Spinoff Thread RE: Welfare

[Lithium381]

From Brutuskends Thread

wards of the welfare state, people selected, over decades, for their lack of initiative and self-induced helplessness.

They don't sit around and complain that the government hasn't taken care of them. They don't use the chaos of a disaster as an opportunity to prey on their fellow men.

But what about criminals and welfare parasites? Do they worry about saving their houses and property? They don't, because they don't own anything. Do they worry about what is going to happen to their businesses or how they are going to make a living? They never worried about those things before. Do they worry about crime and looting? But living off of stolen wealth is a way of life for them.

That basically sums it up. My feelings on it is that welfare is for those that CAN'T, not those who WON'T. But hey we see how far that has gotten us. Why is it that this pattern continues and the government is forced to carry the burden of laziness? I think it was also pointed out in another thread around here, that for some reason those with the lowest economic profile(for lack of a better word) seem to try and stretch things the furthest, without thinking.......please, civil discussion only, if this is for P/N move it mods, otherwise, Nik, shove it, kindly.

 

[So]

Because those that can't are small enough in number that they can be cared for by private charity. Therefore, welfare becomes a home for those that wont.

 

[OdiN]

http://forums.anandtech.com/categories.aspx?catid=52&flcache=6566111&entercat=y






















bahahahah just kiddin

 

[klah]

Originally posted by: OdiN
http://forums.anandtech.com/categories.aspx?catid=52&flcache=6566111&entercat=y

Error Code: 144

:thumbsup:

 

[kranky]

Part of the problem is that there's no longer a culture which looks down on people who leech off the public. Years ago there was great shame in being seen as able to work but not willing.

Back then people understood that the handouts those people got were their hard-earned dollars that they paid in taxes. Today people seem to think "government money" is free. They think it's OK to squeeze everything you can get out of the system. So instead of people being ashamed for being a leech, their friends congratulate them for beating the system and people help each other figure out how to get more.

 

[sisq0kidd]

Small price to pay to keep them away from me :thumbsup: jk

 

[Amused]

Welfare has built a sense of entitlement.

Before Welfare was started in the late sixties, NO ONE was starving in the streets and the number of "homeless" was far less than it is today. Private charities more than filled the needs of those down on their luck.

It's time to admit that welfare is not only an abject failure, but has had detrimental consequences.

 

[PingSpike]

Originally posted by: sisq0kidd
Small price to pay to keep them away from me :thumbsup: jk

LOL...my mom says the same thing about a lot of my dad's relatives. "At least they aren't living with me."

Ain't that the truth.

 

[Medicine Bear]

Policy if you are able bodied should be don't work = don't eat

 

[PingSpike]

New Welfare Policy: Government funded blowjobs for all

 

[Toasthead]

Originally posted by: kranky
Part of the problem is that there's no longer a culture which looks down on people who leech off the public. Years ago there was great shame in being seen as able to work but not willing.

Back then people understood that the handouts those people got were their hard-earned dollars that they paid in taxes. Today people seem to think "government money" is free. They think it's OK to squeeze everything you can get out of the system. So instead of people being ashamed for being a leech, their friends congratulate them for beating the system and people help each other figure out how to get more.

Bingo. In todays world, people dont have to worry about anything. Its the governments JOB to take care of them, or so everyone thinks.

 

[Lithium381]

Originally posted by: Toasthead

Originally posted by: kranky
Part of the problem is that there's no longer a culture which looks down on people who leech off the public. Years ago there was great shame in being seen as able to work but not willing.

Back then people understood that the handouts those people got were their hard-earned dollars that they paid in taxes. Today people seem to think "government money" is free. They think it's OK to squeeze everything you can get out of the system. So instead of people being ashamed for being a leech, their friends congratulate them for beating the system and people help each other figure out how to get more.

Bingo. In todays world, people dont have to worry about anything. Its the governments JOB to take care of them, or so everyone thinks.

But these are the same people who probably haven't contributed a cent to the government via taxes or any other means, yet sit around and collect money while many wake up at 5am to go to work to support ourselves and the households. Why hasn't the government said "no more!" ?

 

[CrimsonChaos]

I'll agree welfare is a problem. And many on it are the stupid and/or lazy people that make up the majority of the poor class. However, I'd like to know what solution you have? If it is to eliminate welfare, how would you go about doing that without being completely inhumane, and without adversely affecting the children of these stupid/lazy people?

One possible solution is to simply not allow anymore 'standard of living' increases. It would take a long time (decades), but eventually the money you could make on welfare would be insignificant compared to what a minimum-wage job would pay. In the meantime, you would gradually wean these people off the system, providing them ample time to get a job. Any other thoughts on this?

 

[Lithium381]

Originally posted by: CrimsonChaos
I'll agree welfare is a problem. And many on it are the stupid and/or lazy people that make up the majority of the poor class. However, I'd like to know what solution you have? If it is to eliminate welfare, how would you go about doing that without being completely inhumane, and without adversely affecting the children of these stupid/lazy people?

i hate to say it and sound like a jerk, but some of these 'people' on welfare aren't even worth it, if they barely find the willpower to wake up everyday and that's it, we can't help them, we can only help those who are willing to help themselves.

One possible solution is to simply not allow anymore 'standard of living' increases. It would take a long time (decades), but eventually the money you could make on welfare would be insignificant compared to what a minimum-wage job would pay. In the meantime, you would gradually wean these people off the system, providing them ample time to get a job. Any other thoughts on this?

Welfare = one year maximum. MAYBE two. You decide to have another kid? not our problem, you couldn't even afford the first three on your own, what kind of lives are these kids going to have? a thread here a while back, about a week or two, someones sister was confident that she could have another kid because "the state will pay for it". I mean i know this is America and the whole "personal responsibility" thing is one of the past, but COME ON! just take a few steps on your own initiative instead of checking the mailbox everyday for your friggin' check! [/rant] Faster solution would be give everyone 6 months to prove they need it, actually NEED it or it's cut off right then and there. Bam. I know thats basicaly impossible, since that would put the burden of proof on those on welfare, and would require them to DO SOMETHING, which the state would have to pay for, and then it backfires, but gah!

 

[Fenixgoon]

welfare wont be done away with because politicians will lose their jobs.
at this point, i think we need an entirely new congress - its far too inefficient and filled with a bunch of whiny people worrying about the good of a small constituency rather than the health of the entire country

 

[IronWing]

The above all sounds good except that it is 99% crap. Welfare is not about feeding and housing the lazy. It is about feeding and housing their kids. The fastest way to cut the welfare rolls is to force dads to pay their cild support so moms don't need to be on the dole. The second fastest approach is to provide birth control, no cost, no questions asked. A lot cheaper than welfare.

 

[Amused]

Originally posted by: CrimsonChaos
I'll agree welfare is a problem. And many on it are the stupid and/or lazy people that make up the majority of the poor class. However, I'd like to know what solution you have? If it is to eliminate welfare, how would you go about doing that without being completely inhumane, and without adversely affecting the children of these stupid/lazy people?

Again, prior to the late sixties when the majority of the Welfare state was created, NO ONE was starving in the streets or dying of curable diseases or injuries in the US.

The greatest deception ever pulled in the last 30 years is the idea that state welfare is NEEDED. When LBJ's "Great Society" was introduced in the mid 60s, it was NOT billed as "relief for the poor" because plenty of that already existed in private charities. No, it was billed as "An end to poverty."

It failed... Miserably.

 

[IronWing]

Originally posted by: Amused

Originally posted by: CrimsonChaos
I'll agree welfare is a problem. And many on it are the stupid and/or lazy people that make up the majority of the poor class. However, I'd like to know what solution you have? If it is to eliminate welfare, how would you go about doing that without being completely inhumane, and without adversely affecting the children of these stupid/lazy people?

Again, prior to the late sixties when the majority of the Welfare state was created, NO ONE was starving in the streets or dying of curable diseases or injuries in the US.

The greatest deception ever pulled in the last 30 years is the idea that state welfare is NEEDED. When LBJ's "Great Society" was introduced in the mid 60s, it was NOT billed as "relief for the poor" because plenty of that already existed in private charities. No, it was billed as "An end to poverty."

It failed... Miserably.

It was never fully funded so failure was inevitable. Johnson wanted his war and his Great Society too. We couldn't afford both and both efforts suffered. Your statements about starvation and disease are not based in reality. No one important was dying of curable diseases.

 

[Amused]

Originally posted by: ironwing

Originally posted by: Amused

Originally posted by: CrimsonChaos
I'll agree welfare is a problem. And many on it are the stupid and/or lazy people that make up the majority of the poor class. However, I'd like to know what solution you have? If it is to eliminate welfare, how would you go about doing that without being completely inhumane, and without adversely affecting the children of these stupid/lazy people?

Again, prior to the late sixties when the majority of the Welfare state was created, NO ONE was starving in the streets or dying of curable diseases or injuries in the US.

The greatest deception ever pulled in the last 30 years is the idea that state welfare is NEEDED. When LBJ's "Great Society" was introduced in the mid 60s, it was NOT billed as "relief for the poor" because plenty of that already existed in private charities. No, it was billed as "An end to poverty."

It failed... Miserably.

It was never fully funded so failure was inevitable. Johnson wanted his war and his Great Society too. We couldn't afford both and both efforts suffered. Your statements about starvation and disease are not based in reality. No one important was dying of curable diseases.

Incorrect. In fact, much of the Great Society plan didn't even begin until under Nixon. Welfare has been fully funded for decades now, and has failed, miserably.

Also, health care was available to all through private charity. No one who sought medical care was dying of curable diseases. Of course, if you don;t seek medical care, you'll die... but that's irrelevant.

 

[Eli]

Originally posted by: kranky
Part of the problem is that there's no longer a culture which looks down on people who leech off the public. Years ago there was great shame in being seen as able to work but not willing.

Back then people understood that the handouts those people got were their hard-earned dollars that they paid in taxes. Today people seem to think "government money" is free. They think it's OK to squeeze everything you can get out of the system. So instead of people being ashamed for being a leech, their friends congratulate them for beating the system and people help each other figure out how to get more.

Indeed.

I can't say that I'm not guilty of this.... I think it is human nature to take advantage, especially when it's a victimless crime.

Edit: I just mean... the "squeeze everything you can out of the system" bit. Having a hard time comming up with the right words to adequately explain myself...

It is somehow empowering to beat and/or use "the man". Or something.

We're predators. Except we're not in the wild anymore. We prey on vulnerabilties.

They just happen to be vulnerabilities within our government system.

 

[IronWing]

Originally posted by: Amused

Originally posted by: ironwing

Originally posted by: Amused

Originally posted by: CrimsonChaos
I'll agree welfare is a problem. And many on it are the stupid and/or lazy people that make up the majority of the poor class. However, I'd like to know what solution you have? If it is to eliminate welfare, how would you go about doing that without being completely inhumane, and without adversely affecting the children of these stupid/lazy people?

Again, prior to the late sixties when the majority of the Welfare state was created, NO ONE was starving in the streets or dying of curable diseases or injuries in the US.

The greatest deception ever pulled in the last 30 years is the idea that state welfare is NEEDED. When LBJ's "Great Society" was introduced in the mid 60s, it was NOT billed as "relief for the poor" because plenty of that already existed in private charities. No, it was billed as "An end to poverty."

It failed... Miserably.

It was never fully funded so failure was inevitable. Johnson wanted his war and his Great Society too. We couldn't afford both and both efforts suffered. Your statements about starvation and disease are not based in reality. No one important was dying of curable diseases.

Incorrect. In fact, much of the Great Society plan didn't even begin until under Nixon. Welfare has been fully funded for decades now, and has failed, miserably.

Also, health care was available to all through private charity. No one who sought medical care was dying of curable diseases. Of course, if you don;t seek medical care, you'll die... but that's irrelevant.

Your incorrect comprehesion of reality does not change reality.

 

[Eli]

Originally posted by: ironwing

Originally posted by: Amused

Originally posted by: ironwing

Originally posted by: Amused

Originally posted by: CrimsonChaos
I'll agree welfare is a problem. And many on it are the stupid and/or lazy people that make up the majority of the poor class. However, I'd like to know what solution you have? If it is to eliminate welfare, how would you go about doing that without being completely inhumane, and without adversely affecting the children of these stupid/lazy people?

Again, prior to the late sixties when the majority of the Welfare state was created, NO ONE was starving in the streets or dying of curable diseases or injuries in the US.

The greatest deception ever pulled in the last 30 years is the idea that state welfare is NEEDED. When LBJ's "Great Society" was introduced in the mid 60s, it was NOT billed as "relief for the poor" because plenty of that already existed in private charities. No, it was billed as "An end to poverty."

It failed... Miserably.

It was never fully funded so failure was inevitable. Johnson wanted his war and his Great Society too. We couldn't afford both and both efforts suffered. Your statements about starvation and disease are not based in reality. No one important was dying of curable diseases.

Incorrect. In fact, much of the Great Society plan didn't even begin until under Nixon. Welfare has been fully funded for decades now, and has failed, miserably.

Also, health care was available to all through private charity. No one who sought medical care was dying of curable diseases. Of course, if you don;t seek medical care, you'll die... but that's irrelevant.

Your incorrect comprehesion of reality does not change reality.

I've gotta agree with you.

To say that sickness and starvation didn't happen before the 60s is quite frankly deluded. There have always been poor people.

It just wasn't a whole self-sustaining subculture.

But I agree with his sentiment. Welfare isn't helping anybody, if not just because of the mentality that has come along with it.

 

[Amused]

Originally posted by: ironwing

Originally posted by: Amused

Originally posted by: ironwing

Originally posted by: Amused

Originally posted by: CrimsonChaos
I'll agree welfare is a problem. And many on it are the stupid and/or lazy people that make up the majority of the poor class. However, I'd like to know what solution you have? If it is to eliminate welfare, how would you go about doing that without being completely inhumane, and without adversely affecting the children of these stupid/lazy people?

Again, prior to the late sixties when the majority of the Welfare state was created, NO ONE was starving in the streets or dying of curable diseases or injuries in the US.

The greatest deception ever pulled in the last 30 years is the idea that state welfare is NEEDED. When LBJ's "Great Society" was introduced in the mid 60s, it was NOT billed as "relief for the poor" because plenty of that already existed in private charities. No, it was billed as "An end to poverty."

It failed... Miserably.

It was never fully funded so failure was inevitable. Johnson wanted his war and his Great Society too. We couldn't afford both and both efforts suffered. Your statements about starvation and disease are not based in reality. No one important was dying of curable diseases.

Incorrect. In fact, much of the Great Society plan didn't even begin until under Nixon. Welfare has been fully funded for decades now, and has failed, miserably.

Also, health care was available to all through private charity. No one who sought medical care was dying of curable diseases. Of course, if you don;t seek medical care, you'll die... but that's irrelevant.

Your incorrect comprehesion of reality does not change reality.

Um, no. Welfare has failed. That is reality. Private charity did as much, if not more than welfare prior to it's inception. That is reality.

All welfare has accomplished are outrageously dangerous public housing ghettos and a sense of entitlement and dependency.

 

[Amused]

Originally posted by: Eli

Originally posted by: ironwing

Originally posted by: Amused

Originally posted by: ironwing

Originally posted by: Amused

Originally posted by: CrimsonChaos
I'll agree welfare is a problem. And many on it are the stupid and/or lazy people that make up the majority of the poor class. However, I'd like to know what solution you have? If it is to eliminate welfare, how would you go about doing that without being completely inhumane, and without adversely affecting the children of these stupid/lazy people?

Again, prior to the late sixties when the majority of the Welfare state was created, NO ONE was starving in the streets or dying of curable diseases or injuries in the US.

The greatest deception ever pulled in the last 30 years is the idea that state welfare is NEEDED. When LBJ's "Great Society" was introduced in the mid 60s, it was NOT billed as "relief for the poor" because plenty of that already existed in private charities. No, it was billed as "An end to poverty."

It failed... Miserably.

It was never fully funded so failure was inevitable. Johnson wanted his war and his Great Society too. We couldn't afford both and both efforts suffered. Your statements about starvation and disease are not based in reality. No one important was dying of curable diseases.

Incorrect. In fact, much of the Great Society plan didn't even begin until under Nixon. Welfare has been fully funded for decades now, and has failed, miserably.

Also, health care was available to all through private charity. No one who sought medical care was dying of curable diseases. Of course, if you don;t seek medical care, you'll die... but that's irrelevant.

Your incorrect comprehesion of reality does not change reality.

I've gotta agree with you.

To say that sickness and starvation didn't happen before the 60s is quite frankly deluded. There have always been poor people.

It just wasn't a whole self-sustaining subculture.

But I agree with his sentiment. Welfare isn't helping anybody, if not just because of the mentality that has come along with it.

I did NOT say sickness didn't happen. But NO ONE was starving in the US before welfare (unless they had an eating disorder, or were insane... same as today).

Don't believe me, find out for yourself. Go dig up the masses of news articles from the 60s complaining about mass starvation among the poor.

They don't exist.

 

[IronWing]

Originally posted by: Amused

All welfare has accomplished are outrageously dangerous public housing ghettos and a sense of entitlement and dependency.

Why did we have public housing ghettos? They exist because we tried to do things on the cheap and we didn't want "those people" living amongst us. Building affordable housing interspersed with higher priced housing was seen as bad for property values.