Government is not the solution to problems. Even though the intentions of government help is noble in the end it leads to a life of dependency on government programs.
How did you come to the conclusion that government help leads to a life of dependency?
A few years ago the Miami-Dade Homeless Trust did a study and it found that in panhandlers in South Florida received $40 million dollars. Also check out this video from Richmond, VA on panhandlers. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=seUmRXn_1qY
So you're saying that homeless people are actually very wealthy swindlers?
0
brianlux
Moving through All Kinds of Terrain. Posts: 42,408
There are always going to be some people who take advantage of the system. There are probably people who panhandle for fun who don't need the money. But really, think about it- some guy or lady is gonna stand on a stinking smog chocked corner asking for change because it's fun? They'd have to be fucking nuts. I have no problem giving a little money to people who are hungry and I have not problem with giving a little money to people who are fucking nuts. Either way- I'm good with it.
Oh- and homeless or crazy people's companion animals too. That's why it's a good idea to keep an extra can of cat or dog food in the car or your pack.
"Pretty cookies, heart squares all around, yeah!" -Eddie Vedder, "Smile"
the welfare system in Canada is a fucking joke. I see unemployed sluts with 6 kids playing with a fucking iPhone and feeding their obese 5 year old (who is in a STROLLER) cheetos and orange crush for fucking breakfast.
I propose a new welfare system: NO MONEY. Just vouchers. Vouchers that can only be used for certain things. Food. Clothing. No alcohol. No cigarettes. No cell phones. And of course, with no money, means no street drugs.
Add options for job training and/or working and/or education if they are willing to do it.
Humiliating? NOPE. They should be grateful the government/taxpayer is willing to give them something for doing NOTHING. I see people standing on the side of the road begging for money from stopped motorists with better clothes than ME. FUCK THAT.
Make it so it's not so goddamn cushy to stay on welfare. The ones who don't abuse it won't care. And the ones who do just might buck up and go out and get a goddamn job.
WAHOOO DUDE ! tell us how you really feel I agree with you but most times I can't tell who is the abuser and who really needs the help...but I do know the abusers are out theie selling there vouchers for dope booze and cig's.
A few years ago the Miami-Dade Homeless Trust did a study and it found that in panhandlers in South Florida received $40 million dollars. Also check out this video from Richmond, VA on panhandlers. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=seUmRXn_1qY
So you're saying that homeless people are actually very wealthy swindlers?
I am not saying that they are wealthy. The study which was done by the trust to help the homeless concluded that panhandling brought in $40 million dollars. And if you saw the interview I posted, the panhandler in Richmond, VA stated he brings in $700 a week and he doesnt want to get a real job.
Government is not the solution to problems. Even though the intentions of government help is noble in the end it leads to a life of dependency on government programs.
How did you come to the conclusion that government help leads to a life of dependency?
Forty-two percent returned to welfare within two years of leaving it. Something like 20% are on welfare fro greater than 5 years to begin with.
I think it's a flawed program. The proof is in the pudding. I think the number of years on welfare has to be low (< 1 year) and the % that return to welfare needs to be lower...about half of what it is today... for welfare to be considered a success. But whether you like it or not will depend on your own success criteria.
Yes, I am saying that food stamps and wic are not efficient or timely in the least. Tell me the application process for it is timely and efficient, tell me that making 14400 is somehow more needy than someone who makes 14401...This isn't an opinion on the efficiency of gov't from the outside looking in...you need to remember that Gimmie. I work in public health...I see the inefficiency all the time, in every way, lots of my opinions about gov't have changed because of the work I have done over the last 6-7 years. I used to believe in gov't, believe they were there to help...but this isn't a discussion about the efficiency of gov't. As you know I can go on and on about that we won't agree. The government has some inherent advantages over charitable groups, but that doesn't mean they are better with the money and donations they get.
I don't hate giving and I am not selfish in the least. I don't think the programs should exist like they do. Seems like one cannot even talk about exploring another way of doing things, lest I be labeled insensitive to the needs of the poor...
I suppose it can depend on how you're measuring efficiency. If it's strictly measured by time elapsed from applying for food stamps and then actually getting them, then a food bank or church would win out because my understanding is that you can just show up and get food at the latter. Depending on what state your in, many people can get food stamps in under 4 weeks from application date. My guess is that you may be in one of the state's that does a poor job in this area. As far as administrative costs go, food stamps does pretty well in that area. Church's and charities vary widely in this area, some better than the gov, some worse. With charities, the person is also limited to what food is on hand (not efficient), not allowing for individual dietary needs, and locked into their hours of service (not efficient). There may also be contingencies attached to receiving the food. It's also more difficult for someone in a rural area to access charities.
There's no reason the two can't coexist, though, as both have pros and cons. I'd be careful with drawing conclusions about such a large system that varies across states with your own personal experience.
on the contrary, I live in a state that hasn't voted for a republican candidate for president since 1976 and only gone republican 5 times since the 30's...very democrat...called the DFL here. We have such good programs compared to neighboring states that people move here to get on them. I agree that they can co-exist. I don't support the complete removal of social safety nets, but I do think they cast the requirements arbitrarily and aren't efficient when it comes to spending the dollars given to them...Time lapse is also an issue. MA is an obnoxious process that involves about 5 too many people when being processed. Overall, not useful and needs to be changed.
that’s right! Can’t we all just get together and focus on our real enemies: monogamous gays and stem cells… - Ned Flanders
It is terrifying when you are too stupid to know who is dumb
- Joe Rogan
those same people give to charities and work at their local church.
Who are these 'people' that you're referring to here? Are you suggesting that every politician gives to charity and works at a church? And let's just say for arguments sake that they do. How does this excuse them being blatant hypocrites?
Gov't and religion should be separate. So it doesn't bother me when a politician makes a decision not based in religion, even if they don't do it all the time. I thought we wanted religion out of Gov't? so when they make a decision that goes against their religion aren't you happy about that?
Look, I am not here to defend people who are christian simply for getting votes, and I don't believe the OP made any reference to politicians, just republicans... I just get tired of giant negative stereotypes about christians to be honest. I am not one, couldn't be more up front about that...I just get tired of it...especially when all the criticism that is lobbed at them comes from people who will defend most muslims from those that believe they are all terrorists...this kind of argument is pointless and just adds to the feeling that you are on a political team. That is all. I think it is a stupid thing to worry about.
that’s right! Can’t we all just get together and focus on our real enemies: monogamous gays and stem cells… - Ned Flanders
It is terrifying when you are too stupid to know who is dumb
- Joe Rogan
i get that you don't care because if you do not support helping the poor through the current channels then you do not support helping the poor.
Gimme a break
that is an asinine thing to say.
that’s right! Can’t we all just get together and focus on our real enemies: monogamous gays and stem cells… - Ned Flanders
It is terrifying when you are too stupid to know who is dumb
- Joe Rogan
'Christian Republican' = A contradiction in terms if ever I've seen one.
makes sense to think that , since it seems like you believe all christians are like the westboro baptist church.
that’s right! Can’t we all just get together and focus on our real enemies: monogamous gays and stem cells… - Ned Flanders
It is terrifying when you are too stupid to know who is dumb
- Joe Rogan
i think it is asinine to cut off government aid to people who need it. and even more asinine to do it in the name of jesus.
Because you basically said that unless you support the current state of the welfare program that you hate poor people. Such a joke of a comment. You know who tells jokes...other than comedians? Clowns.
i get that you don't care because if you do not support helping the poor through the current channels then you do not support helping the poor.
Gimme a break
that is an asinine thing to say.
how so?
i think it is asinine to cut off government aid to people who need it. and even more asinine to do it in the name of jesus.
no one does it in the name of Jesus. To say that if I don't support the current way of doing things I am not for supporting the poor is stupid. That is ridiculous and if you truly think that way you can never argue against someone saying that someone who is pro-choice if for abortions
that’s right! Can’t we all just get together and focus on our real enemies: monogamous gays and stem cells… - Ned Flanders
It is terrifying when you are too stupid to know who is dumb
- Joe Rogan
Government is not the solution to problems. Even though the intentions of government help is noble in the end it leads to a life of dependency on government programs.
How did you come to the conclusion that government help leads to a life of dependency?
Forty-two percent returned to welfare within two years of leaving it. Something like 20% are on welfare fro greater than 5 years to begin with.
I think it's a flawed program. The proof is in the pudding. I think the number of years on welfare has to be low (< 1 year) and the % that return to welfare needs to be lower...about half of what it is today... for welfare to be considered a success. But whether you like it or not will depend on your own success criteria.
If the proof is in the pudding, based on your numbers, then a minority of recipients are on public assistance for an extended time and/or are repeat users. Not exactly a life of dependency.
Rock group Tool, wine making... still not sure what this has to do with Godfather's statement- "when there is nobody left to blame, people blame Jesus." Sorry, just not sure what you're referring to.
Back to the original OP quote. Government may be inefficient but I know people who would be in a world of hurt if it weren't for programs that help them be able to eat. Them and their young kids. Even if arguments could be made that government isn't efficient and poor people shouldn't have kids, the fact remains that there will always be government and there will always be the poor and if you're going to profess to be Christian and political then it makes more sense to make the programs more efficient and support planned parenthood- not cut them out and let the poor go hungry.
I don't think you read about his mother, or the song Judith, where Christ is blamed for his mother's decay.
How did you come to the conclusion that government help leads to a life of dependency?
Forty-two percent returned to welfare within two years of leaving it. Something like 20% are on welfare fro greater than 5 years to begin with.
I think it's a flawed program. The proof is in the pudding. I think the number of years on welfare has to be low (< 1 year) and the % that return to welfare needs to be lower...about half of what it is today... for welfare to be considered a success. But whether you like it or not will depend on your own success criteria.
If the proof is in the pudding, based on your numbers, then a minority of recipients are on public assistance for an extended time and/or are repeat users. Not exactly a life of dependency.
Almost half are repeat users and you think that the system is a-ok? Honestly, it works pretty well for people/families that have lost jobs but have skills, education, or sheer will to get off. Otherwise, not so much. And if you look at the families that have been cycling off and on or on it more than 5 years, I wonder what the statistics show about their next generation?
This ain't baseball or even basketball where 58% is good. That's a failing grade.
Forty-two percent returned to welfare within two years of leaving it. Something like 20% are on welfare fro greater than 5 years to begin with.
I think it's a flawed program. The proof is in the pudding. I think the number of years on welfare has to be low (< 1 year) and the % that return to welfare needs to be lower...about half of what it is today... for welfare to be considered a success. But whether you like it or not will depend on your own success criteria.
If the proof is in the pudding, based on your numbers, then a minority of recipients are on public assistance for an extended time and/or are repeat users. Not exactly a life of dependency.
Almost half are repeat users and you think that the system is a-ok? Honestly, it works pretty well for people/families that have lost jobs but have skills, education, or sheer will to get off. Otherwise, not so much. And if you look at the families that have been cycling off and on or on it more than 5 years, I wonder what the statistics show about their next generation?
This ain't baseball or even basketball where 58% is good. That's a failing grade.
I didn't say it's a-ok, I was disagreeing with the "life of dependency" part. If it created dependency, then the percentage would cover the majority. In here, people are often misinformed about public assistance and requirements of recipients.
I love republicans railing against people on welfare and ignoring that all these 15 year old girls who you want to force to have their babies will almost certainly be on welfare.
This show, another show, a show here and a show there.
I love republicans railing against people on welfare and ignoring that all these 15 year old girls who you want to force to have their babies will almost certainly be on welfare.
Yep, you got that right. We are the ones forcing them to have babies. :roll:
And you do realize you can not like the way something is and want to change it and that doesn't mean you are against all welfare...right?
I mean, I'm guessing you don;t support the war in Afghanistan or the one in Iraq? Is that correct? If so, does that mean you want to get rid of the military completely?
Government is not the solution to problems. Even though the intentions of government help is noble in the end it leads to a life of dependency on government programs. I believe that government should be there for the elderly or the disabled. Government should provide a hand along with charities to help individuals and families that have fallen on hard times.
Unfortunately government programs also lead to fraud. For example, food stamp fraud costs the tax payers $750 million a year. In 2010 tax payers lost $60 billion to health care fraud.
As for the homeless…yes there are many who have mental issues or have been caught up with drugs and alcohol. This past May a homeless man in Miami, Ronald Poppo was attacked and his face was bitten by what many of you may recall as the Miami Zombie. Anyhow the point being is the before this brutal attack, Mr. Poppo had been approached several times throughout the many years and was offered help to get off the streets and he refused.
A few years ago the Miami-Dade Homeless Trust did a study and it found that in panhandlers in South Florida received $40 million dollars. Also check out this video from Richmond, VA on panhandlers. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=seUmRXn_1qY
...
Who is responsible here... the government... or the people CHEATING the system that is there to help the people in need?
And Medicare fraud... do you know who steals from Medicare? not poor people... DOCTORS, HOSPITALS, DRUG COMPANIES, LAWYERS, OLD PEOPLE of all income levels, WHEELCHAIR SALESMEN, etc... These people aren't in need... they are driven by greed.
Post edited by Cosmo on
Allen Fieldhouse, home of the 2008 NCAA men's Basketball Champions! Go Jayhawks!
Hail, Hail!!!
I love republicans railing against people on welfare and ignoring that all these 15 year old girls who you want to force to have their babies will almost certainly be on welfare.
You touch on a good point about conservative Christians. A large number of the people on public assistance are teen mothers and their children, or mothers who had their first child as a teen. Conservative Christians promote this occuring when they resist sex education and access to birth control, and also when they promote women being economically dependent on men and devaluing women furthering their education. By villianizing feminism, they encourage dependence. If people want to due something about people on welfare, they should be promoting sex education and birth control, not b.s. abstinence only education. The U.S. has the highest teen birth rate out of all the western countries for a reason, not out of random chance.
To answer the OP, I'm not against helping them. I'm for helping them more by eliminating the corruption and waste that our government brings to the table.
Charity doesn't HAVE to only come from the government as some would have you believe.
The only people we should try to get even with...
...are those who've helped us.
Right 'round the corner could be bigger than ourselves.
To answer the OP, I'm not against helping them. I'm for helping them more by eliminating the corruption and waste that our government brings to the table.
Charity doesn't HAVE to only come from the government as some would have you believe.
...
You're right it DOESN'T Have to come from the government.
It comes from the government because it ISN'T coming from anyone else.
Allen Fieldhouse, home of the 2008 NCAA men's Basketball Champions! Go Jayhawks!
Hail, Hail!!!
To answer the OP, I'm not against helping them. I'm for helping them more by eliminating the corruption and waste that our government brings to the table.
Charity doesn't HAVE to only come from the government as some would have you believe.
...
You're right it DOESN'T Have to come from the government.
It comes from the government because it ISN'T coming from anyone else.
Absolutely wrong. There are a lot of people doing a lot of charity work and donating lots of money.
I'd like to think that several more would be doing it if they had more of their own money back to help others instead of pay for government waste.
The only people we should try to get even with...
...are those who've helped us.
Right 'round the corner could be bigger than ourselves.
Comments
How did you come to the conclusion that government help leads to a life of dependency?
So you're saying that homeless people are actually very wealthy swindlers?
Oh- and homeless or crazy people's companion animals too. That's why it's a good idea to keep an extra can of cat or dog food in the car or your pack.
-Eddie Vedder, "Smile"
WAHOOO DUDE ! tell us how you really feel
Godfather.
I am not saying that they are wealthy. The study which was done by the trust to help the homeless concluded that panhandling brought in $40 million dollars. And if you saw the interview I posted, the panhandler in Richmond, VA stated he brings in $700 a week and he doesnt want to get a real job.
Forty-two percent returned to welfare within two years of leaving it. Something like 20% are on welfare fro greater than 5 years to begin with.
I think it's a flawed program. The proof is in the pudding. I think the number of years on welfare has to be low (< 1 year) and the % that return to welfare needs to be lower...about half of what it is today... for welfare to be considered a success. But whether you like it or not will depend on your own success criteria.
on the contrary, I live in a state that hasn't voted for a republican candidate for president since 1976 and only gone republican 5 times since the 30's...very democrat...called the DFL here. We have such good programs compared to neighboring states that people move here to get on them. I agree that they can co-exist. I don't support the complete removal of social safety nets, but I do think they cast the requirements arbitrarily and aren't efficient when it comes to spending the dollars given to them...Time lapse is also an issue. MA is an obnoxious process that involves about 5 too many people when being processed. Overall, not useful and needs to be changed.
It is terrifying when you are too stupid to know who is dumb
- Joe Rogan
Gov't and religion should be separate. So it doesn't bother me when a politician makes a decision not based in religion, even if they don't do it all the time. I thought we wanted religion out of Gov't? so when they make a decision that goes against their religion aren't you happy about that?
Look, I am not here to defend people who are christian simply for getting votes, and I don't believe the OP made any reference to politicians, just republicans... I just get tired of giant negative stereotypes about christians to be honest. I am not one, couldn't be more up front about that...I just get tired of it...especially when all the criticism that is lobbed at them comes from people who will defend most muslims from those that believe they are all terrorists...this kind of argument is pointless and just adds to the feeling that you are on a political team. That is all. I think it is a stupid thing to worry about.
It is terrifying when you are too stupid to know who is dumb
- Joe Rogan
Gimme a break
that is an asinine thing to say.
It is terrifying when you are too stupid to know who is dumb
- Joe Rogan
makes sense to think that , since it seems like you believe all christians are like the westboro baptist church.
It is terrifying when you are too stupid to know who is dumb
- Joe Rogan
i think it is asinine to cut off government aid to people who need it. and even more asinine to do it in the name of jesus.
"Well, you tell him that I don't talk to suckas."
Because you basically said that unless you support the current state of the welfare program that you hate poor people. Such a joke of a comment. You know who tells jokes...other than comedians? Clowns.
no one does it in the name of Jesus. To say that if I don't support the current way of doing things I am not for supporting the poor is stupid. That is ridiculous and if you truly think that way you can never argue against someone saying that someone who is pro-choice if for abortions
It is terrifying when you are too stupid to know who is dumb
- Joe Rogan
Godfather.
Hey joker, that's an empty threat. PJ doesn't play shows in my country any more!!!!
If the proof is in the pudding, based on your numbers, then a minority of recipients are on public assistance for an extended time and/or are repeat users. Not exactly a life of dependency.
I don't think you read about his mother, or the song Judith, where Christ is blamed for his mother's decay.
Almost half are repeat users and you think that the system is a-ok? Honestly, it works pretty well for people/families that have lost jobs but have skills, education, or sheer will to get off. Otherwise, not so much. And if you look at the families that have been cycling off and on or on it more than 5 years, I wonder what the statistics show about their next generation?
This ain't baseball or even basketball where 58% is good. That's a failing grade.
I didn't say it's a-ok, I was disagreeing with the "life of dependency" part. If it created dependency, then the percentage would cover the majority. In here, people are often misinformed about public assistance and requirements of recipients.
what country are you in ? and why don't they play there anymore ?
Godfather.
The USA. I have no idea!
Godfather.
Yep, you got that right. We are the ones forcing them to have babies. :roll:
And you do realize you can not like the way something is and want to change it and that doesn't mean you are against all welfare...right?
I mean, I'm guessing you don;t support the war in Afghanistan or the one in Iraq? Is that correct? If so, does that mean you want to get rid of the military completely?
http://usnews.msnbc.msn.com/_news/2012/ ... rrant?lite
Who is responsible here... the government... or the people CHEATING the system that is there to help the people in need?
And Medicare fraud... do you know who steals from Medicare? not poor people... DOCTORS, HOSPITALS, DRUG COMPANIES, LAWYERS, OLD PEOPLE of all income levels, WHEELCHAIR SALESMEN, etc... These people aren't in need... they are driven by greed.
Hail, Hail!!!
You touch on a good point about conservative Christians. A large number of the people on public assistance are teen mothers and their children, or mothers who had their first child as a teen. Conservative Christians promote this occuring when they resist sex education and access to birth control, and also when they promote women being economically dependent on men and devaluing women furthering their education. By villianizing feminism, they encourage dependence. If people want to due something about people on welfare, they should be promoting sex education and birth control, not b.s. abstinence only education. The U.S. has the highest teen birth rate out of all the western countries for a reason, not out of random chance.
Charity doesn't HAVE to only come from the government as some would have you believe.
...are those who've helped us.
Right 'round the corner could be bigger than ourselves.
You're right it DOESN'T Have to come from the government.
It comes from the government because it ISN'T coming from anyone else.
Hail, Hail!!!
Absolutely wrong. There are a lot of people doing a lot of charity work and donating lots of money.
I'd like to think that several more would be doing it if they had more of their own money back to help others instead of pay for government waste.
...are those who've helped us.
Right 'round the corner could be bigger than ourselves.