I'm okay with working 8 hour days. I enjoy working, especially since I provide a valuable service to society.
Wait. I thought you said you were a cop.
Uh-uhm.
What Citizen Meatrace meant, DM Barcas, is that we all know that police officers often work more than 8 hrs/day.
| 3 people marked this as a favorite. |
There has to be a better, more practical way to deter crime/rehabilitate criminals. Ive always wondered who exactly came to the conclusion that we should (for instance) make drugs illegal causing them to be super expensive and thus an easy way for the poor to make money without working a real job (like a pharmacist), then arrest them, pay tens of thousands of dollars a year to house them, then throw them back out with no hope of ever getting a real job because they've been arrested. Rinse, repeat.
There's got to be a better way.
Ten years ago, I spoke with the former head of Arizona's Department of Corrections about the department's future. he indicated that we'd switch to home arrest on a much larger scale once the technology for GPS monitoring became more affordable. This would save the taxpayers millions of dollars, would allow criminals to hold jobs and pay back society while they attended counseling to address their criminal behavior, and would enable convicted criminals to maintain ties with their families. They could even pay for their own programs.
If an inmate didn't cooperate with such a program (or was just too dangerous to be allowed in society), we would still have plenty of prisons and would lock them away.
There has been no legislative traction for such a plan. The private prison industry pushes hard for anything that will drive up inmate numbers. We've had to reduce programming, vocational training, and education in order to keep unprecedented numbers of inmates in prison.
| 3 people marked this as a favorite. |
They both piss me off. A lack of honesty and integrity in one end does not excuse the other. Take both down for those of us who work hard and play by the rules.
Also, since the last time I posted, I have met three more people living off welfare without working. One had 20+ arrests for theft, robbery, aggravated robbery, and the like. He was the complainant.
| 5 people marked this as a favorite. |
They both piss me off. A lack of honesty and integrity in one end does not excuse the other. Take both down for those of us who work hard and play by the rules.
Let's compare effects and prioritize, though. Some moochers make my taxes higher to support them, to the tune of maybe $5/year for me. Some crooked financiers ruined many folks' retirement portfolios by manipulating the market for their own gain, to the tune of maybe $500,000 each for the would-be retirees, who are now destitute. Which one pisses me off more?
The financiers use my money to drink Johnny Walker Blue Label instead of Pabst Blue Ribbon, and I'm supposed to get mad at the welfare moochers? No chance. Because we all know nobody is going to take down the financial people; we're all far too busy looking at the spectacle that the welfare queens make of themselves.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
They both piss me off. A lack of honesty and integrity in one end does not excuse the other. Take both down for those of us who work hard and play by the rules.
Also, since the last time I posted, I have met three more people living off welfare without working. One had 20+ arrests for theft, robbery, aggravated robbery, and the like. He was the complainant.
Okay... So this ex con shouldn't call the cops on someone? I'm not understanding where you are coming from.
|
Because unemployment runs out, and to be on it requires some effort to get and lose a job every couple of years, most "career moochers" go the disability route. Disibility pays well and can last "forever" and there are always doctors who can be found to say you are disabled. When you combine it with many of the other programs discussed above you can basically sit around and do nothing. You won't ever have a lot, but you can have an apartment, medical care, and enough money to just lounge about and do nothing.
|
It's a way of life. It is multigenerational. Our tax dollars are subsidizing the lifestyles of those too lazy to work.No question.
Now what you need to show is 1)he isn't legitimately entitled to SSI for panic attacks 2)he would better serve society in a job 3)that there is somewhere that would hire him 4)that you could somehow force him to stay there 5)that people like him make up a significant portion (>5%) of "safety net" beneficiaries.Anecdotal evidence doesn't suffice for these things.
You think so many of them are ok getting what they do YOU pay for it. More of these people need to grow up and work or starve, even many of the nutty ones can do more and would if doing nothing wasn't so profitable.
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
And i am sickened by the number of people that say it is just find because rich criminals are worse.
No one said it was fine; only that there are far more pressing priorioties. Rich criminals steal a LOT more money -- no contest. See, if I'm on a street corner, and one guy is on a killing spree with an uzi, spraying bullets at innocent pedestrians -- and a couple of kids are sheltered in a nearby alley, spray-painting graffitti? I'm sorry, but my first action isn't to arrest the two kids at that point. What they're doing isn't OK, but it's nowehere near as bad as what the first guy is doing. Let's worry about all the lives he's destroying first -- then we can deal with minor proprty damage from the kids.
And when we do deal with the graffitti artists, we need a better solution than simply making all paint illegal -- and no one in the thread has bothered to provide any such solution; they just go back to saying there's a problem, like a broken record.
Finally, I'm personally sickened by the number of people who think that rich folks should be above the law just because they're rich.
Finally, I'm personally sickened by the number of people who think that rich folks should be above the law just because they're rich.
Oh Kirth, don't you know by now? They're not above the law because they're rich. They're rich because they are simply smarter than us, and THAT is why they're above the law. ;P
Oh Kirth, don't you know by now? They're not above the law because they're rich. They're rich because they are simply smarter than us, and THAT is why they're above the law. ;P
Not just smarter, but better. Their wealth is just a result of their superiority.
Of course, if you're poor...
Well if the common herd would just stop bothering them with all this talk of "law" and "equal rights", maybe they would finally have the chance to get around to doing all that job-creating they keep talking about.Finally, I'm personally sickened by the number of people who think that rich folks should be above the law just because they're rich.Oh Kirth, don't you know by now? They're not above the law because they're rich. They're rich because they are simply smarter than us, and THAT is why they're above the law. ;P
Whatever you do, don't let on that job-creation is much more predicated on stimulation of aggregate demand than anything else. *wink wink nudge nudge say n'more*
Okay... So this ex con shouldn't call the cops on someone? I'm not understanding where you are coming from.They both piss me off. A lack of honesty and integrity in one end does not excuse the other. Take both down for those of us who work hard and play by the rules.
Also, since the last time I posted, I have met three more people living off welfare without working. One had 20+ arrests for theft, robbery, aggravated robbery, and the like. He was the complainant.
I'm just pointing it out because you guys are always saying that my understanding is flawed because I only deal with the people that I arrest.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
I'm just pointing it out because you guys are always saying that my understanding is flawed because I only deal with the people that I arrest.Okay... So this ex con shouldn't call the cops on someone? I'm not understanding where you are coming from.They both piss me off. A lack of honesty and integrity in one end does not excuse the other. Take both down for those of us who work hard and play by the rules.
Also, since the last time I posted, I have met three more people living off welfare without working. One had 20+ arrests for theft, robbery, aggravated robbery, and the like. He was the complainant.
No, we said you primarily deal with criminals.
Pointing out more criminals you also deal with doesn't help your argument.So, if all these people are gaming the system, why don't you report them?
I'm just pointing it out because you guys are always saying that my understanding is flawed because I only deal with the people that I arrest.Okay... So this ex con shouldn't call the cops on someone? I'm not understanding where you are coming from.They both piss me off. A lack of honesty and integrity in one end does not excuse the other. Take both down for those of us who work hard and play by the rules.
Also, since the last time I posted, I have met three more people living off welfare without working. One had 20+ arrests for theft, robbery, aggravated robbery, and the like. He was the complainant.
Still a little lost. Your argument might be stronger or at the very least clearer if you started with the people who weren't breaking any other law than being a mooch than with the ex con, who even then, has the right to place a complaint against someone. Unless you are in a bizzare county where he can't do that. And I'm not just jerking you around on that last, there are counties where ex cons give up certain rights that non offenders have, at least for a time.
Don't be silly. They're above the law because they brib...erm lobbied to get the law re written
No, we said you primarily deal with criminals.
Pointing out more criminals you also deal with doesn't help your argument.So, if all these people are gaming the system, why don't you report them?
They aren't doing anything illegal because the system has been made so easy to game. It's not like they're claiming Social Security benefits that they didn't work for - they're using the system that lasts for life that does not require you to have paid into it. The qualifications have become so lax that it is trivial to qualify and live off the government forever. You could do it, if you wanted to. You just need to know the right words to say. If you're having trouble paying the bills waiting for approval, just do a few years in prison. You can't get benefits while you are in, but they can be waiting for you when you get out.
Who gets to decide what "actual food" is? Why shouldn't those on welfare be allowed to purchase "alcohol,tobacco or lotto?"
|
|
Don't be silly. They're above the law because they brib...erm lobbied to get the law re written
Democracy died when lobbies formed. Not only the rich men but also the churches and threats of violence or threats to crash out our systems from the poor. Unions have less physical power now then ever but at one time they could do some damage. Churches can threaten with the votes of their sheep.
If we could get money and religion out of politics we might have a chance.
|
Bella Sara Charter Superscriber
|
| 4 people marked this as a favorite. |
I don't think it's unreasonable to want to limit the types of things public assistance dollars are spent on.
I think such schemes are expensive to administrate, enforce, and are generally unrealistic, but that still seems to be besides the point. There's still a fundamental disconnect between the way the world "should" work and the way the word actually works, and making the later resemble the former requires a large and invasive government.
But again, these debates never seem to be about the real world. They are about anecdotes writ large, claims that jobs are easy to obtain and hold for people that are described in the same breath as being worthless and incompetent, fool proof systems that can control the spending and consumption of one segment of socity without additional cost or infrastructure, and the threat of disproportionate enforcement and incarceration despite the lack of evidence that such threats change human behavior.
|
|
I don't think it's unreasonable to want to limit the types of things public assistance dollars are spent on.
I think such schemes are expensive to administrate, enforce, and are generally unrealistic, but that still seems to be besides the point. There's still a fundamental disconnect between the way the world "should" work and the way the word actually works, and making the later resemble the former requires a large and invasive government.
But again, these debates never seem to be about the real world. They are about anecdotes writ large, claims that jobs are easy to obtain and hold for people that are described in the same breath as being worthless and incompetent, and fool proof systems that can control the spending and consumption of one segment of socity without additional cost or infrastructure.
The money saved by getting the bad ones off will help fund the programs to do things right. Prisons are expensive to run, it would be cheaper to let thieves and rapist run free but is it better?
|
Bella Sara Charter Superscriber
|
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
The money saved by getting the bad ones off will help fund the programs to do things right.
I find that to be highly unlikely given that the cost of prison is well in excess of the cost of even the worst case of welfare fraud.
Prisons are expensive to run, it would be cheaper to let thieves and rapist run free but is it better?
It would, in fact, not be cheaper to let thieves and rapists run free. Such crimes have a high cost to society by infringing on individual freedoms, plus there's the cost of, well, the theft itself. The cost of benefits fraud is fairly low and widely dispersed. But, that whole topic treads on a whole range of debates, theories, etc. on criminal justice, deterrence, etc. Suffice to say, there's a pretty big difference between using foodstamps to buy smokes because you're a bad parent and raping someone.
|
|
The money saved by getting the bad ones off will help fund the programs to do things right.I find that to be highly unlikely given that the cost of prison is well in excess of the cost of even the worst case of welfare fraud.
Prisons are expensive to run, it would be cheaper to let thieves and rapist run free but is it better?It would, in fact, not be cheaper to let thieves and rapists run free. Such crimes have a high cost to society by infringing on individual freedoms, plus there's the cost of, well, the theft itself. The cost of benefits fraud is fairly low and widely dispersed. But, that whole topic treads on a whole range of debates, theories, etc. on criminal justice, deterrence, etc. Suffice to say, there's a pretty big difference between using foodstamps to buy smokes because you're a bad parent and raping someone.
But it is much bigger and growing, the welfare system and mentality are a cancer that is rotting out this country. Work retail for a while and watch them, what they teach their children, how fast decent immigrant fall into their worthless patterns
|
Bella Sara Charter Superscriber
|
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
But it is much bigger and growing, the welfare system and mentality are a cancer that is rotting out this country. Work retail for a while and watch them, what they teach their children, how fast decent immigrant fall into their worthless patterns
They said that in the 80s.
And the 90s.
Probably back in Roman times too.
Poverty is a human problem, and it will exist as long as humans exist. It gets worse in hard economic times (*cough* rescessions *cough*) and gets better in the salad days. That's the way life works. It's not some dire, magical cancer; it's human nature and the manipulation of facts by political interests can make it look worse than it is.
|
|
But it is much bigger and growing, the welfare system and mentality are a cancer that is rotting out this country. Work retail for a while and watch them, what they teach their children, how fast decent immigrant fall into their worthless patternsThey said that in the 80s.
And the 90s.
Probably back in Roman times too.
Poverty is a human problem, and it will exist as long as humans exist. It gets worse in hard economic times (*cough* rescessions *cough*) and gets better in the salad days. That's the way life works. It's not some dire, magical cancer; it's human nature and the manipulation of facts by political interests can make it look worse than it is.
Its the same monster thats been growing all those years. Too hard to fix, politicians to afraid of offending and losing votes. Poverty is not the issue, it is how we treat it and what those in it can be and choose to be. I expect more from people than this, others are content as long as they don't have to deal with it.
|
Bella Sara Charter Superscriber
|
| 4 people marked this as a favorite. |
The qualifications have become so lax that it is trivial to qualify and live off the government forever. You could do it, if you wanted to. You just need to know the right words to say.
Tax law works the same way. It's a shame your job doesn't take you to more banks, law firms, or offshore tax havens - you might be as disgusted with the legal fraud that happens at the top of the economy as the legal fraud that happens at the bottom.
|
Bella Sara Charter Superscriber
|
I expect more from people than this, others are content as long as they don't have to deal with it.
If you want the government to be everyone's mommy and help them reach their full potential, more power to you. I have enough going on in my life without worrying about how other people live theirs, either directly or indirectly through the government.
|
|
I expect more from people than this, others are content as long as they don't have to deal with it.If you want the government to be everyone's mommy and help them reach their full potential, more power to you. I have enough going on in my life without worrying about how other people live theirs, either directly or indirectly through the government.
If i wasn't losing money every paycheck i might not care so much, but they are robbing me and every other person that has to earn their way not to mention how many are drunk and drugged every day (yes i see MANY of these) and present a clear danger to decent folks
|
|
Tax law works the same way. It's a shame your job doesn't take you to more banks, law firms, or offshore tax havens - you might be as disgusted with the legal fraud that happens at the top of the economy as the legal fraud that happens at the bottom.
The qualifications have become so lax that it is trivial to qualify and live off the government forever. You could do it, if you wanted to. You just need to know the right words to say.
That is also a problem, but far fewer rich exist. "but they are worse" doesn't excuse what these people do
| 4 people marked this as a favorite. |
That is also a problem, but far fewer rich exist. "but they are worse" doesn't excuse what these people doTax law works the same way. It's a shame your job doesn't take you to more banks, law firms, or offshore tax havens - you might be as disgusted with the legal fraud that happens at the top of the economy as the legal fraud that happens at the bottom.
The qualifications have become so lax that it is trivial to qualify and live off the government forever. You could do it, if you wanted to. You just need to know the right words to say.
Let's see.
On one hand, we have several million people "scamming" the government, probably to the tune of, let's be very liberal, 100 billion a year. They spend this money, by and large, on rent, food, utilities. They are very hard to differentiate between legitimate cases and fraud, and actually prosecuting (and jailing) them would likely be more expensive.On the other hand we have a few hundred people scamming the government of T-T-T-Trillions. We know who they are. We know where they live. They have crashed entire nations economies before, to make a buck. They use their money, by and large, to buy politicians, sway votes, and make sure the system is rigged so they can continue to loot the coffers.
But, by all means, let's beat up on the first group.
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
There was an interesting experiment on deterrence. It isn't exactly conclusive and there are a lot of variables, but the evidence is telling.
Two daycare centers, similar demographics (family income, ethnicity, religion, etc). One, the parents were charged a fine for picking their children up late, the other maintained it's policy of no fine.
The daycare that charged a fine, saw an increase both in the frequency and length of time that parents showed up late.
What we think is a deterrent, is not always a deterrent. Sometimes, it just becomes the 'price'.