Print

Please login or register.
1 Hour 1 Day 1 Week 1 Month Forever
Login with username, password and session length

[MetalSlimeHunt]

That site's name would have been very unfortunate had Newt Gingrich won the nomination.

[Nadaka]

That site's name would have been very unfortunate had Newt Gingrich won the nomination.

unfortunate? Gingpac sounds ideal, except that no one would believe it wasn't directly affiliated with Gingrich.

[Mephansteras]

The biggest problem with the "government funded underclass" is that people like that actually exist. They really are so lazy and greedy that the idea of being paid just enough to survive without them having to do anything sounds great to them. Of course, they make up a very small percentage of people at that level, but all the right-wing has to do is find a few of them to hold up as examples of everything that is wrong with welfare and whip people into a lather about it.

It's your standard stereotyping issue. People like to take the worst example of a group and then assume that everyone in that group is just as bad as that worst example.

[Nadaka]

The biggest problem with the "government funded underclass" is that people like that actually exist. They really are so lazy and greedy that the idea of being paid just enough to survive without them having to do anything sounds great to them. Of course, they make up a very small percentage of people at that level, but all the right-wing has to do is find a few of them to hold up as examples of everything that is wrong with welfare and whip people into a lather about it.

It's your standard stereotyping issue. People like to take the worst example of a group and then assume that everyone in that group is just as bad as that worst example.

being content with barely surviving is hardly greedy.

[FearfulJesuit]

It does lend credibility to the idea that we need to increase the safety net, but also make it more accountable. Nobody will starve, but people who really are that lazy would have a setup that's just so dull and pointless that they'd snap out of it.

[Frumple]

Except that what's dull and pointless to some is a fairly fulfilling life to others. I'd be pretty comfortable chilling without much in the way of creature comforts and doing volunteer work off and on, maybe do some creative work, rather than trying to fight through the commercial environment in modern times to get more useless junk. If I could manage it and not starve or end up on the streets. Consumerist society's not very well equipped to motivate certain world views, really, at least insofar as getting them into the general economic system of the place.

[Mephansteras]

The biggest problem with the "government funded underclass" is that people like that actually exist. They really are so lazy and greedy that the idea of being paid just enough to survive without them having to do anything sounds great to them. Of course, they make up a very small percentage of people at that level, but all the right-wing has to do is find a few of them to hold up as examples of everything that is wrong with welfare and whip people into a lather about it.

It's your standard stereotyping issue. People like to take the worst example of a group and then assume that everyone in that group is just as bad as that worst example.

being content with barely surviving is hardly greedy.

By greedy I'm referring to the 'welfare moms' who have more children just so they can get more welfare money. And then use that extra money for more beer and cigarettes instead of clothing and whatnot for the kids. Or they lady who won the lottery, bought two houses, and then thought that it was cool for her to stay on Food Stamps because "She has a lot of expenses now that she has two houses to pay for, so she figured she was still owed Food Stamps".

Like I said, these people are rare but they do exist. And some of them really are Greedy, in the sense that they do everything they can to get more money without actually having to get a job or work for it. It's greed, it's just always well thought out greed.

[jester]

I think that takes you out of lazy and shiftless and into working at committing fraud territory

[Owlbread]

Newt Gingrich is a very silly name. Same with Mitt Romney. It's like there's a tradition of silly names among American politicians - you half expect the next republican nominee to be called Rip Nipstop or Skrim Minglewim.

[kaijyuu]

The biggest problem with the "government funded underclass" is that people like that actually exist. They really are so lazy and greedy that the idea of being paid just enough to survive without them having to do anything sounds great to them. Of course, they make up a very small percentage of people at that level, but all the right-wing has to do is find a few of them to hold up as examples of everything that is wrong with welfare and whip people into a lather about it.

It's your standard stereotyping issue. People like to take the worst example of a group and then assume that everyone in that group is just as bad as that worst example.

Personally I don't believe "laziness" exists. There are some similar things (like avoiding responsibility out of selfishness), but no one wants to be bored.

Those "leeches" are doing SOMETHING with their lives. It just might not be making money. And as I am not a productivist, and thus don't think making money to necessarily be a valid goal in life in the first place, whatever it is they're actually doing could very well be valid despite being seen as "lazy" by others. Maybe they're painting, maybe they're raising a family, whatever (my view on life is that it's entirely up to them to determine what's "valid" or not, but I don't want to get too far into the philosophy).

So yeah. I don't think the disconnect has to do with "laziness" and sure as hell not greediness (if they were greedy they'd be making money. Unless they're stupid too). The way I see it, those against the concept of welfare have a moral imperative to ensure they only help those who can give something in return. Always a trade; never a gift. Whereas people like me have a moral imperative to ensure everyone gets a few basic things, such as food and shelter, even if they never give anything practical in return for it. They feel the responsibility is on people to help themselves, I feel the responsibility is on everyone to help each other. That's the disconnect.

By greedy I'm referring to the 'welfare moms' who have more children just so they can get more welfare money. And then use that extra money for more beer and cigarettes instead of clothing and whatnot for the kids. Or they lady who won the lottery, bought two houses, and then thought that it was cool for her to stay on Food Stamps because "She has a lot of expenses now that she has two houses to pay for, so she figured she was still owed Food Stamps".

Unless those moms are starving their children they're not making a profit off of welfare. As for the other lady, fools and their money (and everyone should have a right to food stamps IMO, even goddamn Bill Gates)

[Nadaka]

Welfare moms don't actually exist. No state in the US has welfare good enough that having more kids provides a net positive cash flow.

The closest thing to that would be having kids and forcing their fathers to pay child support.

[kaijyuu]

I suppose one could argue they're doing it as a (relatively) cheap way to make more babies, but conservatives tend to think baby making is a very noble thing to do, so I don't think that argument would hold water either.

[Criptfeind]

Newt Gingrich is a very silly name. Same with Mitt Romney. It's like there's a tradition of silly names among American politicians - you half expect the next republican nominee to be called Rip Nipstop or Skrim Minglewim.

What's wrong with Mitt Romney? As a name a I mean. I don't think the forums could take a post as large as the other way would make.

[Zangi]

Well, the only thing they need is shelter and food to survive...  If they have an income, slash the payout in proportion.

Something like this would be easier managed in a communistic... whats the word...?  neighborhood?  burrow? commune? community?

Public housing, as in put a buncha people in a room with a number of bunks, in a central place with public transport access and something like a community soup kitchen.  Hand em a month/year-long transport ticket.  So basically, shelter, transportation and food is covered.

No need to put money directly in the hands of those 'good fer nuttin freeloaders' and they can go out and use the time to find jobs or something useful.  They could even work at the commie community as janitors or be a part of the soup kitchen.

[GlyphGryph]

GODDAMNIT LET ME POST ARGH

And dhokarena - Why? That's the key thing, justify this 'need' to make it more accountable. (And even then, you'd have to justify the costs)

I've never understand the argument - it's like saying that I shouldn't give food to the homeless because some of them are mentally ill. It's like... what?

"We shouldn't support people who lack ambition" just seems kind of odd to me.