Night Strike wrote:FYI: I ignore parts of posts because they're inane and irrelevant to the topic actually being discussed.
natty_dread wrote:Night Strike wrote:So I'm a hypocrite for believing that the government should not provide welfare
Yes.
You want to demolish modern society and go back to caveman times where each cave fends the dinosaurs off for themselves. That's fine, but the rest of us don't.
I didn't know the US consisted of a bunch of cavemen in the 1920s. In fact, weren't those times called the "Roaring 20s" because of the drastic increases in the economy and standards of living? I'm glad we can debate facts and not hyperbole.
Not really. There was some of that, there was also rampant crime, intense labor union battles, people dying from unregulated factory products and production, plus abuse of the land that led to the dustbowl, which (just in case you don't realize) happened to have a LOT to do with the depression.
Night Strike wrote:natty_dread wrote:Night Strike wrote: It's called putting effective limits on the program. You have to first start putting limits on programs before you can completely remove them because our country has become so dependent upon the government for everything.
Face it, in the modern world you are dependent on the society around you.
150 years ago, people may not have needed social security or welfare or such, but times are different now. If you simply cut off all money from the poor and unemployed, they're not going to be able to survive. This will be detrimental to the society as a whole.
Times are different now because people have been trained to think that the government's job is to provide everything for them.
Where do you GET these ideas? We don't expect the government to "take care of us" we expect the government to act as a sheild against the big guys who we cannot possibly fight on our own. AND, we would love to see the same kind of strict "responsibility" you seem to think applies only to individuals applied to those big corporations.
Every dime you save on things you buy because these companies offered "cheaper" products is money off the backs of workers who are not paid decently, health costs that other taxpayers have to pay, pollution not cleaned up, etc. Those are the reasons our economy is in the tank, not some illusionary "trickel down" garbage. Yes, I know full well Mr Reagan made that his catch phrase. I also know he was smart enough to see it as baloney.. and he did not intend it to continue long term.
Night Strike wrote:Get rid of that false line of thinking and there won't be a need for social security or welfare. Remember, when Social Security passed (and maybe welfare, I don't remember), the Supreme Court was going to rule it as unconstitutional but bowed to political pressures. Just because someone can push it politically, even through the courts, doesn't automatically mean it's how our country should be run.
I see, people wanting something in a Democracy and getting it is a pretty strange concept

.
You know why no one has old style pensions any longer? Because they were too expensive. Because companies had to invest well enough to gaurantee a sustained income for retirees. Those big corporations could not do it, but you seem to think every minimum wage worker ought to do so. Social security is there for a reason. It is not the "failure" you want to proclaim. Bigwigs are now fighting against it because they see one more area they can profit from. Its not because losing social security will help america. Help a few pockets, but at the cost of the rest of us.
Night Strike wrote: And more so, why are you even interested in how our country runs our own domestic programs? You don't reside in America, so why don't you butt out?
Well, I live here. In fact, I can trace my ancestry back to the mayflower and to native Americans across many lines. So... try again. (oh, yeah.. my husband is a member of sons of the Revolution, so the whole family has been here quite a while!)
Night Strike wrote:natty_dread wrote:Night Strike wrote:Why do you support limitless access to free money? That money has to come from somewhere
Because there are not enough jobs for everyone, and there never can be. The ones without jobs need some money to survive, and that money has to come from somewhere. The government can just as well distribute the money, so at least everyone has to pitch in equally to pay for it.
Then let those people get the money from friends and charities. Or even make money on their own by starting their own businesses.
LOL.. "friends and charities"... as if that were not already happening. Fact is, they are not sufficient. Also, poor people don't tend to live in the same places as those with money. They may
work for those with money, but they are not generally considered "friends".
Also, ever look at the duplication of effort in big city charities? For all you dismiss anything to do with the government as "inefficient", truth is it often works and pretty well. THAT is the real reason conservatives hate it.. because it does work and therefore means people are just a tad less willing to take jobs that are actual detriments to their health, that truly don't pay enough for someone to eat.. never mind have a house and clothes. Think I am "imagining"... yeah.. all the way to sweat shops, and all the way back to those "wonderful 1920's" to which you previously referred.
(oh, and while on THAT subject.. don't forget the huge masses of resources we stole or all but stole from other nations to help build that prosperity. Other countries are no longer so stupid as to allow that to happen.... yet another of the real reasons those days are long gone!)
Night Strike wrote: Limitless welfare causes people to lose their creativity to earn money or develop products.
"unlimited welfare?" where on Earth do you get the idea that welfare isn't limited and restricted?
Night Strike wrote:If you want a safety net for people, although them to collect money for up to 6 months (or some other arbitrary length of time). But there is absolutely no reason we should keep paying them money for life.
Welfare is for people who lack the skills to get jobs. You know.. the ones who went to schools you refused to pay for, the ones who were just plain idiots for other reasons,etc. These are not the ones who can just go out and get a job. Do they
deserve welfare? Probably not, but that is besides the point. We pay welfare because it is CHEAPER. Get off your knee-jerk reactions and look at the results if we did not have welfare. You think these people are just going to go off and crreate jobs of their own? A very few, those who would anyway (make no mistake, welfare is no walk in the park, despite what some conservatives want to claim.. and note, I do NOT know that because I have ever been on welfare. I know it because I deal with people who are!). MOST have the "option" of crime.
Know what is TRULY STUPID about your conservative "plan". The very things they want to cut first are the job training programs, teen pregnancy education programs and other things that move people up and out of welfare.
Night Strike wrote: natty_dread wrote:Night Strike wrote:so if we have to have the program, I want as few dollars spent on it as possible.
Ok, so basically you're favoring cutting spending by saying "let's cut the money of Group A so we only have to pay Group B". How about if Group A = black people and Group B = white people? Is it still ok in your view?
Figures race would become involved, because that's the only issue that can be brought up by the left. So in essence, you're equating someone's race with the willful choice of doing drugs. Yep, really honest debate there.
Then explain. Becuase the quote above pretty much sounds like that is what you believe.
Night Strike wrote:natty_dread wrote:Also, have you considered that false positives are common in drug tests. Taking cough medicine, or a million other things, can cause a false positive in drug tests. What do you do when someone loses his only source of income due to a false positive in a drug test?
Run two tests on each positive result. Require a 2nd test 1 week after the 1st test if there is a positive. Institute a warning 1 month and then cut off funds the 2nd month if test positive again. Just because there is the occasional false positive doesn't mean you throw out the whole system.
Try this on for size: The cost will be extreme, for almost no benefit! The cost of the tests will in no way, shape or form be paid for by reductions in welfare payments. These tests are expensive, there are not that many illegal drug users on welfare (a fair number are on LEGAL drugs do to heavy disabilities) and welfare payments are not that high. (data provided earlier in the thread.. not that you bothered to acknowledge it).
Night Strike wrote:natty_dread wrote:Also, you can easily cheat on drug tests. There are websites selling realistic looking prosthetic penises that have a container for urine, which can be used to give someone else's urine in a drug test. Effectively, the smart drug users, the ones who're really "playing" the system, won't get caught.
Then if those people get caught, you institute stiff penalties on them, including jail time and a lifetime ban from receiving welfare. If people who test positive become clean, I'm ok with them returning to getting welfare money (as long as they're still looking for jobs). But if they cheat the system, they should be banned for life.
Nice, knee jerk conservative reaction. However, care to think about the REAL impact of this? Try MORE CRIME. That is the reason we have welfare. It saves us money in the long run.. and short run!
Night Strike wrote:natty_dread wrote:Night Strike wrote:You can't compare this scenario to companies that received bailouts because the money went to a business that cannot be drug tested
OH HOW CONVENIENT.
And yes, that's hypocritical, no matter how you try to twist it.
Night Strike wrote:business that cannot be drug tested. A person on welfare can be
So, you attack the weaker group because you know you don't stand a chance against the stronger. You're a typical schoolyard bully.

You sure do enjoy comparing apples to oranges in order to call me a hypocrite.
Then explain why a banker getting several million into his own pocket is "OK", but giving a poor person rent, food stamps and a couple hundred in cash is not?