I have a nazi-like idea in regard to mooches

[Rikurzhen]

I want to know what YOU'RE DOING to further that goal.

I'm an ordinary person. I work hard, I pay my taxes, and I vote.

Surely you're not implying that the way you vote is an indication of your caring or a means to a solution. Are you going to be that bold?

So, you're saying that one can vote Repub and still manage to lie to themselves that they give a large mouse's behind about their country or the people in it?

YOU live in LaLaLand.

The New York Times:

Liberals show tremendous compassion in pushing for generous government spending to help the neediest people at home and abroad. Yet when it comes to individual contributions to charitable causes, liberals are cheapskates.

Arthur Brooks, the author of a book on donors to charity, “Who Really Cares,” cites data that households headed by conservatives give 30 percent more to charity than households headed by liberals. A study by Google found an even greater disproportion: average annual contributions reported by conservatives were almost double those of liberals.

Other research has reached similar conclusions. The “generosity index” from the Catalogue for Philanthropy typically finds that red states are the most likely to give to nonprofits, while Northeastern states are least likely to do so.

The upshot is that Democrats, who speak passionately about the hungry and homeless, personally fork over less money to charity than Republicans — the ones who try to cut health insurance for children. . . .

Conservatives also appear to be more generous than liberals in nonfinancial ways. People in red states are considerably more likely to volunteer for good causes, and conservatives give blood more often. If liberals and moderates gave blood as often as conservatives, Mr. Brooks said, the American blood supply would increase by 45 percent.
​

Using your vote to support more social welfare spending IS NOT AN EXPRESSION OF COMPASSION. It's just political theater.

 

[SmarterThanTheAverageBear]

I want to know what YOU'RE DOING to further that goal.

I'm an ordinary person. I work hard, I pay my taxes, and I vote.

Surely you're not implying that the way you vote is an indication of your caring or a means to a solution. Are you going to be that bold?

So, you're saying that one can vote Repub and still manage to lie to themselves that they give a large mouse's behind about their country or the people in it?

YOU live in LaLaLand.

The New York Times:

Liberals show tremendous compassion in pushing for generous government spending to help the neediest people at home and abroad. Yet when it comes to individual contributions to charitable causes, liberals are cheapskates.

Arthur Brooks, the author of a book on donors to charity, “Who Really Cares,” cites data that households headed by conservatives give 30 percent more to charity than households headed by liberals. A study by Google found an even greater disproportion: average annual contributions reported by conservatives were almost double those of liberals.

Other research has reached similar conclusions. The “generosity index” from the Catalogue for Philanthropy typically finds that red states are the most likely to give to nonprofits, while Northeastern states are least likely to do so.

The upshot is that Democrats, who speak passionately about the hungry and homeless, personally fork over less money to charity than Republicans — the ones who try to cut health insurance for children. . . .

Conservatives also appear to be more generous than liberals in nonfinancial ways. People in red states are considerably more likely to volunteer for good causes, and conservatives give blood more often. If liberals and moderates gave blood as often as conservatives, Mr. Brooks said, the American blood supply would increase by 45 percent.
​

Using your vote to support more social welfare spending IS NOT AN EXPRESSION OF COMPASSION. It's just political theater.

Get your facts the fuck out of here.

 

[Luddly Neddite]

The person in lala land is the person who believes one party cares more about you than another. LOL

Make no mistake.

I'd give a lot to go to the polls to vote FOR someone instead of AGAINST the other guy.

OTOH, I voted twice for Obama and though I'm not completely in favor of everything he has done, I'd vote for him again.

 

[Luddly Neddite]

I want to know what YOU'RE DOING to further that goal.

I'm an ordinary person. I work hard, I pay my taxes, and I vote.

Surely you're not implying that the way you vote is an indication of your caring or a means to a solution. Are you going to be that bold?

So, you're saying that one can vote Repub and still manage to lie to themselves that they give a large mouse's behind about their country or the people in it?

YOU live in LaLaLand.

The New York Times:

Liberals show tremendous compassion in pushing for generous government spending to help the neediest people at home and abroad. Yet when it comes to individual contributions to charitable causes, liberals are cheapskates.

Arthur Brooks, the author of a book on donors to charity, “Who Really Cares,” cites data that households headed by conservatives give 30 percent more to charity than households headed by liberals. A study by Google found an even greater disproportion: average annual contributions reported by conservatives were almost double those of liberals.

Other research has reached similar conclusions. The “generosity index” from the Catalogue for Philanthropy typically finds that red states are the most likely to give to nonprofits, while Northeastern states are least likely to do so.

The upshot is that Democrats, who speak passionately about the hungry and homeless, personally fork over less money to charity than Republicans — the ones who try to cut health insurance for children. . . .

Conservatives also appear to be more generous than liberals in nonfinancial ways. People in red states are considerably more likely to volunteer for good causes, and conservatives give blood more often. If liberals and moderates gave blood as often as conservatives, Mr. Brooks said, the American blood supply would increase by 45 percent.
​

Using your vote to support more social welfare spending IS NOT AN EXPRESSION OF COMPASSION. It's just political theater.

Even YOU know better than that..

Jeez, but that really is stupid.

 

[Rikurzhen]

Get your facts the fuck out of here.

Luddy took your advice.

Even YOU know better than that..

Jeez, but that really is stupid.

 

[SmarterThanTheAverageBear]

The person in lala land is the person who believes one party cares more about you than another. LOL

Make no mistake.

I'd give a lot to go to the polls to vote FOR someone instead of AGAINST the other guy.

OTOH, I voted twice for Obama and though I'm not completely in favor of everything he has done, I'd vote for him again.

Then you my friend aren't very smart. I mean seriously, this man is destroying our country. And believe me I'm plenty pissed at the idiot Republicans for a LOT of things, but shit at this point we have to try something different.

That's why I was willing to give Obama chance the first time (I didn't vote for him but I wasn't pissed that he won either) things were so fucked up that we HAD to have a change, he's had eight years, and arguably we're worse off now than when we got there.


I mean look around this country. It's a mess. The ONE thing Obama should have made better (race relations) he's actually made worse.

No, I don't want to hear it, when you have a POTUS who not once, but TWICE says "the police acted stupidly" without even knowing ANY facts about the case he's responding to simply because the "victim" was black , you have a problem.

When you have people being caught on video bragging about how much money and benefits they are getting from welfare, you have a problem.

When you have a government posting things on FaceBook about how easy it is to get on Social Security Disability, you have a problem.

When you have a President who is in his SIXTH year in office still blaming his predecessor for shit, you have a problem.

When you have a President who sends his daughter on their THIRD out of the country trip in a year while people are going without food, you have a problem.

When you have upper level military telling people that this President doesn't have a fucking clue, you have a problem.

When you have a reported 47% of your population on some sort of welfare, you have a problem.

When you have a President, who in spite of all of the above gives the impression of being an elitist , egotistical asshole, you have a problem.

Sir, this country has PROBLEMS - none of which voting Obama would solve.

 

[SmarterThanTheAverageBear]

I just wanted to add one last thought here.

Part of my tax money going to pay for welfare doesn't bother near as much as the fact that MANY of those who receive it act as if I OWE it to them does.

I don't OWE it to you, we have as a nation GRACIOUSLY set up programs to help you, so about if you act GRACIOUS about receiving it?

I don't reward my kids for acting like spoiled brats who want more and more if I give them something, why should I treat welfare recipients any different?

I don't go around berating people on welfare, or making fun of them. Though I have confronted people who have a cart full of beer and shit at wal mart and then tell their kids they can't have any more milk until the food stamps come in. And yes, I've had that happen a couple times. One time I embarrassed the guy into putting his beer back when I offered to buy his kid's milk for him.

But when people are running around LAUGHING IN MY FACE about how much they are getting from welfare and how "only suckers work and pay taxes" to be honest, I'd like to execute those losers on the town square on national tv.

One hundred and six THOUSAND dollars in federal income tax last year, they could at least if not gracious enough to act grateful keep their fucking mouths shut until they are behind closed doors, then they can laugh all they want.

 

[Clementine]

I wouldn't agree with incarceration, but we should eliminate the EBT cards because too many are wasting our money on frivolous stuff and it's not helping them out of poverty. We would be better off going back to coupons that are only good for nutritious food. No junk. No cigarettes or using cards at ATMs so you can party. Handing over spending cash should never be part of the deal. Basic necessities should be covered, but not tattoos and stupid shit.

There should be conditions placed on those living off the tax payers. Able bodied should work for their money by mowing lawns, shoveling snow or other tasks that need to be done. My kids had to do chores for their allowance and they had to have a good excuse for getting out of them, like being sick or having something important, like a school function. Otherwise, they had to learn responsibility and realize that earning your own way is how the world works.

People with an ounce of pride would prefer to work in exchange for aid. That way, it's something they earn and not just a handout.

Those who keep breaking the law or joining gangs should be incarcerated. Those parents who are drug addicts or criminals should not be allowed to raise their children since they are probably doing a piss poor job of it anyway.

 

[Discombobulated]

no, we can simply make whatever nefarious thing theyre doing illegal and then prosecute

How do you prosecute people who have corporate lobbyists to write our laws and make all the rules? I'm afraid we have no alternative but to put them in a camp.

I disagree that that's the only alternative.

You seem much less concerned with a class of moochers who cost this nation many billions of dollars every year. I guess it's just easier to overlook moochers who have money, power, and influence. People who have nothing are apparently a much easier target.

much less concerned with a very important caveat:

in a thread that has nothing to do with that totally separate issue

No I think you're really on to something here........we should have camps for all kinds of people.

we disagree.

the camps for those you're referring to is called prison, once it's made illegal

and if you and enough people (me included) cared enough to be loud enough about the issue, those in power would cower.

but youre just babbling about it on the internet like everyone else and wondering why nobody does anything, correct?

But by contrast you've really committed yourself to doing something about it, you're a real crusader for change, a man of action. I can tell by how fast you type and post......a real inspiration.

psssst


you missed the (me included) part bud.

I guess it's just unfortunate that your vision for punitive training camps has such limited application.

 

[rightwinger]

Welfare should be unpleasant, yes? People need an incentive to work towards getting off of it.

So, my father in law and I were talking about solutions to all of the inner city crime, violence, high school drop-out and failure rate, women who cannot afford to but continue to have babies - - - - -

And it struck me that it seems to be getting worse, and all of this Partisan rivalry blah blah isn't offering up any solutions to the problem so here's one.

Skip ebt cards.
Skip section 8 living.

Let's make camps. Sort of like internment camps (except not really). If you want/need any Government assistance in a rough time, or if you're just a mooch in General, you'd have to go to the Camp and receive it or else fend for yourself and leave the taxpayers out of it. Within said camp, and with all of the savings for ebt, section 8, etc - - - - - there would be very bland, very minimalist and awful tasting food provided for you by the taxpayer. The only goal here is to keep you alive, not pleasurable eating.

There will be cots, and duties for the able. No cable. No celly. There will be phones, mind you. But lines to wait and use them for a certain amount of time.

Here's the uncomfortable kicker.

Once you come to Uncle Sam for help, you cannot leave to go on back out of the camp and become a gang-banger, druggie, drop-out, etc.

In order to leave, you need to stay in school or actively be seeking a job. Otherwise, you're held. By force.

Sounds like that's not freedom, right? It is. You are completely free to choose to go to school and get out. You are completely free to choose to actively search for employment. You are not free to be a leech.

I would obviously have to think of loopholes for the legitimately disabled, or the worker who works in good faith and still cannot make ends meet. For those, it is society's burden to develop a system where the worst of jobs provide at least some minimal quality of life. I don't support a Country without that as its goal, quality of life.





I don't see the current memes of throwing more money at education working. I don't see the current system of allowing ebt cards to buy anything under the sun as working. I don't see child tax credits for men and women who won't work but have continuous babies, as being a legitimate solution to Anything.

Finally read through all of the comments. Here are my general thoughts.

1.) We see what happens when we concentrate social malady into one location - New Orleans, Housing Projects, these places become cesspools because they're filled with people failing at life and the negative effects get concentrated.

2.) It's definitely better for society to concentrate that social dysfunction into one area than dilute it and bring that dysfunction into the lives of normal people. Ferguson is a good example - in the span of 20 years it went from 85% white to 26% white as blacks from St. Louis were displaced due to policies driving them out of the city and with the expansion of Section 8 housing vouchers.

3.) The underclass is a hot potato that no one wants.

4.) My suggestion is to set up low income projects in the neighborhoods populated by liberals. Artsy people, gay community, wealthy liberal elites - they always champion the poor and multiculturalism so let them experience the full joy of what they want more of. Let normal people escape from the social dysfunction.

5.) The camp idea has merit. We can get physicians and nutritionists and such to monitor the camps to insure that the basics are provided in terms of education, health, sanitation, policing. We need to isolate the bleeding heart liberals out of the equation entirely.

6.) I'm not certain whether you're advocating personal apartments or not. If so, then this doesn't work because people can become used to their own personal space. Dormitory living, like in the Army or Navy is better. This incraeses the incentive for people to find work.

How about if instead of just telling people "find work or go to "camp"" we actually you know, create jobs for them.

We have bridges collapsing, Power grids that are failing, a public transportation system that is a joke , graffiti covered walls, schools that don't have enough volunteers , sports teams that don't have fields to play on , etc etc etc.

The answer to BOTH these questions is the same answer , tell these people "NO welfare, but we'll pay you to work, don't want to work? Well starve then. Have kids and don't want to work to feed them? Well that is a crime , child neglect, off to jail you go"

I defy anyone to tell me it is right or proper that one man is out picking up garbage every day for a living and paying taxes for another man to sit at home and drink beer and play XBox all day long

I like that....

"Find work or go to camp"

But of course we should make sure that there are enough unfilled jobs out there before we ship people off to camps

 

[SmarterThanTheAverageBear]

Welfare should be unpleasant, yes? People need an incentive to work towards getting off of it.

So, my father in law and I were talking about solutions to all of the inner city crime, violence, high school drop-out and failure rate, women who cannot afford to but continue to have babies - - - - -

And it struck me that it seems to be getting worse, and all of this Partisan rivalry blah blah isn't offering up any solutions to the problem so here's one.

Skip ebt cards.
Skip section 8 living.

Let's make camps. Sort of like internment camps (except not really). If you want/need any Government assistance in a rough time, or if you're just a mooch in General, you'd have to go to the Camp and receive it or else fend for yourself and leave the taxpayers out of it. Within said camp, and with all of the savings for ebt, section 8, etc - - - - - there would be very bland, very minimalist and awful tasting food provided for you by the taxpayer. The only goal here is to keep you alive, not pleasurable eating.

There will be cots, and duties for the able. No cable. No celly. There will be phones, mind you. But lines to wait and use them for a certain amount of time.

Here's the uncomfortable kicker.

Once you come to Uncle Sam for help, you cannot leave to go on back out of the camp and become a gang-banger, druggie, drop-out, etc.

In order to leave, you need to stay in school or actively be seeking a job. Otherwise, you're held. By force.

Sounds like that's not freedom, right? It is. You are completely free to choose to go to school and get out. You are completely free to choose to actively search for employment. You are not free to be a leech.

I would obviously have to think of loopholes for the legitimately disabled, or the worker who works in good faith and still cannot make ends meet. For those, it is society's burden to develop a system where the worst of jobs provide at least some minimal quality of life. I don't support a Country without that as its goal, quality of life.





I don't see the current memes of throwing more money at education working. I don't see the current system of allowing ebt cards to buy anything under the sun as working. I don't see child tax credits for men and women who won't work but have continuous babies, as being a legitimate solution to Anything.

Finally read through all of the comments. Here are my general thoughts.

1.) We see what happens when we concentrate social malady into one location - New Orleans, Housing Projects, these places become cesspools because they're filled with people failing at life and the negative effects get concentrated.

2.) It's definitely better for society to concentrate that social dysfunction into one area than dilute it and bring that dysfunction into the lives of normal people. Ferguson is a good example - in the span of 20 years it went from 85% white to 26% white as blacks from St. Louis were displaced due to policies driving them out of the city and with the expansion of Section 8 housing vouchers.

3.) The underclass is a hot potato that no one wants.

4.) My suggestion is to set up low income projects in the neighborhoods populated by liberals. Artsy people, gay community, wealthy liberal elites - they always champion the poor and multiculturalism so let them experience the full joy of what they want more of. Let normal people escape from the social dysfunction.

5.) The camp idea has merit. We can get physicians and nutritionists and such to monitor the camps to insure that the basics are provided in terms of education, health, sanitation, policing. We need to isolate the bleeding heart liberals out of the equation entirely.

6.) I'm not certain whether you're advocating personal apartments or not. If so, then this doesn't work because people can become used to their own personal space. Dormitory living, like in the Army or Navy is better. This incraeses the incentive for people to find work.

How about if instead of just telling people "find work or go to "camp"" we actually you know, create jobs for them.

We have bridges collapsing, Power grids that are failing, a public transportation system that is a joke , graffiti covered walls, schools that don't have enough volunteers , sports teams that don't have fields to play on , etc etc etc.

The answer to BOTH these questions is the same answer , tell these people "NO welfare, but we'll pay you to work, don't want to work? Well starve then. Have kids and don't want to work to feed them? Well that is a crime , child neglect, off to jail you go"

I defy anyone to tell me it is right or proper that one man is out picking up garbage every day for a living and paying taxes for another man to sit at home and drink beer and play XBox all day long

I like that....

"Find work or go to camp"

But of course we should make sure that there are enough unfilled jobs out there before we ship people off to camps

Please learn to stop being so dishonest, not only did I NOT say anything about going to camp, I was one of the very first people in this thread to come out against that idea.