I have a nazi-like idea in regard to mooches

[Moonglow]

I'm being a "jerk"? For asking questions.

Only to certain posters...

 

[G.T.]

except with the Nazis.......many went involuntarily and were not given good living conditions and a very simplistic opportunity to leave if they wanted to

that's where it fails as a comparison

No, they had freedom to either go.....or get shot.

In your scenario, apparently they have freedom to go......or starve in their car.

no they don't have to starve in their car

they can get a job and buy food, or grow their own

 

[G.T.]

Identity papers, "Homeland" Security, waterboarding, concentration camps for the poor. A definite trend. You can hear the jackboots.

concentration camp?

no.

 

[ricechickie]

no they don't have to starve in their car

they can get a job and buy food, or grow their own

Right, because people live in their cars by choice.

 

[G.T.]

no they don't have to starve in their car

they can get a job and buy food, or grow their own

Right, because people live in their cars by choice.

that's irrelevant

the scenario we are discussing is those who ARE being leeches BY CHOICE

Does it suck to have to use hyperbole to shut down discourse?

Because I know you saw the differentiation I made, specifically, and yet you carry on the canard.

Who does that?

 

[Rikurzhen]

No, they show up voluntarily.

Nodding....but you hold them indefinitely *by force* (which I assume includes violence) without trial, counsel, crime or even charge unless they do exactly what you tell them to do.

This you define as 'freedom'.

As I said, you fail the 'freedom' test the moment you incarcerate them. That you've set narrow 'conditions for release' from incarceration you have no authority to impose only demonstrates how little you understand the meaning of the word you're trying to use.

You fail the freedom test by taking taxpayer dollars by force and using them to support those who can but will not support themselves.

In that situation ^, someone's freedom is already infringed upon.

It's time to mitigate that taking of freedom, and making those who take advantage work towards the betterment of the situation.

They can't support themselves.

And the above are the people who benefit the most from SNAP.

It's for the children. I was waiting for this trope to be rolled out. Who has the most incentive to care for the children, their parents or strangers at gunpoint?

 

[Rikurzhen]

Yes, I did know that but there are very simplistic work arounds being employed by the very ppl I'm seeking to get off of our society's back. They are criminally negligent, and also their negligence exacerbates urban crime/warfare and lack of education.

I don't THINK that some people would not want to work for what they have, I KNOW.

and here's the kicker ---> I also KNOW that it's a small minority that have gamed the system.........but guess what? that very small minority are procreating en masse statistically, and raising children in this cycle who become criminals.

to me it's not a color issue, either. It's a geographical issue, the poor are concentrated in urban centers and magically - - > urban centers are the hub of crime

the overall problem is not just the leeches, mooches, whatever you want to call them. (and I qualify calling ANYONE a mooch or a leech as one who "games" the system, not just simply a poor person).

its the infrastructure of despair their lack of ambition creates, and its a vicious cycle.

Do you think these shelters/camps/internment centers will create a healthy, happy atmosphere?

And what about parents with kids? Are you going to make a mom go to work or school, and what happens to the child?

Is saddling my new born child with a $40,000 debt obligation going to help them in life?

 

[G.T.]

So far, the only discourse here has been hyperbole and not much discussion of the actual idea, which has nothing to do with putting poor people into concentration camps indefinitely.

It's about continuing to give the poor food and shelter, and punishing the ones who take such - - - - - while able bodied to sustain THEMSELVES, and refuse to do so.

Such dishonesty in this whole thread, and from the people who I usually have good discourse with.

"poor into concentration camps!" - my ass.

 

[C_Clayton_Jones]

Sounds like that's not freedom, right? It is. You are completely free to choose to go to school and get out. You are completely free to choose to actively search for employment. You are not free to be a leech.

So by 'freedom' you mean they have to do what you tell them to do or be incarcerated....despite having commited no crime, nor violated any law, nor even been charged with such crimes.

I don't think 'freedom' means what you think it means.

Incarceration is involuntary, unless you count the crime as having been the voluntary part which is minutia.

This is a system where you came to the Taxpayer for help, and in return you must show a good faith effort to sustain yourself. This is done via education or employment.

You don't ever go to the camp by force. You show up voluntarily.

Fortunately this is un-Constitutional, in addition to being comprehensively ridiculous and ignorant.


For example, the SNAP program is designed for working families, where the majority of recipients are in fact employed:


“The overwhelming majority of SNAP recipients who can work do so. Among SNAP households with at least one working-age, non-disabled adult, more than half work while receiving SNAP — and more than 80 percent work in the year prior to or the year after receiving SNAP. The rates are even higher for families with children — more than 60 percent work while receiving SNAP, and almost 90 percent work in the prior or subsequent year. (See Figure 1.)[3] “


The Relationship Between SNAP and Work Among Low-Income Households mdash Center on Budget and Policy Priorities


One can't work and be compelled to live in a 'camp' as a condition of receiving assistance.

 

[Rikurzhen]

No, they show up voluntarily.

Nodding....but you hold them indefinitely *by force* (which I assume includes violence) without trial, counsel, crime or even charge unless they do exactly what you tell them to do.

This you define as 'freedom'.

As I said, you fail the 'freedom' test the moment you incarcerate them. That you've set narrow 'conditions for release' from incarceration you have no authority to impose only demonstrates how little you understand the meaning of the word you're trying to use.

You fail the freedom test by taking taxpayer dollars by force and using them to support those who can but will not support themselves.

In that situation ^, someone's freedom is already infringed upon.

It's time to mitigate that taking of freedom, and making those who take advantage work towards the betterment of the situation.

They can't support themselves.

And the above are the people who benefit the most from SNAP.

This thread is not about people who cannot support themselves.

It's about people who can but refuse to.

In my state, you only get 3 months of SNAP if you are a single adult. SNAP is mainly for the children and elderly, is it not?

Nowadays, single adults just go on SSI Disability.

It's that easy, huh?

 

[G.T.]

Sounds like that's not freedom, right? It is. You are completely free to choose to go to school and get out. You are completely free to choose to actively search for employment. You are not free to be a leech.

So by 'freedom' you mean they have to do what you tell them to do or be incarcerated....despite having commited no crime, nor violated any law, nor even been charged with such crimes.

I don't think 'freedom' means what you think it means.

Incarceration is involuntary, unless you count the crime as having been the voluntary part which is minutia.

This is a system where you came to the Taxpayer for help, and in return you must show a good faith effort to sustain yourself. This is done via education or employment.

You don't ever go to the camp by force. You show up voluntarily.

Fortunately this is un-Constitutional, in addition to being comprehensively ridiculous and ignorant.


For example, the SNAP program is designed for working families, where the majority of recipients are in fact employed:


“The overwhelming majority of SNAP recipients who can work do so. Among SNAP households with at least one working-age, non-disabled adult, more than half work while receiving SNAP — and more than 80 percent work in the year prior to or the year after receiving SNAP. The rates are even higher for families with children — more than 60 percent work while receiving SNAP, and almost 90 percent work in the prior or subsequent year. (See Figure 1.)[3] “


The Relationship Between SNAP and Work Among Low-Income Households mdash Center on Budget and Policy Priorities


One can't work and be compelled to live in a 'camp' as a condition of receiving assistance.

The working poor was addressed in the OP, man.

I would obviously have to think of loopholes for the legitimately disabled, or the worker who works in good faith and still cannot make ends meet. For those, it is society's burden to develop a system where the worst of jobs provide at least some minimal quality of life. I don't support a Country without that as its goal, quality of life.

 

[ricechickie]

that's irrelevant

the scenario we are discussing is those who ARE being leeches BY CHOICE

Does it suck to have to use hyperbole to shut down discourse?

Because I know you saw the differentiation I made, specifically, and yet you carry on the canard.

Who does that?

Someone who doesn't understand where everyone gets off being the judge and jury for poor people.

I don't know anyone who is poor by choice. I know there are people who can't find a good job, I know there are people who can't find any job. I know there are people who are too sick to work. I know there are people who can't afford to work and pay daycare.

My scenario of someone living in their car is that with your idea, when they run out of money, they either live in their car, or they present themselves to your camp, to be possibly held by force. I don't care if you tell everyone that all they have to do is meet a few reasonable conditions, the idea of going somewhere where people can hold you by force scares the shit out of me. And it should scare the shit out of you.

No doubt, this will make you happy. It will give people an incentive to do better financially. I think it will ensure that more people starve in their cars.

 

[Carla_Danger]

Tax expenditures account for $1.2 trillion a year. That's two thirds of what the government collects in revenue!

We are talking about SERIOUS mooching, kids.

These moochers are soaking up 2/3 of the revenues! Just how big a pair of blinders do you have to buy to willfully blind yourself to that? I mean, you practically have to grab your eyeballs and pop them out of your skull and stab knives into your eardrums to avoid it.


I get that this is really about finding an excuse to put the poor into concentration camps, but COME ON!!

Anyone else wish this idiot would shut the fuck up with his "people who use legal ways of lowering their taxes is a moocher" bullshit?

They force people to pay higher tax rates. Simple fact. That is mooching. Forcing other people to pay more taxes so you can get a deduction, credit, or exemption is mooching.

They are also government social behavioral experiments. The government openly admits this.

I'm sorry to inform you that you aren't a conservative. Nor are you smarter than the average bear. Not even smarter than a flea, sadly.

They do not FORCE anyone to do any such thing. THe government uses that as an excuse to tax people more.


Who the hell, besides the government could POSSIBLY claim that money they never had is lost revenue? LOL

Can you imagine if I had a slow night at dinner at my restaurant and a couple came in and I gave them a menu and said I'm sorry but I have to add 10% to my menu prices tonight, because revenue wasn't what I expected it to be "

I have provided many, many, many educational resources to help illuminate the darkness in which you dwell. It is clear you believe yourself to be a conservative, but you have a glaring entitlement attitude.

You have not provided a shred of evidence to support your amazingly deep ignorance, and you steadfastly refuse to come to the right side of conservatism and knowledge and intelligence.

I speak often of this kind of willful blindness. It is a horrible affliction from which you suffer.

actually, I do NOT claim to be a conservative. I'm an open minded person who leans right, but certainly not a conservative.

No, they show up voluntarily.

Nodding....but you hold them indefinitely *by force* (which I assume includes violence) without trial, counsel, crime or even charge unless they do exactly what you tell them to do.

This you define as 'freedom'.

As I said, you fail the 'freedom' test the moment you incarcerate them. That you've set narrow 'conditions for release' from incarceration you have no authority to impose only demonstrates how little you understand the meaning of the word you're trying to use.

You fail the freedom test by taking taxpayer dollars by force and using them to support those who can but will not support themselves.

In that situation ^, someone's freedom is already infringed upon.

It's time to mitigate that taking of freedom, and making those who take advantage work towards the betterment of the situation.

They can't support themselves.

And the above are the people who benefit the most from SNAP.

It's for the children. I was waiting for this trope to be rolled out. Who has the most incentive to care for the children, their parents or strangers at gunpoint?

Statistics show that the majority of families who receive SNAP are working.

 

[Luddly Neddite]

Are you guaranteed life on this planet? I don't understand.

Should everyone work hard while some (again, this scenario is not for all of the poor, just the ones who refuse to help themselves and take advantage) get to do nothing yet enjoy many of the fruits of said labor? That's not fishy to you, morally?

Yes, adults should work hard. But you want someone to decide who shall get help and who shall not. In other words, you think that some people, given the choice, would not want to work for what they have. This involves a significant amount of red tape. Doctors deciding who is able-bodied and not. Perhaps psychiatrists. Then the lawyers get involved when someone disagrees.

Furthermore, do you know there's already a limit to how much time people can spend on welfare?

Yes, I did know that but there are very simplistic work arounds being employed by the very ppl I'm seeking to get off of our society's back. They are criminally negligent, and also their negligence exacerbates urban crime/warfare and lack of education.

I don't THINK that some people would not want to work for what they have, I KNOW.

and here's the kicker ---> I also KNOW that it's a small minority that have gamed the system.........but guess what? that very small minority are procreating en masse statistically, and raising children in this cycle who become criminals.

to me it's not a color issue, either. It's a geographical issue, the poor are concentrated in urban centers and magically - - > urban centers are the hub of crime

the overall problem is not just the leeches, mooches, whatever you want to call them. (and I qualify calling ANYONE a mooch or a leech as one who "games" the system, not just simply a poor person).

its the infrastructure of despair their lack of ambition creates, and its a vicious cycle.

why don't you just advocate locking blacks up until they are no longer black?

hopefully that's just a joke 'cuz it's not about race.

So, EXACTLY who do you think should be locked up?

Veterans, right? Just because they gave their arms and legs to their country's stupid war doesn't mean we should support the.

The elderly? Congenital defects that make it impossible to work? Sure, lets throw them in jail too. What about other kinds of handicaps?

What about children? Kids and the elderly get the most food stamps so let's get them cleaning the toilets of the 1%, right?

C;mon, its your OP. Give us a list of who you want thrown into your ghetto.

 

[G.T.]

that's irrelevant

the scenario we are discussing is those who ARE being leeches BY CHOICE

Does it suck to have to use hyperbole to shut down discourse?

Because I know you saw the differentiation I made, specifically, and yet you carry on the canard.

Who does that?

Someone who doesn't understand where everyone gets off being the judge and jury for poor people.

I don't know anyone who is poor by choice. I know there are people who can't find a good job, I know there are people who can't find any job. I know there are people who are too sick to work. I know there are people who can't afford to work and pay daycare.

My scenario of someone living in their car is that with your idea, when they run out of money, they either live in their car, or they present themselves to your camp, to be possibly held by force. I don't care if you tell everyone that all they have to do is meet a few reasonable conditions, the idea of going somewhere where people can hold you by force scares the shit out of me. And it should scare the shit out of you.

No doubt, this will make you happy. It will give people an incentive to do better financially. I think it will ensure that more people starve in their cars.

I highly doubt it, survival is one of our basic instincts.

And in re: to not knowing ppl who are poor by choice?

I do! I know some! so where do these anecdotal stories get us in an anonymous conversation? Nowhere.

 

[Rikurzhen]

oh so the plan says that the parents cant spend time with the kids?

weird I don't remember writing that

and also if a kid is in daycare 60hrs, and the avg. night of sleep is 7.5 hours, that's almost 60 hours left wake-time the kid is with the parents. breakfast, dinner, getting dressed, doing homework, teaching the kids many great things in life during that time

besides - alotta households still just work 40 hours, leaving 75 hours the parent is with their kids awake-time. and that's if both parents work the same schedule, in a 2 parent household

Little children generally need more than 7.5 hours sleep, but ok.

In all that awake time you listed, parents CAN be interacting with their children, or they CAN be simply shuffling them through the routine. If they're exhausted from a full-time work week, perhaps with overtime to avoid your "camp," what kind of interaction do you think they're going to have with the kiddies?

Which points out what I said before - there are too many variables to point to one kind of program as a cure-all. Most people are doing the best they can in their lives, and if they are asked to do more than they can, that is where the sense of despair comes from.

I know it's very fashionable to say that poor people are really just lazy and don't have incentive, but the reality is that all those success stories of people who were born poor and "made it big" are extraordinary people. And we can't expect everyone to be extraordinary. I want ordinary people (being one myself) to have a decent standard of living from a decent amount of work and ambition.

Freaking terrific, so now that we've established what you want, share with us how much of your income you voluntarily commit to furthering this goal of yours.

 

[G.T.]

Are you guaranteed life on this planet? I don't understand.

Should everyone work hard while some (again, this scenario is not for all of the poor, just the ones who refuse to help themselves and take advantage) get to do nothing yet enjoy many of the fruits of said labor? That's not fishy to you, morally?

Yes, adults should work hard. But you want someone to decide who shall get help and who shall not. In other words, you think that some people, given the choice, would not want to work for what they have. This involves a significant amount of red tape. Doctors deciding who is able-bodied and not. Perhaps psychiatrists. Then the lawyers get involved when someone disagrees.

Furthermore, do you know there's already a limit to how much time people can spend on welfare?

Yes, I did know that but there are very simplistic work arounds being employed by the very ppl I'm seeking to get off of our society's back. They are criminally negligent, and also their negligence exacerbates urban crime/warfare and lack of education.

I don't THINK that some people would not want to work for what they have, I KNOW.

and here's the kicker ---> I also KNOW that it's a small minority that have gamed the system.........but guess what? that very small minority are procreating en masse statistically, and raising children in this cycle who become criminals.

to me it's not a color issue, either. It's a geographical issue, the poor are concentrated in urban centers and magically - - > urban centers are the hub of crime

the overall problem is not just the leeches, mooches, whatever you want to call them. (and I qualify calling ANYONE a mooch or a leech as one who "games" the system, not just simply a poor person).

its the infrastructure of despair their lack of ambition creates, and its a vicious cycle.

why don't you just advocate locking blacks up until they are no longer black?

hopefully that's just a joke 'cuz it's not about race.

So, EXACTLY who do you think should be locked up?

Veterans, right? Just because they gave their arms and legs to their country's stupid war doesn't mean we should support the.

The elderly? Congenital defects that make it impossible to work? Sure, lets throw them in jail too. What about other kinds of handicaps?

What about children? Kids and the elderly get the most food stamps so let's get them cleaning the toilets of the 1%, right?

C;mon, its your OP. Give us a list of who you want thrown into your ghetto.

I already went over this. So, to paraphrase: only those who use taxpayer assistance when they are able bodied yet UNWILLING to work their way out of it.

But anyhoo. red herring post since I already addressed the elderly, veterans, etc.

 

[Luddly Neddite]

that's irrelevant

the scenario we are discussing is those who ARE being leeches BY CHOICE

Does it suck to have to use hyperbole to shut down discourse?

Because I know you saw the differentiation I made, specifically, and yet you carry on the canard.

Who does that?

Someone who doesn't understand where everyone gets off being the judge and jury for poor people.

I don't know anyone who is poor by choice. I know there are people who can't find a good job, I know there are people who can't find any job. I know there are people who are too sick to work. I know there are people who can't afford to work and pay daycare.

My scenario of someone living in their car is that with your idea, when they run out of money, they either live in their car, or they present themselves to your camp, to be possibly held by force. I don't care if you tell everyone that all they have to do is meet a few reasonable conditions, the idea of going somewhere where people can hold you by force scares the shit out of me. And it should scare the shit out of you.

No doubt, this will make you happy. It will give people an incentive to do better financially. I think it will ensure that more people starve in their cars.

Dead kids, disabled vets, parents and old people, starved to death in their car?

You got a problem with that?

It sounds like this is exactly the scenario that certain RWs want.

 

[ricechickie]

I highly doubt it, survival is one of our basic instincts.

And in re: to not knowing ppl who are poor by choice?

I do! I know some! so where do these anecdotal stories get us in an anonymous conversation? Nowhere.

Very true. Are they on welfare "indefinitely"? Because I've already told you, that doesn't exist. If they're on something indefinitely, then it's probably disability.

 

[G.T.]

I highly doubt it, survival is one of our basic instincts.

And in re: to not knowing ppl who are poor by choice?

I do! I know some! so where do these anecdotal stories get us in an anonymous conversation? Nowhere.

Very true. Are they on welfare "indefinitely"? Because I've already told you, that doesn't exist. If they're on something indefinitely, then it's probably disability.

I know that they have different definitions and I conflated them.