Forum Settings
       
Reply To Thread

Kill the PoorFollow

#127 Nov 15 2006 at 3:22 PM Rating: Good
***
3,053 posts
Smasharoo wrote:

We all agree that Welfare is meant for temporary assistance, not to be used as a life-long career.


I don't.

I think there should be a base level safety net of food and housing for everyone provided by the government, independent of means testing or qualification, forever.

Oh, also health care, education, and public transportation.

Sorry.



Edited, Nov 15th 2006 at 2:35pm PST by Smasharoo


Smiley: clap

Katie you best wake up if you actually think your plans would work.

I grew up in a good family going to some of the best schools in the state, I'm quite smart, well read and talented artist with other marketable skills. None of it meant a thing, once I became too ill to work.

My children were lucky my ex was able to work, while I stay home to raise them. That is until the day I realized how our lives were threaten by his violent outbursts and emotional abuse.

I left on a Sunday.

Monday, I sign up for a Displace Homemakers program, that helps women who suddenly are face with having to return to a job market due to divorce or death of their partners.

Tuesday, I called to find out where I could get temporary help with Cash Assistance and food stamps.

Wednesday, was ordination at the displace homemakers program, and getting a letter stating that I was in the program, so I didn't have to take the poorly run city classes, that were a joke at the time.

This was when welfare reform was still being debated in during the next year, before I found a job the laws changed so I ended up taking the city classes that only handed out papers on how to write a resume and try to convince women that they needed to dress for an interview properly. Things I learn in H.S.

After ten months working, while trying to adjust to being a single parent and go though a divorce, the stress became too much and all it took was a common virus to end my plans for our future, and not need to rely on a ex who also had a habit of writing bad checks, by going back to school.

It took me months of depression to face that I would not be able to hold down a job and find out why I became ill suddenly. At first I refused to go back for assistance, but my ex snapped mentally at the same time, so child support dried up quickly.


My doctors kept me from having to go back to job training, while I waited for Social Security to rule on my disability case. Since I had been able to stay at home instead of working for so many years, I don't qualify for SSDI. So here I am having to live on a fix income and food stamps, unable to remarry because I need hundreds of dollars in medical care and pills each month.


Yes I met a few women and men who are too lazy to work, if they can get a hand out, but They are the exception. Most people who are still receiving help, have need for training or health care, before they can hold down a job. Others would love to work, but need to recover come addictions and/or have served time in jails. Here in Baltimore, the city and state has been trying to help them by increasing rehab slots and realizing that with out a chance to work, you only fuel the likely chance that they just will end back up in jail.

As for the rest, well I would love a job that would pay enough to live on and cover my medical cost, while letting me take as many sick days as I need when I'm too ill to work. So pm me with any job offers you may have that meet my needs. Oh, I need access to my own private bathroom and a place I can lie down if needed during the day too.






____________________________
In the place of a Dark Lord you would have a Queen! Not dark but beautiful and terrible as the Morn! Treacherous as the Seas! Stronger than the foundations of the Earth! All shall love me and despair! -ElneClare

This Post is written in Elnese, If it was an actual Post, it would make sense.
#128 Nov 15 2006 at 3:29 PM Rating: Decent
FUcking hell, for once there's a really intresting discussion going on and I'm shagging my girlfriend.

If I had known...

Anyway. I can't believe some of the stuff I'm reading. Katie, your solutions would have fitted great in the Victorian era. You're preaching what we used to do 200 years ago. Genius.

I won't even go into the criminally stupid shIt Varus is spouting, suffice to say you were born 70 years too late and in the wrong country. The National Socialist party would've welcomed you with open arms.

Thank that stupid non-existant God people like Smash, Nexa and Samira exist.

I think the problem is framed in the wrong way. "Poor people" doesn't mean squat. There are so many different circumstances, so many kinds of poorness, that you can't fit it all into one giant solution and expect an miraculous answer that will solve it all. As Flea said, if it was simple someone would've figured it out by now.

And this simplistic way of framing the debate leads to people like Katie giving simple, stupid solutions, that might have a slightly positive outcome in some cases, but a desastrous one in many others.

How can you all adults people have not realised by now that using the "stick" won't solve problems? Seriously, how blind are you? All those principles I've read, the "three strikes", the "1 year on welfare then you cut it", the "prison should be nastier", all of these are simplistic and pointless attempts at finding a grand unifying theory that doesn't exist. And never will.

If you do want to find solutions, I'm sorry but the only way forward is to do it on a case-by-case basis. It doesn't make for good soundbites, it doesn't register well with simplistic people, and it is certainly not stisfying for either TV or forums such as these. But it's only way to minimise the harm and find appropriate solutions. And yes, it takes loads time and effort.

A few people complain here about those who "abuse the system". What a joke. The "money" these people steal is tiny compared to how much is stolen elsewhere. The only reason I can think of why you choose to bitch about it is because poor people are such easy targets. But it's fUcking peanuts. How come you don't complain about rich people abusing the tax system? About the money you spent going to war? About the subsidising of farms and steel workers? About the system that perpetuates the class system? About the obscene amount of money some people are making for doing fUck all?

I'm sorry, but it's painfully obvious that in many cases poverty is a vicious cycle. And that richness is a virtous one.

It's not about "working hard" either. You can work as hard as you want, if you're on the minimum wage, you'll still be poor. You can have all the goodwill in the world, if you're dad is gone and your mum is an alcoholic, chances are your life is doomed to poverty and instability.

And some of you want to shIt on those people on top of the rotten deal they got?

I don't know, it's quite insane. Choose your fucking battles if you want to do some justice and punish people who "abuse the system". Welfare earners, minimum wage earners, prisoners, somehow they don't seem to me to be the right target of your justice crusade.

Bertrand Russell said that: The test of our progress is not whether we add more to the abundance of those who have much, it is whether we provide enough for those who have too little.

Life sucks for a lot of people.

The humanist reason to help them is because it could've been you. And it would've been you if the dice had rolled differently.

The selfish reason to help them is because otherwise they'll turn on you. Sure, you can build gated communities and pretend the rest of the world doesn't exist, but they'll get over the gates.

The welfare system is one of the greatest advancement in human history. Once again, we're all in this together. The prisoner, the junkie, the poor mum on welfare, that's you. And if it's not, thank your lucky star and your parents, cos it sure as hell ain't your brain that got you there.

Anyway, sorry for the long rant.

____________________________
My politics blog and stuff - Refractory
#129 Nov 15 2006 at 3:40 PM Rating: Excellent
Liberal Conspiracy
*******
TILT
Quote:
The man, previously convicted 4 times of Any felony should be able to walk the streets like you and me?
I dunno.. someone hand me the Big Book of Crimes and I'm sure I could find a couple felonies that I don't feel deserve life incarceration even when committed four times.

Which is entirely the point -- the discretion from these cases is better left to the judge and justice system than to a blanket law. Can a judge make what I consider to be an error in sentencing? Sure. But I'd rather see it handled on an individual basis than through blind legislation.
____________________________
Belkira wrote:
Wow. Regular ol' Joph fan club in here.
#130 Nov 15 2006 at 3:46 PM Rating: Decent
ElneClare wrote:
Smasharoo wrote:

We all agree that Welfare is meant for temporary assistance, not to be used as a life-long career.


I don't.

I think there should be a base level safety net of food and housing for everyone provided by the government, independent of means testing or qualification, forever.

Oh, also health care, education, and public transportation.

Sorry.




Smiley: clap



Clap too.

And it's not as if we can't afford it.

____________________________
My politics blog and stuff - Refractory
#131 Nov 15 2006 at 4:07 PM Rating: Decent
**
972 posts
Quite the interesting discussion. Plenty of good points being made on either side which is half the problem why the issue has raged on for as long as it has (in America in general, not here in the thread ;) ) There is no "one-size fits all" solution to the problems in America's legal system and government assistance programs.

We can't let just anyone receive welfare for as long as they want, as this, IMO, breeds laziness. If anyone could get assistance whenever they wanted without limitations, welfare fraud would be even more rampant than it already is.

We also can't refuse aid to those who need it. Those with unexpected health issues, or those in truly dire straits. Thats what make this country great, the idea that we are in this together and should help each other out.

We can't use the same "blanket" legal standard used on a rapist the same as on someone who stole a piece of candy. Agreed on this point.

But we also can't allow repeat offenders use the system to continue to abuse the freedoms that America so greatly allows us to have. There is no reason why sex offenders and violent criminals should be allowed to commit the same acts again and again and be released again and again.

The answer is somewhere in the middle.. What that middle ground is, I think, is the ultimate question.
#132 Nov 15 2006 at 4:11 PM Rating: Good
Lunatic
******
30,086 posts

Plenty of good points being made on either side


Not really. Plenty of selfish biggotry on one side though. That counts for a lot in US policy.

____________________________
Disclaimer:

To make a long story short, I don't take any responsibility for anything I post here. It's not news, it's not truth, it's not serious. It's parody. It's satire. It's bitter. It's angsty. Your mother's a *****. You like to jack off dogs. That's right, you heard me. You like to grab that dog by the bone and rub it like a ski pole. Your dad? Gay. Your priest? Straight. **** off and let me post. It's not true, it's all in good fun. Now go away.

#133 Nov 15 2006 at 4:18 PM Rating: Decent
**
972 posts
Quote:
Not really. Plenty of selfish biggotry on one side though. That counts for a lot in US policy.


Well I guess trying to sum up the opinion's posted here amicably is out the window. Just because an opinion differs from yours doesn't mean its wrong, jackass.

Edit: Your train of thought makes me think you don't even live in America. Try living here first before you spout off with retarded come-backs.

Edited, Nov 15th 2006 at 4:22pm PST by TheAncientCrusher
#134 Nov 15 2006 at 4:24 PM Rating: Good
YAY! Canaduhian
*****
10,293 posts
TheAncientCrusher wrote:
Quote:
Not really. Plenty of selfish biggotry on one side though. That counts for a lot in US policy.


Well I guess trying to sum up the opinion's posted here amicably is out the window. Just because an opinion differs from yours doesn't mean its wrong, jackass.

Edit: Your train of thought makes me think you don't even live in America. Try living here first before you spout off with retarded come-backs.

Edited, Nov 15th 2006 at 4:22pm PST by TheAncientCrusher


Oh, he lives here alright. He's just Smash is all.
____________________________
What's bred in the bone will not out of the flesh.
#135 Nov 15 2006 at 5:00 PM Rating: Good
Lunatic
******
30,086 posts

Just because an opinion differs from yours doesn't mean its wrong, jackass.


Very true. There are entirely different reasons that it's wrong.

____________________________
Disclaimer:

To make a long story short, I don't take any responsibility for anything I post here. It's not news, it's not truth, it's not serious. It's parody. It's satire. It's bitter. It's angsty. Your mother's a *****. You like to jack off dogs. That's right, you heard me. You like to grab that dog by the bone and rub it like a ski pole. Your dad? Gay. Your priest? Straight. **** off and let me post. It's not true, it's all in good fun. Now go away.

#136 Nov 15 2006 at 5:07 PM Rating: Default
**
972 posts
I can see why your karma is at "decent" with such concise, witty responses. Have a nice day, Smasharoo.

I hope someone finds a way to shove all 16,000 of your posts up your ***.
#137 Nov 15 2006 at 5:10 PM Rating: Good
Encyclopedia
******
35,568 posts
I think the problem that some abuse "the system" isn't the problem itself, it's just the inevitable consequence of a system that begs to be abused.

The problem is that while we start our systems with the greatest of intentions, desiring to solve an immediate need with immediate assistance, we forget that this does have a long term effect. Even when not abused, the mere fact that assistance programs exist tend to increase the need among the people for such programs over time. This is because benefits provided to citizens (whatever the form) end up as incentives for people to meet the criteria for the benefits. In this case, if your criteria for recieving assistance is being poor, the presense of such a system will gradually increase the number of poor people. We can debate *why* all day long, but it's pretty clear that this does happen. It happens even when people aren't consciously abusing the system.

Simple experiement to do:

Walk around a downtown street for a hour or two. Ask everyone you meet if they would need a free lunch provided for them if it was available (they would otherwise go hungry). You'll get some who will say yes, but most will say no. Make a note of the number of yesses you get.

Put up a free lunch stand. Specify that it's only for people who need a free lunch (can't afford one for some reason). You'll get many times more people lining up for the free lunch then you predicted based on the responses you got when you asked people about it.


Is this "cheating"? Hard to say. I think that people tend to react differently when asked about something like then versus when it's actually in front of them. However, we can say that no government assistance program has ever accurately predicted the rate at which it'll be "needed". They always guess low because the existence of the program itself changes the number of people who'll line up to recieve the benefit.


And for those thinking this isn't a big deal, realize that when you add up medicare, medicaid, income assistance, and disability, we spent 858 Billion dollars just last year on these programs. In contrast, the *entire* defense budget was 493 Billion (a bit over half).

In fact, the *entire* US budget for 1995 was 2,472 Billion dollars. That's every dollar spent for everything the government does. Over 1/3rd of that entire budget went to those 4 broad assistance programs. Remember, that the 858B does *not* include things like education, roads, bridges, special domestic funding for things like disaster relief, or any of the things that government's are traditionally expected to do.


Another comparision. Between 2004 and 2005, the entire defense budget increased by 39 billion dollars. The amount we spend on those 4 assistance program catagories? Up by 58 Billion over the same period of time. So, while in the middle of a war, which apparently is the number one most important issue to voters, we increased spending on social programs more then we increased budgeting for that war.

Not to be obvious, but the war will end someday. The assistance programs, and the need for them never will...


The problem is that IMO the fact that we create these prgrams *at all* causes them to be needed more. We should approach all government spending by evaluating the incentive created by the spending, and making sure that we're incenting people to do things that will make them more independant on the government, not more. We should be providing incentives for education and employment, not direct assistance programs. Allow the people to support themselves. Give them a framework in which to do it. And then get the hell out of the way...
____________________________
King Nobby wrote:
More words please
#138 Nov 15 2006 at 5:34 PM Rating: Decent
Imaginary Friend
*****
16,112 posts
Abadd wrote:
Quote:
Kill the Poor



Taking a page from the louisiana democrats handbook, I see.




actually, I got it from a Dead Kennedys song..


this is a long ******* thread


Edited, Nov 15th 2006 at 5:37pm PST by Kelvyquayo
____________________________
With the receiver in my hand..
#139 Nov 15 2006 at 5:37 PM Rating: Excellent
Nexa
*****
12,065 posts
RedPhoenixxxxxx wrote:

Thank that stupid non-existant God people like Smash, Nexa and Samira exist.


I'm not entirely sure, but I'm just going to go ahead and take this as a compliment, thanks. Being lumped in with Smash and Sam can't be too bad.

Nexa
____________________________
“It has always been the prerogative of children and half-wits to point out that the emperor has no clothes. But a half-wit remains a half-wit, and the emperor remains an emperor.”
― Neil Gaiman, The Sandman, Vol. 9: The Kindly Ones
#140 Nov 15 2006 at 6:58 PM Rating: Good
****
5,311 posts
I'm thinking better education & comprehensive health care for all would go a long way.
#141 Nov 15 2006 at 9:47 PM Rating: Excellent
Will swallow your soul
******
29,360 posts
Nexa wrote:
RedPhoenixxxxxx wrote:

Thank that stupid non-existant God people like Smash, Nexa and Samira exist.


I'm not entirely sure, but I'm just going to go ahead and take this as a compliment, thanks. Being lumped in with Smash and Sam can't be too bad.

Nexa


I dunno from compliments, but it's sure to be fun times.
____________________________
In a time of universal deceit, telling the truth is a revolutionary act.

#142 Nov 15 2006 at 11:54 PM Rating: Good
Tracer Bullet
*****
12,636 posts
Smasharoo wrote:

No one should need assistance for more than, say, a year or so. If you can't get your sh*t together by then, then you deserve to die in the streets.


Why are you people soooo @#%^ing slow?

It's not about the adults, it's about their children. That's the entire problem. If you're willing to let children starve to death then you can have your white privileged self righteousness about how easy it is to live in America and not feel badly for the starving poor.

The Republican plan includes issuing every child a pair of bootstraps and a bag of rosin.


#143 Nov 16 2006 at 12:00 AM Rating: Decent
***
2,130 posts
Message has high abuse count and will not be displayed.
#144 Nov 16 2006 at 2:03 AM Rating: Decent
Nexa wrote:
RedPhoenixxxxxx wrote:

Thank that stupid non-existant God people like Smash, Nexa and Samira exist.


I'm not entirely sure, but I'm just going to go ahead and take this as a compliment, thanks. Being lumped in with Smash and Sam can't be too bad.

Nexa


Of course it was a compliment. I would've said "Thank God people like you exist", but since I don't really believe in God...


gbaji wrote:
Even when not abused, the mere fact that assistance programs exist tend to increase the need among the people for such programs over time. This is because benefits provided to citizens (whatever the form) end up as incentives for people to meet the criteria for the benefits. In this case, if your criteria for recieving assistance is being poor, the presense of such a system will gradually increase the number of poor people.


We tried to have societies without welfare. 1850's London, for exemple. And guess what, the number of poor people didn't go down. Even funnier, the poor people were incredibly poor and had 0 chance of bettering themselves.

You mkae it sound as though people will strive to be poor simply to get a tiny sum of money each months. I dare any of you guys saying universal welfare is wrong to live on welfare for a year. See how you like it. And then come back and tell me whether people will actually strive for it.

Living on welfare is not an incentive to anyone. It's a safety net.

Finally, look at soccieties that don't have welfare: India? Yemen? Congo? Kazakhstan?

Now look at the societies that do have welfare: The EU. The US. Canada. What we tend to call "The West", or "civilised societies". It's not a coincidence.

Your exemple of the stand for food is such a stupid analogy that has nothing to do with reality. With a proper system in place, it is difficult to cheat welfare. People check your revenue. You have to sign-in, you have to accept the jobs you're offered otherwise you're taken of it... You make it sound as though all it takes is to sign a lign and then you're sorted for life. I wonder on what planet you live, seriously.

Education should be free. Even university. That would benefit absolutely everyone in society.

It's the same for health.

And for public transport.

That won't encourage people to be lazy and scroungers, it will give everyone an opportunity, which I thought was the whole "American Dream" thing.

Obviously there should be checks and balances, like there are today. The system should rigourous to minimise abuse.

But if you think we should scrap welfare alltogether, go live in one of those countries that doesn't have any, and tell me which society you prefer. Or go and live on welfare for a year.

Those countries that don't have welfare have a gigantic gap between the extremely rich and the extremely poor. This is what happens when you don't have a safety net.

I can't believe this is what some of you guys are advocating, from the comfort of your heated living-room and your super-broadband.
____________________________
My politics blog and stuff - Refractory
#145 Nov 16 2006 at 7:11 AM Rating: Decent
Eldy the stupid,

Quote:
The gubberment in Canada has tried devising ways to identify people who abuse the system to make it less of a burden on we taxpayers. The real question that should be asked is, as a taxpayer, would you prefer not to have that social safety net in case something out of your control goes bad and you need a bit of help so you don't lose everything, or would you prefer to crash and burn if it meant not paying for the service at all?


They have something that protects a person and his family in the case of a disaster, IT'S CALLED INSURANCE YOU F*CKING MORON!

Varus
#146 Nov 16 2006 at 7:14 AM Rating: Excellent
Liberal Conspiracy
*******
TILT
Now the truth comes out -- Varrus is afraid of losing his insurance salesman job if people have access to adequate government funded healthcare Smiley: laugh
____________________________
Belkira wrote:
Wow. Regular ol' Joph fan club in here.
#147REDACTED, Posted: Nov 16 2006 at 7:21 AM, Rating: Sub-Default, (Expand Post) atomicbitch,
#148 Nov 16 2006 at 7:26 AM Rating: Default
Jophed,

Quote:
Now the truth comes out -- Varrus is afraid of losing his insurance salesman job if people have access to adequate government funded healthcare


You actually think the agency owner is the one selling the insurance? That's amusing. In fact I generally close my big deals on the golf course. And I wouldn't touch health insurance with that 10 foot iron prod you have shoved up your ***.

Simply put I have about 30 mortgage brokers that refer to me on a monthly basis. Amazing what some free marketing for those guys will get you.

Above all I am not dependent on the govn in order to attain my goals.

Varus
#149 Nov 16 2006 at 7:31 AM Rating: Excellent
Liberal Conspiracy
*******
TILT
achileez wrote:
Simply put I have about 30 mortgage brokers that refer to me on a monthly basis.
Huh. This from a guy who was crying that he can't keep a secretary hired for longer than ten minutes.
____________________________
Belkira wrote:
Wow. Regular ol' Joph fan club in here.
#150 Nov 16 2006 at 7:38 AM Rating: Default
Jophed,

Quote:
Huh. This from a guy who was crying that he can't keep a secretary hired for longer than ten minutes.


and I'm about to fire another one. I'll keep hiring and firing until I find the right person for the job. Last month I wrote 50k worth of new business premium. I can write an entire policy in a matter of 5 minutes. Not only that but the mortgage brokers that refer to me generally e-mail me the appraisal as well as the loan app. Only reason I talk to the customers is to cross sell or handle policy changes, which my receptionist should be doing.

Varus
#151 Nov 16 2006 at 7:43 AM Rating: Excellent
Liberal Conspiracy
*******
TILT
Wow.. you suck at hiring.
____________________________
Belkira wrote:
Wow. Regular ol' Joph fan club in here.
Reply To Thread

Colors Smileys Quote OriginalQuote Checked Help

 

Recent Visitors: 326 All times are in CST
Anonymous Guests (326)