Conservatives argue that welfare programs like TANF make people dependent, and we need to give them limited time or no support in order to make them stand on their own two feet.
We've now been in Iraq longer than we were in WW2. Isn't an open-ended committment there bad, by the conservative logic given above?
2006-10-27 11:49:17 · 9 answers · asked by Steve 6 in Politics & Government ➔ Politics
Eternity -
You're right.
WW2 = Dec 8th, 1941-Aug 14, 1945. This is 1321 days (not counting leap days).
Iraq = March 19, 2003 - Today. This is 1317 days.
But I'm only five days off.
2006-10-27 12:05:37 · update #1
I just love these compassionate conservatives-- what an oxymoron. Acording to gov. figures, we have the least number of people on welfare now than in history (about 2.5million people). That is a small number compared to the 300MM in the country. And, as part of the program, there are job aids to get people to work. And, there is a limit. 2 years.
In FY2002, 19 billion went to needy families (TANF). That is a fraction of what we spend on Iraq every year. total to aid the poor was 45 Billion including refugee assistance, heating assitance, head start, etc. Still small compared wo what we have wasted in Iraq. And this is for OUR own citizens.
45 Billion out of a 1 Trillion Plus budget. We spend over 400 Billion on the military. About 10 times as much.
You people just need to quit already. We've got bigger problems to deal with.
2006-10-27 12:04:28 · answer #1 · answered by dapixelator 6 · 1⤊ 0⤋
Conservatives are right on welfare. Look at welfare reform and how it works by teaching or forcing if needed people to work for themselves.
The "logic" you claim is not even close. Iraq is a peace keeping problem today. We have terrorists from Iran and other neighbors blowing up things so they can get people against the conflict.
The logic that can be used is we need to stay the course to show the enemy that we will beat them if they attack us.
To equate the 2, if you do not enforce the rules on welfare reform, you are doing the same thing you would do if Democrats are elected: cut and run. By standing behind what we say, we show who we need to that we are serious about what we do and will continue even if it is difficult. Both of these problems show the lack of leadership in this country, which ironically is the same problem we have with parents.
2006-10-27 18:59:57 · answer #2 · answered by Chainsaw 6 · 0⤊ 1⤋
We were in WW II from 1941 - 1945 = 4 years. The conservatives only care for the affluent. The GOP have BECOME the Democratic Party of the 1800s.
At one time the Republicans would had ended Corporate Welfare.
Please view one solution. Dr. Kelley Ross.
2006-10-27 18:54:51 · answer #3 · answered by Anonymous · 0⤊ 1⤋
The liberals want to give the fish to the poor, the conservatives want to teach the poor how to fish. The reasoning is that if you give the fish they will eat for a while but if you teach them how to fish, they will eat forever.
The republicans want to stay in Iraq until the Iraqi government is able to function without our help. That is not open ended.
2006-10-27 19:01:37 · answer #4 · answered by just the facts 5 · 0⤊ 1⤋
Well, when we hit the 40 plus year mark in Iraq come back and ask us again. Thats how long we have been letting all the leeches suck off our blood and sweat and toil.
2006-10-27 18:51:43 · answer #5 · answered by Meow the cat 4 · 1⤊ 2⤋
The issues are as similar as horse chestnuts & chestnut horses. You just put the "non" in non sequiter.
2006-10-27 22:47:19 · answer #6 · answered by yupchagee 7 · 0⤊ 1⤋
the difference is American / Iraqi
American tax dollars for Americans...if our government wasn't so corrupt our welfare numbers would not be so high...career welfare people are what our government has allowed/made them to be...
2006-10-27 18:53:50 · answer #7 · answered by Anonymous · 1⤊ 2⤋
Well let's see, it is hard to support the poor when you are DEAD.....
2006-10-27 18:52:33 · answer #8 · answered by Curtis 6 · 0⤊ 2⤋
NO!
2006-10-27 19:11:00 · answer #9 · answered by daydoom 5 · 0⤊ 1⤋