|
Since he's a Democrat it's not enough. All the Republican rhetoric is still that he's soft on illegals.Higher 2-year deportation rate than any president ever, I thought I read.And i'm sure would be called racist if it were any other president......
He is deporting plenty, not fixing the problem. If the problem is never fixed then they come back at a huge waste of resources to us. He is soft for not making a real effort. And im not a republican
Because its immoral to allow suffering and want when you have the means to prevent it for yourself.
This is also true.
Maybe the answer then is to do the best you can, not have a herd of children and piddle away every cent?
You need to make money before you can save money.
So why did communism fail in russia?
Because they pulled too hard on the reigns. Instead of just skimming off of the top of a functional economy that was more or less left alone they tried to micromanage every decision.
why has "just give it to them" never worked? Because in time no one will be left to rob to fund them.
So how long has it not been working in the us for? 50 years?
And i would rather break my back as i literally am to earn an honest living then be like them. better to live with some damn integrity.
Call me when one or both of your legs won't do what you want because your boss repeatedly mistook you for heavy machinery and part of your spine is pressing on the nerves. It is not easy changing careers mid life when you have no experience in a new field and a down-turned economy.
Oh, ho, ho.
I'll do you one better: Link
"Like Christ, the doleful personification of ancient slavery, the men, the women and the children of the proletariat have been climbing painfully for a century up the hard Calvary of pain; for a century compulsory toil has broken their bones, bruised their flesh, tortured their nerves; for a century hunger has torn their entrails and their brains. 0 Laziness, have pity on our long misery! O Laziness, mother of the arts and noble virtues, be thou the balm of human anguish!"
Wait what? No. "You deserve to suffer and want because you haven't made sufficient effort [to my satisfaction] to prevent it" is not true. Not dying of starvation, exposure, and preventable disease are human rights. If you oppose them, you're a terrible person.
You added a whole lot I didn't say or mean there.
If you have the means to prevent your own suffering, and choose to be a burden on others instead, that is immoral. This OBVIOUSLY does not include people that are incpapble of doing so.There are a crap ton of varying dregrees of seperation between "Take care of everybody whether they actually need it or not" and "wanting to see people die of starvation in the streets."
Hyperbole much?
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
e: VVVV - Yeah, but you know what Marx said about Marxists in the French Revolution. ;D
I might, but I am more curious as to what "e: VVVV" means.
So if it is solving any problem why are we here? Why do you seem to enjoy the welfare state? If they keep having kids that by and large stay on welfare it IS going to grow. So each generation is going to keep living this way ending up with more in poverty, more that can't live without the government teat. Getting the poor to limit family size is a good start. Some responsibility is neededNo it doesn't, it spread this state of choosing to live on it, to have too many kids that will just keep it going. The system stops little true suffering and spreads it. That is far from silly[CITATION NEEDED]
You've got a pretty major factual claim there, that helping people increases suffering, and so far you've been coasting on anecdotes and stereotypes. So! It's time to put your money where your mouth is and back this up. Got any proof, or are you going to keep raving about "welfare queens"?
I'm still waiting, and have been for several weeks now, for someone to provide a link with statistical evidence of fraud.
Show me how many dollars are being stolen.
Something like this. The FBI can give us an estimate of corporate fraud and what it costs private investors every year ($1 billion). Can you point to a similar source?
e: VVVV - Yeah, but you know what Marx said about Marxists in the French Revolution. ;D
I'm not sure what you're referring to, but I'm guessing it's "Je ne suis un Marxiste" (sp?).
Which is even funnier because Lafargue was Marx's son-in-law. I think all of his daughters married Franco-Latin smoothie types and Marx heartily disapproved of them all.
I'll hunt for good statistical evidence. I've seen estimates of 9% in out-and-out fraud in LIHEAP, for instance. There's no good central depository for it, as most people prefer to ignore the issue. There are a few GAO reports, but they're rather piecemeal. I made a post with a lot of facts and figures, but it got pretty well-ignored except filled A Man in Black, who disregarded it because of some similarities.
It's easier to track criminal, private fraud because you've got an actual complainant. Also, 1 billion? Please. The white collar criminals steal more than that daily.
There's not much evidence of fraud in welfare benefits because the lawmakers simply made it legal by expanding eligibility. I don't believe that is what we are arguing, anyway. I think we are arguing about whether it is morally good to give benefits to those who work the system rather than work. I'm on the side saying that it's wrong and that the status quo of offering lifetime benefits with no incentive to get off the dole is both inefficient and immoral.
Then again, I actually deal with the recipients on a daily basis. It's not an abstraction for me.
I think we are arguing about whether it is morally good to give benefits to those who work the system rather than work. I'm on the side saying that it's wrong and that the status quo of offering lifetime benefits with no incentive to get off the dole is both inefficient and immoral.
Well here's the thing, I don't think there's anyone that's going to disagree with that. So the question i have is if it CAN be done, why HASN"T it been done? Why on earth would i think that anyone coming into office/power is capable of doing that WITHOUT picking up false positives for fraud?
Do you have a link for Manitoba's plan that you referred to. I've searched the thread a few times and have had no luck. I think universal baseline income plans are wildly impractical in their costs.
Fairly scant practical evidence? Other than my personal experience of seeing it, which is admittedly in an urban environment, and the practical discussions I've had with the people living it, I suppose there's not. Let me ask you: how many households have you been in that fit the definition of living in poverty?
Well here's the thing, I don't think there's anyone that's going to disagree with that. So the question i have is if it CAN be done, why HASN"T it been done? Why on earth would i think that anyone coming into office/power is capable of doing that WITHOUT picking up false positives for fraud?
I think that assumes a basic competency from the government that simply doesn't exist.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Taken from others that took it from others, like every landConsidering that our entire continent was taken from others, I dont know which time period you talk about.All of them, when americans worked hard and strove to do bigger and better, not waste and expect to take from others. We have always been a people to value hard work, what happened?I love america for what it was, what it was meant to be, now i pity it like a dying deranged old dog. I know what it was, what potential it had but now can only wait for the inevitable endMay I ask what decade or year you're talking about?
So long, does this mean you have no problem when others do it to you? I mean, people have been stealing from one another since time immemorial, why should you get upset when it's your turn? It seems like you are hand waving away atrocities at the very least, encouraging them so long as you directly profit from them at worse.
|
|
So long, does this mean you have no problem when others do it to you? I mean, people have been stealing from one another since time immemorial, why should you get upset when it's your turn? It seems like you are hand waving away atrocities at the very least, encouraging them so long as you directly profit from them at worse.Taken from others that took it from others, like every landConsidering that our entire continent was taken from others, I dont know which time period you talk about.All of them, when americans worked hard and strove to do bigger and better, not waste and expect to take from others. We have always been a people to value hard work, what happened?I love america for what it was, what it was meant to be, now i pity it like a dying deranged old dog. I know what it was, what potential it had but now can only wait for the inevitable endMay I ask what decade or year you're talking about?
I am a descendant of european stock, all that land has been stolen back and forth, my ancestors have lost land. my irish ancestors fled what amounts to slavery. All of us can look down our bloodlines and see someone taking our land.
|
|
I'll hunt for good statistical evidence. I've seen estimates of 9% in out-and-out fraud in LIHEAP, for instance. There's no good central depository for it, as most people prefer to ignore the issue. There are a few GAO reports, but they're rather piecemeal. I made a post with a lot of facts and figures, but it got pretty well-ignored except filled A Man in Black, who disregarded it because of some similarities.
It's easier to track criminal, private fraud because you've got an actual complainant. Also, 1 billion? Please. The white collar criminals steal more than that daily.
There's not much evidence of fraud in welfare benefits because the lawmakers simply made it legal by expanding eligibility. I don't believe that is what we are arguing, anyway. I think we are arguing about whether it is morally good to give benefits to those who work the system rather than work. I'm on the side saying that it's wrong and that the status quo of offering lifetime benefits with no incentive to get off the dole is both inefficient and immoral.
Then again, I actually deal with the recipients on a daily basis. It's not an abstraction for me.
I think this is the key here, VERY few here have ever really interacted with the system or it users
|
|
BigNorseWolf wrote:
Call me when one or both of your legs won't do what you want because your boss repeatedly mistook you for heavy machinery and part of your spine is pressing on the nerves. It is not easy changing careers mid life when you have no experience in a new field and a down-turned economy.
Ruined left knee, arthritis that will eventually take the use of my hands, messed up disc in my lower spine. still work as many hours as I can. and i will until i have no options. Of course i have no issue with legit disability, that is a whole different topic than refusal to work.
|
|
I'm also not seeing the morality of, "You're lazy? Well, then, die in the gutters." Do you accept that any definition of laziness is necessarily going to be imperfect and that you're condemning worthy-by-your-standards people who just slip through the cracks? What other human rights are we going to take away from people you deem too lazy to be worthy? We've already got people means-testing the right to have children in this thread.
You do NOT have a right to take from others if you refuse to even try to be an adult and make your own way. Having children is not a right it is a privilege and one that FAR too many abuse. No one should HAVE to stop these idiots from breeding. simple math, can't feed self, sure as hell can't feed others.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
I think that assumes a basic competency from the government that simply doesn't exist.Well here's the thing, I don't think there's anyone that's going to disagree with that. So the question i have is if it CAN be done, why HASN"T it been done? Why on earth would i think that anyone coming into office/power is capable of doing that WITHOUT picking up false positives for fraud?
Ok then, if we're stuck with
1) the immorality of workers not having lives any better than non workers
2) the inability to make the non workers suffer any further without hurting those genuinely in need then the obvious thing seems to be
Raise the standards of those working.
You could do that with some simple number substitution in the tax code.
No it doesn't, it spread this state of choosing to live on it, to have too many kids that will just keep it going. The system stops little true suffering and spreads it. That is far from sillyBut does this really stop suffering or spread it?Stops (or at least mitigates) suffering. Got any other silly questions?
I'm a little confused, if living on the dole is so great, where is the suffering? I think we've already established that eliminating the fraud wouldn't lower your individual taxes.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
BigNorseWolf wrote:
Call me when one or both of your legs won't do what you want because your boss repeatedly mistook you for heavy machinery and part of your spine is pressing on the nerves. It is not easy changing careers mid life when you have no experience in a new field and a down-turned economy.Ruined left knee, arthritis that will eventually take the use of my hands, messed up disc in my lower spine. still work as many hours as I can. and i will until i have no options. Of course i have no issue with legit disability, that is a whole different topic than refusal to work.
There's no NEED to work yourself into the glue factory boxer. There is no need or reason to work yourself into a grave, or a position where you wish you were in a grave. They broke it, they bought it as far as I'm concerned. The money is there, and chances are a good chunk of it should already be yours.
I am a descendant of european stock, all that land has been stolen back and forth, my ancestors have lost land. my irish ancestors fled what amounts to slavery. All of us can look down our bloodlines and see someone taking our land.So long, does this mean you have no problem when others do it to you? I mean, people have been stealing from one another since time immemorial, why should you get upset when it's your turn? It seems like you are hand waving away atrocities at the very least, encouraging them so long as you directly profit from them at worse.Taken from others that took it from others, like every landConsidering that our entire continent was taken from others, I dont know which time period you talk about.All of them, when americans worked hard and strove to do bigger and better, not waste and expect to take from others. We have always been a people to value hard work, what happened?I love america for what it was, what it was meant to be, now i pity it like a dying deranged old dog. I know what it was, what potential it had but now can only wait for the inevitable endMay I ask what decade or year you're talking about?You still entirely miss the point of this tangent. You are whining about people on welfare taking from you while lauding real americans who didn't expect to take from others. Except they did take from others. They took the land and killed the others in the process. And enslaved others to work for them.
But at least they didn't rely on tax dollars.This isn't an "evil white folks" rant. This is just a counter to the mythologized ideal of Americans in the past getting by just by working hard and not taking from others.
I gave up, but yeah, this.
|
|
You do realize those are the exact same things the English said about the Irish (and the Welsh and the Scotch and...) and what was said about the Chinese and Irish in this country in the nineteenth century, right?Yeah, but he's just saying it about the degenerate lazy poor. Not about any specific race or ethnicity.
Not that there's any racist imagery in his language or anything. No. Of course not.
Only in the mind of those that want to see it, to me trash is trash
|
|
I'm also not seeing the morality of, "You're lazy? Well, then, die in the gutters." Do you accept that any definition of laziness is necessarily going to be imperfect and that you're condemning worthy-by-your-standards people who just slip through the cracks? What other human rights are we going to take away from people you deem too lazy to be worthy? We've already got people means-testing the right to have children in this thread.
You do NOT have a right to take from others if you refuse to even try to be an adult and make your own way. Having children is not a right it is a privilege and one that FAR too many abuse. No one should HAVE to stop these idiots from breeding. simple math, can't feed self, sure as hell can't feed others.
You didn't answer my earlier question about birth control.
Most of the political groups that would support your agenda are the ones likely to oppose sex education and birth control, or at least subsidized birth control.
I would rather pay for that than each ever growing generation. hell, i say offer cash payment for a permanent fix. most anyone that would take it should not be having kids anyway
I would rather pay for [birth control] than each ever growing generation. hell, i say offer cash payment for a permanent fix. most anyone that would take it should not be having kids anywayWhy not just do it at gunpoint? It'd be cheaper and more universal!
(PS these are literal fascist arguments you are making. WTF, man.)
Everything the government does is at gunpoint. Literally everything.
|
|
I would rather pay for [birth control] than each ever growing generation. hell, i say offer cash payment for a permanent fix. most anyone that would take it should not be having kids anywayWhy not just do it at gunpoint? It'd be cheaper and more universal!
(PS these are literal fascist arguments you are making. WTF, man.)
When did i say force them? i said they should not be so completely stupid as to need that step. And requiring it to get welfare would not be fascist either, they are not required to get welfare
|
|
Everything the government does is at gunpoint. Literally everything.I would rather pay for [birth control] than each ever growing generation. hell, i say offer cash payment for a permanent fix. most anyone that would take it should not be having kids anywayWhy not just do it at gunpoint? It'd be cheaper and more universal!
(PS these are literal fascist arguments you are making. WTF, man.)
Including the "affordable care" act that will drive prices higher than ever.
Interesting side note:
After the civil war, there was an issue with survivor benefits of the families of deceased soldiers. There were cases of multiple women claiming the same man as their husband, claims on men who probably weren't married, etc. So the states instituted marriage licenses as a way to track who was and wasn't married to help regulate such issues.
Prior to that, marriage was a private affair. A couple could just show up at a church and tell them that they had made vows to each other and the church would recognize it, no ceremony, no official witnesses.
Back to the realm of the modern world and statistics:
40% of all women who receive welfare, do so for 24 months or less over the course of their entire lives.
SSI payments in May 2012, in total, were $4.5 billion, which will be about $54 billion for the year. So the high estimate of fraud is 9% and the low estimate is 1-2%, that comes to around:
$4.8 billion to $540 million in fraud each year.
If GE paid taxes like a working man, it could owe the US government as much as $5 billion a year. Instead it paid $2.9 billion... total, for all taxes it owes everywhere around the globe, including state and local taxes for every location in the US and all it's foreign holdings as well.
As for looking for solutions:
Education, education, education.
Education increases incomes.
Education decreases birth rates.
Education on a societal level reduces unemployment.
Welfare-to-work shouldn't be about placing people in low skilled jobs. We need to get people into school and give them better educations. Children of parents who have a college education are more likely to go to college as well.
BTW, "give up your reproductive rights or starve" is straight up villainous. Andrew R, it is impossible to take you seriously any more.
I disagree with a good bit of what Andrew wrote, but you do realise that he never wrote that, right?
I would rather pay for [birth control] than each ever growing generation. hell, i say offer cash payment for a permanent fix. most anyone that would take it should not be having kids anyway
Nothing about forcing anyone to do anything.
Here's my policy proposal.
<snip>
9) Recertification, or the process of going through the means-testing again, would be done on a staggered, semi-annual basis to ensure that the help is getting to those who actually need it. Considering the manpower freed up by consolidation, we could do this. Additionally, randomized checks of the recipient's living conditions and possessions would help deter fraud.
Congratulations, you've just implemented a massive suicide wave among many of those who suffer from mental illness.
Stricter qualification rules and frequent check-ups with the threat of losing your means of survival WILL result in the suicide rate going up among those who actually DO qualify for the aid, while it won't really effect those who supposedly "fake it."
Irontruth - I'm all for education, but there is a strong bias against it in the poor subculture. Throwing money at the problem doesn't give much benefit, especially when there is a strong incentive set up to rely on the safety net instead of driving for excellence.
I'm at my second job and don't have access to my full set of numbers and research. I will get back to you with a specific response and actual statistics. I'm glad that you're using numbers, because that's more in my wheelhouse. However, my experience researching the matter has shown me that there is a dearth of research on the matter.
AMIB - I read the Mincome papers on my phone. The first one is terribly written. The second is decently written and some of its suggestions (centralized implementation, basically) actually overlap with my proposal better than the Heritage Foundation paper you provided. I would like to see her math and check the correlation coefficients to determine significance. I have a few caveats about it - first, I don't consider a 13% decrease in work performed to be "moderate" (in the American experiment); second, you're going to have a hard time extrapolating conclusions from a small-scale experiment in rural 1970s Canada to modern America nationally.
However, let's run with it anyway as a hypothetical. What would you consider fair by household as a minimum income? Up to the poverty line? I think you're going to run into the same problem that Nixon's administration did - the proposal is extraordinarily expensive. Find me a system that is reasonably priced and incentivizes getting into the workforce. There is an argument to be made for something a lot like Unemployment, but that's still hard to pull off.
GentleGiant - That's profoundly alarmist. It's also conjectural with no basis in fact. Recertification has actually shown benefits in getting people back into the workforce faster in States where it has been implemented. You'll have to find evidence to back up your claim.
Thejeff - Just because it's possible and a good idea doesn't mean the federal government has the competency, will, and ability to achieve it. And working on the street in a municipality is a government job, but with a fairly limited scope. I put criminals in jail. No more, no less. I work in a very specific framework that minimizes governmental incompetence. (Theoretically.)
Andrew, I appreciate that you have strong feelings on the matter, but sharing feelings and platitudes convinces no one and only serves to distract honest debate. No one will take suggestions of sterilization seriously.
Hiwever, speaking of reproductive issues, it would be easy to implement a fix: subsidized birth control plus a cap on benefits the way the military does it (binary family pay).
Isn't the Marxist credo "From each according to his ability, to each according to his needs"? Seems that many of these suggestions ignore the first half. Forgive me if I've misunderstood. I am not a Marxist.
Of course, I'm not a Rand-ist either. I understand that we have an obligation to assist the needy. However, I want to do it fairly and efficiently. We have a responsibility to the taxpayers as well. It isn't the government's money - it is the few remaining taxpayers' money.