What does the government owe this person?

[themusgrat]

Originally posted by: Mursilis

Dependence, and how the mind rationalizes it, is a tricky thing. Yes, few people are going to actually admit (even to themselves) that they're leeches, but many are going to cling to some small personal issue as an excuse to call themselves disabled, and convince themselves they cannot work, and thus deserve a handout. I work with people seeking various forms of federal disability, and very few of the people I see are out and out liars, from what I can tell; they seem to actually believe that they're disabled for life, even if the original issue was minor and years ago. But they're not. We're born dependent, and many people refuse to give that up. The more the gov't creates incentives for dependency, the more dependent people we'll get.

This is very true, and it touches on what another poster recently referred to as the "pussification" of America. We're creating all these ways for us to pass the blame for ourselves onto anything other than ourselves.

We say that because a pedophile has problems liking little kids, he's got behavioral problems, or he had problems with his childhood, or maybe he's got a mental illness; anything other than that he's a flaming lovely human that needs to sort his shit out or go to jail till he does. Or when people who are having problems with their marriage go to shrinks and somehow feel better afterwards. They will tell you that they needed that, they needed someone else to tell them what they knew already, or what any of their family or friends could have told them. Anything other than admitting that they messed up.

The above is completely right. We've made our society dependent upon feeling good, and we find anyway we can to rationalize it. It won't be long before we have clinics for rapists and murderers to help them get over their mental "problems." This is going a little offtopic, but I really liked what Ted Nugent had to say about the matter of repeat offenders. He said "Repeat offenders? I'd rather see a dead offender." It's a shame we keep getting laxer and laxer on responsibility and punishment, while the world goes to shit all around us.

 

[WHAMPOM]

Originally posted by: alchemize
Was contemplating all the discussion on what rights we have here in the US. So let's take a single, healthy adult person, male or female.

Person refuses to do any sort of work, has zero money, without government aid will starve him/herself to death, will not provide his/her own shelter (can't, no money), you get the gist. Assume this person will keep this status for the rest of his/her life, won't ever marry or reproduce.

What does the government owe this person?

Bughouse commitment, but then what homeless person even gets anything like that. It's just get out of sight and die.

 

[WHAMPOM]

Originally posted by: alchemize

Originally posted by: Infohawk
Similar to my but yours is pretty specific in that he/she will never work. I have a hunch very few healthy people would ever admit to that. Assuming they did though, they aren't owed anything. One question though, has this person worked in the past?

For the sake of argument, let's say this person never has worked. This person's parents took care of his/her every need. And they are no longer in the picture.

Sounds like the idealized Republican , living off entitlement. What me worry about a spoiled rich kid?

 

[WHAMPOM]

Originally posted by: alchemize
Was contemplating all the discussion on what rights we have here in the US. So let's take a single, healthy adult person, male or female.

Person refuses to do any sort of work, has zero money, without government aid will starve him/herself to death, will not provide his/her own shelter (can't, no money), you get the gist. Assume this person will keep this status for the rest of his/her life, won't ever marry or reproduce.

What does the government owe this person?

Is that a serious question? OK a serious answer: to be left alone. edit:He wins, we win, Darwin wins/:thumbsup:.

 

[n yusef]

Originally posted by: themusgrat

Originally posted by: Mursilis

Dependence, and how the mind rationalizes it, is a tricky thing. Yes, few people are going to actually admit (even to themselves) that they're leeches, but many are going to cling to some small personal issue as an excuse to call themselves disabled, and convince themselves they cannot work, and thus deserve a handout. I work with people seeking various forms of federal disability, and very few of the people I see are out and out liars, from what I can tell; they seem to actually believe that they're disabled for life, even if the original issue was minor and years ago. But they're not. We're born dependent, and many people refuse to give that up. The more the gov't creates incentives for dependency, the more dependent people we'll get.

This is very true, and it touches on what another poster recently referred to as the "pussification" of America. We're creating all these ways for us to pass the blame for ourselves onto anything other than ourselves.

We say that because a pedophile has problems liking little kids, he's got behavioral problems, or he had problems with his childhood, or maybe he's got a mental illness; anything other than that he's a flaming lovely human that needs to sort his shit out or go to jail till he does. Or when people who are having problems with their marriage go to shrinks and somehow feel better afterwards. They will tell you that they needed that, they needed someone else to tell them what they knew already, or what any of their family or friends could have told them. Anything other than admitting that they messed up.

The above is completely right. We've made our society dependent upon feeling good, and we find anyway we can to rationalize it. It won't be long before we have clinics for rapists and murderers to help them get over their mental "problems." This is going a little offtopic, but I really liked what Ted Nugent had to say about the matter of repeat offenders. He said "Repeat offenders? I'd rather see a dead offender." It's a shame we keep getting laxer and laxer on responsibility and punishment, while the world goes to shit all around us.

Way to fuck up the thread with bigoted misconceptions about pedophilia.

 

[ayabe]

Originally posted by: WHAMPOM

Originally posted by: alchemize
Was contemplating all the discussion on what rights we have here in the US. So let's take a single, healthy adult person, male or female.

Person refuses to do any sort of work, has zero money, without government aid will starve him/herself to death, will not provide his/her own shelter (can't, no money), you get the gist. Assume this person will keep this status for the rest of his/her life, won't ever marry or reproduce.

What does the government owe this person?

Is that a serious question? OK a serious answer: to be left alone. edit:He wins, we win, Darwin wins/:thumbsup:.

In this instance, I agree.

But this phantom mega-bum is being used as an argument against all sorts of things, when in reality, I doubt that more than 1% of the recipients of any gov aid fit into this category.

Providing benefits to the needy will ALWAYS include some percentage of mega-bums, but that shouldn't be used as an argument to deny the legitimate needs of others.

 

[Vette73]

Originally posted by: waggy

Originally posted by: rchiu

Originally posted by: waggy

Originally posted by: Elias824
This is a faulty question, you assume you know everything this person will do. If things were that easy im sure we would have a decent solution. Also I dont think any sane person will just not work and die because of laziness. Usually when people stop having food and shelter they tend to become alot more willing to work. The govt owes him only the opportunity to do something else.

yes its a flawed question.

but people know that they can get on many goverment programs and continue to not work.

I think the 1996 welfare reform changed some of that and made most programs to provide short term assistance and not long term, unlimited give away. Unless it's for disabled, sigle mother who needs to care for kids...etc.

Of course the system is not going to be perfect. But if the system help 100's of really needed, and help a couple that's taking a free ride at the same time, it is still a good program for the society.

even then the SSDI program is a joke.

it takes years (though lately they have tried to make it faster) to get on SSDI because of all the liars and bullshit reasons people think they deserve it.

I was in the doctor office (i have fibromyalgia and Rhemotoid arthritis) and the idiot sitting next to me in shorts, basketball shoes was on the phone talking about how he was going to see the doctor for his SSDI certification and then how he was out playing basketball for like 3 hours. I wanted to ask if he can play basketball for 3 hours what makes him th ink he needs fucking SSDI?

I would have asked your doctor why HE thinks that person needs it. People can ask for anything but unless someone signs off on it, doctor in this case, then it will not happen.

 

[yllus]

I think five years of federal welfare is a nice window of opportunity for an able-bodied, sound of mind individual to start building a life.

 

[themusgrat]

Originally posted by: n yusef

Way to fuck up the thread with bigoted misconceptions about pedophilia.

Not sure if this was :serious: or :troll: but I laughed all the same

 

[n yusef]

Originally posted by: themusgrat

Originally posted by: n yusef

Way to fuck up the thread with bigoted misconceptions about pedophilia.

Not sure if this was :serious: or :troll: but I laughed all the same

I'm dead serious. Pedophilia isn't homosexuality, and pedophiles aren't "flaming faggots."

EDIT: sorry, I originally misquoted you.

 

[blackangst1]

Originally posted by: n yusef

Originally posted by: themusgrat

Originally posted by: n yusef

Way to fuck up the thread with bigoted misconceptions about pedophilia.

Not sure if this was :serious: or :troll: but I laughed all the same

I'm dead serious. Pedophilia isn't homosexuality, and pedophiles aren't "fucking faggots."

Yep.

 

[Mursilis]

Originally posted by: waggy

Originally posted by: rchiu

Originally posted by: waggy

Originally posted by: Elias824
This is a faulty question, you assume you know everything this person will do. If things were that easy im sure we would have a decent solution. Also I dont think any sane person will just not work and die because of laziness. Usually when people stop having food and shelter they tend to become alot more willing to work. The govt owes him only the opportunity to do something else.

yes its a flawed question.

but people know that they can get on many goverment programs and continue to not work.

I think the 1996 welfare reform changed some of that and made most programs to provide short term assistance and not long term, unlimited give away. Unless it's for disabled, sigle mother who needs to care for kids...etc.

Of course the system is not going to be perfect. But if the system help 100's of really needed, and help a couple that's taking a free ride at the same time, it is still a good program for the society.

even then the SSDI program is a joke.

it takes years (though lately they have tried to make it faster) to get on SSDI because of all the liars and bullshit reasons people think they deserve it.

I was in the doctor office (i have fibromyalgia and Rhemotoid arthritis) and the idiot sitting next to me in shorts, basketball shoes was on the phone talking about how he was going to see the doctor for his SSDI certification and then how he was out playing basketball for like 3 hours. I wanted to ask if he can play basketball for 3 hours what makes him th ink he needs fucking SSDI?

It's simple economics - if the gov't is going to pay people to be disabled, we're going to see a LOT more disabled people.

 

[Infohawk]

I was thinking about this more and I think state/local government owes OTHER people the following: a tent/cabin for this guy to die in so that the public doesn't have to deal with a dead body and emergency services doesn't need to waste money rushing to a dead body. The guy/gal doesn't deserve anything per se.

 

[dainthomas]

Originally posted by: senseamp
air conditioning

Plus cell phone, fios, and a flat screen (because what good is fios without a flat screen?)

 

[waggy]

Originally posted by: Mursilis

Originally posted by: waggy

Originally posted by: rchiu

Originally posted by: waggy

Originally posted by: Elias824
This is a faulty question, you assume you know everything this person will do. If things were that easy im sure we would have a decent solution. Also I dont think any sane person will just not work and die because of laziness. Usually when people stop having food and shelter they tend to become alot more willing to work. The govt owes him only the opportunity to do something else.

yes its a flawed question.

but people know that they can get on many goverment programs and continue to not work.

I think the 1996 welfare reform changed some of that and made most programs to provide short term assistance and not long term, unlimited give away. Unless it's for disabled, sigle mother who needs to care for kids...etc.

Of course the system is not going to be perfect. But if the system help 100's of really needed, and help a couple that's taking a free ride at the same time, it is still a good program for the society.

even then the SSDI program is a joke.

it takes years (though lately they have tried to make it faster) to get on SSDI because of all the liars and bullshit reasons people think they deserve it.

I was in the doctor office (i have fibromyalgia and Rhemotoid arthritis) and the idiot sitting next to me in shorts, basketball shoes was on the phone talking about how he was going to see the doctor for his SSDI certification and then how he was out playing basketball for like 3 hours. I wanted to ask if he can play basketball for 3 hours what makes him th ink he needs fucking SSDI?

It's simple economics - if the gov't is going to pay people to be disabled, we're going to see a LOT more disabled people.

yeap. the things people claim that makes them disabled is silly. from being fat to being bald (yes both were used as claims on SSDI).

i helped my father in law get SSDI (paperwork and research) i was amazed the bullshit he had to go through. Then i started to actually pay attention to other people in the office and waht they were claiming. it really blew my mind.

I am willing to bet that %60 of the people that claim for SSDI are faking it. this just makes those that really need it wait and makes it harder to get.

heh if you can't tell SSDI is a pet peave of mine lol

 

[themusgrat]

Originally posted by: n yusef

Originally posted by: themusgrat

Originally posted by: n yusef

Way to fuck up the thread with bigoted misconceptions about pedophilia.

Not sure if this was :serious: or :troll: but I laughed all the same

I'm dead serious. Pedophilia isn't homosexuality, and pedophiles aren't "flaming faggots."

EDIT: sorry, I originally misquoted you.

True, pedo =/= gay. No I really do get it, the point was just to be demeaning towards them, I like many others don't really use the phrase "flaming faggots" to always refer to gays, it just refers to retarded people in general, or people who I have a problem with. Not that I have a problem with gays either, one of my best friends is a flaming lovely human (he loves it when I say it), but you get the idea, I don't like pedos. There's no misconceptions here, move along.

 

[Mursilis]

Originally posted by: waggy
I am willing to bet that %60 of the people that claim for SSDI are faking it. this just makes those that really need it wait and makes it harder to get.

heh if you can't tell SSDI is a pet peave of mine lol

60%? From what I've seen of SSDI cases, I'd believe that figure.

 

[WhipperSnapper]

Originally posted by: db
Sounds like a loaded question.

The problem is that he's going to try to take an extreme example to explain why we shouldn't have socialized medicine, ignoring the vast majority of Americans who do work and who suffer under the class warfare instituted by the upper classes on the lower classes.

It is, however, a worthwhile question placed in a different context. Let's suppose that our nation were prosperous and that opportunity abounded for anyone who wanted to work at it. What would the government owe someone the OP described in that context--an able-bodied person who refuses to support himself?

I would say, protection from violence, both foreign and domestic, and basic health care, in that context. The problem of course is that these types of people tend to birth children they cannot afford to take care of, which raises the issue of whether or not we need forced sterilizations for some people at some point.

 

[manowar821]

Clean water. That's it.

 

[JeffreyLebowski]

Originally posted by: blahblah99
The government owes this person nothing, and that person deserves nothing from the government.

Now take a person who works as hard as possible and earns an enormous salary. What does that person owe the government?

If you do not put anything into the system you should get nothing out of the system.
As for your second statement, The person that makes a lot does owe the gov some money as they (the person) uses gov supported things, like roads, ect. That being said, the wealthy should shoulder a higher percentage of the burden. There should be a flat tax rate for everyone. That's what you pay, no deductions, no alterations.

Originally posted by: rudder
A car and some gas.

Don't forget a mortgage Obama will pay for.

 

[JeffreyLebowski]

Originally posted by: WhipperSnapper

Originally posted by: db
Sounds like a loaded question.

The problem is that he's going to try to take an extreme example to explain why we shouldn't have socialized medicine, ignoring the vast majority of Americans who do work and who suffer under the class warfare instituted by the upper classes on the lower classes.

It is, however, a worthwhile question placed in a different context. Let's suppose that our nation were prosperous and that opportunity abounded for anyone who wanted to work at it. What would the government owe someone the OP described in that context--an able-bodied person who refuses to support himself?

I would say, protection from violence, both foreign and domestic, and basic health care, in that context. The problem of course is that these types of people tend to birth children they cannot afford to take care of, which raises the issue of whether or not we need forced sterilizations for some people at some point.

I would like to know why you think he should be given basic health care? Please point me to documentation in the Consititution that gives this right?

 

[WhipperSnapper]

Originally posted by: JeffreyLebowskiI would like to know why you think he should be given basic health care? Please point me to documentation in the Consititution that gives this right?

Health care is not a right and neither is an education. The issue is whether or not whether or not they are individual rights but rather whether we want to raise the nation's standard of living by having public education and socialized medicine.

The Constitution gives Congress the ability to regulate interstate commerce (the infamous "Interstate Commerce Clause") which pretty much gives Congress the ability to do whatever it wants as long as the issue affects interstate commerce. If you want to test this, hire a lawyer and file a federal lawsuit claiming that the public schools are unconstitutional. (You'll have to do this on your own dime since no lawyer would be stupid enough to take a case like that on contingency or even to do it pro bono.)