- My Forums
- Tiger Rant
- LSU Recruiting
- SEC Rant
- Saints Talk
- Pelicans Talk
- More Sports Board
- Fantasy Sports
- Golf Board
- Soccer Board
- O-T Lounge
- Tech Board
- Home/Garden Board
- Outdoor Board
- Health/Fitness Board
- Movie/TV Board
- Book Board
- Music Board
- Political Talk
- Money Talk
- Fark Board
- Gaming Board
- Travel Board
- Food/Drink Board
- Ticket Exchange
- TD Help Board
Customize My Forums- View All Forums
- Show Left Links
- Topic Sort Options
- Trending Topics
- Recent Topics
- Active Topics
Started By
Message
re: Is Government assistance like Crack?
Posted on 12/26/16 at 9:43 pm to TigerMikeAtl
Posted on 12/26/16 at 9:43 pm to TigerMikeAtl
Refute my narrative using facts or eat a dick. I know of that which I speak because I teach a unit of Medicare every year. You, an under-educated Trumpkins (Why else would you vote for Trump?), are recalling facts from youth of which you have not proof.
2
Posted on 12/26/16 at 9:44 pm to mahdragonz
People who work and pay taxes versus people who don't and just suck on the tit. Big difference.
Posted on 12/26/16 at 9:55 pm to CaptainBrannigan
quote:
Refute my narrative using facts or eat a dick. I know of that which I speak because I teach a unit of Medicare every year. You, an under-educated Trumpkins (Why else would you vote for Trump?), are recalling facts from youth of which you have not proof.
So Sad. I've done more, experienced more, accomplished more, and have produced more than you will ever expect to accomplish in life.
Do yourself and your parents a favor and move out of their basement and experience and contribute to society.
This post was edited on 12/26/16 at 10:45 pm
Posted on 12/26/16 at 10:08 pm to mahdragonz
quote:
Ask the farmers
You're such a piece of shite. Comparing hard working individuals that get government subsidies to worthless 3rd generation leeches on society is about as scum-of-the-earth as you can get. Farmers are the backbone of society
This post was edited on 12/26/16 at 10:10 pm
Posted on 12/26/16 at 10:24 pm to TigerMikeAtl
Speaking from personal experience, I got laid off from a great job back in 2009. Even though I was eligible for unemployment, I remember being terrified of applying for it. Call me stubborn or bull headed, but I just couldn't bring myself to do it. I had my pride and I was also afraid that if I started receiving a check I would become accustomed to it and somehow not look as hard for another job. My life would have been much easier financially for the year it took me to get myself together if I'd taken a check but I certainly wouldn't have grown as a person had I not struggled the way I did.
Posted on 12/26/16 at 10:36 pm to C
Nope, dead wrong.. an exit physical does not make it qualifying. Documented, treated condition acquired while on active duty in performance of duty. Sure, there may be a lot of issues that are rated at 0%, but no bank for that. Why the zero is beyond me?
Posted on 12/26/16 at 10:36 pm to CaptainBrannigan
quote:
CaptainBrannigan
While I think social programs can have their benefit, I think the worst thing you can do to a person is strip them of their dignity. There is a huge difference in being poor and struggling to get by, but doing it with the money you went out and earned and being poor but not working everyday to improve yourself. When you just give someone a check and don't make them earn it, you erode their dignity and self respect. You steal from them their self worth to go out and work to make their life better.
Posted on 12/26/16 at 10:59 pm to TigerMikeAtl
Not everyone is meant to be a worker. Some folks need the dole to be the poet, the artist, the layabout and the rascal. They are the true spice of society!
Posted on 12/26/16 at 11:32 pm to TigerMikeAtl
quote:
To me, it seems like these government programs have created a "crack cocaine society"....become addicted and never get off.
What do you guys think?
The way many welfare programs are setup punishes those trying to get off while rewarding those who don't. Those looking to move up face the problem of losing their government assistance while on a job that is typically low paying and even enough to where they make less than the welfare assistance provides. Meanwhile some one who didn't seek work can pop out a kid and get a bump in benefits.
I'm about helping some one get on their feet but we really need to evaluate how we go about doing it.
Posted on 12/26/16 at 11:35 pm to TigerMikeAtl
tell your theory to Conagra. the conglomerate takes billions of our your tax dollars.
price supports. money for not growing whatever. Congress never figured out how to write a bill to help mom and pop farms through bad times without giving money to corporations.
price supports. money for not growing whatever. Congress never figured out how to write a bill to help mom and pop farms through bad times without giving money to corporations.
Posted on 12/26/16 at 11:52 pm to CelticDog
quote:
tell your theory to Conagra. the conglomerate takes billions of our your tax dollars.
Kinda like those food and grocery store corporations that are some of THE BIGGEST
supporters and lobbiest for the WIC program. Kroger,Pepsi-Co,Coke North America,etc
Talk about corporate welfare at its very sleaziest.
Posted on 12/27/16 at 12:01 am to mahdragonz
quote:
Ask the farmers and the duck dynasty welfare
Has nothing to do with the OP.
Posted on 12/27/16 at 12:02 am to CaptainBrannigan
quote:
What an awful time to be alive that must have been. I'm glad we have resources citizens can actually use to get help.
The current system encourages dysfunctional behavior. Congrats on the support.
Posted on 12/27/16 at 12:04 am to TigerMikeAtl
quote:
You really have no clue do you?
He doesn't. It's literally a waste of time dealing with him.
Posted on 12/27/16 at 12:30 am to RogerTheShrubber
quote:That may be (I don't know the poster) but the original post isn't exactly the work of Adam Smith and it misses the point in multiple ways.
He doesn't. It's literally a waste of time dealing with him.
1.) While some (not all) government assistance programs may be excessive, exploited or perhaps even misguided...the truth is that their financial impact on the "earners" in society is very low compared to the primary drivers (Military Spending (HUGE personnel costs due to extraordinary compensation for a military its size, Social Security, Medicare). Historically, for conservatives these are just as untouchable politically as they are for liberals for political reasons if nothing else.
2.) A lack of societal safety nets in terms of education, housing, food, and health care will have a "cost" on society, both in terms of direct financial burden as well as a quality of life cost. Unchecked poverty, starvation, and desperation among those who have fallen through the cracks of our society will impact us in ways you may not have considered. Blight impacts us all.
3.) This one probably won't be taken well here because the Kool-Aid of the conservative platform runs pretty deep but I will state my opinion anyway: The government protects the poor because when faced with an adversary like wealth they are incapable of protecting themselves. Inherited class is the greatest advantage or disadvantage a person can be born into in America. Evening the playing field (however slightly) is a perfectly reasonable role for the federal government.
Happy New Year!
Posted on 12/27/16 at 12:34 am to Tigerdev
quote:
they are incapable of protecting themselves
well
at least you plainly admit it
Posted on 12/27/16 at 12:44 am to SlowFlowPro
I am not sure what your reply is intended to imply. But you sure ignored multiple points to quote a few words and make a snarky reply.
Happy New Year anyway!
Happy New Year anyway!
Posted on 12/27/16 at 12:48 am to Tigerdev
quote:
2.) A lack of societal safety nets in terms of education, housing, food, and health care will have a "cost" on society, both in terms of direct financial burden as well as a quality of life cost. Unchecked poverty, starvation, and desperation among those who have fallen through the cracks of our society will impact us in ways you may not have considered. Blight impacts us all.
Unchecked poverty, starvation, and desperation are symptoms of countries that are poor and unproductive and fundamentally dysfunctional, not countries that lack government involvement in assistance.
Here's how I look at it: what is a better way of doing things? Allowing individuals to personally choose where their charitable donations go, which allows them to assess whether the person or organization they are giving to actually needs the help and does good, or force individuals to give their money to the state, which then blindly disperses the money with standards that aren't very good.
It's not an argument over assistance or no assistance. It's an argument over whether we should allow individuals to determine where their charitable donations to assistance should go or whether the state should take the money, first.
Also, most historical studies and surveys have revealed that school attendance was nearly universal in england and America before the government started making it mandatory and running it. A modern example of this can be seen in India, where most sociologists have noted is a country where the vast majority of poor children attend private school. Here is a ted talk on the subject by acclaimed educational researcher pauline dixon,.
Posted on 12/27/16 at 1:01 am to HailHailtoMichigan!
Thanks for the link. Id be interested in watching it tomorrow. I cant comment on your data without watching it so ill hold off.
On your one statement though: "its not a question of assistance or no assistance" i think we are talking apples and oranges. How would elective charitable donations meet the intended requirements of existing government assistance programs for the poor? The answer is: "it wouldnt" which means we are once again talking repeal with no replace. Thats not reform that is abolition.
On your one statement though: "its not a question of assistance or no assistance" i think we are talking apples and oranges. How would elective charitable donations meet the intended requirements of existing government assistance programs for the poor? The answer is: "it wouldnt" which means we are once again talking repeal with no replace. Thats not reform that is abolition.
Posted on 12/27/16 at 1:22 am to TigerMikeAtl
These programs have been put in place to help those survive a down time. They were meant to provide temporary assistance while regrouping and regaining employment so one would not lose princlple already gained.
The problem stems from those never seeking or putting the effort into regaining employment. Becoming a "leach" by working the system to ensure they can continue the handouts.
A major issue is determining between those who truly need the continued assistance as compared to those who are just leaching. A hard line to determine at times I would imagine.
In my opinion, a med evaluation which includes drug abuse should be required prior to an extension along with a hardship review to see if any reasonable or comparable jobs have been available .
Edit to add: This applies not just to unemployment insurance but to medical disabiities as well.
The problem stems from those never seeking or putting the effort into regaining employment. Becoming a "leach" by working the system to ensure they can continue the handouts.
A major issue is determining between those who truly need the continued assistance as compared to those who are just leaching. A hard line to determine at times I would imagine.
In my opinion, a med evaluation which includes drug abuse should be required prior to an extension along with a hardship review to see if any reasonable or comparable jobs have been available .
Edit to add: This applies not just to unemployment insurance but to medical disabiities as well.
This post was edited on 12/27/16 at 1:39 am
Page 2 of 3
Popular
Back to top
Follow TigerDroppings for LSU Football News