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.
The 'poor' do NOT live as well as those who are working & they are NOT guaranteed the same quality of life.
Wow... I can't even believe somebody said that! Really??
I think everyone here needs to research welfare (and other assistance programs), to see what they actually get - it's hardly enough to live on, especially here in expensive California. The median household income here in San Francisco is around $6000/mo, and if welfare recipients are getting anywhere near that I'd agree they were getting a "free & easy ride." But in reality, they're lucky to get $800-1000/mo, which won't even cover the rent in SF. Why do you think they typically live in the most run-down neighborhoods? Wouldn't they be living in nice suburbs & mansions if they had it so good?
There are plenty of people who game the system and I do think we need to crack down and have tighter rules and restrictions and limitations. Whether or not some of them are using drugs doesn't interest me nearly as much as that.
But listen up...at some point (and I'm not saying I know where that is) it becomes cumbersome and cost's a lot more money to eliminate every iota of abuse so we just have to accept it.
You are the one involving yourself in posts/responses that you did not bother to read let alone digest to consider the content. You then follow up with a tangent you felt fitting. And I'm supposed placate your rant? That's not going to happen.
Further, your impression of my professional title makes no difference. If you want to assert heritable traits as responsible for opinions opposed to your own then be ready to be taken to task. That is the topic at hand in the conversation I'm involved in.
In the end I will admit that I have interest in following the stink of pontificating posters on this or that issue. I want to know how full of shyte folk actually are. I suspect the offense to posts that address actual movement, that is comprised of moving one's a$$ off the verbal couch, is unnerving. So is life I guess.
What part of "I read the posts" are you having difficulty understanding? Or is your first sentence of your post just PURELY spin in order not to have to acknowledge that your post was off topic and completely self-absorbed?
No one is asking you to "placate" ANYTHING. Just more spin, spin, spin on your part.
Well, show me some evidence, some hard data. With all those "tons of people" agreeing with you, SOMEONE should have been able to find some studies, some data to support their belief that the welfare system is so flawed that we should spend money administering a drug test to recipients in order to "fix it" or in order to save money.
It isn't just drugs, it's cable and internet and cellular services and alcohol and tobacco and gambling/lottery.
If you whine you need $200 to buy food, then you cancel your cable, internet and cellular services first.
Otherwise, all I'm doing is subsidizing your cable, internet and cell-phone, and I'm under no moral, ethical or legal obligation to do that.
It isn't just drugs, it's cable and internet and cellular services and alcohol and tobacco and gambling/lottery.
If you whine you need $200 to buy food, then you cancel your cable, internet and cellular services first.
Otherwise, all I'm doing is subsidizing your cable, internet and cell-phone, and I'm under no moral, ethical or legal obligation to do that.
So....... what are your ideas for fixing this problem? How do you intend to track welfare recipient's spending, to ensure it's all being used wisely? I'm curious to know, because I have yet to read any possible solutions - just complaints.
As I mentioned earlier, I think they already came up with the best possible solution - WIC, Section 8, food stamps, Medicare, etc. These are all programs which designate money for specific needs (housing, food & medical care), and the actual welfare checks are for "extraneous needs." These extraneous needs are determined by the recipient, and there's really no way to control how it's spent. If they choose to use that $800 on internet, cable & shopping, how can we stop them? The only answer is to eradicate welfare altogether, and I'm not sure how beneficial that would be.
Children & Family Services is there to help ensure that children are properly cared for........not the food stamp agency. Who else is there to give the public assistance money to other than the parents? If someone is starving their child, or feeding them nothing but sodas and chips, then that person needs to be reported to Children & Families to be investigated.
There is no PERFECT system. None. Nada. The welfare system, like all systems, may have flaws, but it is NOT costing us, relatively speaking, much money at all. Look at the BIG PICTURE, which is the entire budget and figure out how very, very precious little of your tax money goes to help anyone in need via social programs such as food stamps, Section 8 house, Wic, etc., etc.
Great post and true!
But when people are busy standing on their tip-toes so they can look down their nose at others to make themselves feel good it's hard for them to see the the bigger picture or any facts whatsoever....
But when people are busy standing on their tip-toes so they can look down their nose at others to make themselves feel good it's hard for them to see the the bigger picture or any facts whatsoever....
They are also 'taught or trained' to look in the wrong places so the 'bigger' theft that goes on in this country with tax dollars can continue under ALL of our noses.
Blame the poor is just the latest group to denigrate after the blacks, browns & gays mantra but, hey it's gotta be someone stealing our money doesn't it?
It isn't just drugs, it's cable and internet and cellular services and alcohol and tobacco and gambling/lottery.
If you whine you need $200 to buy food, then you cancel your cable, internet and cellular services first.
Otherwise, all I'm doing is subsidizing your cable, internet and cell-phone, and I'm under no moral, ethical or legal obligation to do that.
Excuses, excuses. HOW do you KNOW that the majority of welfare recipients actually have cable, internet (or even a computer)? Cell phones can save lives if needed in an emergency. And, NO, you are not subsidizing those things if someone gets FOOD STAMPS.
Absolutely amazing how authoritarian people are when it comes to "the poor" and needy! That is not a pretty or impressive sight. Why don't you all just suggest what's really in the back of your minds, either throw the poor into prison camps so you can dictate EVERYTHING they do or let them starve to death in the streets?
I never said you take or need a handout, or that you don't contribute. All I meant to get across was that you owe society more than jack...
I'm afraid that talking about the religious aspect might take the discussion off course, so I'll try to stick to the course here.
I understand that the church does a lot to help people even when they aren't religious, but I have a very hard time lending any more support to any church. Given the skullduggery and corruption of the church, the wars over religion, the witch hunts (both literal and proverbial) which have come from the church and especially the issue of who is to be responsible to encourage people to go to church and how they intend to do it I couldn't reasonably advocate more church involvement in our daily lives. Besides if the churches were properly equipped to do this, we wouldn't need the government to do it. Jesus is credited with saying a great many things, and his followers have spent 2000 years murdering one another over who interpreted his word right - that's not the institution we want to publicly encourage - simply for the reason that religious followers cannot even agree amongst themselves on what the same god expects of us. I mean should we encourage people to attend the Westboro Baptist Church, or the Jehova's Witnesses - Do these have to be especially churches or can we encourage more people to go to Mosques, temples and Synagogues too? Mostly I'm interested in how this attendance is to be encouraged? Who gets to pay for that and especially what the church stands to gain from it. Cause I'd much rather someone buy drugs with my tax dollars than a new golden cross for the new steeple...
My answer to that would be to find a legit church. It's not one central hub that collects money, each individual church is in control of their own expenditures, with small amounts going to keep the central churches going, like the AMiA, ECUSA, etc. That is more like a membership fee than anything and as far as I know, it is not a large sum. The tithes go to pay rent, clergy and limited office staff, admin costs and the rest go to outreach programs and ministry efforts.
"Subjective"......"based on what we have seen with our own eyes"........still is something you want because you just believe you are right based on a few cases of anecdotal evidence.
Well, I don't want to spend my tax money on your little "drug testing experiment" based on your beliefs but no objective studies or data to back you up. Your beliefs could be very, very biased because of your own personal experiences with your family members. Did you ever think that you may just have a very negative BIAS about this subject? No, of course you didn't.
I don't think it's necessary to do anything because I don't believe the system is so flawed that excessive amounts of money is being lost due to drug users who receive welfare benefits. I see no point in SPENDING MORE MONEY, or IMO, wasting money, in order to stop something which we have no hard proof or evidence is going on.
Wow, so you want me to do a study and put together a report for you with cost analysis? Alright, I myself have said, on multiple occasions, that I wonder how much this kind of thing would cost and how effective it would be. Please stop interjecting your nastiness into my arguments. Again, you have said NOTHING as far as alternatives to the question posed by the OP. If you're just going to rail against the theory and not offer up anything in return, why are you even posting still? We all know the system IS flawed, you even said it yourself, so apparently this is okay with you since you have offered no alternatives.
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.
They are also 'taught or trained' to look in the wrong places so the 'bigger' theft that goes on in this country with tax dollars can continue under ALL of our noses.
