Rant.

[jtyangel]

Do you mean when it gets passed down from generation to generation? I personally think it comes from the idea that you can never get out of your poor situation. Poor parents often think that of their kids, and it's backed up by a society who expects it. This is where I think some poor people are wrong. I think it's important to help some poor people get passed the idea that they have to be victims their entire lives by encouraging them to do better. Some would argue that it means taking welfare and other assistance programs away. FWIW, I don't favor assistance programs to live off of (unless one has a disability preventing them from work). I only favor it long enough for one to get on their feet. I do sometimes favor assistance with daycare to ensure the parents can stay on their feet.

But one individual really can't live off of welfare for long. That was ended during the Clinton Administration.

Bullshit--scam artists have no qualms with using the children they create to live a life that revolves around no work. When that is how you live your life, that is the values that you pass on to those children, not to mention the fact that the children grow up knowing they are just property to be used to support their parents. That value gets passed down.

If it didn't, then NOBODY would ever get out of 'poverty' but some kids actually escape it by not wanting to use their own children for chattle and wanting to do better for themselves. The ones I've seen succeed either do have parents who are REALLY in poverty but have a good work ethic and morals OR they get as far away from the leeches as possible and go on to live a good life.

You can't make me unsee what I've seen in my life, Lanie and it stands in direct opposition to your very typical liberal view of the 'noble poor'. Some...perhaps...but they usually aren't the lifetime leeches. Now you add to it a burden of unwed mothers(and their sperm donors) who have been coddled to think that if they have a child there is nothing wrong with expecting the public to help you out the first few years and you have a gigantic monetary elephant in the room.

[jtyangel]

And what do the people who have the money for THEIR families taken away from them get in exchange?

And if one class can take from another class without permission or the need to give back what is to stop them from becoming outright thieves?
Straw Man to the Rescue!

That's a relevant statement, Snuggles. As long as a good portion of the 'products' that come out of homes receiving public assistance are so abyssmal...people have the right to be pissed about it. These people who take from other families, oftentimes can't even raise good, quality individuals, but we aren't supposed to be mad or comment about it. I got news for Lanie and others like it--where the money is so is the power or it should be. Think of it as when you lived in your parents house and you lived by their rules. IMO, if someone accepts assistance there should be rules, hoops, and outright responsibilities for taking the hard earned money of another family. If you want help, you accept the rules by which you will parent those children, how you keep your house, and how you conduct your life. You want freedom? Then do it on your own damn dime.

[BEG]

That's a relevant statement, Snuggles. As long as a good portion of the 'products' that come out of homes receiving public assistance are so abyssmal...people have the right to be pissed about it. These people who take from other families, oftentimes can't even raise good, quality individuals, but we aren't supposed to be mad or comment about it. I got news for Lanie and others like it--where the money is so is the power or it should be. Think of it as when you lived in your parents house and you lived by their rules. IMO, if someone accepts assistance there should be rules, hoops, and outright responsibilities for taking the hard earned money of another family. If you want help, you accept the rules by which you will parent those children, how you keep your house, and how you conduct your life. You want freedom? Then do it on your own damn dime.

Ding ding ding...we have a winner.   

[thundley4]

That's a relevant statement, Snuggles. As long as a good portion of the 'products' that come out of homes receiving public assistance are so abyssmal...people have the right to be pissed about it. These people who take from other families, oftentimes can't even raise good, quality individuals, but we aren't supposed to be mad or comment about it. I got news for Lanie and others like it--where the money is so is the power or it should be. Think of it as when you lived in your parents house and you lived by their rules. IMO, if someone accepts assistance there should be rules, hoops, and outright responsibilities for taking the hard earned money of another family. If you want help, you accept the rules by which you will parent those children, how you keep your house, and how you conduct your life. You want freedom? Then do it on your own damn dime.

And high up on that list of rules for government aid should be drug and alcohol testing.

[Lanie]

That's a relevant statement, Snuggles. As long as a good portion of the 'products' that come out of homes receiving public assistance are so abyssmal...people have the right to be pissed about it. These people who take from other families, oftentimes can't even raise good, quality individuals, but we aren't supposed to be mad or comment about it. I got news for Lanie and others like it--where the money is so is the power or it should be. Think of it as when you lived in your parents house and you lived by their rules. IMO, if someone accepts assistance there should be rules, hoops, and outright responsibilities for taking the hard earned money of another family. If you want help, you accept the rules by which you will parent those children, how you keep your house, and how you conduct your life. You want freedom? Then do it on your own damn dime.

I agree with the idea of the people asking for assistance being told to abide by the rules of the government (which is ran by the people). I don't think you'll ever hear me saying otherwise. And the government agrees as well. They don't quite get as personal as you want them to, but only because nobody would be able to agree on parenting or other issues.

And I guess that (not the concept of "But I'm a victim of theft") is a true argument in favor of the idea of Capitalism equaling freedom.

I agree that there are scam artists, and that a lot of poor people are up to no good. I grew up in a trailer park for crying out loud. I know. I guess I just don't agree with the concept that this makes up the majority of those on welfare or other assistance.

I remember thinking in high school that it's just dumb to have baby after baby to get money because that money has to go toward the baby. If they're not putting the money toward the baby and are instead spending it on drugs, then they need their kids taken away (after proof shown that it's happening of course). I honestly can't help but think that if one is that good at being a scam artist, then they can put their talent to better use. Welfare doesn't pay a lot.

I understand, and I agree about scam artists. I just don't agree about it making up the majority of those on assistance.

[Lanie]

And high up on that list of rules for government aid should be drug and alcohol testing.

I agree with that as well.

[Rebel]

I agree with that as well.

Sigh. Bridget, do you honestly think anyone gives a **** what you think here? Seriously?

[Lanie]

Sigh. Bridget, do you honestly think anyone gives a **** what you think here? Seriously?

To be honest, yes. Why? People respond. When I don't care, I don't respond.

I'm trying to show where I actually have something in common instead of just arguing. Is that okay with you?

[Crazy Horse]

To be honest, yes. Why? People respond. When I don't care, I don't respond.

I'm trying to show where I actually have something in common instead of just arguing. Is that okay with you?

But that's all you're doing is arguing.  You agree with someone and then give the reasons why what they said is wrong....etc, etc.

People aren't responding to you because they care, as usual thy are responding to your naivete, ignorance....et cetra, et cetra

[Eupher]

Lanie:

I agree with the idea of the people asking for assistance being told to abide by the rules of the government (which is ran by the people).

 

Once again, Lanie, you miscue - the government SHOULD be run by the people, but it's not. It SHOULD be run by the representatives whom we elect, but it's not. It's run by lobbyists, special interests, and currently, socialists.

Apart from that, jty is spot on - there should be hoops, hell, entire obstacle courses to jump through if you want to collect so much as a damned dime on the public dole.

Like her, I've seen far too many examples of how piss-poor ideas of how to be paid to be lazy actually succeed and in order to reduce at least some of that to an acceptable level, some hard decisions have to be made.

You want food stamps? Get in that line that's over a mile long.

You want ADC? Get in that line that's over three miles long.

And if your paperwork isn't completely and totally filled out, properly and with no missing information, you get tossed out on your ass.

I have NO PATIENCE with scum suckers, especially those who are lazy scum suckers to boot.

[Lanie]

But that's all you're doing is arguing.  You agree with someone and then give the reasons why what they said is wrong....etc, etc.

People aren't responding to you because they care, as usual thy are responding to your naivete, ignorance....et cetra, et cetra

Perhaps that's a good point. I'll take that into consideration, along with some of the other thoughts posted in this thread.

[Doc]

Many years ago, a man named LaGuardia was elected mayor of New York City  (a place where I have lived, and have some familiarity).  He decided that every person on public assistance was required to spend 50 hours per week with a broom, or a pointed stick and a canvas bag sweeping the streets and picking up the trash in the city.

After about a year of this, two things happened.........first New York became a beautiful city, with no trash or debris to be seen, anywhere.......second, the work was so publically degrading that the public assistance rolls dropped by one-half.........

The taxpayers were so pleased that they eventually named their airport after him.......

I am of the opinion that all forms of public assistance need to become embarrassing and degrading enough to stigmatize the recipient to the point where they are motivated to get off of these programs.  (It won't work for all, as there are those who have no sense of personal pride, but I suspect that it would work for most).

I think that this concept would bear consideration today......

doc

[Eupher]

Many years ago, a man named LaGuardia was elected mayor of New York City  (a place where I have lived, and have some familiarity).  He decided that every person on public assistance was required to spend 50 hours per week with a broom, or a pointed stick and a canvas bag sweeping the streets and picking up the trash in the city.

After about a year of this, two things happened.........first New York became a beautiful city, with no trash or debris to be seen, anywhere.......second, the work was so publically degrading that the public assistance rolls dropped by one-half.........

The taxpayers were so pleased that they eventually named their airport after him.......

I am of the opinion that all forms of public assistance need to become embarrassing and degrading enough to stigmatize the recipient to the point where they are motivated to get off of these programs.  (It won't work for all, as there are those who have no sense of personal pride, but I suspect that it would work for most).

I think that this concept would bear consideration today......

doc

Spot-on, doc.   

[Lanie]

Many years ago, a man named LaGuardia was elected mayor of New York City  (a place where I have lived, and have some familiarity).  He decided that every person on public assistance was required to spend 50 hours per week with a broom, or a pointed stick and a canvas bag sweeping the streets and picking up the trash in the city.

After about a year of this, two things happened.........first New York became a beautiful city, with no trash or debris to be seen, anywhere.......second, the work was so publically degrading that the public assistance rolls dropped by one-half.........

The taxpayers were so pleased that they eventually named their airport after him.......

I am of the opinion that all forms of public assistance need to become embarrassing and degrading enough to stigmatize the recipient to the point where they are motivated to get off of these programs.  (It won't work for all, as there are those who have no sense of personal pride, but I suspect that it would work for most).

I think that this concept would bear consideration today......

doc

Since it's shown to work, it should be considered (exception being those on disability).  That should weed out those who are on the assistance to be lazy from those who aren't. It would also have them doing something for the community in return (cleaning the sidewalk or whatever).

[Eupher]

Doc's point notwithstanding, I think it's fair to say that today is a different time and era from LaGuardia's day.

Far, far too many people simply have no sense of decency, honor, and pride. In fact, it would be a full-time job for a battalion of people to ride herd over these people on the public dole.

I pity the poor bastard who would have to work with the majority of these people. There would be whining, complaints of back pain, OSHA recordables, and all manner of shit designed to do nothing but wreak havoc.

While the supervisors and managers are dealing with THAT shit, the scumsuckers sham. And collect their money.

I've seen too much of this kind of shit when the work gets tough or demeaning. The whiners whine, the shammers sham, and the real workers are rewarded by doing more of the work that the shammers goldbrick out of.

[Chris_]

Doc's point notwithstanding, I think it's fair to say that today is a different time and era from LaGuardia's day.

Far, far too many people simply have no sense of decency, honor, and pride. In fact, it would be a full-time job for a battalion of people to ride herd over these people on the public dole.

I pity the poor bastard who would have to work with the majority of these people. There would be whining, complaints of back pain, OSHA recordables, and all manner of shit designed to do nothing but wreak havoc.

While the supervisors and managers are dealing with THAT shit, the scumsuckers sham. And collect their money.

I've seen too much of this kind of shit when the work gets tough or demeaning. The whiners whine, the shammers sham, and the real workers are rewarded by doing more of the work that the shammers goldbrick out of.

There are several problems with such a program today that didn't exist in LaGuardia's time.........first are the UNIONS, who would never allow such "unpaid" efforts to infringe on their ricebowl, and second are the "liberals" who don't agree that welfare in its various forms should be "stigmatizing", hell they don't even issue food stamps any more, because it was considered embarassing for the recipient to use them in the check-out line......now recipients are issued a "credit card", so that it appears that they are just like any other customer........

Perhaps the credit card should be issued in bright red, with "Taxpayer Funded" printed in large letters on both sides......

doc

[Doc]

Since it's shown to work, it should be considered (exception being those on disability).  That should weed out those who are on the assistance to be lazy from those who aren't. It would also have them doing something for the community in return (cleaning the sidewalk or whatever).

Most on "disability" are scammers with some form of mental issues, hell, obesity and alcoholism are now considered "disabilities"......like the members of the DUmp.......you can pick up trash from a wheelchair just as well as you can standing, with a pointed stick.......

doc

[TheSarge]

Many years ago, a man named LaGuardia was elected mayor of New York City  (a place where I have lived, and have some familiarity).  He decided that every person on public assistance was required to spend 50 hours per week with a broom, or a pointed stick and a canvas bag sweeping the streets and picking up the trash in the city.

After about a year of this, two things happened.........first New York became a beautiful city, with no trash or debris to be seen, anywhere.......second, the work was so publically degrading that the public assistance rolls dropped by one-half.........

The taxpayers were so pleased that they eventually named their airport after him.......

I am of the opinion that all forms of public assistance need to become embarrassing and degrading enough to stigmatize the recipient to the point where they are motivated to get off of these programs.  (It won't work for all, as there are those who have no sense of personal pride, but I suspect that it would work for most).

I think that this concept would bear consideration today......

doc

Reagain did the kinda same thing in California when he was Gov.

[Chris_]

Reagain did the kinda same thing in California when he was Gov.

Guiliani also tried it again in New York, and got sued six ways from sunday by the municipal employees union.....but at least he gave it a shot.......

doc

[Lanie]

Most on "disability" are scammers with some form of mental issues, hell, obesity and alcoholism are now considered "disabilities"......like the members of the DUmp.......you can pick up trash from a wheelchair just as well as you can standing, with a pointed stick.......

doc

I don't know how it is in other places, but nearly anybody who applies for Disability in NC is turned down the first two or three times. It's not easy to get on over here.

Disability is about ability to hold down a job. If a condition keeps one from being a good worker or a worker at all, then that's what Disability is determined on. I think it's also based on the type of work the person is qualified for. I guess in theory a person who is no longer fit to do physically hard work might be able to get qualified for office work. Even then, office work isn't just sitting at the computer and employers will take it into consideration.

[Lanie]

Guiliani also tried it again in New York, and got sued six ways from sunday by the municipal employees union.....but at least he gave it a shot.......

doc

I don't understand why the Unions have a say in it if they're not already involved with a company (or in this case, the government). I'm not arguing. I just don't understand that.

[Eupher]

...snip...
Disability is about ability to hold down a job. If a condition keeps one from being a good worker or a worker at all, then that's what Disability is determined on. I think it's also based on the type of work the person is qualified for. I guess in theory a person who is no longer fit to do physically hard work might be able to get qualified for office work. Even then, office work isn't just sitting at the computer and employers will take it into consideration.

Lanie, are you in the disability business in NC? Do you have some kind of information that supports what you're saying?

Where are you getting your definitions as to what "disability" is?

How is it you know what determines whether or not a person is disabled?

No backpedaling here. Just answer the questions, please.

 

[Eupher]

I don't understand why the Unions have a say in it if they're not already involved with a company (or in this case, the government). I'm not arguing. I just don't understand that.

Maybe because the people that are doing the work are doing the work instead of the union members? Maybe because the union workers feel threatened that their job of picking up garbage is being done by those on the public dole?

Lanie, are you sure you aren't asking a really, really stupid question here?

[Rebel]

In Mississippi they generally turn down all applicants the first time around. My father finally received it the second time. Don't know why they do it other than being typical government pricks. ...which is why anyone who relies on the government as their sole provider is an idiot.

[Lanie]

Lanie, are you in the disability business in NC? Do you have some kind of information that supports what you're saying?

Where are you getting your definitions as to what "disability" is?

How is it you know what determines whether or not a person is disabled?

No backpedaling here. Just answer the questions, please.

 

I'm a little bit afraid to completely answer that question (No, I'm not on disability or trying to be).

I did chat with a cop one night. He said his wife was a severe Epileptic. Everybody said she couldn't work (doctors, etc). Disability turned her down. He got mad and wrote Howard Coble. The secretary called him and asked for more info. They suddenly got passed.

But nearly everybody here gets turned down the first one to three times. Everybody in NC knows that.