Intellectual capability of career welfare individuals

[Ronstang]

When people are up on their feet, they don't need welfare.

They also don't need Democrats thus the government will make sure they stay on welfare.

 

[DominionSeraph]

They also don't need Democrats thus the government will make sure they stay on welfare.

Nor do they need Republicans. That would be the definition of, "On your feet."

Sucks to be around people who can't think.

 

[Nemesis 1]

Say you chose a person randomly and gave them $20 every morning for 10 years straight. Then after 10 years you suddenly stop. Do you think they'd be grateful to you for the 10 years of getting $20 every morning that they did nothing for, or pissed at you for stopping?

OH! I get it my kids. Ya they get angry because its no longer there for them . My kids come over walk right into house . Open frig and grab what ever . I go to their homes and we knock at the door . and never get into their frig or anything else . Life shes a funny lady.

 

[MooseNSquirrel]

MooseNSquirrel

All I said was that there was a problem with a number of people I've met over the years. They need to be kicked off. But the programs need to be there for those that need it as a temporary measure. And what do you do about the kids of the ones that need to be kicked off? I've probably thought of this off and on for 30 years (since I started to meet people that accept welfare as a lifestyle), and I still can't find an equitable way to do it. I keep hoping someone will pop up with an idea that has the potential to work and would be reasonably easy to implement.

No one wants to reward bad behaviour. But Im ok with some small percentage of people being that way when it truly helps the vast majority of people.

I just dont see how you can "tighten" the system without negatively affecting those geniunely in need.

 

[Steeplerot]

The only people you guys harass are the people that legitimately need it. I've known a couple guys just as healthy as you or me that the state paid a monthly check to because they we're not mentally stable to work or some BS.

Your "professorial diagnosis" I am sure is airtight since you are a trained psychologist.

Anecdotal stories from someone with a ax to grind.

 

[MrMuppet]

His entire way of life revolved around the government trying to get him. The paranoia went so far, that the dad busted holes in the walls of the house, then stuck a rifle or shotgun into the hole. When the government came to get him, he had a firearm in every room.

So he was right then after all?

 

[MrMuppet]

whilst it may be unPC to say, I think persons who perpetually are on welfare are mentally behind. it would take somebody of that ilk to not want to better themselves.

I think this doesn't enter public discourse, since it IS unPC to mention.

Or they are actually genuinly unfit for work, either physically, mentally, or both, or at the very least to compete (at least on the minimum wage market).

One might argue that mental retardation is a subset of mental unfitness, however the opposite is not true. Being mentally behind is but one kind of mental limitation.

 

[Texashiker]

So he was right then after all?

Negative.

In his mind, when the government came to get him he would have a firearm in every room.

Last time I saw the dad was about 10 years ago. He was standing outside a grocery store and had a crazy look in his eyes. I doubt he recognized me, and I did not speak to him.

I just dont see how you can "tighten" the system without negatively affecting those geniunely in need.

That is part of the problem, how do we provide help to those that really need it, but punish those that abuse the system?

I have never understood why welfare does not have some kind of job training program? Why aren't people on welfare required to attend college or some type of trade school?

How many people would stay on the program is a bus showed up at the public housing projects to take the people to college every morning?

I honestly feel that is welfare had a mandatory job training program, the people who abuse the system would drop out.

 

[Paul98]

Its not a direct comparison, but rather a comparison of behavior.

The opening post was supposed to make the reader think, and stir emotions. Since you took the time to reply, my goal was accomplished.

Yeah because it was soooo stupid, their behavior is nothing the same you can't compare them at all. I took the time to say it was not even a remotely reasonable comparison.

 

[actuarial]

No evidence, just my personal observations.

Have you ever heard of confirmation bias?

 

[PokerGuy]

Sucks to be around people who can't think.

I'm sure that's exactly what your friends would think, if you had any. No, imaginary ponies don't count 😀

 

[Texashiker]

Have you ever heard of confirmation bias?

No, I have not, but I have now.

But I think I am being fair in my assessment.

Yeah because it was soooo stupid, their behavior is nothing the same you can't compare them at all. I took the time to say it was not even a remotely reasonable comparison.

I think chickens and career welfare recipients have a lot in common.

Both are content in their situation,
Neither have a desire to escape their enclosure.

But there are several major differences:

1 - given the chance, the chicken is able to provide for itself.

2 - chicken can raise its offspring without help from others.

3 - chickens have a natural instinct to provide for themselves.

How many career welfare recipients are able to provide for their children? If they could provide for their children, they would not be on welfare.

 

[momeNt]

No one wants to reward bad behaviour. But Im ok with some small percentage of people being that way when it truly helps the vast majority of people.

I just dont see how you can "tighten" the system without negatively affecting those geniunely in need.

Something like oh... the 1% maybe abuse it? Yet you and Jhnnn are the first to bust out your pitchforks when the total number of welfare abusers and wealth abusers are probably the same.

 

[nehalem256]

No one wants to reward bad behaviour. But Im ok with some small percentage of people being that way when it truly helps the vast majority of people.

I just dont see how you can "tighten" the system without negatively affecting those geniunely in need.

Except you are wrong. Take for example WIC. This is a program that is designed to help women who CHOOSE to have a child they cannot afford. It by design rewards bad behavior.

 

[Texashiker]

Except you are wrong. Take for example WIC. This is a program that is designed to help women who CHOOSE to have a child they cannot afford. It by design rewards bad behavior.

In your world, does anyone ever lose their job, no companies ever go under, and budget cuts never happen?

After enron collapsed, there were people who went from making $100k+ a year, to being on unemployment and welfare. But I guess that is bad behavior?

In 1999 the company I was working for imploded because the CEO made some terrible decisions. The company went under and had to lay their employees off. But some how that is bad behavior on my part?

 

[actuarial]

No, I have not, but I have now.

But I think I am being fair in my assessment.

The other thing to consider is what you would expect to hear if the opposite to your hypothesis is the true state.

Let's say only two people are on welfare, one who is ashamed to be on welfare and is trying to get off, and the other who is proud to be beating the system and plans on continuing to abuse it.

Which do you think is more likely to tell you they are on welfare?

 

[Texashiker]

Let's say only two people are on welfare, one who is ashamed to be on welfare and is trying to get off, and the other who is proud to be beating the system and plans on continuing to abuse it.

Which do you think is more likely to tell you they are on welfare?

The one that is proud to be receiving assistance.

 

[actuarial]

The one that is proud to be receiving assistance.

Exactly, which would skew your perception of what the average welfare recipient thinks.

 

[MooseNSquirrel]

Something like oh... the 1% maybe abuse it? Yet you and Jhnnn are the first to bust out your pitchforks when the total number of welfare abusers and wealth abusers are probably the same.

2 things represented by 1% arent inherently related.

But that would be an interesting discussion.

Who has cost society more?

Off the top of my head I can safely claim that weath abusers have cost me far more money than Welfare abusers.

 

[MooseNSquirrel]

Except you are wrong. Take for example WIC. This is a program that is designed to help women who CHOOSE to have a child they cannot afford. It by design rewards bad behavior.

Actually the true goal of the WIC program is to help sustain aliens who hide themselves amongst the poorest of society. The mice who run the experiment have determined that disguising extra-terrestial bipedals as human children is the most effective way of hiding them from our true masters, the whales.

 

[Texashiker]

Actually the true goal of the WIC program is to help sustain aliens who hide themselves amongst the poorest of society.

Proof of citizenship has to be provided before a family can receive wic.

The catch 22 is, proof of citizenship has to be provided on the child, and not on the parents.

Illegal immigrants can get into the US, have a child, that child is then eligible for wic benefits.

 

[nehalem256]

In your world, does anyone ever lose their job, no companies ever go under, and budget cuts never happen?

After enron collapsed, there were people who went from making $100k+ a year, to being on unemployment and welfare. But I guess that is bad behavior?

In 1999 the company I was working for imploded because the CEO made some terrible decisions. The company went under and had to lay their employees off. But some how that is bad behavior on my part?

http://www.fns.usda.gov/wic/aboutwic/wicataglance.htm

WIC serves 53 percent of all infants born in the United States.

1.) The extreme story you bring up does not cover anywhere near 53% of all women who have children every year

2.) Unemployment is different that welfare

3.) If you immediately go from making 100K+ to being on welfare, then yes that is bad behavior. It is called saving for a rainy day.

4.) Somehow I do not think WIC was created to help out those who face an Enron still event.

 

[Steeplerot]

Except you are wrong. Take for example WIC. This is a program that is designed to help women who CHOOSE to have a child they cannot afford. It by design rewards bad behavior.

Funny poll I read once: about 90% of American children's parents admit their kids were "accidents" (unplanned pregnancies).

People like to f$&k, news at 11!!

 

[nehalem256]

Funny poll I read once: about 90% of American children's parents admit their kids were "accidents" (unplanned pregnancies).

People like to f$&k, news at 11!!

Funny how your poll triples the actual number.

 

[Pr0d1gy]

How do you plan a pregnancy? You either cum inside your girl or you don't. If you cum inside here then you planned to get her pregnant because that is what happens when you do that. Sadly, many idiots around this country would cum inside a dumpster if it was moist and warm, thus you have millions of children growing up without fathers. Awesome work, guys!

I know one of the first things we need to do is not allow illegals to get benefits such as welfare, stamps, etc. Then we need to drug test citizens who choose to accept welfare, period.

Just doing those two things alone would cut our costs in half I bet.