Was the death of the blue collar class a good thing?

McGentrix wrote:

Or, make contraception a legal requiremnet for Welfare. Pill, IUD, patch, whatever.

This has been tried, when, in Georgia, recipients of ADC were sterilized at state-funded clinics, without their prior knowledge or consent. Now there's good old 'Merican values for ya . . .

0 Replies

Quote:

The question I posed was: if Citizen A lawfully and ethically does what is necessary to provide a good living for himself/herself and his/her family, how is Citizen B who didn't and therefore is 'poor' entitled to anything Citizen A has?

I wish somebody here would answer that question head on.

In your example, no. Cit B is not entitled to anything of Cit A.

0 Replies

Foxfyre wrote:

Again and again the question is diverted here. It seems everybody wants to rephrase it.

I think we can all agree that a moral society cares for those who cannot care for themselves.'

The question I posed was: if Citizen A lawfully and ethically does what is necessary to provide a good living for himself/herself and his/her family, how is Citizen B who didn't and therefore is 'poor' entitled to anything Citizen A has?

I wish somebody here would answer that question head on.

perhaps a feeble attempt but here goes--if citizen A existed in a vacuume then citizen B would be of no consequence and entitled to nothing, however citizen A exists within a society of mankind that depends on the well-being of all of that society for his personal well-being, ergo the "health" of the membership of citizen A is dependent on the "health" of citizen B. or in simpler terms "no man is an island" unto himself.

0 Replies

I have a better idea, and I'll bet you;ll love it< McGentrix. How about letting people get pregnant, but all children born to mothers and/or families who can't support them to your standard become property of the government and are raised from birth to be elite soldiers? If later on in the process of raising them something comes up to prevent them from serving a purpose as war drones, like say, bad hips or something, they can be placed in a special human sandbag division and be first in the front line to catch the bullets so that useful soldiers have a better chance?

Now that's value for dollar, and monetary value of human life IS what we're talking about right?

0 Replies

Sparta was a relatively successful (for a limited time) with just such an ideology. (oh yeah, I almost forgot, Sparta also required its citizen soldiers to practice homosexuality during military training.

0 Replies

Foxfyre wrote:

Again and again the question is diverted here. It seems everybody wants to rephrase it.

I think we can all agree that a moral society cares for those who cannot care for themselves.'

The question I posed was: if Citizen A lawfully and ethically does what is necessary to provide a good living for himself/herself and his/her family, how is Citizen B who didn't and therefore is 'poor' entitled to anything Citizen A has?

I wish somebody here would answer that question head on.

I'll be your huckleberry...

Citizen A (hereafter to be referred to simply as 'A') and Citizen B ('B') are both equally responsible American citizens and are therefore responsible for paying taxes.

The way the government decides to spend that tax money is out of the hands of A and B, but because A has a higher income, A must pay more in taxes. B is likely to pay no taxes due to having a low income. Each are entitled to certain government programs such as Police, fire, health care facilities, equal protection under the law, etc. It's tax money that drives these programs, so in that sense, B is indeed getting from A what A has.

As far as handouts go, there are far more people that are deserving of governmental charity than there are people trying to scam the system. Unfortunatly though, those bad apples (or wastes of humanity, take your pick) spoil programs for those that truly do need a helping hand to get back on their feet due to layoffs, etc...

I agree that the welfare system is a giant problem, but fixing it is not a simple process and is not something that can be turned around overnight. I , like some of the other posters here, believe that there are many other things that should be fixed before we start worrying about the welfare system. Pork projects, worker comp, frivolous lawsuits, over paid lawyers and government waste should all be fixed before we start worrying about welfare.

My opinion.

0 Replies

Quote:

ergo the "health" of the membership of citizen A is dependent on the "health" of citizen B.

I disagree. The health of the productive is not at the mercy of the unproductive. If Cit B were to starve and die as a result of his unwillingness to take the necessary steps to live, I doubt Cit A would notice.

0 Replies

Bi-Polar Bear wrote:

I have a better idea, and I'll bet you;ll love it< McGentrix. How about letting people get pregnant, but all children born to mothers and/or families who can't support them to your standard become property of the government and are raised from birth to be elite soldiers? If later on in the process of raising them something comes up to prevent them from serving a purpose as war drones, like say, bad hips or something, they can be placed in a special human sandbag division and be first in the front line to catch the bullets so that useful soldiers have a better chance?

Now that's value for dollar, and monetary value of human life IS what we're talking about right?

Does it really bother you so much that you just can't let the hips thing go? What a whiny little girl you can be...

0 Replies

Ouchie sweetheart....touch a little nerve did I? Laughing

0 Replies

Ouchie sweetheart....touch a little nerve did I? Laughing

0 Replies

Ouchie sweetheart....touch a little nerve did I? Laughing

0 Replies

You just need to hit the submit button once to make your statement.

You didn't hit a nerve, but you did manage to make yourself look like more of a putz than usual though.

0 Replies

Bi-Polar Bear wrote:

Define taking care of.....I have a hadicapped son...the government has decided his life is worth 376.00 a month. Anything he goes out to earn is deducted dollar for dollar from his payments. If he decides to put 50.00 a month into savings so that by the time he is of retirement age he can have enough money to not be on the government tit, he's screwing up because as soon as he has 2000.00 worth of assets of any kind he's off the program. His medication without medicaid or insurance is 900.00 a month. He can't get health insurance for less than 500.00 a month because of his conditions. He certainly can't qualify for anything more than a minimum wage job.

So he can't afford to lose his 376.00 a month benefit and his medicaid, so what's his incentive to do anything but sit on his ass?

Great system we have here all right.

But as far as conservatives are concerned, your son is just another person leeching of the system. They don't realize that the own restrictions they impose are what's keeping him there and that if they underfund and dismantle the system piece by piece as they wish, they will only worsen the problem.

It's sad how quick conservatives are to dismiss the kid you described above into the "citizen b" group. they don't consider that the vast majority of the people that aren't well off aren't because of any lack of effort on their part. It's mostly just circumstances and luck. There are indeed a few people who abuse the system because they are lazy, but they are in the minority. Most people are there because their circumstances make it impossible for them to get out of the hole they were born into often through no fault of their own. And even those that did dig themselves into said hole, shouldn't they be given a second chance. Everyone makes mistakes.

This is why I don't believe in underfunding welfare. Lets target it to help people that want to improve themselves improve themselves. Lets not abandon it piece by piece because of a few bad apples. Let's try and do a better job of finding these abusers, but lets not cut funding from welfare in order to starve them and all the geniunely well intentioned people in the program, out of it.

0 Replies

Centroles wrote:

But as far as conservatives are concerned, your son is just another person leeching of the system. They don't realize that the own restrictions they impose are what's keeping him there and that if they underfund and dismantle the system piece by piece as they wish, they will only worsen the problem.

No. As far as Conservatives are concerned there are a lot of other people out there living off of benefits being paid to them when they ARE fully capable of working. That money should rightfully be going to (or spent on) people very much like BPB's son who AREN'T capable. For some reason you, and several others, can seem to get that through your heads.

0 Replies

Centroles wrote:

Bi-Polar Bear wrote:

Define taking care of.....I have a hadicapped son...the government has decided his life is worth 376.00 a month. Anything he goes out to earn is deducted dollar for dollar from his payments. If he decides to put 50.00 a month into savings so that by the time he is of retirement age he can have enough money to not be on the government tit, he's screwing up because as soon as he has 2000.00 worth of assets of any kind he's off the program. His medication without medicaid or insurance is 900.00 a month. He can't get health insurance for less than 500.00 a month because of his conditions. He certainly can't qualify for anything more than a minimum wage job.

So he can't afford to lose his 376.00 a month benefit and his medicaid, so what's his incentive to do anything but sit on his ass?

Great system we have here all right.

But as far as conservatives are concerned, your son is just another person leeching of the system. They don't realize that the own restrictions they impose are what's keeping him there and that if they underfund and dismantle the system piece by piece as they wish, they will only worsen the problem.

No one but you said his son was leeching off of the system. Believe it or not, conservatives can be compassionate too.

0 Replies

McGentrix wrote:

You just need to hit the submit button once to make your statement.

You didn't hit a nerve, but you did manage to make yourself look like more of a putz than usual though.

to you anyway....Miss sensitive.... Razz

0 Replies

McGentrix wrote:

You just need to hit the submit button once to make your statement.

You didn't hit a nerve, but you did manage to make yourself look like more of a putz than usual though.

to you anyway....Miss sensitive.... Razz

0 Replies

Old but still funny...

The Story of the Grasshopper and the Ant

OLD VERSION:
The ant works hard in the withering heat all summer long, building his house and laying up supplies for the winter.

The grasshopper thinks he's a fool and laughs and dances and plays the summer away.

Come winter, the ant is warm and well fed. The grasshopper has no food or shelter, so he dies out in the cold.

MORAL OF THE STORY: Be responsible for yourself!

MODERN VERSION:

The ant works hard in the withering heat all summer long, building his house and laying up supplies for the winter.

The grasshopper thinks he's a fool and laughs and dances and plays the summer away.

Come winter, the shivering grasshopper calls a press conference and demands to know why the ant should be allowed to be warm and well fed while others are cold and starving.

CBS, NBC, and ABC show up to provide pictures of the shivering grasshopper next to a video of the ant in his comfortable home with a table filled with food. America is stunned by the sharp contrast. How can this be, that in a country of such wealth, this poor grasshopper is allowed to suffer so?

Kermit the Frog appears on Oprah with the grasshopper, and everybody cries when they sing, "It's Not Easy Being Green."

Jesse Jackson stages a demonstration in front of the ant's house where the news stations film the group singing, "We shall overcome." Jesse then has the group kneel down to pray to God for the grasshopper's sake.

Tom Daschle & John Kerry exclaim in an interview with Peter Jennings that the ant has gotten rich off the back of the grasshopper, and both call for an immediate tax hike on the ant to make him pay his "fair share."

Finally, the EEOC drafts the "Economic Equity and Anti-Grasshopper Act," retroactive to the beginning of the summer.

The ant is fined for failing to hire a proportionate number of green bugs and, having nothing left to pay his retroactive taxes, his home is confiscated by the government. Hillary gets her old law firm to represent the grasshopper in a defamation suit against the ant, and the case is tried before a panel of federal judges that Bill appointed from a list of single-parent welfare recipients.

The ant loses the case.

The story ends as we see the grasshopper finishing up the last bits of the ant's food while the government house he is in, which just happens to be the ant's old house, crumbles around him because he doesn't maintain it.

The ant has disappeared in the snow. The grasshopper is found dead in a drug related incident and the house, now abandoned, is taken over by a gang of spiders who terrorize the once peaceful neighborhood.

MORAL OF THE STORY: Vote Republican

0 Replies

Regardless of what you conservatives like to claim. The vast majority of the people recieving welfare checks simply haven't found a job no matter how hard they try, or simply unable to work due to physical or mental problems.

But that doesn't stop conservatives from constantly trying to portray welfare as a feeding ground for lazy people in order to undermine it and undercut it's funding (something that conservatives have been advocating since it's inception).

The fact is, very few if any people, would turn down having a steady job and income and a chance to make something of themselves. Most of the people on welfare, simply can't find a job.

The unemployment rate even by the most conservative estimates is around 6%. This means that 6% of the population will never find a job no matter how badly they want one. And that 6% number doesn't really include mentally or physically handicapped people, people on welfare and many others who would proably also like to get off welfare and get a job but simply can't.

This is why I consistently and vigiorously support job training programs/help getting people to pay for college etc. But I recognize that they can only go so far. No matter how hard they try, no matter how qualified or educated people may get. There will always be a percentage of people who will not get a job. And I'm not willing to let them end up on the streets, uninsured, starving, and in decling health, only to be dragged to a government hospital on the verge of death and recieve a hundreds of thousands of dollars in treatment so that they can live a couple extra days. It's cheaper for us not to have people end up on the streets.

0 Replies

Centroles writes:

Quote:

This is why I consistently and vigiorously support job training programs/help getting people to pay for college etc. But I recognize that they can only go so far. No matter how hard they try, no matter how qualified or educated people may get. There will always be a percentage of people who will not get a job. And I'm not willing to let them end up on the streets, uninsured, starving, and in decling health, only to be dragged to a government hospital on the verge of death and recieve a hundreds of thousands of dollars in treatment so that they can live a couple extra days. It's cheaper for us not to have people end up on the streets.

As much as liberals want to believe conservatives are heartless and uncaring, the fact is that conservatives are the most generous of all people when it comes to supporting philanthropic and charitable causes. And I doubt you can find many Americans, in this forum or anywhere else, that would stand by and intentionally allow somebody to starve. You won't find many people, Republican or Democrat, who suggest doing away with all government programs that help those who cannot help themselves.

But that isn't the issue or principle here.

The issue is a mentality of entitlement to be supported by others. The issue is a notion that it isn't right that the irresponsible be a lot poorer than the responsible. The issue is a tendency to make victims of all the poor and villains of all the prosperous. And the issue is the tendency to be generous but with other peoples' money.

And finally there is an honest difference of opinion about what constitutes true compassion and concern. This maybe more than any other single factor defines the liberal vs conservative ideology.

0 Replies

Was the death of the blue collar class a good thing?

Related Topics

Quick Links

My Account

able2know