I get conservative guys point about public assistance

[UglyCasanova]

Long and worthwhile read:

http://www.msn.com/en-us/news/us/on...ontinue/ar-BBBOEaR?li=BBmkt5R&ocid=spartandhp

I just don't know what to think. There is definitely some form of enabling going on and she appears to have not learned or been able to make the right decision on things in life.
However I am truly torn its not my job to judge people, I want to help people but sometimes helping seems to do more harm than good.

snippets for the lazy:
Young mom, everyone in the family has some kind of disability. She seems to know more than medical professionals, everyone is on some kind of med. She seems disappointed that two kids don't have autism because it reduces her monthly check (I'm speculating and judging about this)
She appears to have trouble setting limits for the kids and doesn't seem disappointed with failure.
Plus the classic $300 per month cell phone bill.

Thoughts guys @glenn1 @Doc Savage Fan @werepossum not meant to be a call out so only contribute if you want

Using outliers shouldnt be a way to paint a picture of what the norm is. There's plenty of people who need public assistance. I'm all for food stamps, they help people out that need it.

I'm also for sensible restrictions on this shite as well. I have no problem with states requiring work in order to be on public assistance (if you can't find work there's plenty of stuff the state needs done, and showing proof you're looking for a job is a commonplace thing in the meantime). No problem kicking people off it that abuse it. Food stamps shouldn't be able to purchase cookies and shit like that.

Safety nets are a good thing. Lack of proper controls over those safety nets is a bad thing. Simple

 

[tential]

For every case like this, how many others are there that arent.

The amount of lengths people will go in this country to give those with means even more opportunity is hilarious. Many hardships that 99% of this country go through, I'll never experience, and to make it even more hilarious, there are people who are going through those hardships still fighting everyday to make my life easier.

Just the irony of it.

 

[feralkid]

Ever heard tje Samuel Clemens quote about liars, damn liars and, statisticians?
Prove me wrong. My observations may be anecdotal but, when you have never seen or heard of a case where it wasn't true, draw your own conclusions.

First off, the quote is "There are three kinds of lies: lies, damned lies, and statistics.", second, it is attributed (by Twain, et al) to Former Prime Minister Benjamin Disraeli.

Lastly, you've been posting here long enough to know that it is the one making the claim who needs to provide proof, not the other way around.

 

[zinfamous]

People's ability to work and care for themselves falls on a curve. At one end you have your Bill Gates who could take care of themselves and entire towns for their entire lives on what they can make.

On the other end you have people who can barely take care of themselves and others who can take care themselves but only with assistance.

Some of those could move up and be capable of self-sufficiency with help. Others will never be able to care for themselves and will rely on assistance their entire lives.

There will always be people in this country who cannot care for themselves. They are still US citizens.

Unless we want to go back to letting the surplus population die welfare of some sort will always be needed. The trick is to help those who can be helped.

yup.

and guess what--this lady is costing the government what, $2k per month, with 5 kids, even with her poor spending habits, she still sorta scrapes by relatively cheaply?

I wonder what Shem, the town drunk costs the city, and the feds, in pen and ER costs, and insurers...upwards of $10k per month? (There was that one dude in Denver who, over the course of about 4-10 years, was singly costing the taxpayers $1 million per year simply due to chronic homelessness) Lol. I think in many ways we have our priorities equally jacked along the same corollary with our economic sense. We can be both moral and fiscally responsible by ensuring that all of our citizens, regardless of depravity or simple incapability, aren't huddling in caves or crouching beneath damp underpasses, huffing sterno and selling syphilitic blood for donut money.

...OK, that got dark, quick, but I think you guys get it. :hmm:

 

[feralkid]

Not that dark, more covfefe.

 

[Jaskalas]

The amount of lengths people will go in this country to give those with means even more opportunity is hilarious. Many hardships that 99% of this country go through, I'll never experience, and to make it even more hilarious, there are people who are going through those hardships still fighting everyday to make my life easier.

Just the irony of it.

They've been conditioned to believe that "you" will give them a "better" job. It'd be hilarious if it wasn't so !@#$ing sad.

 

[MagnusTheBrewer]

First off, the quote is "There are three kinds of lies: lies, damned lies, and statistics.", second, it is attributed (by Twain, et al) to Former Prime Minister Benjamin Disraeli.

Lastly, you've been posting here long enough to know that it is the one making the claim who needs to provide proof, not the other way around.

Don't get all uppity. If you want to live your life statistically, go for it. Personally, statistics are like wiki in that there are blatant preconceptions and biases but, you don't know what they are because you don't know the author. Meanwhile, 'yoots' take them as Truth with a capital T. If you don't believe older and wiser heads, don't. What you believe doesn't change reality. Now, so you have an oar in the current discussion or, are you just playing intarweb debater man?

 

[Jhhnn]

Don't get all uppity. If you want to live your life statistically, go for it. Personally, statistics are like wiki in that there are blatant preconceptions and biases but, you don't know what they are because you don't know the author. Meanwhile, 'yoots' take them as Truth with a capital T. If you don't believe older and wiser heads, don't. What you believe doesn't change reality. Now, so you have an oar in the current discussion or, are you just playing intarweb debater man?

You have the responsibility to substantiate your own assertions. Trying to turn that around & place the burden of proof on somebody else is childish.

 

[s0me0nesmind1]

Take a step inside any social security office and take a look around. It's really eye opening - the majority of people on this forum likely have yet to be in one.

Last time I was there recently, I will always remember there was nothing more ironic than a man working at the SS office that does interviews was walking 2 people he was interviewing for disability back to his desk with a walker. The irony is simply that the man interviewing the people were more disabled than the people that were applying.

The guy at the desk interviewing next to me kept asking why he was being denied and was taking notes as to what the qualifications are. As if one of the requirements were to have a broken leg - he would break his leg that night if that's what it took to get approved.

 

[s0me0nesmind1]

Using outliers shouldnt be a way to paint a picture of what the norm is. There's plenty of people who need public assistance. I'm all for food stamps, they help people out that need it.

I'm also for sensible restrictions on this shite as well. I have no problem with states requiring work in order to be on public assistance (if you can't find work there's plenty of stuff the state needs done, and showing proof you're looking for a job is a commonplace thing in the meantime). No problem kicking people off it that abuse it. Food stamps shouldn't be able to purchase cookies and shit like that.

Safety nets are a good thing. Lack of proper controls over those safety nets is a bad thing. Simple

Safety nets are made for catching you when you fall. Not sustaining you for years to come.

There is quite a huge difference between welfare/foodstamps when you're going through a rough time after getting laid off and searching for a job. It's another thing when you're on the same benefits for 1-5 years. There is a clear indication you're not applying for jobs, have zero initiative to strive for a job, and simply no longer wish to work.

 

[s0me0nesmind1]

yup.

and guess what--this lady is costing the government what, $2k per month, with 5 kids, even with her poor spending habits, she still sorta scrapes by relatively cheaply?

I wonder what Shem, the town drunk costs the city, and the feds, in pen and ER costs, and insurers...upwards of $10k per month? (There was that one dude in Denver who, over the course of about 4-10 years, was singly costing the taxpayers $1 million per year simply due to chronic homelessness) Lol. I think in many ways we have our priorities equally jacked along the same corollary with our economic sense. We can be both moral and fiscally responsible by ensuring that all of our citizens, regardless of depravity or simple incapability, aren't huddling in caves or crouching beneath damp underpasses, huffing sterno and selling syphilitic blood for donut money.

...OK, that got dark, quick, but I think you guys get it. :hmm:

So because she barely scrapes by due to bieng uneducated we should just accept it? What is this, a retard tax we have to pay to keep retards barely above sea level?

How about some bold initiatives like education, teaching people finances, and generally how to not be retarded?

I have a damn good upper-middle class dual income household, and I cut the cable cord 5 years ago and haven't looked back. Every 6-12 months I get on the phone and argue with Comcast to lower my Internet bill to a reasonable amount. I have a dirt cheap pre-paid cell-phone plan that is perfectly acceptable. Where the fuck do you see people like this making such sacrifices that even an upper-middle class family does?

Smart phone and tablet in every hand in the family, dedicated extended cable/satellite TV, and generally stupid with keeping costs low. But your answer (and every liberal's answer) is to simply find this acceptable behavior? Get bent. Also get realistic.

 

[senseamp]

Being on welfare (UBI) will be the norm after automation really kicks in.

 

[MagnusTheBrewer]

You have the responsibility to substantiate your own assertions. Trying to turn that around & place the burden of proof on somebody else is childish.

Your reputation as a troll is already well established. Give feralkid a chance.

 

[Svnla]

This is what I have from Google search of spending categories of federal budget.

Medicaid - $118 billion in 2000 to $378 billion now.
Food stamps - $18 billion in 2000 to $71 billion now.
SS Disability - $56 billion in 2000 to $144 billion now.
Direct payments to individuals - from less than 30% of federal budget to 70% now.
Congressional Budget Office says: “If current laws remain generally unchanged, the United States would face steadily increasing federal budget deficits and debt over the next 30 years — reaching the highest level of debt relative to GDP ever experienced in this country. …The prospect of such large debt poses substantial risks for the nation…”

US Debt - $5.6 Trillion in 2000 (from 1776 to 2000 - over 200 years) to $19.9 Trillion USD now (from 2001 to 2017 - only 17 years) and is climbing fast. And I haven't added the unfunded liability amount (more than a few Trillion USD) into this equation yet.

See a pattern here folks?

Hey let spend more and more. Them stinking rich will pay their "fair share" and take care all of that. <sarcastic>

 

[UglyCasanova]

Safety nets are made for catching you when you fall. Not sustaining you for years to come.

There is quite a huge difference between welfare/foodstamps when you're going through a rough time after getting laid off and searching for a job. It's another thing when you're on the same benefits for 1-5 years. There is a clear indication you're not applying for jobs, have zero initiative to strive for a job, and simply no longer wish to work.

Sometimes it takes 1-5 years to get on your feet where you dont need it. Sometimes you are working while receiving. I agree a safety net is a safety net, and that's why I said gave controls on it. Don't let welfare be your career.

I want to help people get on there feet and don't mind that at all, I also don't care about preserving their dignity and other stupid reasons I've heard to have no controls on it.

 

[s0me0nesmind1]

Sometimes it takes 1-5 years to get on your feet where you dont need it. Sometimes you are working while receiving. I agree a safety net is a safety net, and that's why I said gave controls on it. Don't let welfare be your career.

I want to help people get on there feet and don't mind that at all, I also don't care about preserving their dignity and other stupid reasons I've heard to have no controls on it.

I'm sorry man, I just can't agree with that notion that it can take 1-5 years. Perhaps 1 to 1.5 at the max. I have too much dignity and pride in life to life off other people's money. Doesn't matter if I have to drop my entire professional career and work in retail at Walmart. I will do that before I sit at home and wait for checks to come in the mail.

If I don't have a job, then getting a job is my official job.

 

[s0me0nesmind1]

This is what I have from Google search of spending categories of federal budget.

Medicaid - $118 billion in 2000 to $378 billion now.
Food stamps - $18 billion in 2000 to $71 billion now.
SS Disability - $56 billion in 2000 to $144 billion now.
Direct payments to individuals - from less than 30% of federal budget to 70% now.
Congressional Budget Office says: “If current laws remain generally unchanged, the United States would face steadily increasing federal budget deficits and debt over the next 30 years — reaching the highest level of debt relative to GDP ever experienced in this country. …The prospect of such large debt poses substantial risks for the nation…”

US Debt - $5.6 Trillion in 2000 (from 1776 to 2000 - over 200 years) to $19.9 Trillion USD now (from 2001 to 2017 - only 17 years) and is climbing fast. And I haven't added the unfunded liability amount (more than a few Trillion USD) into this equation yet.

See a pattern here folks?

Hey let spend more and more. Them stinking rich will pay their "fair share" and take care all of that. <sarcastic>

People here fail to realize that it's not just a $2,000/month loss. Everyone could be a contributing member of society and actually be PAYING $2,000 into the system like most on the forum are. Instead they aren't just not putting something in, but they are also taking something out from the system. It's not sustainable. Period.

 

[UglyCasanova]

I'm sorry man, I just can't agree with that notion that it can take 1-5 years. Perhaps 1 to 1.5 at the max. I have too much dignity and pride in life to life off other people's money. Doesn't matter if I have to drop my entire professional career and work in retail at Walmart. I will do that before I sit at home and wait for checks to come in the mail.

If I don't have a job, then getting a job is my official job.

Let's say you had a decent job and kids etc, and then lost it or a breadwinning spouse died or something like that. It can take a while. Not to do anything, but to really get on your feet sure.

The having kids part is the kicker. People without kids it should take a lot less time.

I don't have sympathy for the people who won't take a job at Walmart because they lost their chemist job and it's beneath them. But they can work at Walmart and still need help, especially with kids.

 

[UglyCasanova]

People here fail to realize that it's not just a $2,000/month loss. Everyone could be a contributing member of society and actually be PAYING $2,000 into the system like most on the forum are. Instead they aren't just not putting something in, but they are also taking something out from the system. It's not sustainable. Period.

Reform it. No problems with that and it needs it.

 

[flexy]

Why worry about a tiny percentage of well-fare queens?

On that note, because just today I read something about it, what about, say "low-level nonviolent drug addicts", mind you ADDICTS, without any previous criminal history, who are sentenced to X years of "mandatory minimum" prison...which COSTS A HELL LOT OF MONEY which is also coming out of your pocket. And uhm...isn't the US the nation with the most prisoners? (Mind you, again, I am not talking about killer Joe or rapist Harry. I am talking about prisons being crowded with folks who per common sense wouldn't really NEED to be prison, for more or less trivial things)

So let me google quick...the avg. cost for an inmate per year is between $20,000-$40,000. With some states more, like $60,000.
Now let's do some first grader math: $40k/12 = $3,333 per month,

And you worry about SOME RANDOM well-fare queen having a $300 phone bill which is possibly coming off taxpayer's money? LOL

 

[Azuma Hazuki]

All I see from the "conservative" side is the same old disease of knowing the price of everything and the value of nothing. And even then...not even the price of everything, just the immediate, short term price!

Even if you have a stock ticker where your soul should be, it very simply costs less to help people maintain normal lifestyles than it does to deal with them in the prison system later. Even if you're so completely inhuman, so utterly sociopathic, that you don't care about whatever kind of torture these people go through, the simple fact that prevention is cheaper than half-assed not-really-cure should make some inroad into your thinking.

If it still doesn't, then hiding behind "butbutbut MUH MUNNIEZ" is a smokescreen to cover something much darker: that you want these people to suffer, and you will happily spend more of "muh munniez" to see that happen.

 

[crashtech]

Why worry about a tiny percentage of well-fare queens?

On that note, because just today I read something about it, what about, say "low-level nonviolent drug addicts", mind you ADDICTS, without any previous criminal history, who are sentenced to X years of "mandatory minimum" prison...which COSTS A HELL LOT OF MONEY which is also coming out of your pocket. And uhm...isn't the US the nation with the most prisoners? (Mind you, again, I am not talking about killer Joe or rapist Harry. I am talking about prisons being crowded with folks who per common sense wouldn't really NEED to be prison, for more or less trivial things)

So let me google quick...the avg. cost for an inmate per year is between $20,000-$40,000. With some states more, like $60,000.
Now let's do some first grader math: $40k/12 = $3,333 per month,

And you worry about SOME RANDOM well-fare queen having a $300 phone bill which is possibly coming off taxpayer's money? LOL

The War on Drugs is a sickening travesty, for sure. But this has little to do with that. It's not really the money for the phone bill, but the thought that our system might be encouraging a mindset that makes phone usage like that seem normal, even when on someone else's dime. Perhaps it's not really possible to help those who need it while also insisting upon self-reliance for those who are able. Another tough problem, and not mainly a monetary one; the most troubling aspect being the knowledge that providing vital assistance also contributes to demotivating and demoralizing people. You can give endless supplies of money, but money can't buy pride in oneself.

 

[Jaskalas]

See a pattern here folks?

Hey let spend more and more. Them stinking rich will pay their "fair share" and take care all of that. <sarcastic>

If a 100% tax was applied, every single person would get ~49k annually. Every single couple would receive nearly 6 figures... that's how wealthy America actually is. Not to mention that much annually for every single child setup in a trust is worth $883k when they turn 18. Every couple would start off a millionaire. THAT is the true wealth in this country denied by inequality.

I'm not asking for 100%, just a portion. A fully funded basic income program of $1k per month results in $216k for 18 year olds.
It would cost a ~25% tax on personal income, or any other plan to fund up to that value. It is more than affordable.
What would you pay to secure our families, our economy, our future?

 

[Azuma Hazuki]

UBI has a few problems, though IMO they're problems of naive implementation rather than anything fatally flawed with the system itself.

Some people just have no financial knowledge, or financial self-control; this being the case, just blatting a big wad of cash at everyone is a recipe for disaster. There would need to be some control over what is spent on what, for example "this much for housing, that much for food, if you come in under budget do what you will with the rest, but can't use credit beyond a certain limit" etc.

That, however, opens the door to things like "preferred suppliers" (chosen for reasons of nepotism, bribery, etc) for whatever good or service is in question. Not that we don't have that now, of course, but how do you stop the food company owned by the Secretary of UBI's sister's nephew from becoming the "preferred" source for UBI credit spending for food?

 

[Fanatical Meat]

UBI has a few problems, though IMO they're problems of naive implementation rather than anything fatally flawed with the system itself.

Some people just have no financial knowledge, or financial self-control; this being the case, just blatting a big wad of cash at everyone is a recipe for disaster. There would need to be some control over what is spent on what, for example "this much for housing, that much for food, if you come in under budget do what you will with the rest, but can't use credit beyond a certain limit" etc.

That, however, opens the door to things like "preferred suppliers" (chosen for reasons of nepotism, bribery, etc) for whatever good or service is in question. Not that we don't have that now, of course, but how do you stop the food company owned by the Secretary of UBI's sister's nephew from becoming the "preferred" source for UBI credit spending for food?

Yeah UBI will fail for the simple reason that it will get spent stupidly and we'd be right back here.
Silly analogy but there can be some telling moments of his show.
I remember in the late 90s(?) the Howard Stern show had some kind of homeless guy contest and the winner won like 10k cash, the homeless guy immediately rented a suite in an expensive hotel and had a party with all the high end food & mini bar drinks him and anyone who attended wanted. He was out of money by the Monday morning show. The guy literally spend a few thousand a day until he had zero or nearly zero money left.
This was a long time ago so some figures may be incorrect but not off by much.
Let's think of yourself you are sleeping on the street and have no support network (which why family or friends or your lack of either allow it is another question), you get provided several months rent or even a year plus of rent somewhere less expensive and you choose to throw a party that costs a few thousand per day instead of doing something that lasts long term? How could you expect a personality like this to be capable of making a monthly budget and living off it?