| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
He's not saying they do that. He's saying they shouldn't be allowed to buy alcohol or cigarettes if they get assistance, even if they do it with cash.
But, isn't that an infringement on their freedoms?
I haven't been carded for buying booze since i was 16.
|
And any means to do so would be an infringement on everyone's. Exactly the kind of thing right-wingers accuse liberals of dreaming about.He's not saying they do that. He's saying they shouldn't be allowed to buy alcohol or cigarettes if they get assistance, even if they do it with cash.But, isn't that an infringement on their freedoms?
having an ID and being expected to show it to buy restricted items is an infringement?
Wow you better stop the state of MI and most of our stores.| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
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.
No silly not a big W simply bar code them and place in a tracking device too so you know what those darn poor people are up too. I mean most of them are up to no good in my opinion probably thinking subversive thoughts and planning to try an bring down those of us in power. I think my grand father had the best plan for the poor put them to work in his factory so their wages would pay the housing and food he provided them that way we could make some money off them. Then if they caused trouble hire some rough men to bring any thoughts of insurrection down. The stern eye of the gentleman always brings those lowly poor folk into line though and if not best to kill those ones on the spot so they don't breed.
Not at all, it is the cost of expecting others to pay for youBut, isn't that an infringement on their freedoms?He's not saying they do that. He's saying they shouldn't be allowed to buy alcohol or cigarettes if they get assistance, even if they do it with cash.
Or, more accurately, paying for it yourself while others are paying for anything for you.
Exactly what programs should make it illegal for you to buy alcohol? WIC? SNAP? Housing assistance? Medicaid? SSDI? Medicare? Standard retirement Social Security? EITC? ACA subsidies?
Tax breaks on your mortgage payment? Business tax credits?After all, all the money is fungible, so if you're getting any government money at all, it's like you're using it to buy booze.
Clearly, only the programs that Andrew personally doesn't like should force you to "carry the mark," which prevents you from spending your cash as you choose.
Booze? Cigarettes? Get real.
No cookies for you, taker!!!!
| 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 can't even apply for a job in my field without high speed internet,
|
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
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.
A) Farming isn't as easy as you think it is.
B) There isn't a lot of farmland waiting around to be discovered, the frontier is closed.and, most importantly,
C) Your plan is basically a reenactment of what the Khmer Rouge did in Cambodia. Even you should be able to figure out the likely results of trying it again.
The Cookie Lobby is just another example of our corporate masters reducing us to automatons and welfare leeches. In fact, the whole system, from the halls of Congress to the local Chamber of Commerce, seems to be predicated upon reducing us to neo-serfs, breaking our backs at the convenience store, handing out Red Bulls and Doritos to crazy check recipients.
Clearly, the answer is to strike the takers from the welfare rolls.
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.A) Farming isn't as easy as you think it is.
B) There isn't a lot of farmland waiting around to be discovered, the frontier is closed.and, most importantly,
C) Your plan is basically a reenactment of what the Khmer Rouge did in Cambodia. Even you should be able to figure out the likely results of trying it again.
Not to mention small scale farmers are selling off their land because it is worth more to housing developers than they can bring in through proceeds by farming.
Not at all, it is the cost of expecting others to pay for youBut, isn't that an infringement on their freedoms?He's not saying they do that. He's saying they shouldn't be allowed to buy alcohol or cigarettes if they get assistance, even if they do it with cash.
But what if they happened to get a job that was very short term (say a week or so) and they got paid cash? Don't they have the right to treat themselves for working hard? Even if it was for a very short time and they have to go back on welfare afterward?
Or must poor people always lead a life of misery until they can get solid employment, regardless of the circumstances?
Forcing someone to be miserable sure seems like an infringement of their right to "life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness".
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.A) Farming isn't as easy as you think it is.
B) There isn't a lot of farmland waiting around to be discovered, the frontier is closed.
and, most importantly,
C) Your plan is basically a reenactment of what the Khmer Rouge did in Cambodia. Even you should be able to figure out the likely results of trying it again.
Although most feedback on this idea has focused on B and C, having farmed for a living before, A is also true.
Running an independent farm in the style you suggest is skilled labor, requiring training, education and experience. Being lowest-level hired help weeding rows is one thing, but if you spend billions of dollars setting up the farms and houses, then send a bunch of city people who have never farmed before off to run their own small farms, the large majority of those farms will swiftly fail and you will end up with people needing financial assistance just as before, except you just wasted your welfare budget on tractors and decent agricultural land, neither of which are cheap and both of which will now be worth less because uneducated use will have damaged them.
|
|
Clearly, only the programs that Andrew personally doesn't like should force you to "carry the mark," which prevents you from spending your cash as you choose.Not at all, it is the cost of expecting others to pay for youBut, isn't that an infringement on their freedoms?He's not saying they do that. He's saying they shouldn't be allowed to buy alcohol or cigarettes if they get assistance, even if they do it with cash.
Or, more accurately, paying for it yourself while others are paying for anything for you.
Exactly what programs should make it illegal for you to buy alcohol? WIC? SNAP? Housing assistance? Medicaid? SSDI? Medicare? Standard retirement Social Security? EITC? ACA subsidies?
Tax breaks on your mortgage payment? Business tax credits?After all, all the money is fungible, so if you're getting any government money at all, it's like you're using it to buy booze.
Actually, this is one ethos of Andrew's I can get behind! After all, Andrew benefits from MY tax dollars by using roads and public services. Since my tax dollars are going to those programs, I think I should be able to tell him not to use the money he saved for internet access. Andrew, until such time as you are no longer a leeching parasite using my tax dollars to fund your grotesque driving habit, please refrain from using the internet, as you have not earned that privilege.
What's that? You say you pay taxes too? I don't care - I pay MORE, so I should have more say - after all, that's how it works, right? If you were a responsible person, you would make more money, and thus pay more taxes, and thus have more rights.
/poetic_justice
The dilemma here, of course, is that there are no stable definitions for what counts as "work", what the brightline is for "using" versus "abusing" the system really means, what programs are acceptable and unacceptable, what responsible...
I just wanted to say: you are amazing. I have read every word of your posts and I wish I had written them myself. Way to represent; with eloquence and intellect. I passed the last two hours reading this thread with my wife and it has been thoroughly entertaining. Keep fighting the good fight!
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.
So, your solution to this is increasing government oversight and control of people's lives? You are advocating that the government should have the authority to tell people what they can and cannot buy with their own money.
That sounds like communism.
|
|
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.
So, your solution to this is increasing government oversight and control of people's lives? You are advocating that the government should have the authority to tell people what they can and cannot buy with their own money.
That sounds like communism.
I am advocating telling anyone that wants to enter into an agreement with the gov what they can do. Just as soldiers have to give up certain things so should those that want money for nothing
|
|
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.A) Farming isn't as easy as you think it is.
B) There isn't a lot of farmland waiting around to be discovered, the frontier is closed.
and, most importantly,
C) Your plan is basically a reenactment of what the Khmer Rouge did in Cambodia. Even you should be able to figure out the likely results of trying it again.
Although most feedback on this idea has focused on B and C, having farmed for a living before, A is also true.
Running an independent farm in the style you suggest is skilled labor, requiring training, education and experience. Being lowest-level hired help weeding rows is one thing, but if you spend billions of dollars setting up the farms and houses, then send a bunch of city people who have never farmed before off to run their own small farms, the large majority of those farms will swiftly fail and you will end up with people needing financial assistance just as before, except you just wasted your welfare budget on tractors and decent agricultural land, neither of which are cheap and both of which will now be worth less because uneducated use will have damaged them.
You might have some familiarity with farming but what kind? Independent city gardeners are able to produce hundreds of pounds of food in city lots. smart gardening techniques can produce huge crops in little space and require little education to do and not a huge start up cost. i would rather my tax money went to starting people towards self sufficiency than and endless pit of full dependence.
|
|
We're back to the frontier thing again. If we could provide 40 acres and a mule, it might work. But there just isn't the land available to give any noticeable number of people even a few acres and a small efficient house.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..
I remember someone else who proposed moving mass populations out of the cities into the country side to farm for themselves. A Cambodian gentleman by the name of Pol Pot.
Your proposal has some few complications you and the Dog seem to have forgotten...
It's not just putting up a house, you need all the support for it... water, a rather basic necessity, sewage, which means you're looking at environmental impact, roads, (you've got to get them there somehow), power, and provision for communications, or is the idea to create a new form of solitary confinement via isolation?
One other thing, those acres outside of the city? You're going to find that they are under the jurisdiction of towns full of property owners, who in general are NOT going to be enthusiastic about the idea of the government building Poor Towns in their backyard. Not to mention the developers looking for their next big area to add to suburban sprawl.
look into how many millions of acres the gov owns. That could make a whole lot of microfarms. and i would rather they spent the money to make long term choices than throw money at the poor forever without any effect.
I am advocating telling anyone that wants to enter into an agreement with the gov what they can do. Just as soldiers have to give up certain things so should those that want money for nothingEven 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.
So, your solution to this is increasing government oversight and control of people's lives? You are advocating that the government should have the authority to tell people what they can and cannot buy with their own money.
That sounds like communism.
You call taxes theft, but you want complete government control over the household budget for people receiving aid.
How are taxes theft, but the government taking complete control over your finances NOT theft?
|
|
You call taxes theft, but you want complete government control over the household budget for people receiving aid.How are taxes theft, but the government taking complete control over your finances NOT theft?
because you are asking the gov to finance you. You take care of your own business and the gov has no reason to be involved. Much as me and the soldier have differing levels of gov in our lives.
Also having things taken from you is theft, being told how you can use other peoples things doesn't even resemble theft
|
|
Also having things taken from you is theft, being told how you can use other peoples things doesn't even resemble theftBut you don't want just "being told how you can use other people's things", but if you take government money, they get to control even your money.
Those working full time, but needing some food stamps to get by. You don't want them to be able to spend the money they earn as they wish. You think government knows better.
if you "need foodstamps to get by" how can you afford booze and smokes to begin with?
if you "need foodstamps to get by" how can you afford booze and smokes to begin with?Also having things taken from you is theft, being told how you can use other peoples things doesn't even resemble theftBut you don't want just "being told how you can use other people's things", but if you take government money, they get to control even your money.
Those working full time, but needing some food stamps to get by. You don't want them to be able to spend the money they earn as they wish. You think government knows better.
I couldn't even begin to figure this one out, so I, with my scarred back and urine clogged lungs, repeated the question to m'lord Dice. He said, "My God, Dicey, was that some sort of right-wing, capitalist Zen koan? I may have hope for you yet!"
You might have some familiarity with farming but what kind? Independent city gardeners are able to produce hundreds of pounds of food in city lots. smart gardening techniques can produce huge crops in little space and require little education to do and not a huge start up cost. i would rather my tax money went to starting people towards self sufficiency than and endless pit of full dependence.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.A) Farming isn't as easy as you think it is.
B) There isn't a lot of farmland waiting around to be discovered, the frontier is closed.
and, most importantly,
C) Your plan is basically a reenactment of what the Khmer Rouge did in Cambodia. Even you should be able to figure out the likely results of trying it again.
Although most feedback on this idea has focused on B and C, having farmed for a living before, A is also true.
Running an independent farm in the style you suggest is skilled labor, requiring training, education and experience. Being lowest-level hired help weeding rows is one thing, but if you spend billions of dollars setting up the farms and houses, then send a bunch of city people who have never farmed before off to run their own small farms, the large majority of those farms will swiftly fail and you will end up with people needing financial assistance just as before, except you just wasted your welfare budget on tractors and decent agricultural land, neither of which are cheap and both of which will now be worth less because uneducated use will have damaged them.
Small orchard with mixed crops (apples being the largest, but squash, peaches, onions, whatever... so that something different is ready every week from late spring to late fall). Typical small New England farm... monoculture is not as popular over here as on the giant industrial farms out your way.
A few hundred pounds of crops, while no doubt an impressive achievement for an untrained farmer, is a recipe for not just failure, but pathetic failure if you are farming for a living. Describing any common harvest measured on a scale of hundreds of pounds as "huge" is... wrong by orders of magnitude. That's tiny.
|
|
Small orchard with mixed crops...You might have some familiarity with farming but what kind? Independent city gardeners are able to produce hundreds of pounds of food in city lots. smart gardening techniques can produce huge crops in little space and require little education to do and not a huge start up cost. i would rather my tax money went to starting people towards self sufficiency than and endless pit of full dependence.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.A) Farming isn't as easy as you think it is.
B) There isn't a lot of farmland waiting around to be discovered, the frontier is closed.
and, most importantly,
C) Your plan is basically a reenactment of what the Khmer Rouge did in Cambodia. Even you should be able to figure out the likely results of trying it again.
Although most feedback on this idea has focused on B and C, having farmed for a living before, A is also true.
Running an independent farm in the style you suggest is skilled labor, requiring training, education and experience. Being lowest-level hired help weeding rows is one thing, but if you spend billions of dollars setting up the farms and houses, then send a bunch of city people who have never farmed before off to run their own small farms, the large majority of those farms will swiftly fail and you will end up with people needing financial assistance just as before, except you just wasted your welfare budget on tractors and decent agricultural land, neither of which are cheap and both of which will now be worth less because uneducated use will have damaged them.
It is meant as a supplement, not as a full diet. Fresh natural eggs from a small flock of chickens, fresh fruit and veg, plenty left over to can for later in the year mixed with meats and grains not so easily grown
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
But Andrew, you do understand that "plenty left over to can" is such a work intensive proposition that the system you're espousing results in feudalism, right? Cause M'lord Dice and other such masters of industry grok that junk in technicolor.
But Andrew, you do understand that "plenty left over to can" is such a work intensive proposition that the system you're espousing results in feudalism, right? Cause M'lord Dice and other such masters of industry grok that junk in technicolor.
Considering how well this democracy fad is working, I suspect feudalism will make a return soon enough.
But Andrew, you do understand that "plenty left over to can" is such a work intensive proposition that the system you're espousing results in feudalism, right? Cause M'lord Dice and other such masters of industry grok that junk in technicolor.Considering how well this democracy fad is working, I suspect feudalism will make a return soon enough.
If that happens how do I change my forum name to Duke Gallo? I know which role I want in a feudal society!
If that happens how do I change my forum name to Duke Gallo? I know which role I want in a feudal society!But Andrew, you do understand that "plenty left over to can" is such a work intensive proposition that the system you're espousing results in feudalism, right? Cause M'lord Dice and other such masters of industry grok that junk in technicolor.Considering how well this democracy fad is working, I suspect feudalism will make a return soon enough.
We'll just reassign those who aren't nobility to go by numbers.
Why? for the moneyed classes, the present setup has been working VERY well for them.But Andrew, you do understand that "plenty left over to can" is such a work intensive proposition that the system you're espousing results in feudalism, right? Cause M'lord Dice and other such masters of industry grok that junk in technicolor.Considering how well this democracy fad is working, I suspect feudalism will make a return soon enough.
Oh! You mean like feudalism?
Oh! You mean like feudalism?Why? for the moneyed classes, the present setup has been working VERY well for them.But Andrew, you do understand that "plenty left over to can" is such a work intensive proposition that the system you're espousing results in feudalism, right? Cause M'lord Dice and other such masters of industry grok that junk in technicolor.Considering how well this democracy fad is working, I suspect feudalism will make a return soon enough.
Dude, have you even tried to get someone to swear an oath of fealty to you lately? There'a a lot more to feudalism than moneyed classes doing well for ourselves.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Dude, have you even tried to get someone to swear an oath of fealty to you lately? There'a a lot more to feudalism than moneyed classes doing well for ourselves.Oh! You mean like feudalism?Why? for the moneyed classes, the present setup has been working VERY well for them.But Andrew, you do understand that "plenty left over to can" is such a work intensive proposition that the system you're espousing results in feudalism, right? Cause M'lord Dice and other such masters of industry grok that junk in technicolor.Considering how well this democracy fad is working, I suspect feudalism will make a return soon enough.
Have you worked in a corporation lately? They demand fealty. Particularly for managers.
I do. Fortunately, I never had to swear fealty to Big Brown because I swore fealty to the Teamsters instead.
Dude, have you even tried to get someone to swear an oath of fealty to you lately? There'a a lot more to feudalism than moneyed classes doing well for ourselves.Oh! You mean like feudalism?Why? for the moneyed classes, the present setup has been working VERY well for them.But Andrew, you do understand that "plenty left over to can" is such a work intensive proposition that the system you're espousing results in feudalism, right? Cause M'lord Dice and other such masters of industry grok that junk in technicolor.Considering how well this democracy fad is working, I suspect feudalism will make a return soon enough.
It's a lot easier than you think. A lot of people looking for heroes these days. Lot of fools lured in by promises that will never be kept. Such a waste.
It's a lot easier than you think. A lot of people looking for heroes these days. Lot of fools lured in by promises that will never be kept. Such a waste.Dude, have you even tried to get someone to swear an oath of fealty to you lately? There'a a lot more to feudalism than moneyed classes doing well for ourselves.Oh! You mean like feudalism?Why? for the moneyed classes, the present setup has been working VERY well for them.But Andrew, you do understand that "plenty left over to can" is such a work intensive proposition that the system you're espousing results in feudalism, right? Cause M'lord Dice and other such masters of industry grok that junk in technicolor.Considering how well this democracy fad is working, I suspect feudalism will make a return soon enough.
Isn't that what I said about corporations? :-D
Florida discovers it's cheaper to help house the homeless than other "traditional" methods.
Living on the streets isn't cheap: Each chronically homeless person in Central Florida costs the community roughly $31,000 a year, a new analysis being released Thursday shows.
The price tag covers the salaries of law-enforcement officers to arrest and transport homeless individuals — largely for nonviolent offenses such as trespassing, public intoxication or sleeping in parks — as well as the cost of jail stays, emergency-room visits and hospitalization for medical and psychiatric issues.
In contrast, providing the chronically homeless with permanent housing and case managers to supervise them would run about $10,000 per person per year, saving taxpayers millions of dollars during the next decade, the report concludes.