BF2S Forums Open Question To Anti-Social Welfare Types

Silly liberals. . . .PAYCHECKS ARE FOR WORKERS!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

Why don't we just get it over with and put the world's largest multi-national corporations into positions of absolute power over us?  That's really what this all comes down to...

Over the last few decades, we've seen a slow creep of corporations gaining more rights than individuals have, and with all the money they throw at our politicians, they own the system at this point.

Naturally, this leads to a general decline in social systems as the funds for such programs get diverted to corporate welfare and the military industrial complex.

In short, we'd rather kill and exploit each other rather than make sure everyone can feed their families or afford healthcare.

Maybe it's time for our wretched species to suffer a massive drop in population like the Black Plague brought us so long ago.  This time around, the disease will be capitalistic greed however.

fadedsteve wrote:

Silly liberals. . . .PAYCHECKS ARE FOR WORKERS!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

lol

when i was born my mother and I were on welfare for a little while.  now she makes more money than 99% will ever see.  dont give me that "lazy welfare people" bullshit.

GunSlinger OIF II wrote:

when i was born my mother and I were on welfare for a little while.  now she makes more money than 99% will ever see.  dont give me that "lazy welfare people" bullshit.

She wasn't on welfare, she was on WIC. WIC is a program with which I have no problems. It does what it says it does, and doesn't get scammed.

Has it occurred to you guys that there are only a limited number of McDonalds and gas stations and what not and, as such, a limited number of jobs.

usmarine2005 wrote:

GunSlinger OIF II wrote:

when i was born my mother and I were on welfare for a little while.  now she makes more money than 99% will ever see.  dont give me that "lazy welfare people" bullshit.

It is the people who stay on it because it is easy are the ones I am talking about.

Yes but this thread is about the necessity of it, not the effectiveness of how it is implemented. Many people on the forum seem to think they can have it all without giving anything back to society, which is just not possible.

CameronPoe wrote:

Open Question To Anti-Social Welfare Types

All this time, I've been mentally sorting out this title's topic as:

"Open Question To {Anti-Social} {Welfare Types}"

Only recently did it occur to me that it was probably intended as:

"Open Question To {Anti}-{Social Welfare} {Types}"

Last edited by unnamednewbie13 (2007-05-29 09:12:05)

fadedsteve wrote:

Bubbalo wrote:

fadedsteve wrote:

Silly liberals. . . .PAYCHECKS ARE FOR WORKERS!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

And people who can't get a job can just starve to death.

Nice campaign slogan.

Anyone and everyone CAN get a job if they so choose. . . .

Its THEIR fault if they choose not to work due to being "over proud" to work a job they normally would not! People who have their shit together pick themselves up, go to work and try and make the best out of a bad situation. . . .

Social welfare is a joke! People that should get government money are disabled vets, and the handicapped! And thats it!

I dont think some innercity mother who decided to spread her legs seven times, deserves my money!! She cant hold a job cause she has too many fucking kids!!! Thats not my problem, nor do/should I have to pay for her mistake(s) in life. . . . .

Able-bodied people CAN get a job if they choose.

You qualified your original statement with "people that should get government money are disabled vets and the handicapped!"

What about mentally unstable people?  Should they be forced to beg?  What about vets that aren't disabled physically but suffer from PTSD?

No one wants to support people too lazy to get a job.  That is one reason there are time limits on welfare (I believe you cannot receive it for more than 2 years at a time, and 6 years total, but I haven't seen the figures in some time).  I don't want my taxes going to some one doing nothing to better them self.  I also don't want my taxes going to Military/Defense CEOs either (of which about 40% of my tax money does).

Also, you would be surprised as to the amount of people that live in the "outer city" receiving social handouts.

When I was in school in LA, I thought about receiving welfare numerous times. Not because I was too lazy, but because I felt too proud to ask my parents for money and I was working close to 40 hours a week and going to school about 20-25 hours a week, and barely able to make rent and live.  It fucking sucked.  And in hindsight, I would rather pay a few cents on the dollar to make sure no one went through what I did then have someone drop out of school because it was too much for them to handle.

RantParaphrase wrote:

That's why we need governments to push policies that redress the balance,  provide some minimum acceptable level of social justice.

This was my suspicion, ( and correct me if I misinterpreted your statement ) that you wanted to equalize the outcome rather than equalize the opportunity.
I would further appreciate it if you could more precisely define what you envision as  “ Social Justice “ ?.

RantParaphrase wrote:

That's why we need governments to push policies that prevent chaos, anarchy, and lawlessness, irrespective of how inefficient they may.

Actually efficiency is very important and can not be dismissed in the interest or the effect of “ Caring more “ or “ Being more compassionate “.

Not only are words cheap, If we are talking about caring for, clothing and feeding people,

efficiency is paramount as waste equals hunger. Waste equals callousness.  Waste equals cruelty.

If people are perpetrating inefficiency in the quest for consolidating political power,

then Waste equals treason. Waste equals treachery and betrayal, and justice is due.



I do not believe in a “ Zero Sum Economy “

If one person ( Say Mr. Abcd ) makes 3000 dollars shoveling sidewalks after a bad snow storm. That by doesn’t mean by any stretch of the imagination that Mr Wxyz is now short 3000 dollars, or even that 30 families are missing 10 dollars. ( unless they paid $10 each to have their walks shoveled ) It just means some one wanted their sidewalk shoveled and was willing to pay for it. Probably a business owner who deduced having his sidewalk shoveled for X amount of Dollars would probably increase his profits. It doesn’t come out of “ The Poor’s “ pockets. In fact the government usually takes approximately half Meaning Mr. Abcd really made 6000 and the poor should get a taste of it if the bureaucracy functioned properly. More than likely of the 20% set aside for them., they’d  probably see…5 dollars the rest going to *New phone system’s, *Pallets and Pallets of computers that disappear before the are even unpacked. *Boxes of printer paper that only one hour after delivery are thrown into the dumpster “ because they were in the way ! “. *Family Field trips for staff “ so they can better grasps the problems that confront the poor ( on a party boat ). *Sending Maintenance staff to work on private homes on taxpayers time using taxpayers equipment and resources. 

* All the above mentioned are first hand Experiences.

I should mention I can only speak for NYC USA

wrote:

I did a search using social welfare and couldn't find any posts were people suggested

" eliminating social welfare". Maybe there could be a quote or a link to it ?

ps read entire thread didn't see any yet. ? Why ?

Last edited by Hunter/Jumper (2007-05-29 15:32:32)

Hunter/Jumper wrote:

RantParaphrase wrote:

That's why we need governments to push policies that redress the balance,  provide some minimum acceptable level of social justice.

This was my suspicion, ( and correct me if I misinterpreted your statement ) that you wanted to equalize the outcome rather than equalize the opportunity.
I would further appreciate it if you could more precisely define what you envision as  “ Social Justice “ ?.

NO I CERTAINLY DO NOT WANT TO EQUALIZE OUTCOME. By affording people a very basic safety net that affords them a life of subsistence without luxury you offer them the opportunity to bounce back without sinking into oblivion/suicide/destitution/crime/prostitution/etc. People work to earn themselves a higher standard of living. Those that do not work should not be afforded anything more than a very basic level of assistance. I have a highly paid job. I pay a LOT of tax. I don't begrudge a penny that goes towards social welfare as long as my government is managing it properly. It they don't then they get voted out. 

Social justice refers to conceptions of a just society, where "justice" refers to more than just the administration of laws. It is based on the idea of a society which gives individuals and groups fair treatment and a just share of the benefits of society. Different proponents of social justice have developed different interpretations of what constitutes fair treatment and a just share.

People winning in capitalistic society invariably leads to other people losing (although many of the losers will lie in another country altogether). Social justice is achieved when the winners give just a little bit back in order to enable the losers to have another go or at least to prevent them from sinking into oblivion. Humans are one of the only mammals on earth that show pity. In other animal kingdoms a disabled baby or adult would be left for dead or eaten. That doesn't generally happen in the human world. It's called social justice and conscience.

Hunter/Jumper wrote:

RantParaphrase wrote:

That's why we need governments to push policies that prevent chaos, anarchy, and lawlessness, irrespective of how inefficient they may.

Actually efficiency is very important and can not be dismissed in the interest or the effect of “ Caring more “ or “ Being more compassionate “.

Not only are words cheap, If we are talking about caring for, clothing and feeding people,

efficiency is paramount as waste equals hunger. Waste equals callousness.  Waste equals cruelty.

If people are perpetrating inefficiency in the quest for consolidating political power,

then Waste equals treason. Waste equals treachery and betrayal, and justice is due.

You're beginning to sound like Big Brother out of 1984. 'WASTE EQUALS CALLOUSNESS'. You seem to agree that welfare is necessary and that nobody has yet fundamentally disagreed with the concept in this thread and yet you continue to make an argument that I myself have already made: that social welfare must be managed effectively/efficiently and that balance is key.

And if you want to talk about waste then just look at the sick amounts of money lying in the bank accounts of a tiny minority of individuals. Maybe those at the top should be made do community service unless they invest their cash in job creation, eh?

Hunter/Jumper wrote:

I do not believe in a “ Zero Sum Economy “

If one person ( Say Mr. Abcd ) makes 3000 dollars shoveling sidewalks after a bad snow storm. That by doesn’t mean by any stretch of the imagination that Mr Wxyz is now short 3000 dollars, or even that 30 families are missing 10 dollars. ( unless they paid $10 each to have their walks shoveled ) It just means some one wanted their sidewalk shoveled and was willing to pay for it. Probably a business owner who deduced having his sidewalk shoveled for X amount of Dollars would probably increase his profits. It doesn’t come out of “ The Poor’s “ pockets. In fact the government usually takes approximately half Meaning Mr. Abcd really made 6000 and the poor should get a taste of it if the bureaucracy functioned properly. More than likely of the 20% set aside for them., they’d  probably see…5 dollars the rest going to *New phone system’s, *Pallets and Pallets of computers that disappear before the are even unpacked. *Boxes of printer paper that only one hour after delivery are thrown into the dumpster “ because they were in the way ! “. *Family Field trips for staff “ so they can better grasps the problems that confront the poor ( on a party boat ). *Sending Maintenance staff to work on private homes on taxpayers time using taxpayers equipment and resources. 

* All the above mentioned are first hand Experiences.

I should mention I can only speak for NYC USA

It ain't zero sum but here's a little dent in your perfect little economic model:
A) Some rich people sit on big fat bank accounts and do little or nothing with the vast majority of it - this money has been removed from the economy.
B) Some rich people knock down their factories and call centres and rebuild them again in shit poor countries in SE Asia - money walking out the fucking door.

-> If you think that your model is perfect then I'm afraid to say that you're mistaken.

Hunter/Jumper wrote:

wrote:

I did a search using social welfare and couldn't find any posts were people suggested

" eliminating social welfare". Maybe there could be a quote or a link to it ?

ps read entire thread didn't see any yet. ? Why ?

This was the post that got me:

That's me.  I don't like being taxed.  Especially social security, because its a system I will NEVER see money from.  So I get to pay for the lot of fucktards who came before me and fucked up my homeland... not happy about that at all.  I want my government and my politicians to look out for me and not for people who don't belong here.  I don't like how a mall I go to had almost 0 crime 5 years ago, but now has had at least 3 murders this year alone because some politician thought it was smart to extend the DC metro out to that area.  I am white, middle class, male.  I don't think this should make it MORE difficult for me to get into college just to give others a chance.

Last edited by CameronPoe (2007-05-29 15:55:05)

RoosterCantrell wrote:

To Answer the Origonal Question, I feel its necissary.  It's abused and improperly policed, but sometimes, good people need help.

I do believe the governemnt should be brutal strict about it though.  MY imagined Welfare Program:

[*] "Community Service" for people on Welfare who are unemployed-Give back you lazy ass.

Ignoring the "lazy ass" thing, asking someone who has no money to work for no money either in addition to or at the expense of working for pay isn't that great of an idea.

RoosterCantrell wrote:

[*] Government Grocery card that is swiped BEFORE you purchase groceries, only acceptable Items can be
paid for.  No Booze, Cigarettes, steaks, Candy, etc.

All ready implemented in many states. EBT cards are used instead of the old paper food stamps and they can't be used for booze or cigarettes. As far as steaks and candy, I see what you're getting at. "No joy for you, joy is for working people." I can tell you from personal experience that those little bits of joy are the difference between keeping up the fight to be working and independent again or just giving in and going under. I don't know where people keep getting the idea that living on the dole is all happy-fun-party time, but it seriously fucking isn't unless you're a godsdamn brilliant cheat. The rest of us eat fucking top ramen seven days a week and occasionally, when we can work out all the costs just right, we splurge on a steak or some ice cream or some other luxury food once a month that other people could enjoy daily if they feel like it. They have that leeway. People on food stamps don't, because once you're out of them for the month, that's it. Done. Finished. You don't get more if you ask nice, beg, plead or anything else.

RoosterCantrell wrote:

[*] Welfare because you have children? Fine.  Get pregnant/impregate someone while on welfare? permanent Castration or dropped off of Welfare plan for three years.

Our government all ready put itself in the business of sterilizing citizens deemed unworthy of breeding before for whatever arbitrary reasons used to justify it. Fuck that half-assed eugenicist crap. Let's try comprehensive birth-control education and availability of those methods instead of letting religious fanatics decide that sex should have dire consequences.

RoosterCantrell wrote:

[*] Job Applications will be sent to you which you are to fill out and Social Services sends out.  If you get a job, you have to take it (within reason...distance/pay wise)

Also all ready implemented in many states. In Oregon, every month you have to make 20 job contacts and if offered one you must take it. Unfortunately they don't give a shit about distance or pay, if you don't take it, you lose your benefits. I managed to luck out and get a close, good-paying job at a great business run by competent and decent people. Others don't luck out like that.

RoosterCantrell wrote:

[*] your credit is frozen and any large dollar purchases must be reviewed and OKed by Social Worker.

Pointless. By the time someone has to rely on the system for help, the damage to their credit is usually all ready done or in progress, plus no credit card company is going to touch you if you're in default on payments to another company. The amusing thing about this is, with our current system of revolving debt, some of the people currently so down on those living on social services may join them sooner than they think. You only get so many balance transfers to new credit cards before the credit companies don't want to touch you either.

RoosterCantrell wrote:

[*] Living condition analyzed. Broke because you have a 500,000 dollar house? Move to a more affordable living or no Social services.

The instance of someone being in a half-million-dollar home while needing to rely on the system for help, while possible, is so ridiculously unlikely it barely merits being addressed.

RoosterCantrell wrote:

[*]  All household bills (water, electricity, garbage, rent etcv) are payed by social worker, Welfare recipeint recieves little to no actual money.

Fuck, I'd have been happy not getting a single dime if my bills were paid until I could get on my feet. In the current system, you get a choice. Food and some cash assistance if by some miracle you manage to qualify, food and nothing else which is a lot more likely, or jack shit. Most people on the system get enough food to survive 3/4th of a month if they eat nothing but cheap crap food, and that's all they get. Bills? Rent? Your fucking problem. The state doesn't give a rat's ass if you're in a cardboard box but if you fail to keep jumping through their hoops you'll be in a cardboard box with no food except what you can panhandle or scrounge. So while you get food as long as you follow all the rules implemented to appease and placate all the people who think you're a lazy criminal parasite, you also get the fun of figuring out which one of your bills you're going to dedicate your meager paycheck to. Rent, phone, or electricity? You decide to pay rent. Phone gets shut off, your work can't get in touch with you, you could lose your job, screwing you further because you'll lose your benefits too. Electricity gets shut off, you can't keep any food except dry goods, you have no heat in winter or ventilation in summer and you can (and probably will) lose your kids to CPS if you have kids.

RoosterCantrell wrote:

Just a few ideas I would like to see.

What I'd like to see is the people who think life on social services is so easy try existing like that for a few months without knowing when it would be over. Trust me, it changes your fucking worldview in a serious hurry.