Something that Annoys Me - Big Time

[aramike]

Well, we haven't had a good political thread in here for awhile now, so here goes...

---

Liberals: Time to Wake Up

Alright, maybe that's unfair. This is more directed to extreme liberals.

When G.W. Bush took office, he named the governor of Wisconsin (my home state), Tommy Thompson, as the secretary of Health and Human Services (HHS). At a cafe recently, I browsed through one of the Milwaukee area's most liberal newspapers. Inside, I found a column panning Bush's pick for secretary of HHS.

One of the author's points was targeting the former governor's welfare reform plan (Welfare to Work, or W2). This plan has not only been successful, but it has been adopted by states across the nation. Essentially, the idea is that if a welfare participant does not work, he or she will be cut-off from any welfare benefits. To support this plan, the state has set-up offices throughout each municipality to help current recipients find work.

Sounds fair, right? Why let anyone mooch off the the system when they are obviously unwilling to try and do things for themselves? Well, here's what the author of that article had to say:

"I remember, at one time, we judged the success of our welfare programs by how many people we helped, not how many we throw out of the system."

What an idiot. I mean, is it better to give people taxpayers dollars for their entire lives, or is it better to help them find a job; help them gain the ability to be productive members of society?

I'd like to think that our welfare programs should be judged by how many people we get off of welfare and into the work force.

Liberal America, wake up! Do you truly believe that giving out a $200 check each month with another $200 in food stamps is actually helping anyone? Hardly. It's hurting the taxpayers and, more importantly, the welfare recipients themselves.

Focusing on the latter, let's take a look at some startling statistics:

• 93% of welfare recipients over the age of 27 have had more than 13 jobs, the average duration of which is 4 months.

  That seems to indicate a problem with keeping work. Don't blame it on the employers.

• 67% of female welfare recipients have given birth to children while they were receiving welfare benefits.

  That would seem to indicate serious irresponsibility. It also is quite unfair to the children, don't you think?

• 61% of welfare recipients are high school drop-outs.

  Here's an idea: let's send our children the message that, if they want to drop out of school, it's OK because the government (taxpayers) will take care of them.

• In Wisconsin (before W2), only 6% of welfare recipients only received up to a year in benefits, before they were "back on their feet", as it were.

Liberals, what do you see welfare as? Total income for under priviledged people? I'd prefer to see it as a tool to help people get back on their feet after poor choices or just plain-old tough luck. It shouldn't be a system that simply keeps people in its grip (read: free money). It should be a system that provides an incentive to actually get people working for themselves. Granted, adults shouldn't need an incentive to do these things, but hey - that's the world we live in.

We shouldn't cater to their wallets.

We should cater to their employment.

[This message has been edited by aramike (edited 03-11-2001).]

[Kush]

Oh, okay, I'll bite.

I don't think it's that simple.

You can tout all the statistics you want, but sometimes the reason why people are out of work is because there are no jobs. It's easy to look down on people when the economy is doing well, but when the economy isn't doing well, sometimes people need help.

It's not black or white.

This is an old debate and we have different ways of dealing with it here in Canada, but I do think that liberals, (and socialists) have to wake up and provide reasoned arguements. Yes when the economy is doing well, sure people should get out and find a job. But when the economy isn't, we should be compassionate towards those who have less than we do.

[Eclipse]

If you ask me, Welfare degrades the morale of those on it. It sends a message that makes the recipiants complacent, why look for work if the gov't will provide for you? If I remember correctly private organixations were the ones who would step in and help the needy, not the gov't. Personally I like the W2 plan as it gives those ppl an incentive to get moving.

------------------

Commodore Kyle Antilles

ICV-Eclipse, Destiny Starstation (Nevuela)

Commanding Officer, Destiny

Spectre Fleet

"You can only love or hate something you truly understand"

[HuFox]

I remember when Thompson put this in affect, And the change was surprising. When I was working in retail we had a problem finding employee's that would stick around longer then five or so months. After the reforms our turn around decreased drastically, and we where also getting more applicants. As of yet I can't see any negative side effects where I live. All and all I think it worked out well.

[Kush]

I agree. Welfare IS degrading. Most human beings want work. The vast majority of human beings want to work and will chose to do something that fulfils them over staying on welfare.

I think it's a little too easy to sit comfortably in front of a computer and chastise what you imagine to be a group of people you wish to believe are beneath you, but they're not. Yes there will be chronic abusers of any government system, but the vast majority of people on welfare want something to fulfill their lives, and work provides that fulfillment.

Here we have what's called and un-employment insurance (or I think it's called employment insurance now) You work, you and your employer put a little bit of money away each paycheque. If you are layed off, that money is payed out to you a bit at a time. Or you can use that money to study and upgrade your skills. I don't know if you have a program like that in the states, but it works here. I know many people who have used it to cushion the down time between jobs and used it to gain education to improve their skills and get better jobs.

[Guest]

OK,

I'll admit it, I am A Hardcore Republican Constitutionalist.

Welfare is in itself Unconstitutional, there is no where in the constitution of the United States that allows the Federal Government to create Social Programs like Welfare, Social Security, Medicaid, etc add nauseum.

In my state we have unemployment insurance, which unhappily, I am on right now. It is about 1/4 of what I am used to bringing in and I cannot wait to get back to working to my full potential. That is neither here nor there, but before welfare, social security, etc there use to be a thing called Family that would help when times got rough, or Private institutions such as Churches, halfway houses etc. They used to do an excellent job too, it wasn't until the government stepped in that it got as bad as it did. Bush is doing the exact right thing, start sending it to the private organizations and the fed's can step out of that ridiculous role.

The FEDERAL government has no place in it and never has, and if anyone brings up the general welfare clause of the constitution, DON'T, it will just show me your total ignorance of the document and the true meaning of a preamble.

So there's my 2 cents of hard rightness!! lol

------------------

CMDR Jaguar

GCV Armageddon

This is not just a game, It's a life unto itself!!

ICQ# 24007233

[Steve Schacher]

It seems to me that the liberal Democrat tactic like the article you quoted has less to do with the issue (of welfare) and mostly to do with the politics of personal destruction, which is all that the liberals have left since their savior has delivered the White House and both houses of Congress to the Republicans.

Whom in the administration do the liberals consider to be fair game today?

They tried to smear John Ashcroft during the AG confirmation hearings. Even though he appointed 24 of 26 African-American judges to federal positions, named Scott Joplin's home as the only Historic Home in Missouri, and saved the first African-American college from destruction, they tried to call him a racist. Robert Byrd, a former KKK member, uses the N-word on national television but because he is a Democrat nobody says anything. Ashcroft doesn't drink, swear, or dance, so they call him a religious extremist. How about the Rev. Jesse Jackson, the Rev. Al Sharpton, and Minister Farrakahn? How about the devout Joe Lieberman? Has anyone called them religious extremists?

Then you have Secretary of State Colin Powell. He's African-American and a war hero, so he's off limits.

National Security Advisor Condi Rice is a woman and African-American so she's doubly-untouchable. Remember when they went after Linda Chavez? They said she was a fake Latino because she married a Jewish man and raised her kids to be Jewish.

Then there is the Secretary of Education Rod Paige from Houston, who is African-American. Donald Rumsfeld at Defense is as experienced as Cheney. Christine Todd Whitman, former governor of New Jersey, is a woman but they are after her for racial profiling on the highways between New York and New Jersey.

So, who's left? You have Tommy Thompson who is a white male from a mostly white state. I call that a "safe target."

Out here in California, there are rumors of Arnold Schwarzenegger running for governor against Democrat Gray Davis. Did you wonder why there are suddenly stories of him beating his wife and hitting on women? Has anyone ever seen Maria Shriver with a black eye? Do you think the Kennedy's would stand for it if Schwarzenegger were guilty of what he's accused of doing? No, it's a warning shot across the bow of what to expect if you get in the political ring with Democrats.

[HuFox]

Hmm all together I would have to say politics suck. If its not one side trying to smear the other or somebody bringing out a scandle, then they are busy planning there reelection.

I am amazed that they are able to get anything done at all

[Guest]

Steve,

I take back every bad comment, thought etc that I ever had about you, you're all right!! lol

Now all you have to do is get Arnold elected or move out of the great socialist state of California. Maybe we could all move to Montana!! lol That's a pretty conservative state from what I understand. At least you can still own guns there!!! lol

Yes, I am also an NRA card carrying, concealed weapons permit holding kinda guy!! ROFLMAO!!!

CYA!!!

------------------

CMDR Jaguar

GCV Armageddon

This is not just a game, It's a life unto itself!!

ICQ# 24007233

[Advil]

Amazing how many kindred minds are on the internet. I like you guys more and more all the time.

Yes, welfare is destructive. There are better ways to handle people in need, other than the almighty (god?) government.

But do you know why electing Bush was so hard to do? Because inherently people DO NOT want to work. It's human nature for most people to want a free ride. Tell me, if you were living on the system and getting it pretty easy why would you want to think too hard about the alternatives? You are going to vote for the side that continues the free lunch.

The sad truth is that those of us who PAY for the others will probably be a MINORITY of the voting population in another eight years if something doesn't change.

I think the solution is simple. If you are on any government welfare, you don't get to vote. Period. That way there's no political bribery of votes. Call me inhumane if you want, it's FAIR. I'm making jack for a living, but I'm doing my damndest to make myself and this country work. I don't want a handout, and I want to help those who are down... not encourage them to be down like the system does now.

(You may now open fire on me... be warned however I follow my second ammendment rights and may return fire)

[Guest Mikel]

Now, now if your going to fight you must remember this:

quote:

---

Dear Combatants:

All intruders boarding the ship will have their language translators modified and all unauthorized cuss words will be bleeped out.

All intruders will only be permitted one carry on luggage which should contain only authorized weapons of mass destruction.

The marines will greet all intruders with respect and address them as 'Mr Intruder'. Intruders should make it a point to make chit-chat with their marine counter parts; inquire about their families etc because you never know if you'd need to apologize to them later.

A GALCOM sanctioned snack menu will be available on boarding. For example, cookies and milk will be served as a snack on arrival and the usual liquid bangers and mash will be served for lunch...if you make it to the break.

Marines and Intruders will set a time that is convenient for both parties in order to commence hostilities

once the commander retires for the evening.

Once hostilities break out, the following modified Rules Of Engagement will apply.

Head shots are allowed but the bullet should make a nice clean hole with no traces of blood.

If you do get a head shot, you must cover the entry hole with a Band-Aid from the pack provided to you on boarding. Make it look like a minor head wound. Do not use the duct tape (that's for something else) because the body will look suspicious.

If you blow off a limb, the victor must relocate said limb next to the body in a manner that is consistent with dead bodies in movies. If you can, use the roll of duct tape and neatly tape the limb to the proper torso area and remember not to put the left arm where the left leg should go. When in doubt, kill another person and see how their limbs are connected to their body or tune to the Alien Anatomy 101 channel running on all Vidlinks.

No pinpoint accuracy shots allowed. All shots should use 'English' for effective ricochet trajectory. For instance, if a hostile is standing next to a pillar, point your laser sight at an angle that causes it to bounce off objects in the room until the red dot is superimposed over the desired body part. This is very important, the use of any method that even comes close to a 20% kill accuracy will be considered unauthorized and you will not be allowed back on this ship.

Only authorized cuss words should be used. Any cuss words not found in normal vernacular, will be considered an act of intense aggression and you will not be allowed back on this ship.

Shooting at someone cussing you, is considered poor form. Kinda like shooting someone in the back. Please refrain from such practices.

At the end of each day's hostilities, both sides (marines and intruders) should liquefy the bodies of their fallen comrades and place all excess body parts (bones, teeth, spinal cords etc) in the specially marked receptacles found on every deck. Please remember not to put teeth in with the skulls as that makes it harder for relatives to claim said body parts. Besides, it just creates more paperwork.

For each kill, each combatant will be awarded a 100 galcreds coupon good at any authorized psychiatrist or medical facility.

---

[edit: Emphasis is mine.

[This message has been edited by Mikel (edited 03-12-2001).]

[This message has been edited by Mikel (edited 03-12-2001).]

[HuFox]

Ummm what happens if we wake the Commander up?

Are there any specified rules for this?

[This message has been edited by HuFox (edited 03-12-2001).]

[Guest Mikel]

Wake the commander up and you will not reapeat not be a group of happy fighters.

[aramike]

[Kush]

Well it looks like you have your mind made up, and that's fine. But if you seriously would like to know more about social welfare programs, their history, their impact on society there are many books you should read.

I found some great references to the impact of early english social welfare programs in a book called 'The Causes of the English Revolution 1529-1642' by Lawrence Stone. It's a good place to start. One of the reasons why the English revolution and the French revolution differed so drastically were the differences in their social welfare programs. The english were generally more lenient and the nature of the conflict reflected that fact.

You should of course look into the history of Bismark's Germany, and for good modern day examples of countries with interesting social welfare programs, I'm sure you could look at places like Norway, Sweden or Denmark. Each of the countries I just mentioned have their own policies with their own pros and cons, but I believe it is important to look at an issue as important and vital as social welfare from many different angles. Find out what works and what doesn't in different countries in different periods of history. Find out why.

One social welfare program I'd love to see here in Canada is the Free Degree. Someone told me that in England, you're given one free degree from any university. I'd love to hear back from anyone in the UK about this program, is it actually true and does it work?

[This message has been edited by Kush (edited 03-12-2001).]

[Guest]

Your Naivete is astounding, sorry but there is no other word.

TANSTAFL, it means that there is no such thing as free lunch. There isn't, in those countries that you stated above,the tax rate is at or above 70%. That's fact, every time a government decides to do some social program, you give up some freedom, you let the government control some other aspect of your life. Whether you use the program or not.

The fact of the matter is, each and every "social program" turns that country into a socialist nation. Look at France, look at Canada, free this, free that, this is a right, that is a right.

Well the fact is, the only right you have left is to give you Federal government more of the money that YOU earned.

Also, most of those countries also do not allow the private ownership of firearms, without that right you are a subject, not a free citizen.

I can continue to rant and rave about the socialist leanings of other countries, but the fact is that United States has slid onto that slippery slope as well, and the faster we conservatives can slam the brakes on the better off we will ALL be!!!

[aramike]

quote:

---

Well it looks like you have your mind made up, and that's fine. But if you seriously would like to know more about social welfare programs, their history, their impact on society there are many books you should read.

---

Yep. And my mind isn't made up from books or (even less applied) history, rather, it comes from actually DEALING with the program as a labor manager. I don't need to read the books.

Tell me something, are you saying that it is WRONG to MAKE people get a job rather than just cash a check? I really want to know if you think that's wrong, because that's what this discussion is about anyway.

Second (to echo Jaguar, in a sense), there is NO such thing as FREE. Someone has to pay for EVERYTHING. Why should it be the taxpayers-at-large and not the people receiving the benefits?

[Guest]

I believe welfare is being abused by sleazy individuals. The uncle of one of my college friends lived off welfare for 5 years! All he did was apply to several jobs a week (which he would get rejected from because he wasnt remotely qualified for them), show that on the day when he got his welfare check, repeat for 5 years.

I agree that if someone does not find a job after 6 months of being on welfare then they should cease receiving it, 'cause they sure as heck aint looking for a job. Kick em out and make way for someone else who could use the money in the time it takes him to find a job.

The point of welfare it to help someone so they can help themselves, not sustaining parasites. Maybe when those parasites cease receiving their free money they may actually get a job. Heck when they found out my friend's uncle he found a job inmediately.. flipping burgers (but hey, it is a job!). He made less than his welfare check, but he got a job.

Go Texas!

[Kush]

Oh could someone help me out here, please.

Yes of course I think it's better that someone get a job, if there are jobs to be had. I get the feeling that some of you aren't old enough to remember trying to find work in the late eighties early nineties.

If you really want to live in a country with VERY low taxes and absolutely NO welfare programs, move to Central America. Guatemala is a great place if you have money and a place to live. Just don't do anything to loose either.

You could move to Brazil where not only is there no Welfare cheque, but all those children born to single mothers? They're killed indescriminantly by roving police squads. Heck you can have a little fun playing Deathmatch for dollars, toss a hand full of american money onto the street, pull out a rocket launcher and let the fun begin.

I'm kidding.

I understand the argument you're trying to make. I'm just trying to point out that nothing is as simple as a letter to the editor would have you believe.

[Steve Schacher]

quote:

---

Bleedin' heart liberal, would apply here, I think.

---

I prefer Vast Left-Wing Conspiracy.

[aramike]

quote:

---

Yes of course I think it's better that someone get a job, if there are jobs to be had. I get the feeling that some of you aren't old enough to remember trying to find work in the late eighties early nineties.

---

Heh, even then you could *always* get a job. Just maybe not what you wanted. But hey - if you need a job, you take it.

quote:

---

I understand the argument you're trying to make. I'm just trying to point out that nothing is as simple as a letter to the editor would have you believe.

---

What, per se, is NOT simple about it?

People receive welfare benefits. If they don't get job, they don't receive benefits.

Seems simple to me. Especially since under W2, there are offices set up to *help* people find jobs. In fact, those offices seem to do more work than the applicants.

I mean, even in the eigties, someone could land a job in fast food, no problem. If that someone can't find anything else, so what? Do we then just let them mooch off of the system because they can't find the work that THEY WANT???

So please, explain to me how this issue is *so* complicated.

quote:

---

I understand the argument you're trying to make. I'm just trying to point out that nothing is as simple as a letter to the editor would have you believe.

---

Where's the letter to the editor? A columnist wrote that quote, and I wrote the response. Regardless, I still don't see how this issue is VERY complicated.

You won't EVER be able to share exactly when there were NO jobs available at all. Second, that's not the case today so your argument seems to be about history, which really doesn't matter considering that we're all talking about the here and now.

Tac: Great post! I'm 100% with you on that.

Steve: LOL!

[Guest Sorrow]

Oh thats rich- Do you even bloody remember the eighties or were you employed by the same person that whole decade?

Out here there was absolutly nothing for a young man during the eighties. Restaurants? good luck they had dozens of apps and were going out of business. Fast food? I wasn't 16 and thats pretty close to their hiring age limit. I went for almost 2 years after getting out of school before landing a job at a lumber mill startup that turned into a full time job.

Your attitude frankly stinks like a condescending prick that has never had problems finding work. All welfare or EI users are scum sucking bottom feeders et al etc etc. My greatest amusement where I am now is seeing those attitudes when that person like you is in their 40's and looking for work and realizing there isn't anything out there he can do and support his family with.

The can't happen to me attitude is what always gets me, you think you can always find a job if you get fired or lose yours. In fact it's often not the case.

As for you comments on other countries- get real and stop reading propoganda. Sweden doesn't have a 70% tax rate, at least not until your earning the same amount that you get it in the US. Neither does Canada despite those really bad media "expose" style crap US networks run. While everyone's system has problems I can happily say I am much more comfortable living in Canada with the social security net, than I was trying to earn a living in the US with none.

Whatever- YMMV and often these UBB conversations are more soapbox than discussion.

[aramike]

[Kush]

Glad to see I'm not a lone voice Sorrow, but watch the rhetoric. Let's keep the discussion all above board and non personal, and the language clean.

You're new. It's to be expected.

[Kush]

Aramike,

Here in Canada we have a more generous welfare system (and BC probably has the most generous system in the country) and some of us Canadians really value it. Some see social programs that help the less fortunate as a part of our national identity. And some don't. I'm sure you'd find more than a few Canadians, (some Albertans perhaps ) who'd agree with you whole heartedly. But you're gonna find some Canadians who are going to get just as worked up as you get, just on the other side.