What to Do with the Poor? (dentist, Americans, great, collect)
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.
Currently, taxpayers lose half their paychecks to pay for so-called "entitlement" programs. Those on welfare get a subsidized private apartment; food stamps (which can used to buy fattening junk food); a check to buy cigs, beer, and lottery tickets; money enough to have cable TV and Internet; they get extra money for having more kids they can't support; many just sit around all day or get into trouble (gangs, drugs, crime), and the cycle continues for generations. Those in homeless shelters wander the streets of the city all day randomly.
So I have a solution. You set up essentially camps in the country. Everyone has everything they need: food (communal dining; only healthy diets), shelter (same-sex bunkhouses, trailers for families), and everyone works on the farm all day growing vegetables, raising livestock, perhaps making marketable craft items. No one sits around idle. Reasonable health care is provided, as are opportunities to get a GED and job training.
If they want better, they can do better ("poor" isn't an immutable state, as many seem to think); if not, continue there, where they are self-sustaining and not a drain on society. Seems like a decent life to me.
In the 1930s, we had the CCC, and those men say it was the best time of their lives. They had all they needed to live and were productive. "Something for nothing" demoralizes both the giver and the receiver.
Thoughts?
Interesting view.
Certainly, I would suggest you commit to research, by research I mean utilize sources outside simply bias contributors.
Welfare sits more on the heels of corporations and business owners alike. MOST receive more welfare in the form of tax breaks and advantageous loopholes to include writing off first class flights, travel, accommodations etc.. The list provided should be observed as a mere quick gut check.
True, our tax dollars radiate to various pockets (figuratively & literally) and our largest deposit hits where your heart rest- on people and travesty. We render copious amounts of aide to countries struck with earthquakes, Tsunamis, etc.. monies that are never sured up nor repaid; hundreds of billions!
Corporate bailouts maintain a resounding claim in your taxpayer debacle.
I would suggest you reconsider the notion of poor as it equates to GED with reference to academia. Many people of best wealth never finish college and also, rest on their buttock as the inheritance arrived. Welfare.
Considering gangs and drugs, each tax bracket utilized drugs, yes- upper middle class,those considered rich, and the wealthy. Gangs reach every corner of this planet, rather you call them a Senate, a secret society, elitist groups, governments, bloods, crips, unions, or associations. Understand said gangs destroy communities, homes, nations, lives, people!
Crimes, if you want to consider crime... ponder your insurance company, pull in the politicians that afford food to be fair game for chemicals, products, and practices which ultimately lead to health issues (humm.. insurance? ) let us revisit the labeling of true contents. Education or lack of inclusion to proper levels of information, attention, and consideration. Reference: Inflated tution. Oddly, price points increase while salaries remain stagnate.
Lastly, the greatest CRIME of them all must be the very taxes we have discussed. Members proposing such illogical taxing belong to a GANG of highly educated types..high off a DRUG called greed. Ironically their answer for greed.. a camp, similar to your proposed camp only laced with more intricacy, departments, and when they say in the country.. they mean an "entire" country.
In response to Ro20113: my original suggestion was to structure welfare in such way to pay the welfare poor a certain amount of money to prevent additional kids from happening, rather than pay them a small amount for each additional child. Welfare is of course not THE. cause of poor people overbreeding (I think the main cause is that they are not doing anything else, so kids are the only thing that gives a welfare mother value and adult identity, albeit only in her own eyes), but overbreeding would probably drop significantly if some clearly stated value (including financial value) were to be attached to NOT breeding.
Okay guys, I won't be able to post for a while, I need to get going down to the Gulf Coast (as I said, I make my living doing things that nobody else wants to do. Maybe that is why I am irked by people who make their living by doing nothing, and take from everybody else).
In response to Ro20113: my original suggestion was to structure welfare in such way to pay the welfare poor a certain amount of money to prevent additional kids from happening, rather than pay them a small amount for each additional child. Welfare is of course not THE. cause of poor people overbreeding (I think the main cause is that they are not doing anything else, so kids are the only thing that gives a welfare mother value and adult identity, albeit only in her own eyes), but overbreeding would probably drop significantly if some clearly stated value (including financial value) were to be attached to NOT breeding.
Okay guys, I won't be able to post for a while, I need to get going down to the Gulf Coast (as I said, I make my living doing things that nobody else wants to do. Maybe that is why I am irked by people who make their living by doing nothing, and take from everybody else).
This view in the bolded is both disturbing and highly questionable. I think we've talked about subsidizing poor people before and while some of the points you stated are valid in regards to that, many families, mainly upper and middle class people will take issue with paying people not to have kids.
It comes down to this, many people don't want to spend any of their money on something that doesn't directly benefit them no matter what it is. I've heard childless people complain about having to pay taxes for schools.
This view in the bolded is both disturbing and highly questionable. I think we've talked about subsidizing poor people before and while some of the points you stated are valid in regards to that, many families, mainly upper and middle class people will take issue with paying people not to have kids.
It comes down to this, many people don't want to spend any of their money on something that doesn't directly benefit them no matter what it is. I've heard childless people complain about having to pay taxes for schools.
Oh I'll pay taxes for schools anytime (education is one of my top values in life), and I have no problem with people who care for their kids properly and without themselves ( ie, the "parents") acting like helpless kids who need to be fed and clothed by taxpayers. If they are helpless, why are they having kids? I support qualified people having kids, even though I never felt qualified for having kids myself. You need to pass a driving test in order to be allowed to do one of the easiest things in the world, why don't you have to pass a parenting test in order to be allowed to do something that is much harder if done properly? Okay I really really have to go now. You folks can continue debating whether my wish for every child alive to have a good childhood (and responsible parents) makes me a Hitler.
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?
My reference to your being an immigrant to America was simply a response to your earlier posts in which you told of your coming here from a severely torn nation where you had zero opportunity to better yourself. My congrats on your choice of nations to land in, we are still the nation of choice for so many foreigners, so how is it that we would welcome the strong criticism of our national policies by those who left their own place of origin to better their lives.
Those "features" you seem to disagree with here are ALL part of the country you chose to come to, yes, we don't have much choice but to deal with what we've got, you in your way and me in mine. THAT, is America, not the land of honey and roses but moreover, the land of disparate views
Many in America will agree with your views, but it should be noted that we as a nation have a pretty good rep for giving, it is in that spirit that we welcome people here from everywhere else, and the reason we still pick up our own from the side of the road in hopes of restoring their lives and making America a nation far different than that of India, Haiti, and so many other places which denigrate their poor at their own peril.
We who have been born here, must now live here and fix our problems in a way which emphasizes the giving nature of us all. The US has given much to many, our policies may not be agreeable but at the least it's all part of the dynamic of giving which has produced a land of opportunity not only for you, but the least of our citizens as well. Welcome to America, where your opinion may or may not influence things, but is always welcome.
My reference to your being an immigrant to America was simply a response to your earlier posts in which you told of your coming here from a severely torn nation where you had zero opportunity to better yourself. My congrats on your choice of nations to land in, we are still the nation of choice for so many foreigners, so how is it that we would welcome the strong criticism of our national policies by those who left their own place of origin to better their lives.
Those "features" you seem to disagree with here are ALL part of the country you chose to come to, yes, we don't have much choice but to deal with what we've got, you in your way and me in mine. THAT, is America, not the land of honey and roses but moreover, the land of disparate views
Many in America will agree with your views, but it should be noted that we as a nation have a pretty good rep for giving, it is in that spirit that we welcome people here from everywhere else, and the reason we still pick up our own from the side of the road in hopes of restoring their lives and making America a nation far different than that of India, Haiti, and so many other places which denigrate their poor at their own peril.
We who have been born here, must now live here and fix our problems in a way which emphasizes the giving nature of us all. The US has given much to many, our policies may not be agreeable but at the least it's all part of the dynamic of giving which has produced a land of opportunity not only for you, but the least of our citizens as well. Welcome to America, where your opinion may or may not influence things, but is always welcome.
The statement "we have many good features" was in the last sentence of your previous post, so I just continued with that (otherwise I wouldn't normally call welfare mothers a "feature"). Not sure if you noticed this too from my posts, but I made maximal efforts to contribute to this country (again, by working very hard on jobs so unattractive that no equally trained American-born person would take them, and specifically serving the welfare populations - that is how I know who they actually are). So, I have made maxfimal efforts to contribute to whatever was needed from me in the US, and am extremely grateful for being given the citizenship in return - but the Immigration Service has watched me for 29 years (while I was in the US with a legal work permit, which gives you a legal right (and legal obligation) to work and pay taxes, and no other rights, certainly not a right to any welfare no matter how poor you might be) - so, the INS had watched me for 29 years before giving me the citizenship. It was a long and difficult process to prove myself, and I do not complain about it, but I have never taken anybody's money except as payment for my services, and I never harmed anybody (but on the contrary, provided a much needed help to thousands of people), so I cannot agree with you that granting citizenship to immigrants like me (who have not taken anything from the taxpayers or injured the society in any way, and have integrated in the US so fully that they have no other home country) somehow equals giving taxpayers' money to home-grown people who mug and kill for an ounce of cocaine, or have all the kids they can't support, too often the future muggers and killers. What, being foreign-born and willing to provide complex essential services for which there is no domestic workforce equals being an irresponsible, drug-addicted, criminal American-born person? Sorry, it is just not the same. Giving the citizenship to people who will contribute in a major way to the well-being of the country is just not the same type of "charity" as giving unearned money to people who are deliberately destroying the well-being of the country.
The statement "we have many good features" was in the last sentence of your previous post, so I just continued with that (otherwise I wouldn't normally call welfare mothers a "feature"). Not sure if you noticed this too from my posts, but I made maximal efforts to contribute to this country (again, by working very hard on jobs so unattractive that no equally trained American-born person would take them, and specifically serving the welfare populations - that is how I know who they actually are). So, I have made maxfimal efforts to contribute to whatever was needed from me in the US, and am extremely grateful for being given the citizenship in return - but the Immigration Service has watched me for 29 years (while I was in the US with a legal work permit, which gives you a legal right (and legal obligation) to work and pay taxes, and no other rights, certainly not a right to any welfare no matter how poor you might be) - so, the INS had watched me for 29 years before giving me the citizenship. It was a long and difficult process to prove myself, and I do not complain about it, but I have never taken anybody's money except as payment for my services, and I never harmed anybody (but on the contrary, provided a much needed help to thousands of people), so I cannot agree with you that granting citizenship to immigrants like me (who have not taken anything from the taxpayers or injured the society in any way, and have integrated in the US so fully that they have no other home country) somehow equals giving taxpayers' money to home-grown people who mug and kill for an ounce of cocaine, or have all the kids they can't support, too often the future muggers and killers. What, being foreign-born and willing to provide complex essential services for which there is no domestic workforce equals being an irresponsible, drug-addicted, criminal American-born person? Sorry, it is just not the same. Giving the citizenship to people who will contribute in a major way to the well-being of the country is just not the same type of "charity" as giving unearned money to people who are deliberately destroying the well-being of the country.
I think you may be conflating your own immigrant experience here in America with the notion that all citizens here are equally welcomed in our society. You certainly aren't the first foreign born American to note the presence of our ne'er-do-well segment of society, and certainly not the first to have some righteous anger about it. But understanding the reasons behind the breadth and width of our poverty takes some knowledge of how this nation shaped up from a reasonably self sufficient society to the modern quasi socialistic democracy of today.
I'd suggest Howard Zinn's book- A People's History of The United States, a long look at a nation that isn't all it's been cracked up to be. We have tons of winners--but we also have many losers, most of us simply rejoice in being on the right side of that situation, we're too well off to spend too much time worrying about the cost of caring for others.
That semi hidden history is out there, it's been discussed to no end, in many studies, books, and treatises by the multitude of sociologists who have undertaken the study of poverty and economics in America. And, not all agree on what course of action best suits the quest for remedial action. At the least, you should know the difference between those who need our temporary assistance and those who are perennially poor due to circumstances beyond their abilities. Not to mention understanding the much much smaller segment of society which can be, and often is, a danger to us all.
Dealing with every segment of the lower class is very challenging, but we do deal with it, unlike those nations which freely toss their poor to the wolves while basking in their personal wealth, leaving their social ills to the police and murder squads to deal with. I don't feel that anyone here is foolish enough to make a comparison of the immigrant experience with that of the down and out in America. But, most of us also aren't foolish enough to think that our history has always been a thing of transparency either.
Having said that, we can get back on track and discuss the merits, or negatives, of how we as American's will face a future of more poverty and more crime, more people, and less resources, more money for killing and less for the living, more angst over the poor, and less desire to do anything about it. It is possible to live the American dream AND give to those whose dreams have been dashed on the rocks of societal and economic realities, as the saying goes, "it's complicated," but that's the challenge of being an American. My responses, like yours, are simply my own take on American poverty, and yes some of us have had more than a close look at it..
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.
In Seattle, not only are they not locked up, they're given free needles and other freebies like homeless shelters and medical care.
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.
I had a Kayak.... and a $2,000 car.
Grew up without a TV, and still do without many "luxuries" many people take for granted.
We all make our choices, and live with the consequences.
...just like my severely screwed up body.
As for empathy:
I was a combat Arms Marine, Volunteer EMT, and am currently a Volunteer Fire Fighter/first responder (I can't run into houses, but I can run the pumps, do medical calls, direct traffic etc)
I've also responded (volunteer and paid both) to many natural disasters)
I 'direct donate' a couple thousand pounds of food a year to needy people. Most recently bushels and bushels of apples and pears I picked.
I don't say (as is true) most of their issues are due to their own choices. That would hurt them and accomplish nothing.
But to loudmouth on the Internet where someone might learn something:
You bet your ass I'll call them as I see them!
Location: New Albany, Indiana (Greater Louisville)
11,974 posts, read 25,473,841 times
Reputation: 12187
In agrarian societies kids ARE the safety net, not a drain on your finances. In a poor nation / region with no SS retirement you will depend on your children and / or nieces and nephews to provide for you when you can no longer work.
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.
