Poll of the Day > Fat Christian Pastor said People on WELFARE are a BURDEN to the World!!!

(+) Yeah! (+)

A sign outside the Full Gospel Tabernacle of God in Buffalo read "Work Harder, Millions on Welfare Depend on you"

Senior Pig Pastor Reverend Ricky Cook in South Carolina apologized stating it was a JOKE..but even if it was a joke, Ricky believes welfare is a BURDEN on the economy and hopes Trump gets rid of people taking money from hard working americans like "him"..

He criticized Obama for making people dependent on government services and people who leech off Americans that pay them to sit around. He said some people need help but the majority DON'T and can work for themselves as "he does".

His motto "If you don't work, you don't eat" and should be left to fend for themselves to survive!!

Do you think people on welfare are a burden to the world?

The Sign -

http://foxcharleston.com/wp-content/uploads/2017/10/church-sign.png

Ricky - Blockhead Pastor

http://content.wltx.com/photo/2017/10/30/Pastor%20Cook_1509400911107_11515651_ver1.0.png

http://tinyurl.com/ycdr6guv
---

so pastors and the like even have to pay taxes
---

Did you know you can end world hunger, like, for everyone... by removing church tax exemptions?
---

Lokarin posted...

Did you know you can end world hunger, like, for everyone... by removing church tax exemptions?

Pretty sure it's a little more complicated than that.

it's not
---

It depends. If somebody pumps out kids to get free money, and multiple generations live off it, I think it's time to stop giving the mouse a cookie and let it find its own.
---

minervo posted...

Lokarin posted...

Did you know you can end world hunger, like, for everyone... by removing church tax exemptions?

Pretty sure it's a little more complicated than that.

Right, the step of taking that money and actually using it to end world hunger instead of putting it in a government coffer is an important one
---

Lokarin posted...

minervo posted...

Lokarin posted...

Did you know you can end world hunger, like, for everyone... by removing church tax exemptions?

Pretty sure it's a little more complicated than that.

Right, the step of taking that money and actually using it to end world hunger instead of putting it in a government coffer is an important one

The biggest irony being that churches were only exempt from taxes in the first place because they were non-profit and put a lot back into the community.
---

How to end world hunger - kill all the hungry people
---

TheCyborgNinja posted...

Lokarin posted...

minervo posted...

Lokarin posted...

Did you know you can end world hunger, like, for everyone... by removing church tax exemptions?

Pretty sure it's a little more complicated than that.

Right, the step of taking that money and actually using it to end world hunger instead of putting it in a government coffer is an important one

The biggest irony being that churches were only exempt from taxes in the first place because they were non-profit and put a lot back into the community.

You should see all the bonus exemptions the Church of Candlejack gets to
---

Full Throttle posted...

Do you think people on welfare are a "burden" to the world and should be left to fend for themselves?

Nope. I mean just because some claimants are officially unemployed that doesn't mean they are not working. Some do voluntary work for example. Also if welfare wasn't a thing chances are these folk who are actually employed will still pay the same amount of tax as the cash would go elsewhere.

Not sure how it is in the USA but in the UK the benefits are taxed so the "hard working peoples" tax ends up back in the system anyway. I just hope these folk who are against welfare never find themselves in the need of it because of one reason or another. Being unemployed isn't fun and folk who are claiming it shouldn't be made to feel guilty for doing so.
---

Well, by design welfare programs are a burden on the rest of society. After all, the money has to come from somewhere. And, unlike charity which is an obligation, welfare comes from taxes where no choice is given thus it's a burden. Granted, when he goes on to say that it's a burden on the economy, that's a bit less clear although the GDP would likely be higher with greater workforce participation.

helIy posted...

so pastors and the like even have to pay taxes

If they receive a wage, I think. Plus smaller and fringe-ier churches can have their ministers working second jobs.

Lokarin posted...

Did you know you can end world hunger, like, for everyone... by removing church tax exemptions?

Not even close to true, given how many hungry people there are in the world and how little extra taxes you'd get by removing the exemptions. Even if ALL non-profits were taxable -- including the massively overfunded SPLC and ACLU -- that still wouldn't be close to enough.

Plus welfare benefits are far more than just for food.

wwinterj25 posted...

Nope. I mean just because some claimants are officially unemployed that doesn't mean they are not working. Some do voluntary work for example.

Yes, some are only "officially unemployed" -- meaning that theywork off-book, report no income, and claim benefits for having no official income.

wwinterj25 posted...

Also if welfare wasn't a thing chances are these folk who are actually employed will still pay the same amount of tax as the cash would go elsewhere.

Maybe at the federal level, but local levels it would probably decrease taxes. Either way, the societal benefit would be greater because you'd have more people paying into the system (instead of taking from it) and the tax dollars could go to fund projects which advance humanity as a whole. If 100% of our entitlement spending went to something like NASA, we'd have colonized Mars by now.
---

Zeus posted...

Yes, some are only "officially unemployed" -- meaning that theywork off-book, report no income, and claim benefits for having no official income.

Yes some folk do cash in hand jobs on the side, yes some folk abuse the systems in place, yes some folk don't want to work at all as they get more money on benefits then they would working. Generally though these are only a small part of the bigger picture.

Zeus posted...

Either way, the societal benefit would be greater because you'd have more people paying into the system (instead of taking from it)

You do know making people not receive welfare doesn't automatically generate jobs for everyone right? Part of the reason so many folk are out of work is due to the lack of jobs not out of choice. All I see is this making more people homeless if it happened and it becoming even harder to find work as every fucker under the sun would be applying for even the low end jobs just to get some kind of money. All in all it's a terrible idea.
---

Where's your outrage for all the fat Muslim imams who say that everybody needs to be killed?
---

I don't mind welfare, but its meant to help temporarily not be a way of life. wish they put more focus on programs to get people on welfare stable jobs that they could survive off of.

not exactly the same but at one time there was a program I would have jumped all over given the opportunity. you helped build X amount of houses and your payment was a house.
---

mooreandrew58 posted...

wish they put more focus on programs to get people on welfare stable jobs that they could survive off of.

Again I'm not sure what they offer over in the USA but in the UK we have different programs such as college programs that help folk use computers, work experience programs and so on for those out of work and claiming job seekers allowance. The problem with that is companies abuse the system. I mean why would they pay for labour that they could get for free under the false premise of "they might be a full time job at the end of it" when clearly there isn't and never would be. I've participated in a few myself and the only good thing I can say about them is at least I met a handful of good people through them.
---

wwinterj25 posted...

mooreandrew58 posted...

wish they put more focus on programs to get people on welfare stable jobs that they could survive off of.

Again I'm not sure what they offer over in the USA but in the UK we have different programs such as college programs that help folk use computers, work experience programs and so on for those out of work and claiming job seekers allowance. The problem with that is companies abuse the system. I mean why would they pay for labour that they could get for free under the false premise of "they might be a full time job at the end of it" when clearly there isn't and never would be. I've participated in a few myself and the only good thing I can say about them is at least I met a handful of good people through them.

I was meaning something more along the lines of you get your welfare but if the government finds some work for you to do that you are capable of doing, they call you up and tell you when to show up, and you better do it if you dont want to lose that welfare (unless you can provide a damn good reason as to why not). even if its only temporary jobs that come in here and there.

as long as they could implement that in a way without forcing people to move too far away from family i'd be all for it. a

the only program I know we used to have over here off the top of my head, you just simply had to prove you have been actively seeking employment. but all you literally had to do was convince the manager/supervisor of places to sign this form stating you did apply there. I don't think they had any way of proving if you legit did apply or just got the manager to lie, or even if you did apply, and got a interview I doubt they had a way to prove you even went to the interview.
---

Isn't railing against the poor receiving welfare like...the exact opposite of Christian doctrine? Like, I know Christian institutions are massive hypocrites all the time, but that's pretty brazen even for them.

Also, fat fuck works for the biggest moocher in the country, Christianity, enjoying its "tax exempt" status, while attacking actual poor people for needing hand outs. Fuck him. It's way past the point where religions should've lost tax exempt status.

streamofthesky posted...

Isn't railing against the poor receiving welfare like...the exact opposite of Christian doctrine? Like, I know Christian institutions are massive hypocrites all the time, but that's pretty brazen even for them.

Also, fat fuck works for the biggest moocher in the country, Christianity, enjoying its "tax exempt" status, while attacking actual poor people for needing hand outs. Fuck him. It's way past the point where religions should've lost tax exempt status.

if this video I watched is true. blame Ghenghis Khan. apparently he was the first leader to exempt churches from taxes. also he exempted the poor. he wasn't totally a evil bastard.
---

mooreandrew58 posted...

streamofthesky posted...

Isn't railing against the poor receiving welfare like...the exact opposite of Christian doctrine? Like, I know Christian institutions are massive hypocrites all the time, but that's pretty brazen even for them.

Also, fat fuck works for the biggest moocher in the country, Christianity, enjoying its "tax exempt" status, while attacking actual poor people for needing hand outs. Fuck him. It's way past the point where religions should've lost tax exempt status.

if this video I watched is true. blame Ghenghis Khan. apparently he was the first leader to exempt churches from taxes. also he exempted the poor. he wasn't totally a evil bastard.

He was a great leader and my biggest historical role model. He did a lot of good. If he was the first to exempt religions from taxes, that is certainly one of his biggest flaws. I really doubt he was the first to do so, though. Medieval kings and nobility relied on dumb, ignorant god-fearing masses to remain that way to keep the status quo, they always were tight with the dominant Christian church (except the one instance they weren't cause the king wanted a divorce, so...he just forcibly designed a new dominant Christian church to be tight with)

streamofthesky posted...

mooreandrew58 posted...

streamofthesky posted...

Isn't railing against the poor receiving welfare like...the exact opposite of Christian doctrine? Like, I know Christian institutions are massive hypocrites all the time, but that's pretty brazen even for them.

Also, fat fuck works for the biggest moocher in the country, Christianity, enjoying its "tax exempt" status, while attacking actual poor people for needing hand outs. Fuck him. It's way past the point where religions should've lost tax exempt status.

if this video I watched is true. blame Ghenghis Khan. apparently he was the first leader to exempt churches from taxes. also he exempted the poor. he wasn't totally a evil bastard.

He was a great leader and my biggest historical role model. He did a lot of good. If he was the first to exempt religions from taxes, that is certainly one of his biggest flaws. I really doubt he was the first to do so, though. Medieval kings and nobility relied on dumb, ignorant god-fearing masses to remain that way to keep the status quo, they always were tight with the dominant Christian church (except the one instance they weren't cause the king wanted a divorce, so...he just forcibly designed a new dominant Christian church to be tight with)

video I watched claimed he was the first. unless i'm mistaken and they only meant the first to exempt the poor. Khan was a ruthless bastard and a major dick in a lot of ways, but he was nice to his own people for the most part.

the only thing I remember him doing evil to his own people though, was those who set up his burial site was ordered to be killed afterwards then those that killed them where ordered to be killed, to make sure no one knew where he was buried.
---

mooreandrew58 posted...

I was meaning something more along the lines of you get your welfare but if the government finds some work for you to do that you are capable of doing, they call you up and tell you when to show up, and you better do it if you dont want to lose that welfare (unless you can provide a damn good reason as to why not). even if its only temporary jobs that come in here and there.

Yeah we have that shit. Basically free labour for a month - six depending what they put you on. I mean sure we get benefits while we work there but the ideal situation is to find full time, paid employment and working somewhere for free for six months(at max) would make that harder. Plus we could get benefits without doing that so eh. I wouldn't mind if these places had positions open and just wanted a "trial period" from you to see if you're right for the job or not but that's not the case in most cases.

My dad actually works at this place voluntary and although the disabled folk and himself get benefits the boss of the place throws a little cash their way. From his prospective he's paying a lot less for the labour he's getting so I don't blame him. From a outside point of view it seems he's taking advantage, even more so of those with mental disabilities. He's never bothered offering any of them full time employment. Not even my dad who not only does his job but also helps look after his work mates who have disabilities. His basically a supervisor but only getting 70 odd a week from the dole office. When in reality he should be paid a supervises wage.
---

streamofthesky posted...

mooreandrew58 posted...

streamofthesky posted...

Isn't railing against the poor receiving welfare like...the exact opposite of Christian doctrine? Like, I know Christian institutions are massive hypocrites all the time, but that's pretty brazen even for them.

Also, fat fuck works for the biggest moocher in the country, Christianity, enjoying its "tax exempt" status, while attacking actual poor people for needing hand outs. Fuck him. It's way past the point where religions should've lost tax exempt status.

if this video I watched is true. blame Ghenghis Khan. apparently he was the first leader to exempt churches from taxes. also he exempted the poor. he wasn't totally a evil bastard.

He was a great leader and my biggest historical role model.

Figures. Bet you like Che Guevara too, don't you?
---

wwinterj25 posted...

mooreandrew58 posted...

I was meaning something more along the lines of you get your welfare but if the government finds some work for you to do that you are capable of doing, they call you up and tell you when to show up, and you better do it if you dont want to lose that welfare (unless you can provide a damn good reason as to why not). even if its only temporary jobs that come in here and there.

Yeah we have that shit. Basically free labour for a month - six depending what they put you on. I mean sure we get benefits while we work there but the ideal situation is to find full time, paid employment and working somewhere for free for six months(at max) would make that harder. Plus we could get benefits without doing that so eh. I wouldn't mind if these places had positions open and just wanted a "trial period" from you to see if you're right for the job or not but that's not the case in most cases.

My dad actually works at this place voluntary and although the disabled folk and himself get benefits the boss of the place throws a little cash their way. From his prospective he's paying a lot less for the labour he's getting so I don't blame him. From a outside point of view it seems he's taking advantage, even more so of those with mental disabilities. He's never bothered offering any of them full time employment. Not even my dad who not only does his job but also helps look after his work mates who have disabilities. His basically a supervisor but only getting 70 odd a week from the dole office. When in reality he should be paid a supervises wage.

well i'd be more in line with here is your welfare pay for when you ain't working but when they find you a job you get paid the going rate for that type of work.
---

mooreandrew58 posted...

video I watched claimed he was the first. unless i'm mistaken and they only meant the first to exempt the poor. Khan was a ruthless bastard and a major dick in a lot of ways, but he was nice to his own people for the most part.

the only thing I remember him doing evil to his own people though, was those who set up his burial site was ordered to be killed afterwards then those that killed them where ordered to be killed, to make sure no one knew where he was buried.

First to exempt the poor makes more sense...
He was a conqueror, in a time where a lot of leaders were brutal. Not sugarcoating it, but don't view him through modern sensibilities, either. He would be merciless to those who betrayed him or wronged him, but to those who surrendered and his own people, he was one of the best leaders you could've hoped for in that time period. Religious freedom, women having way more rights than anywhere in Europe, developed their written language and the first "pony express" to send mail over thousands of miles, plus made the Silk Road so safe to traverse that trade could flourish. Among other things.
But murder his peaceful trade envoys and steal their goods...twice? Yeah, you done fucked up.
It's worth noting that Genghis Khan was the first to truly use psychological warfare as a major part of his strategy. He *wanted* grossly embellished stories of the Mongols' destruction to spread. That'd scare people more and make them more likely to surrender without fighting. The supposed numbers of deaths his army caused to the cities of the Khwarazmian Empire are pretty clearly inflated heavily. The victims obviously want to exaggerate it, but unlike other victors, the Mongols themselves were fine with being portrayed as more vicious than reality.

For his funeral procession killing themselves afterward to keep the location secret, I'm pretty sure the ones who performed it volunteered to do so and knew what was required of them. Genghis Khan wouldn't have wanted people not committed to the task to be entrusted to it, and he certainly couldn't force them not to waiver from it from beyond the grave.

wwinterj25 posted...

Zeus posted...

Either way, the societal benefit would be greater because you'd have more people paying into the system (instead of taking from it)

You do know making people not receive welfare doesn't automatically generate jobs for everyone right? Part of the reason so many folk are out of work is due to the lack of jobs not out of choice. All I see is this making more people homeless if it happened and it becoming even harder to find work as every fucker under the sun would be applying for even the low end jobs just to get some kind of money. All in all it's a terrible idea.

In a system where more people are earning, more people are spending and more jobs are created. Capitalism is a system of continuous, expanding consumption. That said, if somebody legitimately can't find work, they should be laboring for the government for their wages during that time and/or be subject to mandatory job training. There's no excuse for paying people to do nothing because they only lowers their value and makes it harder for them to eventually find work.

And, if you're arguing about the idea that it would encourage a surplus of unskilled labor, then logically you should be against ALL immigrants and not want anybody new in the country because that has the same effect. And, if you like immigrants for labor, you should be open to reclaiming existing labor especially because your nation invested a LOT of money into those citizens and are then paying them to stand idle.
---

mooreandrew58 posted...

well i'd be more in line with here is your welfare pay for when you ain't working but when they find you a job you get paid the going rate for that type of work.

Basically how it should be. The only exception to people being out of work and claiming benefits as a lifestyle "choice" would be for those claiming disability allowance. I know it's not a choice for some folk in that position to be out of work but I can understand it. Still a lot of places employ folk with disabilities so I guess it depends what the disability actually is. Over here folk who claim it have to go for regular checks to see if they are fit for work. In some cases this checks have been proved wrong though so it's not a full proof plan.

Zeus posted...

That said, if somebody legitimately can't find work, they should be laboring for the government for their wages during that time and/or be subject to mandatory job training.

If companies can create positions for free labour then they can create positions for paid labour in my book. Not only that but if they do take on the free labour these folk will still be claiming unemployment so it's pointless in the eyes of the "tax payers".

Zeus posted...

then logically you should be against ALL immigrants and not want anybody new in the country because that has the same effect.

I'm against immigrants yes.
---

streamofthesky posted...

mooreandrew58 posted...

video I watched claimed he was the first. unless i'm mistaken and they only meant the first to exempt the poor. Khan was a ruthless bastard and a major dick in a lot of ways, but he was nice to his own people for the most part.

the only thing I remember him doing evil to his own people though, was those who set up his burial site was ordered to be killed afterwards then those that killed them where ordered to be killed, to make sure no one knew where he was buried.

First to exempt the poor makes more sense...
He was a conqueror, in a time where a lot of leaders were brutal. Not sugarcoating it, but don't view him through modern sensibilities, either. He would be merciless to those who betrayed him or wronged him, but to those who surrendered and his own people, he was one of the best leaders you could've hoped for in that time period. Religious freedom, women having way more rights than anywhere in Europe, developed their written language and the first "pony express" to send mail over thousands of miles, plus made the Silk Road so safe to traverse that trade could flourish. Among other things.
But murder his peaceful trade envoys and steal their goods...twice? Yeah, you done fucked up.
It's worth noting that Genghis Khan was the first to truly use psychological warfare as a major part of his strategy. He *wanted* grossly embellished stories of the Mongols' destruction to spread. That'd scare people more and make them more likely to surrender without fighting. The supposed numbers of deaths his army caused to the cities of the Khwarazmian Empire are pretty clearly inflated heavily. The victims obviously want to exaggerate it, but unlike other victors, the Mongols themselves were fine with being portrayed as more vicious than reality.

For his funeral procession killing themselves afterward to keep the location secret, I'm pretty sure the ones who performed it volunteered to do so and knew what was required of them. Genghis Khan wouldn't have wanted people not committed to the task to be entrusted to it, and he certainly couldn't force them not to waiver from it from beyond the grave.

yeah most of what you said was in that video as well. I suppose I was viewing it from "modern sensibilities"

he just always came across to me as the type of guy whos great if you are on the same side, but god help you if you where not.
---

Yeah, pretty much.
Makes it a lot easier to conquer a lot of territory with minimal fighting and bloodshed that way.

There were plenty of groups who surrendered to them and flourished under Mongol rule. The Turks rose to prominence out of it, plus the Mughals in India, etc... Genghis Khan was always eager to integrate new people and knowledge into his army. His siege engineers were basically all Chinese, not Mongolian.

Absolutely need to drastically cut back welfare spending. There's literally no point at which we stop handing out welfare and that's horrifying beyond belief. You can literally make it your life's mission to be as much of a drain on society as possible, going so far as to publicly state such and you still won't be cut off. It's fucking insanity.
---

Rasmoh posted...

Absolutely need to drastically cut back welfare spending. There's literally no point at which we stop handing out welfare and that's horrifying beyond belief. You can literally make it your life's mission to be as much of a drain on society as possible, going so far as to publicly state such and you still won't be cut off. It's fucking insanity.

yeah I know a guy who has logic like that. he gets disability though and not welfare. he cut his wrist once and went pretty deep to the point he lost feeling in that hand. thing is he still plays guitar, and thats the hand he uses for the fret. if you can play guitar you can work with your hands. but he says they'll give me the money so why shouldn't I take it?
---

streamofthesky posted...

Isn't railing against the poor receiving welfare like...the exact opposite of Christian doctrine? Like, I know Christian institutions are massive hypocrites all the time, but that's pretty brazen even for them.

Eeyup.
---

Everyone needs a little help sometimes.
---

The ones who abuse the system are a burden. Which Im going to guess is most people who are on it.

PKMNsony posted...

The ones who abuse the system are a burden. Which Im going to guess is most people who are on it.

That's the thing, not only is the system rife with abuse, but there's literally zero effort to get people off of welfare because it makes for a dependable voting base. Things would change lightning quick if you only received welfare for a limited amount of time. It needs to be a system designed to temporarily help people get off their feet.
---

Ok, I don't actually know the amount of money churches are allowed to exempt so I asked on reddit....

The problem is worse than I initially thought! Ok, sure, perhaps a church does deserve tax exemption as much as any non-profit... but that's no excuse for not reporting income.
---

wwinterj25 posted...

Zeus posted...

That said, if somebody legitimately can't find work, they should be laboring for the government for their wages during that time and/or be subject to mandatory job training.

If companies can create positions for free labour then they can create positions for paid labour in my book. Not only that but if they do take on the free labour these folk will still be claiming unemployment so it's pointless in the eyes of the "tax payers".

Not sure how things work in the UK, but in the US the government is not a company. I'm also not sure how you mistook it for one.
---

wwinterj25 posted...

If companies can create positions for free labour then they can create positions for paid labour in my book.

This is literally one of the most nonsensical phrases I think I've ever heard. "If you can get something for free, you can afford to pay for it." What the actual fuck.
---

Zeus posted...

Not sure how things work in the UK, but in the US the government is not a company. I'm also not sure how you mistook it for one.

The government don't create the jobs/positions though.

Rasmoh posted...

This is literally one of the most nonsensical phrases I think I've ever heard. "If you can get something for free, you can afford to pay for it." What the actual fuck.

Are you saying multi chain companies where this free labour is passed onto can't afford another wage? If they can't they shouldn't be taking the free labour as the whole point is to get folk back into work meaning the places where some of the unemployed are sent should have a job at the end of it or at least the possibility of one otherwise they are just getting free labour for nothing and that certainly doesn't help the unemployed person or the unemployment figures as once the placement ends they will be right back on benefits or the like.

PKMNsony posted...

The ones who abuse the system are a burden. Which Im going to guess is most people who are on it.

Not over here at least. Mind you we have different benefits for different things. Not many folk would abuse the system just for around 70 a week over here and that's what JSA(Job Seekers Allowance) is. I mean you can't live much of a life on that.
---