U.S. CitiesCity-Data Forum Index
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)
 
Old 03-28-2014, 06:20 PM
 
26,304 posts, read 12,868,479 times
Reputation: 12551

Advertisements

Quote:
Originally Posted by Ghostrider275452 View Post
Not if you have kids.
Yes even if you have kids the 5 year limit applies. Why are you so misinformed?

 
Old 03-29-2014, 03:01 AM
 
Location: California
30,707 posts, read 33,507,042 times
Reputation: 26137
Quote:
Originally Posted by petch751 View Post
He is away from his kids "working" long hours to support his family but then he has to pay to support people on welfare too. That's what his personal life has to do with welfare.

No self respecting hard working American can have any respect for what anyone living in the food stamp sanctuary has to say.
Ya ya ya... I get he wants to complain about welfare, but his story about his trip to Walmart has NOTHING to do with that. I guess he just thought it made him sound superior to everyone else in the store? Seriously, I read the OP 3 times and get zilch. I even asked if people were waving their welfare cards around or something but apparently just the fact that he worked 16 hours and has a kid means everyone else is a leech.

If you're going to complain at least give examples of what you are complaining about. The fact that canned soup is cheaper than he thought doesn't do it.

Last edited by Ceece; 03-29-2014 at 03:10 AM..
 
Old 03-29-2014, 03:06 AM
bUU
 
Location: Georgia
11,888 posts, read 8,672,640 times
Reputation: 8429
Quote:
Originally Posted by malamute View Post
Quote:
Originally Posted by Don Draper View Post
The percentage of people on lifelong welfare is a very small fraction

I prefer not to spend too much time and effort worrying and getting pissed off what a tiny fraction does, got bigger things to worry about.
It's not that small.
No. Don was correct. You were incorrect.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Think4Yourself View Post
Given that he's a typical right winger he probably just saw a black person and then assumed that because they were black they must be on welfare and so he should get angry at them. "I saw a black person buying a cellphone so he must be on welfare!"
I don't think they measure prevalence of offensively discriminatory attitudes by political bent. While I believe that the right-wing has far more vocal bigots, and their bigots appear to be far worse violators of the precepts of civilized behavior, I don't think one can assume that any random right-winger is a bigot.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Ghostrider275452 View Post
There is access, but...
"Access, but..." is not access. You're welcome to include in your proposal reasonable measures to bridge the gap and eliminate the "but", but not to summarily ignore civic responsibility with a "but" excuse.

Everyone has inherent worth and dignity. I know some of you try to deny this, but it is true even if you cannot bring yourself to accept it, and the unwillingness to grant that everyone has inherent worth and dignity is a clear marker of antisocial perspective. It is a direct violation of the ethic of reciprocity (the most universal ethic across belief systems and moral codes, on the planet). You effectively sacrifice your own worth and dignity by refusing to acknowledge the inherent worth and dignity of others, and thereby warrant repudiation for holding such morally offensive attitudes. Given that everyone has inherent worth and dignity, callously disregarding the impact of marginalizing others, with a "but" excuse, is without merit.

So, no. Not "but". Before you (meaning society, all together) presume to dump other people into a veritable refuse heap, be sure that you have assured access to a means for everyone to pay their own way and secure their own future. Unless you are willing to abide the excuses of others, in this regard, don't expect any excuses you may make for failing to fulfill that societal responsibility to be met with anything other than condemnation and repudiation.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Ghostrider275452 View Post
You cannot expect an employer to ruin his business hiring someone who is not qualified.
I have said repeatedly that the responsibility here is on society - on us citizens, all together. It is not any individual business' responsibility to carry the weight for society - that's government's role.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Ghostrider275452 View Post
Also, I advocate changing the welfare system to emphasize education/training, it should be required if one is to collect anything other than food from the system.
I won't argue with you about that. I like the idea. However, I respect the cogent and defensible arguments people will make in opposition to this part of your idea. Education increases the competition for living wage jobs - it doesn't actually increase the number of such jobs. So as a focus, as you've presented it, it's nothing more than a shell game. It has to be the second phase, the first phase being creating a high demand for educated labor, where today we have, except in certain pockets, a labor marketplace where even educated folks are seeing progressively more draconian reductions in effective compensation because supply of even educated labor is higher than the demand for such labor.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Ghostrider275452 View Post
The way it is now, they pay single mothers more if they have more kids, so they pump out a child every 9 months until they have enough children to provide mom with a comfortable life style, and some seem quite content with this existence.
If you're going to throw out pointless throwaway sentences like that, you're going to have to say what you mean. If you don't, I'll simply shove really offensive words in your mouth and attribute them to you, until you have the fortitude to be very clear about what your intention is in making such a statement. For example, you sound like you're saying, "Let the babies die of starvation by withholding public assistance from single mothers." Since that is the only cogent conclusion I can see following from your comment, I'll assume that that kind of immoral perspective is what you are promoting, until such time as you make it very clear what you would do in that scenario.

And I condemn such morally offensive intentions.

Quote:
Originally Posted by greywar View Post
Yes even if you have kids the 5 year limit applies. Why are you so misinformed?
Some folks want to remain uninformed because otherwise they have to admit that their offensively callous perspectives have no merit.
 
Old 04-02-2014, 11:01 AM
 
36,989 posts, read 16,134,598 times
Reputation: 8410
Quote:
Originally Posted by bUU View Post
Your refusal to acknowledge the worth and dignity of others, by attempting to defend the categorical marginalization and disparagement of those most vulnerable in society simply underscores the indefensibly immoral and corrupt nature of the self-centered perspective that you've bought-into and promote. There is no excuse for such vacuously vitriolic blanket generalizations - of anyone in any circumstance - and no excuse for painting poor people based on the behaviors of a few people who themselves may not even be poor, but rather just people you think are poor and choose to use as foundation for your utterly contemptible presumption.

There is as much despicable exploitation practiced by folks just like you, and by folks just like me, as there is practiced by the folks just like those who are assisted by society's safety net, if not of government (i.e., tax evasion) then of commercial offerings. The poor have no lock on exploitative behaviors. That's actually me being generous: More likely, people who support patently self-centered perspectives, such as that peddled by the right-wing, are probably more inclined to seek out and abuse whatever they think they can get away with, to bolster their own personal interest and to excessively supplement their own personal benefit. Libertarians, even more so, some even priding themselves in their attitudes fostering self-aggrandizement at the expense of respectable responsibility to a civilized society.

The kind of things that bother me is the incessant and petulant self-centeredness I see so many right-wingers adopt as their religious dogma.

Decrypting your careless typing... That's really the problem with the perspectives that you've adopted: They foster a callous disregard for others, and especially those who are the most vulnerable members of society - precisely the opposite of the attitude considered for generations to be the epitome of honorable conduct in society, i.e., judging the worthiness of a society by how it treats is most vulnerable members, rather than, as your comments clearly show you believe, judging the worthiness of a society by how well it treats you personally.

In order for people to appreciate the logic of your arguments, they would have to be open to the idea that something matters more than their own personal comfort and luxury. They would have to be willing to internalize the idea that society has obligations to more people than just themselves, and that critical considerations, such as someone else's life and health, are substantially higher priority in society than their own comfort and luxury. And in order for people to have the ability to do that, they have to be moral enough to regard other people as human beings just like themselves, deserving of the same worth and dignity as all people. That's just not within the capacity of many of those afflicted by right-wing propaganda.
"Decrypting your careless typing... That's really the problem with the perspectives that you've adopted: They foster a callous disregard for others, and especially those who are the most vulnerable members of society"

If you can't handle typos I suggest you go someplace else where you deal with perfect people like yourself.

Your "assumptions" on my "perspective" is purely your OWN biases and NOT based on anything but your OWN opinions.

I base MY opinions on what I have ACTUALLY witnessed first hand.

What are your opinions based on?
 
Old 04-02-2014, 11:22 AM
 
66,561 posts, read 30,379,078 times
Reputation: 8688
Quote:
Originally Posted by Iamme73 View Post
For conservatives the great threat to America is economically poor women and children eating food and living in an apartment with help from the government. SMH
It actually is a bigger problem than you think ...
Quote:
"Medicaid paid for 45 percent of the 4 million births in the United States in 2010, an amount that has been rising over time, according to a report out today. The study, published in the September 2013 issue of the peer-reviewed journal Women’s Health Issues, offers the most comprehensive information to date on Medicaid financing of births in each of the 50 states and nationally."
Medicaid Pays For Nearly Half of All Births in the United States | publichealth.gwu.edu

Women receiving public assistance have a birth rate 3 times higher than those who don't. U.S. Census birth rate stats and citations here:
http://www.city-data.com/forum/32045595-post217.html

Let's take a deeper look at the problem that 3 times higher birth rate presents...

Example using numbers: 1 million receiving public assistance, 1 million not receiving such, the latest published birth rate numbers for each group (halved because the rates were reported for women only), and the formula for predicting future population, future value = present value x (e)^kt, where e equals the constant 2.71828, k equals the rate of increase (expressed as a decimal, rate taken from the U.S. Census data), and t is the number of years.

After 20 years, the population of those not receiving public assistance will have grown from 1 million to 1.75 million.

After 20 years, the population of those very likely needing public assistance will have grown from 1 million to 4.953 million.

1.75 million paying taxes to support social programs for 4.953 million.

Giving benefits to those who take what they need instead of earning it is not a sustainable strategy.

Youth From Low-Income Families Fact Sheet
Youth from Low-Income Families: Fact Sheet
Provides grim statistics.
 
Old 04-02-2014, 11:25 AM
 
66,561 posts, read 30,379,078 times
Reputation: 8688
Quote:
Originally Posted by bUU View Post
Be sure that whatever proposal you put forward - and I will expect details of it later in the thread - accounts for protecting the babies, assuring that they are left unencumbered and not punished for what you consider the transgressions of their parents.
It's too late for that. They already are encumbered and punished for the transgressions of their irresponsible parents...

Youth From Low-Income Families Fact Sheet
Youth from Low-Income Families: Fact Sheet
Grim statistics
 
Old 04-02-2014, 11:55 AM
 
5,368 posts, read 5,159,182 times
Reputation: 3308
I love walmart, but I don't buy fresh vegetables or meat from them. I bought some chicken breasts from Walmart once and they were slimy and smelled terrible. You get what you pay for. Canned goods are fine though.
 
Old 04-03-2014, 04:01 AM
bUU
 
Location: Georgia
11,888 posts, read 8,672,640 times
Reputation: 8429
Quote:
Originally Posted by Quick Enough View Post
If you can't handle typos I suggest you go someplace else where you deal with perfect people like yourself.
It isn't a matter of being able to handle typos - it is a matter of being clear that the comment I was replying to wasn't clear, and so therefore clearly acknowledging that my comments may be in reply to something you didn't intend to imply. You had the opportunity to graciously acknowledge the confusion, and clear it up, if my decryption wasn't accurate. Evidently, since you posted a petulant comment in reply, I was precisely on-target with my condemnation of the perspective you were supporting. You didn't respond to what I wrote in any substantive way, and such evasion can only mean that you recognize you don't have a legitimate rebuttal to my repudiation of the right-wing's elevation of the comfort and luxury of some over the basic needs of others.
 
Old 04-03-2014, 01:51 PM
 
4,728 posts, read 4,478,465 times
Reputation: 9039
Another thread where posters use big words incorrectly to appear bright. Also, another thread where people try to justify taking from hard working Americans to support others that refuse to support themselves. The welfare system must be changed before it bankrupts our country, and everyone quits working.
 
Old 04-03-2014, 01:57 PM
 
50,756 posts, read 26,770,684 times
Reputation: 15887
Quote:
Originally Posted by Georgianbelle View Post
Another thread where posters use big words incorrectly to appear bright. Also, another thread where people try to justify taking from hard working Americans to support others that refuse to support themselves. The welfare system must be changed before it bankrupts our country, and everyone quits working.
We've already changed it. Change it again for what exactly? Welfare isn't bankrupting the country. Not even close.

And everyone isn't gonna quit working...speaking strictly for myself because i have personal pride.. Maybe you're talking about yourself.
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.


Closed Thread

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. The time now is 04:19 AM.

© 2005-2019, Advameg, Inc. · Please obey Forum Rules · Terms of Use and Privacy Policy · Bug Bounty

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