| 3 people marked this as a favorite. |
It may be an ugly thing, but that does not make it inaccurate.Anyone caught selling a card should be cut off for life. that is just stealing from tax payer, worthless filthCountryman, "worthless filth" is an ugly thing to call a human being, thief or no.
once you get to an area where you are asking people to accept name calling in the name of accuracy, any sort of dialog is officially over.
Dialogue ended when your side insisted that filling out forms to get benefits was a job.once you get to an area where you are asking people to accept name calling in the name of accuracy, any sort of dialog is officially over.It may be an ugly thing, but that does not make it inaccurate.Anyone caught selling a card should be cut off for life. that is just stealing from tax payer, worthless filthCountryman, "worthless filth" is an ugly thing to call a human being, thief or no.
my side? What sort of nonsense are you taking about? I have never said anything about forms.
Dialogue ended when your side insisted that filling out forms to get benefits was a job.once you get to an area where you are asking people to accept name calling in the name of accuracy, any sort of dialog is officially over.It may be an ugly thing, but that does not make it inaccurate.Anyone caught selling a card should be cut off for life. that is just stealing from tax payer, worthless filthCountryman, "worthless filth" is an ugly thing to call a human being, thief or no.
Where did that happen? I don't think that happened.
Dialogue ended when your side insisted that filling out forms to get benefits was a job.once you get to an area where you are asking people to accept name calling in the name of accuracy, any sort of dialog is officially over.It may be an ugly thing, but that does not make it inaccurate.Anyone caught selling a card should be cut off for life. that is just stealing from tax payer, worthless filthCountryman, "worthless filth" is an ugly thing to call a human being, thief or no.
I don't think you understand english if you think that is what was said.
|
Where did that happen? I don't think that happened.
Dialogue ended when your side insisted that filling out forms to get benefits was a job.
Yeah, last page. It *may* have been meant as tongue-in-cheek, but I'm not sure.
Probably not a definition that will be helpful to foster understanding and agreement, though. ;)
If welfare recipients didn't perform their "job" and spend their benefits, what would happen to Wal-Mart? The Dollar Store? Citizen R.'s night shift?
I happen to agree the system is pretty rotten all the way through, but I'm not sure Citizen Head's post is the perfect example that I would have chosen.
|
|
But I think he was aiming for a subtler point: What a job is seems like a pretty obvious concept, but it's really a lot more complicated than it looks. What is a job really, other than something someone is willing to pay you to do?I can think of things that people get paid for that are a lot worse for society than just doing nothing. Some of them are even legal and pay very well.
I think he was jus being snarky, but your interpretation is interesting.
It may be too subtle for a conversation where people are claiming that poor people are vile subhumans. :(
Where did that happen? I don't think that happened.Not only did it happen, it happened in a post you favorited. Do you even read the posts you endorse?
I don't think you understand english if you think that is what was said.Before you jump to insulting someone, perhaps you should make sure you understand english. And I quote (not for the first time):
What is the definition of a "job" in your book? Does it mean you get paid for some amount of labor? If so, then we can say that being on government assistance counts, since in effect the benefits are the "paycheck" for the labor of applying for the benefits.
Oh, apparently we have different definitions of insist. I guess you take insist to mean "suggested as an absurd alternative to demonstrate the ridiculousness of referential point," where as I take insist to mean insist.
Wait, but using your definition of insist your last point makes no freaking sense. Maybe you do just have problems with English language usage.
|
.
Ok so you managed to show one job that needs a specific program to work. Does that mean they also all need thousands of dollars in tools since i can name several jobs that take various tools? The majority of jobs do not need any goofy media, jobs among the poor laborers almost never require any more tech than a simple phone.
You are right, a balanced diet requires more than bean. but that bag of beans is still more nutritious than a bag of chips and cheaper and higher quantity as well. So throw in some canned or frozen veg (both cheap) some chicken (fairly cheap often on sale) maybe some apples since they are barely over a dollar a pound and wow you are eating real food (at a quantity to feed a family) cheaper than a bag of doritos, a jerky stick, and a can of red bull for a single dumbass. Smart shopping can bring the prices even lower by buying in bulk and separating it to freeze or can smaller portions. Being smart makes being poor suck much less. One of the things i love about the mags i read about living simply is the teach you to make the most of small budgets and gardening small spaces. Yes some are smart enough to get on the trend of urban gardening and farmers markets. Many simply enjoy eating garbage with someone else's money, why eat healthy?
Sociology and economics are neither on nutrition. reading those will teach you nothing about healthy eating. One of us has been reading about healthy living.
You are right, a balanced diet requires more than bean. but that bag of beans is still more nutritious than a bag of chips and cheaper and higher quantity as well.
If welfare leeches were eating nutritious meals, wouldn't they just live longer and suck up more of your tax dollars?
|
|
You are right, a balanced diet requires more than bean. but that bag of beans is still more nutritious than a bag of chips and cheaper and higher quantity as well.If welfare leeches were eating nutritious meals, wouldn't they just live longer and suck up more of your tax dollars?
maybe but i would be paying less for medical bills. diabetics are not cheap
maybe but i would be paying less for medical bills. diabetics are not cheapYou are right, a balanced diet requires more than bean. but that bag of beans is still more nutritious than a bag of chips and cheaper and higher quantity as well.If welfare leeches were eating nutritious meals, wouldn't they just live longer and suck up more of your tax dollars?
that makes no sense.
Hee hee!
I mean, woops, what am I doing over here in the Andrew R.-vs.-all- comers thread when I am supposed to be doing my homework on the 2009 Honduran coup?
[Gets back to work]
|
|
Ok so you managed to show one job that needs a specific program to work. Does that mean they also all need thousands of dollars in tools since i can name several jobs that take various tools? The majority of jobs do not need any goofy media, jobs among the poor laborers almost never require any more tech than a simple phone.
Right, so the jobs that poor people currently have, that aren't good enough for them to feed their families without assistance, those jobs don't require any kind of tech. GOOD jobs, you know, the kind that are worth doing, those often DO. Not to mention the plethora of creative endeavors that can be facilitated by the existence of technology.
Now, before you fire off another round of "Andrew R says nonsense because he thinks the things he feels are the same as actual facts", why don't you read up a bit about this? Are you so much of a moral coward that you can't even bother to research the possibility that you are wrong?
...You are right, a balanced diet requires more than bean. but that bag of beans is still more nutritious than a bag of chips and cheaper and higher quantity as well. So throw in some canned or frozen veg (both cheap) some chicken (fairly cheap often on sale) maybe some apples since they are barely over a dollar a pound and wow you are eating real food (at a quantity to feed a family) cheaper than a bag of doritos, a jerky stick, and a can of red bull for a single dumbass. Smart shopping can bring the prices even lower by buying in bulk and separating it to freeze or can smaller portions. Being smart makes being poor suck much less. One of the things i love about the mags i read about living simply is the teach you to make the most of small budgets and gardening small spaces. Yes some are smart enough to get on the trend of urban gardening and farmers markets. Many simply enjoy eating garbage with someone else's money, why eat healthy?
Sociology and economics are neither on nutrition. reading those
Sorry but the facts stand that most jobs do not require that nonsense. Sorry that in your tiny world all you see is a couple that do.
Don't have time to shop or cook? doubt that. really do. Cannot afford deals? are you insane? They can afford redbull and a bag of jerky (thats $10) but a meal for a family for the same price they cannot somehow afford? and even easy microwave food is cheaper and more nutritious than doritos and redbull. and most kids can handle to microwave. But that would be too much work for you now wouldn't it...
Work is not the issue. Earning your resources honestly is. Be it farming, gathering from nature, any traditional job, being a hooker or anything else someone agrees to pay you for. Not taking, earning. If someone is willing to pay you to do whatever that is between you and them but you are never right to take any resource from another they are not willing to give.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
No, seriously many jobs do. VoIP calls from my home were a required part of my lab tech job, my boss lived in Japan, I worked in Virginia. In any kind of STEM job it's essentially a non-stated job requirement.
You have yet to explain what this stable employment is.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
No, seriously many jobs do. VoIP calls from my home were a required part of my lab tech job, my boss lived in Japan, I worked in Virginia. In any kind of STEM job it's essentially a non-stated job requirement.
I cannot log my hours without my cell phone for the second job. And my main job was hell without a computer that runs windows 8. Third job is editing- I need my laptop to do that, along with a version of word that reviews in a way my boss likes.
The world has changed andrew. What may have been true a decade ago- not that long a period of time- is true no longer. Sucks, but it's true.
But this story is still no defense of how so many misuse and abuse the system.I'll try once again.
Where's your evidence for this misuse and abuse? Clear evidence that shows the statistics that I and others have already posted showing that e.g. 98-99% of the help actually goes to the right people are wrong.
*crickets*
*crickets*But this story is still no defense of how so many misuse and abuse the system.I'll try once again.
Where's your evidence for this misuse and abuse? Clear evidence that shows the statistics that I and others have already posted showing that e.g. 98-99% of the help actually goes to the right people are wrong.
I'd say about 85%.
I'd say about 85%.*crickets*But this story is still no defense of how so many misuse and abuse the system.I'll try once again.
Where's your evidence for this misuse and abuse? Clear evidence that shows the statistics that I and others have already posted showing that e.g. 98-99% of the help actually goes to the right people are wrong.
85% what?
I was referring to evidence like this and similar statistics.
Two thoughts that pass through my head:
1) I wonder if anyone has ever collected stats about how many prostitutes collect some form of government assistance;
2) How come Mr.T'sFloatingHead never says "I pity the fool..."?
I'd say about 85%.*crickets*But this story is still no defense of how so many misuse and abuse the system.I'll try once again.
Where's your evidence for this misuse and abuse? Clear evidence that shows the statistics that I and others have already posted showing that e.g. 98-99% of the help actually goes to the right people are wrong.85% what?
I was referring to evidence like this and similar statistics.
I would say about 85% of the people on food stamps are legit.
Welfare fraud went down markedly after ODB passed.
"You owe me forty acres and a mule anyway."
Are you basing that on anything other than gut feeling? Gentle Giant just posted evidence that contradicts that. Where does your number come from?I would say about 85% of the people on food stamps are legit.I'd say about 85%.*crickets*But this story is still no defense of how so many misuse and abuse the system.I'll try once again.
Where's your evidence for this misuse and abuse? Clear evidence that shows the statistics that I and others have already posted showing that e.g. 98-99% of the help actually goes to the right people are wrong.85% what?
I was referring to evidence like this and similar statistics.
guy feeling and experience and work. There are thieves and assorted bad people out there, but not as many as some believe
Unfortunately gut feeling is one of the absolute worst ways to accurately judge things on such a large scale, our perceptions are notoriously unreliable. According to the link provided by Gentle Giant it's about 99% legit, unless you have some specific evidence to counter their analysis, you may not want to rely on gut feeling. It's for this reason anecdotes are not considered data.
|
|
guy feeling and experience and work. There are thieves and assorted bad people out there, but not as many as some believeAre you basing that on anything other than gut feeling? Gentle Giant just posted evidence that contradicts that. Where does your number come from?I would say about 85% of the people on food stamps are legit.I'd say about 85%.*crickets*But this story is still no defense of how so many misuse and abuse the system.I'll try once again.
Where's your evidence for this misuse and abuse? Clear evidence that shows the statistics that I and others have already posted showing that e.g. 98-99% of the help actually goes to the right people are wrong.85% what?
I was referring to evidence like this and similar statistics.
maybe but it would be easy to make it a LOT less
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
M'lord Dice said that a system that denies services to those who legitimately require assistance because some cheat the system isn't fulfilling the basic functions of government. He also said that if you think the requirements for, and oversight of, welfare aren't stringent enough, you're actually in favor of bigger government, not lower taxes.
Of course, this was while he was forcing my head into a barrel containing the collected contents of every chamber pot in Manse Dice (if you think water-boarding is bad, just try being urine-boarded), after he had pelted me with rotten vegetables and worked me over with a cat-o-nine tails, so I may have misheard him, or simply been delirious.
|
|
Work is not the issue. Earning your resources honestly is. Be it farming, gathering from nature, any traditional job, being a hooker or anything else someone agrees to pay you for. Not taking, earning. If someone is willing to pay you to do whatever that is between you and them but you are never right to take any resource from another they are not willing to give.Unless of course you have the legal right to do so. Like collection agent or Repo Man.
And once we concede that, we see that it's not so simple. The guy on welfare of course is not taking "any resource from another they are not willing to give." He's getting his resources from a government that is willing to give them to him. And the government has the legal right to collect taxes to get those resources.
So where's the problem? Other than that you don't like it.Which is why we keep coming back to "taxation is theft, but only when it's for things I don't approve of".
On the flip side, I'd be a lot more sympathetic to your general attitude if we were living in a time where our major societal was a lack of labor. Right now, our problem is much closer to the opposite. We have an oversupply of labor and not enough employment. If all these lazy leeches got up off their butts and really started looking for work (or for second or third jobs, "Uniquely American, isn't it?"), we wouldn't suddenly have a booming economy, we'd just have more people filling out applications for each position. Jobs wouldn't magically appear for all of them. There'd just be more people competing for them. And if we cut all the benefits and unemployment (oh wait, we've done that bit), we'd just have more lines at the food pantries and more homeless people, because we're not providing jobs for them!
If we were at full employment and wages were rising because businesses were desperate to find workers, and we still had all these layabouts, then it would be a different story.
Legal "right' and morally right are not the same thing. the gov could ok some heinous s*&T that doesn't mean it is ok to do now.
You are right that an oversupply of people is an issue. That doesn't change the fact that money taken from others to fund them is being misused. Part of why i would love to see more of them gardening on a scale verging on farming to feed themselves more. We need more of the people out of the cities and into a position to feed themselves, that would be a better use of our money.
I say we reexamine the dog's proposal bit. a small efficient house on a few acres outside the city and a bit of education on agriculture is better than packing the city full of crime and full dependence. Might be far better off delivering a regular ration than a blank check to waste on overpriced junk. But once again it would make the corporate masters unhappy so it cannot be.
maybe but it would be easy to make it a LOT lessguy feeling and experience and work. There are thieves and assorted bad people out there, but not as many as some believeAre you basing that on anything other than gut feeling? Gentle Giant just posted evidence that contradicts that. Where does your number come from?I would say about 85% of the people on food stamps are legit.I'd say about 85%.*crickets*But this story is still no defense of how so many misuse and abuse the system.I'll try once again.
Where's your evidence for this misuse and abuse? Clear evidence that shows the statistics that I and others have already posted showing that e.g. 98-99% of the help actually goes to the right people are wrong.85% what?
I was referring to evidence like this and similar statistics.
Sorry, Andrew, carpet bombing poor neighborhoods is off the table.
|
|
Sorry, Andrew, carpet bombing poor neighborhoods is off the table.maybe but it would be easy to make it a LOT lessguy feeling and experience and work. There are thieves and assorted bad people out there, but not as many as some believeAre you basing that on anything other than gut feeling? Gentle Giant just posted evidence that contradicts that. Where does your number come from?I would say about 85% of the people on food stamps are legit.I'd say about 85%.*crickets*But this story is still no defense of how so many misuse and abuse the system.I'll try once again.
Where's your evidence for this misuse and abuse? Clear evidence that shows the statistics that I and others have already posted showing that e.g. 98-99% of the help actually goes to the right people are wrong.85% what?
I was referring to evidence like this and similar statistics.
Nope but no reason we cannot take the fun out of it to encourage work. Stop the use on energy drinks and bar them from vices like tobacco and booze.
Legal "right' and morally right are...Work is not the issue. Earning your resources honestly is. Be it farming, gathering from nature, any traditional job, being a hooker or anything else someone agrees to pay you for. Not taking, earning. If someone is willing to pay you to do whatever that is between you and them but you are never right to take any resource from another they are not willing to give.Unless of course you have the legal right to do so. Like collection agent or Repo Man.
And once we concede that, we see that it's not so simple. The guy on welfare of course is not taking "any resource from another they are not willing to give." He's getting his resources from a government that is willing to give them to him. And the government has the legal right to collect taxes to get those resources.
So where's the problem? Other than that you don't like it.Which is why we keep coming back to "taxation is theft, but only when it's for things I don't approve of".
On the flip side, I'd be a lot more sympathetic to your general attitude if we were living in a time where our major societal was a lack of labor. Right now, our problem is much closer to the opposite. We have an oversupply of labor and not enough employment. If all these lazy leeches got up off their butts and really started looking for work (or for second or third jobs, "Uniquely American, isn't it?"), we wouldn't suddenly have a booming economy, we'd just have more people filling out applications for each position. Jobs wouldn't magically appear for all of them. There'd just be more people competing for them. And if we cut all the benefits and unemployment (oh wait, we've done that bit), we'd just have more lines at the food pantries and more homeless people, because we're not providing jobs for them!
If we were at full employment and wages were rising because businesses were desperate to find workers, and we still had all these layabouts, then it would be a different story.
You seriously want to take on the farm industry? Big farm is a thing. Just because they don't wear suits every day doesn't mean they aren't an industry that will undertake action to protect their interests.
|
|
Unfortunately gut feeling is one of the absolute worst ways to accurately judge things on such a large scale, our perceptions are notoriously unreliable. According to the link provided by Gentle Giant it's about 99% legit, unless you have some specific evidence to counter their analysis, you may not want to rely on gut feeling. It's for this reason anecdotes are not considered data.
if you consider living off redbull, doritos and jerky while boozing and smoking money that could pay bills proper use sure it isn't being abused
Nope but no reason we cannot take the fun out of it to encourage work. Stop the use on energy drinks and bar them from vices like tobacco and booze.Sorry, Andrew, carpet bombing poor neighborhoods is off the table.maybe but it would be easy to make it a LOT lessguy feeling and experience and work. There are thieves and assorted bad people out there, but not as many as some believeAre you basing that on anything other than gut feeling? Gentle Giant just posted evidence that contradicts that. Where does your number come from?I would say about 85% of the people on food stamps are legit.I'd say about 85%.*crickets*But this story is still no defense of how so many misuse and abuse the system.I'll try once again.
Where's your evidence for this misuse and abuse? Clear evidence that shows the statistics that I and others have already posted showing that e.g. 98-99% of the help actually goes to the right people are wrong.85% what?
I was referring to evidence like this and similar statistics.
Only the rich can enjoy a smoke and an alcoholic beverage!!!
Also, at least in NY, you cannot use benefits to buy cigarettes and alcohol. You have to do some underhanded stuff to get cash for your benefits in order to do this. Still not sure why your state allows this, but it sounds like a MI issue.
|
|
...LegalWork is not the issue. Earning your resources honestly is. Be it farming, gathering from nature, any traditional job, being a hooker or anything else someone agrees to pay you for. Not taking, earning. If someone is willing to pay you to do whatever that is between you and them but you are never right to take any resource from another they are not willing to give.Unless of course you have the legal right to do so. Like collection agent or Repo Man.
And once we concede that, we see that it's not so simple. The guy on welfare of course is not taking "any resource from another they are not willing to give." He's getting his resources from a government that is willing to give them to him. And the government has the legal right to collect taxes to get those resources.
So where's the problem? Other than that you don't like it.Which is why we keep coming back to "taxation is theft, but only when it's for things I don't approve of".
On the flip side, I'd be a lot more sympathetic to your general attitude if we were living in a time where our major societal was a lack of labor. Right now, our problem is much closer to the opposite. We have an oversupply of labor and not enough employment. If all these lazy leeches got up off their butts and really started looking for work (or for second or third jobs, "Uniquely American, isn't it?"), we wouldn't suddenly have a booming economy, we'd just have more people filling out applications for each position. Jobs wouldn't magically appear for all of them. There'd just be more people competing for them. And if we cut all the benefits and unemployment (oh wait, we've done that bit), we'd just have more lines at the food pantries and more homeless people, because we're not providing jobs for them!
If we were at full employment and wages were rising because businesses were desperate to find workers, and we still had all these layabouts, then it would be a different story.
Sure, crushing big business that thinks it should control us is part of what must be done if we are to remain a free people
|
|
Nope but no reason we cannot take the fun out of it to encourage work. Stop the use on energy drinks and bar them from vices like tobacco and booze.Sorry, Andrew, carpet bombing poor neighborhoods is off the table.maybe but it would be easy to make it a LOT lessguy feeling and experience and work. There are thieves and assorted bad people out there, but not as many as some believeAre you basing that on anything other than gut feeling? Gentle Giant just posted evidence that contradicts that. Where does your number come from?I would say about 85% of the people on food stamps are legit.I'd say about 85%.*crickets*But this story is still no defense of how so many misuse and abuse the system.I'll try once again.
Where's your evidence for this misuse and abuse? Clear evidence that shows the statistics that I and others have already posted showing that e.g. 98-99% of the help actually goes to the right people are wrong.85% what?
I was referring to evidence like this and similar statistics.Only the rich can enjoy a smoke and an alcoholic beverage!!!
Also, at least in NY, you cannot use benefits to buy cigarettes and alcohol. You have to do some underhanded stuff to get cash for your benefits in order to do this. Still not sure why your state allows this, but it sounds like a MI issue.
Even if the cards cannot buy them they should be using the money they have to pay bills not wallow in some of the most expensive vices.
|
|
Even if the cards cannot buy them they should be using the money they have to pay bills not wallow in some of the most expensive vices.Exactly how do you plan on enforcing this? How do you keep people who get assistance from using any other money they have to buy alchohol or cigarettes? Shall we stamp a big red "W" on their foreheads? Set up a database that every store has access to that determines who is allowed to buy what and then require identification and tracking of every purchase?
Do you have any idea how expensive that would be? Compared to the money "wasted" currently?And especially in the case of cigarettes, given how addictive they are, will just push smokers into a black market anyway.
And seriously, tobacco and booze aren't anywhere near the most expensive vices. That's why they're poor people vices.
Do not give them a card like they get now. attach it to their ID and simply check ID for all purchases, many stores do already to avoid sales to minors.
Not expensive? 3 packs a day (many smokers do that and more) buys my car every year.
Even if the cards cannot buy them they should be using the money they have to pay bills not wallow in some of the most expensive vices.Exactly how do you plan on enforcing this? How do you keep people who get assistance from using any other money they have to buy alchohol or cigarettes? Shall we stamp a big red "W" on their foreheads? Set up a database that every store has access to that determines who is allowed to buy what and then require identification and tracking of every purchase?
Do you have any idea how expensive that would be? Compared to the money "wasted" currently?And especially in the case of cigarettes, given how addictive they are, will just push smokers into a black market anyway.
And seriously, tobacco and booze aren't anywhere near the most expensive vices. That's why they're poor people vices.
Do not give them a card like they get now. attach it to their ID and simply check ID for all purchases, many stores do already to avoid sales to minors.
Not expensive? 3 packs a day (many smokers do that and more) buys my car every year.
again, I would argue that a lot of this sounds like a Michigan issue. I am having trouble wrapping my head around a state that allows the purchase of alcohol and tobacco with benefits. I dont think I can put into words thr trouble you get in that in ny. I've seen stores get shut down over the accusation that they were doing this - not even the (proven)practice.