Welfare, Gimmie, & Hypocrisy

Blockhead

Go Beavers wrote:

I've gone around and around with Blockhead on this topic, and he seems very set on the notion that most of the people on assistance are abusing the system and that "welfare" is creating more problems than people it helps. The underlying vibe from him is that welfare should only be for the most needy (not defined) and the rest should be cut off and the millions of unfilled jobs will be taken by them. He's taken some anecdotal stories from his wife's work experience and made conclusions from there that are set in cement. I've seen that the more facts you use, the more you challenge his assumptions, and the more you encourage him to define his terms, the less he responds.

And i have stated over and over in my experience yes, abuse is out of control. If welfare is such a magical program why is poverty in a continual increase?
You guys for some reason can't see to grasp the issue of dependancy/entitlements.
You have never posted a fact, if anything all my stats and facts get ignored, take a look at other threads on similar subjects. I have posted how many times that 20% are on welfare for 5 + years... You don't think that is abuse?
Continual preganacies while on welfare is ABUSE, IMO...

P.S. do you know what cement is?

Who Princess

Blockhead wrote:

I am suprised that you have held a job for this long not knowing that unemployment is taken out of your pay and put into a "company fund". They fight tooth and nail because the employers unemployment insurance rates increase extremely.

I was being sarcastic. I'm quite aware why an employer wouldn't want to turn loose the money.

It is done differently in Texas. Employers can opt not to pay into the state's unemployment fund, then directly reimburse the state for a former employee's unemployment compensation. It's based on the size of the employer and other factors. That is why it's in the employer's best interest to see that former employees won't be eligible for unemployment. They won't be paying into it in advance and they won't be charged for it later.

Who Princess

Blockhead wrote:

Continual preganacies while on welfare is ABUSE, IMO...

So people on TANF/housing/food stamps should stop having sex? Birth control is not covered by Medicaid.

Of all the arguments about "welfare" that I find the craziest is the notion that people keep having more children so they can get more assistance. I've never seen it. Even the links you posted in the OP mention that a leading cause of poverty is lack of support by fathers. Talk me up a solution that encourages fathers to support their kids and keep them off public assistance and I might agree with you.

OnTheEdge

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".

You forgot the Blackberry

Halifax2TheMax

Questions: Would Michele Bachman have taken in the foster children that she had if the State hadn't provided compensation? Should our society be judged by how we care for those least fortunate amongst us? I wonder how many folks in the flood, hurricane and tornado ravaged parts of our nation may have lost their jobs/houses/livlihoods because of something completely out of their control? What shall we do with/for them?

As Ed has said, "the Haves have not a clue."

Peace.

inmytree

Blockhead wrote:

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...

Why does prostitution need to be addressed?

shazzam!!! are you a costumer or provider...?

Prince Of Dorkness

Blockhead wrote:

so your blaming the companies because people can't save for a rainy day???

No, of course not. That's not what this is about.

This is about an unregulated banking system that was allowed to intentionally mislead people into thinking that they could afford houses that they couldn't so those same banks could then profit from the foreclosures.

Is it the systems fault that you chose gay porn as your line of work? Maybe people shouldn't go to school for liberal arts degrees and start geting into medical/engineering fields where there is actual work/needs.

Um... ok, that was a bit out of left field.

So... I'll just tell you. I know first-hand that self-made millionaires exist. You'd be amazed at what a porn director makes. But just because I got mine doesn't mean I think it's OK to screw over anyone else. I should pay, I think, my share of taxes. I'll employ the same number of staff whether I pay an extra 2% or not.

pjfan021

the death penalty is a punishment for people convicted of a crime. It gives humans the right to kill humans for a crime, which they may not be guilty of; there are tons of examples of innocent men being held on death row and being released because of faulty evidence. Welfare programs are around to help people who need it but can be abused by citizens if not regulated properly. I like the system of helping people out with food and shelter, it just seems like it needs more regulation, which is something that a lot of americans oppose for some reason (esp. right wing folks..just sayin.) I'd rather lose some of my tax money over a program that helps some and some abuse as opposed to paying into a system that costs an extreme amt of $$$ to possibly execute an innocent man. The answer to welfare TO ME, seems that it needs to not be chastised by society but regulated heavily and with an open mind

aerial

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.

Hypocrisy is using the bible to prove a point when you do not even believe in God or the Bible.

Prince Of Dorkness

aerial wrote:

Hypocrisy is using the bible to prove a point when you do not even believe in God or the Bible.

Well no... Hypocrisy is hitting me over the head with the the bible, expecting me to follow the rules you pick and choose when you yourself don't follow the rules yourself.

If others are allowed to harp on about lines in Leviticus, I'm allowed to talk about the 10 Commandments.

Prince Of Dorkness

aerial wrote:

Hypocrisy is using the bible to prove a point when you do not even believe in God or the Bible.

and now that we're done with your deflecting and nit-picking, let's talk about my other points, shall we?

mickeyrat

Can anyone else guess how the OP can have an extra 20 or 40 a year in his pocket?

Go Beavers

Blockhead wrote:

Go Beavers wrote:

I've gone around and around with Blockhead on this topic, and he seems very set on the notion that most of the people on assistance are abusing the system and that "welfare" is creating more problems than people it helps. The underlying vibe from him is that welfare should only be for the most needy (not defined) and the rest should be cut off and the millions of unfilled jobs will be taken by them. He's taken some anecdotal stories from his wife's work experience and made conclusions from there that are set in cement. I've seen that the more facts you use, the more you challenge his assumptions, and the more you encourage him to define his terms, the less he responds.

And i have stated over and over in my experience yes, abuse is out of control. If welfare is such a magical program why is poverty in a continual increase?
You guys for some reason can't see to grasp the issue of dependancy/entitlements.
You have never posted a fact, if anything all my stats and facts get ignored, take a look at other threads on similar subjects. I have posted how many times that 20% are on welfare for 5 + years... You don't think that is abuse?
Continual preganacies while on welfare is ABUSE, IMO...

P.S. do you know what cement is?

No one has said it's a "magical program", but you using the term lets us know where you're coming from. Depending on your time frame, the poverty rate hasn't been in "continual increase". It declined steadily during the 90's, but has increased annually for most of the last 10 years. That could also be connected to the actual amount of welfare benefit amounts decreasing for the last 30 years.

I guess since I disagree with you, that I'm not "grasping" the issue of dependency? If I only had your wisdom...

Assuming your 20% number is accurate, why are you concluding that means all 20% are abusing the system? You could also say that this group of people falls into the higher need category. Like the information in the link you posted about Ohio talked about, they need additional approval to receive benefits for longer than 5 years.

One of you links, I think the second one, referenced data from almost 20 years ago, which is too old to relevant to any discussion about what's going on currently.

snow_board_rider

I want a government handout. My largest expenses this year are in order: Home, PJ stuff, TAXES. Give me some $$

EmBleve

whoprincess wrote:

EmBleve wrote:

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.

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:

WOW! No shit?! People lie to get what they want?! Amazing how little I've learned after spending most of my adult life working with poor folks! :lolno:

What makes you think all these "handouts" are free?

I don't--sorry, that was sarcasm. I was saying that with the point being that it is what many people think. I actually agree with you.

Who Princess

EmBleve wrote:

whoprincess wrote:

EmBleve wrote:

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:

WOW! No shit?! People lie to get what they want?! Amazing how little I've learned after spending most of my adult life working with poor folks! :lolno:

What makes you think all these "handouts" are free?

I don't--sorry, that was sarcasm. I was saying that with the point being that it is what many people think. I actually agree with you.

Sorry, man. I was a little worked up about this thread when I was posting yesterday. :oops:
Thanks.

Halifax2TheMax

Food for thought.

http://www.nytimes.com/2011/06/25/opinion/25blow.html

And consider that over the past 30 years productivity has increased 80%, wages have remained relatively flat when inflation is considered and yet the top 1% of income earners have seen their incomes rise over 200%.

And we should take it out on/from/of the least fortunate amongst us?

The Haves have not a fuckin' clue.

Peace.

Horos

Blockhead wrote:

Prince Of Dorkness wrote:

Blockhead wrote:

5 self made billionaires...

Ah yes... the conservative delusion.... "one day if I work hard enough I'll be a billionaire too so for now I'll just vote to protect my interests then... and not my own interests now."

Do you NEVER feel like Charlie Brown running at that football?

Well.... I don't vote, so there goes your theory.
Do I need to post the stats of self made millionaires or can you look that up for your self?

This one statements makes your arguments meaningless. If you don't vote you are certainly just a part of the problem and not even looking for a solution.

Let's hope that more like minded people don't vote.

Prince Of Dorkness

Blockhead wrote:

Is it the systems fault that you chose gay porn as your line of work? Maybe people shouldn't go to school for liberal arts degrees and start geting into medical/engineering fields where there is actual work/needs.

Sorry, I don't mean to gloat.

But I'm still kinda laughing at this one.

Not that he assumes that I'm poor but that someone posting on a forum dedicated to a band is saying that nobody needs artists and suggests that everyone should become a doctor or an engineer.

polaris_x

the points of discussion in this thread are side notes to the what is ultimately the issue with welfare (and most other issues) - the administration of the program itself ...

people can and should debate the pros and cons of welfare in general but in the context of the united states - the debate often focuses on the people who abuse the system or the mismanagement of funds ... the reality is that most gov't run and funded programs are indeed highly inefficient and poorly run ... some of it is attributable to bureaucracy and red tape and possibly lack of funds - but the vast majority of the problems related to these programs are indeed intentional ...

although, these programs are deemed social in nature ... they are yet another avenue by which tax dollars are funneled to private companies ... lockheed martin, our favourite manufacturer of death, runs welfare offices ... they don't really care about who gets what and how effective the program is ... it's all about profiting from the program ... much like every other program the gov't funds ... so, when the US goes to war to fight freedom and democracy - it's the same thing ... it's not about how efficient that money gets spent (no money for body armor but money for haliburton to charge $50 a day per labourer they hire dsepite paying them $5) - it's about profiteering ...

sure, there is a debate on the pros and cons in welfare ... but the bigger and more larger debate should be on the corporatization of the gov't because right now ... those who oppose welfare do in fact have a significant gripe in that it is extremely poorly managed ... however, the reasons for that are not because of the program itself but rather in its administration ...