It's about god damn time!!!!

[Cdubyah]

I still say bonuses for gov't employees that find someone cheating the system.

Ha, that would be pretty sweet. Unfortunately fraud investigators get paid to do that all day long.

[kawi kid]

Ha, that would be pretty sweet. Unfortunately fraud investigators get paid to do that all day long.

dude you would be buyint both us fourwheelers if you got the bonuses

we know way to much

[Cdubyah]

I just look at it this way, I joined the Army to not use govt programs and earn my way. I have no respect for lazy people that refuse to pull their own weight in society. Thus making me feel that they are useless and dont deserve benefits. I worked my A$$ off to get to where I am, the military is always hiring.

Excellent point. There seem to be a plethora of lazy people, That know how to work the system. It can be done, I've seen it first hand. It's just a pain in the ass for the folks like us that work for a living, that barely scrape by, but can't get the things that they do. For the simple fact that we have a bit more motivation to do something. A job is a job when you are hungry. No matter the disdain you have for it. It's not below you.

I have zero problem helping my fellow man when he is down. But the folks that make it a living on the system, reeealllly touch a nerve. plus, there's not a whole lot that we can do about, because they aren't breaking any rules.

[jbot]

the funnay part about all this is that some of the people posting on here are doing this while they're "working".

getting paid to do nothing... sounds familiar, doesn't it? well, at least it's not crack.

oh no he didn't! oh, yesh he did! and so on and so forth.

[Cdubyah]

So maybe we are on break, or lunch?!?!?!

[kawi kid]

So maybe we are on break, or lunch?!?!?!

Or injured?!?!?!

[DangBruhY]

Instead of welfare, why not "hire" these people to do stuff... Like clean government buildings, pick up trash along side the interstate and roadways, and stuff that the government is supposed to do, but never hires anyone to do.

[kawi kid]

Instead of welfare, why not "hire" these people to do stuff... Like clean government buildings, pick up trash along side the interstate and roadways, and stuff that the government is supposed to do, but never hires anyone to do.

they hire people to do that but they are way over paid.

[Cdubyah]

Instead of welfare, why not "hire" these people to do stuff... Like clean government buildings, pick up trash along side the interstate and roadways, and stuff that the government is supposed to do, but never hires anyone to do.

Confidentiality problems, would be the main reason for not being able to clean office buildings.

[DangBruhY]

they hire people to do that but they are way over paid.

Who cleans the interstates?

[OsuMj]

I'd like to see the females implanted with an IUD. I know that may sound heartless to most people but if you can't afford to feed yourself what makes you think you can feed' date=' clothe, and care for a child?[/quote']

Why just the females? I'm pretty sure that men make babies too...

I say we require some type of service, ie some sort of community service program when enrolled to receive benefits. Why should it be free when the grounds of the city owned property needs cleaned? Or something as simple as a partnership with business to even clean them. Our work programs are sad and need revamped, more partnership between the department of job and family services and the welfare people, and local big business would create a circle that could benefit all.

I agree completely. There seems to be an increasing number of people (unfortunately) with extra time on their hands now, so why not spend some time doing things that need done anyway.

[Disclaimer]

Disagree. You're stretching when you say that all the people taken off welfare will automatically turn to crime, and end up in prison. I dont believe for a minute that it would happen that way for two reasons - not everyone would turn to crime, and with the shiddy conviction rates not all of them would be there for long anyway.

Never did I say all...but the end path for lazy people that aren't on welfare is ultimately death or crime, which will lead to prison (another form of welfare) or death. All I said was welfare is cheaper than prison. Even if you have 1 single person over 100 people, that's still going to cost more than 100 people on their own because you have to PAY that one person 'x' dollars to oversee each individual. If not prision, then death...which, like I said, leads to argument #2, what's cheaper - welfare or death?

No, you left one out - sterilization. Again, you're assuming that everyone taken off the rolls would end up dead or in prison.

Even if you sterilize people that aren't contributing, that still wouldn't stop more lazy people from being born. That's not logical. Hardworking people FAIL all the time at instilling the value of work ethic into their kids. What if the same parents pump out 3 kids and two of them end up on welfare? Ok, we sterilize the kids, but the parents are productive, what do we do then? Regardless, it's still a surgical procedure that will have to be PAID for by taxpayers, it's a one-time cost per person, but it will continue through generations and I bet some people could care less if they're sterile or not. So, it's not even a deterrent.

You also have to define 'welfare' and 'productive' - if you work at McDonalds, but still need food stamps because you're below the poverty line - are you productive or are you on welfare? Is retirement (SS and Medicare) welfare, or have those people 'earned it' through their years of productivity? If us 'working stiffs' have to scrimp to live and our retirement funds tank because of the market, do we deserve to be treated better or worse than the Wall street CEOs who've been able to save millions for their retirement? Or to put it more bluntly, am I better than you because I make more than you or chose a profession that pays better than yours?

Go for it. Lets see the numbers you're going to "stack up". You were the one that said it was cheaper, I'd say the burden of proof is on you.

http://www.capecodcommission.org/housing/CostsofHomelessness020909.pdf

Study of homeless and associated costs - the best I could do, there's not a lot out there when you Google "What is the societal cost due to homeless deaths?". So I figure, if you can't even afford to shelter yourself, you probably can't afford to feed yourself. Bad assumption, but if you read some of the study, it shows the associated health care costs of the homeless - and it's sky high. So, lets say they can afford to feed themselves, but are still homeless. Statistically they require a lot more expensive health care because they're sick all the time. They can't afford it, obviously, so you're footing the bill there. You going to deny health care to the people that can't afford it too? Beyond that, once they do finally kick the bucket, it's going to cost some amount of money to prep the body, move the body, burn the body, etc - which will vary depending on where the person was when they died. Statistically speaking if you're homeless and starving... I think most people would seek medical assistance if only for a warm place to stay - which clogs up the the health care system when people like you and me have legitimate medical needs. Thinking all these people are going to off themselves is wishful thinking. You can review the numbers in the report - welfare is the cheapest option. If you find anything counter to that, I'll review it.

Plenty of "policies" and spending are enacted with one thought only - "HOW MANY VOTES WILL THIS GET ME".

For instance....???

Welfare isn't really popular because of the prevailing attitudes, so I don't know how that argument comes into play in this debate.

The welfare system is bloated, antiquated and rife with fraud and abuse. A program that was designed to be a temporary measure has turned into a lifestyle for a whole class of people. Its time that the fee ride ends.

Again, its simple economics.

[Todd#43]

Never did I say all...but the end path for lazy people that aren't on welfare is ultimately death or crime, which will lead to prison (another form of welfare) or death. All I said was welfare is cheaper than prison. Even if you have 1 single person over 100 people, that's still going to cost more than 100 people on their own because you have to PAY that one person 'x' dollars to oversee each individual. If not prision, then death...which, like I said, leads to argument #2, what's cheaper - welfare or death?

So, you're saying that we've created a whole class of people that will never be good for anything, ever? Please. Did you ever think for one minute that once people realize its a temporary thing, that might motivate them to actually DO something?

Even if you sterilize people that aren't contributing, that still wouldn't stop more lazy people from being born. That's not logical. Hardworking people FAIL all the time at instilling the value of work ethic into their kids. What if the same parents pump out 3 kids and two of them end up on welfare? Ok, we sterilize the kids, but the parents are productive, what do we do then? Regardless, it's still a surgical procedure that will have to be PAID for by taxpayers, it's a one-time cost per person, but it will continue through generations and I bet some people could care less if they're sterile or not. So, it's not even a deterrent.

Honestly, I don't know where you come up with this shit. Obviously, it wouldn't stop more "lazy people" from being born. What it would help to stop is this "dependency class" of people that the welfare system has helped to create. Sure, its not the final answer, but its a good start.

You also have to define 'welfare' and 'productive' - if you work at McDonalds, but still need food stamps because you're below the poverty line - are you productive or are you on welfare? Is retirement (SS and Medicare) welfare, or have those people 'earned it' through their years of productivity? If us 'working stiffs' have to scrimp to live and our retirement funds tank because of the market, do we deserve to be treated better or worse than the Wall street CEOs who've been able to save millions for their retirement? Or to put it more bluntly, am I better than you because I make more than you or chose a profession that pays better than yours?

Social Security isnt welfare because for the most part you're paying into it. Medicare is the same. Its a benefit for WORKING, not sitting on your ass pumping out babies to get more money.

As far as your "retirement fund" being "in the market", that was a choice that YOU made. No one forced you to put it there. There are risks involved in investing in the stock market. Lost your nest egg?? Sorry, not my problem. You could have put your money in investments with little to no risk, but you want the big dollars, you open yourself up to more risk. Simple, isnt it?

If someone chooses a career or a job that offers them the opportunity to make more money than me, good for them. Doesn't mean that I should get part of what they have though. Are they better than me? Maybe so, maybe not. Having more money than someone else just allows you to buy more shit.

Study of homeless and associated costs - the best I could do, there's not a lot out there when you Google "What is the societal cost due to homeless deaths?". So I figure, if you can't even afford to shelter yourself, you probably can't afford to feed yourself. Bad assumption, but if you read some of the study, it shows the associated health care costs of the homeless - and it's sky high. So, lets say they can afford to feed themselves, but are still homeless. Statistically they require a lot more expensive health care because they're sick all the time. They can't afford it, obviously, so you're footing the bill there. You going to deny health care to the people that can't afford it too? Beyond that, once they do finally kick the bucket, it's going to cost some amount of money to prep the body, move the body, burn the body, etc - which will vary depending on where the person was when they died. Statistically speaking if you're homeless and starving... I think most people would seek medical assistance if only for a warm place to stay - which clogs up the the health care system when people like you and me have legitimate medical needs. Thinking all these people are going to off themselves is wishful thinking. You can review the numbers in the report - welfare is the cheapest option. If you find anything counter to that, I'll review it.

We arent talking about homelessness. Save your rant on that topic for another thread.

For instance....???

Welfare isn't really popular because of the prevailing attitudes, so I don't know how that argument comes into play in this debate.

Again, its simple economics.

Welfare hasn't been popular with me for quite some time. However, those that seek to perpetuate and grow the system are those that depend on the votes of that dependency class. Take away their free ride, and you lose votes. If you don't buy into that, I'm not surprised.

[Disclaimer]

So, you're saying that we've created a whole class of people that will never be good for anything, ever? Please. Did you ever think for one minute that once people realize its a temporary thing, that might motivate them to actually DO something?

Nope. Temporary?? psh.... people shit bricks when they realize there's no safety net, but in reality, what are we doing RIGHT NOW? Bailing people out. There is no "temporary" situation - that concept is LOST. People need to be internally motivated, external forces can only go so far in lighting a fire under peoples asses.

Honestly, I don't know where you come up with this shit. Obviously, it wouldn't stop more "lazy people" from being born. What it would help to stop is this "dependency class" of people that the welfare system has helped to create. Sure, its not the final answer, but its a good start.

So you bust my chops for thinking we've created this "whole class of people that will never be good for anything", yet in the very next line you admit there is a dependency class and your solution is socioeconomic class genocide. You're talking out of both sides of your mouth.

Social Security isnt welfare because for the most part you're paying into it. Medicare is the same. Its a benefit for WORKING, not sitting on your ass pumping out babies to get more money.

As far as your "retirement fund" being "in the market", that was a choice that YOU made. No one forced you to put it there. There are risks involved in investing in the stock market. Lost your nest egg?? Sorry, not my problem. You could have put your money in investments with little to no risk, but you want the big dollars, you open yourself up to more risk. Simple, isnt it?

Not your problem? It'll be your problem when me and 100M other Americans who have invested can't pay our bills or no longer have money to buy cars or houses or motorcycles... what do you think that's going to do to your retirement? Companies will either go out of business, or the price of goods will skyrocket. You can charge $13k for a new Suzuki when you can spread costs over 20M customers, when you can only spread it over 8M customers, that's a game changer. You really need to think outside your little personal bubble of "I'm fine, everyone else can go fuck themselves" because when life's hard for everyone but you, I guarantee it'll get hard for you. So, I can't pay my bills because I "gambled" on the market, but guess what? Your nest egg just dropped too because your cost base for everything just rose. You planned to have enough money for 20 years of retirement, but that just got cut to 12 - then what?

If someone chooses a career or a job that offers them the opportunity to make more money than me, good for them. Doesn't mean that I should get part of what they have though. Are they better than me? Maybe so, maybe not. Having more money than someone else just allows you to buy more shit.

Orly? So you don't think the elite get better doctors, better treatment, better access, better networks, better opportunities... money just helps them get "more shit."? Ok.

We arent talking about homelessness. Save your rant on that topic for another thread.

You're missing the forest for the trees.

Welfare hasn't been popular with me for quite some time. However, those that seek to perpetuate and grow the system are those that depend on the votes of that dependency class. Take away their free ride, and you lose votes. If you don't buy into that, I'm not surprised.

That's my point, welfare was NEVER popular because the majority of people ARE in the working class... so if the MAJORITY of people work, then it's safe to reason that that same MAJORITY can vote... so why wouldn't you cater to the working people? The passage of welfare measures has nothing to do with "getting votes" - if anything, it's a vote detractor.

[jbot]

you suckers... putting your retirement savings into the stock market?!

i've just been buying lottery tixxxx! and throwing the losing tickets at the homeless and tell them it's a $5 winner. their irreconcilable wailing upon finding out the truth makes sweat with joy. i call it joy sweat. i'm going to market it as a sports drink in japan.

I guess I'm a little late to the game

[Disclaimer]

rah rah rah!

[SAMBUSA]

Get rid of welfare altogether. Want assistance? Go out and do community service, work for the assistance you get

[jbot]

i heard certain types of vasectomies are reversible?

i'd just hold "Pulling out for Beginners" classes.

advanced members can learn blind zombie and pearl necklace techniques and much MUCH MUCH MOARR

[OsuMj]

I wasn't aware men could get an "Intra-Uterine Device" planted in their bodies.

I am for sterilizing both sexes. The issue is doing it and not making it permanent or extremely expensive.

well obviously I wasn't implying IUDs' date=' goof... but birth control methods. I agree with you that if you're in a situation where you're recieving assistance you shouldn't be making babies, but there is something fundamentally wrong with forcing someone to get an IUD. If I was ever in the situation where I needed to get assistance, I would be appalled by being forced to do it.

i heard certain types of vasectomies are reversible?

i'd just hold "Pulling out for Beginners" classes.

advanced members can learn blind zombie and pearl necklace techniques and much MUCH MUCH MOARR

.. maybe we need to have some scientific focus on male contraceptives...

[cmoosego]

well obviously I wasn't implying IUDs, goof... but birth control methods. I agree with you that if you're in a situation where you're recieving assistance you shouldn't be making babies, but there is something fundamentally wrong with forcing someone to get an IUD. If I was ever in the situation where I needed to get assistance, I would be appalled by being forced to do it.

.. maybe we need to have some scientific focus on male contraceptives...

there are pills that make it impossible to get it up... called chemical castration...

[max power]

Close' date=' but I'd rather see no more welfare for welfare recipients. Also, while they are drug testing I'd like to see the females implanted with an IUD. I know that may sound heartless to most people but if you can't afford to feed yourself what makes you think you can feed, clothe, and care for a child?[/quote']

+1000

I like the forced community service idea, but even that needs to be supervised, and it's awful hard to get people to do something they don't want to do without using force. Then you're back to another one of the scenarios. Don't want to work -> no welfare -> no food ->STEAL or STARVE -> Dead bodies everywhere

Yeah, that would be a shame if people who were too lazy to get off their ass and give back to the community starved to death. We should just give them free money so they can continue to do nothing but take up space.

The GREEN thing to do would be to let the lazy fucks starve so they wont be emitting a carbon footprint. win/win.

[cmoosego]

+1000

Yeah, that would be a shame if people who were too lazy to get off their ass and give back to the community starved to death. We should just give them free money so they can continue to do nothing but take up space.

The GREEN thing to do would be to let the lazy fucks starve so they wont be emitting a carbon footprint. win/win.

that sir deserves rep...

[Todd#43]

Nope. Temporary?? psh.... people shit bricks when they realize there's no safety net, but in reality, what are we doing RIGHT NOW? Bailing people out. There is no "temporary" situation - that concept is LOST. People need to be internally motivated, external forces can only go so far in lighting a fire under peoples asses.

Let 'em shit bricks. All of them. AIG included. No job? Twelve kids? Get rid of your cell phone and the Lexus. Quit buying the $100.00 sneakers for the kids. Public Housing? You can stay here for a year, then you're out. Cut it to the bone, and if it doesn't "light a fire under their collective asses", too bad.

So you bust my chops for thinking we've created this "whole class of people that will never be good for anything", yet in the very next line you admit there is a dependency class and your solution is socioeconomic class genocide. You're talking out of both sides of your mouth.

We have created it - never said we didn't. Its time to stop it, or a least make it a hell of a lot more difficult for it to perpetuate itself.

Not your problem? It'll be your problem when me and 100M other Americans who have invested can't pay our bills or no longer have money to buy cars or houses or motorcycles... what do you think that's going to do to your retirement? Companies will either go out of business, or the price of goods will skyrocket. You can charge $13k for a new Suzuki when you can spread costs over 20M customers, when you can only spread it over 8M customers, that's a game changer. You really need to think outside your little personal bubble of "I'm fine, everyone else can go fuck themselves" because when life's hard for everyone but you, I guarantee it'll get hard for you. So, I can't pay my bills because I "gambled" on the market, but guess what? Your nest egg just dropped too because your cost base for everything just rose. You planned to have enough money for 20 years of retirement, but that just got cut to 12 - then what?

We all make choices. Again, if you decided on an investment with greater risk, that's your problem. Your bad decision doesn't bother me in the least. You can pay your bills? Boo-Fucking-hoo. Everyone has the same opportunity. If my costs go up, they go up. Thats the way it works.

Orly? So you don't think the elite get better doctors, better treatment, better access, better networks, better opportunities... money just helps them get "more shit."? Ok.

Sure they do. Whats wrong with that? You want better doctors, better access, better networks? Work harder, invent something, do SOMETHING to make your life better. You have the same opportunity as everyone else.

That's my point, welfare was NEVER popular because the majority of people ARE in the working class... so if the MAJORITY of people work, then it's safe to reason that that same MAJORITY can vote... so why wouldn't you cater to the working people? The passage of welfare measures has nothing to do with "getting votes" - if anything, it's a vote detractor.

Guess you missed the whole ACORN thing. That class is there, they are LARGE and the vote Democrat....oddly enough, the same people that want to give everything to everybody. Hmmmm......

[Hondajt]

I read the first post. And Here are my thoughts.

We should drug test the freeloaders. But it cost's too much. If they fail the first test, kick their ass's off the program. The money they save by having less people, will pay for the drug tests. Make sense? (Economics and poilitics clearly aren't my thing)

As for the IUD, i disagree, sort of. Its got too many moral issues attached. Just add a stipulation saying if they have a kid, while single on welfare, they are forced off welfare.

I say, let personal accountability determine who gets money.

[max power]

I read the first post. And Here are my thoughts.

We should drug test the freeloaders. But it cost's too much. If they fail the first test, kick their ass's off the program. The money they save by having less people, will pay for the drug tests. Make sense? (Economics and poilitics clearly aren't my thing)

As for the IUD, i disagree, sort of. Its got too many moral issues attached. Just add a stipulation saying if they have a kid, while single on welfare, they are forced off welfare.

I say, let personal accountability determine who gets money.

Sounds good to me. You should run for Prez.