Conservative
A place to discuss pro-conservative stuff
-
Be excellent to each other. Civility, No Racism, No Bigotry, No Slurs, No calls to violences, No namecalling, All that good stuff, follow lemm.ee's rules, follow the rules of your instance, etc.
-
We are a Pro-Conservative forum. Posts must have a clear pro-conservative, or anti left-wing bias. We are interested in promoting conservatism and discussing things that might get ignored elsewhere. All sources are acceptable, however reputable sources with a reputation for factual reporting are preferred.
-
Dissent is allowed in the comments, but try to be constructive; if you do not agree, then provide a reason which is backed up by references or a reasonable alternative interpretation of the provided facts. That means the left wing is welcome to state their opinions, but please keep it in good faith.
A polite request, not a rule, if you feel the need to report a comment, please don't reply to it.
view the rest of the comments
she appears to be for expanding the programs which is stupid since it would increase cost and still wouldn't produce the results she wants.
Social Security is a Ponzai scam. She wants to allow you to give it to anyone. That way it's not tied to marriage. Imagine handing down social security benefits from generation to generation or to strangers. The program is meant to stop when you die, or your spouse dies. That is one control on cost.
TANF is a cash program. The government shouldn't be taking cash from me to give to anyone else. That is just a failed system right there.
We know that traditional nuclear families produce the best outcomes. We should only support families in that mode.
Some of her rant is unironically racist but I doubt anyone read the study or would pick up on it.
Sorry, I misread your earlier comment as you saying she supported ending those programs. As such, I retract my acknowledgement that she's right about anything, and return to my original stance of full condemnation.