Forum Post: The problem with wanting the "state" to take care of everyone....
Posted 13 years ago on Nov. 1, 2011, 10:33 a.m. EST by hillary
(252)
This content is user submitted and not an official statement
is that the populace grows to depend on the nanny state for care and feeding (or at least entitlements.) Complacency becomes the norm, and those attributes which drive increasing compensation and wealth (e.g., motivation, risk-taking, personal responsibility, etc.) are muted.
When the 1% relies on the state to subsidize and protect them, corruption becomes the norm, and those attributes which drive prosperity for all (e.g., fairness, honesty, personal responsibility, etc.) are non-existent.
the 1% include doctors lawyers engineers, small businesses. people who's income starts at $347,000.00. This movement tries to portray the 1% as all being multi millionairs & billionairs. ENOUGH! Most 1% are hard working people who earned everything they've got.
How do corporate subsidizations pertain to personal responsibility? I think you're just spewing class warfare drivel.
Corporations are people!
I think laissez-faire dogma will eventually lead to capitalists shooting themselves in the foot by taking down the very society that enables them to profit. I don’t think a system of pure capitalism is sustainable in the long run because as technology advances, automation and efficiency of scale with regard to production continuously reduce the amount of human labor needed to produce goods. If in the end there simply aren’t enough jobs to go around, that is a problem which MUST be addressed. In this modern age the jobless can’t just go back to the lifestyle of peasants who grow their own food and live off the land. Besides massive social unrest, capitalists also have the problem that by reducing the labor force they destroy the consumer base, ultimately causing a downward spiral for everyone. In the end there must be a role for government as an employer of last resort or society as we know it collapses. But such a program requires funding, meaning the rich must pay higher taxes. If millionaires care about economic and social stability for future generations they need to start THINKING and stop whining about taxes and buying idiot politicians who will eventually destroy our whole society.
As low-skill jobs are eliminated due to automation, new high-skill jobs are created. The problem comes when people can't re-train quickly enough for the new jobs. That's what's happening now. Unemployment is very low in the tech sector, for example.
Only if technological infrastructure continues to advance and a large enough section of the population can afford the necessary training. That's not going to happen if there is no effective wealth redistribution.
Free training: http://railsforzombies.org/
Look. I have an MS degree. I've done a fair share of programming/coding. I work hard, but I admit that I was born with a talent for analytical thinking. 95% of the population can't do what I do. I don't look down on people for not having the same aptitudes I do.
I'm not looking down on anybody. I'm trying to create jobs for people. In all of this movement, full of over-educated, under-employed kids with MacBook Pros and iPads and iPhones, there must be SOMEBODY who is interested in a promising career in the high-demand field of making cloud software for mobile devices. Right?
The problem is not everyone can be a programmer.
maybe they can do something else of higher value. how about auto mechanic? they make pretty darn good money. 6 months at a tech school and you are on your way.
so - going to a six month training course to become an auto mechanic is just out of reach?
I don't see how having all the unemployed become auto mechanics is a solution. If there are only so many auto mechanics needed in the current economy, the only way one person can become an auto mechanic is by replacing the job of someone else. The only way to increase demand for auto mechanics is for car manufacturers to start designing cars that break down more often. lol...
Unemployment is a systemic problem. I don't think conservatives are capable of looking at the big picture. You can only see things in terms of the individual. If 500 people are fighting over 300 bread crumbs, your solution is to tell each individual to fight harder to get as many crumbs as they can, ignoring the fact that there simply aren't enough bread crumbs to go around.
thats only one example. become an electrician, carpenter, plumber, HVAC technician, I think you people just want to complain. 5000 people chasing 300 crumbs is called scarcity . It's also called reality.
Why is it that conservatives always resort to ad hominem personal attacks in order to avoid a rational discussion? I think the majority of the American people would like to see us working towards a solution to the scarcity of jobs problem and don’t appreciate being labeled “whiners”. When that’s all you have it just proves your entire philosophy to be bankrupt, both intellectually and morally.
you should be focused on the other part of the comment about getting some skills
In order to actually lower unemployment people need to get skills in areas where demand has the potential to increase. In the current economy demand for electricians, carpenters, plumbers, auto mechanics, etc... isn't increasing. Telling people to compete harder for jobs in which demand is not growing doesn't solve the root issue. I know individualism is something ingrained in your head, but try to see the big picture for once.
Motivating more people to get trained to get into very high tech jobs might improve the economy some. The private sector doesn't seem to be doing a great job of this at the moment though. They're reluctant to invest in training people. Countries like Germany are doing a much better job.
tell that to my 20 year old nephew enrolled in an apprenticeship with the electricians union. 2 yrs jr college and he's got a great future 7& is making nice money. stop your whining
You don't want to have a rational discussion, do you? We are discussing ways to lower the unemployment rate. If the demand for electricians is not increasing, training to be an electrician will not reduce the national unemployment rate.
Again, and this will be my last warning to you, quit it with the ad hominems. First of all, I am not "whining". Second, your accusation is an avoidance tactic. All it does is make you look like an intellectually challenged troll who is incapable of rational thought.
whats not rational ? working - or sleeping in the park?
unemployment for people with 4 year college degree is 4,5%
Try dividing that up by age of graduation. You'll see that those who graduated in earlier decades had it a hell of a lot easier. A college degree is a lot more expensive and a lot less meaningful today than it was back in the day.
exactly. there are too many people going to college taking meaningless majors, expensive? Go to your local communiy college for two years & transfer to the state university. It's not expensive unless you go to some fancy privae school because you are seaking social status rather than skills
Thats an economic fallacy.
Its a derivative of the Luddite fallacy.
Why don't you actually show me where my logic is wrong instead of simply telling me it's a fallacy? You might not believe me but I would be willing to change my mind if you provide a convincing argument.
You sound like the gov't would give you thousands of dollars to do nothing. The government gives nothing for people to survive on. Why would anyone grow to depend on crumbs from the government!? You should take that statement and apply it to corporations who depend on the gov't for handouts...while their stock value rises and CEOs rake in millions.
What do you mean by "populace"? Are you saying "everyone"?! Also, define what you mean by "care" and "feeding". The government does not feed anyone nor do they provide care. What you are trying to say it seems...is that there are some people who are taking advantage of the system by claiming poverty or disability. However, the amount of people that do this in not determinable. So...my question to you is this. Who does deserve help from the government or as you say the "nanny state"?
The government doesn't feed anyone? Food stamps / EBT?
The government doesn't provide care? Medicare?
That is not the act of feeding. That is the act of providing a credit for food to be purchased. And besides...I don;t care that the government feeds those who are hungry...they should. Like I said...I cannot provide food for those who are hungry...so I give tacit consent to the gov't to take my tax dollars and give it (in the form of food stamps/EBT) to those who need it...where's the problem?
In addition, I also give tacit consent to the gov't to take my tax dollars and pay for the healthcare of those who cannot afford it. And again I ask you...where is the problem here?
The problem is that you said the government did not do these things. "The government does not feed anyone nor do they provide care."
The ACT of feeding? Now you're just trying to be cute.
Well...when you say the government is feeding someone, you create images of the great depression...soup lines, cheese lines, etc. But away with the semantics...there were other points I made...which were far more important.
I'll cut to the chase - how is OWS dealing with the professionally homeless who are getting fed by the kitchen? How is possible that people take advantage of others?
I don't know...and I don't care. They are hungry...and should be fed.
Ok, then in my communist world you won't be a captain of a sub with that attitude.
See how people are different and some are useless while others are useful?
That sounds like fascism. Neglect and ignore the useless (or in the case of the Nazis, they killed those who were deemed "useless"). What separates us from Nazis and fascists in general is that we look out for those who cannot take care of themselves (or are useless).
Look out doesn't mean they get a yacht from the goodness of the community if their sole purpose is to be cared for.
I think we may be confused here. I support #OWS...and I want to see an end to greed and corruption in gov't and business. I am sick of career politicians and greedy, unscrupulous, unethical business practices. I cannot see how a CEO of a corporation makes $50 million dollars in one year, while he cuts jobs and ruins people's lives. On what planet does that make sense? And don't get me started on Wall Street itself. It does nothing productive other than move money around from one place to another.They seem to make money out of thin air. And they can do that because of this insane financial system that relies on the illusion that it contributes to the economy...while it does nothing but move money around.
Because the CEO worked his ASS OFF. I think what you're feeling is jealousy.
Worked his ass off? How...tell me exactly how Ken Lay worked his ass off??. Do you even know what a CEO does? Please tell me what type of work a CEO does...?
You obviously don't know what a CEO does and you have obviously never run a business.
OK...can between you idiots who know what exactly a CEO does...please enlighten me!!
Responding to my message by sending me a private message calling me an idiot makes you a troll, doesn't it?
The CEO is the one responsible for the bottom line of the business. It's their job to position the business to take advantage of opportunities. The business model is their responsibility. The revenue of the company, and therefore all of the jobs of all of the people who work for the company, are all that person's responsibility.
If it were so easy for any random person to go out and dream up a business plan and then successfully execute it, creating a self-sustaining revenue stream, then we would NOT be having this conversation about people who want the government to take care of them. That's the key difference between a CEO and a welfare recipient.
The CEO is responsible for steering the ship. It is not an easy job. You have obviously never been one.
My Aunt grew up in rural West Virginia. She worked on the sawmill and eventually got an associates degree in business. got a job with a global chemical company, after a few years she wanted to move up the ladder and went back to school for her bachelors. she saw potential and went back again for her doctorate. working at the same company for another 28 years, she was then promoted to CEO.
Do you think people that run companies just get shit handed to them?
Work harder and don't complain... that's my aunt's favorite line.
The CEO should not only work hard, he should do a good job. He should not, ever, have a contract with a bonus for being fired, aka a golden parachute.
Those contracts give huge money even if the company is nearly destroyed, because they are cosy deals with boards of directors that are chosen by a small group of cronies. Shareholders cannot get their own nominees for the board on the ballots that go out.
Please read Pay without Performance. It isn't a new book, but the research by Dr. Bebchuk is right on target.
Pensions for employees have been massacred in the private sector, except for top executives. They are called SERPs, and they are a disgrace.
How fortunate...I have. His opinions on stock option backdating show his bias of dislike toward corporation.
Since you are playing permalink I'm going up to your last open post - backdating to increase pay is unearned, unfair, and should be illegal.
Now you're assuming and interjecting personal opinion on factual information.
Bonuses if the company continues to perform well and the inability to hide expense via backdating have yet to be addressed.
Yes, he thinks "lucky" backdating is cheating. I'd call it legal fraud. He wants people to get the money they earn. And just that.
I'd call in incentive; companies use backdating when hiring to allot for future bonuses if the company continues to preform well. You can't hide expenses via backdating.
It depends on what you mean by "take care." The government is there to protect its citizens, including against exploitation and greed. Of course your post is simply meant to be a typical misrepresentation of what the movement is about. No one is asking for government handouts, except for your buddies the banks and corporations. Try being honest, it can be rewarding.
I am, thanks for playing.
Your post shows you to be another full of shit liar. What do you do to earn a living?
I'm not but suit yourself. I'm a business owner in the tech world. Have 125 staff. Believe or not, they seem happy.
You communicate like a not very bright 12 year old, I find that hard to believe. I think that's what mommy & daddy do, not what you do.
TROLL. Mods please delete this account.
How'd you start your business? How much do you pay your employees? Do they have benefits?
Venture capitalists (whom I later bought out). They are techs and engs so they are well payed. Yes we have a corporate benefits package.
Venture capitalists, i.e. the 1%. What does your business produce, software to help them cheat us all?
It's win-win, I get capital that I don't currently have, they get sell their shares when the value of the biz goes up.
I'm sorry you never did anything of value in your life or gave people jobs and stability.
You know nothing about me. What does your business produce that is of value? I love how you frame enriching yourself as charity.
Wow, I work hard, make well-paying jobs and some snot-nosed punk says it's charity?
I worked for a living. What about you?
Your reading comprehension is abysmal. I said "you frame enriching yourself as charity." I guess I have to explain that sentence to you. Those jobs exist to make YOU money, that is why those jobs exist, only for your own personal gain, but you frame it in such a way that you are a charitable person PROVIDING these jobs. The jobs exist only to make money for you. Get it now? I know, I used big words. I love that you called me a snot-nosed punk yet you have no idea who I am, how old, what I do for a living, etc. And I'd still like to know what you produce that is of any value at all.
How did you get your government contracts?
You think that all employers are exploiters, who only create jobs for selfish reasons?
Landing gears for the military!!!!!???? Fucking hilarious you are a fucking war profiteer and all of your money is tax money, but you don't believe in paying taxes! You hypocritical scum, I love how you don't want me to be able to reply to your posts, war profiteer scum.
"The jobs exist only to make money for you. Get it now?"
Ya I get it, you're a TROLL. I do make more money than my staff but I do more as well. In fact I worry about them. But you live in a fantasy world world of submission and well you need to take care of that with your psych. Sorry, I'm not your Mommy.
WAR PROFITEER. Your bank account is filled with tax dollars but you're against paying taxes. Hypocritical scum. WAR PROFITEER.
How does it feel to be emasculated by a woman?
So what do you produce?
Landing gears for the military.
WAR PROFITEER. Your bank account is filled with tax dollars but you're against paying taxes. Hypocritical scum. WAR PROFITEER.
How does it feel to be emasculated by a woman?
Margaret Thatcher, "...the problem with that is pretty soon you run out of other people's money." When the 1% takes ALL the money, the Fed prints them some more.
Tell that to the banks.
And your argument is...... ?
ah,. the banks have taken way more of "other peoples money" than all the government programs of social up lift put together,. or did you miss that?
I did, because 1) borrowing money has costs 2) if you borrow a lot then maybe you are taking on too much 3) it's all about responsibility.
Unless you are borrowing the money in order to cash in on all that killer military spending.
so,. banks have no responsibility? I did not know that.
Of course. Next you'll tell me they have a responsibility to protect you from borrowing over your capability to repay? Who's going to have the responsibility to tell you not to have children because you aren't the fatherly type?
Why is it you continue to believe people defaulting on home mortgages has created a problem,. I thought the bankers got the collateral on a default? What then have they lost? Your endless harping on personal responsibility is silly and way off base,. no one wants the "state" to take care of everyone,. we want a system that is not criminally corrupt, we dont' want a system that funnels wealth from the many to the few,. what part of that do you not understand?
The only people benefiting form 'nanny state' protection and handouts are the wealthy,. the corporation, and the banks.
Not saying all are the problem, just those that did the ridiculous loans with little down-payment, then took out HELOCs, and with little equity in the home are claiming THEY were screwed by the banks. No, they were IRRESPONSIBLE fools.
Ummm... yeah they DO have a responsibility to not lend to people who can't pay. Not only responsibility to those people but responsibility to the stability of our whole economy.
at the very least responsibility to their own bank!
You understand that the TEST for solvency was removed to allow "less fortunate" people access to homes, right? In other words the banks DID have the responsibility of checking and people argued that minorities had NO CHANCE of borrowing because of it.
They didn't do it to be inclusive. It was a get-rich-quick scam.
Tell that to the minorities. BTW, I suppose the WTC was an inside job?
Same as yours: Complacency becomes the norm, and those attributes which drive increasing compensation and wealth (e.g., motivation, risk-taking, personal responsibility, etc.) are muted.
WAR PROFITEER. Your bank account is filled with tax dollars but you're against paying taxes. Hypocritical scum. WAR PROFITEER.
i feel like there are some things that might be helpful to some of you who are expressing opinions about welfare to understand. someone here said that disability is visible -- and others agreed. bear in mind that this is not always the case. you can not see cancer or fibromyalgia, but these are illnesses for which a person might receive what is known as "disability." (as well, there are fairly "visible" types of disability that do not incapacitate some people -- for eg some blind people are able to be gainfully employed). anyway, there are two types of disability benefits in this country. one is based on past earnings, so that a person who has paid a lot of money into the system might receive more than one who has not. the other is not based on earnings. there are also different types of welfare available to help feed young children (WIC -- which helps with forumula and some very basic food, like eggs, peanut butter, beans), food stamps, etc. these are not based on disability and in this country, since the beginning of "welfare reform" have been tied to work. a woman must work to receive these benefits. There are jobs programs in place at present, and essentially they seem to be full of less educated women, many of whom have young children. (the birth of a child tends to correlate to a major downward turn in the economic status of a woman who is not married, or in the case of divorce. this is not mysterious.) there are as well jobs programs occurring for people who have completed college/grad school and beyond. in these programs, highly educated people with many years of education are currently working for free, as they did when first graduating, in desperate hopes of picking up a new skill or two that might help them get a job. the women (and men) packing the welfare offices, so far as i can tell, are in the main ready and willing to take blue collar jobs -- many would never consider themselves qualified for anything else. and the jobs training programs offered them aim to have them in such positions, but the jobs are very hard to come by. it seems to me like we are in a state of flux, like people must have experienced at the time of industrialization -- the world is changing in ways we have not yet quite been able to understand and we are in one of those pockets where a great many people don't understand how to be useful. i expect we'll figure it out. we're not as dumb as we seem and we're pretty adaptive. as well, some major cultural shifts have happened in this country since the 60s/70s -- to wit women went to work and there came about a sort of expectation that everybody should go to college. the expectation that women should work just like men did not come along with much of a game plan about what would happen to children or the elderly while women were doing so. and so we see crazy stuff happening in the welfare system -- like the state paying for childcare so women can be in "jobs programs" that will not produce jobs where the women live. that is costly and ineffective and exacts a human cost from children deprived of parental care for no tangible benefit to anybody. and it does seem that the expectation of college for all has both degraded the value of an undergraduate degree as well as put a lot of people in deep debt without creating quite the benefit the hoped for. i just saw something in the economist saying that a georgetown found that a college degree is still worth a lot over a lifetime's earnings -- but things are changing quite rapidly (the article states) and i'm not sure whose lifetime they were looking at; perhaps not the ridiculous percentage of college grads matriculating to their parents' basements. the welfare system, by the way, is often labyrinthine even to welfare workers, i suspect.
You really have two issues. One is that entitlement programs serve a useful purpose that many don't want to address. Welfare is a program that can be used to control the movement of a large group of people. Let's take away welfare and see what 5th avenue would look like in a week or two. The other problem is waste in these programs encourage fraud. The programs themselves are designed to help someone cope with issues that could be devastating without any assistance and shows we have humanity and compassion for one another. Getingt rid of fraud should be an easy task. Creating inner city jobs that supply true wages and benefits to support families is a task that corporate america makes difficult as it tries to globalize and reduce wages and benefits.
I'll say it a little more bluntly than you did.
Welfare programs are social engineering.
What do they engineer?
The programs feed the 5% of people who are always going to be unemployed at any given time in society because full employment is never going to be possible.
By keeping this segment of chronically unemployed & unemployable people fed & somewhat comfortable, the government prevents social unrest.
Simply put, the purpose of welfare programs are to keep hungry, homeless, physically fit people from rioting and looting.
The elite will never do away with welfare programs.
Some of them will foster & nurture the hatred of welfare recipients by those a rung or two above them on the ladder. That's you, my dear readers. Sure, they will allow you to hate those people at the bottom and they will even tell you why you should. But they won't do away with the big pacifier because that pacifier protects their interests.
Having said all that, OWS is not about welfare programs.
Student loan forgiveness, mortgage relief, foreclosure prevention/resistance and jobs programs are being talked about but not food stamps & welfare for the bottom rung of unemployed people.
If I am wrong, please show me where that is one of the main issues being discussed. I haven't seen any marches on welfare offices. I see marches on banks, I see Occupy the Boardroom, Occupy colleges, etc.
SO why does the conversation always come down to food stamps & welfare?
That's a little more blunt. If welfare programs didn't serve the best interests of the monied elite these programs would be gone tomorrow. These programs allow the richest people in nyc to live a life without towering walls around their communities. Just a few blocks north of 5th ave. and 80th street are some of the poorest new yorkers. The lack of money keeps this group immobile within the elitist's world and welfare keeps them contained in upstate Manhattan. You do bring up an interesting thought. Where are the black people in the OWS movement? Does welfare work that good?
How about lets not take away welfare but put in programs that allow them to contribute to society while they are on welfare.
I understand your point and I believe it already is being implemented to some degree. However, welfare is a program that is used to contain large groups of people. The fraud of this program has to be overlooked because large masses of people would exit their section 8 apartments and soon realize that there are no working class jobs in the areas they live in. The real question is with all the tax incentives that are given to large corporations like IBM, which can afford its own global and national expansion without govenment assistance,why are jobs with real working wages and benefits not being created within these communities?
we are not asking the state to take care of everyone, we are asking the state to stop being party to corporations stealing, fleecing, robbing, con scamming, and blackmailing everyone. There is a difference. pay attention.
http://occupythiswiki.org/wiki/Corporate_Oligarchy
Then i'm puzzled by the Anarchist & Communist flags fluttering at OWS....
its not hard to understand. 10 percent of the population has such sympathies. I can't chase them out of the occupy. But they don't represent MOST of the occupiers, who are for DEMOCRACY.
if you also want democracy then take a stand for it. being the 99 percent means everyones included its a big tent. I can't silence them, I can't remove their signs. I can make sure the consensus we come to is a sane egalitarian democratic consensus, not an anarchist or communist one.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=OPR3GlpQQJA
I have been active here since the very beginning, and since the very beginning I have been trying to make some core points. These points clearly have not been digested or fully understood by the mob, and so I'm going to try to make a further attempt here again.
For these reasons, I beg of you to please immediately join me on the wiki. We need to have all of these details and all of these ideas put together in an organized fashion, rather than posted in a long scrawl which will never be read.
http://occupythiswiki.org/wiki/THE_99%25_POLITICAL_PARTY
http://occupythiswiki.org/wiki/Main_Page
http://www.followthemoney.org/?gclid=CMbY87bB-qsCFUPt7Qod9HE8mQ
http://maplight.org/us-congress/guide/data/money?9gtype=search&9gkw=list%20of%20campaign%20donations&9gad=6213192521.1&9gag=1786513361&gclid=CP61oYbB-qsCFQFZ7AodcTF0jw
http://www.opensecrets.org/
http://occupywallst.org/forum/our-new-wiki/
http://occupywallst.org/forum/non-violence-evolution-by-paradigm-shift/
Do you feel that OWS is wanting the state to take care of everyone? If so, what has led you to believe this?
Honest questions, not baiting you in any way.
Because the rhetoric here is that OWS wants equality for all and that the assets of the state are to be shared.
Can you show me an example of that?
Yes, do a search on "Assets", "Anarcho" and "Communist". The people of Occupy have spoken.
There is no search function on this site.
I would like to see how you formed your opinion. "Do a search" is not an honest answer.
It's honest inasmuch as you will not believe me otherwise. I send you to the source and yet you come back with a lame excuse that you cannot search. Just read everything.
Thank you, this answer is more revealing about you than if you had actually replied to my question.
I've read quite a bit on this site in the past few weeks and I've formed a different opinion than you have.
What's "lame" is that you make broad statements but can't back them up with facts.
Peace & good luck to you.
Nice spin. I don't see you "one up'ing" me with your different facts but hey, I didn't expect anything more.... Bye.
There's nothing to one up. You haven't presented anything but a vague statement about "nanny states" and "asking the govt to take care of you".
You say Bye and then you continue, that's STALKING mister.
LMFAO how old are you?
You have ZERO chance of bedding me, PERVERT.
don't drink the 1% koolaid
i.e. The beginning of the movie Wall-E. That was a serious nanny state!
Go read the declaration of independence and the constitution before you post crap and make assumptions. Have you ever tried clicking the ABOUT button on this site? No one is suggesting a nanny state.
Occupy Wall Street is a people-powered movement that began on September 17, 2011 in Liberty Square in Manhattan’s Financial District, and has spread to over 100 cities in the United States and actions in over 1,500 cities globally. #ows is fighting back against the corrosive power of major banks and multinational corporations over the democratic process, and the role of Wall Street in creating an economic collapse that has caused the greatest recession in generations. The movement is inspired by popular uprisings in Egypt and Tunisia, and aims to expose how the richest 1% of people are writing the rules of an unfair global economy that is foreclosing on our future.
The occupations around the world are being organized using a non-binding consensus based collective decision making tool known as a "people's assembly".
We are motivated by more than just money... I feel like I have explained this a hundred time to people.
Science tells us humans, apes, and few other mammals have mirror nuerons. The same pathways fire in us when we view someone else doing an act. So if someone shows an emotion, we can easily pick up on it because of these neurons. My claim is that this is because of early humanoid dependency on each other, i.e. through empathy based relations like blood ties, friends ect....
Money is and will never be the only motivating factor for us. I refer you to the rsa animation on what motivates us.
Risk taking and personal responsibility are no substitutes for human curiosity and ingenuity.
Complacency is a condition of receiving your needs while unable to do what you want. In a society that allows people to explore their interests, the will be no complacency. I consider your ploy of complacency as a belief that generally humans are lazy. In this regard we differ.
Very few countries have a welfare program and the reason we have one is not because they care about its people, it is to protect the powers and the elite from people revolting against them.
It is certainly a problem if you look at the state as some anonymous 3rd party that is taking from you rather than providing service to you. If the government is us, and we are the government, then this notion of a nanny state evaporates as we the people are simply organizing effectively, on a large scale, to help ourselves.
But more direct oversight and accountability are certainly called for.
In a democratic system, "The State" is the people (ie: society). Societies exist to sustain themselves. If we are not going to have a society anymore, then we are going back to a Feudal System where those who own the most have the power and the rest of us slave and grovel to them for crumbs. Apparently the second system is preferred by our current political class.
No one wants the state to take care of anyone. We want real elections where the corporations can't buy and sell politicians in order to game the system to their favor. If we had that then there would be more good paying jobs.
Corruption occurs in every organization of people. Rules, regulations, laws and penalties are how we hold corruption in check. Social safety net is part of the social contract the nation adopted as a response to need with empathy.
no one wants the state to take care of them.. everyone wants a job. can you not see the difference? jobs are equal to food. you would like america to become sudan?
Depending on the nanny state for care and feeding does not mute attributes which drive increasing compensation and wealth (e.g., motivation, risk-taking, personal responsibility, etc.) when discussion of such subjects are not banned or discouraged.
Depending on the nanny state for care and feeding does not mute attributes which drive increasing compensation and wealth (e.g., motivation, risk-taking, personal responsibility, etc.) when discussion of such subjects are not banned or discouraged.
Five million jobs have been outsourced to exploit slave wages. These are not mostly high tech, high skill jobs. Enact tariffs. Bring back the jobs.
And yet one of the first "demands" from OWS was to allow workers to work in any country and to abolish tariffs.
Where do you see "abolish tariffs"?
We already live in a nanny state, and we all know that only the rich can afford nannies.
Really? Why? Don't you work for a living?
HA. You are pretty ignorant, aren't you?!
Let me tell you something, sweetie--my mother worked for 20K a year to support 4 people for the entire length of my childhood. Sometimes she worked 2 jobs moonlighting as a maid. I grew up on the worst side of my town and went to one of the lowest-performing high schools in the country. My mother taught me to take school seriously, to work hard, and to always do my best. After I graduated from high school, I went to Harvard. After I graduated from Harvard, I couldn't find a single job, much less one in my field, much less one that was remotely interesting or ethically sound. So I went to graduate school instead, where I am now stacking up loans.
Where's my reward? America is a meritocracy, hunh? Then where's my freaking opportunity? Oh, that's right, I got my Harvard degree because I thought it would help me do the things I love and earn a comfortable living. I wasn't GREEDY enough to push it further than that, and I didn't have nepotism to fall back on when the economy failed.
Yes. You're right. My failure to earn a useless degree in economics and then enter the finance industry like so many of my vapid, prep-school classmates (many of whom also couldn't find jobs in 2008, the year I graduated and the year the recession began) so that I could exploit others in a soulless quest for money and power is little more than a failure to take responsibility for myself. I'm SO lazy.
Maybe your just not fun to be around?
Oh wow, I appreciate that you're taking it seriously.
You're in over your head. Go away.
We do not need a nanny state. We need universal insurance against risks: health insurance, unemployment insurance and retirement insurance. These should be mandatory.
government handouts huh now they want to cut 12 billion from the SNAP or Food Stamp program that now 48 Million Americans depend on to eat and most of those 48 million are Children. The little that they do get $1.50 per meal who can really eat on that? But the Republicans think nothing of keeping the 4 billion dollar a year giveaway to Big Oil even as they are once again reaping massive profits. Pro-Life huh seems that once a baby is born they stop caring about them!
As a person who only wants to discuss this issue with you, may I kindly ask why people would be allowed to mooch off the government if every individual were guaranteed access to basic necessities of survival (food, shelter, water). Other than that, I think this gives them a great foundation to clearly and positively focus on their lives, and the well being of others.
If we make laws that reflect the belief of the inherent evil nature of humankind, they will respond in the like. But, even with all this said, I more than clearly see that people in general are not ready to be self-governing systems of productivity.
But, if this learned condition can be unlearned, think of what each of us can be capable of creating and doing for the good of all if we never had to worry about survival?
Unlearned? Sure, let's reverse nature....... puhleeeeze
So you believe we are inherently evil at nature? And I would like to have a mature discussion with you. If not, I will take my leave.
Please, stop the drama. A percentage of humans are evil, that's just a fact. Accept it after you've read some history of the world and quit being such a hippie.
Quit being a hippie and find a way to get some of those awesome military dollars.
How does it feel to be emasculated by a woman?
How does it feel to be full of shit and know it? How many kids who joined the National Guard so they could go to college died for no reason in Iraq so you could whine about all the taxes you have to pay on all the tax money you take?
Holy Changing the Subject BATMAN!
Ya that's it, I work hard, I'm successful so, obvious, i'm responsible for the death of soldiers.
It's psychotic individuals like you that give meaning to the old rule that the "feeble minded" shouldn't reproduce.....
I didn't say you were responsible, I said you profited from their deaths, which you did. How does it feel to assume a random person on the internet is male? How exactly did you emasculate a random person on the internet? Every dollar in your bank account is a tax dollar. You are a war profiteer. Who pulled the strings to get you your no bid contracts? Parasite.
Funny how you never consider that I also save lives. Maybe you should be thanking me for the freedom you enjoy instead of trying to preach from your couch in the basement. Get a job and start paying me back for starters.
Wow, you really have no defense. A desperate move, to call me anti-American. Guess you're down for the count. I hope you are as ashamed of yourself as you should be.
Looks like I won several posts ago, you are now resorting to personal attacks. Hopefully your family will still have respect for you in the morning.
You are so full of shit. Yeah, hard work at looting the treasury. Give me one example of how you made me safe. You have no defense, war profiteer. I have zero respect for you, ZERO. I work hard, you loot the treasury, then whine about imaginary people you think are taking up some of those sweet sweet tax dollars that you want. You've made a fool of yourself in this forum, war profiteer. How'd you get the no bid contracts? How the fuck do you make me safe? Idiot.
You need to show some respect to the people that male your life safe. Time to take back your ugly rhetoric and apologize for the anti-american rants and start to live a life where you are thankful of the HARD WORK of others.
Wow. Attacking a woman? You really are pathetic. You have no defense, you know your life is a disgraceful sham, you know what a hypocrite you are, so one minute you are defending my freedom and the next minute you are a defenseless woman, and you don't want me to be able to respond to your ridiculous posts, why? And I'm still waiting to hear about your no bid contracts. And how do they give you the tax money, direct deposit? You clearly have no defense, and either have to make desperate attempts to insult and belittle me or cry foul because you are a female and therefore can't defend yourself? Also, please give me an example of how your landing gear were used to protect my freedom. You're pathetic, WAR PROFITEER.
You need to show some respect to the people that male your life safe. Time to take back your ugly rhetoric and apologize for the anti-american rants and start to live a life where you are thankful of the HARD WORK of others.
You are so full of shit. You original post is about the "nanny state" taking care of whoever it is you resent, and the irony is we all take care of you because every dollar you "earn" is a fucking tax dollar that came out of my paycheck. You call me a leach even though I work two jobs and raise a family while you cash in on pointless wars that protect no one's freedoms, clearly you are the fucking leach, literally. You accuse me of wanting some phantom social programs while you suckle on the military teat. You make these ludicrous attacks on me (see below) a person you know nothing about, you are just making prejudiced, hateful assumptions. Meanwhile I know about you, war profiteer. Want to talk about social programs? Entitlements? Every dollar you spend is a tax dollar you pathetic hypocrite. You don't want those tax dollars to go anywhere else because you want them all for yourself. The idea that you think you are protecting my freedom by draining the country's coffers is at once hilarious and infuriating. FUCK YOU WAR PROFITEER. Tax whore. How did you get your no bid contracts? Who pulled the strings? How'd you work the system to make yourself some dough? You pathetic piece of shit.
Feel better for attacking a woman?
Figures.
I should thank you for the freedom I enjoy? You really are a shameless, disgusting pig. I am supposed to pay you back? Guess what, I have two jobs and you have some of my tax dollars, you fucking parasite. Let me guess, you started your company right around the time Bush started his unnecessary wars, and you cashed in, and now you want credit for saving lives and protecting freedom. You did it to make money, TAX MONEY, you are a WAR PROFITEER, nothing more.
The military has given you the freedom to scream like the animal that yiou are, but in the end you will thanks the people who put themselves on the line for people like you to sit in their chair and watch House and sip on a cold brew.
Your problem is a lack of perspective. Your life is fucked and you need someone to BLAME it on. Of course that person will NEVER be you, right? I bet I pay into social programs to keep you mentally stable or to ensure your family is healthy. That's what I do for you, and I bet you leech the system pretty good considering the anger I see from you. I'll bet you just want the social programs party to last longer. Parasite.
I do not like to judge, but by taking a look at this thread, it seems alot of people are seeing you to be the dramatic one. However, it makes no difference to me. Nothing truly matters, but I wanted to have a pleasant conversation with you to get your perspective on these matters.
It seems this will not be able to occur. I have read more than enough about the 'evil' people of the world. I simply see misguided and terribly traumatized beings who act out in a primitive manner, not having realized that "We are all One, but Many". I also see that in each individual's model of the world, whatever they do is 'good'. In this is where we can find respect, mutually. In this, we can also see that our subjective attitudes of 'right', 'wrong', 'bad', and good are completely disheveled and change by the second, and by the distance.
Highly Evolved Beings see no use in violence, hate, greed, etc. Because it always turns out to be a consequence for the general population. If you take a hammer and hit someone, they will get a hammer and hit you. Therefore, it is needless. If someone wants what you have, that means there is no equal sharing going on. Therefore, nations develop warfare systems and weaponry to protect themselves from others who 'want what they have'. This is primitive. The world's resources belong to no one, and everyone.
Good luck and take care.
Regurgitating dialogue from Star Trek is lame. Just saying.
I astral project and meditate on spiritual truths. I develop my own inner truth without any influence from mainstream media (though you might have something to learn from Star Trek if it sounds similar to me).
Please grow up. Buh-bye.
Edit: It's a shame you always seem to dodge my main points that I make painfully obvious.
I'm fully grown, thanks.
PS: No, i'm not a lesbian, please stop sending your craigslist ad.
What the fuck? Lmfao bro, you almost had me a little put off, but then you had to make me laugh with the lesbian shit.
Lmfao.
LMFAO
I laffed too. God Bless :)
Perhaps you should explain this to the imaginary people in your head who want the state to take care of everyone.
Tell the OWS folks waving the Anarchist and Communist flags..... Einstein.
Anarchists don't even think there should be a state ... un-Einstein. Hello? An-archy? The condition of there being no government?
I don't think I've ever met a communist, but if I do, I'll let him know.
You do that. Buzz me.
It costs about 40,000 dollars a year to put people in prison and the cost of helping people before they resort to crime for survival would be much less. But, the prison system is an industry now so that option will never be considered.
Welfare programs are social engineering.
What do they engineer?
The programs feed the 5% of people who are always going to be unemployed at any given time in society because full employment is never going to be possible.
By keeping this segment of chronically unemployed & unemployable people fed & somewhat comfortable, the government prevents social unrest.
Simply put, the purpose of welfare programs are to keep hungry, homeless, physically fit people from rioting and looting.
The elite will never do away with welfare programs.
Some of them will foster & nurture the hatred of welfare recipients by those a rung or two above them on the ladder. That's you, my dear readers. Sure, they will allow you to hate those people at the bottom and they will even tell you why you should. But they won't do away with the big pacifier because that pacifier protects their interests.
Having said all that, OWS is not about welfare programs.
Student loan forgiveness, mortgage relief, foreclosure prevention/resistance and jobs programs are being talked about but not food stamps & welfare for the bottom rung of unemployed people.
If I am wrong, please show me where that is one of the main issues being discussed. I haven't seen any marches on welfare offices. I see marches on banks, I see Occupy the Boardroom, Occupy colleges, etc.
SO why does the conversation always come down to food stamps & welfare?
Another corporations talk again. It has been happening over the last three decades. Corporations attacking government. Corporations attacking people. This is fascist propaganda.
You sound like an angry italian who misses his homeland.
I tell it what it is. It is corporations attacking people.
..... and paying them a salary and benefits in the process.
This is another fascist propaganda.
I understand your point, however, almost every single person I know or have met wants more out of life than just 3 meals, a bed, and healthcare. If the government provides homeless shelters, food, and free public clinics, then most people will still strive for more than just relying on these most basic necessities. If the government also helps connect unemployed people with job opportunities and subsidizes education and training for in-demand occupations, then most people will take those opportunities. The ones that won't probably wouldn't get a job even if you took away the government's help, they'd beg or steal, and the cost on society will be the same and in all likelihood significantly higher. With that in mind it seems even to be fiscally prudent to do our best to fight poverty, as long as we do so prudently.
But beyond all that idealistic talk, don't you abhor human suffering? If 10% of Americans need to be taken care of or they will suffer then I'm willing to give up 10% of my pay to keep them from suffering. Even if 50% of Americans needed to be taken care of then I would pay 50% of my salary to end that suffering. Human suffering should only be tolerated if society is so bankrupt that to help those that suffer would cost those with the means to labor their very lives and well-being. I cannot imagine an America where that is actually the case in my lifetime. Now if you are saying that we are doing it wrong and that our expenditures are inefficient and wasteful and that there has to be a better way for our society to end suffering, assist those that meet failure in lifting themselves up and trying again, and improve the quality and well-being of our society as a whole, then we can definitely have a conversation about what we the people should be doing.
Welfare with accountability and responsibility is a must today. Face it its going to get much worst for the economy and many people will have not choice but to be on welfare. However, if the welfare system operating in a manner to actually help these people get back on their feet while working in a community service setting and still allow the benefits, it becomes a productive approach to the problem and not a suppressing one as it is.
I agree with you and if human suffering is the only issue we can certainly make it better for those less fortunate, but just like some homeless are currently exploiting the kitchen at OWS you will always have those that seek to exploit a good thing so there is NEVER a magic bullet to dealing with human nature.
The homeless exploiting the kitchen are easily reconized so if they want free food they need to help in clean up or some other task that will fit for them.
But here's the whole problem with how our society has been conditioned to have contempt for the downtrodden it creates: why is this thread discussing a few homeless people getting a few unearned potatoes instead of the big tycoons who have been "exploiting a good thing" (our economy and governemnt) for years? Regarding the judgment of the homeless: shouldn't it be the case that anyone who wants free food (or free money) has to pitch in, not just the poor? Why should the least fortunate(homeless) be singled out as having to earn their supper any more than anyone else who eats the food in the park? There is no logical answer, since it's not like the protesters own the place or pay rent. The only answer is that there is a bias wherein people hold the downtrodden MORE ACCOUNTABLE than others. They are held to a much more judgmental standard simply by virtue of being downtrodden. This arises from the contempt our society engenders towards them in a massive "blame the victim" mentality. The fact that even this discussion seems to care so much more about whether a few homeless people got a few too many unearned potatoes than it does about billionaires making off with unearned billions is at the heart of exactly what is wrong with our society. Capitalism with limits is fine, but capitalism unchecked and gone to extremes starts creating its own morality which requires massive perversion in order to keep justifying its existence.
[Deleted]
You somehow didn't read what I wrote.
oops! I misinterpreted! This will fix it...
There is always going to be a small percentage that take advantage of the system. The system is not efficient when for example, a woman who is pregnant, obtains welfare and then has another baby while on welfare to increase benefits. These woman should be on birth control after the first one since obviously who ends up paying for it.
This issue is a difficult one to address but it is important that the state enforces personal responsibility for their actions. This problem is out of control in every state and it is a burden to tax payors.
They need to develope daily work programs for people looking for a job or can't a job while still getting their benefits. This promotes personal commitment that they are willing to work but through no fault of their own cannot obtain employment.
Does this make everything more complicated and regulated, sure but we certainly cannot continue supporting a growing percentage of unemployed workers to stay at home.
As hillary said, 'Well said'.
Well said.
I think that everyone is entitled free or extremely affordable medical care. I think this is more important than welfare and disability. If people are healthy enough to work, they won't need government assistance. If a person can easily afford one operation or physical therapy to fix their disability, I think that it would save more money in the long run.
Sad fact is that there are many people who appear healthy enough to work and even manage to work for short periods of time (meaning a few hours a day) who, even with the best health care available, would not be able to managed more than the time they currently do work.
People who have no experience, even vicariously, of health (including mental health) issues have problems conceiving the issues such people face.
Not all physical disability is subject to therapy, therapy is merely the means to gain the best possible outcome in these cases. Often these outcomes do NOT lead to becoming able to work in any capacity.
Even primitive societies care for their elderly, the infirm. Here in America we are not a primitive society.
There are many people healthy enough to work but if there is no jobs available, the yare going to need assistance.
We shouldn't get rid of welfare all together, but they should also put money into job placement services and crack down on moochers. If they are desperate and healthy enough, and the government hands them a job at a farm or a factory, there is no reason why they can't take it. People cheat the system with unemployment by making it "look" like they are getting a job by applying. But in reality they don't try and actually do well in the interview or even do follow up calls to the companies. I think that if we had government head hunters make arrangement with hiring companies for the chronically unemployed we would have less people mooching, more people working, and for those that sincerely need it, there will be welfare and maybe more of it available per person.
Are you speaking from experience?
No, but I know some of people I went to high school with that did that. They just didn't care to try.
In my case, after much searching, I just got hired for a full-time permanent position yesterday. : )
Agreed.
A mixed economy is the best solution. Some socialism is good.
America is a technology driven economy. We are the innovators. We need a state that has a social safety net because in some regards, it helps people take chances. Some of the biggest innovators have failed before making it: Bill Gates, Henry Ford (whose company wasn't bailed out), Walt Disney, etc. Sure it leads to complacency in some instances. I'm fine with that. If they want to coast through life... thats their decision, but it is sure not living life to the fullest. Does a social safety net lead to abuse.... yes, but we live in an imperfect world. I fear that the extremes of capitalism, which is somehow were we have been headed as well as communism create economic opportunity. For instance Lasik was invented in Communist Russia bc it was cheaper that buying everyone glasses. However, both communism and capitalism are inherently flawed in that they both are ripe for abuse.
Social programs are imperfect, but I believe it is the right thing. I'm a left, politically, but even to moderates and the right, there needs to be compassion for other human beings.
Right, i think health care and education should be govt responsibilities.Health care is so expensive mainly because of insurance companies. If we banned insurance companies from selling health type insurance( not life insurance though) the price of healthcare would drop dramatically.
We should have some type of welfare assistance. But it should be focused on helping get people that are able to work back to work. Their are many ways we can make it more affordable for people to live in the US and still allow companies to be competitive. A big problem is that we buy to much on credit which creates artificial demand. Their need to be laws regulating credit card companies and how much credit can be issued to one person. Like a person is allowed two credit cards and their limit per card is 5% of their income.
Their is much that can be done with welfare and regulations to bring the country back under control and make it prosperous.
we shouldn't be bearing risks. the government should be doing this for us.
So the govt will tell you when to conceive, who you shall marry, when you will drive your car alone for the first time....etc.
Only the weak want no responsibility.
Luv the extremeist black-or-white, all-or-nothing thinking here. So nuanced, a real sign of a fluent mind. [Rolls eyes.] Anyway, the government already does tell people when they'll drive their cars alone for the first time (16th birthday) and for damn good reason... And I'm going to hazard a guess that you actually wouldn't mind if the government dictated that we can't marry same sex partners, or told us we don't have choice in whether to bear children. If I assume wrong, please say so, but you sound like the typical hard-Rightie, and they love government interference, but not on anything that actually needs supervision, such as guns, hate crimes and our whole money system. And as for "only the weak want no responsibility", what do you call it when banks fail to the tune of billions and want a bailout and then don't want to be accountable or responsible to the taxpaying public who make their continued existence possible?
The banks failed because consumers WHO WERE OVERCOME WITH GREED overextended themselves.
I'm all about freedom, but with freedom comes personal responsibility, and that is lacking in many who are asking for a handout.
The government already attempts to tell you these things, and it's getting close to being able to enforce them.
The tired old argument about women's choice, age requirements for driving and licensing...so come again?
So has your 8yo daughter conceived a child yet?
You can't push buttons I do not allow you to push.
Bring up a valid point for debate, not emotionalism.
Ok, I'll bite - according to you, how should we handle 1) the age requirements for driving and licensing 2) the age requirement for people to have children?
Better question is why bring up two points that have little to do with the topic?
Licensing requirements currently in place have been working very well to date.
Choosing and legislating an 'age of majority' has been a governmental responsibility since the institution of monarchies. Even Rome and Greece, the most renown republics, recognized an age of majority.
Your two points are not even good talking points, I highly doubt anyone, including you, wants to see six year olds driving or little girls giving birth. Therefore it is safe to conclude that the points you appear to wish to debate are geared for an emotional response.
Take your meds, these are your talking points. Look up, look waaaaaaay up and you'll find your posts:
"The government already attempts to tell you these things, and it's getting close to being able to enforce them. The tired old argument about women's choice, age requirements for driving and licensing...so come again?"
Anyway, thanks for playing your game, Bye.
perhaps this would be the ultimate solution? many people end up making the wrong decisions - going to college, marrying early, having too many kids, learning the wrong skills. this is costing other taxpayers a lot of time and money
So having masters over slaves wasn't a bad idea then?
indeed, perhaps... america would be a better place if we hadn't abolished that.
Wow. Just. Wow. You're a true 19th Century dickweed.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=mLUpGGmku8g
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=5SMrnx6nkRw
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=4Wg1bH6-1YY
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=HgKS4i-u0OM
http://www.reverbnation.com/Killumination
Donate!!!
https://www.paypal.com/cgi-bin/webscr?cmd=_s-xclick&hosted_button_id=NKRL8TGE95H2Y
[Removed]
I love this video - it shows what the problems are and YET NOT A SINGLE EXAMPLE OF A WORKING SOCIETY USING THESE PRINCIPLES EXISTS.
And somehow we are expected to convert a whole country to an untested theoretical regime.
BRILLIANT!
It's more than that because it's genetic in the form of memes... still possessed of canines in the from of fangs, yet totally incapable of doing little more than wag their tales and beg. The domesticated dog starves to death in the wild... because he has evolved us as his provider.
90% of the people can pull the wagon for the 10% who truly cannot walk on their own.
But out of ten people, 9 cannot ride while the other 1 pulls.
If you can walk, get out of the wagon and help pull. Don't expect a free ride.
He I have no problem with some entitlement, You can expect the guy with no legs or the lady with severe down syndrom to be very productive citizens in relation to the rest of us. Should they get something like wellfare? I think so. Should the guy who "can't find a job" becuase he is to lazt to work in a field and considers himself "overly quallified" to work for minimum wage get wellfare? hell no.
It's funny how that 'over qualified' label got shifted to become the responsibility of the worker...in recent months I personally know of people who were refused jobs because the potential employer considered the applicant 'over qualified' for the position.
The reasoning given is that an over qualified person (or even one with experience) would not remain in the position offered long term. Which can easily translate to no chance for promotion, no chance to improve the workers 'lot' with hard work and skill.
That is the workers fault... If they aren't willing or appear unwilling to commit even medium term to a job, then that is the applicants fault. If they want the job, they should make it seam like they are willing to stay, even if they don't intend to.
You missed the point, it was NOT the worker who was not willing, it was the potential employer. The 'no chance for promotion' was a conclusion offered by said potential employer.
Ya I know that was the lable the employer place on them but I'm just saying, if you want a job, you make yourself appear like you will be in it for the long term. You might be a fucking S.D. for all I care but if you are applying for McDonalds, you don't make that you selling point. You show you are a hard worker, dilligent, good at long term commitment.
It shows that you have not sought work very often. A work history is required, gaps in that history lessen the chances of being hired. A dishonest work history is a lie..
What type of resume you going to show? One that tells the potential employer that you are unskilled or one that lists your skills?
If you are going for a minimum wage job, they aren't going to do a masive background check or anything. They want you as a long term, excuse my lack of a better term, drone. you can tell them you worked at Big Science Industries, you don't need to tell them you were the lead researcher. You can tell them you went to college, you don't need to tell them you have a doctorate. I'm not saying to lie, but to tell them the truth about you that they want to hearn, not necesaraly whole truth
The person who is "overly qualified" would be happy to just get a job even if it is minumum wage, the problem is the employer don't want to hire them.
If there were jobs they would. If there was a "job shortage", why is Alabama trying to find people to picj their crops? It's not becuase people can't it's becuse people don't want to. There should be no job that people would refuse to do that they should be allowed to make others do
Not everyone lives in Alabama.
True, but New Mexico had a problem with their chilli crops, the North-East had the same issue with their cabbage crops, California had problems with their crops last year, tobacco almost always is looking for feild hand. America if full of argiculture looking for people to work in the fields
Well then if people want to obtain welfare benefits they must also work in these fields while they are receiving them. Your state government can make this happen and they should because it makes sense.
I might be ok with helping people who have jobs, but no way to people who don't have one or only work part time or something like that.
You misunderstood me, people on welfare who obtain benefits would have to work for no pay in the crop fields.
you guys have no idea what you are talking about. welfare in this country has been tied to work for several years. you have to work or be in a "jobs training" program to receive benefits, unless you are too sick to do so (in which case you wind up disability-track). most of the poor in the welfare offices are single mothers. most of the jobs training programs do not yield jobs in this economy. furthermore, most of the women in those welfare offices are people who only need blue collar jobs. and still can't find them. meanwhile, the government is dishing out money to pay to have the babies in daycare so the moms can be in jobs programs that lead to no jobs so that meanies like you can be satisfied that the poor are being adequately punished for being poor. especially the little kids. the 25-33% of nyc children living at or below the poverty line sure do have it coming. i hope we all feel better now that their moms are stuck doing pointless things with their days. those babies and moms are certainly better off separated, with the babies cribbed in daycare where there are not enough adults to give them the attention a human being needs to grow up sane. way to build a republic. the worst of it is, ti's not even cost-effective.
Oh. Well they are the same thing as long as this is the equasion
($ from field owner)+($from wellfare)=($set ammount)
If the owner pays for some or if the government pays for all it is, I'm ok with that. But if the government pays for it all, I thing that at least some of the workers profits is given to the government to help cover the cost of the wellfare
Alabama just pressured all illegal aliens in their state to either move out or go underground. That might be why they can't find people to harvest their crops.
Even so, how can they can't have open jobs and unemployment?
how do you tell whether someone is lazy or just incapable?
well, the physicsal handycaps are pretty easy to see and there are test for mental ones, thought those are usually pretty obvious.
If you mean on everyone else, it's crap. There are always jobs, you just need to be willing to do things you don't want to
exactly. the ones that are easy to tell must be so severely disabled or so severely lazy that it has to be a rare case.
the common cases are the ones in between, people with bad attitudes, people with commitment problems, can't focus, can't stay in one place, can't cope.
then where the line is drawn is completely arbitrary and at the whim and fancy of some administrator in some city hall.
Lazy, bad attitudes, commitment problems, focus issues, whatever, these are not other peoples concerns. Life requires dedication. If you can't, you need to sit donw and think about you long term plans and make a choice
and if you don't help these people, they will necessarily starve! they can't keep a job. i've heard of a family living in the streets with kids in tow - the father is a chain smoker and an alcoholic. they have spent their last dollar on excesses and cannot afford school supplies for the children, let alone food.
is it fair to the children that the father is born this way?
No body is born "a chain smoker and an alcoholic". Those are choices. If you see things like that CPS, in most cities, will take the children are restore custody once the father has gottenback on his feet. Is it sad that a family is split up, yes it is very sad, but in things like that, is it probably better that living on the street with a jobless alcoholic; yes
Amazing all the hair-splitting analysis and moral judgments on a case-by-case basis and exception-making and physical evaluation that has to go into a defense of one's own arrogance at having the luxury to sit in a chair and push imaginary dollars around while other people do actual work which you judge as having "less value" and being beneath you, even as you accuse others of being "lazy" for not doing it. One of these days your arrogance, hypocrisy and naivete is going to seriously bite you in the ass.
it may be tonight, turn on cnbc, i have been watching with a smile all day!
Agreed