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.
Some people are naturally homeless. It's part of their personality. We should provide them with a place to live, but make it cheap without any luxury at all. Small rooms with minimal facilities, cheap food, and a lot more money spent on security than on comforts. Same as present homeless shelters, but with enough space for all the homeless people. The reason we should provide such homeless shelters is that our streets would be nicer without homeless people sleeping everywhere. We should make vagrancy illegal. The cops should take the homeless people to the homeless shelters. And the homeless shelters should be located where it's not convenient for the homeless people to be beggars. In other words, a very long walk away from good places to beg.
Why do we need any other welfare than that?
If the above makes you think I'm a Republican, you're wrong. I'm a bleeding heart liberal. The reason why I have the above attitude is that my heart doesn't bleed for laziness and unearned luxury, but for victims of tragedy and bad luck. If you truly need a homeless shelter, you should be grateful for a spartan one, and not demand luxuries. If you don't really need a homeless shelter, then you don't really need welfare. In particular, all Section 8 money should be spent on homeless shelters, not on drug-infested slum dwellings.
Welfare is a generational security mechanism along with the applicable formula whereby the tax paying affluent ( above the poverty lime) supplement the poor, physically and mentally impared ( chronic debilitating illnrsses) disabled vets . Last night we watched three families caring for 600 lbs women yet none of the family worked all on some form of medicaid. My wife is working tonite at a bakery with a swollen heel and lower foot area and a severe pain in the back of her leg while standing kneading dough and lifting from 5p - 1 am while 1/5 of those on assistance are shopping for wide screen TV's at Walmart (admittedly in pajamas!) brcause they are disfunctional morons! So why the security point in my first sentence? If you deny medicaid or SSI to the 1/5 th or even part of the 148 million on food stamps take free medical care from generational and chronic abusers of county/ university medical centers you will see rioting, anarchy, looting, and martial law all associated with removal of entitlements whether entitled or phony baloney! All we can hope is much of entitlement money flows back into the economy and hope these overweight rip off artists don't pork out on so ,much food they need sleep studies, meds and CPAP
machines under Medicare Part B! ( do ya have any other colors?)
Last edited by Oldhag1; 02-23-2015 at 07:04 PM..
Reason: formatting - please fix yourself in the future
Let me start off by first saying that I am all for helping those with true disabilities and injuries with no strings attached. Let me also say that I am all for helping the poor get to a better place. With that said, why is that our social programs generally come with no strings attached? Everyday you see perfectly able, lazy, uneducated people living in government housing just sitting back and collecting a check. Why have we stooped so low as a country that we think these people have a right to that housing and assistance?
IMO it would make more sense to have mandatory stipulation to receive this money such as job training classes, education (FREE optional community college and mandatory GED requirements), or even community service. Something to make those who choose to be lazy work for their money like the rest of us. The problem with our system is we do not provide enough incentive to better yourself. Living on assistance may not be luxurious in any way, but based on what i have seen all across America, many people are still OK with it simply because their basic needs are met for doing nothing. Why is it morally or socially wrong to leave someone who is perfectly able to work and contribute to society homeless because they choose not only not to work, but also choose not to strive to achieve more?
America has turned into a nanny state where everyone is entitled to a comfortable life with limited luxuries such as a cell phone regardless of what they contribute. I am sick of paying taxes so some lady with 5 kids from 5 guys by age 22 can sit at home and talk about how society holds them down while smoking Newport's and watching a 45 inch flat-screen. We need to institute consequences for poor life choices and stop believing everyone has a right to be taken care of.
A cell phone is now a luxury? Is a landline a luxury? Is a cell phone without a landline a luxury?
I can't afford job training, so why should my tax dollars pay for someone else's free job training?
Last edited by Oldhag1; 02-23-2015 at 09:04 PM..
Reason: removed moderator's note from quote
Let me start off by first saying that I am all for helping those with true disabilities and injuries with no strings attached.
Is "true disabilities" sort of like "legitimate rape"? IE whether it "counts" depends on the inerrant judgment of wealthy able-bodied and minded Moderator cut: off topic?
A lot Moderator cut: off topic seem to think mental disabilities are just lies and that if you're not missing all your limbs or suffer from locked-in syndrome, you're perfectly capable of working full time.
Lastly a cell phone is not a luxury. It's 2015, they're a necessity if you want to find a job or have any sort of social life.
Last edited by Oldhag1; 02-23-2015 at 10:12 PM..
Reason: merge - and off topic
Here's an idea. Make welfare for able bodied normal people just like student loans. Non dischargeable debt that sticks through bankruptcy with discharge clauses for meeting certain requirements. Call me what you want but it's pretty Moderator cut: language I'm paying back 50k in loans with interest for bettering myself while people are living debt free off the gubament. I'm not complaining abt paying back loans, I took them. I'm complaining abt living in a society that provides many no incentive to better themselve. If I lost my job today I promise you I would be hitting every job opening site non stop until I got a new one.
Also, you can say I am picking on single moms, that isn't my goal. I'm picking on people who make poor choices consistently because they know they will be taken care of. There is no reason any teenager or 21 year old should have multiple kids. Try contraception or maybe even closing your legs.
Much of what you describe happens because of the cycle of generational poverty. In some ways it's a cultural thing. They learn it at home, and are surrounded by it in their neighborhoods. It's "grab what pleasures you can now because life is uncertain"
That cycle needs to be broken and there's no one "magic bullet" to do so. However, there are programs like, circlesusa.org that do work if even on a small scale.
Some people are naturally homeless. It's part of their personality.
I think this is true, but the danger here is assuming that they want to have homes.
I've had 3 of such, of my own acquaintance, plus spoken with others I did not know personally. One homeless man refused foot surgery due to a diabetic condition, because it would interfere with his ability to navigate out on the streets - where he insisted he wished to live.
Two others I knew quite well, lived in a car and a van respectively. One of these was on SSDI and was given a Section 8 apartment, which he walked out of claiming that the hallways "smelled". His apartment did not, but oh well...on the road again. The other was fiercely protective of his van-home, and last I knew was holed up in a friend's barn at -15 F because it was a good place to work on the van. These guys live in their old vehicles, have no particular mechanical ability, yet refuse anyone's help. They like it that way.
Who am I to tell them that they should move indoors? They don't want to, and they won't.
Your 100% correct, I know there is a shortage of jobs in some areas. I feel for those people, I really do. They cannot pick up and move to an area with jobs without money. We most definitely should not kill them off lol. I just want to see them work for money. community service, volunteer,, ect.
I realize some people need welfare. I'm not against having welfare, I'm against having a system that is so widely abused. I work downtown and the first of the month makes me sick. People lined up to cash checks bragging about how they got more and how to do it. Literally lines out of the liquor, beer, cigarette store. This is what passes me off so much. the fact of the matter is any time you give away no strings attached free money, it will be abused.
Any system in place will be abused, just like any law put into place will be broken.
If your problem isn't welfare itself, you should argue that existing rules be enforced and more checks put in place.
I live in a small south texas town - which is of course POOR. I see all those things you mentioned, but you know what - its not all fun and games. They like to brag about what they just purchased for example: car. Then of course a few months later complain that no one wants to give them a ride anywhere. What happened to the car? Then does anyone have a cheap car to sell so I can take my GRANDSON to school. Gotta throw in the kids to get that sympathy.
Seriously - 50 some year old women (former classmates) that lived a wild and crazy life for 30 or so years and are now wheeling around in a motorized chair, trying to take care of their wild and crazy daughter's spawn. Not of a great life.
Sure, they might be getting a little help here and there, but it doesn't last long. Who the heck wants to live like that? The ones that do look to be living better and have fancier things are usually dealing in some illegal activities. It will catch up sooner or later. All we can hope is that a couple of the spawn make it out.
They are not right in the head if they enjoy this life, so yes I guess they are disabled and qualify for help!
Let me start off by first saying that I am all for helping those with true disabilities and injuries with no strings attached. Let me also say that I am all for helping the poor get to a better place. With that said, why is that our social programs generally come with no strings attached? Everyday you see perfectly able, lazy, uneducated people living in government housing just sitting back and collecting a check. Why have we stooped so low as a country that we think these people have a right to that housing and assistance?
IMO it would make more sense to have mandatory stipulation to receive this money such as job training classes, education (FREE optional community college and mandatory GED requirements), or even community service. Something to make those who choose to be lazy work for their money like the rest of us. The problem with our system is we do not provide enough incentive to better yourself. Living on assistance may not be luxurious in any way, but based on what i have seen all across America, many people are still OK with it simply because their basic needs are met for doing nothing. Why is it morally or socially wrong to leave someone who is perfectly able to work and contribute to society homeless because they choose not only not to work, but also choose not to strive to achieve more?
America has turned into a nanny state where everyone is entitled to a comfortable life with limited luxuries such as a cell phone regardless of what they contribute. I am sick of paying taxes so some lady with 5 kids from 5 guys by age 22 can sit at home and talk about how society holds them down while smoking Newport's and watching a 45 inch flat-screen. We need to institute consequences for poor life choices and stop believing everyone has a right to be taken care of.
************************************************** ************ MODERATOR NOTE: Please read post #10 before posting in this thread ************************************************** ************
I believe the states set the rules for assistance, not a national thing. In Texas the young moms do have to be in some kinds of training program. They only get medical help while they are pregnant. And total time on assistance is 5 years. The EITC program was implemented to get people to work. The refunds make up what used to be handed out in monthly payments.
The ones around here that get monetary assistance are usually on SSDI.
I believe the states set the rules for assistance, not a national thing. In Texas the young moms do have to be in some kinds of training program. They only get medical help while they are pregnant. And total time on assistance is 5 years. The EITC program was implemented to get people to work. The refunds make up what used to be handed out in monthly payments.
The ones around here that get monetary assistance are usually on SSDI.
States do set most programs. Arizona is hugely welfare to only children but on unemployment you can make more per week than some part-time low wage jobs.
I don't believe welfare is bad if they cant afford stuff. I see homeless regularly in Phoenix and I am sure that most can not really get them because Arizona is a conservative to the point of being libertarian with cuts they make such as those to schools.
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.
