| Author | Thread |
|
|
03/14/2008 04:47:43 PM · #376 |
Originally posted by Louis:
Out of curiosity, exactly how would you propose saying "enough is enough"? Not knowing which "liberal taxes" you feel are being summarily handed over to undeserving welfare cases, I'm wondering what you would do if you were in a position to do something. Force welfare recipients to work? Cut off their payments if they didn't, or send them to jail? I really like the work concept. If you recieve benefits, then at least earn them.
I'm particularly interested in how you would stop "groups" from having children out of wedlock. Jail unmarried parents? Remove the children from the home? Or simply stop paying welfare to single parents, or unmarried couples? I think that families bear a responsibility, even extended families. I also favor limiting pregancies in the first place.
Which "groups" are you referring to? Blacks? Hispanics? Be as specific as you are able. |
It is not that simple and in this day, there is much cross cultural polination - at least at our local hospitals. There is not a specific group - however those caught up in the cycle of dependency do appear to come from previous generations of dependency. The concept of individual responsibility is not being absorbed and I suspect it is because it is not being taught, and the reason it is not being taught, I suspect is because it is not required. Thus my view that one must first understand responsibility, then the cycle will eventually end. As is evidenced by many immigrant societies through the last 200 years. Many groups refuse to remain at the bottom, while others see it as a normalcy - a victimization if you will. |
|
|
|
03/14/2008 05:24:05 PM · #377 |
I'll tell you how your response reads, Flash. Make 100% of recipients of welfare work for their welfare, regardless of their employability, or what they ultimately do for employment. Since you haven't suggested any alternatives, I assume that if they simply can't work due to drug or alcolohol addiction or disability, do not pay them -- whatever happens to them afterward is not the state's responsibility.
You would force people to avoid pregnancy. How would you affect this? Policing the sexual practices of low-income families? Forced contraception? Forced abortion? Jail for those that become pregnant? Withholding payments from pregnant welfare recipients? If the latter, I assume you think that whatever happens to pregnant women and their unborn babies after being removed from welfar is not the state's responsibility.
I admit to being completely confused by the last thing. You think that individual responsibility should be required to be taught. I have no idea what this even means, let alone what hypothetical scenario I might devise around it in order to ultimately discredit it.
My ultimate feeing is that your world-view regarding this whole thing is brutal and lacks compassion. |
|
|
|
03/14/2008 09:55:57 PM · #378 |
Originally posted by Flash:
Originally posted by Louis:
Out of curiosity, exactly how would you propose saying "enough is enough"? Not knowing which "liberal taxes" you feel are being summarily handed over to undeserving welfare cases, I'm wondering what you would do if you were in a position to do something. Force welfare recipients to work? Cut off their payments if they didn't, or send them to jail? |
I really like the work concept. If you receive benefits, then at least earn them. |
And for those single parent who cannot afford daycare? People who are unable to work? Or are unable to find work? Just drive them out into the country and kick them out in the snowy woods to die like a poor squirrel?
Originally posted by Flash:
Originally posted by Louis:
I'm particularly interested in how you would stop "groups" from having children out of wedlock. Jail unmarried parents? Remove the children from the home? Or simply stop paying welfare to single parents, or unmarried couples? |
I think that families bear a responsibility, even extended families. I also favor limiting pregancies in the first place. |
Limiting pregnancies!? How? Forced sterilization? Forced contraception? Limiting the number of children a family can have? Are you a Communist now?
Originally posted by Flash:
Originally posted by Louis:
Which "groups" are you referring to? Blacks? Hispanics? Be as specific as you are able. |
It is not that simple and in this day, there is much cross cultural polination - at least at our local hospitals. There is not a specific group - however those caught up in the cycle of dependency do appear to come from previous generations of dependency. The concept of individual responsibility is not being absorbed and I suspect it is because it is not being taught, and the reason it is not being taught, I suspect is because it is not required. Thus my view that one must first understand responsibility, then the cycle will eventually end. As is evidenced by many immigrant societies through the last 200 years. Many groups refuse to remain at the bottom, while others see it as a normalcy - a victimization if you will. |
You seem to admit that these people are the victim of a cycle of dependency, yet, in the same breath, you seem all too willing to blame the victim and kick them as you toss them out into the cold.
Sorry, I'm all for personal responsibility, but it's not a lesson to be learned through cruelty. |
|
|
|
03/14/2008 11:44:29 PM · #379 |
| After all this I still think Al Gore is an opportunist and hasn't one altruistic bone in his body. |
|
|
|
03/14/2008 11:48:23 PM · #380 |
Originally posted by NikonJeb:
After all this I still think Al Gore is an opportunist and hasn't one altruistic bone in his body. |
At least he doesn't want to spay and neuter poor people or abandon poor innocent squirrels in a strange park.
Message edited by author 2008-03-14 23:49:36. |
|
|
|
03/15/2008 12:38:29 PM · #381 |
Flash - I get the impression that you think that you are a better person than the people around you.
|
|
|
|
03/15/2008 03:06:23 PM · #382 |
Originally posted by Spazmo99:
And for those single parent who cannot afford daycare? People who are unable to work? Or are unable to find work? Just drive them out into the country and kick them out in the snowy woods to die like a poor squirrel?
Limiting pregnancies!? How? Forced sterilization? Forced contraception? Limiting the number of children a family can have? Are you a Communist now?
You seem to admit that these people are the victim of a cycle of dependency, yet, in the same breath, you seem all too willing to blame the victim and kick them as you toss them out into the cold.
Sorry, I'm all for personal responsibility, but it's not a lesson to be learned through cruelty. |
Please feel free to donate as much as you feel is needed to help those who will not help themselves. Please encourage all your friends and family to do the same. It is good that you feel compelled to help those less fortunate. Please give freely. You however, can keep your hands off what little I have left.
|
|
|
|
03/15/2008 03:09:53 PM · #383 |
Originally posted by Matthew:
Flash - I get the impression that you think that you are a better person than the people around you. |
Impressions are simply impressions. You are making that judgement on a few writings with literally zero first hand experience/evidence.
|
|
|
|
03/15/2008 04:11:33 PM · #384 |
Originally posted by Flash:
Originally posted by Matthew:
Flash - I get the impression that you think that you are a better person than the people around you. |
Impressions are simply impressions. You are making that judgement on a few writings with literally zero first hand experience/evidence. |
Sadly, impressions are often the only vehicle through which one can gauge their appreciation of others... and in your case Flash, the impressions are truly not flattering.
Ray |
|
|
|
03/15/2008 04:36:11 PM · #385 |
Originally posted by Flash:
Originally posted by Spazmo99:
And for those single parent who cannot afford daycare? People who are unable to work? Or are unable to find work? Just drive them out into the country and kick them out in the snowy woods to die like a poor squirrel?
Limiting pregnancies!? How? Forced sterilization? Forced contraception? Limiting the number of children a family can have? Are you a Communist now?
You seem to admit that these people are the victim of a cycle of dependency, yet, in the same breath, you seem all too willing to blame the victim and kick them as you toss them out into the cold.
Sorry, I'm all for personal responsibility, but it's not a lesson to be learned through cruelty. |
Please feel free to donate as much as you feel is needed to help those who will not help themselves. Please encourage all your friends and family to do the same. It is good that you feel compelled to help those less fortunate. Please give freely. You however, can keep your hands off what little I have left. |
It's not me raiding your pocketbook. Besides, you're the one saying that there is a problem. OK, you have a problem. So? What do you propose as a practical solution to that problem? Simply cutting off social programs, aside from being political suicide for whoever would seriously promote it in government, would lead to Somalia like poverty.
Anyone can bitch and whine about a problem, but if you want anyone to take you seriously, you better have a good solution at hand. |
|
|
|
03/15/2008 05:46:42 PM · #386 |
Originally posted by Spazmo99:
Anyone can bitch and whine about a problem, but if you want anyone to take you seriously, you better have a good solution at hand. |
Lets start by having all able bodied persons who are age 16 and older who are receiving government benefits, perfom some public service for the funds being spent on their support. That is sometimes referred to as work. We could actuially run it lke a business whereby as those with more and more ability actually supervise and manage those with less. Their wages would be what we are alraedy paying them to do nothing. There would be stipulations that those of legal school age would have to actually attend and demonstrate at least a "C" grade or better. Those with mentoring and turtoring abilities could earn their support by mentoring and tutoring others. This is just a simple simple example of all that could be done.
However, some will likely have an excuse as to why this is unfair or undoable or un something.
|
|
|
|
03/15/2008 07:58:50 PM · #387 |
Originally posted by Flash:
Lets start by having all able bodied persons who are age 16 and older who are receiving government benefits, perfom some public service for the funds being spent on their support. That is sometimes referred to as work. We could actuially run it lke a business whereby as those with more and more ability actually supervise and manage those with less. Their wages would be what we are alraedy paying them to do nothing. There would be stipulations that those of legal school age would have to actually attend and demonstrate at least a "C" grade or better. Those with mentoring and turtoring abilities could earn their support by mentoring and tutoring others. This is just a simple simple example of all that could be done.
However, some will likely have an excuse as to why this is unfair or undoable or un something. |
What would these workers do? What would employ them? Which company would hire them? I doubt there's a lot of publically (or privately) run corporations that would want to run this program for the government on their own dime, so I guess it's up to the government. So, the government, I suppose, is employing these people. Most seem to be unskilled, according to you barely literate, so what exactly will they do? Manual labour of some sort? Maybe road repair, or quarry digging. They could sweep snow in winter, perhaps, or maybe help build the great public buildings.
Sounds a lot like a Konzentrazionslager - what you may know as a concentration camp.
Feel free to accuse me of invoking Godwin's Law or whatever other nonsense, but you are exactly describing the situation as seen by the government of Germany in the mid 1930s. The welfare state was done away with in short order, and the "chronically work-shy" were indeed put to work, doing all the aforementioned jobs. Oh, they solved their welfare problems, to be sure. It was rather messy though. I'm sure you could improve on the situation though.
Like Spaz said, unless you have real, practical solutions that make sense and don't conjure images of inhuman brutality (or just plain idiocy), then all you're doing is bitching aloud to no avail. That's fine, but do it in terms that at least make you appear to have some compassion for other human beings. |
|
|
|
03/15/2008 09:32:08 PM · #388 |
Originally posted by Flash:
Originally posted by Spazmo99:
Anyone can bitch and whine about a problem, but if you want anyone to take you seriously, you better have a good solution at hand. |
Lets start by having all able bodied persons who are age 16 and older who are receiving government benefits, perfom some public service for the funds being spent on their support. That is sometimes referred to as work. |
Have you ever heard of Franklin Roosevelt? Of the Works Progress Administration?
Can you not understand that where shareholder profit is the primary priority for a corporation, they will by duty-bound to short-change both workers and the taxing authorities to the greatest extent possible. They will not hire these people you think should be performing some useful service. Well, guess what -- that means more government spending. How do you propose to force corporations to hire these dregs of society?
The reason these "programs" have not reverse the multigenerational poverty you bemoan is that we've never given people more than the bare minimum in the way of benefits -- not enough to really change things.
Preferentially paying people who actually perform useful functions would help too. Those you entrust with educating your children, putting out fires, clearing storm drains -- these people have to be fortunate to be able to afford to purchase a home. In the meantime, people who the luckiest guess as to how other people will spend their money in the stock market get $5 million dollar bonuses.
The current US culture and economy are built on greed and envy -- we all know what both philosophy and religion have to say about those ... |
|
|
|
03/16/2008 12:07:58 PM · #389 |
I am simply amazed at the defense above - to supporting people/groups with zero expectation of any community service involved in the receipt of that support. That is my problem with liberals. Even when the "work" asked is merely to stay in school and maintain at least a "C" average, or to mentor those less skilled or to tutor those struggling in a particular subject. Even when that is the definition of work, you liberals deeem it as akin to concentration camps. Please spare me.
|
|
|
|
03/16/2008 12:37:36 PM · #390 |
Originally posted by Flash:
Lets start by having all able bodied persons who are age 16 and older who are receiving government benefits, perfom some public service for the funds being spent on their support. That is sometimes referred to as work. We could actuially run it lke a business whereby as those with more and more ability actually supervise and manage those with less. Their wages would be what we are alraedy paying them to do nothing. There would be stipulations that those of legal school age would have to actually attend and demonstrate at least a "C" grade or better. Those with mentoring and turtoring abilities could earn their support by mentoring and tutoring others. This is just a simple simple example of all that could be done.
However, some will likely have an excuse as to why this is unfair or undoable or un something. |
This is a policy that was widely adopted in communist countries in the 1980s (I saw some of the effects in Prague in the mid 1990s). It is not the rosy ideal that you paint. Just think about some of the practicalities for a moment:
o If the work that you propose were needed, then people could be employed to do it with the same effect. You are going to force people to do work that does not need to be done.
o It costs a lot of money to supervise people working - in terms of supervision, management, reporting systems etc.
o Having people work (needlessly) means that they have less time to find jobs where they would be more productively employed (harming national GDP). Being forced into inappropriate work could damage their career prospects.
o If people work a full week, then (certainly in progressive Western countries) the costs would be vastly higher because you would likely have to pay them more than basic social security to comply with minimum wage legislation, pension requirements, and to eliminate potential discrimination claims.
o Private companies offerring similar services would be unable to compete and driven into bankruptcy (the government would probably in breach of anti-trust law).
o Workers will be working at what the government thinks up for them, rather than what they are best qualified to do (reducing the effiency of free market capitalism).
o At the end of all that, you probably won't get the hardcore work-shy people who work the system to work: there will always be loopholes that people like that will take advantage of (disability, fake interviews etc etc).
In summary, your reactionary, alarmist, extremist and simplistic idea would be significantly more expensive, force genuine workers into work doing jobs for which they are unqualified, doing work that does not need to be done, damaging their career prospects, damaging national GDP, free market capitalism and competition, all the while failing to prevent people from working the system doing just that. No I do not think it a panacea.
Message edited by author 2008-03-16 13:30:44.
|
|
|
|
03/16/2008 12:57:31 PM · #391 |
Originally posted by Flash:
I am simply amazed at the defense above - to supporting people/groups with zero expectation of any community service involved in the receipt of that support. That is my problem with liberals. Even when the "work" asked is merely to stay in school and maintain at least a "C" average, or to mentor those less skilled or to tutor those struggling in a particular subject. Even when that is the definition of work, you liberals deeem it as akin to concentration camps. Please spare me. |
Your approach is an extremist one, popular with fascists (everyone must work for the greater good of the state) and communists (the state shall ensure that everyone has a job and a wage), but not so popular with moderate western policy and free market captitalism (the state provides a safety net and regulates a free market).
|
|
|
|
03/16/2008 01:14:55 PM · #392 |
Originally posted by Flash:
I am simply amazed at the defense above ... Even when that is the definition of work, you liberals deeem it as akin to concentration camps. Please spare me. |
Even when it is spelled out to you time and again that you misrepresent or ignore facts to further your reactionary arguments, you reactionaries scream that the sky is falling, or that Jobless Joe Sixpack and his twenty bratty kids are stealing the foie gras off your water biscuit. Please. |
|
|
|
03/17/2008 07:04:30 AM · #393 |
Originally posted by Matthew:
This is a policy that was widely adopted in communist countries in the 1980s (I saw some of the effects in Prague in the mid 1990s). It is not the rosy ideal that you paint. Just think about some of the practicalities for a moment:
o If the work that you propose were needed, then people could be employed to do it with the same effect. You are going to force people to do work that does not need to be done.Except that the argument by liberals on why we need several million illegals (and support them as well) is due to our having more work than people.
o It costs a lot of money to supervise people working - in terms of supervision, management, reporting systems etc. What? There are unemployed supervisors and managers in nearly every community. We are already paying them - to do nothing.
o Having people work (needlessly) means that they have less time to find jobs where they would be more productively employed (harming national GDP). Being forced into inappropriate work could damage their career prospects. BS
o If people work a full week, then (certainly in progressive Western countries) the costs would be vastly higher because you would likely have to pay them more than basic social security to comply with minimum wage legislation, pension requirements, and to eliminate potential discrimination claims. No one said they had to work a full week. But staying in school might be a good start and earning at least a "C" average would be a good beginning. And have those that are unemployed yet skilled teach those without skills might be beneficial.
o Private companies offerring similar services would be unable to compete and driven into bankruptcy (the government would probably in breach of anti-trust law). Must be addressed legislatively
o Workers will be working at what the government thinks up for them, rather than what they are best qualified to do (reducing the effiency of free market capitalism). What? I have done many jobs that I was over qualified for. So what. I needed the money.
o At the end of all that, you probably won't get the hardcore work-shy people who work the system to work: there will always be loopholes that people like that will take advantage of (disability, fake interviews etc etc). Then they don't receive any benefits.
In summary, your reactionary, alarmist, extremist and simplistic idea would be significantly more expensive, force genuine workers into work doing jobs for which they are unqualified, doing work that does not need to be done, damaging their career prospects, damaging national GDP, free market capitalism and competition, all the while failing to prevent people from working the system doing just that. No I do not think it a panacea. |
[b]No claim of it being a panacea. Just one example. The alternative is what we have now and that seems to promote a self perpetuating cycle of dependency. I really do not understand the aversion to having receipients work for their benefits. [b] |
|
|
|
03/17/2008 07:13:37 AM · #394 |
Originally posted by Louis:
Originally posted by Flash:
I am simply amazed at the defense above ... Even when that is the definition of work, you liberals deeem it as akin to concentration camps. Please spare me. |
Even when it is spelled out to you time and again that you misrepresent or ignore facts to further your reactionary arguments, you reactionaries scream that the sky is falling, or that Jobless Joe Sixpack and his twenty bratty kids are stealing the foie gras off your water biscuit. Please. |
I was asked for an example (Spazmo99) of what would qualify as work. I very specifically gave an illustration that included staying in school, maintaining at least a "C" average, mentoring and tutoring, and your reply was to liken it to concentration camps. That is the facts - Louis. |
|
|
|
03/17/2008 09:19:49 AM · #395 |
"Earmarks are one of those easy-to-attack Congressional weaknesses, and in a perfect world, they would not exist. But they cost approximately two cents in the grand budgetary scheme of things. Saying you’re going to fix the economy or balance the budget by cutting out earmarks is like saying you’re going to end global warming by banning bathroom nightlights."
From an Op-Ed piece in the NY Times, commenting on GWB's address to the Economic Club of NY. |
|
|
|
03/17/2008 10:08:06 AM · #396 |
Originally posted by Flash:
Originally posted by Louis:
Originally posted by Flash:
I am simply amazed at the defense above ... Even when that is the definition of work, you liberals deeem it as akin to concentration camps. Please spare me. |
Even when it is spelled out to you time and again that you misrepresent or ignore facts to further your reactionary arguments, you reactionaries scream that the sky is falling, or that Jobless Joe Sixpack and his twenty bratty kids are stealing the foie gras off your water biscuit. Please. |
I was asked for an example (Spazmo99) of what would qualify as work. I very specifically gave an illustration that included staying in school, maintaining at least a "C" average, mentoring and tutoring, and your reply was to liken it to concentration camps. That is the facts - Louis. |
Just for the record...
This program of which you speak already exists. Welfare is no longer welfare and hasn't been for a very long time. The program which exists is called WorkFirst. Within 30 days of applying for assistance of any type, you must report for this program. The program is 4 weeks long. You spend 2 weeks sitting in a classroom listening to people read printouts on positive affirmation, life lessons, et. al. At the end of the first two weeks you then either apply for funding (which is usually not available) to go into some type of school/job training or you go into work search for two weeks. After the second week of job search, if you have not found a job, they will give you a job to go to. You work at this job for free to receive $424/month for a family of 4. That works out to $5088/year. Do you seriously believe people are "working" the system for this? If they were employable they could make $15600/year based on minimum wage in my state. It's not what you think it is, and the reasons people end up doing this are varied. Also, there is a time limit of 5 years in a lifetime that you are eligible for this. You should really research what a program is all about before you bash them. I personally know people who have needed the system and am so happy they were able to get the help they needed to get back on their feet. |
|
|
|
03/17/2008 10:32:13 AM · #397 |
Originally posted by Flash:
Originally posted by Louis:
Originally posted by Flash:
I am simply amazed at the defense above ... Even when that is the definition of work, you liberals deeem it as akin to concentration camps. Please spare me. |
Even when it is spelled out to you time and again that you misrepresent or ignore facts to further your reactionary arguments, you reactionaries scream that the sky is falling, or that Jobless Joe Sixpack and his twenty bratty kids are stealing the foie gras off your water biscuit. Please. |
I was asked for an example (Spazmo99) of what would qualify as work. I very specifically gave an illustration that included staying in school, maintaining at least a "C" average, mentoring and tutoring, and your reply was to liken it to concentration camps. That is the facts - Louis. |
Yeah - you also suggested some form of government-sponsored forced sterilization/abstinence, then hinted that only certain identifiable "groups", apparently with large numbers of sub-intelligent members, were really responsible for sucking your cheque of taxes every pay period. You accused "liberals" of this state of affairs. It isn't my fault that your neocon ideas are so broadly presented and suggested with such an astounding lack of compassion that they beg comparison to fascist states real and imagined. If you prefer a less reactionary, more factual analysis, simply read and intelligently respond to everything Matthew said. |
|
|
|
03/17/2008 12:31:44 PM · #398 |
Originally posted by Kelli:
Just for the record...
This program of which you speak already exists. Welfare is no longer welfare and hasn't been for a very long time. The program which exists is called WorkFirst. Within 30 days of applying for assistance of any type, you must report for this program. The program is 4 weeks long. You spend 2 weeks sitting in a classroom listening to people read printouts on positive affirmation, life lessons, et. al. At the end of the first two weeks you then either apply for funding (which is usually not available) to go into some type of school/job training or you go into work search for two weeks. After the second week of job search, if you have not found a job, they will give you a job to go to. You work at this job for free to receive $424/month for a family of 4. That works out to $5088/year. Do you seriously believe people are "working" the system for this? If they were employable they could make $15600/year based on minimum wage in my state. It's not what you think it is, and the reasons people end up doing this are varied. Also, there is a time limit of 5 years in a lifetime that you are eligible for this. You should really research what a program is all about before you bash them. I personally know people who have needed the system and am so happy they were able to get the help they needed to get back on their feet. |
I find this very encouraging and was unaware that this was mandatory for all unemployed. It has been 30 years since I was last in "the system". If you have any links to additional information on the current programs, I would be most appreciative. |
|
|
|
03/17/2008 12:34:28 PM · #399 |
Originally posted by Louis:
[ It isn't my fault that your neocon ideas are so broadly presented and suggested with such an astounding lack of compassion that they beg comparison to fascist states real and imagined. |
Are you referring to my freely donating thousands and thousands of dollars to inner city Rescue Missions and the International Red Cross? Is that the "lack of compassion" you are referencing? |
|
|
|
03/17/2008 12:48:59 PM · #400 |
Originally posted by Flash:
Originally posted by Kelli:
Just for the record...
This program of which you speak already exists. Welfare is no longer welfare and hasn't been for a very long time. The program which exists is called WorkFirst. Within 30 days of applying for assistance of any type, you must report for this program. The program is 4 weeks long. You spend 2 weeks sitting in a classroom listening to people read printouts on positive affirmation, life lessons, et. al. At the end of the first two weeks you then either apply for funding (which is usually not available) to go into some type of school/job training or you go into work search for two weeks. After the second week of job search, if you have not found a job, they will give you a job to go to. You work at this job for free to receive $424/month for a family of 4. That works out to $5088/year. Do you seriously believe people are "working" the system for this? If they were employable they could make $15600/year based on minimum wage in my state. It's not what you think it is, and the reasons people end up doing this are varied. Also, there is a time limit of 5 years in a lifetime that you are eligible for this. You should really research what a program is all about before you bash them. I personally know people who have needed the system and am so happy they were able to get the help they needed to get back on their feet. |
I find this very encouraging and was unaware that this was mandatory for all unemployed. It has been 30 years since I was last in "the system". If you have any links to additional information on the current programs, I would be most appreciative. |
This is the NJ link NJ WorkFirst. This was a federal thing though, and as I understand it, most states have adopted this model. There are further links available from there. |
|
