If Socialism Is Caring For People, Should The U.s. Of A. Not Get More Socialist?

Joined
Oct 30, 2017
Messages
1,865
welfare in this country is overwhelmingly "in kind" benefits, meaning the overwhelming majoritt of the miniscule amount of your taxes rhat actually goes to helping the poor (on average less than 100$ per year) is spent on basic necessities with no option otherwise - housing food and meedical sometimes childcare but only if they are working. Very few peopke get any cash and if they do its $160/month per person limited to 5 years out of your entire lifetime. Thats enough to cover toilet paper, paper towels, napkins, tampons, maybe bus tickets to get around.. so no need to worry the poor are plenty miserable even with your tax dollars.
Our friend forgets that if he did not pay a bit of welfare, he would have to pay a hell of a lot more to keep people incarcerated for taking, instead of just accepting the little bit we should happily give them.

Regards
DL
 






Sunshine

Established
Joined
Apr 11, 2017
Messages
173
Dude, bingo is a form of gambling. Do you really think it's okay for people to take money they are given for food, rent, utilities and gamble it away???

I grew up poor, and had many a friend and family member who drew welfare benefits, so I have seen first hand how they are. First, let me call BS on JustJess's assertion that it is limited to 5 years of one's lifetime. There are people who have spent their entire lives, from birth to death, living on govt. assistance. One girl's mother told her she needed to have more babies so the family could get a raise in benefits. That was her "job." Having fatherless children.

The few people in the ghetto who actually have the backbone enough to go to school or work are, literally, made fun of by those who don't. Even the ones dependent upon them for income talk smack about them behind their backs. (BTW, Jess, since when are paper towels and napkins as necessary as toilet paper and tampons? In my house, those are luxury items, and when I can't afford them I don't buy them, I go old school and use a dishcloth. And I don't think food stamps covers those things anyways.)

As far as the small pleasures of life, I never have begrudged anyone spending a coupla bucks to rent a movie or buy the kids a box of cookies or whatever, but when you look in an EBT/CHIP user's grocery cart and see nothing but junk food, yeah, it pisses you off.
Somehow they always manage to find the money for that 3-liter bottle of soda, those cigarettes, that beer. How many people on welfare smoke weed? Probably at least half, and that stuff ain't cheap. (Incidentally, when the governor of my state introduced the idea of drug-testing welfare recipients and dropping them from the programs if they failed, there were howls of "racism" for the first couple of years, but now everybody who works and pays taxes thinks it's acceptable, even the liberals.)
 






justjess

Superstar
Joined
Mar 16, 2017
Messages
8,904
they arent given cash for food rent or utilities, payments go directly to the landlords, or public housing, utility companies, and food stamps is a debit card that only works for actual food. your spreading massive disinfo in this post

welfare laws changrd in 1996 on the federal level. work requirements and 5 year lofetime limits went in effect all across the coubtry and remain there today. please stop fear mongering and putting out false information.

and ypur right food stamps dont cover those things, i was talking about what a $160 monthly cash allowance could cover and not much else so whether or not paper towels are luxury items is pretty beside the point. $160 a month doesnt go very far, that was my whole point.

youll begrudge someone on food stamps soda? jesus..

as for drug testing the states that implemented it LOST money because barely anyone tested positive. unsurprisingly broke people dont have money to get high.
 






Joined
Oct 30, 2017
Messages
1,865
Dude, bingo is a form of gambling. Do you really think it's okay for people to take money they are given for food, rent, utilities and gamble it away???

I grew up poor, and had many a friend and family member who drew welfare benefits, so I have seen first hand how they are. First, let me call BS on JustJess's assertion that it is limited to 5 years of one's lifetime. There are people who have spent their entire lives, from birth to death, living on govt. assistance. One girl's mother told her she needed to have more babies so the family could get a raise in benefits. That was her "job." Having fatherless children.

The few people in the ghetto who actually have the backbone enough to go to school or work are, literally, made fun of by those who don't. Even the ones dependent upon them for income talk smack about them behind their backs. (BTW, Jess, since when are paper towels and napkins as necessary as toilet paper and tampons? In my house, those are luxury items, and when I can't afford them I don't buy them, I go old school and use a dishcloth. And I don't think food stamps covers those things anyways.)

As far as the small pleasures of life, I never have begrudged anyone spending a coupla bucks to rent a movie or buy the kids a box of cookies or whatever, but when you look in an EBT/CHIP user's grocery cart and see nothing but junk food, yeah, it pisses you off.
Somehow they always manage to find the money for that 3-liter bottle of soda, those cigarettes, that beer. How many people on welfare smoke weed? Probably at least half, and that stuff ain't cheap. (Incidentally, when the governor of my state introduced the idea of drug-testing welfare recipients and dropping them from the programs if they failed, there were howls of "racism" for the first couple of years, but now everybody who works and pays taxes thinks it's acceptable, even the liberals.)
There will always be someone at the bottom of our socio economic demographic pyramid.

We no longer make slaves of them and basically pay then to not get too upset with their lot and strart turning to criminality to gain what they need to sustain their lives and make them livable.

Human altruism and empathy has grown with our wealth to the point where we are finally seeing an end to poverty on the horizon.

Jesus, and all moral people, look to the poor as most of us live by some kind of reciprocity rule like the Golden Rule.

You and I do not know if a person needs an occasional bingo or new phone or whatever to make themselves happy enough to not turn to crime or suicide.

If the more fit do not look after the less fit, they will rebel in some way.

We are all driven to be the fittest by nature regardless of how less fit we are. Mess with nature and hell will break loose.

The fittest know that altruism, benevolence and love is how those with disposable income sustain their happiness and you would take away their pleasure of doing their duty to the poor because you do not like that the poorest do not spend their meager cash the way you like.

Are you out of your mind? You would take the pleasure away from both the haves and the have nots.

Look at this graph of greed and tell us that we in the higher tiers cannot do even better for our poor, if you have so little love and compassion in your heart.

http://www.upworthy.com/9-out-of-10-americans-are-completely-wrong-about-this-mind-blowing-fact-2

Now look at this.

https://www.economist.com/news/leaders/21578665-nearly-1-billion-people-have-been-taken-out-extreme-poverty-20-years-world-should-aim

And this.


Why would you want to stop or hinder the fantastic progress that we have collectively enjoyed by reducing the pleasures of giving that we rich enjoy by giving to those at the bottom of our demography?

Kick them when their down is a lousy ideology when the goal is to kick them up and out of poverty.

Regards
DL
 






Top