta shot yourself in the foot with this one. Being that 'ethics and morality' are highly subjective and fluid, anyone can say the exact same thing to support their particular snake oil salesman.
Wrong. It's subjective and fluid to you, clearly. I know many don't care what someone is like nor what he does but only cares if goodies come.

But let me spell out what I believe.

By ethics and morality I mean:
  • Is the person (relatively) honest - I don't expect perfection but I'm looking for people who mostly tell the truth.
  • Is the person a narcissist or at least try to see other people as worthy?
  • Does the person value competence or only loyalty?
  • Is the person a bigot or a bigot enabler?
  • Does the person value the justice system or give a pass (and pardons) to friends?
  • Does the person believe that everyone was created equal as stated in the Declaration of Independence and that everyone has inalienable rights.
  • When the person takes a oath of office, do they take it seriously?
  • When the person takes any official oath, do they ignore it?
  • and so forth
 
Top