Living the good life off of government benefits

[eots]

[ame=http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=tVjsT8S4ds0]when the shit hits the fan - The Circle Jerks - YouTube[/ame]

 

[EdwardBaiamonte]

the Schulich is one of the best cardiac care units in the world

I love the way you lie but are so psychologially dense you have no idea what on earth you that you are lying.

 

[dblack]

There are all sorts of things that can be done to protect American jobs. You protect corporations and their profits ahead of people. The whole point of government is to take care of its PEOPLE.

That gets right to core of the debate. The whole point of government is to protect our freedom - not to take care of us.

This whole notion that the government's job is to protect our freedom is bullshit. That's OUR job, to ensure that the government doesn't infringe on our freedoms.

When I say that government needs to take care of it's people, I don't mean to provide for them, but rather to ensure that corporation's aren't unfairly exploiting them, or abusing them. People come first, not corporations.

Then I guess I have to ask what definition of "abuse" you're using. From my view, protecting us from abuse IS protecting our freedom.

On the other hand, what does 'taking care of people' mean, if not providing for them?

 

[dblack]

There are all sorts of things that can be done to protect American jobs. You protect corporations and their profits ahead of people. The whole point of government is to take care of its PEOPLE.

That gets right to core of the debate. The whole point of government is to protect our freedom - not to take care of us.

Not so fast, D -

...in Order to form a more perfect Union, establish Justice, insure domestic Tranquility, provide for the common defence, promote the general Welfare, and secure the Blessings of Liberty to ourselves and our Posterity, do ordain and establish this Constitution for the United States of America...

Yes, to a degree the fed does take care of us. Or at least they're supposed to. Allowing vampire corporatists to lower the entire country's standard of living is clearly unconstitutional. Further, the righties used to love it when the neocons promised to "protect" us during the Cheney Administration.

But this thread isn't really about that - it's specifically about the caretaker state. Are you defending that, or not?

FWIW, i agree with you corporatists are the problem - but I suspect we're not using the same definition (Corporatism).

 

[EdwardBaiamonte]

to ensure that corporation's aren't unfairly exploiting them, or abusing them. People come first, not corporations.

too stupid by 1000%!! People abuse corporations 10,000 times a month by forcing them into bankruptcy. Corporations live and die by pleasing people, not abusing them, with the best products and lowest prices in the entire world. The second they fail its off with their heads.

Moreover, their workers force them to pay the highest wages and provide the best working conditions or they quit and go where they do get the best wages and conditions.

Notice how deeply brainwashed you are. Up is down to you and still you have no idea what they have done to you.

 

[Dragonlady]

too stupid by 1000%!! People abuse corporations 10,000 times a month by forcing them into bankruptcy. Corporations live and die by pleasing people, not abusing them, with the best products and lowest prices in the entire world. The second they fail its off with their heads.

Moreover, their workers force them to pay the highest wages and provide the best working conditions or they quit and go where they do get the best wages and conditions.

Notice how deeply brainwashed you are. Up is down to you and still you have no idea what they have done to you.

You're the one who is brainwashed Eddie. People don't force corporations into bankruptcy, secured creditors force corporations who are delinquent in their obligations into bankruptcy, usually bigger corporations or banks.

Workers cannot force corporations to pay them more money unless there is a shortage of workers qualified to do the job. That's a complete lie.

You have no idea of how much of the wealth of American is held by the top 10% of the wealthy, do you Eddie. How much do Mittens and the boys hold, Eddie? I'll bet you think it's about 40%.

 

[Aristotle]

If all of you are against governmental assistance and social programs, then let's get rid of pensions, social security, retirement, food stamps, half-way houses, shelters, temp vouchers for the homeless to stay at hotels, medicare, medicade and other resourceful elements. Then after we do that maybe we can brain storm on how to assist the tens of millions of people who ran into foreclosures and have become homeless. Or maybe we can figure out why people who've worked for 50 years won't have any social security or retirement.

Look, I hate people who take advantage of governmental assistance but let's be real, its there and unfortunately there are people who take advantage. These are the people with no drive to excel beyond their conditions and they've become complacent with the lives they've been accustomed to live in. I remember a few years ago I was laid off, and I had to go on welfare. I hated it, but I remember that after working 10+ years why not take advantage since I felt like I paid into it. I eventually found a job and got off of it making twice as much than my previous job. The key thing is I didn't become complacent because I liked having my own money and loved not having to depend on an EBT card to pay for my food or anything.

But again, I used welfare responsibly and because I developed a character in which I valued work, more than being a sloth, I can appreciate the value of governmental assistance. Don't use this woman as an example of why welfare doesn't work. We have too many people in the United States that need welfare.

 

[Ame®icano]

Living the good life off of government benefits...

Question: Is there a limit on how much government assistance one can get?

Bump...

 

[dblack]

If all of you are against governmental assistance and social programs, then let's get rid of pensions, social security, retirement, food stamps, half-way houses, shelters, temp vouchers for the homeless to stay at hotels, medicare, medicade and other resourceful elements. Then after we do that maybe we can brain storm on how to assist the tens of millions of people who ran into foreclosures and have become homeless. Or maybe we can figure out why people who've worked for 50 years won't have any social security or retirement.

Look, I hate people who take advantage of governmental assistance but let's be real, its there and unfortunately there are people who take advantage. These are the people with no drive to excel beyond their conditions and they've become complacent with the lives they've been accustomed to live in. I remember a few years ago I was laid off, and I had to go on welfare. I hated it, but I remember that after working 10+ years why not take advantage since I felt like I paid into it. I eventually found a job and got off of it making twice as much than my previous job. The key thing is I didn't become complacent because I liked having my own money and loved not having to depend on an EBT card to pay for my food or anything.

But again, I used welfare responsibly and because I developed a character in which I valued work, more than being a sloth, I can appreciate the value of governmental assistance. Don't use this woman as an example of why welfare doesn't work. We have too many people in the United States that need welfare.

My opposition to the programs you cite has nothing to do with whether the recipients of the help deserve it or not, or whether we should take care of our fellow man. I think we should. The question is whether I have a right to force my idea of social responsibility on you or not. Or, more to the point, whether the majority, via government, has a right to force the minority to conform to their idea of social responsibility.

It isn't that we don't want social safety nets, it's that we think government is the wrong tool for the job. Government is inherently coercive in nature. We should reserve its use for problems that actually require coercive threat of violence to solve. We can't, for example, expect murderers and rapists to voluntarily comply - their violent acts justify violence in response. We can, and should, attend to issues of social justice and community support voluntarily.

 

[dblack]

Living the good life off of government benefits...

Question: Is there a limit on how much government assistance one can get?

Bump...

Not sure your question is clear. Are you asking if there are quantitative limits built into the law? As far as I know, most of the programs limit benefits in one way or another. What is your point?

 

[Dragonlady]

My opposition to the programs you cite has nothing to do with whether the recipients of the help deserve it or not, or whether we should take care of our fellow man. I think we should. The question is whether I have a right to force my idea of social responsibility on you or not. Or, more to the point, whether the majority, via government, has a right to force the minority to conform to their idea of social responsibility.

The problem is that the Republicans are totally invested in Friedman economics as the their economic model and Friedman adamantly opposed social programs of any kind as a distortion of the free market. Friedman opposed unions, welfare, social programs and any sort of worker protections as "communistic". Hence all of us who favour any sort of government regulation or worker protections are "Marxists".

This is the economic model that Republicans have been moving towards Reagan was elected, and which was accelerated under George W. Bush, and the vilification of the poor and disenfranchised as a drain on the public purse, as well as the idea that the poor are lazy and deserve their fate, has been pushed at Americans for so long that stories of the Welfare Queen and other lies are accepted as fact. You will not be able to convince those in thrall to Milton Friedman that we should have social programs of any kind. Donald Rumsfeld was a true believer and an accolate of Milton Friedman.

I was raised to believe that a social safety net is the obligation of a capitalist society because there will always be those are not equipped either intellectually or physically to compete under capitalism. Social programs are the price the rest of us pay for the economic framework that allows the rest of us to rise to the level of our abilities.

It isn't that we don't want social safety nets, it's that we think government is the wrong tool for the job. Government is inherently coercive in nature. We should reserve its use for problems that actually require coercive threat of violence to solve. We can't, for example, expect murderers and rapists to voluntarily comply - their violent acts justify violence in response. We can, and should, attend to issues of social justice and community support voluntarily.

In the case of Republicans, no they don't want a social safety net. It is the anthema to Friedman's economic policies. In every country where the IMF and the World Bank have imposed Chicago School of Economics reforms, the social safety net is the first thing that is dismantled. It's communistic.

I strongly disagree with the idea that governements are coercive by nature. It is their obligation to ensure that the people come first. When I said "taken care of", I meant that people need to be considered ahead of corporations and anything else because people build a nation. So protections against exploitation - such as minimum wages, worker safety, maternity leave, the right to take a vacation, and the right to organize should they so choose, SHOULD come ahead of corporate profits.

I know they don't in the US where rich people come first. We can't force companies to give vacations because the investors' rights needs to be protected. That's ass backwards and that ass-backwards attitude is why the US is falling in every major category by which quality of life is measured.

Republicans put money ahead of people.

 

[Ame®icano]

Question: Is there a limit on how much government assistance one can get?

Bump...

Not sure your question is clear. Are you asking if there are quantitative limits built into the law? As far as I know, most of the programs limit benefits in one way or another. What is your point?

Snip from the opening post: CBS 21 researched what government programs are available to a single mother of two making $19,000 a year.
...
...
Add it up and this family can get $81,589 in free assistance.

Based on this, every assistance is given based on income of $19,000. Meaning that no program check if there is any other assistance received. If poverty level in 48 contiguous states for family of three is $19,530, this family is not in poverty after first $531 in assistance received.

 

[Dragonlady]

the Schulich is one of the best cardiac care units in the world

I love the way you lie but are so psychologially dense you have no idea what on earth you that you are lying.

Eddie, your insults are beyond tiresome. Your only rebuttal to anything is to pronounce me stupid, suggest that I need to get my husband to set me straight, or to suggest I'm lying. It speaks to a complete lack of ability on your part to counter anything I tell you with facts. If you can't attack the post, you attack the poster.

If you have nothing further to contribute other than "Does a liberal have the intelligence to . . . ", I (with no respect whatsoever) suggest you find another method of mental mastubation.

 

[Mr Natural]

the Schulich is one of the best cardiac care units in the world

I love the way you lie but are so psychologially dense you have no idea what on earth you that you are lying.

Eddie, your insults are beyond tiresome. Your only rebuttal to anything is to pronounce me stupid, suggest that I need to get my husband to set me straight, or to suggest I'm lying. It speaks to a complete lack of ability on your part to counter anything I tell you with facts. If you can't attack the post, you attack the poster.

If you have nothing further to contribute other than "Does a liberal have the intelligence to . . . ", I (with no respect whatsoever) suggest you find another method of mental mastubation.

Better be careful!

Special Ed will be accusing you of being a violent liberal.

 

[dblack]

I strongly disagree with the idea that governments are coercive by nature.

Then we're simply arguing from entirely different premises. While a non-coercive government is certainly conceivable, ours isn't. The very nature of state enforced laws is coercive. Not sure how you get around that.

 

[Dragonlady]

I strongly disagree with the idea that governments are coercive by nature.

Then we're simply arguing from entirely different premises. While a non-coercive government is certainly conceivable, ours isn't. The very nature of state enforced laws is coercive. Not sure how you get around that.

I now see what you're saying. But I think that in the case of workers' rights, coersion is probably necessary. American employers are the worst in the world in taking care of their workers, unless forced to. I have an acquaintance whose employer threatened to fire him if he took time off work to go to the bedside of his father who was in the late stages of his battle with cancer. His company was in the middle of some big negotiation when he got the call to come now, and they told him he would be fired if he went. His wife and children went, he stayed behind because he could not afford to lose his job in a recession.

I live in a country which has mandated a minimum wage of $10.25, which requires employers to provide a minimum of 2 weeks paid vacation per year, which mandates a government funded maternity/parental leave for new parents, and leave to care for family members, and requires employers to keep their job open for the duration of that leave. We have up to 9 months of unemployment insurance if we have worked continuously for 52 weeks or more. We have government funded health care as well.

All of these things, help give our PEOPLE a much higher quality of life. We don't have the deep poverty of American ghettos. We don't have people foregoing health care because we can't afford it. It's a myth that Americans cannot provide a similar safety net for your people too, given that your country spends twice as much per capita just on health care, as any other first world nation.

Americans tout that they are the wealthiest nation on earth, but look how you treat your poor. There is no excuse for such a waste of humanity.

 

[dblack]

... I think that in the case of workers' rights, coersion is probably necessary. American employers are the worst in the world in taking care of their workers, unless forced to.

Setting aside that the topic is welfare entitlements, and not workers' rights, you seem to be implying here that workers have a right to be "taken care of" by their employers. I certainly wouldn't consider that a "right". In fact, the assumption any of us have a "right" to be taken care of (whether by government or an employer) seems to be a common source of disagreement. Maybe we should start a thread on that?

EDIT: done - http://www.usmessageboard.com/politics/281960-the-right-to-be-taken-care-of.html#post6908042

 

[Dragonlady]

Setting aside that the topic is welfare entitlements, and not workers' rights, you seem to be implying here that workers have a right to be "taken care of" by their employers. I certainly wouldn't consider that a "right". In fact, the assumption any of us have a "right" to be taken care of (whether by government or an employer) seems to be a common source of disagreement. Maybe we should start a thread on that?

EDIT: done - http://www.usmessageboard.com/politics/281960-the-right-to-be-taken-care-of.html#post6908042

I don't see this as a "right to be taken care of" but rather a right to be treated fairly, and with respect, because it's on the backs of those employees that your success or failure rides.

But society, as a whole, rests its fate on the family and society is not doing well by families at the moment, especially those at the bottom of the economic scale. It used to be that education was the key to escaping poverty. But today, a good education in low income neighbourhoods is hard to come by. In one inner city neighbourhood, a child is suing the school board because of the low quality of education she is receiving in public schools.

There are supports that could be put into place which are not expensive, which would help lift inner city kids out of poverty and crime. Things like good schools with equipment and text books, computer labs - programs that will teach people real skills applicable to today's working world; school lunch programs because a well nourished child learns more; after school programs and community centres giving kids a safe place to hang out away from gangs and their influence.

This really is enlightened self interest because every child who fails to become a contributing member of society, will become a drain on the public purse. This isn't taking over for parents, but rather ensuring that parents are given every opportunity to succeed.

Instead of giving food stamps to low income people, wouldn't it just be cheaper to raise the minimum wage? Then there is no huge, expensive government program dispensing all of this money, but rather, people will receive better earnings and not have to deal with the humiliation of requiring "government assistance".

 

[EdwardBaiamonte]

But society, as a whole, rests its fate on the family and society is not doing well by families at the moment, especially those at the bottom of the economic scale.

OMG!! Dear, it is liberals who destroyed the American family in the
60's war on poverty and Great Society. Black families in particular were targeted and destroyed by liberal programs. And of course you want more of the liberal welfare cancer to cure the cancer.

"We could survive slavery, we could survive Jim Crow, but we could not survive liberalism"- Walter Williams Ph.D

Even in the antebellum era, when slaves often weren’t permitted to wed, most black children lived with a biological mother and father. During Reconstruction and up until the 1940s, 75% to 85% of black children lived in two-parent families. Today, more than 70% of black children are born to single women. “The welfare state has done to black Americans what slavery couldn’t do, what Jim Crow couldn’t do, what the harshest racism couldn’t do,” Mr. Williams says. “And that is to destroy the black family

 

[Dragonlady]

OMG!! Dear, it is liberals who destroyed the American family in the
60's war on poverty and Great Society. Black families in particular were targeted and destroyed by liberal programs. And of course you want more of the liberal welfare cancer to cure the cancer.

Most welfare recipients are white Eddie. In fact, over 75% of welfare recipients are white people. How do you account for welfare not destroying the white family, Eddie, since so many more white people are receiving welfare than black people?

Do you think that MAYBE, just MAYBE, other socio-economic factors could have been involved, like perhaps the high unemployment rates in the 1960's for young black males of marriageable age? It's a soul destroying thing when a man cannot provide for his family, or when his wife can find employment and he can't.

Racial discrimination was so rampant in the 1960's, that black ghettos across America erupted into flames and riots. That wasn't about social programs, that was about lack of jobs for black men in America. It was about lack of opportunities for black youth. It was about one kind of life for white America, and quite another for black families in America.

So don't try to blame liberal welfare for the decline of black families. Try blaming 200 years of being excluded from the power structures, of being denied a fair chance or a level playing field to compete, and about being treated as a second class citizen. People who are told they aren't as good as the white people their whole lives, tend to get angry, and violent.

Right now, Republicans are telling 47% of Americans that THEY aren't good enough. That they're "takers". People are getting angry about this characterization and vilification of the poor, while the so-called "strivers" have transferred over 80% of the wealth of the country to the top 5% of individuals and corporations, and sent the economy into a freefall which punishes the poor and the middle class in the process.

People aren't all as stupid as Eddie here, and they're getting fed up with the Fox News and Rush Limbaugh, and the entire Republican elite lying to the public to get them to support plans and programs which run counter to their own best interests. Those who check their facts, know that Fox et all are lying. Those who don't check facts, deserve their fate.

Occupy Wall Street was just the beginning. The next wave of protest will be less peaceful. American will come completely unglued if the Republicans have their way. No right-thinking human will vote for policies which will result in higher unemployment, higher prices, lower wages, loss of social programs, and a transfer of nearly all of their wealth to the richest guy in town, except of course, the Tea Party, but I did say "right-thinking" not Right thinking.