Go Back   Matt-Hughes.com Official Forums > General Discussions > Politics

Reply
 
Thread Tools Display Modes
  #31  
Old 07-31-2011, 05:53 AM
Buzzard
Guest
 
Posts: n/a
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Play The Man View Post
Flo, have you seen the recent report by the Heritage Foundation about poverty in America? http://www.heritage.org/research/rep...hat-is-poverty

Don't get my wrong, I would not like to live in poverty. In addition, I think we as relatively wealthy Americans have a moral obligation to help our fellow citizens in poverty. However, I was shocked by some of the statistics on America's poor.

In my opinion, I don't think a person who is taking money from other citizens (by government force) should own a television, DVD player, car, cable t.v., jacuzzi, etc. I think we should make sure that people don't go hungry, or die from an untreated medical emergency. We should help people have access to clean water and sanitation. We should help children have access to an education. In my opinion, we are under no obligation to make sure people have amenities. In fact, in my opinion, people accepting welfare should be audited for any non-essential expenses and forced to give up these expenses before they are given a check. For example, they should not be allowed to buy tobacco, alcohol, drugs, lottery tickets, cable television, etc. If they have any assets, such as a car, television, cell phone, computer, etc., these assets should be sold to help them pay for their living expenses. As I mentioned, I think they should be compelled to work at community service if they don't have employment. I would make welfare recipients take mandatory classes on childcare, job skills, etc. I generally do not favor government intrusion in the lives of citizens; however, currently the onus is put on the taxpayer by the government. Our economic freedom is being limited. The government is taking money from me, by the threat of force and imprisonment, in order to give to someone, with relatively few strings attached. If I am going to be coerced by the government, the least the government can do is to make sure my money is spent on essentials and not wasted on amenities. Because I could be fined or arrested for not paying my taxes, the welfare recipient should be fined or arrested for obtaining money in a fraudulent way or spending money on items that are not absolutely essential for survival.
While I agree with a lot of your ideas, how do you tell whether some of these amenities weren't gifts? If someone was given a video game player with a few games, shouldn't they be allowed to use it?

I like your idea of showing where the money goes, and having them accountable. I don't like the cheats and am by no means defending them.

How would one be able to look for a job if they had to give up their vehicle? Public transportation isn't always available. If they have no telephone or vehicle, they have no access to 911 services or any opportunity to look for a job. A lot of job opportunities are available through the internet, if they aren't allowed a computer or internet access, these opportunities are gone too. Throw no car, no computer, no internet, no access to public transportation all together and you might as well just accept that they will never get a job.

Just looking at it from a different perspective. I like the idea of new ideas and think they should keep coming.
Reply With Quote
  #32  
Old 07-31-2011, 08:57 PM
Play The Man's Avatar
Play The Man Play The Man is offline
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Jun 2009
Posts: 2,259
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Buzzard View Post
While I agree with a lot of your ideas, how do you tell whether some of these amenities weren't gifts? If someone was given a video game player with a few games, shouldn't they be allowed to use it?

I like your idea of showing where the money goes, and having them accountable. I don't like the cheats and am by no means defending them.

How would one be able to look for a job if they had to give up their vehicle? Public transportation isn't always available. If they have no telephone or vehicle, they have no access to 911 services or any opportunity to look for a job. A lot of job opportunities are available through the internet, if they aren't allowed a computer or internet access, these opportunities are gone too. Throw no car, no computer, no internet, no access to public transportation all together and you might as well just accept that they will never get a job.

Just looking at it from a different perspective. I like the idea of new ideas and think they should keep coming.
Good points. As far as a computer, public libraries offer access to computers and most cities have internet cafes with access to a computer for the price of a cup of coffee or a small fee. It is my understanding that 911 service is active at a house even if it does not have telephone service. So, if you plug a phone into a jack, it will dial 911 even if you don't have telephone service. The same goes for cell phones. Some people donate their old cell phones to battered women shelters. The women can carry the cell phone with them to call 911 if the abuser threatens them. The cell phone does not have to have a calling plan - it will call 911 as long as it has battery power. Lack of a car would not be a problem in most cities, as there is a public bus system. In rural areas, it would be more of a problem. I lived in a rural area at one time and there was a "Dial-a-ride" mini-bus. It took a bit of planning but you could schedule a pick up. When I was a kid and had an activity after school and missed the bus, I would walk home a few miles.
The fact is, our government is now trillions (not billions) of dollars in debt. We need to make major cuts. One aggravating thing to me is that all the examples you mentioned illustrate how I, as a taxpayer or customer, am "double or triple-billed" for things. I am forced, by law, to pay for a public library system, which I don't use (Our library has a homeless man who has lived in his car in the parking lot for the past 5 years. He spends the entire day in the library. I am fearful of him hurting my children). Ostensibly, the library provides computer access, at taxpayer expense, to give the public access to computers for job searches or for email access for those without a home computer. In reality, you have perverts using it as a free place to view pornography. There have been lawsuits by the ACLU demanding the right for free pornography on library computers. So, I am forced to fund a system that I don't use; the welfare recipient who is supposed to use it for a job search, doesn't; instead, the welfare recipient uses taxpayer-acquired money to fund his own home internet use. I pay for my share of the library, his share of the library, and indirectly fund his home internet use. The same is try for the public transportation system. I help pay for it, but never use it. The welfare recipient is supposed to use it, but you suggest that instead, he must have a car to search for a job. Why am I double or triple-billed? Why do I have to pay for something I don't use, pay for a public transportation system which apparently is not sufficient, and pay for a welfare-recipient to have a car?
__________________
"Be of good comfort, Master Ridley, and play the man! We shall this day light such a candle, by God's grace, in England, as I trust shall never be put out."
--Hugh Latimer, October 16, 1555
Reply With Quote
  #33  
Old 07-31-2011, 11:02 PM
Buzzard
Guest
 
Posts: n/a
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Play The Man View Post
Good points. As far as a computer, public libraries offer access to computers and most cities have internet cafes with access to a computer for the price of a cup of coffee or a small fee. It is my understanding that 911 service is active at a house even if it does not have telephone service. So, if you plug a phone into a jack, it will dial 911 even if you don't have telephone service. The same goes for cell phones. Some people donate their old cell phones to battered women shelters. The women can carry the cell phone with them to call 911 if the abuser threatens them. The cell phone does not have to have a calling plan - it will call 911 as long as it has battery power. Lack of a car would not be a problem in most cities, as there is a public bus system. In rural areas, it would be more of a problem. I lived in a rural area at one time and there was a "Dial-a-ride" mini-bus. It took a bit of planning but you could schedule a pick up. When I was a kid and had an activity after school and missed the bus, I would walk home a few miles.
The fact is, our government is now trillions (not billions) of dollars in debt. We need to make major cuts. One aggravating thing to me is that all the examples you mentioned illustrate how I, as a taxpayer or customer, am "double or triple-billed" for things. I am forced, by law, to pay for a public library system, which I don't use (Our library has a homeless man who has lived in his car in the parking lot for the past 5 years. He spends the entire day in the library. I am fearful of him hurting my children). Ostensibly, the library provides computer access, at taxpayer expense, to give the public access to computers for job searches or for email access for those without a home computer. In reality, you have perverts using it as a free place to view pornography. There have been lawsuits by the ACLU demanding the right for free pornography on library computers. So, I am forced to fund a system that I don't use; the welfare recipient who is supposed to use it for a job search, doesn't; instead, the welfare recipient uses taxpayer-acquired money to fund his own home internet use. I pay for my share of the library, his share of the library, and indirectly fund his home internet use. The same is try for the public transportation system. I help pay for it, but never use it. The welfare recipient is supposed to use it, but you suggest that instead, he must have a car to search for a job. Why am I double or triple-billed? Why do I have to pay for something I don't use, pay for a public transportation system which apparently is not sufficient, and pay for a welfare-recipient to have a car?
I agree with you on all of the "why should I's" which you have posted, and have many more of my own. Some have to do with the corporations which pay little to no taxes because of loopholes, while I must pay them. Why am I constantly taxed on my home and property, while some/many organizations don't?

I just heard a bit about Ford opening a new plant which will give many jobs to a lot of people; the problem is it will be in India. I could go on and on about my complaints but unless I try to find solutions, I'm just one more complainer. At least you have offered up some ideas on how to rectify some of the problems. That's at least a start.

I have something going on in my life right now which I am lucky enough to have prepared for, otherwise I would be up the creek. On paper it shouldn't be a problem, but in real life it is.
Reply With Quote
  #34  
Old 07-31-2011, 11:10 PM
Chuck
Guest
 
Posts: n/a
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Play The Man View Post
Good points. As far as a computer, public libraries offer access to computers and most cities have internet cafes with access to a computer for the price of a cup of coffee or a small fee.




I am forced, by law, to pay for a public library system, which I don't use (Our library has a homeless man who has lived in his car in the parking lot for the past 5 years. He spends the entire day in the library. I am fearful of him hurting my children). Ostensibly, the library provides computer access, at taxpayer expense, to give the public access to computers for job searches or for email access for those without a home computer. In reality, you have perverts using it as a free place to view pornography.
It almost sounds like you're contradicting yourself here brother. One minute you're saying people on Welfare don't need computers at their homes to look for jobs because they can use the library. Then it seems like you're complaining if they do. You lost me a little on this one my friend.

The fact is our country IS in incredible debt but I'm not sure how much money it would save even if we adopted your suggestions with regards to Welfare. That seems like focusing on a small portion of a much, much larger problem. IMO.
Reply With Quote
  #35  
Old 07-31-2011, 11:21 PM
atomdanger
Guest
 
Posts: n/a
Default

If you honestly feel like a stove and fridge are an amenity you're an asshole.

Those are necessities.
Reply With Quote
  #36  
Old 07-31-2011, 11:29 PM
atomdanger
Guest
 
Posts: n/a
Default

I will address cost of drug testing (I am all for it, for the record)

374,000 people got benefits in 2009 in my state (washington)

Now, the money varies, but is typically 400 - 500 cash, and 2 - 300 food.

So, 374K people x 700 (Middle number) in benefits.
(that isn't counting DSHS paying the daycare
which is typically 600 to 1K in the Seattle area)

= 261,800,000.00 a month.

Now, that is a staggering number.

Say even 10 percent were on drugs.

You could save the state (Washington) 26 million dollars a month.
That is 312 million a year.

How much better shape would our schools be in with that much extra money?

Now look at a state like Florida where they have about 600K people on state benefits.
Reply With Quote
  #37  
Old 07-31-2011, 11:30 PM
atomdanger
Guest
 
Posts: n/a
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by NateR View Post
I see nothing at all wrong with this law. Anyone applying for government aid (welfare, unemployment, food stamps, etc.) should be required to submit to a drug test prior to receiving that aid.

It's only logical and there's nothing unconstitutional about it. If you object to the test, then you simply don't receive the government aid. It's not like welfare, unemployment benefits, etc are constitutional rights; so no freedoms are being infringed upon.

Some might argue that there are people who depend on that money, but therein lies the problem. Nobody should depend on government handouts to survive. That gives the government way too much control over the life and death of its citizens - something that no government should have.
Agreed 110 percent.

and I work in a hospital, our clinic charges around 90 dollars for a drug test.
So....
Reply With Quote
  #38  
Old 07-31-2011, 11:50 PM
Buzzard
Guest
 
Posts: n/a
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by atomdanger View Post
Agreed 110 percent.

and I work in a hospital, our clinic charges around 90 dollars for a drug test.
So....
My drug test figure came from an actual test I didn't know I was taking. It was screened by Quest Diagnostics. I'm having some health issues and along with other lab tests, he EDIT: (my GP) /EDIT ordered a (UA) urinalysis drug screen. I was on legal prescription pain meds due to a severe shoulder injury. He obviously thought I was on other drugs and didn't trust me when I told him I wasn't. He asked me, I was honest with him. With the amount of weight I have lost, I look like a skinny junkie, especially now with all of the bruises on my arms due to the many sticks I have had in regard to blood work etc.

Lucky for me I have insurance for now.

If your state did it as Florida does, then the positive tested drug user could just assign someone else to collect the money if the positive tested person had children, and you would be still out the welfare money, plus the money paid to process the drug screens.

I can't see how that would save any money.

Last edited by Buzzard; 07-31-2011 at 11:54 PM. Reason: Clarification addition
Reply With Quote
  #39  
Old 08-01-2011, 12:13 AM
Play The Man's Avatar
Play The Man Play The Man is offline
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Jun 2009
Posts: 2,259
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Chuck View Post
It almost sounds like you're contradicting yourself here brother. One minute you're saying people on Welfare don't need computers at their homes to look for jobs because they can use the library. Then it seems like you're complaining if they do. You lost me a little on this one my friend.

The fact is our country IS in incredible debt but I'm not sure how much money it would save even if we adopted your suggestions with regards to Welfare. That seems like focusing on a small portion of a much, much larger problem. IMO.
We have a humongous debt problem. I am under no illusions that reforming the welfare system would be all that is required to balance our budget. I don't say that anywhere. Deep and painful cuts will need to occur in all areas of spending. The thread is about welfare so that is what my post focused on, for the most part. In another thread we could talk about other areas of spending.
I am trying to advocate some limits in welfare benefits by introducing the concept of necessities vs. amenities. The definition of each could be flushed out. In current public discussions of taxes, I don't think it is recognized that people are being forced, via the threat of government coercion and imprisonment, to give up their assets to be redistributed to other citizens. I think it is more difficult to justify this policy for amenities, such as DVD players, video game systems, etc. vs. necessities such as food and water. Essentially, the economic freedom of the taxpayer is being encroached by government (the money that I am required to pay in taxes, which go to the welfare recipient, cannot go to the charity of my choice, clothing for my children, investments for my retirement, etc). I am advocating that the economic freedom of the welfare recipient should similarly be encroached by government. Welfare can be used to pay for purchases that support survival - food, water, sanitation, shelter, etc. Any money that remains should be given back to the government to reimburse the taxpayer, instead of funding amenities (tv's, DVD players, stereos, etc.).
In post #31, Buzzard was arguing that without some of these amenities, it would be very difficult or impossible to get a job. I am saying that currently, the taxpayer is giving money to welfare recipients that can purchase amenities, such as a computer and funding public services that are ostensibly provided for people with limited incomes to afford computer access, transportation, etc. I am advocating that the welfare recipient use public internet service, public transportation, laundromats, etc. rather than own or purchase amenities. I am advocating that the welfare recipient keep expense reports and only spend money on necessities. I am frustrated that public libraries and transportation are misused and abused, but I realize that the possibility of reforming them is practically nil.
__________________
"Be of good comfort, Master Ridley, and play the man! We shall this day light such a candle, by God's grace, in England, as I trust shall never be put out."
--Hugh Latimer, October 16, 1555

Last edited by Play The Man; 08-01-2011 at 12:21 AM. Reason: "take" to "talk"
Reply With Quote
  #40  
Old 08-01-2011, 12:16 AM
Play The Man's Avatar
Play The Man Play The Man is offline
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Jun 2009
Posts: 2,259
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by atomdanger View Post
If you honestly feel like a stove and fridge are an amenity you're an asshole.

Those are necessities.

Who, pray tell, is "you"?
__________________
"Be of good comfort, Master Ridley, and play the man! We shall this day light such a candle, by God's grace, in England, as I trust shall never be put out."
--Hugh Latimer, October 16, 1555
Reply With Quote
Reply

Thread Tools
Display Modes

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off

Forum Jump


All times are GMT. The time now is 02:56 PM.


Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.8.4
Copyright ©2000 - 2014, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.