Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
Yup if only everyone had the money to by a canoe and if only there was enough land and housing for everyone to live near your cousin north of Houston.
You guys really are something else. The lengths you'll go not to have an ounce of empathy for another person even in a natural disaster.
There would be more money to help victims of natural disasters (who do need help, I agree with that) if we didn't have to pay to "help" every unemployed drug addict who will use the "help" only to score some more junk.
That is exactly what I am arguing: that a hurricane/flood and self-created problems (such as welfare children and addiction) are NOT in the same category of inevitable misfortunes, and should be treated as very different for welfare purposes. Consequently, welfare system should be an insurance fund for misfortunes, not an indulgence for people who are professional welfare users (aka thiefs) whose "misfortunes" are self-created.
There would be more money to help victims of natural disasters (who do need help, I agree with that) if we didn't have to pay to "help" every unemployed drug addict who will use the "help" only to score some more junk.
We would spend just as much money incarcerating said drug addicts which I assume is what you want?
We would spend just as much money incarcerating said drug addicts which I assume is what you want?
If they are incarcerated (or some equivalent of it - removed from general society into the society of those with the same chosen lifestyle), at least they would not be multiplying misery by creating unsupportable children and committing crimes to support the drug habit. I would also give them unlimited free drugs while they are locked up. That is the only thing they really want; they will OD and die, but that is what they have chosen. The cost to the taxpayers would be far lower than what is spent on trying to "help" and rehabilitate those who do not want be rehabilitated from something they have CHOSEN in the first place.
Some people here are arguing that taxpayer support of intentionally worthless people (by that I mean those people who chose to have unsupportable kids, drugs and unemployment - rather than work for whatever things they want to have) is somehow moral and civilized, but Ro2113, even your post clearly points to the fact you are arguing against: intentionally worthless people are not "ethically deserving" of taxpayers' help; they are intentionally FORCING the taxpayers to support them somehow (by paying either for their welfare or for their incarceration). They are not "unfortunate and deserving of compassion"; they are a menace to society, and are cynically extorting taxpayers' earnings - that is why I do not think they have any moral claim on anyone's compassion or money. Taxpayers should just wash their hands of them as completely as possible.
If they are incarcerated (or some equivalent of it - removed from general society into the society of those with the same chosen lifestyle), at least they would not be multiplying misery by creating unsupportable children and committing crimes to support the drug habit. I would also give them unlimited free drugs while they are locked up. That is the only thing they really want; they will OD and die, but that is what they have chosen. The cost to the taxpayers would be far lower than what is spent on trying to "help" and rehabilitate those who do not want be rehabilitated from something they have CHOSEN in the first place.
Some people here are arguing that taxpayer support of intentionally worthless people (by that I mean those people who chose to have unsupportable kids, drugs and unemployment - rather than work for whatever things they want to have) is somehow moral and civilized, but Ro2113, even your post clearly points to the fact you are arguing against: intentionally worthless people are not "ethically deserving" of taxpayers' help; they are intentionally FORCING the taxpayers to support them somehow (by paying either for their welfare or for their incarceration). They are not "unfortunate and deserving of compassion"; they are a menace to society, and are cynically extorting taxpayers' earnings - that is why I do not think they have any moral claim on anyone's compassion or money. Taxpayers should just wash their hands of them as completely as possible.
The more you post the more it becomes clear that you have a deep personal grudge against poor people. It's become clear to most of us that the war on drugs, (lock em all up) has been a failure. We've been doing this for decades with little to no results.
Location: New Albany, Indiana (Greater Louisville)
11,974 posts, read 25,470,414 times
Reputation: 12187
This is an issue I have moved significantly on. As I get older I now see that giving money to people who are bad with money never solves their poverty. Real world example: my wife has a work friend who had two kids out of wedlock, neither father is involved. One doesn't even know their daughter exists. She is always broke. Yet when she gets a huge tax refund each year (thousands of dollars) she spends it all on big vacations where she rents a condo in Florida. If she got $20,000 a year in aid it wouldn't help because she would waste all that money.
Often Liberals support programs that are well intended but create more pain because it enables people to make bad decisions. Another example: Louisville KY now lets all 18 years get FREE school lunches during the summer whether or not they attend school there or anywhere. No questions asked. It sounds kind but such programs enable people to bring kids into the world that they don't have to provide for. If people knew that they would get no help to raise kids they have suddenly everyone would figure out a way to use birth control. It sounds cruel but it would actually force people to make better decisions.
This is an issue I have moved significantly on. As I get older I now see that giving money to people who are bad with money never solves their poverty. Real world example: my wife has a work friend who had two kids out of wedlock, neither father is involved. One doesn't even know their daughter exists. She is always broke. Yet when she gets a huge tax refund each year (thousands of dollars) she spends it all on big vacations where she rents a condo in Florida. If she got $20,000 a year in aid it wouldn't help because she would waste all that money.
Often Liberals support programs that are well intended but create more pain because it enables people to make bad decisions. Another example: Louisville KY now lets all 18 years get FREE school lunches during the summer whether or not they attend school there or anywhere. No questions asked. It sounds kind but such programs enable people to bring kids into the world that they don't have to provide for. If people knew that they would get no help to raise kids they have suddenly everyone would figure out a way to use birth control. It sounds cruel but it would actually force people to make better decisions.
And this has been said time and time again. If these type of programs are encouraging people to have more kids, why is our fertility rate declining? Well any explanations or are people going to keep saying the same crap?
Why is it that countries like India have massive populations yet have no social safety net? Perhaps maybe you folks are wrong.
If they are incarcerated (or some equivalent of it - removed from general society into the society of those with the same chosen lifestyle), at least they would not be multiplying misery by creating unsupportable children and committing crimes to support the drug habit. I would also give them unlimited free drugs while they are locked up. That is the only thing they really want; they will OD and die, but that is what they have chosen. The cost to the taxpayers would be far lower than what is spent on trying to "help" and rehabilitate those who do not want be rehabilitated from something they have CHOSEN in the first place.
Some people here are arguing that taxpayer support of intentionally worthless people (by that I mean those people who chose to have unsupportable kids, drugs and unemployment - rather than work for whatever things they want to have) is somehow moral and civilized, but Ro2113, even your post clearly points to the fact you are arguing against: intentionally worthless people are not "ethically deserving" of taxpayers' help; they are intentionally FORCING the taxpayers to support them somehow (by paying either for their welfare or for their incarceration). They are not "unfortunate and deserving of compassion"; they are a menace to society, and are cynically extorting taxpayers' earnings - that is why I do not think they have any moral claim on anyone's compassion or money. Taxpayers should just wash their hands of them as completely as possible.
Many of the posts here are an attempt to demonstrate to those who have your point of view that helping the "worthless"may be the right thing to do with regard to YOU, and YOUR health and welfare. Your lack of compassion isn't at the center of your misunderstanding of what's good for you, but your focus on withholding that aid is certainly central to your misunderstanding of the risks involved when ignoring the impoverishment of others. This isn't always an issue requiring compassion, just some common sense will go a long way. The nation of your dream looks more like India, or Haiti than the USA, we do have a national compassion, unlike those countries foreigners avoid when they decide to immigrate.
No nation can simply ignore the fact of high risk people's choices spilling over into the lives of the worthy, to make every attempt we can to provide a minimal living situation for the least of our brethren is simply good national policy with regard to the health and crime risks some people pose. The OP was an inquiry to the problems posed by the growing underclass in America, suggesting that we treat the unworthy like they would in some other nations shows a disrespect for the way in which we decide to conduct our affairs here.
Your no holds barred approach to our problems of American poverty has little merit to it and only allows a vitriolic pall to be cast upon one of our most pressing social issues. There is a bright spot in all of this arguing over what to do with the poor, and that is the fact that no one is compelled to stay in a free nation and pay taxes to support disagreeable social policies....
Yes, we have real problems here in America, and yes, we as a nation of people pride ourselves on the fact that we do have social safety nets. So many come here from all over the globe and propose to tell us how we need to take care of our nation. But--they still aren't going back to their nation of origin, and that means we still have some very good features here, in spite of our warts...
The more you post the more it becomes clear that you have a deep personal grudge against poor people. It's become clear to most of us that the war on drugs, (lock em all up) has been a failure. We've been doing this for decades with little to no results.
The purpose of a "debate" on this thread is not to psychoanalyze me or any other posters, but to voice opinions on unresolved problemss of general interest. I agree that the war of drugs is futile - I would legalize the drug business, and would tax it, same as liquor and tobacco. But I would still separate unemployed addicts into closed addict colonies (call it incarceration or mental health institution, same thing in this case) because that is (a) cheaper than providing individual welfare, and (b) spares the rest of society from crimes regularly comitted by unemployed addicts.
Fertility in the US is low primarily among educated, professionally productive people. Excessive fertility is leading to poverty in India in exactly the same way in which excessive fertility leads to poverty among the welfare class in the US (or anywhere). Poverty in India is due to overpopulation more than to lack of welfare, and I do happen to know an Indian physician who came from abject poverty where some of his relatives literally died of hunger - but he is doing quite alright now that he has pursued education and has a career, so what he did is actually possible even in India (for the record, he and his wife have one child - she was almost 40 and he almost 50 when they finally decided they were financially stable enough to have that child).
Many of the posts here are an attempt to demonstrate to those who have your point of view that helping the "worthless"may be the right thing to do with regard to YOU, and YOUR health and welfare. Your lack of compassion isn't at the center of your misunderstanding of what's good for you, but your focus on withholding that aid is certainly central to your misunderstanding of the risks involved when ignoring the impoverishment of others. This isn't always an issue requiring compassion, just some common sense will go a long way. The nation of your dream looks more like India, or Haiti than the USA, we do have a national compassion, unlike those countries foreigners avoid when they decide to immigrate.
No nation can simply ignore the fact of high risk people's choices spilling over into the lives of the worthy, to make every attempt we can to provide a minimal living situation for the least of our brethren is simply good national policy with regard to the health and crime risks some people pose. The OP was an inquiry to the problems posed by the growing underclass in America, suggesting that we treat the unworthy like they would in some other nations shows a disrespect for the way in which we decide to conduct our affairs here.
Your no holds barred approach to our problems of American poverty has little merit to it and only allows a vitriolic pall to be cast upon one of our most pressing social issues. There is a bright spot in all of this arguing over what to do with the poor, and that is the fact that no one is compelled to stay in a free nation and pay taxes to support disagreeable social policies....
Yes, we have real problems here in America, and yes, we as a nation of people pride ourselves on the fact that we do have social safety nets. So many come here from all over the globe and propose to tell us how we need to take care of our nation. But--they still aren't going back to their nation of origin, and that means we still have some very good features here, in spite of our warts...
Absolutely agree with the last sentence. The US has some very good features, and actually some of the best features - I never denied that. Welfare mothers, junkies, criminals and the welfare misspent on them are not among those good features of the US. Yes, the fabulously good features of the US are not in doubt, but happen not to be the subject of debate on this thread. The US indeed offers almost unlimited opportunities for personal improvement, and what is discussed here are the people who ignore these opportunities, opting rather to take other people's money.
Incidentally, I am a US citizen, have no other country or citizenship (since the country in which I was born fell apart while I was in training in the US; new ethnic countries were formed there, and as an ethnically mixed person I had no automatic legal citizenship rights in any of the new ethnic countries). Your US citizenship is by birth, while mine is earned over the course of 29 years of training and working in the positions in the US that could not be filled by equally qualified American-born people. Explain how the fact that my US citizenship is hard-earned, and the fact that I have no other home country or citizenship except of the US, makes me unworthy of voicing my opinion about welfare problem in the US?
The purpose of a "debate" on this thread is not to psychoanalyze me or any other posters, but to voice opinions on unresolved problemss of general interest. I agree that the war of drugs is futile - I would legalize the drug business, and would tax it, same as liquor and tobacco. But I would still separate unemployed addicts into closed addict colonies (call it incarceration or mental health institution, same thing in this case) because that is (a) cheaper than providing individual welfare, and (b) spares the rest of society from crimes regularly comitted by unemployed addicts.
Fertility in the US is low primarily among educated, professionally productive people. Excessive fertility is leading to poverty in India in exactly the same way in which excessive fertility leads to poverty among the welfare class in the US (or anywhere). Poverty in India is due to overpopulation more than to lack of welfare, and I do happen to know an Indian physician who came from abject poverty where some of his relatives literally died of hunger - but he is doing quite alright now that he has pursued education and has a career, so what he did is actually possible even in India (for the record, he and his wife have one child - she was almost 40 and he almost 50 when they finally decided they were financially stable enough to have that child).
Oh but that's not the narrative some constantly try to spin. In their view people breed in order to get government checks. Yet in third world countries that don't have safety nets like we do. Poor people are breeding at even higher rates than our own poor. So maybe it's time to acknowledge that the safety net/welfare/entitlements is not the major factor as to why poor people out breed wealthier people across the planet.
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
