Should those who don't work be able to afford booze and fags?
I believe in having a welfare system that provides essentials to those who need it: food, water, shelter.
But luxuries? Shouldn't these be bought from the proceeds of actually working? I don't see how society benefits by our taxes going on booze, cigarettes and drugs.
Originally Posted by Ominous Gamer
Most states (if not all) don't allow their welfare systems to be used on such items. Florida for example you can't use them on the items you mentioned, or hot food, and our WIC program for new parents lists specifically what brands and food its good for.
I know a few states had problems with allowing their payment cards to have ATM access, but I'm not sure that still exists.
The poor here do use their own funds for these "luxuries", so of course people complain that they recieve to much in welfare support. Its a never ending cycle, it doesn't matter what the luxury is, someone is going to bitch that someone is getting to much support. Especially with shelter.
"In a field where an overlooked bug could cost millions, you want people who will speak their minds, even if they’re sometimes obnoxious about it."
On a technical point, wouldn't these be from the proceeds of actually working if that person who is now receiving welfare had paid into it through taxes when they were employed? Not speaking of course of people who have been perpetually on welfare and never paid income taxes.
. . .
The 'work-shy' must be processed in a similar fashion as the negroids and gypsies; labour must be extracted via coercion and violence as these inhuman brutes know of nothing better. It is for their own good that we subjugate and beat them, by themselves they would amount to nothing. As you say, these unworthy beasts waste society's offerings on frivolous desires rather than honest wants. What you dub 'luxuries', the signs of the thinking person, a human being, must be denied from these wretches, these empty husks masquerading as human beings. Only through participation and active work towards the volk may anyone 'deserve' the honour of participating in the higher echelons of kunst und kultur!
In the future, the Berlin wall will be a mile high, and made of steel. You too will be made to crawl, to lick children's blood from jackboots. There will be no creativity, only productivity. Instead of love there will be fear and distrust, instead of surrender there will be submission. Contact will be replaced with isolation, and joy with shame. Hope will cease to exist as a concept. The Earth will be covered with steel and concrete. There will be an electronic policeman in every head. Your children will be born in chains, live only to serve, and die in anguish and ignorance.
The universe we observe has precisely the properties we should expect if there is, at bottom, no design, no purpose, no evil, no good, nothing but blind, pitiless indifference.
Where would the unemployed who haven't saved and aren't working be getting those funds from?
If they've put into savings that'd be the proceeds of working. Welfare is always the proceeds of OTHERS working.
I don't know of any unemployed people that don't have some sort of income when needed idea. Anything from friends, family, turning tricks, panhandling, craigslist ads for random under the table needs, all the way down to theft. Read an article online the other day of a guy in newyork who pawns the diamonds and gold he finds in the cracks along the street.
"In a field where an overlooked bug could cost millions, you want people who will speak their minds, even if they’re sometimes obnoxious about it."
So if I give the government a dollar, and in the future the government gives me a dollar, I've made an uneven exchange? Fill me in here on how your logic works.
. . .
Yes absolutely it's an uneven exchange. Despite the fact that the governments already blown your dollar on interest, the military, education, police etc they also have to pay someone to give you that dollar so where's all that extra coming from? The taxes of those who are contributing to society.
If you buy an insurance product or put into savings then that'd be your money. Welfare never is.
If what you are proposing is the abolition of welfare and a genuine insurance contribution-based scheme then that's a bit right-wing even for me but you could tempt me.
Down with the banks!
"In a field where an overlooked bug could cost millions, you want people who will speak their minds, even if they’re sometimes obnoxious about it."
So if someone pays into unemployment one day, and collects unemployment in the future, its an uneven exchange. Got it.
Do you class police services paid for via tax money as a more even exchange than unemployment paid for via tax money?
. . .
Nessus is of course dangerously soft on the work shy here. Obviously, no useful labour can possibly be extracted from such pitiful creatures: they must instead be rendered down into their component materials for use as biofuels. If they refuse to do work in the economic sense then they will do work in the physics sense: their useless carcasses will power the next generation of factories which will usher in a second industrial revolution, and we will at last be able to extract resources from 100% of the population. Once this is achieved, the Final Victory of the Industrial will be at hand. Taste the horns of the future. Swallow the sulfur of the new order. To resist is to non-exist.
The light that once I thought compassion still casting shadows in your action
The words you shared were cold transactions that bring me to curse what you've done
When you're up there absorbed in greatness with such success you've grown complacent
I hope you scorch your many faces when you fly too close to the sun
I don't feel government should be as intrusive as to how people spend their welfare (or whatever you call the local version) I do think however that government should show restraint while defining what constitutes 'minimum' in a society. I do not believe that 'minimum' is the same for all people. As far as I am concerned parents with children - as a general rule - should get welfare that does include some luxuries.
Congratulations America
Though there's something fundamentally wrong about people who are living in poverty having multiple children. If you can't support yourself, why the hell are you bringing more hungry mouths into the world? It's irresponsible at best.
Hope is the denial of reality
Yes, yet I would not punish the children for the irresponsability of their parents.
Congratulations America
So what do you do with children of irresponsible (or down right negligent) parents? Do you leave them in that toxic environment?
Of course you do, and then you use invisible hands to make them take personal responsibility and fix their lives with the power of juvenile rationality
"One day, we shall die. All the other days, we shall live."
Then you will have many (including you I think) railing that the state is abusing its authority by nabbing children left and right. Then they have to pay directly to support those kids.
Brevior saltare cum deformibus viris est vita
Why do you assume irresponsible parents will use any extra money/resources you give them on their kids?
Hope is the denial of reality
Don't have much time to get into this, but RB I'm surprised at your position. Most economists believe that artificially restrictive welfare is inefficient (e.g. food stamps and the like). People will naturally maximize their utility, so giving them the most fungible asset is best. Thus, direct cash transfers are the most efficient form of welfare.
That being said, there's obviously some flaws with this in the real world.
Looks like some people round here don't believe in personal responsibility
The light that once I thought compassion still casting shadows in your action
The words you shared were cold transactions that bring me to curse what you've done
When you're up there absorbed in greatness with such success you've grown complacent
I hope you scorch your many faces when you fly too close to the sun
I don't understand why you want to do those things, Loki, since we all know that none of those things have any baring whatsoever on how the children will turn out because personal responsibly.
The light that once I thought compassion still casting shadows in your action
The words you shared were cold transactions that bring me to curse what you've done
When you're up there absorbed in greatness with such success you've grown complacent
I hope you scorch your many faces when you fly too close to the sun
Environmental and individual-level effects aren't mutually exclusive.
Hope is the denial of reality
Environmental effects don't exist. If you're poor it's entirely your own fault, so you deserve to be miserable. Likewise, if you're rich it's because you're awesome and deserve everything you get.
The light that once I thought compassion still casting shadows in your action
The words you shared were cold transactions that bring me to curse what you've done
When you're up there absorbed in greatness with such success you've grown complacent
I hope you scorch your many faces when you fly too close to the sun
And if you use strawmen, it's because you're awesome as well.
Hope is the denial of reality
Feel free to explain the difference between my position and the 'true' one.
The light that once I thought compassion still casting shadows in your action
The words you shared were cold transactions that bring me to curse what you've done
When you're up there absorbed in greatness with such success you've grown complacent
I hope you scorch your many faces when you fly too close to the sun
Great. Another poverty-related thread that turns into rants about those stupid, useless, lazy, parasitic welfare suckers.
Never mind the differences between nations, policies, what's considered "poverty" or even "welfare". It's usually framed in terms of self-reliance and effort...WORK and employment...as if it's always a choice to not work. Or a distinct choice to have children that can't be fed. And anyone getting gummit assistance is somehow abusing the safety net so they can drink booze and smoke cigarettes.
Where the hell did this perverse attitude come from? The UK may have overly generous welfare programs, but that doesn't mean every nation does. There was a NYT article about poverty in the Philippines, related to birth control, religion and politics. Too many poor women having too many babies, stressing the hospitals and safety nets. It didn't focus too much on the men/fathers....or the pathetic and limited JOB prospects.
News Flash: this is going to be a hot topic for at least a decade, if not longer. The entire global economy is slowing, JOBS are evolving to reflect polar opposites of haves/have-nots -- almost like a centrifuge spinning. With a rapidly shrinking middle. Everywhere.
Is an absence an entire day or one hour?
Keep on keepin' the beat alive!
lower grades generally don't count an hour as absent. Lunchtime seems to be the general break point. Higher grades (when they start switching rooms and teachers when switching subject matter) base attendance on if you make it to whats called homeroom, which generally only last for about 15-30 minutes, and is usually held the 2nd hour of the day.
no one made this claim.not a little
and it rounds to 18%this is after all only 45 days we are counting. 20% would be a day a week.
Last edited by Ominous Gamer; 10-08-2012 at 06:56 PM.
"In a field where an overlooked bug could cost millions, you want people who will speak their minds, even if they’re sometimes obnoxious about it."
I was assuming he hadn't moved the goal posts from what he stated in reply 22. If I missed when he switched from using attendance as a stipulation for benefits to attendance being important for students doing poor academically then my bad. That is why I posted that comment, to see if he was trying to shift the conversation, or if he was confusing financial standing with learning ability.
"In a field where an overlooked bug could cost millions, you want people who will speak their minds, even if they’re sometimes obnoxious about it."
Give one good reason why a pupil should be expected to miss a day a week of school?
Posting Permissions
Reply With Quote
