U.S. CitiesCity-Data Forum Index
Happy Halloween!
Go Back   City-Data Forum > U.S. Forums > New York
 [Register]
Please register to participate in our discussions with 1.5 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.
Jump to a detailed profile or search
site with Google Custom Search

Search Forums  (Advanced)
Business Search - 14 Million verified businesses
Search for:  near: 
Reply Start New Thread
 
Old 07-03-2011, 09:39 AM
 
455 posts, read 295,826 times
Reputation: 203
Quote:
Originally Posted by woody516 View Post
I think that ALL PARENTS should be tested for drug use. Why limit it to welfare recipients?
Just move to N. Korea, you'll be happy there!!
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message

 
Old 07-03-2011, 09:45 AM
 
3,939 posts, read 4,207,645 times
Reputation: 1395
Quote:
Originally Posted by SilverBulletZ06 View Post
You mean like testing your eyesight prior to issueing a DL, or ensuring insurance to renew your registration?
Testing your eyesight for visual capacity is not the same thing as testing urine/blood/hair for X,Y,Z.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 07-03-2011, 09:45 AM
 
630 posts, read 548,437 times
Reputation: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by crunchman View Post
Just move to N. Korea, you'll be happy there!!
Only if I can be Supreme Leader when Kim Jong-Il dies
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 07-03-2011, 10:56 AM
 
8,681 posts, read 7,468,093 times
Reputation: 14933
Quote:
Originally Posted by SilverBulletZ06 View Post
A few points:
People are getting FREE money. Money from my table is going to theirs. The least we can do is ensure that we are not just giving them some extra cash for drug and the money that is being given is going to needed items like food/clothing/shelter.

As for money so they don't rob, I'm not too keen on being held hostage and needing to bribe people. Castle Law Now!

Also, welfare (and other associated welfare programs) isn't something people complain about when the people fall on a hard time, collect for 6 months then get back on their feet. They complain about chronic welfare and its associated other programs that become a crutch and then a generational problem.

Addiction should never have been a medical condition. Sorry, but stupidity causes use.
The argument that it's free money doesn't fly with me. Like I said, the vast majority of these folks paid taxes when they had an income. I firmly believe that if they put into the system, they are entitled to get something out of it when they fall on hard times. More on that in a minute.

Whenever people make the argument that money is going from their table to someone else's as justification for instilling a litmus test to determine worthiness based on their own values, I feel compelled to remind them that no matter what, their tax money will go to someone or something they don't agree with. I don't want my tax money going to support war, the new trillion-dollar stealth bomber, or Wall Street bailouts, or even roundabout to "faith-based initiatives" run by churches and organizations who get tax breaks to spread what I feel to be the "Bad News" of hatred, bigotry, discrimination, and misogyny in their god's name, but there it goes.

I'm not saying you need to sit there, accept it, and just shut up and pay. Believe me, I became quite the sign-waving, marching, organizing protester in the months leading up to the invasion of Iraq, indeed, throughout the entire Bush administration. Just that the reality is there's always going to be something. Ye gods, especially in New York.

As for addiction, even if what you say about stupidity is true--that it causes use--the fact that not everyone who uses drugs recreationally gets addicted proves you wrong. Alcohol, which is a drug, is the perfect example of that. Addiction is a complex interplay between physical dependency and psychological dependency. It is indeed a medical condition. If it wasn't, there wouldn't be physical repercussions when addicts stop using cold turkey.

But I do see a place where we agree: When welfare becomes an intergenerational tradition, something is wrong. I think the bulk of this is a reflection on the issues plaguing inner cities, where the problem seems to be most common. Again, address the issues that feed into it, and you go a long way toward solving the problem. However, this is where I do think that while a leg up should be a "no questions asked" situation for a certain period of time (6 months, a year), I think that at some point, recipients will exhaust even what they put into the system when they had incomes. Therefore there should be a point where going forward, they should have to earn the money by providing a service or be enrolled in some kind of [URL="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Workfare"]workfare[/URL] program.

Many, many moons ago, when FDR first came up with the concept of public aid, my grandfather had to take it, and he paid it back. He worked whatever jobs he could (and it was quite an eclectic list!) but paid it back. I believe it was taken right from his pay, although I can't be sure and he's no longer around to ask. Maybe one of the social historians here will know more about how things were back then. I would embrace that way of doing things now, but I'm a realist: When the American workforce is already grossly underpaid to enhance the profits of the few at the top, taking money out of the check of someone who earns nine bucks an hour is going to be a deterrent to people finding jobs. Conservatives can squawk about accountability and pride in self-sufficiency, but at that pay rate, labor serves more to make some CEO rich than it does to put food on the table.

/end novella
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 07-03-2011, 11:26 AM
 
1,834 posts, read 1,401,536 times
Reputation: 648
Quote:
Originally Posted by Yzette View Post
The argument that it's free money doesn't fly with me. Like I said, the vast majority of these folks paid taxes when they had an income. I firmly believe that if they put into the system, they are entitled to get something out of it when they fall on hard times. More on that in a minute.

Whenever people make the argument that money is going from their table to someone else's as justification for instilling a litmus test to determine worthiness based on their own values, I feel compelled to remind them that no matter what, their tax money will go to someone or something they don't agree with. I don't want my tax money going to support war, the new trillion-dollar stealth bomber, or Wall Street bailouts, or even roundabout to "faith-based initiatives" run by churches and organizations who get tax breaks to spread what I feel to be the "Bad News" of hatred, bigotry, discrimination, and misogyny in their god's name, but there it goes.

I'm not saying you need to sit there, accept it, and just shut up and pay. Believe me, I became quite the sign-waving, marching, organizing protester in the months leading up to the invasion of Iraq, indeed, throughout the entire Bush administration. Just that the reality is there's always going to be something. Ye gods, especially in New York.

As for addiction, even if what you say about stupidity is true--that it causes use--the fact that not everyone who uses drugs recreationally gets addicted proves you wrong. Alcohol, which is a drug, is the perfect example of that. Addiction is a complex interplay between physical dependency and psychological dependency. It is indeed a medical condition. If it wasn't, there wouldn't be physical repercussions when addicts stop using cold turkey.

But I do see a place where we agree: When welfare becomes an intergenerational tradition, something is wrong. I think the bulk of this is a reflection on the issues plaguing inner cities, where the problem seems to be most common. Again, address the issues that feed into it, and you go a long way toward solving the problem. However, this is where I do think that while a leg up should be a "no questions asked" situation for a certain period of time (6 months, a year), I think that at some point, recipients will exhaust even what they put into the system when they had incomes. Therefore there should be a point where going forward, they should have to earn the money by providing a service or be enrolled in some kind of workfare program.

Many, many moons ago, when FDR first came up with the concept of public aid, my grandfather had to take it, and he paid it back. He worked whatever jobs he could (and it was quite an eclectic list!) but paid it back. I believe it was taken right from his pay, although I can't be sure and he's no longer around to ask. Maybe one of the social historians here will know more about how things were back then. I would embrace that way of doing things now, but I'm a realist: When the American workforce is already grossly underpaid to enhance the profits of the few at the top, taking money out of the check of someone who earns nine bucks an hour is going to be a deterrent to people finding jobs. Conservatives can squawk about accountability and pride in self-sufficiency, but at that pay rate, labor serves more to make some CEO rich than it does to put food on the table.

/end novella
I really want to have an intelligent conversation, but I'm afraid when you mention bigoted, hated filled churches then plaster on the left wing mantra of evil rich CEOs and corporations it precludes suck talk.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 07-03-2011, 03:16 PM
 
324 posts, read 104,785 times
Reputation: 189
Quote:
Originally Posted by SilverBulletZ06 View Post
I really want to have an intelligent conversation, but I'm afraid when you mention bigoted, hated filled churches then plaster on the left wing mantra of evil rich CEOs and corporations it precludes suck talk.


And many people who bash churches and CEOs in nonsensical diatribes will be the first to whine about how "the other side" cannot have an intelligent conversation.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 07-03-2011, 04:31 PM
 
8,681 posts, read 7,468,093 times
Reputation: 14933
Quote:
Originally Posted by SilverBulletZ06 View Post
I really want to have an intelligent conversation, but I'm afraid when you mention bigoted, hated filled churches then plaster on the left wing mantra of evil rich CEOs and corporations it precludes suck talk.
Which is basically just a way of saying that you are unable to refute what I say.

Your typo is kind of funny, actually. My argument has precluded "suck talk." Makes sense, because the concept of tax exemption for churches and the rich getting richer off the backs of labor do indeed suck, and I'm glad I have sufficiently illuminated both such that you feel we don't have to talk about them now.

So, what are your thoughts on workfare?
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 07-03-2011, 04:33 PM
 
Location: Long Island (chief in S Farmingdale)
14,078 posts, read 7,460,134 times
Reputation: 2476
Quote:
Originally Posted by ABACAB View Post


And many people who bash churches and CEOs in nonsensical diatribes will be the first to whine about how "the other side" cannot have an intelligent conversation.
Yes because when CEO's need to resign due to their company committing felony after felony after felony, pay hundreds of millions in fines for those felonies then get elected in a position of power and use that power to promote policies that will greatly help out another company they use to run.....
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 07-03-2011, 07:40 PM
 
324 posts, read 104,785 times
Reputation: 189
Quote:
Originally Posted by Smash255 View Post
Yes because when CEO's need to resign due to their company committing felony after felony after felony, pay hundreds of millions in fines for those felonies then get elected in a position of power and use that power to promote policies that will greatly help out another company they use to run.....
Funny how you libs are soooo against stereotyping... Unless it's groups of people you don't like, such as religious folks or CEOs.

I guess all CEOs are evil
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 07-03-2011, 08:06 PM
 
Location: Long Island (chief in S Farmingdale)
14,078 posts, read 7,460,134 times
Reputation: 2476
Quote:
Originally Posted by ABACAB View Post
Funny how you libs are soooo against stereotyping... Unless it's groups of people you don't like, such as religious folks or CEOs.

I guess all CEOs are evil
Did I say that?? No. In fact I was specifically talking about the one who is instituting the program that the OP was talking about, Florida Governor Rick Medicare Fraud Scott
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
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.


Reply
Please update this thread with any new information or opinions. This open thread is still read by thousands of people, so we encourage all additional points of view.

Quick Reply
Message:



Over $84,000 in prizes was already given out to active posters on our forum and additional giveaways are planned!

Go Back   City-Data Forum > U.S. Forums > New York
Similar Threads
View detailed profiles of:

All times are GMT -6.

2005-2014, Advameg, Inc.

City-Data.com - Archive 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, 11, 12, 13, 14, 15, 16, 17, 18, 19, 20, 21, 22, 23, 24, 25 - Top