• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every person's position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!

WaPo: Waiting for the 8th

danarhea said:
Here are some facts about SNAP...

1) For every job opening that exists, there are 3 people looking for jobs. 2 of them just aren't going to get that job, no matter how hard they try. Not in this economy. So the solution is to punish them by starving their kids? What kind of savages are we? But even savages in third world countries try their best to feed their own. So that would make us even worse than savages.

2) More than 40% of people on food stamps are employed full time. Want to blame somebody? Blame McDonald's, who pays starvation wages, while instructing their employees on how to get food stamps. Welfare loafer? McDonald's, since they are doing their best to put as many of their own employees as possible on the public dole on MY DIME, instead of paying a livable wage.
Click to expand...

Blame McDonalds? :doh
 
danarhea said:
How many aren't looking for a job? That's another FOX News lie. To be on SNAP, you are required to spend at least 20 hours a week looking for work, and must document your work search. If you cannot show by documentation that you have spent at least 20 hours in a week looking for work, you are immediately cut off of SNAP. This requirement was written into the Farm Bill itself. This is a Federal requirement. Some states have even tougher requirements. Texas, for instance, requires 30 hours per week of job search activities, which also must be documented. I have had people come in the door where I work, asking if they could apply for a job, and they had their paperwork for SNAP with them. But ignorant people have no problem saying that these people spend all day watching TV instead of looking for work.
Click to expand...

Did you read this article at all?

As for your second point, it seems the writer was very selective on who he interviewed. Bias? You betcha. It is hack journalism that keeps people ignorant to how it really is, and just plays on emotion, especially hatred, instead of facts. Their attitude is usually "We gotta punish these shiftless people who choose to work at low paying jobs, so let's starve their kids. That'll teach 'em". Disgusting savagery from disgusting savages.
Click to expand...

Ok, let's say it's biased...is it a lie? Because it didn't mention her looking for work, nor did it show any credible attempt of the 22 year old daughter.
 
jamesrage said:
I think she needs to learn how to manage that money better.Cigarettes, wigs, perfume, and eyelash extensions are things that can be cut. Things like flour, yeast, pasta,rice and ramen can stretch those food dollars if bought in bulk. These things can last a month or two depending on the amount bought in bulk.They can be used to stretch out meat. Even cheese,cooking oil, hamburger meat and other stuff can be bought in bulk. As many people as she feeds she shopping at Save-A-Lot is the worst store to shop at. If she cut those smokes,wigs,perfume and other **** I bet her and her older children can buy a Sams club or bulk foods store membership,especially if they make a trip to the plasma place to sell some plasma.
Click to expand...

Buying in bulk is probably difficult for her considering where she lives, and has no personal transportation.
 
specklebang said:
Realistically, this may not be a fixable problem. In the age of robots and globalization, lower end jobs will not be returning to America. We've actually had growth in manufacturing but a great deal of our products are built by machines. To run these machines you must have enough education to manage them correctly. So, these are good jobs but they aren't available to a 20-something with a GED.

So, we will have a pool of people at the bottom. Some will have had a temporary disruption and they'll bounce back. Some will never leave their circumstances. As one of the worlds largest agricultural countries, that pays billions to certain beloved corporations to NOT grow food, I don't think we have any food shortages coming up.

Some on assistance will manage their tiny income wisely and get by. Some will squander it on dope. Hopefully, they'll remember to buy junior some oatmeal. SNAP is probably the LEAST troubling welfare program. Even useless people must be fed. Why resent something that basic?
Click to expand...

I think the work requirement should be replaced with an educational/job training requirement. The only thing that will fix poverty is education.
 
danarhea said:
Here are some facts about SNAP...

1) For every job opening that exists, there are 3 people looking for jobs. 2 of them just aren't going to get that job, no matter how hard they try. Not in this economy. So the solution is to punish them by starving their kids? What kind of savages are we? But even savages in third world countries try their best to feed their own. So that would make us even worse than savages.

2) More than 40% of people on food stamps are employed full time. Want to blame somebody? Blame McDonald's, who pays starvation wages, while instructing their employees on how to get food stamps. Welfare loafer? McDonald's, since they are doing their best to put as many of their own employees as possible on the public dole on MY DIME, instead of paying a livable wage.
Click to expand...
Starvation wages my ass. What silly non sense. McD's pays, are we ready for this... entry level, low skill/experience work at what that work is worth. If you are LIVING off of entry level pay, you have to make sacrifices and smart choices. Don't like the pay, don't work there. That's all you can get for a job? Then work your ARSE off so you can move up/out of that area. Oh sorry, you don't get to go clubbing, buy a PS4 and Xbox1, drive a hot car and stand in line for the new iPhone 6.

Why do people demand compensation to subsidize their lives when they haven't worked for it?

Which parlays into this atrocious heart string mess of an article.

Poor choices. Subsidized by the Federal Government, this woman has a lifetime of piss poor choices and she's ensured more bad choices will continue by her offspring. Courtesy of "caring" people that vote to give her and her family your money.



(as to your McD's and foodstamp bit: Video: McDonald’s tells workers to get food stamps - Salon.com )

Yeah I looked it up, 10 years working there, still making min wage... that's a lack of ambition and planning her life, not the Companies fault.
 
"She chose not to carry the Electronic Benefit Transfer (EBT) card in her wallet, believing from personal experience that people who entered into the system tended to rely on it forever. 'I'm not wanting to sign over my independence for good,' she said." ["She" refers to Tiara, the daughter.]

Smart girl, she wants to maintain her independence.


"Raphael obsessed over the future of the food stamp program in part because she herself had become a neighborhood safety net, regularly feeding a group of castoffs who called her 'mom.' There were her own children at home: ages 11, 13, 15, 17 and 22, plus a 25-year-old living in Maryland."

Now, I'm all for compassion and helping people out, but you can't really do that when 1) You are relying on other people's money to help you and 2) You can barely feed yourself.


"You remember your cousin Anthony?" Raphael asked one day. "He took that class, couldn't fry an egg, and he came out making $13 an hour cooking for the embassies."

"Who cares about embassies?" Tiara said.

"Thirteen an hour. You care about that?"

"No matter how many certificates I get, nobody's hiring. What's the point? I'm tired of trying for these things."
Click to expand...

Anthony's experience should be more than enough to get her to want to go to those cooking classes and $13/hr is pretty good.

""Thank you, Jesus!" Raphael said on the morning of the 8th, back in the aisles of Save a Lot to purchase her family's groceries for the month, pushing two carts that creaked under the weight of 40 pounds of meat, 12 boxes of cereal, 11 packages of cheese and 75 bottles of juice."

You don't need the juice, just get water. The cereal is also a joke as half the bag is empty. Get rice and beans, that's cheap and will fill you up.
 
My honest response to this....

It further degrades my hope for people and for this country in general. It greatly makes me question the principles and views I hold dear. It causes emotion to smack into logic and cold hard reality. It furthers my thought that the continual move away from a Freedom rsetricting society wrongfully crushing individualism and personal choice has created a soceity of nacissists and irresponsible people. That we are moving every day further and further to a situation where we devour ourselves out of the notion of "Kindness" and "caring" or we descend into a realm of authoritarianism in a backwards effort to save society; essentially, two horrible options. Why do I feel we're stuck with those options? Because the third option...SOCIETY correcting itself as a whole...seems to be an impossability.

I understand Dana's point in terms of the "savagery" of letting people, including children, starve. At the same time, so often we must avoid such "savageries" because of actions and choices made by people that are given less and less negative reenforcement every year. The welfare state will always grow, the costs will always sore, and this just keeps recycling as we see with this woman's mother and now herself.

The scary thing is that this makes me think that one way or another we're going to end up eventually moving into an athoratative situation...the question simply comes down to whether or not it's done in the name of "Kindness" or in the name of correction. The only way to continue to prevent being "savages" is to take more and more money, to put more and more regulation, to use the force of government more and more to redistribute the wealth in the country. In the name of "kindness" we will bleed our wealth dry, we'll bleed our economy dry, and we'll bleed our freedoms dry bringing us more and more equal as more and more people fall into the "safety net" that is more apt to be called a safety prison. On the flip side, to try and actually fix what ailes society would require savagery and wrongful removal of freedoms on the part of the government....pushing back throug the power of state against the poor habits and choices within society. However, at least in this case, there is a CHANCE that the illness is cured and forward movement can be made again. But the question at that point would be is it worth moving forward.

What does stories like this make me think? What do responses from even self proclaimed "conservatives" calling for more nad more welfare make me feel? Simple.

I feel like we're ready to follow Rome.

We're eating ourselves from the inside and will continue. Stories like these, despite my attempts for optimism and measured thoughts, makes me feel like we're not going to have a United States in the same spirit of what I've known it to be while growing up. That, at best, it will still exist in name. But ultimately I beleve we are going to eat ourselves from the inside in the name of "kindness", "individualism", and a sense of "Whatever, I'll do what I want".

We have created a society and culture destined to fail.
 
The problem with authoritative governments is that they eventually become totalitarian, no matter the reason be it kindness or power. The article didn't make me question my views, it reinforced them. It shows that a dependent society where government welfare keeps people dependent, accepts their bad decisions and does not educate them properly on how to excel past their hardships means yes, society is well down the road of best intentions. Until our educational system and welfare systems are changed, we are destined to fail. The question is, can anything stop that failure - is there any hope at all? Many thought that hope was personified in our President's speeches in 2008; reality however has set in.

Perhaps we cannot save our country and our society without it failing. Perhaps failure is required - let's just hope we can survive the failure, learn from those mistakes and rebuild. If anyone can do it, American's can.
 
The one sentence of hope in the entire article: " 'I'm not wanting to sign over my independence for good,' she said." This little girl understands the real solution to the problem...don't be the problem.
 
mac said:
Waiting for the 8th: How a D.C. family coped with cuts to the food stamps they rely on | The Washington Post

What are your take-aways from this article?
Click to expand...

How about the title "Taking Away Food Stamps They Rely On."

People shouldn't be relying on government..... Do people rely on their parents until they're 18 then rely on the government er taxpayer dole after that?

Why bother even bettering yourself when the government will just take care of you?

We should have temporary assistance programs - not a welfare state.

Now Shelia Jackson (D) Texas and Kristian Ball (TV personality moron) are calling for universal welfare for everyone..........

Shelia Jackson thinks that "we need to give unemployment benefits to everyone who has a job" - meanwhile millions who don't have a job have been cut off - and have been for quite some time. Anyone remember the 99'ers??

Of course democrats get bent when others point out that they're basically pseudo-socialists - which is absolute fact considering they advocate government welfare dependence..

This is only the tip of the iceberg tho...
 
60 years ago, it was a source of shame to be in the dole. This was politically detrimental for the progressive cause. Now, there is no shame? Pride, entitled attitudes prevail. That is source of the problem.
 
mac said:
I think the work requirement should be replaced with an educational/job training requirement. The only thing that will fix poverty is education.
Click to expand...

Certainly sounds good in principle. However, the work strategies and the education strategies are effective only with those who can cooperate. Most people, other than the disabled or elderly don't spend too long in these bad situations. If they have any intelligence, they pick themselves up and I, for one, am thrilled to lend a helping hand, whether it's rehab, make-work or education. I've seen this with my own 3 eyes.

But there are some people who simply don't have the intellectual processing power to do even basics like get a job and keep the job. Even they have to eat. It sounds terrible to accept there will be a small percentage of free riders but I assure you this is not the lifestyle most of us would choose. Even the "totl losers" must be fed and the idea that we can't "afford it" is simply not true. We can and shjould afford it - there are worse ways to spend resources than to keep your own citizens with lifes basics.
 
specklebang said:
Realistically, this may not be a fixable problem. In the age of robots and globalization, lower end jobs will not be returning to America. We've actually had growth in manufacturing but a great deal of our products are built by machines. To run these machines you must have enough education to manage them correctly. So, these are good jobs but they aren't available to a 20-something with a GED.

So, we will have a pool of people at the bottom. Some will have had a temporary disruption and they'll bounce back. Some will never leave their circumstances. As one of the worlds largest agricultural countries, that pays billions to certain beloved corporations to NOT grow food, I don't think we have any food shortages coming up.

Some on assistance will manage their tiny income wisely and get by. Some will squander it on dope. Hopefully, they'll remember to buy junior some oatmeal. SNAP is probably the LEAST troubling welfare program. Even useless people must be fed. Why resent something that basic?
Click to expand...

A huge step in providing more options for people is not having kids until you have established yourself in a job, skill, career, etc. That doesnt apply to people who fall on hard times after that, but I have no idea why people subject themselves to the added difficulty of providing for kids on little or no income. I feel they should be held accountable for such carelessness or inconsideration. But once they have the kids, those are their leverage for an unending stream of govt assistance. I think more public $$ should be spent on daycare and job training and serious efforts to *ensure* that they are used by people on public assistance.

And there are some of those programs and incentives, however not enough and no one is ever completely cut off. They say there are limits, but there's always another program, or always another scam and in the long run 'but the children will suffer!' always works. My aunt used to run a computer training program for the unemployed in NJ...they were (mostly) women on welfare that *had* to go to the program in order to get their benefits. My aunt said they were super smart, had no trouble with the coursework, but instead, many chose to figure out ways to avoid the classes and still retain their benefits. I have a friend in Milwaukee working for the city in social services....she deals with these issues every day.

We just continue to perpetuate failure....we are not 'helping' future generations growing up in these conditions.

/rant :)
 
specklebang said:
Certainly sounds good in principle. However, the work strategies and the education strategies are effective only with those who can cooperate. Most people, other than the disabled or elderly don't spend too long in these bad situations. If they have any intelligence, they pick themselves up and I, for one, am thrilled to lend a helping hand, whether it's rehab, make-work or education. I've seen this with my own 3 eyes.

But there are some people who simply don't have the intellectual processing power to do even basics like get a job and keep the job. Even they have to eat. It sounds terrible to accept there will be a small percentage of free riders but I assure you this is not the lifestyle most of us would choose. Even the "totl losers" must be fed and the idea that we can't "afford it" is simply not true. We can and shjould afford it - there are worse ways to spend resources than to keep your own citizens with lifes basics.
Click to expand...

IMO, the public assistance programs are meant for those....those that are incapable OR short term.

But there is a systemic cycle here, endemic throughout the US, of people who choose to rely on it long term or permanently and even develop strategies to do so. They are not a minority, they are not "a small percentage of free riders." If we could enable those people to be successful on their own (whether they like it or not), then there would be more left for those truly in need. But these others are taking advantage of every working person and the families they support.
 
Lursa said:
IMO, the public assistance programs are meant for those....those that are incapable OR short term.

But there is a systemic cycle here, endemic throughout the US, of people who choose to rely on it long term or permanently and even develop strategies to do so. They are not a minority, they are not "a small percentage of free riders." If we could enable those people to be successful on their own (whether they like it or not), then there would be more left for those truly in need. But these others are taking advantage of every working person and the families they support.
Click to expand...

Actually, they are a minority.
 
Lursa said:
IMO, the public assistance programs are meant for those....those that are incapable OR short term.

But there is a systemic cycle here, endemic throughout the US, of people who choose to rely on it long term or permanently and even develop strategies to do so. They are not a minority, they are not "a small percentage of free riders." If we could enable those people to be successful on their own (whether they like it or not), then there would be more left for those truly in need. But these others are taking advantage of every working person and the families they support.
Click to expand...

My impression (and that's all it is) is that the hopeless are indeed a minority. Now, I very well could be wrong and if you can find some impartial statistics to show otherwise, I'll be first in line to admit my errors in judgement.

But for discussion sake, lets say that 20% of the bottom 10% are the total losers who don't even try. They live lowly lives but they don't have to work or try at all. So, including every man, woman and child, we have a possible pool of 30 million people that comprise the bottom. If we take out the children (we don't expect them to work or have influence on their parents), recognizing that the bottom tends to have more children than average, we now have maybe 20 million adults (and I'm being generous). Lets say that 20% is comprised of 4 million people.

It sounds like a lot but in context, it's about 2% of the population. Of course we want them to get off their asses but a lot of those people are incredibly dumb, were raised without any positive influences and can't even express themselves properly. What do we do with them? I'm not trying to excuse them, I'm just trying to be realistic.

I'm an advocate of strict enforcement of misrepresentation that gains free money. But I wonder what might be done about this? It's unfair that a minority absorbs the funding that should be helping the more potentially productive. But unless we are willing to engage in harsh measures, such as banishment, we can't let this cause us to refuse all aid, particularly food.

Do you have any suggestions as to how we might solve this without being unfair to the more legitimate claimants? Now, we seem to be reducing food allocations but this affects all those in need in order to take revenge on a relatively small group.
 
specklebang said:
Realistically, this may not be a fixable problem. In the age of robots and globalization, lower end jobs will not be returning to America. We've actually had growth in manufacturing but a great deal of our products are built by machines. To run these machines you must have enough education to manage them correctly. So, these are good jobs but they aren't available to a 20-something with a GED.

So, we will have a pool of people at the bottom. Some will have had a temporary disruption and they'll bounce back. Some will never leave their circumstances. As one of the worlds largest agricultural countries, that pays billions to certain beloved corporations to NOT grow food, I don't think we have any food shortages coming up.

Some on assistance will manage their tiny income wisely and get by. Some will squander it on dope. Hopefully, they'll remember to buy junior some oatmeal. SNAP is probably the LEAST troubling welfare program. Even useless people must be fed. Why resent something that basic?
Click to expand...

Can you point to ANYTHING I have written that points to my resenting this program???
 
Lursa said:
A huge step in providing more options for people is not having kids until you have established yourself in a job, skill, career, etc. That doesnt apply to people who fall on hard times after that, but I have no idea why people subject themselves to the added difficulty of providing for kids on little or no income. I feel they should be held accountable for such carelessness or inconsideration. But once they have the kids, those are their leverage for an unending stream of govt assistance. I think more public $$ should be spent on daycare and job training and serious efforts to *ensure* that they are used by people on public assistance.

And there are some of those programs and incentives, however not enough and no one is ever completely cut off. They say there are limits, but there's always another program, or always another scam and in the long run 'but the children will suffer!' always works. My aunt used to run a computer training program for the unemployed in NJ...they were (mostly) women on welfare that *had* to go to the program in order to get their benefits. My aunt said they were super smart, had no trouble with the coursework, but instead, many chose to figure out ways to avoid the classes and still retain their benefits. I have a friend in Milwaukee working for the city in social services....she deals with these issues every day.

We just continue to perpetuate failure....we are not 'helping' future generations growing up in these conditions.

/rant :)
Click to expand...

Sorry, didn't see your posts in the right order.

I don't know what's with the baby thing either. How irresponsible people are. I'm an advocate of allowing children by permit only (nobody likes that idea of mine but heck, it's just an idea).

As far as the multiple programs, I'm as unhappy about that a you are. There should a much fewer and those should be far more effective. I was specifically referring to SNAP as being the least disturbing.

I know a few people "milking the system" but they are definitely NOT "super-smart".

What can be done? I'm open minded.
 
washunut said:
Can you point to ANYTHING I have written that points to my resenting this program???
Click to expand...

I apologize for my poor terminology. I was using "you" as in "what can you do", not as you, the individual.
 
specklebang said:
I apologize for my poor terminology. I was using "you" as in "what can you do", not as you, the individual.
Click to expand...

OK thanks.

I do think we have to help all folks in need even if some might be considered unworthy by certain standards.
 
mac said:
Buying in bulk is probably difficult for her considering where she lives, and has no personal transportation.
Click to expand...

She does go to those Bread for the city and other free food places,so transportation isn't a problem.There is 15 year old, 17 year old, 22 year old, and a 25 year old, living with her that can help her with the heavy stuff, the 13 year old and 11 year old can stay at home and watch the twins.
 
Zyphlin said:
My honest response to this....

It further degrades my hope for people and for this country in general. It greatly makes me question the principles and views I hold dear. It causes emotion to smack into logic and cold hard reality. It furthers my thought that the continual move away from a Freedom rsetricting society wrongfully crushing individualism and personal choice has created a soceity of nacissists and irresponsible people. That we are moving every day further and further to a situation where we devour ourselves out of the notion of "Kindness" and "caring" or we descend into a realm of authoritarianism in a backwards effort to save society; essentially, two horrible options. Why do I feel we're stuck with those options? Because the third option...SOCIETY correcting itself as a whole...seems to be an impossability.

I understand Dana's point in terms of the "savagery" of letting people, including children, starve. At the same time, so often we must avoid such "savageries" because of actions and choices made by people that are given less and less negative reenforcement every year. The welfare state will always grow, the costs will always sore, and this just keeps recycling as we see with this woman's mother and now herself.

The scary thing is that this makes me think that one way or another we're going to end up eventually moving into an athoratative situation...the question simply comes down to whether or not it's done in the name of "Kindness" or in the name of correction. The only way to continue to prevent being "savages" is to take more and more money, to put more and more regulation, to use the force of government more and more to redistribute the wealth in the country. In the name of "kindness" we will bleed our wealth dry, we'll bleed our economy dry, and we'll bleed our freedoms dry bringing us more and more equal as more and more people fall into the "safety net" that is more apt to be called a safety prison. On the flip side, to try and actually fix what ailes society would require savagery and wrongful removal of freedoms on the part of the government....pushing back throug the power of state against the poor habits and choices within society. However, at least in this case, there is a CHANCE that the illness is cured and forward movement can be made again. But the question at that point would be is it worth moving forward.

What does stories like this make me think? What do responses from even self proclaimed "conservatives" calling for more nad more welfare make me feel? Simple.

I feel like we're ready to follow Rome.

We're eating ourselves from the inside and will continue. Stories like these, despite my attempts for optimism and measured thoughts, makes me feel like we're not going to have a United States in the same spirit of what I've known it to be while growing up. That, at best, it will still exist in name. But ultimately I beleve we are going to eat ourselves from the inside in the name of "kindness", "individualism", and a sense of "Whatever, I'll do what I want".

We have created a society and culture destined to fail.
Click to expand...

Sadly, I fear you're correct, Zyphlin. I also think that if not already there, we are really close to a point of no return. When I was growing up, failure was never in the lexicon in our home. I never knew that I could coast or underachieve the very idea was foreign to me. I paid myself through college working 40 hours a week and still going to school. (I'm still catching up on sleep 15 years later) My Father was a habitual gambler (played the ponies) and it broke our family up. My Mom moved us back to Canada from England with $16 in her pocket, we left my Dad there but he followed a few months later. We stayed with family until my Mom working three jobs got us out of having to depend on family, and we moved into a low rent home three bedrooms with 4 kids. I never saw my Mom and it was left to me and my older brother to raise us, or at least make sure that we didn't die.. :)

I remember having to wear second hand clothes, unisex pants, used boots and coats in winter for the first few years, I hated my parents for that, as school kids are so unforgiving, but I endured it all. All through it, it never occurred to me to give up, or to join the ranks of welfare. Luckily my Mom avoided it because back then there was this thing about welfare, we called it shame, and being on it was considered taboo, not celebrated like it is today. It was very uncommon to know someone on welfare, even in the poor neighborhood we lived in, it really was rare. I'm not entirely sure how the shame went away, or when but it clearly has, and this goes to the point I believe you're making. There is no shame in taking when you KNOW you're capable of doing more for yourself. There really isn't. I see it all the time in the grocery store, at the beginning of the month, all those two grocery carts full of goodies.. I am lucky (and ambitious) and I taught myself about computers, and have become very successful as a data center systems integrator, but it was all self taught. Funny that what I went to school for and slaved over for 4 years has absolutely nothing to do with my present career.. Look nice on the wall though.. :)

The point I'm trying to make is that ultimately we create our own situations, and our own brand of luck in life, and even when things look bleak, as long as you're willing to keep trying, and keep digging, you'll find some of that luck, or develop a skillset that employers are looking for. Intelligence, and education can only take you so far, and for me if I were to try and pick a single attribute for my success, I go back to my Mom's courage and sacrifice, and call it... Desire! I desired a better life for my kids, and I took no prisoners, and went after it. The idea that someone else needs to pay for my failure is ludicrous to me. If I'm not out every day trying to get better, and up every morning at the crack of dawn trying to pin-point opportunities, I'm failing.. If I'm not moving forward, I'm failing, and it's not anyone else's fault but my own.

I get the poor kids aspect of why it is politically difficult to reform welfare, and to me the only solution that addresses all of the difficultness of reform is work for welfare. It shows kids that there is no free lunch, and it empowers those on welfare to improve themselves, or at the very least to build up a resume of strong work ethic, and motivation.

I see no other politically bi-partisan approach that would work.

Tim-
 
specklebang said:
My impression (and that's all it is) is that the hopeless are indeed a minority. Now, I very well could be wrong and if you can find some impartial statistics to show otherwise, I'll be first in line to admit my errors in judgement.

But for discussion sake, lets say that 20% of the bottom 10% are the total losers who don't even try. They live lowly lives but they don't have to work or try at all. So, including every man, woman and child, we have a possible pool of 30 million people that comprise the bottom. If we take out the children (we don't expect them to work or have influence on their parents), recognizing that the bottom tends to have more children than average, we now have maybe 20 million adults (and I'm being generous). Lets say that 20% is comprised of 4 million people.

It sounds like a lot but in context, it's about 2% of the population. Of course we want them to get off their asses but a lot of those people are incredibly dumb, were raised without any positive influences and can't even express themselves properly. What do we do with them? I'm not trying to excuse them, I'm just trying to be realistic.

I'm an advocate of strict enforcement of misrepresentation that gains free money. But I wonder what might be done about this? It's unfair that a minority absorbs the funding that should be helping the more potentially productive. But unless we are willing to engage in harsh measures, such as banishment, we can't let this cause us to refuse all aid, particularly food.

Do you have any suggestions as to how we might solve this without being unfair to the more legitimate claimants? Now, we seem to be reducing food allocations but this affects all those in need in order to take revenge on a relatively small group.
Click to expand...

Well said.

Re: the bold, I *do* consider 2% of the population to be a very high number...but when I posted I was referring to not being a 'minority' of those on public assistance, not the general population, just for clarification.

And I've never seen anyone quite so honestly blunt about some of that minority, lol. I think much of it is not actual 'intelligence' but the same systemic cycle...but in terms of ignorance & lack of (value of) education rather than finances. But that is just IMO.


I only have one solution and it's expensive. Pay MORE to social workers and others in charge of the oversight of the $$ and the *people*. THis will ensure better quality of those working on our behalf (and the horror stories here in my state alone of the terrible quality of social services is an example of that) AND put more qualified people out on the streets working with individuals and families, ensuring they go to training, teaching them how to spend their money more wisely, shopping WITH them, making sure their kids are going to school, doing frequent and surprise home visits, etc. It takes more $$ and more qualified people. Yes, babysitting. I really think that these social services people have a huge responsibility, they require years of training, and should be paid what they are worth...and I dont think they are...which is why we get stuck with so many that suck....or get discouraged and there's not enough to compensate them.

And it will cost ALOT. But it's my hope that it would *break* that cycle and not be necessary after say, 25 years? It's just IMO.
 
Lursa said:
Well said.

Re: the bold, I *do* consider 2% of the population to be a very high number...but when I posted I was referring to not being a 'minority' of those on public assistance, not the general population, just for clarification.

And I've never seen anyone quite so honestly blunt about some of that minority, lol. I think much of it is not actual 'intelligence' but the same systemic cycle...but in terms of ignorance & lack of (value of) education rather than finances. But that is just IMO.


I only have one solution and it's expensive. Pay MORE to social workers and others in charge of the oversight of the $$ and the *people*. THis will ensure better quality of those working on our behalf (and the horror stories here in my state alone of the terrible quality of social services is an example of that) AND put more qualified people out on the streets working with individuals and families, ensuring they go to training, teaching them how to spend their money more wisely, shopping WITH them, making sure their kids are going to school, doing frequent and surprise home visits, etc. It takes more $$ and more qualified people. Yes, babysitting. I really think that these social services people have a huge responsibility, they require years of training, and should be paid what they are worth...and I dont think they are...which is why we get stuck with so many that suck....or get discouraged and there's not enough to compensate them.

And it will cost ALOT. But it's my hope that it would *break* that cycle and not be necessary after say, 25 years? It's just IMO.
Click to expand...

In a way, humor is inappropriate in such serious matters. But I'm compelled to say "50% of the population are below average".

I too advocate a well chosen and adequately rewarded management system in hopes of reducing chronic dependency. But we will never achieve 100% and we face a baby/bathwater situation here. For reasons too long and too uninteresting to detail her, I live among the poor, I am their landlord (7 of them anyway), their neighbor and their casual friend. Most of my assorted associates do work and look for opportunities to make additional income by doing odd jobs. Because of my age, my generally friendly demeanor and my monetary influence, I try to educate people about money. Some ar receptive, some are not.

One of my friends is a Social Worker and she is not very well paid. But she manages her income with great skill and in our monthly lunches, she is as likely to grab the check as I am. My respect for her is quite genuine. I also get some insight as to the weakness of the Social Welfare system.

There seems to be a lot of concern about "spending". But the problem IMHO is not how much we spend but what our ROI is. Any time I see someone break fee from the cycle, I applaud them. But some simply don't have the internal processing capability to take the opportunities.

So, I support your idea and regardless of the outcome, I do not want to use food as a form of punishment for anyone. We feed our prisoners and we have more of those than anyone else does. If we can do that - we can also feed the incompetent.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom