/r/Republican is a partisan subreddit. This is a place for Republicans to discuss issues with other Republicans.
To those visiting this thread, we ask that unless you identify as Republican that you refrain from commenting and [leave the vote button alone](https://www.reddit.com/r/MetaRepublican/comments/5t017a/this_sub_is_for_republicans_if_you_do_not/). Non republicans who come to our sub looking for a 'different perspective' [subvert that very perspective with their own views when they vote or comment.](http://i.imgur.com/XqL0wfR.jpg)
*I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please [contact the moderators of this subreddit](/message/compose/?to=/r/Republican) if you have any questions or concerns.*
In order to ensure the integrity and sustainability of social assistance programs, I believe in the implementation of stricter regulations. These should include mandatory drug testing, proof of employment, and limitations on the amount of benefits that can be received within a specific timeframe.
As well as, excluding family members residing with the recipient from eligibility and disqualifying individuals convicted of violent crimes would further safeguard the program's resources.
Also, providing enhanced benefits to married couples with children would promote family stability and encourage responsible decision-making. It is crucial to distinguish between those who genuinely require assistance and those who exploit the system, as the latter undermines the program's effectiveness and diverts resources from those who are truly in need.
However, there is a large amount of bloat in the programs available, and cutting back on a large portion would be beneficial as well.
Traditionally, the Democratic Party has relied on acquiring votes by proposing social programs. However, these programs, intended to provide assistance, are also used as a means of controlling the party's voter base. By implementing these regulations, the Democrats would lose their ability to use the promise of assistance as an incentive for votes.
Giving money to the poor is the job of charity, not the job of the government.
Bad decisions lead to the need for social programs. Not having repercussions for bad decisions leads to a greater need for social programs. The entire system needs to be shut down. Yes, people will be hurt, but going forward they will serve as an example for others.
Charitable organizations have not always prioritized allocating funds to those in need, and this creates an opportunity for exploitation. What would you propose for dealing with the mishandling of donated funds should it happen?
While I agree that charitable contributions should be the primary source of funding for programs aimed at assisting the needy, people have the tendency to act in their best interests, even if those actions are wrong. I believe your perspective on this matter may be somewhat oversimplified.
I respectfully propose that the funds be carefully and responsibly distributed to individuals who genuinely require assistance. It is important to recognize that unfortunate circumstances can affect anyone, and not all individuals who seek government assistance are exploiting the system.
Charitable organizations are terrible, most put less than 10% to programs and they spend the rest on administration and salaries. Charities should not be tax exempt. People who donate need to do their own research.
I do not agree with tax dollars being given to useless members of society.
While it is generally agreed that individuals who do not contribute to society should not receive government assistance, we must carefully consider the potential consequences for workers who may be adversely affected by the new administration's policies.
Specifically, the reduction in oil production and the push for green energy initiatives could result in job losses and the relocation of work overseas. It is imperative that we ensure that those who actively contribute to society have access to the necessary resources to navigate challenging times.
Challenging times created by the government. By eliminating most of the government there would be no impediment to the economy.
If you want to give most of your salary to broke people, that is your choice. You have no right to demand that I do the same
I could express the same concern about the allocation of funds to schools that are not producing students with adequate reading skills, as well as the significant military expenditures. Taxes are a societal contribution that should be managed responsibly to ensure the well-being of all contributors.
There are too many people for us to be like the wild west was. We do need some government. The role of government should be limited to safeguarding the rights of its citizens.
Public schools were a good idea, in theory it is more economical to educate all the kids in one building. (One system) the school system is failing. Too many parents don't care. Continuing to prop up a failing system seems stupid.
National defense is important, sending troops all over the world to fight foreign wars is stupid.
Most levels of government can't even balance their budgets. Time for a reset.
Why not have X% of higher income peoples’ pay go to organizations that help low income people of their choosing?
A lot of money allegedly earmarked for the needy by our government ends up going to pensions and salaries too.
supplemental social security has largely replaced welfare. SSI also goes to “asylum seekers”
SNAP, HUD and all those other goodies I don’t believe have any limitations on use either.
I propose an improved approach to managing these funds, ensuring that individuals who contribute through tax payments receive the full benefits of the social safety net. Illegal immigrants would not qualify for these benefits, but legal immigrants who become citizens may receive a limited amount of assistance for a short period of time. With the anticipation, they begin contributing to these funds. It is expected that they will eventually become self-sufficient.
Regarding the other programs, the previously mentioned requirement would be implemented. No perpetual free handouts. Assistance would be provided for a finite duration. I believe it would be advantageous for these programs to also offer career services to aid individuals in regaining their independence and transitioning away from government assistance.
In essence, the educational system in the United States has failed the majority of individuals who have come to rely on these programs. I believe that addressing this issue should be the primary focus before implementing any changes to these systems.
I think most on this sub are roughly in agreement with you, myself included.
Not sure which politicians are truly for that though. Many succumb to vote buying for personal gain. It’s why we can never balance a budget.
One thing that needs to be noted is SS disability. 99% of people that get on it never get off. In fact, SS would be 100% solvent in 2035 if it wasn’t for the survivors and disability benefits which were added decades after the original passage of SS. SSI was further added later in 1974.
Obviously government job training would be much cheaper than paying someone 50 years for a “back injury” but it doesn’t seem high on many politicians’ list.
Our politicians' primary motivations appear to be power and wealth, rather than the welfare of the American people. While there may be a small number of individuals on both sides who enter politics with genuine intentions to improve the country, they often succumb to the pervasive corruption that characterizes American politics. I dream of a day when they put us first.
Tax Dollars don't pay for anything. The government is a currency issuer. They can print as much as they want theoretically, but practically they are limited by how fast their real economy can grow. When you pay taxes you are essentially reducing the money supply on a ledger. That's it.
The gold standard and the Bretton-Woods system are dead.
The scary part is that the gold standard was replaced by the Petrodollar, which is also on its way out.
When we lose the petrodollar and the dollar as the world's reserve currency, hundreds of countries are going to be stuck with $trillions of dollars in US currency that they don't really have a use for and they're going to be looking to dump it.
Hyperinflation here we come.
> What is it about republicans and wanting to prevent eligible citizens from voting? Jim Crow never ended, huh?
After Voter ID laws were enacted in Georgia, minority voting participation went **up**.
Jim Crow was a **Democrat** policy, intended to as closely recreate slavery as possible without actually owning people.
Likewise, Democrats formed the KKK to prevent blacks (who originally voted uniformly Republican because it was the Democrats who enslaved them) from voting.
Democrats didn't stop trying to restrict black people from voting until after they captured the black vote under LBJ - who himself was an inveterate racist.
Of course he does would you expect anything different from him or his administration. Smile's as he light's a cigar with your 100 dollar bill's. Sick bunch.
/r/Republican is a partisan subreddit. This is a place for Republicans to discuss issues with other Republicans. To those visiting this thread, we ask that unless you identify as Republican that you refrain from commenting and [leave the vote button alone](https://www.reddit.com/r/MetaRepublican/comments/5t017a/this_sub_is_for_republicans_if_you_do_not/). Non republicans who come to our sub looking for a 'different perspective' [subvert that very perspective with their own views when they vote or comment.](http://i.imgur.com/XqL0wfR.jpg) *I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please [contact the moderators of this subreddit](/message/compose/?to=/r/Republican) if you have any questions or concerns.*
They’ve been using my tax money to feed democrats too.
Every social program was created by politicians to buy votes using tax dollars. End them all
[удалено]
A great start, next do welfare and unemployment.
In order to ensure the integrity and sustainability of social assistance programs, I believe in the implementation of stricter regulations. These should include mandatory drug testing, proof of employment, and limitations on the amount of benefits that can be received within a specific timeframe. As well as, excluding family members residing with the recipient from eligibility and disqualifying individuals convicted of violent crimes would further safeguard the program's resources. Also, providing enhanced benefits to married couples with children would promote family stability and encourage responsible decision-making. It is crucial to distinguish between those who genuinely require assistance and those who exploit the system, as the latter undermines the program's effectiveness and diverts resources from those who are truly in need. However, there is a large amount of bloat in the programs available, and cutting back on a large portion would be beneficial as well.
This would be a great start; however 75% or more of the Democratic Party would riot……. I’m sorry, i mean peacefully protest.
Traditionally, the Democratic Party has relied on acquiring votes by proposing social programs. However, these programs, intended to provide assistance, are also used as a means of controlling the party's voter base. By implementing these regulations, the Democrats would lose their ability to use the promise of assistance as an incentive for votes.
Giving money to the poor is the job of charity, not the job of the government. Bad decisions lead to the need for social programs. Not having repercussions for bad decisions leads to a greater need for social programs. The entire system needs to be shut down. Yes, people will be hurt, but going forward they will serve as an example for others.
Charitable organizations have not always prioritized allocating funds to those in need, and this creates an opportunity for exploitation. What would you propose for dealing with the mishandling of donated funds should it happen? While I agree that charitable contributions should be the primary source of funding for programs aimed at assisting the needy, people have the tendency to act in their best interests, even if those actions are wrong. I believe your perspective on this matter may be somewhat oversimplified. I respectfully propose that the funds be carefully and responsibly distributed to individuals who genuinely require assistance. It is important to recognize that unfortunate circumstances can affect anyone, and not all individuals who seek government assistance are exploiting the system.
Charitable organizations are terrible, most put less than 10% to programs and they spend the rest on administration and salaries. Charities should not be tax exempt. People who donate need to do their own research. I do not agree with tax dollars being given to useless members of society.
While it is generally agreed that individuals who do not contribute to society should not receive government assistance, we must carefully consider the potential consequences for workers who may be adversely affected by the new administration's policies. Specifically, the reduction in oil production and the push for green energy initiatives could result in job losses and the relocation of work overseas. It is imperative that we ensure that those who actively contribute to society have access to the necessary resources to navigate challenging times.
Challenging times created by the government. By eliminating most of the government there would be no impediment to the economy. If you want to give most of your salary to broke people, that is your choice. You have no right to demand that I do the same
I could express the same concern about the allocation of funds to schools that are not producing students with adequate reading skills, as well as the significant military expenditures. Taxes are a societal contribution that should be managed responsibly to ensure the well-being of all contributors.
There are too many people for us to be like the wild west was. We do need some government. The role of government should be limited to safeguarding the rights of its citizens. Public schools were a good idea, in theory it is more economical to educate all the kids in one building. (One system) the school system is failing. Too many parents don't care. Continuing to prop up a failing system seems stupid. National defense is important, sending troops all over the world to fight foreign wars is stupid. Most levels of government can't even balance their budgets. Time for a reset.
Well, my friend. It has been a pleasure engaging in this debate with you. I'm gonna end it here. Got to get back to contributing to society.
Why not have X% of higher income peoples’ pay go to organizations that help low income people of their choosing? A lot of money allegedly earmarked for the needy by our government ends up going to pensions and salaries too.
supplemental social security has largely replaced welfare. SSI also goes to “asylum seekers” SNAP, HUD and all those other goodies I don’t believe have any limitations on use either.
I propose an improved approach to managing these funds, ensuring that individuals who contribute through tax payments receive the full benefits of the social safety net. Illegal immigrants would not qualify for these benefits, but legal immigrants who become citizens may receive a limited amount of assistance for a short period of time. With the anticipation, they begin contributing to these funds. It is expected that they will eventually become self-sufficient. Regarding the other programs, the previously mentioned requirement would be implemented. No perpetual free handouts. Assistance would be provided for a finite duration. I believe it would be advantageous for these programs to also offer career services to aid individuals in regaining their independence and transitioning away from government assistance. In essence, the educational system in the United States has failed the majority of individuals who have come to rely on these programs. I believe that addressing this issue should be the primary focus before implementing any changes to these systems.
I think most on this sub are roughly in agreement with you, myself included. Not sure which politicians are truly for that though. Many succumb to vote buying for personal gain. It’s why we can never balance a budget. One thing that needs to be noted is SS disability. 99% of people that get on it never get off. In fact, SS would be 100% solvent in 2035 if it wasn’t for the survivors and disability benefits which were added decades after the original passage of SS. SSI was further added later in 1974. Obviously government job training would be much cheaper than paying someone 50 years for a “back injury” but it doesn’t seem high on many politicians’ list.
Our politicians' primary motivations appear to be power and wealth, rather than the welfare of the American people. While there may be a small number of individuals on both sides who enter politics with genuine intentions to improve the country, they often succumb to the pervasive corruption that characterizes American politics. I dream of a day when they put us first.
[удалено]
Tax Dollars don't pay for anything. The government is a currency issuer. They can print as much as they want theoretically, but practically they are limited by how fast their real economy can grow. When you pay taxes you are essentially reducing the money supply on a ledger. That's it. The gold standard and the Bretton-Woods system are dead.
The scary part is that the gold standard was replaced by the Petrodollar, which is also on its way out. When we lose the petrodollar and the dollar as the world's reserve currency, hundreds of countries are going to be stuck with $trillions of dollars in US currency that they don't really have a use for and they're going to be looking to dump it. Hyperinflation here we come.
[удалено]
> What is it about republicans and wanting to prevent eligible citizens from voting? Jim Crow never ended, huh? After Voter ID laws were enacted in Georgia, minority voting participation went **up**. Jim Crow was a **Democrat** policy, intended to as closely recreate slavery as possible without actually owning people. Likewise, Democrats formed the KKK to prevent blacks (who originally voted uniformly Republican because it was the Democrats who enslaved them) from voting. Democrats didn't stop trying to restrict black people from voting until after they captured the black vote under LBJ - who himself was an inveterate racist.
Democrats cheat, manipulate, and persecute that's all they do
[удалено]
Producing fake votes is cheating
Oh thank heaven , for uncle Joe Biden the dictator for the banana republic! You are awesome !
Of course he does would you expect anything different from him or his administration. Smile's as he light's a cigar with your 100 dollar bill's. Sick bunch.
Wondering out loud if this is a violation of the hatch act? I believe a very clever attorney could make that case!
[удалено]
I do not believe that this is a function of federal agencies! To much opportunity for it to go off the rails!