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?

 

[ricechickie]

Im for the standardized lunches and also not a conservative...not even CLOSE. Ill bet you can find over A THOUSAND posts disparaging me as a liberal this or that.

Side swipe posts are so needless, they make this place a waste of fuckin time rlly

I'm new here. I can only go by what I've read.

Anyway, the juxtaposition of those two blew my mind. And you're very worried about wasting time. Perhaps you should read every other word.

 

[SmarterThanTheAverageBear]

oh so the plan says that the parents cant spend time with the kids?

weird I don't remember writing that

and also if a kid is in daycare 60hrs, and the avg. night of sleep is 7.5 hours, that's almost 60 hours left wake-time the kid is with the parents. breakfast, dinner, getting dressed, doing homework, teaching the kids many great things in life during that time

besides - alotta households still just work 40 hours, leaving 75 hours the parent is with their kids awake-time. and that's if both parents work the same schedule, in a 2 parent household

Little children generally need more than 7.5 hours sleep, but ok.

In all that awake time you listed, parents CAN be interacting with their children, or they CAN be simply shuffling them through the routine. If they're exhausted from a full-time work week, perhaps with overtime to avoid your "camp," what kind of interaction do you think they're going to have with the kiddies?

Which points out what I said before - there are too many variables to point to one kind of program as a cure-all. Most people are doing the best they can in their lives, and if they are asked to do more than they can, that is where the sense of despair comes from.

I know it's very fashionable to say that poor people are really just lazy and don't have incentive, but the reality is that all those success stories of people who were born poor and "made it big" are extraordinary people. And we can't expect everyone to be extraordinary. I want ordinary people (being one myself) to have a decent standard of living from a decent amount of work and ambition.

Freaking terrific, so now that we've established what you want, share with us how much of your income you voluntarily commit to furthering this goal of yours.

I paid $106K in federal income tax last year, Probably < $1000 of it went to things which I actually support, so it's time to get over the notion that you shouldn't have to pay taxes for things you don't support.

 

[Rikurzhen]

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.

 

[Ravi]

Poor people don't suffer enough

If we don't make them suffer they will not want to stop being poor

He'll also want the disabled to toil also...maybe break limestone with a sledge hammer? Yeah,,,that's the ticket.. And all you old folks, euthanize at GT's request to eliminate their parasitic nature...

Everyone knows that the way to get poor people to succeed is to humiliate them and make them suffer..........I mean it has worked......like.....like........never

On a serious note though, you do have to admit that people used to be ashamed to be on welfare, now they brag about it,

I'm embarrassed for people who brag that they are on welfare.

Who does that? I mean real people, not trolls.

 

[Ravi]

ebt cards that can buy beer and ciggs works, too huh?

Only they don't. And when they do, it must be with the collusion of the store owner.

Right. So go after the store owner.

 

[C_Clayton_Jones]

In my state, you only get 3 months of SNAP if you are a single adult. SNAP is mainly for the children and elderly, is it not?


It is not.


Again, it is for working families, where the majority of the recipients are employed.

 

[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

 

[SmarterThanTheAverageBear]

ebt cards that can buy beer and ciggs works, too huh?

Only they don't. And when they do, it must be with the collusion of the store owner.

Right. So go after the store owner.

Again Ravi, they are confusing an EBT card with SNAP. SNAP benefits are on an EBT card, but they are not the only benefits , some like WIC allow cash to be withdrawn.

 

[whitehall]

Government run camps? That's innovative ain't it.

 

[SmarterThanTheAverageBear]

Maybe we could turn these "camps" into profit centers.

Elites like myself could come to the camp and pick out a worker or two to purchase. I'll take a blonde, a brunette, and two redheads please.

 

[Luddly Neddite]

I feel like bringing this thread

Michelle O s School lunch nightmare Obama kids school NOT INCLUDED US Message Board - Political Discussion Forum

into the discussion.

Mind-blowing. Conservatives arguing for forcing people to live in camps for food and shelter, side by side with conservatives arguing against forcing schoolchildren to eat standardized lunches.

Yabut, these are people who think its okay to actually feed kids McDonalds shit and smoke with children in the same room.

They don't believe kids should have high quality food at school.

And really, since they also don't believe in education, how healthy and well educated do kids need to be just to shop at WalMart and/or clean the toilets of the highly educated talent we hire from other countries?

 

[Ravi]

Well shit I couldn't keep up with the scrolling. I think we spend far too much time as a nation demonizing the poor when in reality we wouldn't survive without them. I also prefer a few welfare cheats to millions of starving, angry people.

And this new software sucks all the pleasure out of posting here.

 

[Luddly Neddite]

Im for the standardized lunches and also not a conservative...not even CLOSE. Ill bet you can find over A THOUSAND posts disparaging me as a liberal this or that.

Side swipe posts are so needless, they make this place a waste of fuckin time rlly

Hey, you're the one who posted what you called a nazi idea.

Blech.

And, thought you were done with this thread?

 

[Luddly Neddite]

Well shit I couldn't keep up with the scrolling. I think we spend far too much time as a nation demonizing the poor when in reality we wouldn't survive without them. I also prefer a few welfare cheats to millions of starving, angry people.

And this new software sucks all the pleasure out of posting here.

Yeah, I don't even try to read most posts because they're all crammed in to the point you can't figure out who said what.

 

[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.

 

[SmarterThanTheAverageBear]

Well shit I couldn't keep up with the scrolling. I think we spend far too much time as a nation demonizing the poor when in reality we wouldn't survive without them. I also prefer a few welfare cheats to millions of starving, angry people.

And this new software sucks all the pleasure out of posting here.

Same here, IF my only alternative is the current system with cheaters or starving kids, they can have the SNAP.

I just think there is a better alternative

 

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

 

[C_Clayton_Jones]

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.

So by 'freedom' you mean they have to do what you tell them to do or be incarcerated....despite having commited no crime, nor violated any law, nor even been charged with such crimes.

I don't think 'freedom' means what you think it means.

Incarceration is involuntary, unless you count the crime as having been the voluntary part which is minutia.

This is a system where you came to the Taxpayer for help, and in return you must show a good faith effort to sustain yourself. This is done via education or employment.

You don't ever go to the camp by force. You show up voluntarily.

Fortunately this is un-Constitutional, in addition to being comprehensively ridiculous and ignorant.


For example, the SNAP program is designed for working families, where the majority of recipients are in fact employed:


“The overwhelming majority of SNAP recipients who can work do so. Among SNAP households with at least one working-age, non-disabled adult, more than half work while receiving SNAP — and more than 80 percent work in the year prior to or the year after receiving SNAP. The rates are even higher for families with children — more than 60 percent work while receiving SNAP, and almost 90 percent work in the prior or subsequent year. (See Figure 1.)[3] “


The Relationship Between SNAP and Work Among Low-Income Households mdash Center on Budget and Policy Priorities


One can't work and be compelled to live in a 'camp' as a condition of receiving assistance.

The working poor was addressed in the OP, man.

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.

Hence 'comprehensively ridiculous and ignorant.'


The example of the SNAP program was used to illustrate why your proposal is inconsistent and un-Constitutional, where it violates the Fifth Amendment's Due Process Clause* by seeking to disadvantage a class of persons – those applying for or receiving public assistance – absent a rational basis, evidence in support, or a proper legislative end; that you subjectively perceive those applying for public assistance as 'mooches' or 'unworthy' to receive benefits is not 'justification' to indeed seek to disadvantage them.






*If the proposal is state law it would be in violation of the 14th Amendment's Due Process Clause.

 

[SmarterThanTheAverageBear]

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.

So by 'freedom' you mean they have to do what you tell them to do or be incarcerated....despite having commited no crime, nor violated any law, nor even been charged with such crimes.

I don't think 'freedom' means what you think it means.

Incarceration is involuntary, unless you count the crime as having been the voluntary part which is minutia.

This is a system where you came to the Taxpayer for help, and in return you must show a good faith effort to sustain yourself. This is done via education or employment.

You don't ever go to the camp by force. You show up voluntarily.

Fortunately this is un-Constitutional, in addition to being comprehensively ridiculous and ignorant.


For example, the SNAP program is designed for working families, where the majority of recipients are in fact employed:


“The overwhelming majority of SNAP recipients who can work do so. Among SNAP households with at least one working-age, non-disabled adult, more than half work while receiving SNAP — and more than 80 percent work in the year prior to or the year after receiving SNAP. The rates are even higher for families with children — more than 60 percent work while receiving SNAP, and almost 90 percent work in the prior or subsequent year. (See Figure 1.)[3] “


The Relationship Between SNAP and Work Among Low-Income Households mdash Center on Budget and Policy Priorities


One can't work and be compelled to live in a 'camp' as a condition of receiving assistance.

The working poor was addressed in the OP, man.

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.

Hence 'comprehensively ridiculous and ignorant.'


The example of the SNAP program was used to illustrate why your proposal is inconsistent and un-Constitutional, where it violates the Fifth Amendment's Due Process Clause* by seeking to disadvantage a class of persons – those applying for or receiving public assistance – absent a rational basis, evidence in support, or a proper legislative end; that you subjectively perceive those applying for public assistance as 'mooches' or 'unworthy' to receive benefits is not 'justification' to indeed seek to disadvantage them.






*If the proposal is state law it would be in violation of the 14th Amendment's Due Process Clause.

No it wouldn't

it would be stupid to ask people to move into "welfare camp" but it wouldn't be unconstitutional.

The government already sets conditions for receiving welfare, and they are Constitutional.