Why is it?

[Lowaicue]

do you seriously believe it describes a greater percentage of the rich than it does the poor?.....

compile a list of rich people accused of philandering....compile a list of rich people engaged in acts of philanthropy.......which list is longer......

I told you not to cherry pick. Can't you do anything you are told? Now come and sit at the front where I can keep an eye on you.

 

[USFREEDOM911]

there is sufficient for everyone.?/////

Yes Assle.....there is sufficient for everyone.....all one needs to do is get it....They need to earn it....... and work for it, etc.......

Just don't expect IT to be given to you......given to you by someone that force ably TAKES it from someone else that has already EARNED IT, WORKED FOR IT for themselves......
You don't seem to quite understand that simple concept....

If you wait for the banana to fall from the tree, you might just starve waiting, but if you climb up and get it, its yours.....unless someone like you takes it away to give to somebody else.....
Am I getting through to you ?......

You're not getting through to him; because there's not much that can penetrate thick layers of lead.

 

[PostmodernProphet]

I told you not to cherry pick. Can't you do anything you are told? Now come and sit at the front where I can keep an eye on you.

I didn't realize "cherry pick" meant that the stupid parts of your posts were off limits.....

 

[Lowaicue]

I didn't realize "cherry pick" meant that the stupid parts of your posts were off limits.....

Clearly there are many things you do not realise.

 

[PostmodernProphet]

Clearly there are many things you do not realise.

'no, it's just that there are more stupid things in your posts than I have time to "pick"......

 

[Lowaicue]

'no, it's just that there are more stupid things in your posts than I have time to "pick"......

If your time is so valuable don't waste it reading the wisdom that flows from my keyboard. The choice is yours, dear boy.

 

[apple0154]

Thanks for again demonstrating your stupidity. Of course different areas have different needs. That is why it should be LOCALIZED and not some Federal Government program. The locals are going to better address the problems they face in their communities. Your ignorance is in suggesting that the government can do a better job than the individuals can by donating to the charities in their areas.

Yes, the government can do a better job. By different needs I was referring to the donations received. Obviously a depressed area is going to get fewer donations meaning the charity in that specific area can not satisfy the needs of the people. Also, charities usually are specific goal oriented.

If a church charity has to decide between helping the widow in the choir pay her land tax or helping the local non-churchgoing single mother with three kids guess who is going to receive the help. You should be able to figure this one out as it doesn't require a brain.

 

[apple0154]

Well then why do you keep trying to tell us how to fix these things, when you know they can't be fixed? Why do you keep trying to solve a problem that isn't a 'problem' and can't be 'solved', because it is a fact of life?

Just because it is a fact of life does not mean it can’t be addressed. It’s a fact of life some people are more outgoing and tend to succeed more often. Therefore, we help those who are less outgoing. Some people are more vocationally inclined than academically inclined so we can steer them towards trades as opposed to, say, computer programming.

Some people do, again, it's a fact of life. If we raise tax on wealthy people and give poor people more, it's not going to change this fact of life one bit. People will still get jobs through people they know. People will still do favors for people they know. Can you not comprehend how this is a non-starter? We can't have an intelligent debate based on a non-starter, it doesn't work.

We can’t have an intelligent debate when one considers the topic a non-starter. We’ve seen the proof of that in government. The Repubs considered government medical a non-starter so the Dems had a debate without them.

Yes, people will get jobs through friends and other connections. That does not mean we can’t help those who don’t get a job. The point being not having a job does not necessarily mean a person is lazy.

What? Wait a sec... this makes no sense whatsoever, even considering who it's coming from! Take two unmotivated people... they are BOTH on welfare, because they lack the motivation to get a job! If you want to say that one is motivated enough to go get a job, and the other remains on welfare, maybe I can grasp what you are saying here, but they certainly aren't equally unmotivated in your example. We've already determined the "who ya know" problem is a fact of life we can't do anything about, we have to live with facts of life. Nothing can be done.

You missed the point. Take two people on welfare. Let’s call them Bill and John. Bill’s friend works at a company that’s hiring and informs Bill about the job openings. Bill applies and gets the job. John’s friend works for a company that isn’t hiring so John doesn’t get any job leads. A month later Bill is working and John is still collecting UI or welfare. That doesn’t mean John is lazy and Bill is motivated. Luck and circumstance played the big roll.

If the person is not motivated, it doesn't matter. Training for WHAT? To do WHAT? For WHO? If the point is to help unmotivated people, the solution is simple, forget about government programs, that just adds another layer of government bureaucracy we don't need, and have no use for anyway, and it's not going to change facts of life. Before the unmotivated can be truly helped, they have to be motivated... it's a Catch 22. Therefore, we need to just write checks and pay for whatever the unmotivated person needs, wants or desires, for the rest of their life, and not require them to do anything in return. Problem solved!

I said it was simple, not doable. Of course, you can see where there might be a problem here, as word got out that unmotivated people were being given everything they need want and desire and don't have to do anything in return, more and more people would become unmotivated to work hard, or even work at all. Eventually, you would get to the point where no one wanted to work, and everyone wanted to stay home and collect checks, but there is no one to pay the checks or write the checks.... are you getting any of this? I feel like I am talking to a two-year old sometimes.

The reason you feel like you’re talking to a two-year old is because you’re talking like a two-year old.

Government help/checks do not fulfill the wants or desires of an animal, let alone a human being. Governments can work with businesses advertising openings they may have. Once a week have a list of new job openings posted in UI and welfare offices. Free advertising. Maybe place an AD in the local paper once a week listing the new jobs and a phone number to call for further information.

I keep hearing about how generous government benefits are but I never hear of anyone quitting their job to collect them. Why is that? Money, food stamps, subsidized rent….why are people still working if the benefits are so good?

Oh, but I think this might be where you are wrong. Some people respond to personal insults, it motivates them to action! You might call someone "LAZY" and it might offend them to the point of self-reflection, and they may realize they are indeed being lazy, and this might be the kick in the ass they needed to get motivated to make a change? You don't know, maybe that was all it took for them, a harsh word?

I know when I was a kid, often times I would have no money in my pocket, and I knew the way to get money was to do my chores and earn my allowance, so I was motivated to take action. If my father had just wanted to "help" me, like you want to "help" the poor and unmotivated, he could have just peeled off a $20 bill and given it to me, for the sake of benevolence, since I was poor... but he didn't do that. He also didn't just create make-work for me to do, which wasn't needed. If I wanted something more than my allowance allowed for, I had to be patient and save my money over time, or do other things for people I knew, or who knew me...etc. and this taught me certain values I have carried with me all my life.

That’s great but you still had food and shelter and clothing whether or not you worked. Why didn’t having those basic necessities make you lazy? It appears you believe if we give people food and shelter and clothing it would make them lazy so from where do you get that idea?

I don't know, maybe people thought it was best to do otherwise? Maybe times changed, and now more and more people are going back to school while working a full-time job? I have no way of telling you why South Carolina did something, or why it took so long, or even if it's the best idea or not, I don't know that it is.

Well, it has to be better than having someone sitting at home or in the bar all day. Many years ago when I was collecting UI I asked why I couldn’t attend free government courses offered to welfare recipients. It was explained to me businesses paid into UI and business owners did not like the idea of paying for someone’s education. Talk about a narrow-minded, selfish and stupid attitude. They’d rather pay someone to stay home instead of allowing them to increase their education and chances of getting a job.

I recall a little ditty a friend of mine used to recite. It went something like this. “Breweries made this country and breweries can save this country. What we need is a good 5-cent beer. Get the unemployed off the street and in the bar where they belong. Yea, John Molson!”

In those days a glass of beer was 15 cents or two for 25 cents. Those were the days.

Well because we are having a distinctly difficult time at the moment, determining what is and isn't "proper" in this regard. You see, we both share different political philosophies, and you don't seem to understand they conflict with each other, and we can't resolve these differences in a civil manner anymore. You stubbornly refuse to accept the ideas of anyone else, you believe you are right and the sooner everyone else realizes it, the better off we'll all be. I diametrically disagree with you, on a host of things, from what motivates the unmotivated, to how we actually institute "HELP" for people who are in need. My idea of what "HELPS" people is not the same as yours, we disagree on what is helping and what is hurting, and you aren't interested in having an intelligent discussion about it, your mind is made up. This is why it's taking so long.

OK. Let’s say we have a 17 year old. He’s not participating in sports. He’s not motivated at school. He’s dragging himself around the house.

Most parents would realize there was a problem and seek a solution. Maybe talk to their son. Maybe suggest professional counselling. They’d do something to help, to correct the situation.

Now, we go ahead two years and we have a 19 year old adult male. He’s not participating in sports. He’s not motivated to find a job. He’s dragging himself around his one room apartment collecting welfare. Society says he’s lazy. He’s a bum. In two years he’s gone from an adolescent having problems and requiring help to being a lazy bum who doesn’t deserve any help even though he exhibits the identical problems he had two years prior. Does it make any sense for society to be that way?

If we have a “child” (17 years old) who is behaving the same way as those we refer to as “lazy, no-good, bums” we realize he needs help and we seek it. Doesn’t it make sense to do the same thing for the “lazy, no-good, bums”?

So you think we should do this forcibly, like maybe with the National Guard?
What if they suffer from fear of hospitals and don't want to go? ...National Guard too?
Or let them read this thread!

Reading this thread is a great idea!

If we have a chronic unemployed individual, yes, insist they have a complete medical check-up and, if necessary, a mental evaluation. Let’s rule out medical reasons. As I’ve said many times a healthy, happy human being will try to improve their lot in life at least to the point they are not suffering. If they don’t there’s something wrong. What is there to argue with about that?

Looks like 'just bitching about them' to me. You don't seem interested in having the debate over what constitutes "helping" and how we can motivate the unmotivated. You are determined to stick to your guns come hell or high water, and refuse to see any other point being made, while continuing to harp, moan, groan, writhe, and spew socialist Marxist rhetoric for days and weeks on end. You seem pretty content with that.

Really? Damn... and here I thought poor hungry people were that way because they wanted to be... silly me, glad you straightened me out on that one, Apple!

Yes, it is just common sense that we have to motivate the poor people to become more successful. This brings us back to how we motivate the unmotivated. Industrialized nations do have the resources to help, and ours is no exception, we've shelled out over $70 trillion in entitlements through the past 80 years, and are currently on the hook for $100 trillion more in the future, as it stands. So I don't think you can actually argue that we aren't doing our part to help those in need, Apple. Sorry, it just doesn't wash.

As for your views on society: ...where competition is stressed to the point where the goal is to beat everyone and help no one... This is a somewhat frightening subject to delve into with you, because I fear what you might have in mind to alleviate this "problem." Do you not comprehend that capitalism is freedom? That competition drives innovation? These are very important aspects to a free society, and if you start tinkering with them, the entire experiment can collapse. But again, you are coming up with things that are merely "facts of life" and there isn't really a "solution" to them, because they aren't problems.

Your sentiments are revealing here... the goal is to beat everyone else and help no one? Really? Who's goal is that? Bill Gates made the news recently with a BILLION dollar donation to charity... clearly, here is a man who has "beaten everyone else" in his field, yet he seems fairly willing to help others. You see, the thing is, you don't yet comprehend what "HELP" means, or how to "HELP" others, you are still stuck in some Utopian dream world, where things aren't realistic, and we can't solve the 'problems' you encounter, unless we steal rich people's fortunes and turn society into a Marxist failure. You still can't see where your "solutions" are not solutions, they are enabling the unmotivated to remain unmotivated, and aren't "HELPING" anything. 80 years, $70 trillion... STILL we have a problem? Get real!

YOU are the problem!

Innovation is great. Competition is great. But losers do not have to suffer to the degree they have no home or insufficient food. As to “help” the amount offered is given grudgingly and in insufficient amounts. If a person requires medication one does not offer half the amount required. If one requires $100 for rent and is offered $50 that doesn’t do any good. They will still be thrown out of their apartment.

Because insufficient help is offered problems are never solved. The welfare recipient remains on welfare. Rather than spend the necessary funds for a complete medical check-up and counselling the government continues to send them a check, month after month, with no improvement.

You confuse my belief in needed help with some utopian society. What I’m advocating is find out what the problem is rather than just sending minuscule amounts of money, month after month, which ends up costing far more in the end.

 

[Airstrip One]

The "hate" is not because someone is rich. The anger is due to others suffering, doing without. If a person has sufficient food to eat they usually don't care what others are eating. The average person driving home from work is not cursing when driving through a wealthy part of town but a person on a bus passing through the same part of town on their way home from a part time, minimum wage paying job knowing they can't afford this month's rent will probably feel differently.

It's not greed or laziness or jealously or hate. Their anger is not at someone having money. Their anger is at the suffering they have to endure when there is sufficient for everyone.

1) There wouldn't be many charities if people with plenty didn't care.
2) Perhaps those poor workers could take a different bus that goes through the projects, where they are less apt to get mugged and whatnot.

 

[Airstrip One]

If your time is so valuable don't waste it reading the wisdom that flows from my keyboard. The choice is yours, dear boy.

Your keyboard must be broken. You've been at it for some time, but wisdom has yet to appear in any of your posts. I'm willing to take your word, and assume that you intended to bounce wisdom off of those clickers, so I'll just recommend that you have your keyboard examined.

 

[apple0154]

1) There wouldn't be many charities if people with plenty didn't care.

The problem is people with plenty donate to pet causes and not a general pool requiring government to oversee the big picture.

 

[Dixie - In Memoriam]

It’s a fact of life some people are more outgoing and tend to succeed more often. Therefore, we help those who are less outgoing. Some people are more vocationally inclined than academically inclined so we can steer them towards trades as opposed to, say, computer programming.

So now we should base social engineering on personality traits? Oh, it's not like someone "LAZY" could or would call themselves "less outgoing," is it? Because genuine lazy people are usually honest about that and admit it readily....we can trust they will, right?

You see, the problem I really have with you, is evidenced throughout your response... "we can steer them..." Like what, cattle??? Who the fuck do you think you are, that you can make determinations about me or what I am more or less "inclined" to do? Why the fuck do you think you need to tell me what I am qualified for, why can't I decide that on my own, am I too stupid? MORON! Everything you yammer about, puts government all up in MY business, making MY decisions, making determinations FOR me... and you think that is FREEDOM????

The Repubs considered government medical a non-starter so the Dems had a debate without them.

And the history of how that turned out is still being written. Never before, in the history of America, has a Congress passed such massive and intrusive legislation, without a single bipartisan vote. That was a mistake, and it will haunt the Democrat party for years.

Also... you need to go look up the definition of "non-starter" because health care reform was certainly never a non-starter for republicans, they had (and still have) many great ideas for reforms, unfortunately, Democrats rammed what they wanted down our throats, now it's being regurgitated.

Yes, people will get jobs through friends and other connections. That does not mean we can’t help those who don’t get a job. The point being not having a job does not necessarily mean a person is lazy....Luck and circumstance played the big roll.

Yes, people will get jobs through friends and other connections, that means no matter what we do, this will still happen. We are already helping, and will continue to help, those who can't get a job. I guess the government has been doing this for so long, that you just take it for granted? The problem is, what we are doing, is never good enough for you. That's why you are now positing the ridiculous position that we should have some way of government knowing who has friends and connections and who doesn't, so we can help those who don't!

And AGAIN.... Who is claiming that the only reason people are jobless is because they are lazy? YOU are the only one saying this!

Government help/checks do not fulfill the wants or desires of an animal, let alone a human being. Governments can work with businesses advertising openings they may have. Once a week have a list of new job openings posted in UI and welfare offices. Free advertising. Maybe place an AD in the local paper once a week listing the new jobs and a phone number to call for further information.

There is no such thing as "free advertising" or free anything, for that matter. I cringe every time I hear "government working with business" because what that really means is, government meddling and costing business more money to do business. As I pointed out, if you really want to help those who are unmotivated, just send them checks... endless bottomless checks... pay for everything their heart desires, from cradle to grave, and don't bitch about the cost. Otherwise, you aren't going to fix this problem. You apparently think that sending the unmotivated a check, is going to suddenly motivate them, and I am telling you, it doesn't work that way in the real world.

I keep hearing about how generous government benefits are but I never hear of anyone quitting their job to collect them. Why is that? Money, food stamps, subsidized rent….why are people still working if the benefits are so good?

I guess you must have voices in your head, you keep hearing all this shit that no one is saying... again, no one I know of has ever said that government benefits are too generous. There is too much fraud, we dole government benefits out to people who shouldn't be getting them, we allow people to get government benefits longer than they should, we're handing out benefits which aren't needed in many cases, but for the most part, living on government assistance is not preferable to having a good paying job, and it's not supposed to be. Still, if you can't find a job, or are too lazy to look for a job, government benefits are better than nothing.

If we have a chronic unemployed individual, yes, insist they have a complete medical check-up and, if necessary, a mental evaluation. Let’s rule out medical reasons. As I’ve said many times a healthy, happy human being will try to improve their lot in life at least to the point they are not suffering. If they don’t there’s something wrong. What is there to argue with about that?

Again with the government control over our lives! "WE" don't "HAVE" anyone! People are FREE in this country, they are not owned by the government! And what the fuck do you mean, "improve their lot in life?" That's not "FAIR" is it? Why should some get to improve their lot while others suffer? And why can't people improve their own lots without government stepping in? Seems to me, we went for years and years with no government assistance programs, and people managed to improve their lots just fine.

I asked you before (although it was sarcastic).... should we utilize the National Guard? You know, heard up these unmotivated people and force them to undergo medical and mental evaluations against their will, so we can "fix" them?

Innovation is great. Competition is great. But losers do not have to suffer to the degree they have no home or insufficient food.

I think you truly live in a different world than I. Here in the world I live in, we have any number of programs to assist those in need, both government-sponsored programs, and private sector. We have spent over $70 trillion on helping those who are suffering or have insufficient food. We have Medicaid and health clinics to provide health care to the poor, along with indigent care laws which mandate hospitals to care for people, even when they can't pay. Now... if none of these things were being done, I could perhaps understand your constant droning about it, but really... it's not a problem.

You confuse my belief in needed help with some utopian society. What I’m advocating is find out what the problem is rather than just sending minuscule amounts of money, month after month, which ends up costing far more in the end.

Well, as I said... the problem is people who are unmotivated. I agree with you, we'll never solve this problem sending minuscule amounts of money month after month, it's a waste of time and effort. You're absolutely right, it has cost us $70 trillion over the last century, and we still have all these people suffering...dying in the streets, according to you. So it's obvious what needs to be done... We need to just start writing endless checks for everything the unmotivated need, want and desire! We already know they aren't going to find a job, or become suddenly motivated because of our generosity, so why would we expect that? Let's just resign ourselves to paying for whatever the unmotivated need to make them happy in life, because... life is too short, Apple!

 

[Dixie - In Memoriam]

The problem is people with plenty donate to pet causes and not a general pool requiring government to oversee the big picture.

Hey Apple, The Government called and said you need to go wipe your ass.... you see, it's Saturday, and with budget cuts and the economy, they can't afford to send someone to your home to do it for you, but they were concerned that you might be too stupid to remember, and wanted me to pass this message on.

 

[Airstrip One]

The problem is people with plenty donate to pet causes and not a general pool requiring government to oversee the big picture.

Please pull the government cock out of your mouth and wipe your chin.

 

[Lowaicue]

​

Your keyboard must be broken. You've been at it for some time, but wisdom has yet to appear in any of your posts. I'm willing to take your word, and assume that you intended to bounce wisdom off of those clickers, so I'll just recommend that you have your keyboard examined.

In the land of the blind....

 

[USFREEDOM911]

​

In the land of the blind....

...LowIQ will continue to be an ass.

 

[Annie]

Why do you think the poor are lazy? What about the people who lost their job and home? Are they lazy?

I don't think they are 'lazy,' but I think many are unrealistic and perhaps envisioning their recuperative times differently than they'll eventually be. They turn down jobs that are less than they were making previously. They refuse to consider schedules they consider burdensome. That's feasible I suppose while collecting unemployment. With the number of weeks though, it's becoming years. With years on unemployment, one starts to look less desirable, to put that mildly. Even those jobs they refused earlier will become unavailable to them with their new resume.

 

[icedancer2theend]

An economics professor at a local college made a statement that he had never failed a single student before, but had recently failed an entire class. That class had insisted that Obama's socialism worked and that no one would be poor and no one would be rich, a great equalizer.

The professor then said, "OK, we will have an experiment in this class on Obama's plan". All grades will be averaged and everyone will receive the same grade so no one will fail and no one will receive an A.... (substituting grades for dollars - something closer to home and more readily understood by all).

After the first test, the grades were averaged and everyone got a B. The students who studied hard were upset and the students who studied little were happy. As the second test rolled around, the students who studied little had studied even less and the ones who studied hard decided they wanted a free ride too so they studied little..

The second test average was a D! No one was happy. When the 3rd test rolled around, the average was an F. As the tests proceeded, the scores never increased as bickering, blame and name-calling all resulted in hard feelings and no one would study for the benefit of anyone else. To their great surprise, ALL FAILED and the professor told them that socialism would also ultimately fail because when the reward is great, the effort to succeed is great, but when government takes all the reward away, no one will try or want to succeed. It could not be any simpler than that.

Remember, there IS a test coming up. The 2012 elections.

These are possibly the 5 best sentences you'll ever read and all applicable to this experiment:
1. You cannot legislate the poor into prosperity by legislating the wealthy out of prosperity.
2. What one person receives without working for, another person must work for without receiving.
3. The government cannot give to anybody anything that the government does not first take from somebody else.
4. You cannot multiply wealth by dividing it!
5. When half of the people get the idea that they do not have to work because the other half is going to take care of them, and when the other half gets the idea that it does no good to work because somebody else is going to get what they work for, that is the beginning of the end of any nation.

And another interesting commentary on the idea of collectivism~

—

 

[apple0154]

So now we should base social engineering on personality traits? Oh, it's not like someone "LAZY" could or would call themselves "less outgoing," is it? Because genuine lazy people are usually honest about that and admit it readily....we can trust they will, right?

You see, the problem I really have with you, is evidenced throughout your response... "we can steer them..." Like what, cattle??? Who the fuck do you think you are, that you can make determinations about me or what I am more or less "inclined" to do? Why the fuck do you think you need to tell me what I am qualified for, why can't I decide that on my own, am I too stupid? MORON! Everything you yammer about, puts government all up in MY business, making MY decisions, making determinations FOR me... and you think that is FREEDOM????

Before you start hyperventilating I was talking about people receiving UI or welfare, people receiving government assistance. Aptitude tests would help the individual find out where their strength lies. The key word is “help”. If you’re employed you don’t need help so nobody would interfere with you.

And the history of how that turned out is still being written. Never before, in the history of America, has a Congress passed such massive and intrusive legislation, without a single bipartisan vote. That was a mistake, and it will haunt the Democrat party for years.

You mean the Democrat party will be thanked for years just as the citizens in every other country with government medical not only support it but fight to keep it. That's why the Repubs want to repeal ObamaCare before it's fully implemented. They know that once that occurs they will be remembered as the party that fought against it and they'll pay the price, for years. That's the reason for the urgency. Four more years of an Obama Administration and the debate over government verses private medical will be moot, never to raise it's ugly head again.

Also... you need to go look up the definition of "non-starter" because health care reform was certainly never a non-starter for republicans, they had (and still have) many great ideas for reforms, unfortunately, Democrats rammed what they wanted down our throats, now it's being regurgitated.

Oh, please. The Repubs had generations to come up with a plan. They fought against Medicare. They had and have no intention of doing anything other than watching people suffer and die needlessly, deaths being at the current rate of 45,000/yr. Obama gave them a chance to participate but as the old saying goes, “A zebra can’t change it’s stripes.” Or “A giraffe can’t change it’s spots”. Or do you prefer tigers and leopards?

There is no such thing as "free advertising" or free anything, for that matter. I cringe every time I hear "government working with business" because what that really means is, government meddling and costing business more money to do business. As I pointed out, if you really want to help those who are unmotivated, just send them checks... endless bottomless checks... pay for everything their heart desires, from cradle to grave, and don't bitch about the cost. Otherwise, you aren't going to fix this problem. You apparently think that sending the unmotivated a check, is going to suddenly motivate them, and I am telling you, it doesn't work that way in the real world.

You’re right. Just sending checks doesn’t change anything. A different approach has to be taken and that’s offering other forms of help such as aptitude tests/evaluations, a complete medical check-up, counselling…..it’s called “Help.”

I guess you must have voices in your head, you keep hearing all this shit that no one is saying... again, no one I know of has ever said that government benefits are too generous. There is too much fraud, we dole government benefits out to people who shouldn't be getting them, we allow people to get government benefits longer than they should, we're handing out benefits which aren't needed in many cases, but for the most part, living on government assistance is not preferable to having a good paying job, and it's not supposed to be. Still, if you can't find a job, or are too lazy to look for a job, government benefits are better than nothing.

So if there’s too much fraud, people getting checks they don’t deserve, receiving them longer than they should the obvious solution is to monitor them more closely. Until they have medical check-ups and aptitude tests and counselling how does anyone know who deserves a check? Rather than just setting a time limit or treating everyone the same more personalized help would benefit everyone.

Again with the government control over our lives! "WE" don't "HAVE" anyone! People are FREE in this country, they are not owned by the government! And what the fuck do you mean, "improve their lot in life?" That's not "FAIR" is it? Why should some get to improve their lot while others suffer? And why can't people improve their own lots without government stepping in? Seems to me, we went for years and years with no government assistance programs, and people managed to improve their lots just fine.

Riiight. That’s why the New Deal was implemented because the poor and elderly were living the high life and the government just wanted to give them more money.

I suggest you read a history book or two at your local library. Things were not “fine”. People were dying due to poverty just like the 45,000 are dying every year, right now, due to a lack of medical care. If that doesn’t bother you, just say so. Don’t make up lies everything was and is fine.

I asked you before (although it was sarcastic).... should we utilize the National Guard? You know, heard up these unmotivated people and force them to undergo medical and mental evaluations against their will, so we can "fix" them?

Make it a condition upon receiving government help. Is that so complicated?

I think you truly live in a different world than I. Here in the world I live in, we have any number of programs to assist those in need, both government-sponsored programs, and private sector. We have spent over $70 trillion on helping those who are suffering or have insufficient food. We have Medicaid and health clinics to provide health care to the poor, along with indigent care laws which mandate hospitals to care for people, even when they can't pay. Now... if none of these things were being done, I could perhaps understand your constant droning about it, but really... it's not a problem.

So 45,000 people dying every year from a lack of medical care in not a problem?

Well, as I said... the problem is people who are unmotivated. I agree with you, we'll never solve this problem sending minuscule amounts of money month after month, it's a waste of time and effort. You're absolutely right, it has cost us $70 trillion over the last century, and we still have all these people suffering...dying in the streets, according to you. So it's obvious what needs to be done... We need to just start writing endless checks for everything the unmotivated need, want and desire! We already know they aren't going to find a job, or become suddenly motivated because of our generosity, so why would we expect that? Let's just resign ourselves to paying for whatever the unmotivated need to make them happy in life, because... life is too short, Apple!

Or we could help them.

An analogy would be like seeing a car in the ditch during a snow storm. We stop and offer a blanket for them to keep warm. A few hours later we stop by with warm coffee. A few more hours pass and we bring a few sandwiches. Then we complain nothing has changed. They always require help. Maybe if we called a tow truck and seen to it they got home OK we wouldn’t have to keep going back to help them.

It’s the same mind set with many government programs. A person is out of work. Rather than figure out WHY they’re out of work we just send them checks, month after month, while they remain out of work. Then we bitch about all the help we offer.

We have to help them get a job by testing, retraining, etc. Not just give them money while they’re out of work. If the problem is not solved we’re going to have to keep helping them just like the person in the car in the ditch.

Why is this so difficult for you to comprehend?

 

[apple0154]

Hey Apple, The Government called and said you need to go wipe your ass.... you see, it's Saturday, and with budget cuts and the economy, they can't afford to send someone to your home to do it for you, but they were concerned that you might be too stupid to remember, and wanted me to pass this message on.

Darn. They promised you would come.