EGALITARIAN WARNING!
DISTURBING IMAGES OF ECONOMIC AND SOCIAL TRAGEDY AHEAD!
ADULT SUPERVISION RECOMMENDED!
Would _you_ hire this person? If so, please explain your rationale.
Printable View
EGALITARIAN WARNING!
DISTURBING IMAGES OF ECONOMIC AND SOCIAL TRAGEDY AHEAD!
ADULT SUPERVISION RECOMMENDED!
Would _you_ hire this person? If so, please explain your rationale.
Yes, if I needed someone to fill a spot for a Kleenex ad.Quote:
Originally Posted by Ughmahedhurtz
Got it? Got it? Got it?
I got it, the bailiff says.
My ears are bleeding and I am only half way through. /brain freeze
I couldn't even tell you how many people I've known like this growing up and still know to this day that are just like him and her.
If someone gives me free money then I take it. Judge Judy was full of BS on this one - his obligation to pay her rent has nothing to do with the money he receives from the government. Either he is responsible for paying her rent money or not. How he gets that money, whether from working, stealing, turning tricks, whatever, is moot.
I say this as a staunch libertarian. It's similar to Ron Paul opposing earmarks and voting against their use whenever possible, but still taking advantage of them for his constituents. Just because you oppose how the system works doesn't mean you ignore the system. Instead, you try to change the system while still making the most advantageous decisions based on the current rules in the meantime.
Makes good tv. Not sure about all the 'frothing at the mouth hysteria' that people have with social responsibility. Sure some people will take advantage, but even if 50% of handouts went to the wrong people, thats 50% distributed to the right people. You will never be able to ensure all government distribution goes to the right people.
The alternative is to stop all handouts. Welcome to bigotry.
It's fraudulent to claim money for rent if you don't need to pay rent.Quote:
Originally Posted by Owltoid
The landlord should probably be put in the loop to verify that rent is being paid.
I'm not sure how stopping handouts is bigotry. Mind explaining?
If the money is purely classified as for rent then I agree it's fraudulent. I highly doubt it is by the letter of the law. It's probably something more along the lines of living expenses. However, maybe he is being fraudulent. Even if so that is an issue for another court and has no bearing on if he is responsible for owing rent.
Maybe my choice of words were not the best - never mind. All I'm saying is don't let a small number of idiots dictate policy.
There is a reason why I am one of the last pay with cash or do without type guys. But yeah, I have to agree with Owltoid here. I guess it's no secret, I'm the resident strict constructionist in our house.
Now that being said, I have zero problems helping out those in need on my own, with my own money. but it will be my choice as to who and how I spend said cash.
Stephen
I see what you did there with the "frothing at the mouth hysteria" ad hominem. ;) I expected better.Quote:
Originally Posted by thefunk
So you're thinking a 50% efficiency rate is good? Not only is that a pretty terrible level of economic efficiency generally, it's also short-sighted. We see time and time again where well-intentioned government programs to help the poor tend to not only fail to adequately support the original intent of the programs but also cause ripple effects that drag down other sectors of the economy, including countries other than the one that implemented these glorious programs. Pre- and Post-Mao China's growth rates. North Korea vs South Korea. Uganda vs Ivory Coast. The US housing industry during the price controlled WW2 period and after and (most rofl-worthy if it weren't so sad) the most recent housing bubble due to bad loans to poor folks who weren't responsible enough to make good _even with double-subsidies_. Rent-controlled housing in England and Wales post-WW2. Egypt's rent-controlled housing crisis over the latter half of the 20th century. The dilapidated state of subsidized housing in the US and France. India's standard of living increases pre- and post-government-controlled economy.
Ask any former soviet satellite nation how "social responsibility" enforced by inefficient government flunkies promoted by nepotism rather than ability worked out for their families. Ask people in the former Yugoslavia whether they appreciated the army taking their tractor from them, which by the way had been producing about 30% of the grain for their village for the last decade. Then using it to prematurely harvest grains to support the regional capital and then leaving it out to rot over the winter, resulting in both the failure of the seeds for the next season AND now a 30% grain shortage for that village for the forseeable future since nobody could buy tractors anymore without government permits.
Government inefficiency isn't just something you hear about in a drab BBC docudrama -- it's a very real problem with much wider implications than anyone wants to admit once they start to Feel Good again about helping the po' folks at the bottom with Rich Folks at the top's money.
Hell, dude, even Marx and Engels knew better than to fuck with price controls.
Oh, and as far as bigotry, I'll take the bigotry of a steadily improving standard of living for our poor through the hard work of free men and unfettered growth of a market economy with its many warts and bruises over the dehumanizing and insulting soft bigotry of low expectations any day of the week and twice on Sundays.
Frothingly Yours,
A Silly American
[edit] P.S. I don't really expect you to understand. I mean, my country was founded on your country's lack of understanding -- and active repression of -- our values and beliefs. ;)
I swear I'm gonna have to buy a brewery for for all the Beers I want to have with Ugh.
It is interesting, and while I won't say it was intentional, how some areas of governmental control has got to where it is. During WW2, we needed men and women for the war effort, not only in boots, but also in manufacturing. During this time, the US government put a wage freeze down, which froze hiring abilities. This lead to Companies offering Fringe benefits, such as vacation and insurance. There was even a big ole supreme court case, shortly after, that told the government, that no benefits such as those, where not considered income. as far as the wage freeze was considered. IMHO, this was the first step down a long and slippery slope .
Had those wage freezes never happened, who knows what would have happened, but I would hazard that the average salary would be much higher. we wouldn't have laws now for what was once a voluntary thing from a company, is now mandatory. We wouldn't be in a situation where they try to punish success. (Hell, we all know what that is like being Multi-boxers, and the grief we have seen through the years on forums).
Don't get me wrong, I'm not saying that what the government did in WW2 wasn't possibly necessary , things where vastly different then, what with the current view of isolationism after WW1, hell, we had a NAZI party pushing for power right in the open here in the US of A. But it shows the difficulty in having hindsight for what we do as a nation today. The founders new, and understood deeply, that man when left to his own devices always did better for himself, family, and community.
It is because of things like that, that I hold Presidents such as Coolidge or even Ford in such high regard. It's because they didn't do jack squat. (Although Coolidge did take a pair of gardening shears to our debt. Ford wasn't around long enough to do anything.) When I look at any American politician, I always rate them on how close they follow the Constitution first and foremost. this has lead me to having some great debates with friends, over those whom the nation usually considers the best. I mean, take Lincoln for example, he did all the wrong things for the right reasons ( I can't even begin to tell you how hard he twisted the constitution or out right broke it, but the nation was better for it.)
The other thing we need to do, is get rid of these insane war's on abstract ideas. Poverty, drugs, terrorism, food, etc. etc. So much of our money is wasted down the drain when we engage in such foolish practices. For me, it's simple, see a poor guy, offer him a job, Don't like drugs, don't do them, Terrorism - Go in and kill them, forget this nation building nonsense, Food/Diet, it's Darwin at work here guys.
Bleh, I'm gonna shut up before I wear out my welcome. Besides, I've got a war to finish with Korea (It never did end ya know).
Anyways, have a great Sunday everyone, sorry I got on my soap box.
Stephen
hehe that put me in my place!
I don't actually disagree with what you're saying, like I said it was probably the wrong choice of words. There is however a knee-jerk reaction across the pond that when anyone mentions the word "social" they hear "communism". Personally I'm more right-wing and would gladly see these freeloaders actually work than sit there drinking and smoking their handouts from my tax.
We actually have a worst problem here in the UK in terms of people living off the state all their lives. I actually know a few of these teenage mums in my village who specifically fell pregnant to get a house and benefits (and presumably to move away from a difficult home). I don't particularly enjoy watching my tax go to these people, but all they are doing is playing the system. Then they have more kids and get more money. then their kids do the same...
But what would happen if you just pulled the plug?
Oh I hear ya Funk, Like I said, I have no problem with helping others. Cutting it off, or pulling the plug would be a disaster. It would have to be some kind of program that allowed for the people to adjust or be able to make a living on their own.
talking about cheating the system, I had read the other day, about the vehicle tax over there in the UK, and how so many drivers are now listed as a Taxi, because it's cheaper. ( I believe it was something like 15 pounds a week or something like that to drive normally.) Things like that is just insane also.
Anyways, getting back to one of the points you made, here in the states, I believe if we let the States handle their own welfare programs, it would be much better than letting the Federal Government take the money, and then dole it back out to the state, to dole back out to the people. Anytime you remove a step, it reduces costs. In fact I would go so far as to remind people on the Fed level, the only powers of Congress as an example of this, and that any said power not mentioned, should be in the hands of the state.
The problem we face, is that no politico want's to give up their power over others. (Read as control.) another problem we face, is that I doubt any one in office even has a dictionary from say, the late 1700's to know what those words mean. Sure words evolve, but that does not mean you ignore the manufacturers warnings on that new solar panel you put up, when the word day now means night.
I really think, if people as a whole, started feeling a bit more respect about themselves, and learned what it is like to work hard for something, and then appreciate the fruits of said labor, take some pride in what they do, it would be a huge step in the right direction. But instead, we have 20+ years of divisiveness from our two party system, media telling us America is a horrible country all the damned time, and the smallest issues that are none of our business, effecting how we view our fellow man. It's just a shame that more people don't see it, let alone are incapable of having friendships, because they view the whole sum of a person by a political affiliation.
Bruce Lee once said, I am a father, a husband, a son, a teacher, a student, a philosopher, a bike rider, etc. etc. yet not one of those things is the sum of who I am.
The great divide starts by people who use their charisma to tear down one attribute of another, rather than to try and raise every one as a whole. I guess to be fair, it's been going on since the start of this country.
Stephen
I'm so sick of this stupid video. Yeah some asshat was on TV it does not mean everyone who needs government assistance is like him.
And who is saying that?Quote:
Originally Posted by pinotnoir
There is always someone who try's to derail this topic by acting like we are talking about the disabled, etc.
At least where I'm from, I would put money on the fact that more people receive assistance that doesn't need it than that does.
So you realize that this HURTS the ones you are trying to take up for?
Surely not but please consider how this normally goes.Quote:
Originally Posted by pinotnoir
How many people on government assistance live alone? There are no checks in place to be sure how money is spent. Even EBT cards are routinely traded for cash at a ratio of 3 credits to 2 dollars.
Obesity among the so-called deprived is through the roof. You can't achieve that sort of status by being deprived of food and sanctuary. Under no circumstances is that possible.
The government awards a single mother an enormous sum in tax credits at the end of the year. This on top of the reality that a dissociated family requires two modes of shelter, two food bills, two electric bills and two of everything else.
I'm under no illusion what happens when you take these people off all forms of credits and assistance. They will resort to violence. However you have to start looking at which demon is the worst of the two. A slow bleed of the system or a quick one.
All this said while our Idiocracy spins into another form of Affirmative Action - Lawsuits for equal consequences: http://news.investors.com/ibd-editor...lub.htm?p=full
Lets also be clear on something else. Many years ago when families encouraged their children to abstain until marriage was to be certain they would not have dependents until the sanctuary of marriage was established. At that point the nuclear family could sustain better than any other and a woman left to fend for her children was a doomed woman indeed. It was not a glorious position. It was hard, hard living and something discouraged. Today it is flipped upside down so long as the check can still be cashed.
Our government will not be able to cash that check for much longer.
I don't disagree with your "kneejerk" assertion. Far, far too many folks are just against it on principle but when asked CANNOT elucidate what principle(s) they're standing on. Nor can they actually explain, say, the differences between socialist-lite like you have in France and hard communists/statists like you have in the Putin regime.Quote:
Originally Posted by thefunk
I grew up in southeast Louisiana which was and is a bastion of welfare-state moochers. Nothing like driving by a dilapidated house with no A/C or heat, screen doors only, junk in the yard, 6 people sitting in chairs on the porch during a workday and a fucking Cadillac STS sitting in the driveway, while I was 17, working a full-time job AND going to school, living with parents and driving a 15-year-old pickup truck. And they were probably first in line to whine and complain when we instituted welfare reform back in the 90s requiring they actually actively look for a job.Quote:
Originally Posted by thefunk
Now that is a fabulous question with a completely fucked up complex set of answers. I'll have a go at it but I think faster than I can type. ;)Quote:
Originally Posted by thefunk
The way I see it, we here in the USofA have observed the very gradual erosion of personal responsibility such that 50 years of inertia has built up. We have so many people either wholly on welfare support or taking advantage of subsidies to maintain a lifestyle they otherwise wouldn't be able to afford that if we just cut off the spigot tomorrow, we'd probably see mass riots, the collapse of any civil order in major population centers, and tens of thousands of folks would probably starve to death because they were suddenly lost and unable to even find food without someone helping them. I could go into a bit of the "harder" side of my views on this, which is that it might be better for the host to weed out the parasites in a more absolute fashion, but I struggle with that one as I'm loathe to condemn anyone to death outright just because they're a fucking moron. How many of our great citizens today came from what was borderline destitute poverty? Problem is, anytime these...people riot, they end up NOT destroying the object of their hatred, but instead destroy the shops and businesses and civil offices in their OWN DAMN COMMUNITIES! This would be akin to a slave living in a small shack on his master's plantation saying, "Ya know what, fuck this, I'm being taken advantage of and I want more food!" and then going out and burning down his own shack and the grain silo the slaveowner uses to feed his slaves. The moronity of that position absolutely baffles me.
The problem with NOT getting us unfucked from the depredations of the welfare nanny state and class-warfare-based progressive taxation is that if we keep going they way we're going, we're going to run out of money and the system is going to collapse _anyway_, resulting in probably MORE death and destruction nation-wide (and world-wide to be honest) than would happen if we just yanked out the carpet. Do they not see that the more of them are on the dole, the less people like me are out here paying taxes into the system that props them up and eventually they're gonna run out of taxpayers? Who's gonna build houses for them when the house-builders give up and become dolists, too?
It's freaking maddening to watch, but in fairness I'm somewhat educated and cared enough to learn some of the history and mechanics of economic and governmental systems. I don't expect everyone to study the same things but I do expect people who VOTE to actually understand what the fuck they're voting for. Actions have consequences.
A friend I eat lunch with regularly proposed a great idea: let's restrict voting to people who actually pay into the tax system. If you actually get more money back from the government than you paid in, you do not get to vote. Now, you might say, "But that's just fiat by the rich!" OK, there are two easy ways to fix that situation: 1) go get a fucking job, or 2) change the tax code so EVERYONE pays the same taxes (such as the fair tax or a flat-rate consumption tax). Now everyone's on the same playing field and everyone has skin in the game. How long do you think it would take for the Great Unwashed to realize how they're been fucking themselves over? Well, they'd have to stop listening to Al Sharpton, Jesse Jackson, Malik Shabazz and the other race/class hustlers out there first but you get the idea. ;)
TL;DR = we'd do far more good for the poor to actually do the Right Thing and make it a fair system to ALL than we do by Feel Good regulations that allow certain people to game the system for no actual work.
Not exactly the same situation, but it makes me think of this (Japan tsunami vs Katrina disaster).Quote:
Originally Posted by Ughmahedhurtz
Don't even get me started on the French, however on the face of it, its a similar issue to the states in the sense that the large minority groups have voted in a socialist. He basically hates the rich and is taxing the top band to 75% (it may be more) with additional one-off fees for homes above 3m euros. I think thats something like 80k euro. Thats basically his manifesto and 7 year policy. His government is also looking at making redundancies illegal (its already virtually impossible to get fired in france anyway). So everyone is hired on a contractual basis only, which is hilarious since companies have effectively found a way round the law.
Sorta the same thing starting here in the US where mandated health care for full-time employees is driving employers to cut back to part-time hours. The Law of Unintended Consequences has a way of working around centralized control mechanics.Quote:
Originally Posted by thefunk
Spoken like a true Republication. Go research what socialism actually is. When the rich can get away with paying less tax than the middle class there is something REALLY wrong.Quote:
Originally Posted by thefunk
Welfare abuse will always happen but it may actually cost less than the rich with their accountants working the system to pay as little taxes as possible.
Quote:
Originally Posted by crowdx
Ideally a system should not require taxation. Prior to taxation the old way was through charities and the Church. England only imposed the tax once it became a racket. Quakers who knew better fled the animal farm and taxation without representation.
There is a conflict of interest in the poor brokering with a politician to grab the coffers of the producing class. The politician isn't on the hook nor is the poor in grabbing these assets. Only the rich and the working class whom are now taxed without representation. Or do you think it proper that household income be distributed and decided on by the children?
The clear answer in all of this is voting rights. I concur that voting rights should not be extended to those who pay no taxes. In scope, those who pay no taxes in this country are dependents and they should not have a say in how the system is run. They do need representation but as dependents. There is an important distinction to be had there.
I completely agree that there is something inherently wrong with one group paying different tax rates than another group based on an arbitrary decision about what the word "rich" means. I propose the most fair solution of all: scrap our entire tax code for a flat consumption tax everyone pays at the register regardless of color, economic status, location, religion, nationality, social status, diplomatic status or any other status or identification. This is the only truly non-discriminatory, incorruptible way to do it, especially considering government's abysmal record of inefficiency over the last 75 years or so.Quote:
Originally Posted by crowdx
Wouldn't you agree?
I would disagree on the basis that the poorest of Americans pay ZERO income taxes as is.Quote:
Originally Posted by Ughmahedhurtz
What he might suggest is that the poorest of Americans pay far more in regressive taxation (payroll, property and sales tax) because they consume at a rate that makes the tax punishing to low income earners.
Mind none of this hints at what the real issue is. The real issue is in social change that has led to dissociated homes, bridge to nowhere programs, rising health risks due to hedonism and general apathy towards Capitalism. This comes back to the unintended consequences you mentioned earlier.
Basically it is just assumed that any possibility which exists should exist for all Americans irrespective of income. This means anything from having children to having cable TV. Accountability is lost on them.
So the person spending their welfare money is then getting taxed on the money given by the tax payer lol. In that case they would probably ask for an increase in welfare to cover the tax LMAO.Quote:
Originally Posted by Ughmahedhurtz
I'd say you're beginning to see just how many layers of...fuckedupedness is involved, here. ;)Quote:
Originally Posted by crowdx
How long would you say we could run the government at current spending levels if we just outright confiscated every dime of earnings from everyone making over $200,000/year, completely ignoring paying anything down on the national debt? Just a ballpark estimate will do. You can even use 2010 numbers since that's the last complete set of data we have.
Capitalism is needed for a society to survive. You cannot build the computer you are using to post this message, and the world wide web, and the power grid to support it all, not by yourself. You will also find it very hard to have everyone show up for work if they do not get something in return. They tried that I think it was called communism.
Socialism wont work either because you don't have enough motivating factors to keep people moving, you will end up with class warfare. You will have the people who want to do very little for their money and a dwindling amount of actual tax payers who foot the bill. Which is close to what we are seeing now.
I posted this using my free Obama phone.
Social Security is subject to .... social security tax! So there already is a precedent. The way to implement the tax would involve increasing welfare payments to match the added tax so purchasing power remains the same.Quote:
Originally Posted by crowdx
Eh?Quote:
Originally Posted by Narij
Purchasing power won't remain the same. What will happen when welfare benefits go up is the deficit will go up. Borrowing will increase and the dollar will devalue. It's a mouse on a wheel. Nothing more. The poor are no richer. The society is just more screwed.
People have to make tough decisions in life. That's part of life. If you are in your 20s and have a child on welfare guess what? That second kid is not an option. If you are diagnosed with diabetes and/or heart disease at 45 guess what? That box of donuts isn't an option. If you've knocked a girl up and don't feel like being with her that's just too damn bad. You owe that child and that woman your blood sweat and tears.
Accountability is going to come one way or another. Either we get it by collapsing as a society or we get it by cutting off the Animal Farm. The fight is coming either way.
ROF--*spews tea out his nose*Quote:
Originally Posted by Fat Tire
Oh, lordy, that one about split my liver. :D
Compare this kid with that other kid.