Welfare, Gimmie, & Hypocrisy
Blockhead
Posts: 1,538
Gimmie I saw you posted this in that death penalty cost thread:
"it is strictly my question as to whether or not you "fiscal conservatives" on here can justify spending that kind of money on something so ineffecient and so filled with flaws."
So my questions to you is the same, only with welfare.
My question is to whether or not your "liberals" on here can justify spending that kind of money on something so INEFFECIENT and so filled with flaws.
The poverty rate is continually rising, with welfare spending continually rising. Why do you support something that PROMOTES poverity?
http://www.cato.org/pub_display.php?pub_id=6698
http://www.cato.org/pubs/journal/cj16n1-1.html
http://www.heritage.org/research/report ... in-america
"The typical American defined as "poor" by the government has a car, air conditioning, a refrigerator, a stove, a clothes washer and dryer, and a microwave. He has two color televisions, cable or satellite TV reception, a VCR or DVD player, and a stereo. He is able to obtain medical care. His home is in good repair and is not overcrowded. By his own report, his family is not hungry and he had sufficient funds in the past year to meet his family's essential needs".
"it is strictly my question as to whether or not you "fiscal conservatives" on here can justify spending that kind of money on something so ineffecient and so filled with flaws."
So my questions to you is the same, only with welfare.
My question is to whether or not your "liberals" on here can justify spending that kind of money on something so INEFFECIENT and so filled with flaws.
The poverty rate is continually rising, with welfare spending continually rising. Why do you support something that PROMOTES poverity?
http://www.cato.org/pub_display.php?pub_id=6698
http://www.cato.org/pubs/journal/cj16n1-1.html
http://www.heritage.org/research/report ... in-america
"The typical American defined as "poor" by the government has a car, air conditioning, a refrigerator, a stove, a clothes washer and dryer, and a microwave. He has two color televisions, cable or satellite TV reception, a VCR or DVD player, and a stereo. He is able to obtain medical care. His home is in good repair and is not overcrowded. By his own report, his family is not hungry and he had sufficient funds in the past year to meet his family's essential needs".
Post edited by Unknown User on
0
Comments
-
The difference is... Welfare can actually, ya know, help people. Death Penalty has the chance to kill a man for a crime he didn't commit.Blockhead wrote:Gimmie I saw you posted this in that death penalty cost thread:
"it is strictly my question as to whether or not you "fiscal conservatives" on here can justify spending that kind of money on something so ineffecient and so filled with flaws."
So my questions to you is the same, only with welfare.
My question is to whether or not your "liberals" on here can justify spending that kind of money on something so INEFFECIENT and so filled with flaws.
The poverty rate is continually rising, with welfare spending continually rising. Why do you support something that PROMOTES poverity?
http://www.cato.org/pub_display.php?pub_id=6698
http://www.cato.org/pubs/journal/cj16n1-1.html
http://www.heritage.org/research/report ... in-america
"The typical American defined as "poor" by the government has a car, air conditioning, a refrigerator, a stove, a clothes washer and dryer, and a microwave. He has two color televisions, cable or satellite TV reception, a VCR or DVD player, and a stereo. He is able to obtain medical care. His home is in good repair and is not overcrowded. By his own report, his family is not hungry and he had sufficient funds in the past year to meet his family's essential needs".Believe me, when I was growin up, I thought the worst thing you could turn out to be was normal, So I say freaks in the most complementary way. Here's a song by a fellow freak - E.V0 -
Yeah.
Quoting such diverse sources as The Cato Institute and The Heritage Foundation... Both of which are owned and operated by the same small group of right-wing billionaires who pay for "research" that tells them what they want to hear.
They then present "viewpoints from two sources" to back up whatever anti-American drivel they want to spew.
Nobody has ever suggested that Welfare is a perfect system and that it doesn't need constant checks and balances. If the unregulated banking cluster fuck of the 2000s taught us anything, it's that without constant watching, pretty much anyone will take whatever they can get and screw everyone else.
The difference is, to many of us, that the core idea of Welfare is to keep the people of our country from absolute poverty and starving to death in the streets. Not such a bad goal, if you ask me.
The point of the death penalty is to violate the first commandment, kill for revenge and it's not even applied in any "fair" way. You're much more likely to get it if (a) you're black (b) poor and (c) kill a white person.
A rich person never gets the death penalty. Poor black men often do and many of those men were later proven to be innocent.0 -
Blockhead, I don't know but you really seem to have a strong hatred for anything related to the provision of welfare and its recipients. It's rather sad to hear, and is a very sheltered viewpoint. And the issues of welfare and capital punishment are two totally different ones. keeponrockin said it pretty good.
Do you have any suggestions or solutions to the flawed system, other than to eradicate it?0 -
Whenever I see arguments such as this, my first response is to ask for some definitions. I like to say that the term "welfare" went the way of the 8-track and around the same time. Are you referring to TANF? Food stamps? Subsidized housing? Unemployment benefits? Medicaid? Social Security disability? These are all specific programs and simply being poor does not qualify an individual to receive money for nothing.Blockhead wrote:Gimmie I saw you posted this in that death penalty cost thread:
"it is strictly my question as to whether or not you "fiscal conservatives" on here can justify spending that kind of money on something so ineffecient and so filled with flaws."
So my questions to you is the same, only with welfare.
My question is to whether or not your "liberals" on here can justify spending that kind of money on something so INEFFECIENT and so filled with flaws.
The poverty rate is continually rising, with welfare spending continually rising. Why do you support something that PROMOTES poverity?
http://www.cato.org/pub_display.php?pub_id=6698
http://www.cato.org/pubs/journal/cj16n1-1.html
http://www.heritage.org/research/report ... in-america
"The typical American defined as "poor" by the government has a car, air conditioning, a refrigerator, a stove, a clothes washer and dryer, and a microwave. He has two color televisions, cable or satellite TV reception, a VCR or DVD player, and a stereo. He is able to obtain medical care. His home is in good repair and is not overcrowded. By his own report, his family is not hungry and he had sufficient funds in the past year to meet his family's essential needs".
I have spent about 25 years working in social services and have worked with numerous low income individuals, including interviewing and assessing them in their homes. The statistics cited are interesting; they also pick and choose the facts to support the agenda.
A few things of note:-
Yes, it's entirely possible that someone living at the poverty level owns their home outright. These people typically are the elderly and disabled who are no longer able to work. They are "house-rich" in that their home is an asset but they are unable to afford other basic needs. They also may be unable to easily sell that asset because it's in disrepair or the value has dropped because it's in an "undesirable" location.
As far as many of the other so-called luxuries, such as dishwashers, refrigerators, microwaves, and air conditioning, most live in apartments where these things are automatically provided. I'm not surprised that most own a color TV--have you seen many B&W models in stores recently? A color TV was once a status symbol; now it's the norm.
In addition to all these luxuries, some of which may be leftover from a time before unemployment or ill health wrecked the family's finances, does the household consistently have electricity to operate them? Much of the work I did involved utility assistance, which required me to visit clients in their homes. I have been to many homes that lacked electricity or running water. Most people have phones but their service may often be disconnected.
Most poor people own vehicles because--surprise, surprise--they need to get to work or to find employment. Where I live, public transportation is extremely limited. Their vehicles tend to be old clunkers held together by chewing gum and baling wire and they live in dread of a breakdown and the need for expensive repairs.
Do you actually know what the federal poverty guidelines consist of? Check this link and scroll down to see the rates according to the number of people in the household: http://aspe.hhs.gov/poverty/11fedreg.shtml I don't know about you but my husband and I wouldn't be living too high on the hog at $14,710 a year which you seem to be suggesting is "sufficient funds for meeting a family's needs."
I have encountered some individuals that tried to abuse the system. I came across far more people who were abused by the system."The stars are all connected to the brain."0 -
Excellent post! And I also wondered about the 'welfare' term, but I think he classifies it all under that antiquated umbrella description (based on other threads).whoprincess wrote:Whenever I see arguments such as this, my first response is to ask for some definitions. I like to say that the term "welfare" went the way of the 8-track and around the same time. Are you referring to TANF? Food stamps? Subsidized housing? Unemployment benefits? Medicaid? Social Security disability? These are all specific programs and simply being poor does not qualify an individual to receive money for nothing.
I have spent about 25 years working in social services and have worked with numerous low income individuals, including interviewing and assessing them in their homes. The statistics cited are interesting; they also pick and choose the facts to support the agenda.
A few things of note:-
Yes, it's entirely possible that someone living at the poverty level owns their home outright. These people typically are the elderly and disabled who are no longer able to work. They are "house-rich" in that their home is an asset but they are unable to afford other basic needs. They also may be unable to easily sell that asset because it's in disrepair or the value has dropped because it's in an "undesirable" location.
As far as many of the other so-called luxuries, such as dishwashers, refrigerators, microwaves, and air conditioning, most live in apartments where these things are automatically provided. I'm not surprised that most own a color TV--have you seen many B&W models in stores recently? A color TV was once a status symbol; now it's the norm.
In addition to all these luxuries, some of which may be leftover from a time before unemployment or ill health wrecked the family's finances, does the household consistently have electricity to operate them? Much of the work I did involved utility assistance, which required me to visit clients in their homes. I have been to many homes that lacked electricity or running water. Most people have phones but their service may often be disconnected.
Most poor people own vehicles because--surprise, surprise--they need to get to work or to find employment. Where I live, public transportation is extremely limited. Their vehicles tend to be old clunkers held together by chewing gum and baling wire and they live in dread of a breakdown and the need for expensive repairs.
Do you actually know what the federal poverty guidelines consist of? Check this link and scroll down to see the rates according to the number of people in the household: http://aspe.hhs.gov/poverty/11fedreg.shtml I don't know about you but my husband and I wouldn't be living too high on the hog at $14,710 a year which you seem to be suggesting is "sufficient funds for meeting a family's needs."
I have encountered some individuals that tried to abuse the system. I came across far more people who were abused by the system.0 -
whoprincess wrote:
Whenever I see arguments such as this, my first response is to ask for some definitions. I like to say that the term "welfare" went the way of the 8-track and around the same time. Are you referring to TANF? Food stamps? Subsidized housing? Unemployment benefits? Medicaid? Social Security disability? These are all specific programs and simply being poor does not qualify an individual to receive money for nothing.Blockhead wrote:Gimmie I saw you posted this in that death penalty cost thread:
"it is strictly my question as to whether or not you "fiscal conservatives" on here can justify spending that kind of money on something so ineffecient and so filled with flaws."
So my questions to you is the same, only with welfare.
My question is to whether or not your "liberals" on here can justify spending that kind of money on something so INEFFECIENT and so filled with flaws.
The poverty rate is continually rising, with welfare spending continually rising. Why do you support something that PROMOTES poverity?
http://www.cato.org/pub_display.php?pub_id=6698
http://www.cato.org/pubs/journal/cj16n1-1.html
http://www.heritage.org/research/report ... in-america
"The typical American defined as "poor" by the government has a car, air conditioning, a refrigerator, a stove, a clothes washer and dryer, and a microwave. He has two color televisions, cable or satellite TV reception, a VCR or DVD player, and a stereo. He is able to obtain medical care. His home is in good repair and is not overcrowded. By his own report, his family is not hungry and he had sufficient funds in the past year to meet his family's essential needs".
I have spent about 25 years working in social services and have worked with numerous low income individuals, including interviewing and assessing them in their homes. The statistics cited are interesting; they also pick and choose the facts to support the agenda.
A few things of note:-
Yes, it's entirely possible that someone living at the poverty level owns their home outright. These people typically are the elderly and disabled who are no longer able to work. They are "house-rich" in that their home is an asset but they are unable to afford other basic needs. They also may be unable to easily sell that asset because it's in disrepair or the value has dropped because it's in an "undesirable" location.
As far as many of the other so-called luxuries, such as dishwashers, refrigerators, microwaves, and air conditioning, most live in apartments where these things are automatically provided. I'm not surprised that most own a color TV--have you seen many B&W models in stores recently? A color TV was once a status symbol; now it's the norm.
In addition to all these luxuries, some of which may be leftover from a time before unemployment or ill health wrecked the family's finances, does the household consistently have electricity to operate them? Much of the work I did involved utility assistance, which required me to visit clients in their homes. I have been to many homes that lacked electricity or running water. Most people have phones but their service may often be disconnected.
Most poor people own vehicles because--surprise, surprise--they need to get to work or to find employment. Where I live, public transportation is extremely limited. Their vehicles tend to be old clunkers held together by chewing gum and baling wire and they live in dread of a breakdown and the need for expensive repairs.
Do you actually know what the federal poverty guidelines consist of? Check this link and scroll down to see the rates according to the number of people in the household: http://aspe.hhs.gov/poverty/11fedreg.shtml I don't know about you but my husband and I wouldn't be living too high on the hog at $14,710 a year which you seem to be suggesting is "sufficient funds for meeting a family's needs."
I have encountered some individuals that tried to abuse the system. I came across far more people who were abused by the system.
Thank you, well said.
Peace.09/15/1998 & 09/16/1998, Mansfield, MA; 08/29/00 08/30/00, Mansfield, MA; 07/02/03, 07/03/03, Mansfield, MA; 09/28/04, 09/29/04, Boston, MA; 09/22/05, Halifax, NS; 05/24/06, 05/25/06, Boston, MA; 07/22/06, 07/23/06, Gorge, WA; 06/27/2008, Hartford; 06/28/08, 06/30/08, Mansfield; 08/18/2009, O2, London, UK; 10/30/09, 10/31/09, Philadelphia, PA; 05/15/10, Hartford, CT; 05/17/10, Boston, MA; 05/20/10, 05/21/10, NY, NY; 06/22/10, Dublin, IRE; 06/23/10, Northern Ireland; 09/03/11, 09/04/11, Alpine Valley, WI; 09/11/11, 09/12/11, Toronto, Ont; 09/14/11, Ottawa, Ont; 09/15/11, Hamilton, Ont; 07/02/2012, Prague, Czech Republic; 07/04/2012 & 07/05/2012, Berlin, Germany; 07/07/2012, Stockholm, Sweden; 09/30/2012, Missoula, MT; 07/16/2013, London, Ont; 07/19/2013, Chicago, IL; 10/15/2013 & 10/16/2013, Worcester, MA; 10/21/2013 & 10/22/2013, Philadelphia, PA; 10/25/2013, Hartford, CT; 11/29/2013, Portland, OR; 11/30/2013, Spokane, WA; 12/04/2013, Vancouver, BC; 12/06/2013, Seattle, WA; 10/03/2014, St. Louis. MO; 10/22/2014, Denver, CO; 10/26/2015, New York, NY; 04/23/2016, New Orleans, LA; 04/28/2016 & 04/29/2016, Philadelphia, PA; 05/01/2016 & 05/02/2016, New York, NY; 05/08/2016, Ottawa, Ont.; 05/10/2016 & 05/12/2016, Toronto, Ont.; 08/05/2016 & 08/07/2016, Boston, MA; 08/20/2016 & 08/22/2016, Chicago, IL; 07/01/2018, Prague, Czech Republic; 07/03/2018, Krakow, Poland; 07/05/2018, Berlin, Germany; 09/02/2018 & 09/04/2018, Boston, MA; 09/08/2022, Toronto, Ont; 09/11/2022, New York, NY; 09/14/2022, Camden, NJ; 09/02/2023, St. Paul, MN; 05/04/2024 & 05/06/2024, Vancouver, BC; 05/10/2024, Portland, OR;
Libtardaplorable©. And proud of it.
Brilliantati©0 -
whoprincess wrote:I came across far more people who were abused by the system.
how so?hippiemom = goodness0 -
This is a valid, albeit moot, point in this particular instance. People fake poverty and use it as a crutch in order to receive free handouts. Didn't you know? :roll:whoprincess wrote:
Cherry-picking from the overall statistics cited paints a picture of a comfortably secure family that is leaching off the government so that they can have it easy. That's not what I've seen of poverty.0 -
whoprincess makes a very good point.
Welfare isn't just there for a poor "race," it's there for all of us. If we ever need it.
When I was 21, I got my one and only Welfare check. I was about a year out of college and although I had worked steadily since I was 16 and paid into the system, after college I was unable to find any steady work.
I refused to ask for unemployment because I had managed to save plenty of money to support myself for months. Which, for a 21 year-old man just out of college is pretty damn impressive, especially since my parents had decided that if they gave me money for school, it was an endorsement of my being gay... so I did it all on my own.
Months later, unable to find any work, I finally had to eat shit and admit that I was out of resources... spent all my savings, ran up my debts and had no other options than to apply for UI.. which would take 6 weeks to kick in. I was sent to Welfare to ask for "an emergency check" which was THE most humiliating experience of my life.
A case worker came to my small apartment and saw that it was clean. I had a nicely furnished place because I went to the Salvation Army store, bought old furniture and then bought cheap textiles at Fabricland and recovered it all myself, painted with paint I'd got on sale at Canadian Tire and took good care of the things I'd accumulated for the years I worked to put myself through school. My walls were decorated with the same Picasso prints I'd bought in high school.
She asked me "if you're so broke, how can you afford a computer?" in a very rude tone. I explained that the computer was a gift from my parents three years before to help me with my school work. She exhaled loudly through her nose at that.
After a few more rather obnoxious things ("you sure have enough time to clean this place, when are you out looking for a job?") I was granted a $600 check. It would have been enough to last me maybe a month.
I found work not soon after that... but I'll never forget the way I got treated.
If you've never felt like that or been in that situation... well, I hope you never find out what it's like.0 -
You can take away all the sources you want, It does not change the fact the more money is put in to these programs every year and the poverty rate rises accordingly.Prince Of Dorkness wrote:Yeah.
Quoting such diverse sources as The Cato Institute and The Heritage Foundation... Both of which are owned and operated by the same small group of right-wing billionaires who pay for "research" that tells them what they want to hear.
They then present "viewpoints from two sources" to back up whatever anti-American drivel they want to spew.
Nobody has ever suggested that Welfare is a perfect system and that it doesn't need constant checks and balances. If the unregulated banking cluster fuck of the 2000s taught us anything, it's that without constant watching, pretty much anyone will take whatever they can get and screw everyone else.
The difference is, to many of us, that the core idea of Welfare is to keep the people of our country from absolute poverty and starving to death in the streets. Not such a bad goal, if you ask me.
The point of the death penalty is to violate the first commandment, kill for revenge and it's not even applied in any "fair" way. You're much more likely to get it if (a) you're black (b) poor and (c) kill a white person.
A rich person never gets the death penalty. Poor black men often do and many of those men were later proven to be innocent.0 -
What from my post qualifies as "hatred"EmBleve wrote:Blockhead, I don't know but you really seem to have a strong hatred for anything related to the provision of welfare and its recipients. It's rather sad to hear, and is a very sheltered viewpoint. And the issues of welfare and capital punishment are two totally different ones. keeponrockin said it pretty good.
Do you have any suggestions or solutions to the flawed system, other than to eradicate it?
Its sad to hear that you support a program that CAUSES and PROMOTES poverty. Welfare today is not doing with its intended to do. When there are very lenient regulations such as time frames, children, lack of work programs, etc, you are not HELP these people.
I have proposed many soultions such as stricter regulations, community service requirements, voucher system (getting rid or cash/check) for all things gov. provided (school, health care, housing, food,) that way abuse is limited.
How were the people in the great depression able to survive, what was the welfare program like then?0 -
wow i have my own thread.
how humbling...."You can tell the greatness of a man by what makes him angry." - Lincoln
"Well, you tell him that I don't talk to suckas."0 -
You seem to be the leader of this "hypocrisy group" that posts here on AMT.gimmesometruth27 wrote:wow i have my own thread.
how humbling....0 -
Blockhead wrote:
You can take away all the sources you want, It does not change the fact the more money is put in to these programs every year and the poverty rate rises accordingly.Prince Of Dorkness wrote:Yeah.
Quoting such diverse sources as The Cato Institute and The Heritage Foundation... Both of which are owned and operated by the same small group of right-wing billionaires who pay for "research" that tells them what they want to hear.
They then present "viewpoints from two sources" to back up whatever anti-American drivel they want to spew.
Nobody has ever suggested that Welfare is a perfect system and that it doesn't need constant checks and balances. If the unregulated banking cluster fuck of the 2000s taught us anything, it's that without constant watching, pretty much anyone will take whatever they can get and screw everyone else.
The difference is, to many of us, that the core idea of Welfare is to keep the people of our country from absolute poverty and starving to death in the streets. Not such a bad goal, if you ask me.
The point of the death penalty is to violate the first commandment, kill for revenge and it's not even applied in any "fair" way. You're much more likely to get it if (a) you're black (b) poor and (c) kill a white person.
A rich person never gets the death penalty. Poor black men often do and many of those men were later proven to be innocent.
Is it possible that more money goes into assistance programs because the poverty rate rises?"First they ignore you, then they ridicule you, then they fight you, then you win ."
"With our thoughts we make the world"0 -
If money has yet to solve the problem, why would putting more money into it solve the problem?markin ball wrote:Blockhead wrote:
You can take away all the sources you want, It does not change the fact the more money is put in to these programs every year and the poverty rate rises accordingly.Prince Of Dorkness wrote:Yeah.
Quoting such diverse sources as The Cato Institute and The Heritage Foundation... Both of which are owned and operated by the same small group of right-wing billionaires who pay for "research" that tells them what they want to hear.
They then present "viewpoints from two sources" to back up whatever anti-American drivel they want to spew.
Nobody has ever suggested that Welfare is a perfect system and that it doesn't need constant checks and balances. If the unregulated banking cluster fuck of the 2000s taught us anything, it's that without constant watching, pretty much anyone will take whatever they can get and screw everyone else.
The difference is, to many of us, that the core idea of Welfare is to keep the people of our country from absolute poverty and starving to death in the streets. Not such a bad goal, if you ask me.
The point of the death penalty is to violate the first commandment, kill for revenge and it's not even applied in any "fair" way. You're much more likely to get it if (a) you're black (b) poor and (c) kill a white person.
A rich person never gets the death penalty. Poor black men often do and many of those men were later proven to be innocent.
Is it possible that more money goes into assistance programs because the poverty rate rises?0 -
Blockhead wrote:You can take away all the sources you want, It does not change the fact the more money is put in to these programs every year and the poverty rate rises accordingly.
two things will always be around...poverty and prostitution....
to think both will somehow go away completely is naive...but they can both be addressed...0 -
Why does prostitution need to be addressed?inmytree wrote:Blockhead wrote:You can take away all the sources you want, It does not change the fact the more money is put in to these programs every year and the poverty rate rises accordingly.
two things will always be around...poverty and prostitution....
to think both will somehow go away completely is naive...but they can both be addressed...0 -
you might as well get it all out here, as i am sure you will be read only again soon enough...Blockhead wrote:
You seem to be the leader of this "hypocrisy group" that posts here on AMT.gimmesometruth27 wrote:wow i have my own thread.
how humbling...."You can tell the greatness of a man by what makes him angry." - Lincoln
"Well, you tell him that I don't talk to suckas."0 -
whoprincess wrote:Whenever I see arguments such as this, my first response is to ask for some definitions. I like to say that the term "welfare" went the way of the 8-track and around the same time. Are you referring to TANF? Food stamps? Subsidized housing? Unemployment benefits? Medicaid? Social Security disability? These are all specific programs and simply being poor does not qualify an individual to receive money for nothing.
This post (and I'm only quoting a section to be brieve) needs addressed by the OP. Things need defined in order to have an actual discussion.0
Categories
- All Categories
- 148.9K Pearl Jam's Music and Activism
- 110.1K The Porch
- 275 Vitalogy
- 35.1K Given To Fly (live)
- 3.5K Words and Music...Communication
- 39.2K Flea Market
- 39.2K Lost Dogs
- 58.7K Not Pearl Jam's Music
- 10.6K Musicians and Gearheads
- 29.1K Other Music
- 17.8K Poetry, Prose, Music & Art
- 1.1K The Art Wall
- 56.8K Non-Pearl Jam Discussion
- 22.2K A Moving Train
- 31.7K All Encompassing Trip
- 2.9K Technical Stuff and Help