Why work for money? I don't believe in working. Work is for Suckers

[albrecht]

Which brings up a valuable point.  We can cut off all of the public assistance to unemployable people and pretend they'll somehow figure it out on their own (usually involves crime) or we can continue to assist those truly incapable of helping themselves to live the meager existence of public assistance.

I know the popular notion is that these lay abouts are watching HBO getting pizzas delivered to their McMansions, but the reality is far different.  They live futile lives, and they know it.  They know they cannot work because they are deficient; they know the best they can hope for is Uncle Sugar feeds them, clothes them, houses them, and gives them a decent signal to watch Jerry and Maury everyday.  But that's it.  No aspirations of better living, no vacations in Aspen, no heading out and buying a new pair of shoes, just because or dining at the newest hot spot in town.
In fact, the "hot spot" for these people is the Dollar Menu; processed, bleached out crap that makes their health worse, not better.

MV asked earlier about the difference in the price of a McDouble vs Broccoli; in 2008, according to USDA , Frozen Broccoli was $1.48, on average per pound while a McDouble then was a buck.
However, when you drill down, you see that the price for produce in poorer areas is actually higher than the national average.  The chain stores harrumph about logistics costs, but they all know they can get a bunch of that sweet SNAP money from the indigent.  Not to mention how difficult it is to find stores in poorer areas.
In CT, we offer supplements for people to use vouchers at Farmer's markets (usually available July through October).  In Waterbury, they set up down town on Thursdays and are usually sold out before the 2pm closing time.
Given a chance, many poor people try to eat healthy.  The alternative isn't going to be a massive die-off of the poor (keep jerking, Albrecht) but a massive surge in crime.  People will ultimately come to the conclusion: why should I die so a rich man can live easier?

What conclusion would you reach?  (And don't bullshit me about how you'd "work hard and make ends meet" on $8.70 and hour, 30 hours a week, either.)

I don't want poor people to die. What a rude assumption. I agree that if we cut off all forms of assistance we would likely see a spike in crime (and keep the prison industry in business) but that we do it more efficiently and without luxury items. I don't see how/why anybody in public housing needs cable television. The temperature should be mandated on their thermostats to save money (see I will allow them A/C and heat) but somewhere around 80 in summer and 65 in winter and off if it is not too cold or hot outside.) SNAP should be limited to basic foodstuffs. No sodas, no snacks, no cigarettes, or exotic or extravagant foods, etc. Oatmeal, beans, sardines, peanut butter, fresh vegetables/fruit, eggs, and milk. They should be drug, alcohol, and tobacco tested at random (or due to a complaint) but to save money really only test if there is a problem/complaint or upon first getting the housing. Those with actual conditions making them unable to work (mental cases) should be required to see a counselor and take whatever drugs the psychiatrist says they need.

Able-bodied people should be required to look for work or attend classes or do public service/volunteering. One idea could also be a bus ticket voucher to leave depressed areas and go places where there are plenty of jobs- even low skilled jobs (oil and gas fields, agricultural areas in season, etc.) But if they don't wish to move and don't want to work their public assistance should provide minimal comforts and certainly no luxury.

[popple]

WHAT HAPPENED TO P!NK?! 

"The only place I want to work at is Hot Topic"

"I don't care about putting food on the table. Just not one of my things. Personally I could go hungry and die. I don't care. Um"

If she ever wants to sell another record (her art) she better fix that vocal fry. One of the most unpleasing & vocal cord damaging tones ever. It's no good 

[PB the Deplorable]

Which brings up a valuable point.  We can cut off all of the public assistance to unemployable people and pretend they'll somehow figure it out on their own (usually involves crime) or we can continue to assist those truly incapable of helping themselves to live the meager existence of public assistance...

What conclusion would you reach?...

People like this didn't start out useless.  They got this way with a big assist from our government - handouts and the idea they didn't have to be accountable.  Add drugs and voilà.

If she is truly unemployable, she should be out picking up trash.  Something.

[paladin1991]

This lazy slob is laughing at you all. She just don't want to work, and she doesn't care about a single thing in this world. She just doesn't care.


Ill never have a job

More reasons why we don't need Universal Health Care. Now she's going to get free medical for life thanks to your tax dollars. Muhahahahaha


Seriously fellas, we are all fucked. The hard workers are being out numbered by unintelligent dumb lazy people that breed like rabbits and consume massive amounts of resources in food.

She the one in line that orders 3 foot longs with extra everything....and a Tab cola?

[Camazotz Automat]

This person is unemployable.

So are all of those Kardashian people and the hangers-on around them.

hahaha... not to mention Justin Bieber and Shia Labeouf.

hahahahahahahaha

  She the one in line that orders 3 foot longs with extra everything....and a Tab cola?

I don't know. I once drank a Tab and vomited. It might be an unintentional purge substance.

[Juan]

They should be drug, alcohol, and tobacco tested at random (or due to a complaint) but to save money really only test if there is a problem/complaint or upon first getting the housing.

Florida tried testing welfare recipients for drugs.  They required the recipient to pay for the test, and if the recipient passed, the state would repay.  Only 108 of 4,086 people tested positive.  The state spent more money on the test than it saved by denying benefits to the 108.  In fact, a 1998 study by the state of Florida showed that there was lower incidence of drug use among welfare recipients than among the state's population as a whole.

Sometimes what sounds like a logical assumption - that a lot of welfare queens lie around and do drugs - is not true. 

[onan]

Yeah, some people game the system.

mandatory adjustments of thermostats... sounds good... who pays for the installation and metering?

I fully understand that some people set up boarding houses and group homes only to pull in section 8 money. Be honest, would you set up a residence for homeless and mentally ill clients?

It is way too easy to use our personal histories to make judgements about those that are in many ways less than. It is hard not to look at the woman(?) in that vid and not be disgusted. I can tell you, that is classic axis II behavior. The origin of that personality... we can only guess. I doubt however, her early dreams of a happy life was all about a 700 dollar check each month.

Most of you see someone eschewing work, what I see is someone screaming for acceptance but also believing she has no chance. Therefore it is easier to push away and reject that, which I believe she really wants, but has no skills to get there.

Again, I understand the disdain, but as unattractive as she is, she's (at least as far as we know) not a criminal. And she is a human being. Just not one most want to like.

[NowhereInTime]

People like this didn't start out useless.  They got this way with a big assist from our government - handouts and the idea they didn't have to be accountable.  Add drugs and voilà.

If she is truly unemployable, she should be out picking up trash.  Something.

Sadly, you are wrong.  People do start out with lower IQ's.  They start out poor with no opportunity for real societal advancement (or self-sufficiency).  They start out with no guiding principles because of derelict parenting.  They never acquire valuable skills because of indifferent states (mostly conservative dominated like Kansas) who shred education and view it as a privilege.
Drugs are merely the escape from having to put up with the idea of hopelessness for so long. It's an escape.
Let's not help by instilling a nationwide value of education.  Let's not help by developing job opportunities for people in dead end areas or, better, helping people relocate to growth areas.  Let's not raise the minimum to a livable level so people need supplemental government assistance (like most Wal-Mart employees).
So, round up all the underachievers and having pick up your trash.  For bare subsistence.  Let's see how that works out.

[albrecht]

Yeah, some people game the system.

mandatory adjustments of thermostats... sounds good... who pays for the installation and metering?

I fully understand that some people set up boarding houses and group homes only to pull in section 8 money. Be honest, would you set up a residence for homeless and mentally ill clients?

It is way too easy to use our personal histories to make judgements about those that are in many ways less than. It is hard not to look at the woman(?) in that vid and not be disgusted. I can tell you, that is classic axis II behavior. The origin of that personality... we can only guess. I doubt however, her early dreams of a happy life was all about a 700 dollar check each month.

Most of you see someone eschewing work, what I see is someone screaming for acceptance but also believing she has no chance. Therefore it is easier to push away and reject that, which I believe she really wants, but has no skills to get there.

Again, I understand the disdain, but as unattractive as she is, she's (at least as far as we know) not a criminal. And she is a human being. Just not one most want to like.

Actually pretty easy these days to control thermostats remotely. There would be upfront costs but let the developer who is getting the tax-break retro-fit or at least in new buildings. Or go back to the kind I had in Glasgow once that were coin-operated and give them a bunch of change each month. Covered the cost and, actually, incentivized saving energy because you literally had to pay to get the heat on every time.

Although there is corruption in some/many cases, the deals cities/Feds cut builders (tax-breaks, zoning changes, etc) for building section 8, or even just "affordable" housing, is probably the only way to go since no way cities, much less a developer, would build such housing if there wasn't added incentive because, obviously, the residents aren't paying and also more problems than normal rental units (which are bad enough.)

I have no problem taking care of those truly in need (really the families, churches, and local community should step-up first) but not if someone is gaming the system or just lazy. If they aren't mentally ill or really disabled than they can do "something"- even if it helping out around at their subsidized housing complex, mowing the lawn, picking up the litter, reading for the blind, babysitting, walking an old person's dog, taking a class, or something (depending on their ability etc.). And it probably would make them feel better about themselves and situation to be out "doing something."

And no reason to have cable tv or luxurious/unhealthy foods paid for by us.

[NowhereInTime]

Another important revelation and analysis:

http://www.cnn.com/2014/07/11/opinion/alexander-olson-poor-urban-whites/index.html?hpt=hp_t3

I guess I should note that this is a CNN article regarding studies done by John Jay University pertaining to demographic mix of "urban poor" with some surprising results and a not so surprising review of the institutionalization of racial bias in hiring.

[Bart Ell]

8 hours a day should do it...

[albrecht]

Florida tried testing welfare recipients for drugs.  They required the recipient to pay for the test, and if the recipient passed, the state would repay.  Only 108 of 4,086 people tested positive.  The state spent more money on the test than it saved by denying benefits to the 108.  In fact, a 1998 study by the state of Florida showed that there was lower incidence of drug use among welfare recipients than among the state's population as a whole.

Sometimes what sounds like a logical assumption - that a lot of welfare queens lie around and do drugs - is not true.

Sure, nobody, or at least I didn't assume that. But some do. And the men and teens do likely more often. Which is why I said drug testing at the initial qualification (like one would do for many jobs) and if there is a problem or report. And also for tobacco use. Harder to test for alcohol (unless they show up liquored up.)
Likewise Texas had a panic about drug use and so started testing high-school student athletes for steroid use. I think, maybe, caught one person and spent $$$ in the policy.

[onan]

Actually pretty easy these days to control thermostats remotely. There would be upfront costs but let the developer who is getting the tax-break retro-fit or at least in new buildings. Or go back to the kind I had in Glasgow once that were coin-operated and give them a bunch of change each month. Covered the cost and, actually, incentivized saving energy because you literally had to pay to get the heat on every time.

Although there is corruption in some/many cases, the deals cities/Feds cut builders (tax-breaks, zoning changes, etc) for building section 8, or even just "affordable" housing, is probably the only way to go since no way cities, much less a developer, would build such housing if there wasn't added incentive because, obviously, the residents aren't paying and also more problems than normal rental units (which are bad enough.)

I have no problem taking care of those truly in need (really the families, churches, and local community should step-up first) but not if someone is gaming the system or just lazy. If they aren't mentally ill or really disabled than they can do "something"- even if it helping out around at their subsidized housing complex, mowing the lawn, picking up the litter, reading for the blind, babysitting, walking an old person's dog, taking a class, or something (depending on their ability etc.). And it probably would make them feel better about themselves and situation to be out "doing something."

And no reason to have cable tv or luxurious/unhealthy foods paid for by us.

I have 120 clients at the moment. I see at least 25 clients a week. I know of no one that has cable, many do not have televisions. Yes some do but not a majority. I visit their homes. None of them... NONE are living in anything you would consider comfortable. The homes are more often than not in need of repair. But reparations often mean closing down a home until all repairs are done. Guess what that means... many that need all the stability they can find now are homeless. I spent three days with one client approaching everyone I could hope to have some form of shelter... none to be found.

Healthy foods... I truly believe you mean well, but really you don't understand the problem. Fuck, I can't get these people to take medications at the appropriate times. You think they have the skills to buy the right amount of produce?

[NowhereInTime]

8 hours a day should do it...

Jackstar?

[Ruteger]

Anyone who feeds their children at McDonald's should be sent to a FEMA concentration camp and be tortured unmercifully. I understand, that years ago we did not have the Internet. We do now and there is NO EXCUSE for anyone who can type the word "GOOGLE" into their browser to search for better alternatives.

[Bart Ell]

I typed "Google" and it didn't tell me nothing 'bout no FilayOfish

[Sumthins Goin On]

Believe me I am not without sympathy for those who truly desire to perform a days labour for the appropriate pay, resulting in a reasonable standard of living. Well I guess that's all gone tits up now.
I ask you why we are not building fantastic-futuristic cities which would allow all to live in a clean and good environment instead of squalor? Surely those seeking this kind of life could contribute in labour be it physical or mental. Resources and materials are more than abundant.
By this time now we could be building starships, instead we have the Kardashians and Judge Judy.
People stuffing their faces, and whilst many others sit in despair and filth with no hope of ever being anything but sick and dead.
And then there are those who just want us dead because they want to return to the 9th century.

Fix all of this by kicking out the corrupt. I mean our current dictator (and yes Bush sucked big time too). Just look at the corruption of the week we now see in the news.
And by futuristic I don't mean THX1138 either.

Ehhhh, people suck, just leave me alone I'm tired..........

[b_dubb]

Ruteger ... at last something we agree on. Besides GNS. And if someone were using Chrome they could skip typing Google and just jump ahead to the actual search term.

[PB the Deplorable]

I have 120 clients at the moment. I see at least 25 clients a week. I know of no one that has cable, many do not have televisions. Yes some do but not a majority. I visit their homes. None of them... NONE are living in anything you would consider comfortable. The homes are more often than not in need of repair. But reparations often mean closing down a home until all repairs are done. Guess what that means... many that need all the stability they can find now are homeless. I spent three days with one client approaching everyone I could hope to have some form of shelter... none to be found.

Healthy foods... I truly believe you mean well, but really you don't understand the problem. Fuck, I can't get these people to take medications at the appropriate times. You think they have the skills to buy the right amount of produce?

The thing I don't understand is these people are the product of over 100,000 years of humans who provided for themselves and were at least able to raise their kids to do the same.  Those who didn't mostly died off and didn't reproduce.  They are the product of natural selection among humans.

So how is it we have million and millions of people like this in the current generation who are unable to take care of themselves?

Somewhere along the line they themselves and/or their parents were led to lives of dependency and a complete lack of responsibility.  The people responsible are either the parents, these people themselves, or the people supporting the handout policies that created all this.  Or all three.


Maybe it's time to stop electing Liberals and elect people who will begin generating policies that teach people to support themselves and end all this dependency

[onan]

The thing I don't understand is these people are the product of over 100,000 years of humans who provided for themselves and were at least able to raise their kids to do the same.  Those who didn't mostly died off and didn't reproduce.  They are the product of natural selection among humans.

So how is it we have million and millions of people like this in the current generation who are unable to take care of themselves?

Somewhere along the line they themselves and/or their parents were led to lives of dependency and a complete lack of responsibility.  The people responsible are either the parents, these people themselves, or the people supporting the handout policies that created all this.  Or all three.


Maybe it's time to stop electing Liberals and elect people who will begin generating policies that teach people to support themselves and end all this dependency

I can tell you we have had mentally ill people in our midst for a very long time. We used them for our entertainment. Before that we hid them in attics and basements.

At one time when we were hunter gatherers, lions probably had a bigger menu.

We used to place them in very long term facilities. I wouldn't call them hospitals or even houses of care. But the mentally ill didn't just spring up with the advent of liberals.

[Eddie Coyle]

     You can't spell toilet without toil.

     Or et. Or oil. Or to. Or let.

[WOTR]

I realize that I am going to come across as being a little short tempered.  But most of you can go fuck yourselves.

I had worked with some of these people that you would like to see suffer a little more.  Some were scamming the system- some could work but chose not to.  However, you know nothing about this woman (as disgusting as she may appear on the surface.)  Does she have kids?  Is she living with an elderly parent?

Just for fun, imagine she has kids.  You are going to cut their heat down and degrade them just a little more because you do not like her?  Suppose she smokes pot once a week and is caught.  You would cut her off and toss her kids into the streets and you do not think you are perpetuating a cycle?  Bullshit.

I will relate a personal story... 5 years back I worked at a not for profit and was getting a little fed up watching some of the clients arrive in newer, nicer cars, answering their new cell phones and wearing designer cloths (not all of them, but there were a few.)  It was Christmas, and I was getting bitter and feeling disillusioned. 

Anyhow, one client had a medical problem and was taken away in an ambulance.  I decided to bring her a food hamper with another employee.  Arriving at her home, I discovered she was in a small basement room (1100 sq ft house split into 8 illegal units with little space.)  When we started unpacking the groceries there was one can of soup in the cupboard and nothing in the fridge.

Without going into details, she suffered a full body crush at work but workers comp had been fighting the claim for a long time (thank God they were looking out for my money.)  She was in braces and watching her move, you knew she was hurting.  So, she was on social assistance, or welfare or some other government program scraping by.

One can of food tells me that she was not "using" the system.  She was an active worker for years and doing hard, physical labour that would break most of you (and many of you likely feel "above" doing anyhow.)  And you would deny her comfort and heat because you want to save $10 a month in fuel?  You would cut her off if she lit up occasionally to relieve pain?  You would degrade her further than the tiny room by demanding she dropped money into a thermostat?  You would refuse her McDonalds (if she was craving it and could afford it?)

All of this because you are supporting her?  Next response (after I unwind) will be dedicated to the fact that unless you are Bill Gates or Warren Buffet you are likely a self righteous hypocrite getting MORE than her in terms of services and support from your government.  There is a reason you have 50 trillion in unfunded liabilities (and it ain't providing a couple of hundred to welfare recipients...)

***Edit: Don't get me wrong, this video infuriates me and sickens me.  However, I am not going to pretend that I know enough about her or her life to judge what is hapening.  Looking at her other videos makes me think she likely still lives with her parents (looks like a larger, kept up house.  Listening to her, I guarantee that she would not keep house very well...)  Most likely, it is her parents supporting her (with a little help from tax payers.)  But, who knows?  Possibly she has 10 social security numbers, a mansion and a maid at tax payer expense?

[PB the Deplorable]

Your experience is a good example of a couple of things.

First, if the lazy weren't sucking up all the resources, people that are down on their luck and actually needed support would have more available for them.

Second, private sector charities are much better at determining who is deserving and who is gaming the system.  If they choose to support people who actually should be supporting themselves, they attach strings to give them a better chance of making that happen.  The way it is now anyone who arranges their life so they qualify, gets the handout.  That is counterproductive and needs to end.

[WOTR]

Yes, we gave her some food... The government still had to give her cash.

I just get sick of seeing people with no experience decide who should be supported and how.  I worked with a woman who had experience in Texas.  She would tell me that the government would pay for heating in the winter, but not cooling in the summer (remind you of some of the posts here?)  Yeah, people were generous enough on this board to say that as long as the welfare recipient was uncomfortable, they could have a state mandated level of cooling.  (and how odd that it is generally the people who want the government completely out of their lives who are OK with the government deciding who gets heat and how much.  How odd that having a bureaucrat set thermostats is seen as "good."  I am sure there are some environmentalists who might say that the government should control every thermostat for efficiency and to help with greenhouse gas emissions...)

Anyhow, she had a number of older clients (some of whom were caring for their grandchildren because the parents were drug addicts or absent for other reasons.)  She had several clients die from heat.  The policy of Texas to be petty and refuse to pay for AC (or possibly it was repairing AC- I cannot recall the specifics) caused death and families to be torn.  Young children who had somebody that cared for them to be left alone.

I suppose when I saw how having clients die on her because she could not find a way to convince the government that the elderly die of heat and might need some help I get upset.  Never mind knowing that as much as it might have affected her, the children and spouses left behind as a result of the government saving a hundred dollars would have a lifetime of regret.

It is the pettiness from people who have no problems using roads, reproducing and sending their children to tax payer supported schools, and using government programs that benefit them while demanding welfare be cut because it is too generous that drives me mad.

If you honestly think that the couple of hundred you would receive, food stamps and section 8 housing is any kind of a life of luxury then quit your job and move in.  You can still contribute to society in any manner you wish- but try living that lifestyle and telling me that it is too generous.

Finally, I am still wondering what about the children of these people whose benefits people want to cut?  Sure- if the are able bodied, kick them off welfare.  But what is a mother going to do with her 3 kids while she is out earning minimum wage?  Pay for babysitting or a nanny?  How much fun is it being a kid whose mother is on welfare and getting second hand everything and a crappy place to live?  And do you really want to make the child pay for the "crime" (of being on welfare) that the parent commits?

In one way, I hate the "but think of the children" argument.  At the same time- while people are all upset and wanting to cut these lazy bastards off it is often the children who are forgotten.

***I realize I am taking a left wing view of this.  To equalize things a little, I could share my views on people who discover that they cannot afford one child forge ahead on the same path and pop out another four...

[SciFiAuthor]

Which brings up a valuable point.  We can cut off all of the public assistance to unemployable people and pretend they'll somehow figure it out on their own (usually involves crime) or we can continue to assist those truly incapable of helping themselves to live the meager existence of public assistance.

I know the popular notion is that these lay abouts are watching HBO getting pizzas delivered to their McMansions, but the reality is far different.  They live futile lives, and they know it.  They know they cannot work because they are deficient; they know the best they can hope for is Uncle Sugar feeds them, clothes them, houses them, and gives them a decent signal to watch Jerry and Maury everyday.  But that's it.  No aspirations of better living, no vacations in Aspen, no heading out and buying a new pair of shoes, just because or dining at the newest hot spot in town.
In fact, the "hot spot" for these people is the Dollar Menu; processed, bleached out crap that makes their health worse, not better.

This is actually right, in a sense. Which is why I think there should be a safety net; there are people out there that just can't work. There are also people out there not smart enough to work. But there's a third type: the professional government grifter. I know one, and he doesn't just vacation, he vacations in India once a year (he's obsessed with India. He's so familiar with it that I keep urging him to write a book and self pub it on Amazon, maybe he'll get lucky. No drive to do it whatsoever). He's never held a job, his aid is based on being homosexual which he claims results in chronic and deep depression, and spends his day to day life either learning to game the system better or playing Xbox 360. He's my age, I've known him since high school. But see, I can tell you with absolute confidence that this is a person that never intended to work a day in his life, is not depressed (in fact he lives happily with his partner, who is a very decent person to put up with his boyfriend's bullshit), and is bending you over and porking you for your tax dollars solely because he knows how to game the system. But see, you can't kick people like that off the rolls because then you'd lose their votes. Not so with the GOP. You may mean well, but your politicians corrupt it.

For instance, in a practical system the government would negotiate and buy nutritious foods and distribute them instead of giving out a welfare card. That's a win-win, since it promotes the health of these people (and many other things) which as you know are very unhealthy, usually overweight, and generally destined for diabetes and all the other things that come with a sedentary existence. Michelle tried it with the schools, and I actually think she was right. Our kids are, in part, video-game addicted fatasses before they even hit 18. But you see, it ends up more complicated than that when you get to the level of the Democrat politician. Once they hit 18 and can vote, then if you try to make them eat healthy, you lose votes. These people want soda and potato chips, not salads. Since Democrats don't want to lose elections and depend on those votes, you're stuck with institutional corruption from the get go.

So, you know, yeah, in principle you're right. In practice, you're corrupt. That's the message I really want to drive home to the left in here. You may think you're ideologically correct, and sometimes you are, and hell, most of us would love a utopia. But when practicality is called for, it can't ever be put into effect because you forgot that politicians are sleazy by nature and cannot be trusted to run such a system. They will always game it to their advantage like my grifter friend does. It's actually worse than that, the system is grifted from the benefit recipient to the functionaries and up the chain to the top, but you get my drift.

Reform your party into an honest system and I'd vote for some of your candidates again. But you're very, very far from an honest system. And don't pull the "GOP does the same thing!" business, we're having a civil war over here because half of us think the establishment GOP is crooked (look at Cochran) and needs to be ousted.

The road to hell is paved with good intentions, Nowhere, and if you can't repave the road, you take an alternate route. You love fighting with Paper, Karl and me and getting nasty about it, but don't ever forget that we're simply on the alternate route. We know that people take advantage of the system. So do you, but you can't ever fix it because you need those votes. Well, what does that mean in terms of the success and health of the country? Nothing good, man. Nothing good.

[SciFiAuthor]

By the way, the artist chick is most likely fake. She says in the video that she wants to be self-employed as an artist. The easiest way to gain attention and show your art off so that you can be self-employed is to create controversy, go viral, and then you have people's attention. She says something very conspicuous in the video: "I'd rather give my art away, but . . .". This is a standard internet marketing statement that you'll find all over youtube, you brand yourself as trying to give something away, but you aren't able to, or the content of your videos is what you're giving away under the auspices of "helping the community,", so anyone that sympathizes with you (and I guarantee there are many) goes and buys your product.

Someone should try to track down if she has a website, if she's offering art for sale, etc. 

[WOTR]

For instance, in a practical system the government would negotiate and buy nutritious foods and distribute them instead of giving out a welfare card...

That was one of the very interesting things that I learned in Houston (yes, when I was down there, I toured their food bank.)  The government actually buys much of their food for them and they distribute it (not all of the food, obviously, but a fair amount.)

This has the advantage of being able to help those who economically need it to eat healthy.  It has the other advantage of promoting corporate welfare.  If bean prices are too low for the poor corporate farms to turn a profit they help to buy up supply and support the prices.

Somehow, I see people being upset with the individual welfare side (the government should not buy food for others) while there is no outrage to the corporate welfare side of the equation...

[SciFiAuthor]

That was one of the very interesting things that I learned in Houston (yes, when I was down there, I toured their food bank.)  The government actually buys much of their food for them and they distribute it (not all of the food, obviously, but a fair amount.)

Yeah, but a food bank isn't the welfare EBT system. The Salvation Army has been doing the healthy food thing for years, but that's for people that are homeless, usually have no clue about the government help available that would ensure that they aren't homeless, and likely doesn't vote. So you can treat them practically.

This has the advantage of being able to help those who economically need it to eat healthy.  It has the other advantage of promoting corporate welfare.  If bean prices are too low for the poor corporate farms to turn a profit they help to buy up supply and support the prices.

It does, but actually biofuel mandates were a bigger and more meaningful handout to the corporate farms.

Somehow, I see people being upset with the individual welfare side (the government should not buy food for others) while there is no outrage to the corporate welfare side of the equation...

I doubt many would have a problem if the EBT system was based on the government giving out bland nutritious food. Some purists would, of course, but it looks too much like bribing lazy people for votes as it stands. Give them salads, chicken breasts, healthy fish, all low sodium, low calorie, and low cholesterol. Hell, deliver it to them cooked by government nutrition experts. I think we all know that the welfare rolls would drop dramatically and so would the Democratic voting base and theft would rise. If we're going to talk about this, we should talk honestly about it so we can fix it.

[albrecht]

Clearly the best way to help out our poor and those with debilitating mental or medical conditions in our country is to import a few 100K every year of more poor, uneducated, often ill or diseased people, right? Maybe even have a special train that can bring them straight up from central America even. We can call them "dreamers!" Clearly, importing more aliens, especially children and teenagers, from the bottom-rung of near 3rd world nations will help our social safety net- both public and private- and also create more jobs for those at the bottom-end of the job market here in the USA.

ps: for those who say I want to make poor people "uncomfortable." I grew up without A/C in my house and elementary school (and it was a middle-class neighborhood) and my grandparents (and nobody really) had A/C and lived in Houston back many decades ago. Which has fairly hot, humid weather. And folks wore suits and dresses to work those days. I wasn't even advocating "no A/C" but regulating it in public housing based on real need to save money (which also help Gaia, by the way.) Most of Europe doesn't have A/C and survives. Yes, there have been bad occasions with lots of death (recall France a few years ago.)

[NowhereInTime]

This is actually right, in a sense. Which is why I think there should be a safety net; there are people out there that just can't work. There are also people out there not smart enough to work. But there's a third type: the professional government grifter. I know one, and he doesn't just vacation, he vacations in India once a year (he's obsessed with India. He's so familiar with it that I keep urging him to write a book and self pub it on Amazon, maybe he'll get lucky. No drive to do it whatsoever). He's never held a job, his aid is based on being homosexual which he claims results in chronic and deep depression, and spends his day to day life either learning to game the system better or playing Xbox 360. He's my age, I've known him since high school. But see, I can tell you with absolute confidence that this is a person that never intended to work a day in his life, is not depressed (in fact he lives happily with his partner, who is a very decent person to put up with his boyfriend's bullshit), and is bending you over and porking you for your tax dollars solely because he knows how to game the system. But see, you can't kick people like that off the rolls because then you'd lose their votes. Not so with the GOP. You may mean well, but your politicians corrupt it.

I don't know how to say this without being rude, so I'll apologize in advance; he's your friend, not mine. You have the opportunity to prevent waste and fraud and are doing nothing about it, so how is that my fault?  Because we have a welfare system he can game?  As if someone like that couldn't figure out another grift?
I agree we need better review processes to eliminate fraud, but it would help if conscientious citizens wold speak up, too.

For instance, in a practical system the government would negotiate and buy nutritious foods and distribute them instead of giving out a welfare card.

Talk about in theory.  You're right.  In theory.  Then you run into a painful reality called logistics, where this is very expensive, laborious, time consuming and, ultimately, inefficient.  Think 'disaster relief".  Think "refugee camps".  Logistical nightmares, open to theft, corruption, and contamination.  That's why stores rely on wholesalers and, even then, there are issues.

That's a win-win, since it promotes the health of these people (and many other things) which as you know are very unhealthy, usually overweight, and generally destined for diabetes and all the other things that come with a sedentary existence. Michelle tried it with the schools, and I actually think she was right. Our kids are, in part, video-game addicted fatasses before they even hit 18. But you see, it ends up more complicated than that when you get to the level of the Democrat politician. Once they hit 18 and can vote, then if you try to make them eat healthy, you lose votes. These people want soda and potato chips, not salads. Since Democrats don't want to lose elections and depend on those votes, you're stuck with institutional corruption from the get go.

So let's sink to the level of the Republican politician and blame these people for all of America's troubles.

So, you know, yeah, in principle you're right. In practice, you're corrupt. That's the message I really want to drive home to the left in here. You may think you're ideologically correct, and sometimes you are, and hell, most of us would love a utopia. But when practicality is called for, it can't ever be put into effect because you forgot that politicians are sleazy by nature and cannot be trusted to run such a system.

No, you are correct here. However, how do you create a neutral arbiter for not only helping people with needs, but getting them to a point of contribution to society and a sense of dignity and self worth, then?

They will always game it to their advantage like my grifter friend does. It's actually worse than that, the system is grifted from the benefit recipient to the functionaries and up the chain to the top, but you get my drift.

Few things incense me more than people who steal charity.  They should be incarcerated. Period.

Reform your party into an honest system and I'd vote for some of your candidates again.
But you're very, very far from an honest system. And don't pull the "GOP does the same thing!" business,

I wouldn't because the current GOP couldn't care less about these people.

...we're having a civil war over here because half of us think the establishment GOP is crooked (look at Cochran) and needs to be ousted.

Well, that, and you somehow all believe an ever-shrinking portion of the population will firmly reestablish white hegemony so you can go back to calling blacks "boy', slapping pretty girls in the ass at the office, throwing the poor into debtors prisons, and claiming any damn piece of land you'd like if some redskin menace is on it. 
To this day, I do not know what you guys mean about "less government" or this obsession with the states as ultimate political entities in our nation.

The road to hell is paved with good intentions, Nowhere, and if you can't repave the road, you take an alternate route. You love fighting with Paper, Karl and me and getting nasty about it,

Gosh, I wonder why?  In this very post you've called me corrupt and say that I support a party who intentionally keeps people dependent to sustain votes.  You ascribe characteristics endemic to the conservative personality and presume everyone shares that innate nastiness.  One of these days I'm hoping that you'll understand that liberals are not the opportunistic cynics that conservatives are (or at least we didn't use to be until conservatism declared war on liberalism) and that we do, genuinely, seek peace and justice. 

but don't ever forget that we're simply on the alternate route. We know that people take advantage of the system. So do you, but you can't ever fix it because you need those votes.

You're right, people do game the system.  We should do a better job of vetting applicants and reviewing their status.  You're wrong; most of these people don't vote.  Don't kid yourself. Voter turnouts in areas with urban poor barely reach into the teens for registered voters, let alone the whole population.  If some opportunist would figure that out, conservatism would be dead by the next election. 

Well, what does that mean in terms of the success and health of the country? Nothing good, man. Nothing good.

So, again, we get back to the idea of forsaking these people?  Do you really think it's wise to ignore "47%" of the country?  What good will come of that?