Welcome to City-Data.com Forum!
U.S. CitiesCity-Data Forum Index
Go Back   City-Data Forum > U.S. Forums > Connecticut
 [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)
Reply Start New Thread
 
Old 02-01-2011, 05:34 AM
 
Location: In a house
5,232 posts, read 8,385,238 times
Reputation: 2583

Advertisements

Quote:
Originally Posted by basehead617 View Post
What is the solution, let them all die on the street?
Would YOU let them die? I think most of us are kind enough to lend a hand if we could. The solution obviously isn't perpetual assistance.

Quote:
You would all do well to listen more to Beeker, someone who thinks clearly about this subject (and others).
We are listening, is it your assertion that only opinions like Beeker are clear thinking? I think its pretty clear that if you give a hungry man a fish he eats today, if you teach him to fish he can eat forever. Free money creates no incentive for anything except to get the next check.

Quote:
Not all social problems are 'common sense' problems, and not all social problems are caused by some nefarious minority sticking it to the hard-working God-fearing whites.
Nobody said that was the case. Most social problems are certainly common sense. Human nature hasn't changed much recently. But they're not caused by anybody sticking it to anybody. Their created in large part by feel good people very happy to direct how others spend their money.
Its not a racial thing, though it does benefit many with an agenda to perpetuate such thought. NOBODY should get a free ride for life.

Quote:
Everyone needs to educate themselves on the roots, history, relevant case law, and up to date studies here. I'm sorry to say that the knowledge required to speak coherently about the subject requires more than just speaking from your gut -- or what angry middle-aged folks tend to point to, their 'life experience' (which may contain almost no experiences relevant to the subject).

I'm sorry but thats a load of crap. If the subject is beyond the comprehension of the average tax payer then it is certainly unjust.
Its very simple, people wont look for work if they are given a free ride.
Do those studies you mention suggest this social experiment is a sucess, here in CT? The only sucess created by welfare in CT I can see is for people who make a living off of it in the jobs created by it. Those jobs represent more money the taxpayers could save. The reason that govt was meant to be small in America is because NO govt job actually makes money. They all just spend taxes. We'v come damn near full circle, from taxes only being levied to help everyone, to taxes being levied to benefit a select few.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message

 
Old 02-01-2011, 06:45 AM
 
Location: New England
8,155 posts, read 20,934,377 times
Reputation: 3338
Quote:
Originally Posted by dazzleman View Post
OurThe measure of success for a program should be how much it reduces the need for it in the future. If the program keeps growing, it's a failure.
But then all the DSS workers are out of a job, the unions lose their influence through numbers and $$ support to pay off candidates, and liberal politicians lose their base.

In other words, the poor is an industry in CT. Sad to say, but it is.

Quote:
Originally Posted by dazzleman View Post
In Connecticut, we buy off the poor in order to keep them away from us with a clear conscience. We're just a more extreme version of the national approach. We've created a growing underclass that isn't really interested in improving itself, and is happy to live off the system. Then we warehouse in our dilapidated cities, as those who earn enough to afford to move out. As long as the cost isn't too great, everybody's happy.
Bingo! Spot on. Totally agree, and have said similar in the past.

Quote:
Originally Posted by dazzleman View Post
Our 'kind' welfare policies, designed to 'help' people, have created a huge mess and nobody knows how to fix it.
I think it's beyond "nobody knows how". It's systemic now. If we pulled the plug, it would cause the "system" to go into shock. Like a hard core drug addict, it needs to be pulled back slowly or the state will have it's head in the proverbial toilet.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 02-01-2011, 12:38 PM
 
Location: New England
8,155 posts, read 20,934,377 times
Reputation: 3338
Default CT Job Growth Since 1990 = 0 Government spending = +250%

The latest job numbers from the state Labor Department are a reminder of an abiding truth: Connecticut is a zero-growth state. The number of workers employed in Connecticut as of December, 1,727,800, is less than 1,000 more than the 1,726,915 people with jobs here in July 1990.


The job figures provide an important context to the state’s fiscal crisis and government policy decisions. While the number of Connecticut jobs has remained essentially flat for two decades, state government’s operating budget increased from $7 billion in 1990 to more than $17.6 billion today.

EDITORIAL: Connecticut has zero job growth since 1990 while government spending has increased 250%- The New Haven Register - Serving New Haven, Connecticut

People best wake up...it's real easy to get complacent and think things are A okay but this kind of imbalance is why the state is screwed on many levels.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 02-01-2011, 05:17 PM
 
2,322 posts, read 2,148,992 times
Reputation: 1323
Quote:
Originally Posted by Tin Knocker View Post
So as I said its not CT specific.
I was demonstrating overall trends in economic mechanisms. Being CT specific would be applicable if CT showed complete variation from the trend which high modal per capita income, high household PPP, good health, low destitution rates here in CT would absolutely NOT signify.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Tin Knocker View Post
I dont feel a need to be superior to anyone, I feel a need to live my life & feed my family.
You've done little to belittle a essentially non-existent group of crimes they probably didn't commit against apparently your wallet and the state.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Tin Knocker View Post
Poor analogy at best. Water wont work on a grease fire in a kitchen. Are you saying employment wont work for those on assistance? Or that throwing free money at them, akin to throwing oil on a fire, will solve their problems any more than oil on a fire extinguishes it?
You missed the point completely, it's actually a very apt analogy because you had to look at the root causes of the situation, the conditions, and then make a rational choice based on the knowledge you had. Exactly, a grease fire is much different from a trash fire, although "common sense" would dictate that both would be treated the same way. "Fire bad, water good" is common sense. Knowing to throw a wet rag, pan lid, or baking soda on a grease fire is not an automatic thing, therefore not "common sense."

Employment DOESN'T always work. Go back to "poor houses" you say? Did that really help stabalize the economy of Victorian Britain? Not on your life. Assistance helps people out to maintain dignity, find more suitable work, and then go about their lives. You want to believe there's some sort of underclass that feeds off the system indefinitely without contributing anything, and there is: mentally ill patients, children with MD, etc etc. Rarely is welfare "generational," the absolute vast majority of people use it to fill in gaps between employment which generally makes society more fair and productive.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Tin Knocker View Post
Cuts alone no, cuts across the board & a severe change in policy will though. How letting people keep THEIR money so they can spend it will cause a loss in economic activity is beyond me.
We let people keep OUR money and look where it got us. Demand is most powerful in the lower to mid masses. Letting the very wealthy amass wealth stifles demand.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Tin Knocker View Post
Are you serious? When wealthy stop spending it hurts everyone from trades people to services to manufacturering to investments. Thats common sense again, something it sounds like you dont believe in.
It doesn't hurt everyone as much as you might think. Then again, I don't believe in common sense, because its *******s and at the whim of the beholder. I test my theories and study a lot, what do you do?

Quote:
Originally Posted by Tin Knocker View Post
Nope, society has benefited from me since the day after I graduated highschool. Before actually since I was working at 13.
Haha. Ok man... whatever.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Tin Knocker View Post
They arent & never have been the only game in town. But they are an important part of it & dont deserve to be abused simply because our state has been run inefficiently.
What, in America and CT there was a time when they were the only game in town. It was during the time called the Roaring Twenties in which the economy was stable, people were working, everything was great... oh I'm just getting word from our affiliates stating that those times were pretty awful for the vast majority of population, the economic gains were based solely on speculation, the powerful elites lived well at the expense of everyone, fueled societal unrest, and caused a worldwide disaster.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Tin Knocker View Post
What created the asset bubble was irresponsible lending & borrowing more than anything else.
hoiaesjugradfjiofadslfadslihlu. No. A lot of it was fraud, cough, I mean "innovation." Let me guess, it was mostly Fannie and Freddie that caused the downturn right??

Quote:
Originally Posted by Tin Knocker View Post
My point was simply that its untrue that everyone could always vote & theres plenty of precedent as far as limiting vote.
The Constitution begs to differ.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Tin Knocker View Post
So theres a clause in the Constitution that says that the state MUST pay, for life, the costs of living for people who choose not to work?
Yes, if that is what is deemed necessary by the Congress or States. The Constitution is not what you think it is.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Tin Knocker View Post
Strange comment given your entire argument so far has been that some of us shouldn't have to contribute. My family benefited by throwing their money into a pool of taxpayers for a shared benefit. How is that in any way equal to another family getting a free ride?
Shared benefit? Suddenly it changes when what you get is examined.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Tin Knocker View Post
We have gotten focused on welfare, I guess thats my fault but it is one of the easiest wastes to see.
Excactly! You don't see the quiet successes of the programme, or that most of the waste in the system is largely from vendors, just that "someone's getting a free ride and not me," and it clearly has to be the destitute.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Tin Knocker View Post
Human nature hasn't changed much recently.
But our understanding of it has become a little more complex.

Here's the other thing, there's two basic "schools" of economic thought. What you are proposing is the time honoured and abused "classical" economics (Though claimed to be derived from Adam Smith, he was more acute of the issue of the privilege of wealth and the need to give back, not by charity, but by State action). I tend to focus on behavioural which takes much more into account. "Classical" assumes humans are lazy, behavioural makes no such assumption but has demonstrated there's much more at work than a simple Pavlovian response by humans.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Tin Knocker View Post
I'm sorry but thats a load of crap. If the subject is beyond the comprehension of the average tax payer then it is certainly unjust.
It's not beyond your comprehension, as it's not beyond the comprehension of the "average" tax payer. But if you're concerned about something this serious it's a full time position.

JV,

The problem with that article is that while CT now has 1,000 more jobs than 1990, it had many times that amount in 2008 when economies in almost all states went south for an extended stay. Again, from surveys to business meetings the biggest issues in the state are not labour but rather electricity costs and weak demand domestically and internationally.

~Cheers
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 02-01-2011, 05:27 PM
 
2,322 posts, read 2,148,992 times
Reputation: 1323
I also don't know how it factors into your article (if the State DOL uses payroll or survey methods) JV but there's this too:

Self-Employment Is An Uncounted Foundation Of Connecticut's Economy, UConn Experts Find - Hartford Courant
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 02-01-2011, 11:20 PM
 
1,195 posts, read 1,616,451 times
Reputation: 973
Quote:
Originally Posted by dazzleman View Post
In Connecticut, we buy off the poor in order to keep them away from us with a clear conscience. We're just a more extreme version of the national approach. We've created a growing underclass that isn't really interested in improving itself, and is happy to live off the system. Then we warehouse in our dilapidated cities, as those who earn enough to afford to move out. As long as the cost isn't too great, everybody's happy.
If everybody's "happy", as you say, what's the problem?

Clearly, the underclass isn't happy with their situation - nor are a large amount of Americans (some call them liberals) okay with the situation. The latter get called bleeding hearts for caring about the issue.

The rest can't decide. They don't want these people moving out and living in their comfortable suburbs (No to Section 8!). They don't want leniency on petty/victimless crime (3 strikes and you're out!). But they also don't want to fund overcrowded prisons. They don't want their 'tax dollars' used for assistance. As far as I can tell, they would just prefer the entire urban center of our cities to be hallowed out with a neutron bomb, the mess cleaned up, and forgotten about.

Last edited by basehead617; 02-01-2011 at 11:40 PM..
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 02-02-2011, 04:57 AM
 
47 posts, read 86,865 times
Reputation: 14
Connecticut is known to be very densely populated state and is a part of the New york metropolitan area. Taxes are going up and somewhere it may reflect the locality and people who are living there.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 02-02-2011, 05:47 AM
 
2,080 posts, read 3,906,079 times
Reputation: 1828
Quote:
Originally Posted by basehead617 View Post
As far as I can tell, they would just prefer the entire urban center of our cities to be hallowed out with a neutron bomb, the mess cleaned up, and forgotten about.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 02-02-2011, 07:35 AM
 
Location: Tennessee
1,031 posts, read 2,439,008 times
Reputation: 745
Quote:
Originally Posted by basehead617 View Post
The rest can't decide. They don't want these people moving out and living in their comfortable suburbs (No to Section 8!). They don't want leniency on petty/victimless crime (3 strikes and you're out!). But they also don't want to fund overcrowded prisons. They don't want their 'tax dollars' used for assistance. As far as I can tell, they would just prefer the entire urban center of our cities to be hallowed out with a neutron bomb, the mess cleaned up, and forgotten about.
The only logical option for controlling the American dole is to restart the work-for-pay program: anyone on welfare who has the physical ability to work must work. Welfare recipients can handle 4-1-1 calls (especially those that are blind or confined to wheelchairs), work toll boths, collect garbage, maintain parks, work in information centers, assist with road construction (sign holders), volunteer with charities, etc., etc. I don't believe Americans flat out do not want their tax dollars used for assistance--many Americans just don't want their money given to people that can work but aren't working. The only thing standing in the way of the work-for-pay program is the government being too lazy to figure out where to place people and too lazy to deal with all of the required paperwork. Look at how well the WPA worked when unemployment was taken seriously!

As for me, I am now applying to jobs in Maine because I've gotten way too fed up with this state's governing body and COL.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 02-02-2011, 07:47 AM
 
243 posts, read 771,059 times
Reputation: 153
Work for pay seems like a good idea on paper, but let me bring up a point.

As someone mentioned previously, when we think of welfare, many citizens think of minorities, especially single parent households.

Do you think the government has been lazy to implement legislation on work for pay because of paper work or do you think congress is afraid to bring up the idea due to fear of political suicide and losing votes?

Many people are going to think it's an attack on minorties, something no politician would want to be a part of. Even though a majority of welfare receipients are white, it's just common perception that welfare is directed at inner-city poor, mostly minorities. And to to be quite honest, I think many legislators and their constituents understand the abuse of the welfare system as well as the amount of money that it costs in general, they want reform, but are scared to look to reform due to the fear that they will be labeled as "priveledged" or something along those lines.
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:


Settings
X
Data:
Loading data...
Based on 2000-2020 data
Loading data...

123
Hide US histogram


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 > U.S. Forums > Connecticut
Similar Threads

All times are GMT -6.

© 2005-2024, Advameg, Inc. · Please obey Forum Rules · Terms of Use and Privacy Policy · Bug Bounty

City-Data.com - Contact Us - 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, 36, 37 - Top