Bucket Guild | FUBU BH Forums

As terrible as it is to say, it would probably just be easier to nix welfare altogether. It would cause a lot of calamity for the people who have become dependent upon it, but I think it was a bad idea for government to go into the charity business.

I think of it like the unemployment extensions they kept passing, where some people would just take the extension and keep "looking" for work (not that it makes them bad people). If the extension weren't there, they would have probably been a little more serious about their job search. If welfare were to start drying up, I think it would change some of the errant behaviors for which it (unintentionally) creates incentives.

Just my two cents. I don't think we should just pull the rug out from under people over night, but a lot of programs like this do a little more harm than good and I think finding a long-term solution that involves removing these kinds of programs would be a good idea.

Your Pal,
Jubber

AKA "The Gun"
AKA "ROFeraL"

World Renowned Mexican Forklift Artiste

If we're talking about "charity", we might as well nix all of the costs of gasoline that the government absorbs, causing gas to soar to european prices of something like $5/gallon. That would never fly though, because its really easy to talk about cutting "wasteful" government spending until it directly affects your way of life.

The notion that the overwhelming majority of people who are on welfare/unemployment are simply lazy and unable to find work is beyond ridiculous. These 99ers or w/e they're called were hardworking middle-class americans (you know, the ones the conservatives have such a boner for), but as soon as they get fired due to a downturn in the economy and are unable to find jobs, they all of a sudden become lazy piggybackers off of "hard working americans" (SPOILER: The only difference between you and them is that you haven't been laid off).

Yeah, you have to pay a little more, so what? There are people out there that really need it. Our country didn't become so powerful by everyone refusing to pay for anything, it became great by the people investing in society. Dams are breaking because nobody wants to pay for them. Its only a matter of time before some dam breaks or a bridge collapses and kills hundreds of people all because everyone refused to take a tax hike.

RETIRED.
[armory loc="US,Bleeding Hollow"]Mayonaise[/armory]
[armory loc="US,Bleeding Hollow"]Jerkonaise[/armory]

100% what mayo said.

And it all goes back to the shock doctrine if anyone has heard of it. For those of you who haven't its basically a comentary on how politics and public reaction works in nowadays.

Basically: Warnings, experts say stuff, news goes OMG WHAT IF people say w/e. Some politician says "we have to fix this, spend money on it" people say OMG NO MORE TAXES WTF. Politician loses election and its over.

5 years later, the thing experts say would happen happens, people go all OMG WTF WHY DID THIS HAPPEN POLITICIANS ARE STUPID FIX IT NOW. Politicians spend money on it, and sort of fix it. Cost rises and people have died. All could have been prevented, but its just that people arent willing to pay for something that is abstract and in the future. Think Katrina.

Warnings arent enough to motivate people, its when shit hits the fan, and the fan is blowing in their face that they will actually do something.

I am THE man.
http://i232.photobucket.com/albums/ee15 ... 171424.jpg

I'm all for cutting government subsidies, as well. They artificially distort the marketplace and, just like welfare, provide the wrong (or at artificial) incentives for behavior(s). Much like cutting welfare, it would calamitous for a lot of people, but I believe the end result would be better than the current model. Going hand-in-hand with the subsidies, though, would have to be a lot of deregulation, not because we don't want someone watching business for unscrupulous practices, but because we want to get rid of regulations that are put in place as "rewards" to certain business sectors (ethanol, I'm looking at you).

Don't forget that I was unemployed/underemployed for over a year myself right around the time The World's Worst Republican was vacating the Offal Office. I drew unemployment for about two months and then it ran out. I know that it isn't always flowers and sunshine on the job front. However, I also know (anecdotal evidence here) that a few of the people I worked with that I talked to after we all got laid of were "kicking back" and taking it easy until they absolutely had to start working...or so they were saying. Unemployment insurance provides a nice cushion, especially for people that have to take care of kids, but I think it would be better if it were actual insurance you paid for while you were employed that some company in the market provided instead of a government program.

I don't know anyone that doesn't want dams and other infrastructure properly maintained. I do know more than a few that want to know why assloads of money are being spent putting windows in facilities that have been closed for over two as part of "stimulus," or building corn museums in Iowa. No one is saying that taxes are completely unnecessary, they're saying the money is being mismanaged and wasted. If the money being "invested" to study ants in Africa were instead put into upkeep for aging infrastructure, no one would have a complaint. Instead, people see more and more of their income slipping away without seeing things like repaired dams and are instead seeing the money wasted on bullshit.

Your Pal,
Jubber

AKA "The Gun"
AKA "ROFeraL"

World Renowned Mexican Forklift Artiste

Possibly hundreds of thousands of people being thrown out on the street and being even more of a burden on society than now is a good thing? Businesses have lobbied for lower minimum wages and less benefits and have gotten away with it. Maybe if businesses actually had to pay their workers a livable wage, there wouldn't be any need for welfare. That guy who did Super Size Me did a thing where he lived a month living off of minimum wage. He got sick and he would've gone absolutely bankrupt, even though he was working something like 50 hours a week.

The only reason that ethanol isn't being made into something major is that the gas lobby is more powerful than the ethanol lobby. There's no such thing as a "free market" in the USA due to the fact that all of the big companies invest millions of dollars to make sure they get the laws they want (or avoid the laws they don't like). So long as lobbyists and other special interests are allowed to have a voice in washington, the idea of implementing free-market ideas is laughable.

Also, let's not forget that we aren't living in Ron Paul's Wacky World of Reaganomics. Deregulation will only mean the removal of oversight and the preservation (and probably enhancement) of business incentives.

Will someone explain to me why the "free" (lol) market is always better than the government for everything? Why should public welfare and health be for-profit (I'll split this topic if it goes in that path)? If I said the government was better at providing everything, you'd call me a jaded liberal and a communist. How is believing that the other side of the scale is just as ridiculously awesome not equally as jaded?


Nobody's against dams, they're against taxes. Its kind of like how schools flounder because nobody passes the tax increases so all of the teachers get fucked. Nobody's against education per-say, they just have the American ideal of "I'll take it if I don't have to pay for it. Otherwise, fuck it". To reference Katrina, I'm pretty sure nobody was against the levies either.

For the record, I'm pretty sure (ie. I don't have a citation) that something like 1/3 of the stimulus is already doing infastructure. Not to mention that no news from a dam is good news. Its probably getting fixed, but the idea of taxes hiking brings higher ratings than how those taxes are being implemented.

RETIRED.
[armory loc="US,Bleeding Hollow"]Mayonaise[/armory]
[armory loc="US,Bleeding Hollow"]Jerkonaise[/armory]

The problem with education is an entirely different subject altogether.

But its yet another problem that the gov't likes throwing money at and we still lose out every year.



Anyway. If you spend money wisely (Ie not spending money on making street signs talking about how the stimulus money is being well spent, like i saw all over california) then you don't need to hike taxes. The government funds a lot of bullshit that both sides of the aisle can agree are worthless.

Also, round up the people on welfare, and make THEM do the jobs illegal immigrants do, like pave roads and build walls(assuming they're physically fit). That'll solve two problems right there.

EDIT: not the street performers, they're neat.

Who would you trust more: Government that is accountable to the people, and whose sole purpose is to improve life for its citizens, or a multi billion dollar corporation whose sole purpose is to have a good profit margin?

I know people in toronto that say they "dont trust" the government water that we get for free, and instead live off of giant bottles they buy at a more expensive rate than gasoline. I just think, how fucking stupid are you? We live next to one of the biggest fucking lakes in the world, there has never been a real problem with government water in major cities, and not to mention the big ass waste of money.

Also those large corporations (not all just general here) that give you things cheap, they actually end up costing you more in the long run. To give you that 1$ burger, they rape and pillage the land that it comes from (often third world countries who the government gives milions in aid too, not to mention the few bucks you give to the red cross) and fuck the people royally.

I am THE man.
http://i232.photobucket.com/albums/ee15 ... 171424.jpg

Maybe, but I fail to see how people refusing to pay levees and watching the school system crash and burn is any different than people refusing to pay for infrastructure then acting surprised when dams break and bridges shatter.

We need to hike taxes if they're constantly being knocked down for easy points by worthless politicians. I'm not going to defend the signs, but where else have you heard of the stimulus being beneficial? You complain about not seeing where your tax dollars go, but then turn around and bitch about the $50 it took to literally tell you where the money's going?

Slashing taxes isn't realistic while you're expanding spending (we did that under Bush and look how fast our surplus dissolved). You can make some glittering generality about "hurr durr let's stop spending so much", but you'll refuse to acknowledge spending cuts where we need them most (read: the military).


This will never work, mainly because the whole reason illegals are coming in the first place is because corporations actively seek them out over americans because its cheaper to hire mexicans. Not to mention if a mexican gets wise and wants to unionize, the owner can simply have him deported.

Social constructs like welfare, the problems of illegals, and mass obesity are direct results of corporations trying to cut corners and expecting the taxpayer to pick up the bill. Dozens of people die from food poisoning caused by superbugs in antibiotic-laced cattle products, which are choked so full of medicine because the meat lobby is so powerful and it can get away with it. I mean hell, we're up to half a billion eggs recalled because the FDA is underfunded and overstretched in some sort of self-fulfilling libertarian prophecy.

1) Libertarians say the government is ineffective.
2) Libertarians get taxes reduced and funding cut for regulatory governmental body.
3) Governmental Body becomes overstretched and things fall through the cracks.
4) Libertarians bitch more about the government being worthless and lobby for less taxes.

I'm pretty sure that to qualify for long-term welfare you have to have some sort of a job anyways, so who's going to pick up all of the slack when we ship the people with welfare in cattle trains Gestapo-style to the meat plants?

Like quad's saying, if people stopped being so greedy and knee-jerk about their taxes, we wouldn't be the crumbling superpower we currently are. The government, for it being so magically ineffective, provides us with things like a neutral internet, closely-regulated utilities, infrastructure, and cheap necessities that make your comfort level of life possible.

RETIRED.
[armory loc="US,Bleeding Hollow"]Mayonaise[/armory]
[armory loc="US,Bleeding Hollow"]Jerkonaise[/armory]

I also think for a big country like the US where shit is so divided, it would be better to localize more of the tax money. Or even break it up so there is less bloat in the system and instrife. Like new england area become (not its own entity but close to it) and manage all their own taxes and other things the federal government does for the entire country. Not saying get rid of the USA, just revision it because it seems it has become so convoluted and oversized that it is an incredibly clunky system. Instead of the current 3 tier, municipality, state, fed should add one above the state, and keep the fed as more of an overseer/deal with foriegn policiy and relations between the regions (IE New england, Deep south etc.)

I just think it could be run more effectively that way but it would never happen because:
HURRR AMERIKA DA BEST, WE SO BIG AND STRONG STARS AND STRIPES YAY


Then again i could be compeltely wrong and off the mark because i am a flaming homosexual socialist fetus killer from the north.

I am THE man.
http://i232.photobucket.com/albums/ee15 ... 171424.jpg

I generally agree with this, in that most people on welfare do actually need it. But, after working in what many believe to be the 3rd most ghetto city in Connecticut (behind Bridgeport and New Haven), I've seen first hand how many people in Waterbury do everything they can to game the welfare system into handing them free money.

As far as I can tell, one of the requirements for the welfare check is to provide documentation that the recipient is actively seeking a job. The most common way this works is for said recipient to bring a paper from business to business asking for a job or application. If the business is not hiring, a manager signs the paper with the company's name and their signature. Simple enough, right?

I work at a computer repair shop. Every week, we get 4 or 5 people coming in with their welfare paper, asking for a job. Being a small computer company, we're only interested in hiring people with the appropriate technical knowledge and skills to diagnose and fix computers. If they can't repair a computer, there isn't a job for them at the shop. We'll politely tell them if they aren't qualified, we don't have any job openings. They'll immediately pull out the welfare paper and say "Oh ok, sign this please." Looking at the paper, I'll see almost all of the other companies/signatures are specialized service businesses with obvious qualification requirements, like engineering firms, auto repair shops, other computer shops, etc.

They intentionally target businesses they have absolutely no chance of getting hired at for the sake of getting signatures stating they're "actively seeking employment." Even though the Kentucky Fried Chicken, McDonalds, and Burger King within a quarter of a mile all have "Now Hiring!" signs up in the windows.

My company has stopped signing the papers, unless they can produce a resume stating any education or experience they have in any computer related field. If they are remotely qualified, we'll sign the paper. Otherwise, we point towards the KFC in the plaza and inform them of the "Now Hiring" sign.


Beyond that, we deal with people on welfare more concerned with fixing their computer so they can play farmville instead of paying their phone bill. They'll drop a computer off, we'll find out the problem, attempt to call them, and get the message "This number is no longer in service."

They'll come by the next day asking if the computer is done yet "because I needs me my farmville." We'll give them the diagnostic, and tell them how much it would be to fix it, and mention that we tried calling the day before but the number didn't work. They'll say "Oh yeah, we couldn't pay the phone bill this month." Yet they're paying $100+ to fix a computer, mooching wireless internet from their neighbor to play farmville. I guess they assume if a job offer is to come in, someone will knock on their door to let them know instead of calling on the phone.

Iterative Crebains - Retired

Man you guys should read Atlas Shrugged..

I'm seeing alot of "those greedy bastards don't want to share there money" going on in this thread. Not everyone that believes in limited government is "rich", some of us are forced to make good decisions with what we have and live within our means(something the gov{democrats and republicans} haven't been able to do)



The whole idea is to cut spending on non-vital things...and cut back the government in general. Some numbers to look at are private sector vs. government(paid) jobs and average(median) wages, 20 something years ago 60%+ was private and they were averaging like 40k/year and the gov jobs averaged about the same. We look at it today and about 60% of jobs are Gov paid and they average to about 70k/year, while the now smaller portion of people in the private sector are averaging a whopping 42k/year. It's pretty much impossible for one guy to support 2.5 family's and not go into massive dept...

And cutting the military at this time(with N-Korea and Iran that hate us stocking up on weapons) is a very very bad idea..

Çhubathingy - Shaman - Royal Militia
Hoenhiem - Paladin - Royal Militia
Contact: Bnet= nurindun#1138 / twitter / twitch

US has highest military spending per capita in the world, not to mention the most technologically advanced one. I think you guys are pretty safe.

I am THE man.
http://i232.photobucket.com/albums/ee15 ... 171424.jpg

Maybe you should read the Communist Manifesto. Ayn Rand (or however you spell her name) is one of the most blatantly biased capitalists ever.


That's cool. I'm assuming that if you're reading Ayn Rand, you've had your head up your ass for the past couple of years. If you haven't noticed, "fiscal conservatives" are doing literally everything they can to destroy taxes for the upper 5% of the nation while calling the other 95% "lazy", denying them unemployment, and making them float the bill for the rich. Hell, the whole derivatives fiasco was basically "privatizing gains, socializing losses" shtick.


Iran hates us because we're constantly messing with their shit. We just got out of one war and are increasing another occupation that will cost us trillions (if it hasn't already). We have 663.3 billion dollars going to the military every year whereas Iran has 9.2 billion. Hell, we spend almost seven times as much as the country in second place.

You wanna cut costs? Cut military spending. Abolish the Bush-era tax cuts. Instead of bitching about how people in the government actually make money to provide for their family (IIRC, wages have been rather flat (controlling for inflation) for the past 20 years while the cost of living has increased), why not cut the things that are actually overbloated?

I mean, we still have forts with tens of thousands of troops stationed from the end of WWII. But no, let's bitch about pennies going to help turtles or giving aid to the truly destitute instead.

RETIRED.
[armory loc="US,Bleeding Hollow"]Mayonaise[/armory]
[armory loc="US,Bleeding Hollow"]Jerkonaise[/armory]

Do the people championing higher taxes in this thread even pay taxes on income that would place them in the top 50% of earners?

Oh, and since all welfare and unemployment recipients are worthwhile, I know a guy who's been collecting government assistance for unemployment and welfare in Kentucky so he could sit at home all day and play WoW. He lost his job working at a local library in 2007. Just recently his wife told him to find work or she's leaving him. He found a job at K-mart within a week.

Work was available but he didn't take it because it's easier to collect a paycheck for being lazy and worthless.

I'm reading a book right now.

It starts off talking about the city of Babylon, about how it grew in strength, and how it had an interesting form of slavery.

The conquered slave, if fit, was worked until their strength was exhausted.

After their strength was exhausted, they were brought in to be evaluated. Those with skills were put to use as craftsmen in the service of the king.

Those who had none were put to work in the cogs of the engineering machines that, with human labor pushing grindwheels, would draw water to the city. They were blinded and made to walk in the depths until they could no longer walk. At that point, they were crushed by the other blind men in the machine, ground up in the gears. Their spot was given to the next "filler".


How appropriate.


http://www.amazon.com/gp/product/9997406346