U.S. CitiesCity-Data Forum Index
Happy Easter!
Go Back   City-Data Forum > General Forums > Politics and Other Controversies
 [Register]
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.
View detailed profile (Advanced) or search
site with Google Custom Search

Search Forums  (Advanced)
View Poll Results: Should people be required to submit to a drug screen before receiving unemployment benefits or welfa
Yes 118 65.19%
No 63 34.81%
Voters: 181. You may not vote on this poll

Reply Start New Thread
 
Old 12-20-2010, 09:12 PM
 
Location: Exeter, NH
5,204 posts, read 4,216,930 times
Reputation: 5458

Advertisements

Quote:
Originally Posted by Perlier View Post
Your own morals determine what you "owe" society. Apparently you've already said that you don't owe "jack" to society. It's not up to me to tell you exactly what you "owe" society. Most people know that on their own by the time they are adults.

When you say that you don't owe "jack" to society and that churches should take care of the needy, well, that sounds like an abdication of your moral responsibilities to society to the church. Not every tax paying member of society is a church member, but you would think it's fair to leave the churchs totally responsible for the needy.
Do we each have a "moral responsibility" to pay for every single person that is incapable or unwilling to work? Of course not. I agree 100% that government should get out of the charity business, and let religion handle its own thing.

Long ago, I remember attending a local government meeting in Florida where the County Commissioners were debating how much money to give to the 200 charities and non-profits that had applied for funding. They were confiscating money from citizens, based on the power of government to assess whatever it wanted in taxes, and GIVING IT AWAY TO THEIR FAVORITE CHARITIES. Many charities that I would never give money to got large grants of taxpayer dollars. I eventually realized that there were many scam artists that never worked a day in their lives, but set up "non profit" organizations and drew large salaries for their "charitable" work. They drove expensive sports cars, and lived in mansions. Meanwhile the taxpayers were slaving away at miserable jobs, working insane hours, to give these politicians money to give away. It was enough to make you throw up.

It's one thing to say that everyone in your town deserves a decent standard of living, no matter what happens to them, or whether they work or not--when 99% of the people are hard workers. But what about when only a small minority of the people are wiling to work? Are they still going to be forced to pay for the same quality of life for everyone in town, when they are only 10% of the population? If you set up a system where everyone gets guaranteed the same quality of life whether they work or not, you will soon approach 100% of the population being "unable" to work.

When you have open door immigration, when you have large groups of people that live off of free money for generations, and when entire generations have no work ethic or any ethics at all--then the working class simply cannot afford to support EVERYONE at the same standard of living. And frankly, someone who works 40 hours or more a week deserves to live better than someone who does nothing productive.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message

 
Old 12-20-2010, 09:25 PM
 
Location: In the desert
2,460 posts, read 1,859,158 times
Reputation: 1069
Quote:
Originally Posted by NHartphotog View Post
Do we each have a "moral responsibility" to pay for every single person that is incapable or unwilling to work? Of course not. I agree 100% that government should get out of the charity business, and let religion handle its own thing.

Long ago, I remember attending a local government meeting in Florida where the County Commissioners were debating how much money to give to the 200 charities and non-profits that had applied for funding. They were confiscating money from citizens, based on the power of government to assess whatever it wanted in taxes, and GIVING IT AWAY TO THEIR FAVORITE CHARITIES. Many charities that I would never give money to got large grants of taxpayer dollars. I eventually realized that there were many scam artists that never worked a day in their lives, but set up "non profit" organizations and drew large salaries for their "charitable" work. They drove expensive sports cars, and lived in mansions. Meanwhile the taxpayers were slaving away at miserable jobs, working insane hours, to give these politicians money to give away. It was enough to make you throw up.

It's one thing to say that everyone in your town deserves a decent standard of living, no matter what happens to them, or whether they work or not--when 99% of the people are hard workers. But what about when only a small minority of the people are wiling to work? Are they still going to be forced to pay for the same quality of life for everyone in town, when they are only 10% of the population? If you set up a system where everyone gets guaranteed the same quality of life whether they work or not, you will soon approach 100% of the population being "unable" to work.

When you have open door immigration, when you have large groups of people that live off of free money for generations, and when entire generations have no work ethic or any ethics at all--then the working class simply cannot afford to support EVERYONE at the same standard of living. And frankly, someone who works 40 hours or more a week deserves to live better than someone who does nothing productive.
The 'poor' do NOT live as well as those who are working & they are NOT guaranteed the same quality of life.
Some do get 'lazy' but, MOST are just having hard times.

The system is flawed, no doubt & we should set some limits & add job training. It is my belief that it would pay off in the long term.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 12-20-2010, 09:31 PM
 
Location: Tallahassee
1,869 posts, read 839,733 times
Reputation: 299
Quote:
Originally Posted by NHartphotog View Post
Do we each have a "moral responsibility" to pay for every single person that is incapable or unwilling to work? Of course not. I agree 100% that government should get out of the charity business, and let religion handle its own thing.

Long ago, I remember attending a local government meeting in Florida where the County Commissioners were debating how much money to give to the 200 charities and non-profits that had applied for funding. They were confiscating money from citizens, based on the power of government to assess whatever it wanted in taxes, and GIVING IT AWAY TO THEIR FAVORITE CHARITIES. Many charities that I would never give money to got large grants of taxpayer dollars. I eventually realized that there were many scam artists that never worked a day in their lives, but set up "non profit" organizations and drew large salaries for their "charitable" work. They drove expensive sports cars, and lived in mansions. Meanwhile the taxpayers were slaving away at miserable jobs, working insane hours, to give these politicians money to give away. It was enough to make you throw up.

It's one thing to say that everyone in your town deserves a decent standard of living, no matter what happens to them, or whether they work or not--when 99% of the people are hard workers. But what about when only a small minority of the people are wiling to work? Are they still going to be forced to pay for the same quality of life for everyone in town, when they are only 10% of the population? If you set up a system where everyone gets guaranteed the same quality of life whether they work or not, you will soon approach 100% of the population being "unable" to work.

When you have open door immigration, when you have large groups of people that live off of free money for generations, and when entire generations have no work ethic or any ethics at all--then the working class simply cannot afford to support EVERYONE at the same standard of living. And frankly, someone who works 40 hours or more a week deserves to live better than someone who does nothing productive.
I said nothing about providing everyone with the "same standard of living." I'm talking about the needy. I'm talking about people who need help paying rent in Section 8 housing, people who need food stamps to feed themselves, people with hungry children, people with little formal education and unable to find work. That's not even in the ballpark of what you're talking about above regarding "non-profit" charities, etc.

Your experience in a meeting in Florida where they were allocating grants to "charities" is not the same thing we are talking about here. We are talking about food stamps, Section 8 housing, disability, WIC, etc.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 12-20-2010, 09:45 PM
 
Location: Atlanta metro
5,645 posts, read 3,980,836 times
Reputation: 982
Quote:
Originally Posted by cleatis View Post
Where would the church get the money? Through tithes and donations (which is a lot like taxes, meaning that the masses would still be paying for it). How would the churches be regulated, how could we ensure that there was no bias based on religious reasonings? Would we have the government interfere with the church's operation?

We are all a part of society. Every single one of us, whether we like it or not. If you don't think you could make it strictly by yourself (like on a desert island) then you take part in society. You take part in society by driving on the roads that society built, going to the schools that society constructed, calling for help on 911 that society pays for going to the park that society paid for, the lake that society maintains...

You don't think society influenced you in any way - what you wear, what you think, what your morals are? Aall these things you could have managed individually? Maybe you owe society more than you think?
I take care of myself, thanks, no handouts for me. I also pay my taxes, thanks. I'm pretty sure I'm doing my "duty" to "society."

Churches get the money from tithes and donations and if you have any experience with how churches operate, you would know that there is no discrimination on the part of the church as far as who gets assistance; not saying it doesn't happen but far and away, there is no bias since Jesus said to help people, not to help Christians. You don't even have to be Christian for them to help you, you just have to have a need. All this in regard to individual donations. That does not even begin to cover outreach programs, ministries and special programs like around the holidays or when the community shows a need for something.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 12-20-2010, 09:50 PM
 
Location: Atlanta metro
5,645 posts, read 3,980,836 times
Reputation: 982
Quote:
Originally Posted by Perlier View Post
Your own morals determine what you "owe" society. Apparently you've already said that you don't owe "jack" to society. It's not up to me to tell you exactly what you "owe" society. Most people know that on their own by the time they are adults.

When you say that you don't owe "jack" to society and that churches should take care of the needy, well, that sounds like an abdication of your moral responsibilities to society to the church. Not every tax paying member of society is a church member, but you would think it's fair to leave the churchs totally responsible for the needy.
No. I think we need to focus on evangelizing the lost, increasing church attendance of these lost and also the saved, which in turn increases tithes. I voluntarily give plenty to the church, I do not, however, pay more taxes than what is strictly required of me. I would happily redirect my tax dollars to the church.

Again, I am waiting on what I supposedly owe society. I have no idea what I could possibly owe aside from not being a leach. Your argument that adults should know what they "owe" is not working...methinks YOU don't even know what our "duties" are to society.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 12-20-2010, 10:00 PM
 
Location: Atlanta metro
5,645 posts, read 3,980,836 times
Reputation: 982
Quote:
Originally Posted by Perlier View Post
As they say, "put your money where your mouth is".........if you're NOT willing to try to stop the abuse committed by your own family, then doesn't seem that complaining so much is justified. I personally would NOT turn in people, however, I don't begrudge anyone for getting the help they need. It seems to me that it would not be possible for your family members to scam the welfare system if they were living a life of luxury. You even say in your post that "several of these moochers I know will be hitting rock bottom pretty soon".......so how is it they should not be receiving welfare benefits? However, if all of your family members are indeed living a nice life and lying to get extra money from welfare, then why won't you put a stop to it? And, btw, yes, it is your job, if you are going to complain so loudly and bitterly about it. Would you prefer that even more money be spent to "screen" out the few bad apples than is spent on the benefits themselves? On the one hand, there are complaints about government spending too much money on welfare programs like food stamps and disability, then on the other hand there is complaining about the "govt" not doing its job by not screening well enough. What is it you want?
I've already been through this conversation with other posters. I really don't feel like getting into it again to be completely honest.

Judging from your attitude, I take it you're FOR giving a blank check to whomever asks, yes? So if I get myself fired, I'm allowed to play games all day, collect UE (all the while turning down interviews and job offers) and then when that runs out, apply for TANF (I've been on food stamps and Medicaid for years since I have four kids), spend that money on my computer game while my ex-husband is forced to pay my rent b/c he knows my track record with eviction due to nonpayment and he's concerned for the kids, and my child (who is 19 y/o, who hasn't even been able to save up for her first car due to trying to keep the family afloat) is forced to pay my utility bills? That's okay with you? This is just ONE example of things I've personally seen. If I have seen all of this (not just in my family, either, but some in the capacity of a child welfare agency I used to volunteer for, friends, etc.), what makes you think this kind of thing is not widespread? Come to think of it, I know ZERO people who have taken some kind of welfare that were doing 100% of what they could do to pay their own bills. Honestly. I'm not saying EVERYONE is like that, but there are lots who are and there is an inherent flaw in the system if this many people are able to defraud the system.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 12-20-2010, 10:04 PM
 
Location: Atlanta metro
5,645 posts, read 3,980,836 times
Reputation: 982
Quote:
Originally Posted by NHartphotog View Post
Do we each have a "moral responsibility" to pay for every single person that is incapable or unwilling to work? Of course not. I agree 100% that government should get out of the charity business, and let religion handle its own thing.

Long ago, I remember attending a local government meeting in Florida where the County Commissioners were debating how much money to give to the 200 charities and non-profits that had applied for funding. They were confiscating money from citizens, based on the power of government to assess whatever it wanted in taxes, and GIVING IT AWAY TO THEIR FAVORITE CHARITIES. Many charities that I would never give money to got large grants of taxpayer dollars. I eventually realized that there were many scam artists that never worked a day in their lives, but set up "non profit" organizations and drew large salaries for their "charitable" work. They drove expensive sports cars, and lived in mansions. Meanwhile the taxpayers were slaving away at miserable jobs, working insane hours, to give these politicians money to give away. It was enough to make you throw up.

It's one thing to say that everyone in your town deserves a decent standard of living, no matter what happens to them, or whether they work or not--when 99% of the people are hard workers. But what about when only a small minority of the people are wiling to work? Are they still going to be forced to pay for the same quality of life for everyone in town, when they are only 10% of the population? If you set up a system where everyone gets guaranteed the same quality of life whether they work or not, you will soon approach 100% of the population being "unable" to work.

When you have open door immigration, when you have large groups of people that live off of free money for generations, and when entire generations have no work ethic or any ethics at all--then the working class simply cannot afford to support EVERYONE at the same standard of living. And frankly, someone who works 40 hours or more a week deserves to live better than someone who does nothing productive.
Great points, especially the bolded. It's like the whole concept of telling everyone they're a winner, making everyone a valedictorian, A for effort, etc. Things are no longer rewarded for success, they're rewarded for a half-ass effort, which will not get you too far in the real world. Unless you're a welfare recipient.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 12-20-2010, 10:05 PM
 
Location: Atlanta metro
5,645 posts, read 3,980,836 times
Reputation: 982
Quote:
Originally Posted by sindey View Post

The system is flawed, no doubt & we should set some limits & add job training. It is my belief that it would pay off in the long term.
So we agree, in principle, then.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 12-20-2010, 10:06 PM
 
Location: Tallahassee
1,869 posts, read 839,733 times
Reputation: 299
Quote:
Originally Posted by andrea3821 View Post
I've already been through this conversation with other posters. I really don't feel like getting into it again to be completely honest.

Judging from your attitude, I take it you're FOR giving a blank check to whomever asks, yes? So if I get myself fired, I'm allowed to play games all day, collect UE (all the while turning down interviews and job offers) and then when that runs out, apply for TANF (I've been on food stamps and Medicaid for years since I have four kids), spend that money on my computer game while my ex-husband is forced to pay my rent b/c he knows my track record with eviction due to nonpayment and he's concerned for the kids, and my child (who is 19 y/o, who hasn't even been able to save up for her first car due to trying to keep the family afloat) is forced to pay my utility bills? That's okay with you? This is just ONE example of things I've personally seen. If I have seen all of this (not just in my family, either, but some in the capacity of a child welfare agency I used to volunteer for, friends, etc.), what makes you think this kind of thing is not widespread? Come to think of it, I know ZERO people who have taken some kind of welfare that were doing 100% of what they could do to pay their own bills. Honestly. I'm not saying EVERYONE is like that, but there are lots who are and there is an inherent flaw in the system if this many people are able to defraud the system.
Your opinion and anecdotal "evidence". Look it up.

Next?
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 12-20-2010, 10:09 PM
 
Location: Atlanta metro
5,645 posts, read 3,980,836 times
Reputation: 982
Quote:
Originally Posted by Perlier View Post
I said nothing about providing everyone with the "same standard of living." I'm talking about the needy. I'm talking about people who need help paying rent in Section 8 housing, people who need food stamps to feed themselves, people with hungry children, people with little formal education and unable to find work. That's not even in the ballpark of what you're talking about above regarding "non-profit" charities, etc.

Your experience in a meeting in Florida where they were allocating grants to "charities" is not the same thing we are talking about here. We are talking about food stamps, Section 8 housing, disability, WIC, etc.
But how do you know the food is even going to the children? By handing the parent an EBT card, you are allowing them to purchase sodas, chips and other crap that may not even be going to keep the child nourished. While welfare has good intentions, people abuse it, and that is what is wrong. Again, not saying everyone does this, but it definitely happens.

I argue that if anyone wants to find work, they can, and that education does not mean crap when it comes to being successful. But that is neither here nor there.

I think you might have misworded your statement, but if not...if someone needs help paying their portion of section 8 at a hundred or two dollars a month, there is something wrong.
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 $104,000 in prizes was already given out to active posters on our forum and additional giveaways are planned!

Go Back   City-Data Forum > General Forums > Politics and Other Controversies
Similar Threads
Follow City-Data.com founder on our Forum or

All times are GMT -6.

2005-2018, 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, 26, 27, 28, 29, 30, 31, 32, 33, 34, 35 - Top