Printable View
I do object to how much we give the feckless in the first place.Quote:
Originally Posted by CitizenCain
I'm happy to have welfare as a safety net, but its spiralled out of control and isn't that any more. When you've got these chavs some of which are third generation of never having held a job, there's a problem.
Maybe by pointing this out something will be done about it.
Makes me curious how this socialist haven I live in manages to keep such low unemployment figures...
Probably through the generous but judicious use of LOVE :up:Quote:
Originally Posted by Flixy
Because clearly unemployment only has one cause.Quote:
Originally Posted by Flixy
Drug criminalization or prostitution bans?Quote:
Originally Posted by Loki
Labor market flexibility, education level of the work force, generosity of unemployment benefits, capital/labor relations, etc.
Couldn't let me be happy for even a little while, could you?
I've always wondered if people might deny someone unemployment benefits on the grounds that they may be able to sell their bodies.
Another great way to have a low unemployment rate is to have a ridiculously high disability rate, something that the Netherlands are experts in (~8% for the Dutch compared to under 6% average in the rest of OECD).
Quote:
Originally Posted by Lewkowski
Obviously, you are not one of those compassionate conservatives we hear exist. :donkey:Quote:
Originally Posted by Lewkowski
But let's say your wet dream comes true, and undeserving people are deprived of gov't assistance, and banned from "welfare" for 5 years.....even if they drink some beers (to numb their pain or feel giddy for a bit) or bum a smoke (to kill their hunger)---two perfectly legal "vices", by the way....
Can they rely on your church to provide a hot meal seven days a week, a change of clean clothes, a place to sleep (for months on end, while job-searching), plus job-training, internet and phone access, and transportation? Or would your church also proclaim they're undeservingly sponging off limited church charity funds? The goal, of course, being saving money. :donkey:
If you are forcibly taking funds from one group and giving it to another at the very least you should attach some strings.Quote:
Why should they waste it on food or clothing or rent or gas or anything else? For the absolutely no difference it makes to you, I don't see why you care in the first place, but more importantly, you're falling into the progressive trap of assuming you know what's best for someone else's life. If someone wants to prioritize some drug over other basic necessities (or cable TV, for that matter), who are you to say they can't, and how do you even know that's the "wrong" decision? What's next - scrutinizing their grocery lists to make sure they're not wasting any taxpayer money on junk food or convenience items (like pre-made salads or meals ready to cook, etc.)?
Gah, that didn't even answer the question, Lewk. Who asked that question, anyway? I can't tell because you didn't use the quote function.
Whomever you quoted assumed it's a trap laid by "Progressives", which is patently false. If anyone is judging what's best for someone else's life, it's the New Republican. They're really just a modern version of the Moral Majority, though. They're the ones introducing intrusive legislation.
Because? I wasn't asking for a declaration of your views. Given that I'm not comatose, I kinda already knew that. I was (and still am) asking why you hold those views. Again, why is it wrong for them to spend their free monies on drugs, and what about other items that are used for the creation of happiness, but are not essential to life? (Cable TV, junk food, contraceptives, etc.)Quote:
Originally Posted by Lewkowski
It was me, and it was a statement of fact, not an assumption. Don't worry, though, I'm not expecting you to understand, what with your crippling disability and all, but it's true. The hallmark of progressive politics is thinking you (or some government bureaucrat) knows better than anyone else, and should make law based on that... which is exactly what Lewk's doing when he says welfare monies should only be awarded to one arbitrary group of needy folks, and/or should only be spent on one arbitrary set of needs.Quote:
Originally Posted by GGT
No, but if you read the posts of some people here it's obvious that welfare only has one consequence.Quote:
Originally Posted by Loki
:up:Quote:
Originally Posted by CitizenCain
I doubt you can if it's illegal, but I'm fairly sure prostitutes here don't get unemployment benefits. After all, they are employed.Quote:
Originally Posted by Aimless
Good point, forgot about that, that is a problem. Though the difference you mention is smaller than the difference in unemployment figures, and IIRC most people in disability are only on partial disability, not full.Quote:
Originally Posted by Loki
Hey if you could create a test for cable TV and contraceptives...Quote:
Originally Posted by CitizenCain
Since I don't fully know how drug testing works I don't even know how it is feasible for tobacco and alcohol. My point is this: If your getting money from other tax payers you shouldn't be fritting it away, it should go towards survival. If you don't need it for survival (and you absolutely don't if you can afford to squander it on wants) then you shouldn't be getting it at all.
Well, at least that's a consistent viewpoint. However, you might want to consider what happens to people when their physical survival needs are met, but their psychological needs ("wants" as you'd seem to describe them) are completely unsatisfied for a long period of time. It's not pretty, and I don't think anyone wants a social safety nets that keeps people alive and then unleashes psychologically broken onto society. (Unless, of course, you look forward to governmental sanction for "people hunting," I suppose, but even then, there are easier ways.)
I'd see it as an incentive to get off the government dole. Now if they step out of line and start thieving or attacking others then just put them down like a rabid dogs. Society pays for their survival and they attack people? Yeah no fixing that kind of human filth.Quote:
Originally Posted by CitizenCain
Heh. Judge not, lest ye be judged, son.
I bet after 48 months of living on $75 a week, you'd be at least thieving to support yourself. I know I wouldn't even make it that long before I got loaded for bear and went looking for blood, your silly assertions that this kind of behavior is only reserved for "unfixable" "human filth" notwithstanding.
Contraceptives are kind of essential. :bulb:
Well, possibly, yeah. But they're also in the class of "things you buy to generate happiness that you can live without." Like drugs or cable TV. If you're gonna take the draconian stance that welfare should be used solely on survival needs, and not on "wants" (to quote Lewk), then the fact is that sex is a "want" and not a need.
Not according to Maslow.Quote:
Originally Posted by CitizenCain
Sex (without contraception or prostitution) is totally free and is something there is no reason the poor won't do. To think otherwise is stupidity of the highest order. Cut off the ability to have contraception and you won't stop people having sex, they'll just have more pregnancies. And then I assume you will count another mouth to feed, nappies, etc, etc as a necessity? Contraception is definitely a necessity in my eyes, heck I'd consider abortions one too. From a taxpayer's perspective then prevention is better than cure, but cure is better than paying to bring up a welfare baby.
EDIT: In the words of Pulp:
You'll never live like common people,
you'll never do what common people do,
you'll never fail like common people,
you'll never watch your life slide out of view,
and dance and drink and screw,
because there's nothing else to do.
Whats the conservative thinking on this? Save the fetus, starve the child? Gives them the best of both worlds.
Is there a uniform conservative opinion? I've given my own.
How did you figure out my offline identity?!?!Quote:
Originally Posted by RandBlade
:p
I don't disagree with anything you say, I was just trying to get your (and then Lewk's) reasoning for why drugs should be verboten to those on government assistance. It seems that in Lewk's case, this is because it's not OK to purchase happiness on someone else's dime. I think contraceptives are a good item to show just how precarious that position is - as you point out, we have the issue of paying for welfare babies, and it's just a plain inherently inconsistent and unsupportable position for both practical reasons and on principle too.
And you cropped my post. :down: I said Whomever you quoted assumed it's a trap laid by "Progressives", which is patently false. If anyone is judging what's best for someone else's life, it's the New Republican. They're really just a modern version of the Moral Majority, though. They're the ones introducing intrusive legislation.Quote:
Originally Posted by CitizenCain
The new conservative politician (Republican) is passing laws to drug test welfare recipients, make it harder to register to vote, ban gays from marrying or serving in the military, limit abortion services--even with private insurance--also limit birth control access and sex ed, and slash gov't safety nets. Lewk belongs to that New Republican that's more Moral Majority than majority, content with intrusive laws that get up in everyone's bodies and behaviors, so long as they're made by "conservatives". In that world, Survival of the Fittest means to deprive and dictate, set vulnerable people up for failure, then throw them in jail or fry 'em. Nice, huh. :rolleyes:
Quote:
Originally Posted by Lewkowski
Quote:
Originally Posted by Lewkowski
Person A belongs to Group X.
Most people in Group X believe N.
Therefore, Person A believes N.
:bored:
that New Republican that's more Moral Majority than majority
:donkey:
How about you say something more than critiquing others' posts, Loki? Is posting your own opinion on a topic so difficult?
How about saying something that isn't demonstrably false? Is that too difficult for you?
It's absolutely true that the GOP has a non-majority of Moral Majority types within the party---super conservatives targeting social issues, and backing intrusive legislation. Where's your opinion of the topic, Loki? :donkey:
I think he means that Lewk, specifically, is a bit of an odd bird even though he belongs to that group. At least, I hope that's what he means.Quote:
Originally Posted by GGT
Yeah, I felt compelled to cut down on the inane rambling factor. There's more than enough of that without repeating your assorted... whatever.Quote:
Originally Posted by GGT
And the progressive bullshit where the government bans or punitively taxes everything it doesn't like is somehow not an imposition of morality? And if we're going to talk about "moral majority" shit, which you seem to want to for whatever reason, that's the progressives, who actually have the majority, not the fringe conservatives who can never muster up enough votes to ban gays or reenact Jim Crow laws and what have you. Frankly, I wish you two groups would just get on with it already, annihilate each other, and leave the world for those of us fit to live in it.Quote:
Originally Posted by GGT
Whether you want to dictate what I do with my cock by writing it down on a piece of paper, or what I do with a fifth of vodka, by arbitrarily taking a bunch of pieces of paper from me, you're a moralizing tyrant who ought to be shot in the head and displayed as a warning to others on the cost of tyranny. The fact that this doesn't happen is just more evidence that the atheists are right, and the world is purposeless and disinterested in human affairs.
Well, at least those twits don't manage to get intrusive legislation through. The moralizing progressives do... because they have a majority. Making them this moral majority you're whining about. Check the person in the mirror before ranting on about the evils of others, as you do enough populist moralizing for everyone here, and then some.Quote:
Originally Posted by GGT
Cain, The Moral Majority was a specific political group within the GOP, whose agenda was based on "advancing Christian moral principles in government", in case you've forgotten. There was also the Christian Coalition, and others. :bored:
They still operate within the GOP, mostly as the Pro-Life single issue voters. They've managed to demand every Republican candidate vow Pro-Life/Anti-Abortion legislation, as a litmus test for holding office. There's a dearth of Pro-Choice Republican candidates, even though there are Pro-Choice Republicans. At local and state levels they circumvent Roe v Wade, with the ultimate goal of repealing it. Just look at Kansas, Oklahoma and Texas for the proof. They're also focused on banning same-sex marriage and gays in the military, or pushing for prayer in public schools, denying funds for anything but abstinence-only sex ed, and also dictating what reproductive services private insurers can cover. These are the facts.
It's a radical shift from "traditional Republican" principles of staying out of private sex lives, reproductive choices, or private medical decisions between physician and patient. And their reasons are based in (what they see/say) are Christian moral values. So much for sectarian governance, eh? My main point is that the Republican party has changed quite a bit over the years, and allowed itself to be infused with overtly religious motivations. Often from the most literal Bible thumpers that are not reflections of either a majority of Republicans or Americans at large. (At least not according to recent polls about religion's role in politics and peoples' lives.)
All laws reflect "morals" at their root and basic purpose. No way around that. But murder or theft isn't outlawed because they're Commandments from God....Atheists would agree those laws are necessary for a civil society.
because the only consequences of alcohol that can be of any in interest to a government are those that have to do with morality.
Whom are you addressing, minx? :confused:
Morality doesn't have to be based in religious beliefs, and laws shouldn't be based on religious morality. That's what I'm saying....
So, the position you're taking now, is that you've been bitching about a group that was dissolved over 20 years ago, as it relates to current political issues?Quote:
Originally Posted by GGT
Out-FUCKING-standing.
You're just completely allergic to a coherent conversation aren't you? What a waste of electrons this has been.
On what other possible basis is there for objecting to the consensual use of a naturally occurring substance? Its financial impact on other moralizing laws aimed at maintaining the health and welfare ofQuote:
Originally Posted by Aimless
citizensstate property, regardless of whether or not said property would rather be happy than healthy? :p
You're presenting a moral/ethical defense of alcohol, but that line of reasoning can be detached from eg. financial arguments (alcohol costs society through disruptive or down-right criminal behaviour, disease, lost productivity etc. The income from alcohol taxes certainly don't offset these costs in Sweden, but the taxes and extensive regulation seems to moderate the expensive consequences at least). That line of reasoning can form the basis for an ethical counter-argument as well but that's not necessary to show that there are reasons why a government might want to curtail alcohol consumption. For a govt. that doesn't give a fig about morals or libertarian ethics, the above might be enough.
I also can't help but wonder why alcohol is a no-no from a moral standpoint in the first place. Or are you saying morals developed and enforced by humans exist for no reason and are therefore completely irrational?
Matter doesn't disappear or magically go away. It simply finds its own level, like water. Stop acting like a jerk, Cain, so intent on being right that no discussion moves forward. The Moral Majority did not disappear or vanish. The Christian Coalition did not give up their mission. Both simply found a way to incorporate themselves into a legitimate political party, and try to sway those politics.. We only have two of those, so which party do you suppose they found a home base from which to maneuver? :rolleyes:Quote:
Originally Posted by CitizenCain
No, I'm pointing out that any alcohol "regulation" is ultimately rooted in a very objectionable moral view of the world that is not universally shared, but imposed on everyone all the same. I need no justification or "defense" for doing anything I want to my body, whether it's drinking booze, smoking crack or hacking part of it off with a rusty spoon. Unless, of course, I don't actually own my body, and someone, or something else (like say, "the government") is the actual owner, in which case, they do and ought to have a say in what I do with it.Quote:
Originally Posted by Aimless
When you break it all the way down, that's where it's at. IF I own my body, I need no defense for anything I do to it, including destroying it with a fun poison. Otherwise, if my body's actually owned [in whole or in part] by, say, the government, then yes, the government that owns it has a legitimate, objective interest in regulating what I put in it, and thus, ought to legislate alcohol.
This just in: intangible organizations of people now made of matter. Good to know, thanks for that.Quote:
Originally Posted by GGT
And in point of fact, matter DOES "disappear" and "magically go away," in numerous interesting and perplexing ways. Science - learn some.
You're talking out both sides of your brain now. Matter doesn't disappear or magically go away. Matter can't be destroyed. Neither can personal opinions, or political opinions. They simply change or move, sometimes to unrecognizable places.Quote:
Originally Posted by CitizenCain
As to the alcohol regulation....I live in a Commonwealth, and booze isn't available in grocery stores or pharmacies. Beer, wine, and spirits are deemed different animals. Very confusing, actually. We can buy a six pack of beer at a bar as carry-out, but no wine or spirits. Wineries can sell their product at stand-alone retail places like amusement parks, or in a mini-mall. Hard liquor can only be bought at state-sponsered stores, and many don't have Sunday sales. I've lived in PA for over 20 years now, and I STILL can't figure out the damn rules. All I know is, if you want to drink on weekends and Sundays....plan ahead.
The local state store was packed on Friday and Saturday, with people stocking up for Monday's holiday Labor Day. Closed on Sunday as a matter of rule, with only one state store open for business on Sundays between 12-5 pm. In some ways that just encourages binge drinking, especially from our local college students. My friends who enjoy drinking beer are lost in this equation, because it's so confusing for a non-beer drinker.
:rolleyes:
:haha: :haha: :haha: :haha:Quote:
Originally Posted by GGT
So Einstein's famous equation, that's... just more j00 trickery, or what?
:haha: :haha: :haha: :haha: