California mulls Schwarzenegger's proposal to end welfare

[bamacre]

Originally posted by: Moonbeam
What kind of an imbecile creates a capitalistic system run on competition and hate and then depends on the goodness of human nature which that system systematically destroys, as an answer to the problems it creates, may I ask?

Can you explain how this occurs? And when it is supposed to? Americans are a very giving people, even after taxation.

The whole God Damned point of religion is to destroy capitalism not support it.

Perhaps your religion. Whatever that may be.

 

[Jaskalas]

Originally posted by: CPA

Originally posted by: Moonbeam
The huge problem with no entitlement programs is that people will kill you if it's the only way they can eat. People have the stupid habit of becoming dependent of food.

oh no, let's base our who social structure on whether someone will kill us or not. Horrible logic by you moonie.

Moonbeam's logic is perfect in this example.

I would only add that this is what happens when you bankrupt a state with socialist programs. Voting for those programs and their supports is to vote for your own demise. As Moonbeam pointed out there will be blood if you collapse the system under too much weight.

So how's that national budget looking? So goes California so goes the nation....

 

[SammyJr]

Originally posted by: Moonbeam
What kind of an imbecile creates a capitalistic system run on competition and hate and then depends on the goodness of human nature which that system systematically destroys, as an answer to the problems it creates, may I ask? The whole God Damned point of religion is to destroy capitalism not support it.

Well said.

 

[Moonbeam]

"M: What kind of an imbecile creates a capitalistic system run on competition and hate and then depends on the goodness of human nature which that system systematically destroys, as an answer to the problems it creates, may I ask?"

b: Can you explain how this occurs? And when it is supposed to? Americans are a very giving people, even after taxation.

M: The answer is obvious within what I said. The nature of human beings is good. The purpose of religion is to awaken men to that fact. The disease that religion is supposed to counter is self hate. You have been forgiven. Capitalism is bases of the fact that people hate themselves, that they do not know it and project that hate out onto the world and they do it systematically via capitalism. You compete to survive any way you can. Fuck the other guy. The greater the hate that drives you the greater your success.

It is the religious that have in part countered this effect and it is the religious who mostly give. The competitive and hateful secular world will only give if taxed, and regardless of it all, the needs of the many are never met because the resources are too small and not built on creating sufficient real self love.

---------------

"M: The whole God Damned point of religion is to destroy capitalism not support it."

b: Perhaps your religion. Whatever that may be.

M: All I know is that I became the source of all the love in the universe the moment I ceased to exist.

 

[First]

Originally posted by: Slew Foot
About f'n time.

There's a welfare office across the street from the hospital, there's more BMWs in that parking lot than in the physicians parking lot across the street.

What? Because people make bank on welfare? :laugh:

 

[BoberFett]

Originally posted by: SammyJr

Originally posted by: BoberFett

Originally posted by: SammyJr
Example: The Christian homeless shelter near me segregates wives and children from their husbands/fathers because of they don't want homeless singles to mingle and possibly **gasp** fornicate.

Or, you know, prevent sexual abuse and/or rape which has a high incident rate among the homeless.

The other shelter, the one without the religion, doesn't force segregation or have that problem.

Really? Got proof that it's not a problem?

http://www.psychlaws.org/generalResources/fact11.htm

 

[StageLeft]

Originally posted by: Slew Foot
About f'n time.

There's a welfare office across the street from the hospital, there's more BMWs in that parking lot than in the physicians parking lot across the street.

California knows how to party. California knows how to party. In the citaayof LA. In the citaay of good ol' Watts.

 

[Patranus]

Look, the fact of the matter is that non-profits have to work efficiently with money or they go out of business. If the welfare office wastes 10 cents on the dollar what happen? Nothing. There is no pressing need for them to be efficient with tax dollars. Furthermore, there is not need for the federal government to be involved in any of this. Why do people need to be takes by the federal, state, county, and city to provide redundant services? If a local community finds a need for certain services than they will pay for them...If the community finds that they don't want the programs than they wont fund them. If you want a program that your community doesn't want to fund than you can more. Simple as that....but don't take tax dollars from Florida and through federal grants fund programs for syringes for drug addicts.

 

[bamacre]

Originally posted by: Moonbeam
The competitive and hateful secular world will only give if taxed,

That is simply not true.

And as well, how much of our tax goes to killing people overseas? We spend almost $1 trillion overseas. How many people could eat on that? Don't you find it ironic that the few people supporting true capitalism are also the biggest war critics?

 

[kalrith]

Originally posted by: Patranus

Originally posted by: Hacp

Originally posted by: sandorski
That's a pretty drastic Cut. Not only will it not fly, it'll probably be the end of his Political Career.

If it does happen, it'll probably catapult him to the front of the Republican ticket in 2012.

Um...He is not a "natural born citizen"...

Didn't you guys ever see Demolition Man:

The Schwarzenegger Presidential Library...Even though he was not born in this country, his popularity at the time caused the 61st Amendment which states...

 

[SammyJr]

Originally posted by: BoberFett

Originally posted by: SammyJr

Originally posted by: BoberFett

Originally posted by: SammyJr
Example: The Christian homeless shelter near me segregates wives and children from their husbands/fathers because of they don't want homeless singles to mingle and possibly **gasp** fornicate.

Or, you know, prevent sexual abuse and/or rape which has a high incident rate among the homeless.

The other shelter, the one without the religion, doesn't force segregation or have that problem.

Really? Got proof that it's not a problem?

http://www.psychlaws.org/generalResources/fact11.htm

If the religious one where concerned about that issue, they'd have a families room and segregate single men and women. They have the space. Instead, they're pushing their morality.

 

[BoberFett]

Originally posted by: SammyJr
If the religious one where concerned about that issue, they'd have a families room and segregate single men and women. They have the space. Instead, they're pushing their morality.

Yes, because Christian ethics demands husbands and wives not sleep together. :roll:

Do you ever think before posting or do you just bang your bicycle helmeted head on the keyboard and this is what pops up?

 

[bamacre]

Originally posted by: BoberFett

Originally posted by: SammyJr
If the religious one where concerned about that issue, they'd have a families room and segregate single men and women. They have the space. Instead, they're pushing their morality.

Yes, because Christian ethics demands husbands and wives not sleep together. :roll:

Do you ever think before posting or do you just bang your bicycle helmeted head on the keyboard and this is what pops up?

Text

 

[Cutterhead]

Originally posted by: BoberFett

Originally posted by: Moonbeam
Starbuck: Agreed, but the entitlement and social welfare programs in California are plagued by abuse and incompetent management. How do you cut off the leeches while ensuring that the truly needy receive the benefits necessary to survive?

M: I don't know. It's a huge problem and I am a nobody. I have some thoughts the value of which I can't vouch for:

I don't think people should get stuff for free because they do not value it then. To get welfare people should be required to contribute something. Almost everybody can plant and water and tend gardens, so one thing I would try is that. The state supplies land and accommodations and services and those who need help live and work public farms. The produce goes to feed clothe and house the people who work. Income could also be earned by taking coursed and getting an education, learning a trade, etc. The same could be done in prisons and the more you work, the more you produce, the more you learn, the shorter the sentence.

The poor are especially infected with self hate and one of the cures for it is capacity. It's becomes harder and harder to believe you are the worst person in the world when you can do things.

I actually agree with you on this Moonie. Teach a man to fish, etc. I'd happily pay taxes to implement such a system of teaching self-reliance. But as we all know, Americans won't tend gardens. That's work for dirty Mexicans.

I was thinking the same thing, someone hacked Moonbeam's account. This idea makes far too much sense.

 

[Fingolfin269]

Originally posted by: Cutterhead

Originally posted by: BoberFett

Originally posted by: Moonbeam
Starbuck: Agreed, but the entitlement and social welfare programs in California are plagued by abuse and incompetent management. How do you cut off the leeches while ensuring that the truly needy receive the benefits necessary to survive?

M: I don't know. It's a huge problem and I am a nobody. I have some thoughts the value of which I can't vouch for:

I don't think people should get stuff for free because they do not value it then. To get welfare people should be required to contribute something. Almost everybody can plant and water and tend gardens, so one thing I would try is that. The state supplies land and accommodations and services and those who need help live and work public farms. The produce goes to feed clothe and house the people who work. Income could also be earned by taking coursed and getting an education, learning a trade, etc. The same could be done in prisons and the more you work, the more you produce, the more you learn, the shorter the sentence.

The poor are especially infected with self hate and one of the cures for it is capacity. It's becomes harder and harder to believe you are the worst person in the world when you can do things.

I actually agree with you on this Moonie. Teach a man to fish, etc. I'd happily pay taxes to implement such a system of teaching self-reliance. But as we all know, Americans won't tend gardens. That's work for dirty Mexicans.

I was thinking the same thing, someone hacked Moonbeam's account. This idea makes far too much sense.

It makes sense on paper. That's the problem. What if people don't want to learn to fish? Do we then cut them off from their food so they can then murder us?

 

[BoberFett]

Originally posted by: Fingolfin269
It makes sense on paper. That's the problem. What if people don't want to learn to fish? Do we then cut them off from their food so they can then murder us?

If an able bodied person refuses to take care of themselves even after given the tools to do so, then yes. Cut them off. Starve them to death. They're useless.

 

[Cutterhead]

Originally posted by: Fingolfin269

Originally posted by: Cutterhead

Originally posted by: BoberFett

Originally posted by: Moonbeam
Starbuck: Agreed, but the entitlement and social welfare programs in California are plagued by abuse and incompetent management. How do you cut off the leeches while ensuring that the truly needy receive the benefits necessary to survive?

M: I don't know. It's a huge problem and I am a nobody. I have some thoughts the value of which I can't vouch for:

I don't think people should get stuff for free because they do not value it then. To get welfare people should be required to contribute something. Almost everybody can plant and water and tend gardens, so one thing I would try is that. The state supplies land and accommodations and services and those who need help live and work public farms. The produce goes to feed clothe and house the people who work. Income could also be earned by taking coursed and getting an education, learning a trade, etc. The same could be done in prisons and the more you work, the more you produce, the more you learn, the shorter the sentence.

The poor are especially infected with self hate and one of the cures for it is capacity. It's becomes harder and harder to believe you are the worst person in the world when you can do things.

I actually agree with you on this Moonie. Teach a man to fish, etc. I'd happily pay taxes to implement such a system of teaching self-reliance. But as we all know, Americans won't tend gardens. That's work for dirty Mexicans.

I was thinking the same thing, someone hacked Moonbeam's account. This idea makes far too much sense.

It makes sense on paper. That's the problem. What if people don't want to learn to fish? Do we then cut them off from their food so they can then murder us?

I don't see how we would be cutting them off from anything, assuming the food would be there for the taking for anyone willing to work. And if they are still not willing to work... well, then, "no soup for you." Making the jump from there to say they would murder us is a bit much. And do we not have homeless drug addicts who rob and murder now anyway?

I guess the bigger question really, is what distinguished one's willingness to work from one's willingness to survive. If you completely refuse to perform any form of work, what "right" do you have to continue living and breathing? If I were the last man on earth, and I refused to clothe, feed, or shelter myself, would I survive?

 

[SammyJr]

Originally posted by: BoberFett

Originally posted by: SammyJr
If the religious one where concerned about that issue, they'd have a families room and segregate single men and women. They have the space. Instead, they're pushing their morality.

Yes, because Christian ethics demands husbands and wives not sleep together. :roll:

Do you ever think before posting or do you just bang your bicycle helmeted head on the keyboard and this is what pops up?

Don't ask me to explain their logic. I'm not the one who believes in spooks and spirits.

 

[Fingolfin269]

Originally posted by: BoberFett

Originally posted by: Fingolfin269
It makes sense on paper. That's the problem. What if people don't want to learn to fish? Do we then cut them off from their food so they can then murder us?

If an able bodied person refuses to take care of themselves even after given the tools to do so, then yes. Cut them off. Starve them to death. They're useless.

I'm with you on this but we both know that will never happen. If people don't want to work it will be because society did something to make them that way therefore we as society must bear that burden.

 

[Fingolfin269]

Originally posted by: Cutterhead

Originally posted by: Fingolfin269

Originally posted by: Cutterhead

Originally posted by: BoberFett

Originally posted by: Moonbeam
Starbuck: Agreed, but the entitlement and social welfare programs in California are plagued by abuse and incompetent management. How do you cut off the leeches while ensuring that the truly needy receive the benefits necessary to survive?

M: I don't know. It's a huge problem and I am a nobody. I have some thoughts the value of which I can't vouch for:

I don't think people should get stuff for free because they do not value it then. To get welfare people should be required to contribute something. Almost everybody can plant and water and tend gardens, so one thing I would try is that. The state supplies land and accommodations and services and those who need help live and work public farms. The produce goes to feed clothe and house the people who work. Income could also be earned by taking coursed and getting an education, learning a trade, etc. The same could be done in prisons and the more you work, the more you produce, the more you learn, the shorter the sentence.

The poor are especially infected with self hate and one of the cures for it is capacity. It's becomes harder and harder to believe you are the worst person in the world when you can do things.

I actually agree with you on this Moonie. Teach a man to fish, etc. I'd happily pay taxes to implement such a system of teaching self-reliance. But as we all know, Americans won't tend gardens. That's work for dirty Mexicans.

I was thinking the same thing, someone hacked Moonbeam's account. This idea makes far too much sense.

It makes sense on paper. That's the problem. What if people don't want to learn to fish? Do we then cut them off from their food so they can then murder us?

I don't see how we would be cutting them off from anything, assuming the food would be there for the taking for anyone willing to work. And if they are still not willing to work... well, then, "no soup for you." Making the jump from there to say they would murder us is a bit much. And do we not have homeless drug addicts who rob and murder now anyway?

I guess the bigger question really, is what distinguished one's willingness to work from one's willingness to survive. If you completely refuse to perform any form of work, what "right" do you have to continue living and breathing? If I were the last man on earth, and I refused to clothe, feed, or shelter myself, would I survive?

You have to read the whole thread to understand the murder part... (And before its pointed out, I do indeed hate myself)

 

[Moonbeam]

Originally posted by: Cutterhead

Originally posted by: Fingolfin269

Originally posted by: Cutterhead

Originally posted by: BoberFett

Originally posted by: Moonbeam
Starbuck: Agreed, but the entitlement and social welfare programs in California are plagued by abuse and incompetent management. How do you cut off the leeches while ensuring that the truly needy receive the benefits necessary to survive?

M: I don't know. It's a huge problem and I am a nobody. I have some thoughts the value of which I can't vouch for:

I don't think people should get stuff for free because they do not value it then. To get welfare people should be required to contribute something. Almost everybody can plant and water and tend gardens, so one thing I would try is that. The state supplies land and accommodations and services and those who need help live and work public farms. The produce goes to feed clothe and house the people who work. Income could also be earned by taking coursed and getting an education, learning a trade, etc. The same could be done in prisons and the more you work, the more you produce, the more you learn, the shorter the sentence.

The poor are especially infected with self hate and one of the cures for it is capacity. It's becomes harder and harder to believe you are the worst person in the world when you can do things.

I actually agree with you on this Moonie. Teach a man to fish, etc. I'd happily pay taxes to implement such a system of teaching self-reliance. But as we all know, Americans won't tend gardens. That's work for dirty Mexicans.

I was thinking the same thing, someone hacked Moonbeam's account. This idea makes far too much sense.

It makes sense on paper. That's the problem. What if people don't want to learn to fish? Do we then cut them off from their food so they can then murder us?

I don't see how we would be cutting them off from anything, assuming the food would be there for the taking for anyone willing to work. And if they are still not willing to work... well, then, "no soup for you." Making the jump from there to say they would murder us is a bit much. And do we not have homeless drug addicts who rob and murder now anyway?

I guess the bigger question really, is what distinguished one's willingness to work from one's willingness to survive. If you completely refuse to perform any form of work, what "right" do you have to continue living and breathing? If I were the last man on earth, and I refused to clothe, feed, or shelter myself, would I survive?

Everyone wants to work. The only people who don't want to work are folk who believe they are worthless and can't do anything. Anybody can water a tomato or pick it. Anybody can help care for an old person. Anybody can hoe. Anybody can dollop up a serving of mash potatoes. Everybody is dying for their lives to have meaning.

 

[Patranus]

The fact of the matter is that the state of California is provided services well beyond the basic necessities.
Furthermore, more and more people will leave the state and tax revenue will continue to drop. Why do you think people are leaving? They are leaving because they see ZERO return on their tax dollars....poor public safety....poor schools....poor roads....

 

[Craig234]

Originally posted by: Moonbeam
Everyone wants to work. The only people who don't want to work are folk who believe they are worthless and can't do anything. Anybody can water a tomato or pick it. Anybody can help care for an old person. Anybody can hoe. Anybody can dollop up a serving of mash potatoes. Everybody is dying for their lives to have meaning.

Actually, a lot of the people who don't want to work are the rich. Some work very hard, others want a life of leisure. We tend to see more of the former in the news, though.

 

[BoberFett]

Originally posted by: SammyJr

Originally posted by: BoberFett

Originally posted by: SammyJr
If the religious one where concerned about that issue, they'd have a families room and segregate single men and women. They have the space. Instead, they're pushing their morality.

Yes, because Christian ethics demands husbands and wives not sleep together. :roll:

Do you ever think before posting or do you just bang your bicycle helmeted head on the keyboard and this is what pops up?

Don't ask me to explain their logic. I'm not the one who believes in spooks and spirits.

You believe in the goodness of politicians. That's more dangerous than believing in spirits.

 

[marincounty]

My proposal is to have a lottery to end Arnold. Sell raffle tickets (to the poor) for $5 a piece, the winner gets to off Arnold on TV. California profits.