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.
Alright, I have no idea what you are talking about now. I don't recall ever assuming that anyone on this forum was a women's studies major. I think women's studies should be a small niche specialty area for a few historians or legal theorists, not a college major for thousands of kids. There are kids on this forum complaining that they are unemployable with a college degree, but why does anyone expect employability from a degree that has no application? College itself was never designed to give employability, but to "refine a young mind". If one wants to be a "woman of significance", she should pick and learn a practically impactful skill rather than study women's studies. Or if one is interested in studying women, one should probably become a gynecologist. The discussion you are talking about was likely about that. But again, could that be any more unrelated to this thread??
The biggest problem is where you have people who could actually afford the funding who are connected with those actually push the problem or make it bigger. It is neglect and selfishness that initially causes this problem.
ad hominem (subcategory of logical fallacy of irrelevance) = attacking the motive or some other attribute of a person making an argument, rather than attacking the substance of the argument itself
Quote:
Originally Posted by yodel
One time you told me that I thought the way I did because I was a women's studies major that didn't know the meaning of hard work. Or somethng similar.
Gifting unemployed people all the major things in life (that the employed people have to work hard for) surely will not drive the unemployed out of the city, it keeps attracting them to the city, that is the whole reason for this thread :-). The wholy automated future where lower-skilled work no longer exists is still a remote future. Universal basic income has been mentioned (I think maybe actually by yourself) as a solution for supporting people incapable of acquiring advanced skills in the future - ie, every person in a society (regardless of their skills, employment or wealth/poverty) being provided with a certain survival minimum of funds. I would actually support that, provided that all other forms of welfare are abolished. But it presupposes a society where resources far exceed the needs, a society that can afford to gift everybody with a minimum survival package. On a small island in the center of the world, there is simply not enough space for everybody to live - the space will always be a scarce resource in NYC. So who should get to live there? Who deserves to live there? Who should get the scarce resource? Those wanting to pay for the chance to live there, or those looking for ways to steal that chance?
Living in NYC is not essential for anybody's survival. Even Woody Allen managed to survive (for quite a long time) while being informally exiled from the city :-). So, why should NYC housing be a handout, even if Universal Basic Income existed?
I never mentioned Universal Basic Income in any C-D.com thread (to my recollection). I'm not sure (at this moment in time) that I'd support it or not; I'd have to study it and think about it in all its dimensions and implications.
If you have an insurance that has an out-of-pocket maximum, you will not pay anything above that maximum (which for my insurance is I believe $7,500 per year, ie, very affordable). In case of cancer, the insurance will not pay for experimental drugs, and I would not take them anyway. Past the age of 65 (which I will be in 6.3 years), I don't believe there is an out-of-pocket maximum, so yes, you can deplete your savings, unless (a) you do not seek treatment, or (b) move to a country with cheaper medical services/cheaper nursing homes. I have a combination of plan (a) and plan (b) in place, ie, have a very precise medical POA document (don't forget what I am by profession :-) which greatly limits medical procedures that I would want, and I just came back from an extended trip to Asia, where I made arrangements for an excellent nursing home should I ever need it, at 15% of the average cost of nursing home in the US. I am in medical profession, and can tell you one thing: I would far rather be dead than on Medicaid.
Re "unemployment benefits", regardless of what unreasonable taxes I might be forced to pay, I personally will never perpetuate the problem by stealing other people's money (via collecting welfare), and that is that. It is a matter of personal dignity (which some people have, and some don't - to the extent that they cannot even understand what personal dignity is).
You cannot have much dignity as an Eastern European living in a low income co-op in Parkchester. Come to think of it, most of the co-ops in places like the Bronx and Harlem are subsidized co-ops. You are already living in housing that has somewhat been subsidized by the government.
So tell us what program your co-op is in our benefits from Mrs. Parkchester. You can come out of your closet. And drop the pretenses.
Parkchester. Give us a call when you can do UES or someplace nice and “White”. You cannot even afford to live with other white people, and yet you have the gall to talk about people on welfare when you yourself live in the most ghetto borough? You should know all about that from living in your government subsidized co-op.
No I didn't major in women's studies, these were your assumptions. I mentioned it because it seemed pertinent to your post 117. I didn't accuse you of personally insulting me either but carry on.
I think she herself likely lives in a government subsided co-op. The people in those places can be rough, and the fact she can’t do any better as likely taken it’s toll on her sanity. It’s actually pretty sad in many ways. Her hatred of people on welfare is hatred of her circumstances and that she is forced to live among them despite her education.
Because if she lived somewhere nice, I doubt she would even be talking about welfare and certainly not to this extent.
Welfare in this city comes in all sorts of forms. Most of us don't know or bother because we take our lumps when things go down and look to ourselves for finding a way out. Take on another job, cut expenses, sell stuff, etc...
Then you have those who are enabled by city and state government to take, take, take. Their lives never seem to improve after each various infusion of taxpayer money. What does happen is a prolonging of the enviable; at which point it could be considered all previous funds spent were pi$$ed down the drain.
Case in point:
"Many in housing court, though, know of manipulative tenants. One tenants’ rights advocate acknowledged that she knew people who, upon receiving a one-shot, ceased paying rent. Numerous people live on income insufficient to keep the marshal away for long in a changing Brooklyn. They cycle in and out of court and get two, three, four one-shots before being denied. Landlords’ lawyers deal with regulars they see every year or two. They inquire about one another’s children, like old friends catching up.
“The service we provide is a prevention tool,” Ms. Infante said. “It’s not a solution.”
There you have it; an official with NYC government admitting handing out money in "one shot deals" not once, but repeatedly makes almost no difference in many case. Worse the taxpayers won't see a dime of that money ever repaid (little of one shot deal funds are), and now thanks to mayor de Boob will be on the hook for even more money for shelter services as these same people move from one dole to another.
More ad hominem which doesn't merit a response. Re Parkchester (where I have my 3rd condo, all of them bought for cash): it is 100% privately owned, a condo complex (not a co-op). It is about 80% rental and 20% owner-occupied, but rentals are also all privately owned (by Olshan Properties/Parkchester Preservation or private owners like me). Real estate taxes have been abated for a total of 10 years (now reinstituted and going up every year) so that condo association dues could be increased, to perform renovations - total cost of monthly maintenance fees to owners has been the same as it would have been with taxes but without renovations. The maintenance fees went up by more than 8% in Parkchester North for 2019, due to planned further renovations (roofs etc). Parkchester itself (per written policy) has not been accepting Section 8 for years; I don't know how many private owners still accept it (I don't, for sure). A rare (the only?) example of affordable place to live in NYC that receives NO welfare subsidies. If all the properties in the city were market-rate, without housing subsidies that drive up the cost of rentals overall (because the minimum rent is adjusted to match what the government pays), half of the city housing would be like Parkchester, because the prices would automatically adjust themselves to what the middle class can reasonably pay. The majority of Parkchester residents are peaceful minorities and immigrants, who overall strive to pull themselves up socially by their own efforts, in the good old American tradition (as opposed to welfare supporters who strive to pull the rest of the society down, by imposing unnecessary taxes on the middle class, and keeping the poverty class in a handout-dependent coma). That's why I like Parkchester, and why I bought a condo there, for retirement in a few years. The only thing that gives me a pause, and for which I will probably actually sell my Parkchester condo and not retire there (unless things improve in the next few years) is that the crime from the surrounding Bronx areas occasionally spills into Parkchester - not often, but also not never - even though Parkchester has its own security plus the regular police. If that gets completely fixed in the next few years, Parkchester will have no downsides in my view (btw, it is a historic mid-20th century NYC architecture too, rather than a bunch of cheap glass).
If a person lacking cognitive awareness confined to a nursing home with round the clock ( so damn obvious ) care must submit to a yearly and thorough exam to confirm approval for medical coverage to continue afforded by city state and federal would it not also make sense that anyone receiving benefits such as food stamps,medical,and housing be subjected to the same rigorous examinations rather than just signing off on a piece of paper or answering yes to a prerecorded phone message ?
I suggest that all young and of age males of physically sound mind and body on any sort of welfare be required to serve the United States Military for a minimum of four years. If you are gonna fetch 3 squares and a cot every day might as well work for it.
In order for me get help I need to have kids. Anyone want to be my baby daddy X 3? That's what one needs to get help. If you are a single adult no luck for you...
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.
