Question for the right wingers
Just a quick question for the right wingers in the cellar.
What kind of social provision do you consider acceptable in your society? Are you against all welfare provisions? Or do you agree with some kind of welfare ...if you want to see some kind of welfare provision who do you think should be covered by it? Do you think there should be schooling provided by the state? How about medicine? Where do you draw the line on governement responsibilty?
Ah, damn it, Dana; that's an open invitation for Radar to post two pages of Libertarian propaganda which will enrage us all.;)
Must...resist posting...sarcastic answer...
Nnnnnngh. *twitch*
Programs which quickly and effectively return able people to a productive position in society, i.e. workfare programs, job retraining, limited unemployment benefits.
As stated in another thread, capitalism involves risk. When we make minor but effective moves to mitigate some of the consequences of failed ventures for both the small business owners and small business employees, we encourage risk-taking, and thereby encourage a robust capitalism.
When we create programs that enable long-term subsistence on public funds, we foster a sense of entitlement that does not encourage the individual to return to a productive place in society.
There are many, many things that I believe are social obligations, but not government obligations. That’s a critical distinction. Do I have social obligation to the welfare of the homeless in my city? I believe that I do, and so my wife and I are consistent donors to the LA Rescue Mission (
www.losangelesmission.org if any of you are so inclined). We give a large portion of our income to non-profit organization because of our perceived social obligation.
Do I think that the government has a moral right to compel me, through tax collection, to fulfill my social obligations? I do not. It violates any logical sense of limited government, and I think is detrimental to the social fabric. There are two critical differences between voluntary social obligation, and government coercion. First, it affects my sense of connection with the needs being met. When I am compelled to support others, I am resentful of their need. When I freely support others, I am empathetic and compassionate. Secondly, it affects the perception of the person receiving aid. When it comes from a government bureaucracy, it quickly leads to a sense of entitlement. When it comes through non-profits, through compassionate aid, it leads to gratitude.
Which social values do you think are more productive, empathy, compassion, and gratitude, or resentment and entitlement?
-sm
edit: URL now works. BTW, sorry for the novel. tough to explain some of these things in sound bitesWow, pretty much everything Smoothmoniker came up with I am in full agreement with. I do support the safety net that the welfare system provides. I do not support most long term programs.
The system is currently screwed up because some people would lose money by going to work at the jobs they are qualified for, so they stay home on our collective dime.
Smoothmoniker, thanks for speaking so eloquently.
I know it's a cliche, but social programs really should be more based on the notion "Give a man a fish, he eats for a day, teach a man to fish, he eats for a lifetime."
Originally posted by smoothmoniker
There are two critical differences between voluntary social obligation, and government coercion. First, it affects my sense of connection with the needs being met. When I am compelled to support others, I am resentful of their need. When I freely support others, I am empathetic and compassionate. Secondly, it affects the perception of the person receiving aid. When it comes from a government bureaucracy, it quickly leads to a sense of entitlement. When it comes through non-profits, through compassionate aid, it leads to gratitude.
*Stares at screen with dazed expression.
STOP PRESS! Catwoman agrees with right winger (kind of)
That made a lot of sense. The entitlement/gratitude thing. My only question:
Are they not entitled? Is it not a human right? Sure, it breeds laziness. But I'm lazy. Yes, I work, but I could do a lot more to help society. How many hours of TV does the average worker watch? A lot. Just because they are in full time employment, does not automatically guarantee their social validity. One homeless guy who gives his only blanket to a runaway teenage girl to prevent the onset of pneumonia is worth 10 overworked pretentious butt licking salesmen. (Ok ok not saying all homeless guys are like that... jeez, just making a point).
What I'm saying is, social merit (and thus entitlement) is not necessarily dictated by financial contribution.
Originally posted by Catwoman
*Stares at screen with dazed expression.
STOP PRESS! Catwoman agrees with right winger (kind of)
Welcome to the club. We have a secret handshake. I'll show you later.
That made a lot of sense. The entitlement/gratitude thing. My only question:
Are they not entitled? Is it not a human right?
There is not a basic human right to be provided with food and shelter. Human rights are all derived from their origin in the “natural person” – they are all rights of freedom, not of benefit. We recognize that living together in society interferes with some of those rights. The stated, enumerated human rights (bill of rights, etc.) are those rights which social interaction and centralized power tend to compromise, but which we agree to protect as a society: speech, freedom to gather, religion, etc.
Shorthand – there is no right to
receive anything from anyone. All rights are protections of
freedom to , for lack of a better term.
So what are people entitled to? A freely competitive society, in which no one, or no institution, can interdict their freedom to work, and to receive the benefit of that work (food and shelter).
What I'm saying is, social merit (and thus entitlement) is not necessarily dictated by financial contribution.
Let me make your argument for you (man, what a pretension ass of a thing to say – sorry). If you’re going to argue for an entitlement, it can’t be on the basis of social merit, because that’s not what you really believe. You don’t really believe that the guy who gives away his blanket should get food and shelter, and the guy who spends all day sipping Boon Hill should be left to die. What you believe is that all people have inherent value, that there is dignity in the human nature, and that society should recognize that value, and do the minimum necessary (at least) to sustain life.
And with that, I agree.
(more later … I have to get some work done today)
-sm
I know it's a cliche, but social programs really should be more based on the notion "Give a man a fish, he eats for a day, teach a man to fish, he eats for a lifetime."
Give a man a fire, he`ll be warm for a day, set a man on fire, he`ll be warm for the rest of his life.
Sorry, I`ll go back to my cave now.
Jag, that made my day. :)
I'm stealing that line.
Catwoman sulks because sm made sense again. Looks forward to part 2.
Jag - set a homeless guy on fire he'll warm the street for passers by. Set a Madison Avenue gimp on fire and all he'll burn is a bigger hole in the whore he's impaling and a handbag full of coke.
Its difficult for me to imagine that anyone* could actually believe that an entitlement attitude is preferable to an attitude of self-sufficiency.
* Excluding those already posessing an entitlement attitude.
What's best is an attitude of self-sufficiency, where people aren't left to die on the streets. The difference is whether one thinks the attitude is more important, or the lives.
The difference is whether one thinks the attitude is more important, or the lives.
No one in America is dying in the street because they were denied help. God forbid that anyone should suggest that people who lack the ability to provide for themselves should be taught how to do so. Much easier to just make yourself look like a hero by giving them what they want with no strings attached and no end in sight. Especially when its not even your money.
Following welfare reform, how many former recipients died in the streets leaving widows and orphans to starve and freeze to death in the open tundra versus the number of people who actually found gainful employment and contribute to society
twofold by not drawing down public charity but instead paying into the system?
Sorry but all able bodied folk must pay their share - those who are able to but don't (a group that most if not all socialists pretend do not exist) are freeloaders. And those who allow them to freeload are nothing but enablers who derive a warped sense of justification (or political expedience) from the dependency they create and/or perpetuate.
Just a quick question for the right wingers in the cellar.
I'm not a right-winger or a conservative by any stretch of the imagination, but then again, I'm not a liberal socialist either. I'm dead center on the political scale. I'll try to answer anyway.
What kind of social provision do you consider acceptable in your society?
Any that are funded privately without force or coercion.
Are you against all welfare provisions?
Only those that are funded by government through taxes on income (aka theft).
Or do you agree with some kind of welfare
I encourage all people to give generously to the charity of their choice and to help those in need. With only one third of the money stolen by government for social welfare programs, all those in need would get more than double the level of assistance they currently recieve. They could get a hand up instead of a hand out.
I think government should stop trying to be everything for everybody. People should rely on their family, friends, neighbors, churches (assuming they are religious), non-profit charities, etc. who do not rely on force to fund their programs.
if you want to see some kind of welfare provision who do you think should be covered by it?
In the voluntarily funded private assistance programs, I'd love to see all areas of need covered so there are fewer elderly, sick, and poor suffering as they often do while on government assistance. The government has no business in charity, healthcare, retirement, education, vocational training, etc. All of these should be provided privately and government should give a dollar-for-dollar tax reduction for all those who give to charities that provide these services.
Do you think there should be schooling provided by the state? How about medicine?
Absolutely not. America once had the best education system on earth until the government got involved. The same is true of healthcare. It is because of government that healthcare costs have skyrocketed, and our education system is a failure. The problem of government messing up education and healthcare can't be solved by giving government more power to do the same thing. The answer is to get government completely out of these areas.
I respect and care too much about the elderly, sick, and poverty-stricken to allow their needs to be handled by government bureaucrats. I'd much rather see them have MORE assistance (which is what they would have) provided by those who genuinely care about the needy instead of glorified Postal/DMV workers.
Where do you draw the line on governement responsibilty?
The government is here for one purpose; to defend our rights and offer security from domestic and foreign enemies. That means a legislature (to make and enforce laws that do not infringe on our rights, but only defend them), a judiciary (to ensure our rights are defended from an out of control legislature, a military (to defend against impending foreign attacks), and an executive branch to veto unjust legislation and to represent our country.
Other than that, the government has no other responsibilities. We each are responsible for ourselves, and our children (while they are children). We are not responsible for our neighbors, friends, or complete strangers. We should encourage people to take on such
social responsibilities, but never force others into it. A responsibility is something we willingly accept.
Are they not entitled? Is it not a human right?
We are not
entitled to anything simply based on our need. Your need does not entitle you to rob others. If you're starving and the guy next door cooked 100 steaks and will never be able to eat them, you are not entitled to go next door and take one. You are entitled to ask for some food and if he is a decent person, he will give you some. But need doesn't entitle you to anything.
Healthcare is not a right, nor is having food, or shelter, or clothing, or otherwise having your percieved and/or real needs met.
Government is not here to educate, to provide retirement money, healthcare, childcare, or charity. It is not here to do anything other than what is specifically mentioned and spelled out in the Constitution. There is nothing vague or ambiguous about the Constitution.
Government keeps more than 85 cents of every dollar marked for social welfare programs for overhead costs compared to roughly 12-15 cents of every dollar kept for costs by private non-profit charities. Politicians like to get people hooked on welfare like they're hooked on crack. Then they can get votes by threatening to take it away or by saying the other guy will do it. They only give people just enough to always be needy and never get out of their situation. Private charities would get more help to those in need and train them to help themselves with skills needed in the private sector. The private sector creates wealth, while the government takes wealth away from the economy which costs jobs and opportunities.
I think I've kept this shorter than 2 pages. :)
Originally posted by Beestie
No one in America is dying in the street because they were denied help. God forbid that anyone should suggest that people who lack the ability to provide for themselves should be taught how to do so. Much easier to just make yourself look like a hero by giving them what they want with no strings attached and no end in sight. Especially when its not even your money.
Following welfare reform, how many former recipients died in the streets leaving widows and orphans to starve and freeze to death in the open tundra versus the number of people who actually found gainful employment and contribute to society twofold by not drawing down public charity but instead paying into the system?
Sorry but all able bodied folk must pay their share - those who are able to but don't (a group that most if not all socialists pretend do not exist) are freeloaders. And those who allow them to freeload are nothing but enablers who derive a warped sense of justification (or political expedience) from the dependency they create and/or perpetuate.
People are denied help all the time in this country and they die as a result. Just because they don't die in public view doesn't mean its not happening. They don't go to the tundra unless they happen to live in Alaska. Many homeless people do camp on public lands, however, because they have nowhere else to go.
I can't speak to the issue of welfare since I have no personal experience with it, but when it comes to the disabled of this country, the lack of help is appalling. The wait for SSI/SSDI can go on for years. In the meantime the disabled individual has little if any access to medical care and only what financial support the individual states may give. Some states give nothing. Colorado gives $130.00 a month plus $130 in food stamps. Try "living" on that. The waiting list for housing was 2 years. Now with the new HUD cuts, its approaching infinity.
I know of one woman with a son with Down's syndrome who finally got up the courage to leave her abusive husband. This woman had no education and suffered from severe post traumatic stress syndrome as a result of the abuse. She fled her home in Utah and went to Western Colorado. She applied to Social Services for help and was put on the two year wait list for housing. Meanwhile she and her son lived in an abandoned trailer with no heat on an old uranium claim that was no longer being mined. Due to beurocratic bungling, her food stamps were cut off. She had no transportation and no access to medical care. She killed herself, but she didn't do it on a city street, so I guess that doesn't count. I know of another woman, also on Colorado's West slope, who was extremely ill, also with no transportation. She ended up dying for lack of medical care. I know of a man who is schizophrenic, on the waiting list for housing. In the mean time he lives in the national forest like a wild animal, killing rabbits and deer to survive. I know of these cases first hand and can document them. Don't tell me people aren't dying for lack of help in this country!
Radar.....al charity was once voluntary. There was a time when nobody was given help or assistance by the government. The trouble was that people starved. People went without homes and children went without education. Workers were treated with disdain by their employers because they were able to, after all who would rock the boat with their employer when the result could and would be unemployment and with it starvation?
America didnt always have public education but that meant lots of children never recieved basic schooling. All these social welfare and social provisions were introduced against the wishes of business and the moneyed classes as a response to appalling poverty and distress........remove those provisions and the poverty and distress willl return. People are often charitable but people are often not. If social provsions are a matter of choice what happens if people choose not to support them? Simple, a large number of American citizens will live lives akin to those of the third world.
I'm dead center on the political scale. I'll try to answer anyway.
Oh good God, if you are the centre I really dont want to know what the right looks like on your political scale. I had you down as a rightwing libertarian. In the UK thats what you'd be classed as with your belief system ( I think, just going off what you have said in the cellar) ....I keep forgetting that you guys have a slightly different political spectrum than ours
I keep forgetting that you guys have a slightly different political spectrum than ours
Take a moment to try the
World's Smallest Political Quiz
It's only 10 questions (Yes, No, or Maybe). There are no right or wrong answers. This quiz is used in most political science books to determine where your personal beliefs lie on the political spectrum. It doesn't use a simple left/right scale. It's widely known for being accurate and unbiased.
woo-hoo! I'm a centrist, with a slight libertarian bent.
now that I know, I'll have to start acting accordingly.
-sm
Personal: 100%
Economic: 30%
Well I took it and it was interesting but the questions dont allow enough subtlety. For instance. I dont agree that government should control TV but I do believe TV should be regulated and consider a publicly owned non profit making oganisation like the BBC, funded by licence fees which are paid by anyone who wishes to own a television ( by law) are a good thing. It's a little like paying a TV/radio tax and having a tip top service thats available to all because of it.
I dont think that politics can be reduced to science alone, i think there has to be room for political philosophy which is rather more difficult to address with a quiz which simplifies so much. Interesting though *smiles*
When I said you guys have a different political spectrum I think really what I mean is you have a different set of cultural assumptions when it comes to your political identity. When I hear an American express a view of one issue it's often no indicator as to where that person might sit on a different issue. With another Brit I can usually take an educated guess based on their responses to one or two issues, more or less where they are likely to stand on most others.
*agrees with SM and Beestie*
Nothing wrong with public assistance for those who:
1. need help getting back on their feet while they're looking for a job, or work but don't make enough money to buy necessities after paying bills (that's more common than anyone realizes)
or
2. are disabled to the point that they have trouble finding and/or keeping adequate work with which to support themselves
To Marichiko: I don't know about where you live, but in La., one can get emergency welfare if they're shown to need it (no job, no income), within three days. The only time someone is put on a waiting list for housing is when they apply to HUD, which is specifically for housing and doesn't involve welfare money.
I completely agree with welfare reform. Five-year lifetime limit. Contrary to popular belief, not everyone on welfare are down-and-outers...matter of fact, the down-and-outers usually don't stay on it longer than necessary. Their pride in themselves keeps them from doing that (at least that applies to the people I know who've been on it)
The ones that piss me off are the ones who live on it, and teach their kids to do the same. Welfare has the unfortunate side-effect of blunting the pride of people who live on it (imo), so that they see nothing wrong with being parasites, because they make more than they would make working. They have a sense of entitlement. They don't contribute, yet they act as if society owes them a living.
IMO, if you're an able-bodied individual, there's nothing keeping you from getting a job like the rest of us peons. If you need help while you're looking for work, hey, that's what it's there for. But when you start spitting out kids because you make more money per kid, you can just bite my ass. We don't owe you shit.
I hate the "poor, downtrodden, not-their-fault welfare recipiant" attitude. That's not true for the majority. I'd love to do an experiment to find out how many "lifetime" recipiants are able-bodied enough to get a job. They give those who truly need the assistance a bad name.
I feel that if you've spent the majority of your life working, then suddenly don't have a job, then you ARE entitled to assistance. You've contributed to the fund, so you're entitled to share in it if you need to. But when you just don't feel like working at a minimum-wage job, and apply for benefits....uh-uh. You should have to work for benefits in some way. There should be make-work projects for people who go on assistance. Not only would it possibly confer a skill, but it would give people a little pride in themselves.
I think that's kind of what's missing in society nowadays--pride in oneself. Considering the dumbing-down in schools, the blaming society for what is actually the fault of the individual...it just seems like pride in oneself and one's accomplishments is no longer important. After all, if letter grades are abolished so the dummies won't feel bad, what's the point of getting an A? If "putting one over on the government" by living on welfare is prized over doing a job well, or having a job at all, then what's the point of getting a job?
*shakes head*
People's priorities are just getting all fuckled up, it seems. People are no longer responsible for anything. Everything is someone else's fault. After all, if you don't receive rewards for your accomplishments, then why should you take responsibility for your failures? It just seems to me that that's how people think nowadays.
Oh well....
Sidhe
Sidhe - you rock! usually i'm called a fascist or something equally ridiculous for saying the very thing that you very coherently put into print. thank you.
Originally posted by Happy Monkey
Personal: 100%
Economic: 30%
You too?
Originally posted by Lady Sidhe
*agrees with SM and Beestie*
Nothing wrong with public assistance for those who:
1. need help getting back on their feet while they're looking for a job, or work but don't make enough money to buy necessities after paying bills (that's more common than anyone realizes)
or
2. are disabled to the point that they have trouble finding and/or keeping adequate work with which to support themselves
To Marichiko: I don't know about where you live, but in La., one can get emergency welfare if they're shown to need it (no job, no income), within three days. The only time someone is put on a waiting list for housing is when they apply to HUD, which is specifically for housing and doesn't involve welfare money.
Does La. stand for Louisiana or Los Angeles? Please reply quickly since I am packing my car and need to know whether to point it south or west. Thank you so much for this bit of information which no one in 5 years has bothered to tell me about. Its been awful being on SSDI which I paid for myself over 25 year's work and taxes and getting only a little over $600.00 a month with no housing. Now with the HUD cuts I'm facing being homeless yet again. I am so thankful to hear that there actually is help somewhere. Please, can you tell me the phone number and name of the agency which will give me welfare in either Louisiana or Los Angeles? I have been in total despair, all hope gone, sometimes considering suicide. Do you have the name of a contact person you can give me? I'm not joking and you are literally saving my life, but I need specifics. Please respond ASAP! I'm serious!
La in this case means Louisiana. I'm sorry to hear that things are not going well and hope things turn around quickly for you.
Originally posted by Beestie
La in this case means Louisiana. I'm sorry to hear that things are not going well and hope things turn around quickly for you.
Thank you for your concern. Do you know how long one has to reside in Louisiana before getting this help in 3 days? Can I just go down there and declare myself a resident the moment I cross the state line? I assume its the state of Louisisana which is so generous, since there is no program like that available from the Feds. Will Louisiana give me a place to live right away?
It is illegal to deny a person necessary medical treatment solely because they do not have insurance coverage.
A hospital which is found to have refused necessary stabilization and care is subject to a $20,000 (might have gone up to $30K) per incident fine. And once a violation is identified, records get audited to determine if other instances exist. The fines may be levied against a facility and/or the physician responsible. (I know of at least one VERY pissed off doc that this happened to ... it's mandated that any hospital receiving a patient who was refused stabilization/treatment because of lack of coverage report that to the feds, because that hospital is subject to the SAME FINE if they don't report.)
It's called EMTALA, and it's a world of hurt for a hospital ... not just because of the fine ... because of the danger that the hospital will lose ALL ABILITY to accept any payments from Medicare. Forever.
It's taken pretty seriously.
Any uninsured/underinsured patient can apply for Medical Assistance (aka Medicaid) while hospitalized. The purpose is for the hospital to pursue a 'limited use' application to cover costs of that hospitalization. The patient can follow up with the welfare office after discharge with the possibility of receiving full benefits if the meet the requirements.
If the MA application does not get approved, the same document can be used to apply for other funding sources, including monies earmarked for this use by the county.
Originally posted by Lady Sidhe
I completely agree with welfare reform. Five-year lifetime limit.
My refinement on this one includes ... no extra bennies for extra offspring, folks should get "weaned off" ... the amount of benefits should reduce the longer one collects them.
marichko, if you are so freaking destitute that you are considering scamming other states' welfare systems, why do you have a computer and internet access?
Originally posted by wolf
marichko, if you are so freaking destitute that you are considering scamming other states' welfare systems, why do you have a computer and internet access?
daaaaamn! ouch, but good question - I think the libraries are closed by now.
Originally posted by wolf
marichko, if you are so freaking destitute that you are considering scamming other states' welfare systems, why do you have a computer and internet access?
I have a beat up lap top that someone loaned me and a bunch of "Free AOL for 3 months" disks. And what gives you the right to form the opinion that I would be "scamming"?
PS When all else fails, I use a friend's computer or I go to the local college library which as it just so happens is currently open for 24 hours for finals. Don't make assumptions, Defmats.
marichko, if you are so freaking destitute that you are considering scamming other states' welfare systems, why do you have a computer and internet access?
She isnt destitute
yet ....She is facing possible destitution. Your attitude in that last post is horrible.
Originally posted by marichiko
I have a beat up lap top that someone loaned me and a bunch of "Free AOL for 3 months" disks. And what gives you the right to form the opinion that I would be "scamming"?
a "beat up laptop" wouldn't run word 2003 ... which is a VERY expensive piece of software.
As an American, I have the right to hold any opinion I want. As a taxpayer, I have the right to hold the opinion that you are scamming (or rather planning to scam) the system. You said that you would move to another state JUST FOR THE BENEFITS.
That's scamming.
Originally posted by wolf
a "beat up laptop" wouldn't run word 2003 ... which is a VERY expensive piece of software.
Not necessarily...
or she could be using word at a library
and don't tell me people actually pay for msft software.
I know the guy who does ...
OEM (with the machine) or seperately though
I have office xp running on win 2k so i'm sure marichiko could have word 03 on a 3 year old laptop. Not that that is the point. At all. Give the girl a break or she'll take that cowgirl lassoo and whip you all into shape.
this is wolf, you'd have enough lead in you to act as nuclear reactor lining by the time you got it out.
Originally posted by wolf
a "beat up laptop" wouldn't run word 2003 ... which is a VERY expensive piece of software.
As an American, I have the right to hold any opinion I want. As a taxpayer, I have the right to hold the opinion that you are scamming (or rather planning to scam) the system. You said that you would move to another state JUST FOR THE BENEFITS.
That's scamming.
No, it won't run 2003, I've been having endless problems with it. A friend loaned me his disk for it, but I can't get it to work on my machine.
If its possible for me to get more help in a different state, I see nothing wrong with going there to obtain it. Its very hard to go through the medical treatment I need and make some kind of progress with voc-rehab when I'm looking at having no housing again by next winter. All my energy gets taken up with trying to figure out how I'm going to find shelter and fighting the fear that I have about this.
I have a doumented medical condition that I am trying to get evaluation and treatment for so that I can go back to work. Someone tells me of a state where I can get more help that what I'm currently getting and can even live indoors. If I move there, I am a scammer? It seems to me that you object to ANYBODY recieving assistance in order to be productive again.
Apparently you would prefer that me and others like me recieve no help what-so-ever and either die or live in hobo camps somewhere, rather than get some assistance and become productive tax paying members of society again. Let's set aside any humanitarian concerns and look at it in terms of dollars and common sense. If I had been able to remain in my old profession, I'd be earning around $50,000 a year at this point. If I was given the help to go back to it or do something similar, I could be earning that $50,000 again. Of that income, at least a third would go to the government in taxes = $15,500/year. I have potentially 20 productive working years left to me IF I get help. That means the government would get at least $300,000 out of me and that's if I never got a single raise or cost of living adjustment. All the government would have to do is invest about $40,000 in me, almost all of which I have already paid for in taxes myself. $40,000.00 to get a $300,000.00 return ain't a bad return for your money. But you and other American voters are too short-sighted to see this and instead want to accuse people in need of help as being scammers and throw them to the dogs.
Originally posted by Beestie
No one in America is dying in the street because they were denied help.
[COLOR=indigo]I disagree. I was pregnant and homeless in the milk and honey state of California. I tried to get on ANY kind of welfare, food stamps, housing, medical aid, ANYTHING, and was declined because I didn't have a place of residence. (Circular reasoning at it's best, folks.)
The only way I got off the streets was a Christian couple that brought me into their home. [/COLOR]
Mari, have you actually looked at the changes being made to Section 8 on HUD's website? I wouldn't completely trust what that interest group is saying, as interest groups can be as bad as politicians when it comes to spin.
Originally posted by marichiko
I assume its the state of Louisisana which is so generous, since there is no program like that available from the Feds.
different post:
All the government would have to do is invest about $40,000 in me, almost all of which I have already paid for in taxes myself.
[COLOR=indigo]You didn't pay into Louisiana fund, and now Louisianans have to pay for you to be rehabilitated if you move there. More than likely, once you are better, and able to work, you will have to move outside of Louisiana to make $50K per year. So what's in it for the Louisianans? [/COLOR]
The Feds give their money out as block grants to each state. Each state then decides how they want to spend their portion.
[COLOR=indigo]At the very least Mari's math is off. I understand moving to a state with better benefits, but my point remains.[/COLOR]
Originally posted by sycamore
Mari, have you actually looked at the changes being made to Section 8 on HUD's website? I wouldn't completely trust what that interest group is saying, as interest groups can be as bad as politicians when it comes to spin.
HUD naturally wants to put the best face on things, so their web site is all chirpy about how wonderful they are. I went straight to the horse's mouth and called the local program which handles HUD grants here in town and they said that they are cutting back severely on the program due to the withdrawal of funding.
To Onyx Cougar: Sycamore is right, its Federal money distributed to the states which they use as they see fit. I assume that Louisiana is going to remain a part of the US, at least for the next 20 or 30 years, and not go back to being a Confederacy, so the people of Louisiana would benefit from my share of Federal taxes even if I were to leave. And why do you assume that I would up and leave if Louisiana is really as gracious enough to help people as Lady Sid claims? I'd be pretty damn greatful and just might stay on. My family is originally from the South and I may have a long lost cousin down there somewhere in Louisiana. Magnolias, Thomas Wolfe, William Faulkner - Louisiana sounds pretty nice if Lady Sid would just give me her info source for help in 3 days.
And IS my math off? I just used rough estimates, but one thing that's happened to me is that I can't do even the simplest math anymore. If I messed up, I'd like to know.
But it's probably not just Federal money that goes into their program...state funds probably go in too.
Originally posted by sycamore
But it's probably not just Federal money that goes into their program...state funds probably go in too.
Yeah, I'm sure you're right. But if La. is willing to help me the way Lady Sid claims, I'd happily sign an agreement to stay on and work there after I'm able to get a job again and remain until I'd at least paid La. back in my share of state taxes.
Originally posted by OnyxCougar
[COLOR=indigo]I disagree. I was pregnant and homeless in the milk and honey state of California. [/COLOR]
I seem to remember you being neither hispanic nor illegal ... that might have been your problem.
The one-time milk and honey state of california has over time become the land of dust and tragedy because they are serving more illegals than they are their actual residents.
Originally posted by wolf
I seem to remember you being neither hispanic nor illegal ... that might have been your problem.
The one-time milk and honey state of california has over time become the land of dust and tragedy because they are serving more illegals than they are their actual residents.
I find that hard to believe. Its certainly not true in Colorado. Here only legal residents of the US are given what little help Colorado has to offer. I've spent many hours in social service waiting rooms and the majority of the people waiting in the chairs beside me were either white or African American young mothers with small children that the father had deserted, the elderly, and disabled people. I'd guess maybe a fifth of the people I saw in these places were hispanic and they were all native born or legal immigrants. I know this because on the outside of the social services office was a sign in Spanish warning that proof of citizenship or a green card would be required.
Originally posted by marichiko
Thank you for your concern. Do you know how long one has to reside in Louisiana before getting this help in 3 days? Can I just go down there and declare myself a resident the moment I cross the state line? I assume its the state of Louisisana which is so generous, since there is no program like that available from the Feds. Will Louisiana give me a place to live right away?
Yes, It's Louisiana. Actually, I'm not sure how long you have to be here. I assume you can get it as soon as you get here. You have to go to Amite, La. I don't know the exact address, but if you ask someone who works at a convenience store or gas station, I'm sure they'll be able to tell you. Or you could go to the courthouse, which is on the left a little after the railroad tracks (when you get off the interstate 55 in Amite, stay right until you go over the tracks. The courthouse is a little past that on the left), and they can tell you. All you have to do is fill out some papers, and they'll talk to you within a couple of days. If you're shown to need emergency assistance, they'll get it to you within three days.
Good luck.
Sidhe
Originally posted by wolf
Any uninsured/underinsured patient can apply for Medical Assistance (aka Medicaid) while hospitalized. The purpose is for the hospital to pursue a 'limited use' application to cover costs of that hospitalization. The patient can follow up with the welfare office after discharge with the possibility of receiving full benefits if the meet the requirements.
If the MA application does not get approved, the same document can be used to apply for other funding sources, including monies earmarked for this use by the county.
Lucky for me, when I got hospitalized in 2001, they assigned a social worker to me and she got the ball rolling right away to get me Medicaid. It was new to me...all my life before that I had been insured, and now I was facing this mess. I still don't like it, but what else can I do? I sure as hell can't afford commercial insurance, and when I tried to sign up with BC/BS and Aetna, it was a joke. I would not have been able to get covered for a year (those nasty pre-existing conditions), but they wanted you to still pay the premiums during that non-covered year..not!
It's amazing what you learn about the healthcare system when you get sick.
I guess La. isn't such a bad place to live after all....in addition to having the best food on the planet, anyone who needs public assistance can get it. If you're pregnant, you generally don't have a problem getting WIC, and as long as you qualify (a family with an income under $17000-- for a couple with a small child--under six--can qualify). Almost every town has a free medical clinic and there's a free psych clinic in about one in every five towns.
I mean, I've been reading about California, a place with one of the highest costs of living, and the trouble people have getting assistance there....damn, man, that sucks.
Like I said, I have no problem with the people who need it getting it. That's why it's there. And the difference with Mari as opposed to freeloaders is, I assume she plans to get a job once she gets back on her feet. Therefore, she will be a contributing member of society.
Sidhe
Originally posted by marichiko
I know this because on the outside of the social services office was a sign in Spanish warning that proof of citizenship or a green card would be required.
They still receive services. And that's why there is a booming business in fake green cards and ss#s
Originally posted by marichiko
I find that hard to believe. Its certainly not true in Colorado. Here only legal residents of the US are given what little help Colorado has to offer. I've spent many hours in social service waiting rooms and the majority of the people waiting in the chairs beside me were either white or African American young mothers with small children that the father had deserted, the elderly, and disabled people. I'd guess maybe a fifth of the people I saw in these places were hispanic and they were all native born or legal immigrants. I know this because on the outside of the social services office was a sign in Spanish warning that proof of citizenship or a green card would be required.
[COLOR=indigo]Well try sitting in welfare waiting rooms with 500 + other people, over (this is rough estimate, eyeballing it) 75% of which are hispanic, 50% of which are NON-English speaking people, many with 3+ children IN TOW, pregnant with a 4th, making over $400 in food stamps and $200 + in AFDC + medical for themselves and children + WIC + Housing + automatic entry (with welfare card) into other low-income programs. Many of these people are women that claim no male is living with them, but in actuality, there are 2 or 3 working males (husbands/brothers/sons) that get under the table jobs and together bring in way more than that woman could get aid for.
And I couldn't even get food. There was NO such sign outside ANY of the six, count them 6 welfare offices I was in. And trust me, I had ALOT of time to read every sign (duplicated in Spanish).
If an illegal female manages to get across the border and has her child on US soil, it's considered American. Therefore, the mother, while still illegal, CAN and in most cases DOES get federal and state assistance.
I have to admit that it really pisses me off that illegals can get ANYTHING (education, jobs) in this country that a legal immigrant can, but the people who take the time and the money to get in cannot go on welfare. Ever. Or risk losing their immigrant Visa.
Colorado does not sound like a fair representation of the welfare system in this country. Yes, people against welfare generally bring up the abuses, but I lived in poverty in California, and I lived in poverty in Arizona and Nevada and Oregon. I've been on the Arizona welfare system, and had alot of acquaintences on it in the other states, and let me tell you from FIRST hand knowledge that many many many people on assistance LIE and CHEAT to get it. I don't know how prevalent it is, but it happens, and I think it's happening in a far greater number than most people realize.
[/COLOR]
Originally posted by Lady Sidhe
I guess La. isn't such a bad place to live after all....in addition to having the best food on the planet, anyone who needs public assistance can get it. If you're pregnant, you generally don't have a problem getting WIC, and as long as you qualify (a family with an income under $17000-- for a couple with a small child--under six--can qualify). Almost every town has a free medical clinic and there's a free psych clinic in about one in every five towns.
I mean, I've been reading about California, a place with one of the highest costs of living, and the trouble people have getting assistance there....damn, man, that sucks.
Like I said, I have no problem with the people who need it getting it. That's why it's there. And the difference with Mari as opposed to freeloaders is, I assume she plans to get a job once she gets back on her feet. Therefore, she will be a contributing member of society.
Sidhe
You bet I want to get back on my feet and get a job! The thought of spending the rest of my life existing on $600 a month with or without a housing voucher strikes terror into my heart. Besides, I miss working. I really do. I loved my job and I'd give anything to be able to perform well enough to do it again. Thank you for the information. I'm going to call and check it out.
And to Wolf: So you would deny help to me and thousands of other Americans just like me who WANT to get back on our feet just because of your percieved view of a very small minority who abuse the system? I'd like to see your statistics, on that by the way, as well as the source for them.
Oh yeah, Onyx Cougar: I can't really speak to the whole WIC, ADFC thing, since I've never been on welfare. Colorado does have a lower hispanic population than either California or Arizona, so, naturally I saw fewer hispanics in the waiting rooms. Its interesting that Colorado is the only state, apparently, that posts those warnings. As far as I can tell, they're pretty strict about it here. They made sure that they had copies of my social security card AND birth certificate even though I'm obviously anglo in appearance and speech. I don't doubt for a moment that abuses such as you describe occur, but why should there be such barriers for the disabled to get help because of welfare abuse? Its a whole different thing and a different programs and its dismaying to be unjustly tarred with the same brush.
[COLOR=indigo]I just thought of this too. You wanna know what else pisses me off? That there are over 10% of active military members who qualify for welfare. That is a damn shame. And they wonder why the number of volunteers is decreasing....
On a seprate but related note:
Don't forget that families of every single man and woman that dies in the service of our country gets paid a minimum of $100,000, most times $200,000.
+ the children of the deceased military member get "retired" level status benefits, including medical, commissary and BX privilidges (sp) and access to base facilities until the age of 21.
x the number of casualties in Iraq + Afghanistan + every other region where US servicepeople are stationed.
I wonder how much of that has been budgeted into the cost of the war?
[/COLOR]
Check out "Protecting Family Members Who Lose a Loved One" on
Kerry's page.
To mari:
Yeah, you'll definitely need ID, like birth certificates for all family members, any paycheck stubs (usually two month's worth, if you have them), any bill stubs, things like that.
Sidhe
I have not been posting much, I have not returned to my Lurkum (hi thelorax!) I have started an
intensive Portuguese course, I've been having to clear my workload to be able to do this course and
to top it off our youngest has caught chickenpox!
I have not being following this thread but earlier the concepts of entitlement and self sufficency were
contrasted and I have been thinking a bit about the issues, here is my take.
Warning long post, perhaps a bit rambling!
I think those who emphasize the need for self sufficency and the idea that a welfare state breeds a sense
of entitlement that endangers to sense of self sufficency are missing a few points, one of those is inheritance.
If our lives consisted of equal quality education and after the age of 18 each child was on its own
unable to profit from their parents then you could better make the case that ones fate in life was determined
by ones actions and abilites.
Why should the children of the poor suffer the sins of their parents?
Why should the children of the rich and middle class get a head start in the rat race?
The rich and well off are often not in their privillaged position solely through the merits of their
own abilities and efforts but often through the gains of their ancestors either through direct
finincial aid or through the achievemnts of all our many ancestors who have gifted us the advanced cililization
we live in.
It would be nonsense to ban inheritance as I proposed above, parents would always find ways to help
their children, in the cold war communist countries inheritance supposedly didn't exist but nepotism was
rampent, children can expect an inheritance from their parents. We are all the children of our civilisation, that civilisation has an inheritance to give why should one group of people be more deserving of it then another?
Another way of looking at this concept of social inheritance would be for example the national health system of the UK, that was created in the aftermath of WWII as a desire to bring good from bad, it is the fruit from the sacrifice of that war, to remove it would be to squander their inheritance, many of the western worlds social security systems have been born of struggles.
So we should not forget that most owe their lot in life to the throw of the dice, why should the rich care
about this? Would not the natural goodness of the human soul allow for a safety net to be provided willingly by the well off to catch the worst excesses of unequal wealth? I think no, there have been many cililizations on this planet and as far as I know none have operated so.
The arrival of civilisation in a part of the world can be noted in the bones of the dead, in hunter gatherer societies there is little difference between the health of individuals that can be noted in their bones, the arrival of civilization brings a large population and also greater differnce in the health of its peoples, some better of, most worse off, and on average the diet and life span of the civilized person drops from the health and life span of a hunter gatherer. The history of civilazation has been one long series of exploitions by a ruling class of those who have no power or wealth. Until recently that is, democracy is unpresedented, power (the vote) has been given to all as a birth right.
How did this happen? I personnally can think of two causes: 1 industrialisation and the end of serfdom/slavery required an educated workforce, this educated workforce was not going to stand for the status quo and unionised 2: The enlightenment allowed shiften the subject of mans study to man, no longer could suffering be glorified in the name of God.
The wealthy elect were made to surrender total power to the masses in order to maintain the life of privillage, I don't think they would have done this left to themselves, so I advance the notion if we were to remove all social support from an advanced nation and instead rely on charity, it would not work and the wealth divide would increase. Why should the well off care? they have no choice, in a democracy the poor have a vote and will use this power to obtain wealth, take that vote from them and you will have massive social unrest and the weathy would lose their wealth all the same. Human nature left to itself sucks, at our core we are not nice people, it has taken the long march of civilization and learning to advance good behaviour to our nonbloodline neigbour, remove all hope from the bottom of society and take all obligation from the top and it would not take us long to revert again.
I choose Social Redistridution (socialism) because it is unnatural.
Sorry for taking all your time :)
Your post makes a lot of sense, Yelof. Obrigada. I imagine the US must seem a very strange country to other civilized western nations. The American people seem to have no difficulty with what amounts to welfare for the rich (corporate tax dodges, tax cuts for the wealthy, frank corporate nepotism on the level of the White House), yet scream bloody murder if a senior citizen is allowed a free meal once a week at the local soup kitchen. I very much doubt if a single conservative who posts to this board can define the term "enlightened self interest." They certainly can define the terms "selfish" and "lazy," however. They are too lazy and too complacent to attempt thought "outside the box," and I believe this will bring about the downfall of this country. If you refuse to see a problem, you certainly are not going to be able to solve it. Sometimes I just want to withdraw from public dialogue altogether, turn off the news, stock pile a ton of canned goods and go become a hermit in southern New Mexico and spend the rest of my days in peaceful oblivion to what is going on in this nation and the world. But I don't really want to be a hermit, and every time I set foot on the streets of any town or city in this nation, the things I see make me sick at heart. I would lead a happier life if I could adopt a hardened "they deserve it" attitude which seems to be the mindset of so many of my fellow Americans. I really wish I didn't feel as much as I do.
Originally posted by marichiko
I very much doubt if a single conservative who posts to this board can define the term "enlightened self interest." They certainly can define the terms "selfish" and "lazy," however. They are too lazy and too complacent to attempt thought "outside the box," and I believe this will bring about the downfall of this country.
That's an awfully broad brush you're using, don'cha think?
Originally posted by sycamore
That's an awfully broad brush you're using, don'cha think?
Oh hell, its late and I've had two glasses of cheap wine. I'm lucky I can hold a brush at all.;)
Mari, perhaps they see different problems than you do.
Why is it just assumed that those who have wealth either inherited it or screwed others over to get it? Why is it so hard to believe that most people with a sizeable net worth just went out and made it happen? Certainly chance plays a huge role in the accumulation of wealth, but one must be in the right position to take advantage of chance happenings.
Those who accumulate large wealth were often flat broke in the past because they were willing to take large risks, and some didn't pan out. But they keep on plugging ahead until something does work.
It all boils down to choice. I'm not a statistic junky (83.6 of statistics are made up on the spot :) but I remember seeing an article that tracked former lottery winners - there was a very high percentage that were flat broke and filed BK in just a few years. They made exceedingly bad decisions with their money even though they are started out wealthy.
On the other hand I have several clients who have never made more than $40,000 in a single year and have well over $1 million saved for their retirement.
Life is full of choices, some work some don't. It doesn't make sense to blame others when your choices don't work. There is no rational reason to force others to give up their earned wealth (in the form of taxes) to support long-term welfare recipients.
Short-term rebound-type programs are a wonderful thing but they should be limited to short term.
Originally posted by Undertoad
Mari, perhaps they see different problems than you do.
You know, I'm sure that they do, and I think the large majority of people are good at heart. They're doing the best they can within the construct of their own lives and beliefs. I feel so strongly in part beause I used to be a member of that complacent middle class I speak of. Oh sure, I had a social conscience and contributed to worthy causes, but I really didn't understand about the lives of the people forced to exist on government subsidies. Then I fell through the looking glass and what a rude awakening it was!
Originally posted by depmats
Why is it just assumed that those who have wealth either inherited it or screwed others over to get it? Why is it so hard to believe that most people with a sizeable net worth just went out and made it happen? Certainly chance plays a huge role in the accumulation of wealth, but one must be in the right position to take advantage of chance happenings.
Exactly so. One must be in the position. How does that happen? People are in a position to get ahead when they've had an education, when they believe in themselves, when life hasn't knocked them around so badly that they've given up in despair. For example, take two children. One comes from a working class home with two parents. The child sees Mom and Dad struggle to make ends meet, but those two parents are there for their child. They make sure he does his homework, they instill him with a sense of self respect and give him a good value system. The kids he hangs out with all want to make something of their lives and believe they can do it. The second child comes from a single parent home and suffers abuse at the hands of his Mom's various boyfriends. Mom is too busy trying to survive to put much energy into her child. He cuts class and the school can't inform Mom about this because she didn't have the money to pay the phone bill and the telephone company discontinued her service. The kid hangs out with the druggies when he does go to school. Now which child is most likely to jump at an opportunity and make a go of it? Sure, its possible for the second kid to overcome those handicaps of upbringing, but they ARE handicaps and the ARE real.
Its true that in our country, there has arisen a sort of welfare lifestyle. Children are raised in homes where the father is absent. The males who do come into their lives may be abusive (and the women as well). They live in subsidized apartment buildings where everyone is in the same boat. The public schools in the area are underfunded and of lower quality than the ones in the suburbs across town. All the kids see modeled for them is dependency on the government, crime, drugs, and despair. The girls get pregnant at 16 and do what Mom modeled for them to do - go on welfare. The boys do what Dad modeled for them to do, impregnate the girls, get in trouble with the law and vanish off into jail somewhere. Its a vicious cycle.
I'm certainly in favor of welfare reform. Give those people on welfare the education and training to find work. Provide day care for the kids, so they're not unsupervised, out on the streets. Give people private housing vouchers so they're not "ghetto-ized" into these vast government subsidized building complexes. Offer them hope and the tangible skills to find a way out of that life style. Establish goals for the people who are on welfare. "In 3 months you must show us that you have enrolled in this training program or that school. You must provide us with progress reports at 3 months intervals there-after, showing that you are continuing to progress in your school. At the end of two or 4 years you will show us a certificate of completion, etc." Then give them the support to accomplish this. Encourage people to be self sufficient and beleive in themselves, but don't spit on them and kick them when they're down.
Originally posted by marichiko
Oh hell, its late and I've had two glasses of cheap wine. I'm lucky I can hold a brush at all.;)
That's pretty stupid.
You're claiming to be on disability subsequent to brain damage, and continue to use substances which even in small amounts contribute to brain damage.
Originally posted by wolf
That's pretty stupid.
You're claiming to be on disability subsequent to brain damage, and continue to use substances which even in small amounts contribute to brain damage.
See? The act of a brain damaged person!:p
Yelof, here's my problem with wealth redistribution as a basis for social construction.
As you so eloquently stated, human beings are inherently selfish. Call it a corrupt human nature, call it an evolved survival skill, whatever the case, we tend to do the thing that is in our best self-interest.
The beauty, the balance, the strength of capitalism is that it creates a self-interest toward benefiting society. If you make yourself useful to society in your capacity as a productive member, you are rewarded with money. The more useful you make yourself, either by quantity of work, or by rarity of your particular skill, the more you are rewarded. In a capitalist structure, you are free to make yourself useful to others, and you are rewarded in proportion to that usefulness.
When we remove the financial incentive to becoming useful to others, through taxation and wealth redistribution, the prime self-interest changes. In a community where usefulness is not rewarded, where gains made through productivity are confiscated and redistributed, then why expend energy in being useful? Why not expend that energy in amusement, entertainment, in selfish acts?
There is an underlying assumption to socialism that wealth is a static thing, that each culture has a certain amount of it, and that if some person has more of it, it must be at the expense of someone else. That’s simply not the case. If the economics and the politics of the United States bewilder and frustrate you, at least be objective enough to learn this lesson from us. Wealth is the cumulative effect of the productive members of society. The more productive each member is, the more productive the whole society is. And the more direct the compensation is for productivity, more self-interest each person in that society has toward making themselves useful. Our staggering national wealth comes from an economic system that maximizes the usefulness and productivity of the greatest number of people.
That is the strength of this culture. We allow the individual to be rewarded for their productivity, in direct proportion to their usefulness. The cumulative effect is a nearly unsinkable economy.
-sm
Marichko had asked where the numbers come from ...
Here is one Source
It's called the "Green Book" and is a gov't report.
And, btw, illegals are eligible for emergency funding through medicaid.
The differences between benefits and distributions to resident and non-resident aliens is striking. California supports more than three million such persons ... Colorado around 71,000.
As far as the hispanic/latino origin info goes, you can check the 2000 census for the racial/ethnic demographics ... Colorado's population is 74.5% white (nonhispanic - the overall figure for persons identifying as "white" was 82.8%), Calif 46.7% white nonhispanic. Hispanic populations are respectively CO 17.1% and CA 32.4%
Originally posted by wolf
Marichko had asked where the numbers come from ... Here is one Source
It's called the "Green Book" and is a gov't report.
And, btw, illegals are eligible for emergency funding through medicaid.
The differences between benefits and distributions to resident and non-resident aliens is striking. California supports more than three million such persons ... Colorado around 71,000.
As far as the hispanic/latino origin info goes, you can check the 2000 census for the racial/ethnic demographics ... Colorado's population is 74.5% white (nonhispanic - the overall figure for persons identifying as "white" was 82.8%), Calif 46.7% white nonhispanic. Hispanic populations are respectively CO 17.1% and CA 32.4%
First of all, try reading my complete posts. I agreed that Colorado has a lower Hispanic population, and merely wondered why, this being so, Colorado felt the need to post statements about eligibility for social services programs in Spanish, while other adjacent states with far higher Hispanic populations felt no need to do so.
Actually, I have no quarrel with the thinking that the US should not provide public assistance to every illegal immigrant who happens to wander over the border. We may still be a comparitively wealthy country, but it is not our job to provide assistance to the entire population of Mexico and Central America. Those countries need to make reforms in their own educational and economic systems to address their own widespread poverty problems.
What I was curious about is the percentage of people who are found to be cheating the system. That's something I would truely like to know and I'd like to see the statistics from an impartial source with neither a conservative nor a liberal agenda to fulfill.
Yes, illegal aliens can get emergency medicaid care. That means if an illegal is involved in some terrible car wreck or has a heart attack, we won't leave them bleeding to death on the street. This is simple human decency, and I don't see why anyone would have a problem with it. On a more pragmatic level, it puts one off to have to step over dead bodies on the way to work in the morning. When I spent some time in northeastern Brazil, it was not out of the question to encounter somebody lying dead on the sidewalk. Such incidents would trouble me for long afterward, but maybe you have a stronger stomach than I.
Here is what the document you cited states on the issue:
Unlike earlier Federal law, the 1996 welfare reforms
expressly bar illegal aliens from most State- and locally-
funded benefits. The restrictions on these benefits parallel
the restrictions on Federal benefits. Illegal aliens are
generally barred from State and local government contracts,
licenses, grants, loans, and assistance. Exceptions are made
for:
1. Treatment for emergency conditions (other than those
related to an organ transplant);
2. Short-term, in-kind emergency disaster relief;
3. Immunization against immunizable diseases and testing for
and treatment of symptoms of communicable diseases; and
4. Services or assistance (such as soup kitchens, crisis
counseling and intervention, and short-term shelters)
designated by the Attorney General as: (i) delivering
in-kind services at the community level; (ii) providing
assistance without individual determinations of each
recipient's needs; and (iii) being necessary for the
protection of life and safety.
Originally posted by wolf
That's pretty stupid.
You're claiming to be on disability subsequent to brain damage, and continue to use substances which even in small amounts contribute to brain damage.
See? The act of a brain damaged person!:p
You're claiming to be on disability subsequent to brain damage, and continue to use substances which even in small amounts contribute to brain damage.
You phrase that in such a disdainful and doubful way
Oh, Wolf's just pissed at me because I mistook her for a guy when I first started posting here. She seems to have disliked me every since. Oh well, you can't please everybody (and I DID apologize). ((shrugs shoulders));)
Originally posted by marichiko
Oh, Wolf's just pissed at me because I mistook her for a guy when I first started posting here. She seems to have disliked me every since. Oh well, you can't please everybody (and I DID apologize). ((shrugs shoulders));)
Everybody mistakes me for a guy. There is a long cellar tradition of mistaking me for a guy, because I don't have traditional girly opinions and style. That's not the issue. Never was.
I stand corrected, Ma'am!;)
http://www.thedenverchannel.com/news/3360936/detail.html
This is why I think some people should be sterilized....they aren't able to protect themselves because they don't know any better, and it seems no one is protecting them. At the least birth control should be mandatory in these kinds of places. They can't take care of themselves, much less a baby. There's no point in putting another, possibly profoundly mentally disabled, child into a system that doesn't give a shit.
Why is your emphasis on changing the fertility of people unable to parent instead of tackling the system which "doesnt give a shit* ? Surely the answer should be to make the system "give a shit"
Jeez, Sid, here you've got a state employee who rapes a severely mentally retarded victim, and your response is "Let's sterilize the retarded"? Don't you think your priorities are a tad out of whack? How about let's ensure that state employees NEVER in any way abuse the people who are under their care whether mentally ill, retarded, anything else. That story is about a terrible abuse of trust against an innocent victim, completely unable to take care of herself, and your response is let's sterilize her? Why? So she can be thrown to the rest of the male employees of that institution and used any way they please, without the unpleasant consequence of a pregnancy? I knew you were conservative, but Jesus Christ, does conservatism preclude humanity?:worried:
Oh, I think the guy who did it should be sterilized too. No point in letting a rapist pass on his genes.
And yes, I've said this before: people who are too mentally deficient to take care of themselves should NOT have children. That's not cruel; it's common sense. Our child welfare system is already overburdened, and you wouldn't believe how many children in foster care are abused by people who just take them in for the money. Why subject MORE children to an already overburdened system?? I mean, DAMN, at the very least, make sure the aforementioned mentally deficient individuals have NORPLANT. These aren't baby dolls we're talking about. They're CHILDREN.
As to making the system give a shit--well, when you've got state employees who are WAY underpaid and WAY overworked....you can't MAKE them give a shit. There are around 200 kids to a SINGLE social worker. Better to make sure the kids aren't born in the first place. I don't see what the problem with that is.
I mean, damn....it's like someone who won't get their cat fixed because the kids should be able to see "the miracle of life." What they DON'T let the kids see is the poor, unwanted kittens being gassed to death in the local animal shelter. It's the same thing. People who are not able to take care of themselves should not be able to have little people that they can't take care of, just to experience the "miracle of birth," or whatever reason people give for wanting to let them have kids nobody wants.
It's not cruel. It's a hell of a lot more humane to NOT let them have kids than to take away their baby doll at birth, then let that baby doll slip through the cracks and end up in an abusive foster home.
Sidhe
Sid, you don't get it. Your priorities are way out of whack. You are so high up on your bandwagon that you can't see what is going on. This is a news story about an atrocious breech of trust committed against a completely innocent victim. This is not the place to start whining about your personal agenda in regard to the mentally defective. It will win you no adherants to your cause. Trust me on this one.
1. I'm not looking to win adherents. People have their own opinions on this, and trying to change them won't do any good.
2. I'm more worried about the potential children. These people are in institutions that should screen employees a hell of a lot better, and watch them a hell of a lot better, than they do. However, there's no excuse for the clients not to be on NORPLANT. Some people shouldn't reproduce. Period. It just ends up hurting the kids.
3. The SOB who raped the girl should be put in a cell with Bubba for the rest of his life. I'm not sorry for thinking that way, either.
Some people can't take responsibility for themselves, and it's up to the people who are supposed to be taking care of them to do so. That doesn't always happen, and there's nothing I can do about that. But there are ways to minimize the damage, and ways to punish the offenders, if they'd just do it.
Seems we have more care for stray animals than we do for human beings. We'll sterilize a stray so it won't have unwanted babies, but god forbid we do it to humans so THEY won't have unwanted babies. Unwanteds are unwanteds. They all suffer. So what's the problem with preventing the suffering in the first place?
All people see is the word "sterilization," and they lose their minds. They don't think of the larger picture, or the ramifications of all these unwanted children. To them, I say the same thing I say to anti-DP folks:
You take these kids home with you when they're born, and take care of them. If you're not willing to do that, then don't complain when someone puts forth an idea you don't like.
I don't have any personal animosity towards people who are mentally slow. And I don't have any problem with functionally retarded people having children. I just don't think that people who can't take care of themselves should be able to give birth to people they can't take care of, who will end up being abused by the system, whether the system intends to abuse them or not.
Sidhe
I couldn't agree with you more on your third point.
I will now address the question of eugenics, since I feel that I have made my own priorities clear on this one.
I couldn't agree with you more that every child should be brought into this world by parents who are able to love and care for it. Ideally, if you realize that you can't take care of a child, you should take steps to ensure that you don't bring one into the world. What about people who lack the capacity to make this decision for themselves? There you place a foot on that damn slippery slope. Human beings are not cats and dogs that we make decisions for in order to bring the population of domestic pets under control. At what IQ level do you set the line for enforced sterilization? 90? 80? What about a person who has an IQ of 79? Intelligence is not a matter of simple Mendelian inheritance. Multiple alleles, as well as environmental factors all play a role in a person's eventual IQ as an adult. If we set the precedent of sterilizing one segment of the population as "undesirable", isn't it that much easier to go after the next group and then the next? Where does it stop? I think the answer of "sterilize the bastards!" is too simplistic an approach to a very complex and potentially lethal question. Do we really want "Big Brother" intruding into our lives and deciding if we are fit to be parents or not? Would everyone who gave birth have to present some certificate of "eugenics" to the government or be forced to have an abortion? I am extremely wary of the seeming fast and easy solution of "sterilize them all!"
Originally posted by marichiko
At what IQ level do you set the line for enforced sterilization?
How about a simple competency test? If you aren't competent to feed, clothe, and shelter yourself, you probably shouldn't be responsible for tending to those basic needs for someone else.
-sm
Originally posted by marichiko
Ideally, if you realize that you can't take care of a child, you should take steps to ensure that you don't bring one into the world. What about people who lack the capacity to make this decision for themselves? There you place a foot on that damn slippery slope. Human beings are not cats and dogs that we make decisions for in order to bring the population of domestic pets under control. At what IQ level do you set the line for enforced sterilization? 90? 80? What about a person who has an IQ of 79? Intelligence is not a matter of simple Mendelian inheritance. Multiple alleles, as well as environmental factors all play a role in a person's eventual IQ as an adult. If we set the precedent of sterilizing one segment of the population as "undesirable", isn't it that much easier to go after the next group and then the next? Where does it stop? I think the answer of "sterilize the bastards!" is too simplistic an approach to a very complex and potentially lethal question. Do we really want "Big Brother" intruding into our lives and deciding if we are fit to be parents or not? Would everyone who gave birth have to present some certificate of "eugenics" to the government or be forced to have an abortion? I am extremely wary of the seeming fast and easy solution of "sterilize them all!"
SM said it very well.
Actually, the way I see it is this: you have to take a test in order to get a driver's license, so that you can be trusted to be on the road. Why is it that you don't have to take a test to be a parent? Doesn't being qualified to raise kids rate just as high on the priority scale as being able to drive?
Secondly, environmental factors don't have that big an effect on mental retardation. You don't become functional if you're profoundly retarded, and you don't go from being functional to being profoundly retarded short of something like lead poisoning or an accident. There's a difference.
And why shouldn't we take steps to bring the population of unwanted children under control? I'm not advocating abortion, I'm advocating PREVENTION. For those who lack the capacity to make the decision for themselves, or who are, because of that lack of capacity, subject to possible sexual victimization, SOMEONE has to make the decision for them. You don't miss what you never had.
As to the IQ level one sets for enforced birth control or enforced sterilization, I've already established my opinion on that one: if you're not able to take care of yourself to the point where you must be institutionalized so that someone else can take care of you, then you should not be allowed to have children.
I'm not saying they're "undesirable." I'm saying that they aren't able to take care of themselves, and therefore should not be allowed to bring into the world children that they can't take care of. I personally think people with a history of abusing children should be sterilized. It's nothing personal. It's what's best for the children, or potential children. There's nothing wrong with requiring profoundly retarded people to be on norplant or some other type of birth control. I advocate Norplant because it isn't something that has to be remembered, either by the individual or by the caretaker. It's continual birth control for five years.
Perhaps if there were standards for becoming parents, there would be fewer abused children out there. Do you think a floridly psychotic person with delusions of persecution, who won't take their meds, should have children that they could possibly incorporate into their delusions and possibly harm? And since we know that schizophrenia runs in families, should we expose these children to possible mental illness in themselves?
I'm not talking about a Big Brother situation. I'm talking about common sense. If you abuse your child, they take it away. You're not allowed to have that child anymore. If you neglect your child, the state likewise steps in. Profoundly mentally retarded individuals will neglect a child because they don't know any better. Therefore, they, like any other neglectful parent, should not have said child. The best way to prevent neglect on the part of the profoundly retarded person is to prevent them from having children in the first place.
Sidhe
Speaking of sterilization, I'd get mySELF sterilized if I could afford it. I have one child, which is all I want. I know I don't want any more children, and I know I can't afford any more children. That isn't to say I wouldn't love another child if I had one, but having to take birth control all the time, and worrying that it may fail (my daughter was conceived on birth control) gets to be tedious. If it were up to me, I'd get the plumbing taken right out and not have to worry about it anymore.
Sidhe
Originally posted by DanaC
Why is your emphasis on changing the fertility of people unable to parent instead of tackling the system which "doesnt give a shit* ? Surely the answer should be to make the system "give a shit"
Had the parents given a shit to begin with, it wouldn't be necessary for the system to give a shit.
Originally posted by wolf
Had the parents given a shit to begin with, it wouldn't be necessary for the system to give a shit.
What about responsible, normal intelligence parents who have a child with down's syndrome, as just one example. And why do you want to let "the system" off the hook? Like it or not, there is always going to be a "system" of one sort or another. Do you advocate that it do as it pleases with no accountability to anyone? What's so damn responsible about that?
Real mental disorders are a different catagory to asshats.
Like it or not, there is always going to be a "system" of one sort or another
Why?:confused:
Hhhmmmm... How do I weigh in with the lefties, without screwing up my credentials here? I've got it! Do you folks really want the Margaret Sangors of the world putting themselves into the position of controling who breeds in this country? We didn't have this arguement in the bad old days and the rascists here and in Germany won the day, however temporarily. What could be more intrusive than government controlling the breeding population, welcome to Red China. The limited government conservative is apparently extinct.
The supreme court test case for forced sterilization is Buck vs Bell check it out. There is doubt today that Carrie Buck was "feeble-minded". Justice Holmes dropped this sweet little plum for the Eugenics movement, "Three generations of imbeciles are enough." Since Miss Buck reportedly wasn't an imbecile, I'd say he was probably talking about Supreme Court Justices. It continues to amaze me that people blind themselves to the reality of what they argue for, when giving government the power to alter other peoples lives.
Why don't we just all treat pregnancy like a basic right afforded to all life-forms, and not a privilege?
Regardless of how infirm someone "seems", the basic instincts, bred through hundreds of years of human experience in this world, are survival and maternal protection. That goes a long way.
You can cite hundreds of examples of this and that, but I guarantee the number of infirm mothers who make horrible, uncaring mothers is a tiny minitory.
Oh, and if you're going to neuter people, you better not stop at the disabled, you better also hit the homeless, people who are poor, people who have off-main political ideas, and for good measure, complete arseholes.
Afraid you're on that list, Sidhe.
Originally posted by Carbonated_Brains
Oh, and if you're going to neuter people, you better not stop at the disabled, you better also hit the homeless, people who are poor, people who have off-main political ideas, and for good measure, complete arseholes.
Afraid you're on that list, Sidhe.
Tread carefully Carbonated_Brains.
To which category do you assert that she qualifies?
Originally posted by marichiko
What about responsible, normal intelligence parents who have a child with down's syndrome, as just one example. And why do you want to let "the system" off the hook? Like it or not, there is always going to be a "system" of one sort or another. Do you advocate that it do as it pleases with no accountability to anyone? What's so damn responsible about that?
You're misunderstanding me. If an individual can take care of themselves, then they should be able to take care of another person. I am not advocating letting "the system" off the hook; I'm saying that the system is extremely overburdened, and the children in that system suffer because of it. I don't think that ANYONE should be able to breed rampantly. ANYONE. You shouldn't have more children than you can take care of; if you're not competent to take care of yourself, you shouldn't be allowed to put yourself in the position of taking care of someone else who may suffer from your incompetence; if you abuse children, you should not be able to breed little ready-made victims.
I don't think that the system should be allowed to do as it pleases with no accountability. However, the system is already overburdened. It's like filling up a five-gallon container with infinite amounts of water...it can only hold so much, and the rest goes right over the edge and gets lost. You try having 100+ families that you, as ONE person, have to keep track of...a single person can only do so much.
Let's just lose the word "sterilization" for a minute, and replace it with ENFORCED BIRTH CONTROL. What's wrong with that? Would you let your 13-year-old have a child? Of course not. Why? Because you know she's not mature enough to take care of a child. She may be old enough to be subject to sexual desire, and may be physically old enough to breed, but she's not competent to take care of a helpless infant.
Well, most, if not ALL, profoundly retarded people are mentally below the intelligence and emotional maturity level of a teenager. If your teenager isn't mature enough to take care of a child, what makes you think a profoundly retarded person IS? Just because the body is mature doesn't mean the mind is. Some of these people (according to a few friends I have who work in the state school) have to be put in diapers because they can't understand or remember toilet-training. How are they going to understand taking care of a baby?
"Oh, and if you're going to neuter people, you better not stop at the disabled, you better also hit the homeless, people who are poor, people who have off-main political ideas, and for good measure, complete arseholes."
I'm not saying someone who is DISABLED should not be able to have children; I'm saying that profoundly retarded people should be on enforced birth control. There's a difference. And if the arseholes are abusing their children, yes, I think they should be straight-up STERILIZED. People bitch and complain about how murderer A and serial rapist B had such HORRIBLE childhoods, full of abuse...yet they have no problem with letting the parents of murderer A and rapist B have MORE children to abuse....then they bitch that SOMEBODY should've DONE something....
And you're just being absurd with the rest.
Sidhe
Troubleshooter - the arshole bit.
But that's just my opinion.
Nobody has any claim to anyone else's body what-so-ever, not even a fetus (parasite) inside of it. Government has no authority to tell anyone whether or not they must or must not have children. But if you can't afford and you have them, neither you, nor your children is entitled to reach into the pockets of others through force (government = force) to pay for their education, healthcare, food, shelter, or clothing.
No amount of your percieved needs or desires entitles you to steal from another person no matter how little you have or how much they have.
All people should be encouraged to help those in need, but nobody should be forced to. Charity begins and ends in the heart, not at the end of a loaded gun.
If you're starving, sick, old, cripple, uneducated, and cold from living outside, you are still not entitled to steal from others. You are free to ask for help and others are free to give it to you, but you needs don't entitle you to anything.
Man it's strange reading these boards these days. I only get a few posts with actual content. The rest are blocked because I've put the truly ignorant people on my ignore list. Sometimes entire threads are filled with nothing but the message I get when someone is on the iggy list.
It's better that way though. The average intelligence of conversations has increased 10 fold thanks to the omission of posts by those who truly have nothing of value to offer any conversation. (Jaguar, Marichko, Sycamore, Lady Sidhe, etc.)
Oooooh, we love you too, Rabid Radar.... You'll forgive me if I'm not insulted....
...oh...but he won't see this, will he, because I'm on his ignore list...:haha:
Originally posted by Lady Sidhe
Oooooh, we love you too, Rabid Radar.... You'll forgive me if I'm not insulted....
...oh...but he won't see this, will he, because I'm on his ignore list...:haha:
Can you hear me now? ;)
If I'm not on the list brother, you may want to consider that you're missing the whole point of the board when you ignore people. IMHO
Sorry, I just couldn't help it...after my first month here, I SO don't get offended anymore....:D
Originally posted by Lady Sidhe
Sorry, I just couldn't help it...after my first month here, I SO don't get offended anymore....:D
It's not about offending people, it's about being willing to bounce your ideas off other peoples and maybe revealing some truth in the process.
I was referring to the fact that he felt the need to name names. I'm pretty sure it was intended as a poke at the people he named.
Ah, got ya. I've been "listed" before so we may just be talking to ourselves anyway. What were we talking about?
Originally posted by Radar
It's better that way though. The average intelligence of conversations has increased 10 fold thanks to the omission of posts by those who truly have nothing of value to offer any conversation. (Jaguar, Marichko, Sycamore, Lady Sidhe, etc.)
Ooooh, I'm so excited! I made the cellar "A" team! Give me 5, Jag! Give me 5, Sycamore! You, too, Lady Sidhe, what the heck? You, too, "etc"., (and don't think we don't all know who you are!) This is the best news I've had all morning! It also means that never again will I have to read one of Radar's stupid responses to something I post. What a relief! Guess the big guy just couldn't stand the heat, so instead of getting out of the kitchen, he now wears an abestos suit and plugs his ears to things he doesn't like hearing. What a loss of credibility (not that he had a shred to begin with), and as usual done by his own hand. Yes! Yes! YES! (Does a war dance around the living room.) A toast to all my fellow "censored by Radar" celler members!
:beer:
PS The best part is that while he won't be able to read what I post, I can still read what HE posts and make fun of him. Its like having my very own star wars cloaking shield. I can poke fun at him and he won't know what the other two people he didn't censor are laughing about! Oh my, this a great bit of humor to start my day off with. Will someone whom he doesn't censor please pass along to him my heartfelt thanks?
Originally posted by Lady Sidhe
I was referring to the fact that he felt the need to name names. I'm pretty sure it was intended as a poke at the people he named.
I was pretty amused at being left off the list ...
Originally posted by Carbonated_Brains
Troubleshooter - the arshole bit.
But that's just my opinion.
Then you should reconsider how you choose to insult people.
Attack her arguments all you want, save the ad hominum for somewhere else.
Originally posted by Radar
Man it's strange reading these boards these days. I only get a few posts with actual content. The rest are blocked because I've put the truly ignorant people on my ignore list. Sometimes entire threads are filled with nothing but the message I get when someone is on the iggy list.
It's better that way though. The average intelligence of conversations has increased 10 fold thanks to the omission of posts by those who truly have nothing of value to offer any conversation. (Jaguar, Marichko, Sycamore, Lady Sidhe, etc.)
How about posting a comprehensive list of everyone on your ignore list?
I'm a little curious.
You're not on the list griff. It's tough to qualify for my list. You've got to fit into one or more of the following categories.
1. Stupid beyond words
2. Purposely ignorant (avoid the truth at all costs)
3. Openly Support Racism (affirmative action, groups like the KKK, etc.)
4. Offer nothing constructive to any conversation
5. Religious Zealot
6. Literally Insane and in need of professional help
7. An asshole with no redeeming qualities
8. Deny facts or in some cases reality itself
9. Justify theft, murder, treason, terrorism, etc and call it humanitarianism.
I'm sure those on my list are probably stupid enough to be proud to be on it but I could care less. They've proven many times over that they have nothing intelligent, logical, reasonable, or worthwhile to add to any conversation on any topic. They can have their own little retarded party where they pat each other on the back and jerk each other off and it's all good with me because I won't have to see it.
I've spent a long time on this list and given these people every opportunity to show that they have even the slightest bit of anything resembling intelligence and they've proven over and over that they have nothing to offer but stupidity. Why waste my time on their ignorance when I can have rational and intelligent discussions with others. There are many offensive people who have not made it to my list yet because the jury is still out on them, but for those I mentioned and a few I didn't there is no doubt what-so-ever that they will never offer anything above the intelligence level of a bag of hammers.
Originally posted by Radar
You're not on the list griff. It's tough to qualify for my list. You've got to fit into one or more of the following categories.
1. Stupid beyond words
2. Purposely ignorant (avoid the truth at all costs)
3. Openly Support Racism (affirmative action, groups like the KKK, etc.)
4. Offer nothing constructive to any conversation
5. Religious Zealot
6. Literally Insane and in need of professional help
7. An asshole with no redeeming qualities
8. Deny facts or in some cases reality itself
9. Justify theft, murder, treason, terrorism, etc and call it humanitarianism.
I'm sure those on my list are probably stupid enough to be proud to be on it but I could care less. They've proven many times over that they have nothing intelligent, logical, reasonable, or worthwhile to add to any conversation on any topic. They can have their own little retarded party where they pat each other on the back and jerk each other off and it's all good with me because I won't have to see it.
I've spent a long time on this list and given these people every opportunity to show that they have even the slightest bit of anything resembling intelligence and they've proven over and over that they have nothing to offer but stupidity. Why waste my time on their ignorance when I can have rational and intelligent discussions with others. There are many offensive people who have not made it to my list yet because the jury is still out on them, but for those I mentioned and a few I didn't there is no doubt what-so-ever that they will never offer anything above the intelligence level of a bag of hammers.
Oh, my, is the man psychic or what? I think he's peeking, that's what I think. YES! I AM MORE POWERFUL THAN A BAG OF HAMMERS - my new tag line!
Can I join the war dance? =D :beer:
I always like bag of hair but bag of hammers has some merit I must admit.
If we're in a circle jerk Radar must be jerking himself off ;)
Originally posted by jaguar
Can I join the war dance? =D :beer:
I always like bag of hair but bag of hammers has some merit I must admit.
Yes, my friend! Give some big Indian war whoops and rattle their teeth over there in Switzerland!
Looking at the scorecard, radar is 7 for 9 himself ...
8 for 9 if you consider his constitutional interpretations as "religious zealotry".
I can see by the flurry of posts marked "This person is on your Ignore List." I must have touched a nerve. Either that or they're saying totally predictable things to congratulate each other or to suggest other names to be added. Whatever. Let them stroke each other.
Now, back to the topic at hand and how only voluntarily funded services are legitimate and all government funded services amount to robbery and slavery....
Hopefully we'll have a few intelligent people to discuss this and who won't waste their time on those who should be on everyone's iggy list.
I'm zero for 9 wolf. You need to work on your math skills.
Originally posted by marichiko
Ooooh, I'm so excited! I made the cellar "A" team! Give me 5, Jag! Give me 5, Sycamore! You, too, Lady Sidhe, what the heck? You, too, "etc"., (and don't think we don't all know who you are!) This is the best news I've had all morning! It also means that never again will I have to read one of Radar's stupid responses to something I post. What a relief! Guess the big guy just couldn't stand the heat, so instead of getting out of the kitchen, he now wears an abestos suit and plugs his ears to things he doesn't like hearing. What a loss of credibility (not that he had a shred to begin with), and as usual done by his own hand. Yes! Yes! YES! (Does a war dance around the living room.) A toast to all my fellow "censored by Radar" celler members!
:beer:
PS The best part is that while he won't be able to read what I post, I can still read what HE posts and make fun of him. Its like having my very own star wars cloaking shield. I can poke fun at him and he won't know what the other two people he didn't censor are laughing about! Oh my, this a great bit of humor to start my day off with. Will someone whom he doesn't censor please pass along to him my heartfelt thanks?
High-five's ya.
Considering he can't prove half of what he considers reasons for inclusion into his list.....
edits to include the happy dance...
Ok...I vote to sterillize Radical Radar....
;)
Originally posted by Radar
Now, back to the topic at hand and how only voluntarily funded services are legitimate and all government funded services amount to robbery and slavery....
As it happens I do agree with you in principle on this, although I don't think that the current social support network in this country would be able to provide adequate care to all in need. I DO think that there are a lot of abuses of the welfare and disability systems, however. There is a BIG difference between someone on disability because they are mentally retarded or severely mentally ill and need custodial care and someone whose disability is alcohol or drug use.
Substance abuse is NOT a disease, it's a decision, and I shouldn't have to pay for the consequences of someone else's stupidity.
(incidentally, by taking such a position, I'm cutting off my own nose to spite my face, because treating those worthless drug users on the county, state, and federal dime pays my salary. I'm guessing only about 1/4 of the people I see have private insurance coverage, the rest are uninsured or have medical assistance. I'll have to try to get a copy of our annual report. Those percentages used to be in there.)
Originally posted by Radar
I'm zero for 9 wolf. You need to work on your math skills.
Sorry, but I have to agree with Wolf on this one...you're 8 for 9, at LEAST....
Edit: TS...I guess the best way to see if you're on his list is to comment to him....if he doesn't answer you, then there ya go.
Originally posted by Griff
Ah, got ya. I've been "listed" before so we may just be talking to ourselves anyway. What were we talking about?
Mandatory birth control for people who are profoundly retarded....at the moment, anyway.
Buddy List
Online
Beestie is on-line Beestie PM X
case is on-line case PM X
hot_pastrami is on-line hot_pastrami PM X
jinx is on-line jinx PM X
perth is on-line perth PM X
Radar is on-line Radar PM X
wolf is on-line wolf PM X
Offline
blue58 is off-line blue58 PM X
Brigliadore is off-line Brigliadore PM X
Cam is off-line Cam PM X
Dagney is off-line Dagney PM X
Elspode is off-line Elspode PM X
Happy Monkey is off-line Happy Monkey PM X
jaguar is off-line jaguar PM X
JeepNGeorge is off-line JeepNGeorge PM X
ladysycamore is off-line ladysycamore PM X
mrnoodle is off-line mrnoodle PM X
OnyxCougar is off-line OnyxCougar PM X
Slartibartfast is off-line Slartibartfast PM X
staceyv is off-line staceyv PM X
SteveDallas is off-line SteveDallas PM X
Sun_Sparkz is off-line Sun_Sparkz PM X
sycamore is off-line sycamore PM X
Undertoad is off-line Undertoad PM X
xoxoxoBruce is off-line xoxoxoBruce PM X
zippyt is off-line zippyt PM X
My buddy list is empty except for one person.
is it you? :D
i'm going to try to put myself on my ignore list now. ;)
Originally posted by lumberjim
is it you? :D
i'm going to try to put myself on my ignore list now. ;)
Give me an idea for an interesting game.
Put certain people on your ignore list and try to come to the same conclusion as everyone else in the same conversation.
I never used the buddy list thing. The only person who has ever been on my ignore list is radar.
i just added clodfobble to my buddy list. she's cool.
Originally posted by Troubleshooter
Give me an idea for an interesting game.
Put certain people on your ignore list and try to come to the same conclusion as everyone else in the same conversation.
how the hell would that work? we can;t come to the same conclusion when we all read every post!
Ok, I understand the point of the ignore list - but what's the point of the buddy list?
I thought the buddy list had a max of like 10 or 11 names?
from what i can tell, it adds 2 empty lines every time you update it
i originally put everyone that was a cmep member on there. plus there are a few i actually like....not to say that i don;t like everyone on the cmep...hell i like all of you...mostly
as far as the point goes, I use my control panel constantly, and it tells me when someone is online. why? i dunno. but i bet it burns dagney's ass that she's on mine.....i think i'm on her ignore list, so she won;t know that i'm talking about her.
So it's more of a stalking list than a buddy list isn't it?
ya know shelb, sometimes you are a little TOO insightful....know what i mean?
besides, i do all of my stalking by looking at the "who's on line" feature mooohooohoooha :D
Originally posted by lumberjim Beestie is ... PM X
Dude, I'm a guy - I don't get PMX. :)
Originally posted by Lady Sidhe
Ok...I vote to sterillize Radical Radar....
;)
Me, too! You know, I'm finding out that you and I have more in common than I originally thought. If we're going to sterilize people for stupidity, Radar definately makes the top of that list! I mean how dumb can you get? Make up an enemies list and post it, ensuring that even if those people didn't like you before, they don't now, then blind yourself to their comments while they, along with everyone else can read ALL comments. If that isn't a formula for making yourself a dumbass laughing stock, I don't know what is.
As to the sterilization question, if anyone still cares: I actually agree with you that people who are profoundly mentally retarded should not have children that they can't care for. Its just that I think its up to the parents or close family of the individual to ensure that doesn't happen. It spooks me out to give the government power to sterilize people.
PMX IS AN ABBREVIATION FOR PRE MENSTRUAL CRUCIFIXION....YOU SURE YOU DON'T GET IT?
So it's more of a stalking list than a buddy list isn't it?
I put Radar on my buddy list so I can follow his movements (heh, heh, heh);)
Originally posted by marichiko
As to the sterilization question, if anyone still cares: I actually agree with you that people who are profoundly mentally retarded should not have children that they can't care for. Its just that I think its up to the parents or close family of the individual to ensure that doesn't happen. It spooks me out to give the government power to sterilize people.
I thought that there had been families that tried to have their mentally retarded children steralized that were refused by the courts because the individual's rights superceded those of the parent's desire.
i think radar is cool.
doesn't care if he offends, doesn;t care if you don;t agree. doesn;t miss the goddamn apostrophe key as much as i do, has passion about our country, he's funny, he's rude, he's not afraid of a nice flame fest......plus, he called sycamore "cum bubble" once!
Originally posted by wolf
I thought that there had been families that tried to have their mentally retarded children steralized that were refused by the courts because the individual's rights superceded those of the parent's desire.
Who would have brought this issue before the court though? If both parents and the doctors were on board with it, and the child was retarded... who filed suit? Is it possible that it was a custody dispute kind of thing?
My mother's friend was advised by her severely retarded son's doctor to have him sterilized. She did.
Jim, you should ask your mother (teacher at Deveraux) about this issue... how commonn sterilization is etc..
Such cases are brought by the State on behalf of the retarded child/adult, typically, usually in the form of a social worker with the Dept. of Mental Health/Mental Retardation.
Originally posted by lumberjim
but i bet it burns dagney's ass that she's on mine.....i think i'm on her ignore list, so she won;t know that i'm talking about her.
I bet she could care less.
Originally posted by lumberjim
i think radar is cool.
Well, he didn't put you on his hate list either, now, did he?;)
Originally posted by wolf
I thought that there had been families that tried to have their mentally retarded children steralized that were refused by the courts because the individual's rights superceded those of the parent's desire.
Could you give us a cite for this, Wolf? If true, it really only goes to prove my point that the government should not be allowed in such matters. :confused:
Originally posted by marichiko
Well, he didn't put you on his hate list either, now, did he?;)
might have.....he left some uncertainty of the remainder of the list........suspenseful
So, Radar finally made good on his threat, eh? Let's see...
Radar, you're nothing but a wife-buying nigger.
I used the buddy list a couple of times, but it's not very useful for me. Ignore list...I used it for all of 5 minutes once on Maggie.
Fortunately, the only person I have to worry about stalking me on Cellar is UT, since he's the only one that can see me on the board.
Originally posted by sycamore
I bet she could care less.
well, now that you've quoted it, she'll see it. thanksafuckinglot :)
I doubt it...I don't think she's been on the board much lately. Like everything revolves around you. :)
what, it doesnt;?
what the fuck. I was assured that i was the center of the universe.......
well, i'm still the center of my own attention. alone, restless, breakfast table in an otherwise empty room.
might have.....he left some uncertainty of the remainder of the list........suspenseful
Actually you're the only one on the buddy list.
i am truly honored. no really.
[COLOR=indigo]Um....are we supposed to be "offended" or hurt if we're on Radar's ignore list? I know that I wouldn't give it a second thought. Radar's little list is the equivalent of putting his fingers in his ears and saying lalalalala. And he calls ME the blithering idiot. [/COLOR]
This is a message board, what possible difference could it make if someone else is on at any given moment? If you post, anyone that cares to can read it, even lurkers. Buddy list? Ignore list? It's all a bunch of bullshit, Christ I feel like I'm in High School.:vomit:
yeah, those lurkers freak me out man......
c'mon, lurker, show yourself.
Originally posted by xoxoxoBruce
This is a message board, what possible difference could it make if someone else is on at any given moment? If you post, anyone that cares to can read it, even lurkers. Buddy list? Ignore list? It's all a bunch of bullshit, Christ I feel like I'm in High School.:vomit:
I agree and I hereby deeply apologize to Radar for making fun of him. Radar, your wit and eloquence are something we all (myself included) should emulate. Hats off to you, big guy. (teehee):p
Originally posted by xoxoxoBruce
Christ I feel like I'm in High School.
i feel like you went to high school with christ. ;)
......newsflash.....
it's getting very dark and stormy right now, and the salesmen are standing on the stoop clapping for the brilliant flashes of lightning. like it's a fireworks display.........
and you guys wonder why i'm wierd......i hang around these retards all day.
Originally posted by marichiko
I agree and I hereby deeply apologize to Radar for making fun of him. Radar, your wit and eloquence are something we all (myself included) should emulate. Hats off to you, big guy. (teehee):p
"Nothing in the world is more dangerous than sincere ignorance and consciencious stupidity." - Martin Luther King, Jr.
Hmmmmmm.:rolleyes:
Originally posted by xoxoxoBruce
Hmmmmmm.:rolleyes:
Oh, give it a break, Bruce. I'm just kidding around. In all sincerity, I actually would be willing to agree to disagree with Radar, but he shut off that option. (shrugs shoulders) Besides, I was going to take a ride in the mountains today, only instead it rained, so I'm stuck here with nothing to do. You know what they say about idle minds... ;)
doesn't care if he offends, doesn;t care if you don;t agree. doesn;t miss the goddamn apostrophe key as much as i do, has passion about our country, he's funny, he's rude, he's not afraid of a nice flame fest......
Well if he is blocking off most of th people he disagrees with to the point of annoyance ( and thats what his list looks like to me ) then he isnt willing to engage in flamefests at all. If he just flips a switch whenever someone pisses him off so that their posts are no longer there for him to read, then he seems to me to be studiously avoiding getting into any flamefests.
.......Seems odd to me. I dont much see the point of engaging in forum communities if you are just going to sieve out anything you dont like. In the real world RADAR and I could not share air within 100 metres of each other without launching into hostility I am quite sure....But on a forum it's a chance to hear an entirely different point of view......It's also a chance to play out some of that hostility (against the "enemy") in a semi friendly way .....
I'll admit I am actually surprised to find RADAR of all people blocking posts ......I figured him more open to the fight than that.
Originally posted by Radar
Now, back to the topic at hand and how only voluntarily funded services are legitimate and all government funded services amount to robbery and slavery....
*remove head from ass* continue conversation. Radar - i am not a big supporter of entitlement programs paid for by tax money - but damn dude - taxes are not a violation of your rights, not all services are evil, and noone is stealing from you.
Originally posted by Radar
My buddy list is empty except for one person.
well, you know what they say about people who only play with themselves???
Originally posted by marichiko
Me, too! You know, I'm finding out that you and I have more in common than I originally thought. If we're going to sterilize people for stupidity, Radar definately makes the top of that list! I mean how dumb can you get? Make up an enemies list and post it, ensuring that even if those people didn't like you before, they don't now, then blind yourself to their comments while they, along with everyone else can read ALL comments. If that isn't a formula for making yourself a dumbass laughing stock, I don't know what is.
As to the sterilization question, if anyone still cares: I actually agree with you that people who are profoundly mentally retarded should not have children that they can't care for. Its just that I think its up to the parents or close family of the individual to ensure that doesn't happen. It spooks me out to give the government power to sterilize people.
I agree with you, on both counts.
When a family takes care of a profoundly retarded member, they should watch out for them, in every sense of the word, because they can't watch out for themselves. They're too trusting and can be taken advantage of too easily because they don't understand the consequences of what they do. But when the people are in an institution, there should be a safety net. I know that when I worked at the mental hospital, a few of the patients got pregnant, even with staff members watching them.
One thing I've noticed is that once family members put someone in an institution, it's like that person no longer exists for them. I saw a few family members visit some of the patients, but for the most part, you'd think these people hatched out of eggs and didn't have family. One girl had been there for almost 20 years, and her family just abandoned her there.
Sidhe
Originally posted by Lady Sidhe
I know that when I worked at the mental hospital,
you forgot the " " marks around "worked" .....;)
Originally posted by Lady Sidhe
, a few of the patients got pregnant, even with staff members watching them.
so, i'm visualizing a bunch of people in white coats standing around a bed........
Originally posted by OnyxCougar
[COLOR=indigo]Um....are we supposed to be "offended" or hurt if we're on Radar's ignore list? I know that I wouldn't give it a second thought. Radar's little list is the equivalent of putting his fingers in his ears and saying lalalalala. And he calls ME the blithering idiot. [/COLOR]
LOL I had to be told that I was on his list...gee I wonder why? Maybe it's because HE'S ON MINE! Whaaatever...:rolleyes:
If I understand correctly, putting someone on your ignore list is breaking the cardinal rule of keeping "your friends close, but your enemies closer"
Or is that enemas?
And has anyone noticed that ignore seems to have the same root as ignorant?
Originally posted by lumberjim
so, i'm visualizing a bunch of people in white coats standing around a bed........
Allow me to elaborate....
When I WORKED (as in I had an ID and could leave at the end of the day, WITHOUT having to get a pass and have someone accompanying me:D ) at the mental hospital, a few of the patients who had ground passes ended up going behind the church (no, I don't know which one it was) and were later found to be pregnant.:eek:
Generally, patients with ground passes still had escorts, btw.
Sidhe
Originally posted by marichiko
Could you give us a cite for this, Wolf? If true, it really only goes to prove my point that the government should not be allowed in such matters. :confused:
I'm still looking for that particular citation, however, I did find a
very good analysis of the topic.
I really miss having a coworker with passwords to lexis/nexis.
Good one, Wolf. I thought that was a fairly logical, coherant analysis of the problem. Its just not a cut and dried issue, by any means.
*remove head from ass* continue conversation. Radar - i am not a big supporter of entitlement programs paid for by tax money - but damn dude - taxes are not a violation of your rights, not all services are evil, and noone is stealing from you.
Taxes are theft plain and simple. Nobody can prove otherwise and are therefore a violation of our rights. Not all services are evil, just those that are funded through theft or coercion. Privately funded social services are great.
Originally posted by Radar
Privately funded social services are great.
How so?
Originally posted by Radar
Taxes are theft plain and simple. Nobody can prove otherwise and are therefore a violation of our rights. Not all services are evil, just those that are funded through theft or coercion. Privately funded social services are great.
Same old dog and pony show from Radar. I think that rather then arguing the Constitution (which can be vague in some areas, and open to different interpretations of its meaning by everyone except Radar), it might be more productive (or at least more interesting) to discuss the moral and political philosophy from which a culture takes its standards. What is it that we owe society and what in turn does society owe us? How does the concept of enlightened self interest fit into the picture? Given the breakdown of the family unit, does it behoove the government to step in and make decisions for individuals that once upon a time their family members would have made? Tossing in the argument that the "Constitution says or doesn't say" is to me, merely a diversionary tactic, aimed at derailing the original question in matters such as this one.
How so?
Scientology can come into your school and claim to be an anti-drug program as a private social service. (true story, look up a group called Narcanon)
How so?
They keep an average of less than 15 cents of every dollar for overhead and get the vast majority of money to those who need it, they are people who genuinely care about the plight of those in need, they are not funded through theft or coercion, and they can offer more help even if collecting less money. In short they are better in every possible way.
Originally posted by jaguar
Scientology can come into your school and claim to be an anti-drug program as a private social service. (true story, look up a group called Narcanon)
I'm familiar with scientology... *shudders*
Originally posted by Radar
They keep an average of less than 15 cents of every dollar for overhead and get the vast majority of money to those who need it, they are people who genuinely care about the plight of those in need, they are not funded through theft or coercion, and they can offer more help even if collecting less money. In short they are better in every possible way.
Can you give me a few compny names?
Here's a few links to charities that provide "human services" ranging from foodbanks, to shelters, to many other areas sorted by those who are the most "efficient". When you click on a particular charity it tells you how much they need to spend and how much gets to those who need it.
By looking under "Program Expenses" you'll see the actual percentage of money that gets to those who need it.
For instance the American Red Cross gets 91.3% of the money collected to those who need it.
The United Way gets 95.1% to those in need.
Mercy-USA for Aid and Development gets 93.6% to those in need.
International AIDS Vaccine Initiative gets 90.4% to those in need.
San Francisco Food Bank gets 97.5% to those in need.
I dare you to compare the efficiency, dedication to those in need, etc. of even a poorly performing non-profit charity to government.
http://www.charitynavigator.org/?bay=search.results&cuid=29&sortby=rtg
http://www.charitynavigator.org/?bay=search.results&cuid=15&sortby=rtg
http://www.charitynavigator.org/?bay=search.results&cuid=18&sortby=rtg
http://www.charitynavigator.org/?bay=search.results&cuid=17&sortby=rtg
http://www.charitynavigator.org/?bay=search.results&cuid=16&sortby=rtgI also did an analysis of the average of all human services charities from the worst to the best and the average amount they get to those in need is 84.1% which is almost as much as the government keeps for overhead.
http://www.charitynavigator.org/index.cfm?bay=my.tools.sector&cgid=6&cuid=&rgid=&stid=&subSector.x=81&subSector.y=13