The Nexerus said
Turt, your scarecrows need some work.Unemployed people who are not actively trying to become contributing members of society should not be collecting welfare. This isn't about some populist idea of the rich versus the poor, this is about the workers versus the idle.

It's not their fault they're idle, 96% of the time.

e: The idea of Welfare "Kings and Queens" who do absolutely nothing and collect benefits forever is absurd, at least in America. Unless you're arguing about something that is happening in Canada right now. If so, my bad, but we're talking about America right now.

I love generalized arguments that aren't really talking about specific policies--just ideologies.

Brovo said
I love generalized arguments that aren't really talking about specific policies--just ideologies.

NOW you're getting it. THIS is how to OT like a pro.

It is not government responsibility to feed, shelter, or hydrate you.

Turtlicious said Cool, how many people are you ok with going hungry to catch the 4% of lazy sub-human scum who dare to be poor?

All of them.

Turtlicious said How many kids are you ok with not getting birthday presents/stuff to support themselves?

All of them.

Turtlicious said How many people are you ok with being deprived of basic human rights, (food, shelter, water)

All of them.

Turtlicious said power, internet?

Electricity and Internet or not basic human rights. They are a luxuries.

A part of me kind of hopes that people who make blanket statements about welfare and the poor end up hitting a really shitty time in their life where they have to walk a mile in someone else's shoes.

It's extremely difficult, and almost impossible in a lot of cases, to get out of poverty once you're in there. Contrary to popular belief, most people on welfare probably don't want to be on it, seeing as it's probably embarrassing as hell having to pull out food stamps and it's not nearly as much money as people seem to think it is. Yes, there's people who leech off the system, and those that are usually caught doing it end up making the news in some way and skewing people's perceptions.

Required reading before anyone continues on this line of discussion.

Seriously, not everyone's born lucky or in a well-off family. Just because you grew up and live in a comfortable life doesn't mean everyone else has had a similar experience.

That's all I really am going to say on this matter, because the way things are looking, I know exactly the kind of responses this is going to get. But before you decide to get all foamy at the mouth because I don't subscribe to a black and white brand of politics regarding social issues, at least consider doing some rudimentary research into shit before writing off a large group of people as worthless because you have absolutely no idea what put them in that situation or what they're doing about it.

Keeping an open mind about any topic never hurt anyone.

mdk said
NOW you're getting it. THIS is how to OT like a pro.

Still working on that bible thread by the way. Just trying to decide between either the evolution of Satan as a distinct character from his origins as ashatan, a general term to mean agitator or prosecutor... Or the effect Dante's Inferno had on modern interpretations of the bible versus the strictly papal canonical ones.

Brovo said
Still working on that bible thread by the way. Just trying to decide between either the evolution of Satan as a distinct character from his origins as ashatan, a general term to mean agitator or prosecutor... Or the effect Dante's Inferno had on modern interpretations of the bible versus the strictly papal canonical ones.

Just emboldening my preference. I have a deep love for Dante, but let's be honest, the Haasatan is an evolution that changed an entire perspective of the religion in a way even my favourite pilgrim couldn't.

EDIT:
I'm reading your responses, I just won't reply again since this was of course divergent from the topic. Derv & Brovo, I really do love this area so if you and others would like to tear it apart together just name the thread and I'll be on it.

ShonHarris said
Just emboldening my preference. I have a deep love for Dante, but let's be honest, the Haasatan is an evolution that changed an entire perspective of the religion in a way even my favourite pilgrim couldn't.

I remember reading this a long time ago, it was actually a pretty interesting take on the Devil. Sympathetic light and all of that.

You might enjoy it.

Reagan was the best President of the 20th century. He was staunchly conservative and could beat up pretty much anyone in a debate. Nuff said.Our current president is absolutely terrible. -_-

You assume that because we don't want to walk up to people, stick a gun their heads and make them help that we don't want to help.

If I get in a rough patch, I will ask for help. I will not whip out a gun and take it. We have a word for those people. They are called thieves. To be clear, I am not calling people who recieve welfare thieves. The government would be the instrument of legal plunder.

We can start improving the situation by reforming the welfare system so a poor person never has less money in their pockets by working harder.

Revans Exile said
It is not government responsibility to feed, shelter, or hydrate you.All of them.All of them.All of them.Electricity and Internet or not basic human rights. They are a luxuries.

lmao ur sayin' the un doesnt know what a basic humn rght es

troll harder scrub

e: Srsly thugh, ur a 5th lvl charmander tryin' to fck wit lvl 100 Blastoises. Gonna get hydro pumped. lol

Dervish said A part of me kind of hopes that people who make blanket statements about welfare and the poor end up hitting a really shitty time in their life where they have to walk a mile in someone else's shoes.

It's extremely difficult, and almost impossible in a lot of cases, to get out of poverty once you're in there. Contrary to popular belief, most people on welfare probably don't want to be on it, seeing as it's probably embarrassing as hell having to pull out food stamps and it's not nearly as much money as people seem to think it is. Yes, there's people who leech off the system, and those that are usually caught doing it end up making the news in some way and skewing people's perceptions.

Required reading before anyone continues on this line of discussion.

Seriously, not everyone's born lucky or in a well-off family. Just because you grew up and live in a comfortable life doesn't mean everyone else has had a similar experience.

That's all I really am going to say on this matter, because the way things are looking, I know exactly the kind of responses this is going to get. But before you decide to get all foamy at the mouth because I don't subscribe to a black and white brand of politics regarding social issues, at least consider doing some rudimentary research into shit before writing off a large group of people as worthless because you have absolutely no idea what put them in that situation or what they're doing about it.

Keeping an open mind about any topic never hurt anyone.

Agreed, there has been numerous studies that prove that the vast majority of people on welfare do in fact need it. The "4%" fraud was not a made up number but an estimate founded by... Some college, I do need to look it up again. The fact is it would cost more money to find and prosecute that 4% then it would to just let them get away with it, because the number is so insignificantly small. It's very silly when people start arguing to spend more money catching / punishing poor people instead of finding more constructive ways to help. Nobody has ever responded positively to negative reinforcement.

You got a source for that number, Turt?

Turtlicious said
lmao ur sayin' the un doesnt know what a basic humn rght estroll harder scrube: Srsly thugh, ur a 5th lvl charmander tryin' to fck wit lvl 100 Blastoises. Gonna get hydro pumped. lolAgreed, there has been numerous studies that prove that the vast majority of people on welfare do in fact need it. The "4%" fraud was not a made up number but an estimate founded by... Some college, I do need to look it up again. The fact is it would cost more money to find and prosecute that 4% then it would to just let them get away with it, because the number is so insignificantly small. It's very silly when people start arguing to spend more money catching / punishing poor people instead of finding more constructive ways to help. Nobody has ever responded positively to negative reinforcement.

Let's assume that 4% figure is accurate, and that most people on welfare are honest, hard-working folk who just need a little help, and are in no way responsible for their situation. That's almost invariably false, but let's pretend it's not.

4% of 108.6 million (it's probably larger now, since that was three years ago and Obama isn't exactly known for his fiscal conservatism) equals the populations of Los Angeles and Sacramento put together. Incidentally, that whopping 108.6 million figure also makes receiving welfare a more common activity in the United States than working a full-time job.

Even gross underestimations are ridiculously high.

Turtlicious said lmao ur sayin' the un doesnt know what a basic humn rght estroll harder scrube:

Speak English, until then go screw a cactus.

Revans Exile said
It is not government responsibility to feed, shelter, or hydrate you.All of them.All of them.All of them.Electricity and Internet or not basic human rights. They are a luxuries.

Hard argument to make, at least in America, Exile. Much of our system requires people to have what otherwise should be luxuries in order to have stable work. For example, internet and phone are required for most jobs -- including retail. Not having an address is another barrier to finding work, as many require you to be 'stable', not to mention the deep stigma and apathy we hold against our homeless. Luxuries are not unfortunately not defined by our subjective musings, even less so for those of us who enjoy them enough to frequent a place like this. In this country if you intend on having work that will actually pay the bills and provide you with basic things like health insurance, gods forbid you require transportation to your place of work, luxuries are defined by what they expect you to have. And that includes things like the internet today. Also, while you personally may not think electricity is a basic human right, it is pretty important in the eyes of the government. Having your electricity shut off is considered a serious concern for the State when children are in the home. So, if they don't consider it a luxury, how can we?

The government is meant to be a foundation. We build it, we maintain it, and it builds for us and our children. It's function isn't to give you every luxury, I completely agree, but it does our people no favours denying our people basic necessities. We already know a human being cannot dedicate their thoughts to higher practices, like building a business for example, when they are constantly seeking their next meal or a bed in which to sleep. The most basic needs consume us until they are regularly met. And so the poor and those otherwise without find themselves fallen and stuck in a cycle. Government aid is meant to help change that, because it is a cyclical problem, so that the person can focus on re-entering the work force without each day of their search equating to another day starving.

So yeah, just throwing that out there. As a college educated young male with healthy work experience and, additionally, a few skills to boot who is engaged to a woman in the same boat -- neither of us even hear back from most jobs -- I'm thinking the problem goes beyond 'some people are lazy, fuck'em'. There are deep rooted, systematic problems with how we run things and how we forsake the poor, homeless, and unemployed. Condemning them on some forum isn't exactly brave, but undeniably, it also does nothing to solve the problem.

It is not the government's right to give money to the poor. They are funding these programs with our taxes. We are paying for people to be lazy and not get a job. The government is promoting irresponsibility and lack of work ethic.

AreYouMyMummy said
It is not the government's right to give money to the poor. They are funding these programs with our taxes. We are paying for people to be lazy and not get a job. The government is promoting irresponsibility and lack of work ethic.

We're also giving tax breaks to people who make 10x you and I do for largely theoretical work involving 'representing the company'. We fund other nations that commit genocides and takeover villages in order to commodify their basic resources, putting them out of work and out of their homes. We put money toward companies that pump toxins we know to cause cancer, and these toxins go into our food, air, land, and water -- even like to give them tax breaks. Our tax dollars go into training thousands of young men and women, mostly from the poor who have little for choices already, and when they serve and come back broken, somehow our tax dollars don't quite cover helping to mend them. We pay for drones that kill hundreds of civilians -- innocent men, women, and children-- and even though this is documented and reported, we keep on writing that check. Our tax dollars go to sending money to countries we, individually, may totally disagree with for their policies (I'm speaking to you, my Pro-Pakistan comrades). Also, don't forget, our tax dollars have gone to torturing Americans and otherwise we consider(ed) threats, despite our voting against that very thing.

To be blunt, of all the horrible, disgusting, vile things your tax dollars do, is feeding and housing the poor really what pisses you off?

If a man breaks into a house to commit a murder, he's not innocent of breaking and entering because he did something worse later on. The United States government spends a lot more on handouts than it does on foreign aid, so fiscally, it's a greater concern.

The Nexerus said
If a man breaks into a house to commit a murder, he's not innocent of breaking and entering because he did something worse later on. The United States government spends a lot more on handouts than it does on foreign aid, so fiscally, it's a greater concern.

And even more is spent on corporate subsidies. So perhaps we should focus on them before that. And since 2001 we've spent even more on wars that the public largely finds questionable. Yes, the US Government spends loads of money, but if how much we spend has a direct correlation with how much we care, it definitely looks like we care most about 1) War 2) Corporations .... and somewhere far lower, Education, and Welfare.

Additionally, in such cases, we often look at why they broke into the house and why they committed the murder. It may not directly benefit the assailant, but it does underscore systematic problems we could solve in order to prevent future crimes of desperation.

ShonHarris said
And even more is spent on corporate subsidies. So perhaps we should focus on them before that. And since 2001 we've spent even more on wars that the public largely finds questionable. Yes, the US Government spends loads of money, but if how much we spend has a direct correlation with how much we care, it definitely looks like we care most about 1) War 2) Corporations .... and somewhere far lower, Education, and Welfare.Additionally, in such cases, we often look at why they broke into the house and why they committed the murder. It may not directly benefit the assailant, but it does underscore systematic problems we could solve in order to prevent future crimes of desperation.

The difference being that while spending on the military sustains and advances it, spending on welfare adversely affects those who receive it, in the long run.