Thread: UA for Public Assistance?

Originally Posted by Jimbo7

I would, but I have no idea how to read. ;(

It's ok, as long as you know how to right...

The biggest question I have is this:

If the bill passes, WHAT PROBLEM WILL IT SOLVE ?

Originally Posted by Glenn24

The biggest question I have is this:

If the bill passes, WHAT PROBLEM WILL IT SOLVE ?

Really, it won't solve anything. All it is is a bit of political grandstanding.

Originally Posted by gugi

It's ok, as long as you know how to right...

Now is that some sort of left handed compliment,
Or just a contemplation....?

Originally Posted by niftyshaving

Now is that some sort of left handed compliment,
Or just a contemplation....?

it just blows your mind, dude!!! wow

Originally Posted by Glenn24

The biggest question I have is this:

If the bill passes, WHAT PROBLEM WILL IT SOLVE ?

Obviously it will solve the problem of people spending government assistance on inappropriate things.

Wait, no, it'll really just be a giant waste of state money so that some people can enjoy taking away aid from someone who smoked pot. We could spend all this drug testing money on programs to actually help these recipients to get jobs, but that's not nearly as fun. Look up why other states never bothered to implement this system for financial reasons.

Spend $110k in tax dollars per month on a program to ween people off welfare and placed back into the work force = "Those are my tax dollars, not theirs! Get a job just like I did!"
Spend $110k in tax dollars per month to catch a few pot heads = "Yeah! Serves those lazy druggies right -- my tax dollars being spent well."

So let me play devil's advocate if I may. Why is it the government's job to ensure these folks or anyone else for that matter is fed? You want to save some real money put a time limit on public assistance. This way, if someone runs up on hard times and needs some help they'll get it for, say 24 months. At month 25 you're done. Now don't get me wrong, I know that sometimes bad things happen to good people but I also know that there are GENERATIONS that have spent their entire lives bellied up to the government teet and consider it an entitlement (i.e. the world owes them something). As far as getting these people back to work, I'm sure there's lots of folks who (amazingly enough) locate and work jobs AND feed their families without asking for a damn thing from the government. What's more, there are probably 100 programs that the hardworking folks of the U.S. of A are currently tossing millions of dollars at that are now, and always have been miserable failures. You see, people that don't want to work, generally won't.

Originally Posted by 1OldGI

So let me play devil's advocate if I may. Why is it the government's job to ensure these folks or anyone else for that matter is fed? You want to save some real money put a time limit on public assistance. This way, if someone runs up on hard times and needs some help they'll get it for, say 24 months. At month 25 you're done. Now don't get me wrong, I know that sometimes bad things happen to good people but I also know that there are GENERATIONS that have spent their entire lives bellied up to the government teet and consider it an entitlement (i.e. the world owes them something). As far as getting these people back to work, I'm sure there's lots of folks who (amazingly enough) locate and work jobs AND feed their families without asking for a damn thing from the government. What's more, there are probably 100 programs that the hardworking folks of the U.S. of A are currently tossing millions of dollars at that are now, and always have been miserable failures. You see, people that don't want to work, generally won't.

I don't think it's a devil's advocate position to ask why the government should care about the well-being of the citizens it governs. Honestly I think that's like saying, "Why should the fire department make sure that fires are put out?"

I challenge you to show any sort of evidence that you know "generations that have spent their entire lives bellied up to the government ... and consider it an entitlement" who are on the poor side of the spectrum. And let's say you know a single generation that has done that; there are probably just as many -- if not more -- on the wealthy end who have maintained their wealth simply by exploitation and corruption, as opposed to actual work.

You cannot take your personal experience and apply it to the rest of the world. It's a flawed position. "I got a job without assistance, therefore everyone else can." That's not how the world works, I'm afraid.

Originally Posted by commiecat

I don't think it's a devil's advocate position to ask why the government should care about the well-being of the citizens it governs. Honestly I think that's like saying, "Why should the fire department make sure that fires are put out?"

I challenge you to show any sort of evidence that you know "generations that have spent their entire lives bellied up to the government ... and consider it an entitlement" who are on the poor side of the spectrum. And let's say you know a single generation that has done that; there are probably just as many -- if not more -- on the wealthy end who have maintained their wealth simply by exploitation and corruption, as opposed to actual work.

You cannot take your personal experience and apply it to the rest of the world. It's a flawed position. "I got a job without assistance, therefore everyone else can." That's not how the world works, I'm afraid.

Here ya go, watch this movie: http://wildandwonderfulwhites.com/fa...sco-white.html

It's about the family of Jesco White. He's in his 60's or 70's and has occasionally held down small jobs ad have his siblings and their children. But, due to knowing how the system works they survive primarily off drugs, booze, and SSDI.

It's a documentary and it's pretty much how a decent portion of WV survives. Same out here in rural VA. Hell, right now I could go on disability and get not much less than my 50 hours a week earns me.

Why should the government do anything for anybody? Because it is their government, I suppose, and has chosen not to go and govern some other place to which those people don't belong.

It is easy to make so-called documentaries about individual cases, but they aren't a program of study by a PhD journalist, like this:

Nickel and Dimed - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

I am sure there are families which become welfare-dependent for generations, and families which become dependent on crime. Sometimes, no doubt, they are the same families, unless they make it into banking, the law or politics. But as I said earlier, a high proportion of welfare recipients are doing hard, difficult jobs, which wealthier people badly need to have done right, and instantly suffer from when they are done badly. Limousine drivers, city hotel workers and junior health workers do vital jobs, sometimes in a service they would hate to change for any other, but with no prospect of adequately supporting a family on their own.

But just suppose they did find a better way of life? What are the city fathers and the middle classes going to do about the vacancies? Pay more or provide better conditions to attract replacements who won't quit? No, they'd ask "Anybody know where to find some new sort of wetback who are desperate enough to take what we choose to give them?"

I have noticed that the people who oppose the so-called socialism of having to pay for welfare they may never want, disaster relief they may never want or a national health service they may never want, are often the keenest on making other people pay for a national war service, to fight wars they may never want.