If you can read this, either the style sheet didn't load or you have an older browser that doesn't support style sheets. Try clearing your browser cache and refreshing the page.

(Yahoo)   Romney: 'I will put work back in welfare'. Oh well, the welfare vote was for Obama anyway   (news.yahoo.com) divider line 348
    More: Spiffy, Mitt Romney, obama, farm subsidies, Leersia oryzoides, welfare fraud, President Clinton, welfare reform, Hillary Rodham Clinton  
•       •       •

1843 clicks; posted to Politics » on 07 Aug 2012 at 10:06 PM (2 years ago)   |  Favorite    |   share:  Share on Twitter share via Email Share on Facebook   more»



348 Comments   (+0 »)
   
View Voting Results: Smartest and Funniest

Archived thread

First | « | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | 7 | » | Last | Show all
 
2012-08-07 11:40:30 PM

mrshowrules: I always thought welfare was backwards. Every adult citizen should receive a basic survival stipend regardless how rich or poor you are. Work to make extra money or not with no penalty.


The problem with that kind of system is a lot of people would say "fark it" and not work even if they could. That leaves a greater burden on the people working, who might also say "fark it" and join the dole. Eventually you run out of people willing to work.

The more generous the dole, the more likely this will happen. Yes, I know you said "basic survival stipend". Politics being what they are, you just know that will increase well beyond the basics.
 
2012-08-07 11:41:38 PM

nmrsnr: You know what my favorite part about this is? What the Obama administration wants to do is remove a FEDERAL requirement for welfare, thereby allowing INDIVIDUAL STATES more freedom to set their own rules. Why do the Republicans want a big government imposing on states' rights?


Came here to say this
 
2012-08-07 11:42:41 PM
After all, Mitt, work will set you free.
 
2012-08-07 11:42:53 PM

A Dark Evil Omen: "Welfare" is farcical anyway. It's an offering of crumbs from the people who've taken all of the resources to the people they've most abused. Welfare - traditional welfare, which doesn't exist in this country, is the bare absolute minimum that should be done.


Indeed. It's also been cut back so much and it's so hard to obtain in some states that the safety net is all but gone. There was a good piece not that long ago that profiled the experiences of women in Georgia trying to obtain welfare, and it's a nightmare and I don't think ANYONE would ever choose to live this way.

Here- worth the read for anyone who thinks welfare's totally awesome free money for the people who get it: Link

It doesn't help that a ton of the women who receive welfare are young, poor single mothers. You know what would probably help? If we cut funds to Planned Parenthood because planning when you have children is of the devil.
 
2012-08-07 11:43:21 PM

bhcompy: odinsposse: BojanglesPaladin: Remind me again why a work requirement for those able to work is a bad thing again?

For most people, if they could get work they wouldn't need welfare.

So don't even go through the motions, right?


You realize welfare recipients have other requirements they need to fulfill don't you?
 
2012-08-07 11:44:25 PM

The Jami Turman Fan Club: So...you have no problem with your coworkers being mental patients who were kicked out of hospitals? Drug addicts? Violent felons? Or is it OK as long as somebody else has to work with them?


And you assume all homeless people fit into those categories? Having been homeless, I find that rather amusing

/and you've obviously never worked at Apple
 
2012-08-07 11:44:52 PM

BojanglesPaladin: Remind me again why a work requirement for those able to work is a bad thing again?


What jobs? Romney's going to force lettuce growers to hire unemployed Americans for minimum wage? You know what kind of a hit they'll take on that?
 
2012-08-07 11:44:54 PM

A Dark Evil Omen: "Welfare" is farcical anyway. It's an offering of crumbs from the people who've taken all of the resources to the people they've most abused. Welfare - traditional welfare, which doesn't exist in this country, is the bare absolute minimum that should be done.


I received "welfare" for two months. TANF, they called it. It was for me and THREE children... I received $562 a month.

Yep, living mighty high on the hog with $562. Mind you, my rent is $1,100, and my utilities another $180.

What "welfare" gave me was job placement help, and good help at that. Truly vested and dedicated help... so yeah, Mitt, let;s crack down on this.

Mitt Romney makes $176 a minute, based on a 40-hr work week. So he makes as much in THREE-MINUTES as I'm expected to live on for a MONTH... Real class act. He's definitely in touch with the working man's struggle.
 
2012-08-07 11:52:56 PM

cretinbob: [sphotos-b.xx.fbcdn.net image 425x618]


Cute...

but he fails to mention the media blasting Anne Romney about her $990 blouse while they praised Michelle Obama sporting a $6,800 jacket... now does he?

 
2012-08-07 11:53:10 PM
So they guy who went to a $20,000/yr private high school and had his house bough for him and gave 100 million dollars to his kids is concerned that others will not work for what they got?
 
2012-08-07 11:53:58 PM

brianbankerus: A Dark Evil Omen: "Welfare" is farcical anyway. It's an offering of crumbs from the people who've taken all of the resources to the people they've most abused. Welfare - traditional welfare, which doesn't exist in this country, is the bare absolute minimum that should be done.

I received "welfare" for two months. TANF, they called it. It was for me and THREE children... I received $562 a month.

Yep, living mighty high on the hog with $562. Mind you, my rent is $1,100, and my utilities another $180.

What "welfare" gave me was job placement help, and good help at that. Truly vested and dedicated help... so yeah, Mitt, let;s crack down on this.

Mitt Romney makes $176 a minute, based on a 40-hr work week. So he makes as much in THREE-MINUTES as I'm expected to live on for a MONTH... Real class act. He's definitely in touch with the working man's struggle.


Not arguing that welfare is insufficient, but can you explain to me how Romney's (or anyone really) income level affects yours? Would your situation be improved if Romney made 1/10th of his current income?
 
2012-08-07 11:55:12 PM
farm7.staticflickr.com

www.cbpp.org
 
2012-08-07 11:56:44 PM

BojanglesPaladin: Not arguing that welfare is insufficient, but can you explain to me how Romney's (or anyone really) income level affects yours? Would your situation be improved if Romney made 1/10th of his current income?


Romney might understand the plight of people on welfare more if he didn't make as much as the average American family in five minutes.
 
2012-08-07 11:56:50 PM

nmrsnr: You know what my favorite part about this is? What the Obama administration wants to do is remove a FEDERAL requirement for welfare, thereby allowing INDIVIDUAL STATES more freedom to set their own rules. Why do the Republicans want a big government imposing on states' rights?


It's unbelievable how big of a f*cking dirty lying sh*thead Romney is. Here are the facts:

a) Republican governors want waivers in order to experiment with welfare, see if they can make it work better
b) Romney was one of these governors that requested this in 2005
c) Obama grants these waivers in 2009, PROVIDED that they DON'T remove work requirements
d) Romney accuses Obama of removing work requirements

TAA-DAAAAAA! He did no such thing, and nothing could be further from the truth.

Absolutely un-farking-believable.
 
2012-08-07 11:57:44 PM

BojanglesPaladin: brianbankerus: A Dark Evil Omen: "Welfare" is farcical anyway. It's an offering of crumbs from the people who've taken all of the resources to the people they've most abused. Welfare - traditional welfare, which doesn't exist in this country, is the bare absolute minimum that should be done.

I received "welfare" for two months. TANF, they called it. It was for me and THREE children... I received $562 a month.

Yep, living mighty high on the hog with $562. Mind you, my rent is $1,100, and my utilities another $180.

What "welfare" gave me was job placement help, and good help at that. Truly vested and dedicated help... so yeah, Mitt, let;s crack down on this.

Mitt Romney makes $176 a minute, based on a 40-hr work week. So he makes as much in THREE-MINUTES as I'm expected to live on for a MONTH... Real class act. He's definitely in touch with the working man's struggle.

Not arguing that welfare is insufficient, but can you explain to me how Romney's (or anyone really) income level affects yours? Would your situation be improved if Romney made 1/10th of his current income?


It doesn't directly, but it's an excellent point to make when you're trying to point out that Mitt Romney has absolutely ZERO conception of what it's like to struggle for money, never has and never will, and that the fact that he's arguing for people who have next to nothing and have to live for a month on what he makes in three seconds to get by with even less is pretty gross.
 
2012-08-07 11:58:09 PM

Bashar and Asma's Infinite Playlist: Romney might understand the plight of people on welfare more if he didn't make as much as the average American family in five minutes.


Bah, "If he didn't make as much as the average American family makes in a week, as he does in five minutes."
 
2012-08-07 11:58:32 PM

nmrsnr: You know what my favorite part about this is? What the Obama administration wants to do is remove a FEDERAL requirement for welfare, thereby allowing INDIVIDUAL STATES more freedom to set their own rules. Why do the Republicans want a big government imposing on states' rights?


Not all Republicans... but sadly Ron Paul wasn't on the NWO list

 
2012-08-07 11:58:40 PM

Cubicle Jockey: mrshowrules: I always thought welfare was backwards. Every adult citizen should receive a basic survival stipend regardless how rich or poor you are. Work to make extra money or not with no penalty.

This is somewhat inevitable, as automation and productivity keep increasing, and AI algorithms continue to improve, eventually there will only be one person in the world who NEEDS to work, and his job is just to make sure that the robots that repair the robots that repair the robots that repair all the other robots don't break down.

The period between then and now will require a massive shift in our collective view of what "work" means.


Interesting but I honestly leave believe my approach would increase employment.
 
2012-08-08 12:00:15 AM

BojanglesPaladin: Remind me again why a work requirement for those able to work is a bad thing again?


It completely misses the point of welfare. Welfare is a minimum living wage that someone needs to avoid starving to death/homelessness/etc. For reasons that I hopefully don't have to explain, it is highly advantageous for a country to minimize the number of its citizens living in abject poverty.

It goes without saying that most people in the position to collect welfare don't have their shiat together for one reason or another. If you give them hurdles to jump over in order to collect their minimum living wage, some will not clear these hurdles and you're going to end up with people starving/dying on the streets.

For many of us, increasing the number of people starving/dying on the streets would require some very clear, large benefit. I simply don't see almost any benefit with these "work for welfare" bills, as they seem to be designed solely to punish poor people. I don't know why Republicans are so obsessed with punishing and shaming poor people, but lets be clear - they generally live pretty shiatty lives, and it is a humongous waste of time and energy to sit around figuring out ways to further punish them for their poorness.
 
2012-08-08 12:00:22 AM

OgreMagi: The problem with that kind of system is a lot of people would say "fark it" and not work even if they could.


This always assumes that people won't work at all. I'd rather assume that people will work at what they enjoy.
It's the same kind of theory behind happy employees being more productive.
What you're really saying is that people won't do shiat work for shiat wages anymore, as McDonald's and WalMart are going to have to pay more, instead of relying on the desperation to keep their wages rock-bottom.
 
2012-08-08 12:01:51 AM

vegasj: but he fails to mention the media blasting Anne Romney about her $990 blouse while they praised Michelle Obama sporting a $6,800 jacket... now does he?


One of them was at an official state function and the other one wasn't.
 
2012-08-08 12:04:32 AM

Dusk-You-n-Me:

I don't know what 'expedited' means specifically, but more projects in three years than in the past two decades sounds admirable. Given more money and resources, I don't see why we can't do even better.


Cost of Iraq War = $3 Trillion
Homes in the US = ~125 million

Iraq War cost per house: ~$24,000

Cost to fit an average house in the US with Solar Power or Geothermal Heating/Cooling ~$10,000 to $30,000 depending on area and suitability of house.

The resources are there, the political will isn't. For the money spent in Iraq we could have fitted every house in America with Solar power or a Geothermal Heating/Cooling system, whichever would be more appropriate for the area, and still have hundreds of billions of dollars to spare.
 
2012-08-08 12:05:20 AM

Bashar and Asma's Infinite Playlist: We'll essentially be dealing with the same problems that the Roman Empire faced.

Granted a daily stipend of bread, access to leisure activities, and legal slavery, citizens of Rome could either piss away their day off in the hills or voluntarily work in order to bring home some money for luxuries. The problem with this comes from the availability of resources and amount of non-Roman persons needed to support Rome itself. In a world where the only person who needs to work is the guy who repairs the robots (who repair the robots) there's going to be a huge population of people working for crumbs across the world who don't have the same privileges that the "Romans" do.

When that comes to pass, we'll see the same sorts of things happening that brought down the Western Roman Empire. The robots may revolt. The poor and disenfranchised within "Rome" will rebel. The exploited territories will rise up for their own freedom. Granted it was easier to rebel back when you had to march a legion for three months to get to the Rhine, but populations have shown they can always strike back against military superiority.


There is one fundamental difference: you can't revolt against your masters if you don't have free will. Even the most advanced artificial intelligences that exist today (e.g. Watson) only know how to do one or a few specific tasks, and are simply not capable of doing otherwise. Building a true AI with free will may be an interesting academic challenge, but nobody would ever incorporate such AI into a system where life and limb is at stake.

Now, it IS conceivable that a robotic "slave revolt" could happen if a skilled hacker managed to take over lots of robots and reprogrammed them to act as makeshift soldiers--assuming that the worker robots were built in such a way that they could actually do some harm (I don't think my Roomba could ever be a danger to life and limb no matter how it was programmed). More likely, the hacker would shut them down, thereby forcing a kind of general strike until the hacked robots could be restored.
 
2012-08-08 12:06:17 AM
Oh yeah. There's nothing like some spoiled-rich-kid-grown-up sending single mothers miles away to do menial labor while their children come home to a parentless house.

/Watching "Bowling For Columbine" was all I needed to know about "workfare".
 
2012-08-08 12:06:31 AM

balloot: BojanglesPaladin: Remind me again why a work requirement for those able to work is a bad thing again?

It completely misses the point of welfare. Welfare is a minimum living wage that someone needs to avoid starving to death/homelessness/etc. For reasons that I hopefully don't have to explain, it is highly advantageous for a country to minimize the number of its citizens living in abject poverty.

It goes without saying that most people in the position to collect welfare don't have their shiat together for one reason or another. If you give them hurdles to jump over in order to collect their minimum living wage, some will not clear these hurdles and you're going to end up with people starving/dying on the streets.

For many of us, increasing the number of people starving/dying on the streets would require some very clear, large benefit. I simply don't see almost any benefit with these "work for welfare" bills, as they seem to be designed solely to punish poor people. I don't know why Republicans are so obsessed with punishing and shaming poor people, but lets be clear - they generally live pretty shiatty lives, and it is a humongous waste of time and energy to sit around figuring out ways to further punish them for their poorness.


Yup. You know what's fun about living in New Orleans (which I don't anymore but I did until recently)? There are a bunch of middle class white Republicans that are convinced welfare is a horrible, horrible thing... and who are also terrified to drive through large parts of the city at night and don't seem to comprehend that perhaps, if the people in some of those neighborhoods didn't live in abject, desperate poverty, things might be a little more stable.
 
2012-08-08 12:06:38 AM

OgreMagi: mrshowrules: I always thought welfare was backwards. Every adult citizen should receive a basic survival stipend regardless how rich or poor you are. Work to make extra money or not with no penalty.

The problem with that kind of system is a lot of people would say "fark it" and not work even if they could. That leaves a greater burden on the people working, who might also say "fark it" and join the dole. Eventually you run out of people willing to work.

The more generous the dole, the more likely this will happen. Yes, I know you said "basic survival stipend". Politics being what they are, you just know that will increase well beyond the basics.


I disagree. It is human nature to want more. Today, someone on welfare is punished by working. They lose the entire social net. Under a social credit system (this is not a new idea BTW), you could work 8 hours, 16 hours, 32 hours a week and get to keep (less taxes of course).

Many social programs have been working on systems to not punish people able to find some work. Why not make it official. If rich people think it is unfair, give them the credit also. A person barely scraping by with the payment can't be looked down upon by the person using the payment to buy hair care products for their dog.

If a social net is necessary. The question is what is the fairest way of ensuring it with the least Government intervention, most fairness, greatest protection of human dignity and greatest incentive to remain productive. A social credit system delivers.
 
2012-08-08 12:07:14 AM

Sergeant Grumbles: What you're really saying is that people won't do shiat work for shiat wages anymore, as McDonald's and WalMart are going to have to pay more, instead of relying on the desperation to keep their wages rock-bottom.


This is the key thing. Capitalism is based in compulsion; the capitalist system collapses without a large labor underclass. It needs people who can be forced to work doing demeaning labor without even being granted the respect and dignity due someone who does demeaning and unpleasant work because it needs to be done. Without a threat of poverty and victimization hanging over peoples' heads you'll need people who believe that it's worthwhile to do that work, and no one will get rich abusing them.
 
2012-08-08 12:08:24 AM

BojanglesPaladin:
Not arguing that welfare is insufficient, but can you explain to me how Romney's (or anyone really) income level affects yours? Would your situation be improved if Romney made 1/10th of his current income?


Are you not familiar with the concept of wealth distribution?

The 99% work harder for less gain strictly so that the 1% can have cushier lives.

All we've done to separate ourselves from the feudal system is give up on the concept that the accident of birth can imbue one with the capacity and right to lead.

Granted, as the leisure class goes, Romney is a pikey. But he's still a leisurely pikey.
 
2012-08-08 12:09:33 AM

OgreMagi: mrshowrules: I always thought welfare was backwards. Every adult citizen should receive a basic survival stipend regardless how rich or poor you are. Work to make extra money or not with no penalty.

The problem with that kind of system is a lot of people would say "fark it" and not work even if they could. That leaves a greater burden on the people working, who might also say "fark it" and join the dole. Eventually you run out of people willing to work.

The more generous the dole, the more likely this will happen. Yes, I know you said "basic survival stipend". Politics being what they are, you just know that will increase well beyond the basics.


Canada tried an experiment in this in the 1970's. It was called Mincome.

The only people who were observed to work less were mothers of very young children and teenagers who chose to stay in school longer.
 
2012-08-08 12:10:14 AM
I mean honestly, it's clear that for at least the last 30 years we've had a system in place that is designed to concentrate wealth at the top.
 
2012-08-08 12:10:52 AM

BojanglesPaladin: Not arguing that welfare is insufficient, but can you explain to me how Romney's (or anyone really) income level affects yours? Would your situation be improved if Romney made 1/10th of his current income?


I don't begrudge Romney for his amazing track record of financial success. I do have a problem with him vowing to slash spending and balloon the deficit just so him and his rich friends can horde an extra few pounds of cash.

Romney won't say what he would cut, but he'd have to make deep and broad cuts across the board just to keep the deficit terrible, while still giving tax-cuts to the super-wealthy.

I'm willing to pay 10% more. I think everyone should be willing to give an extra 10%, if it means keeping our country afloat. I'm not rich by a damn site. I've got 4-kids now and my wife stays home with the boys, but I'm still willing to pay another 10%. Romney has more money than he could spend in 10 lifetimes, but he still wants to keep more for himself, even at the cost of our nation's economic stability. That's sociopathic behavior, and I can't support him because of it.
 
2012-08-08 12:14:58 AM

TheDumbBlonde: martissimo: Nadie_AZ: The mormon idea of 'welfare' is interesting. You go over your finances and then talk with the bishop. They usually will help with food, first. You get an ok for a certain amount of food, take that down to the church storehouse and get the food (I volunteered at one that looked like a mini grocery store). In exchange for this, you volunteer at the warehouse or cannery, or wherever as you can to pay it back.

It is interesting in that this could work on a very local scale. But there is no corporate profit in this, so I can't see him embracing it.

I usually work in 2 man teams on my job sites (as a commercial carpenter lots of jobs are 2 man jobs due to size, sometimes larger, but usually 2) and one frequent partner I've worked with is a Mormon, he's a really nice guy and good carpenter.

He says they will even help out and pay your rent and shiat in hard times if you need it, sounds like they really do help each other quite a bit

/sounds like socialism to me
//had to put something snarky in there, this is fark

Sounds more like charity to me inthat the government is not involved.


Members of a society forced to give a percentage of income to a greater organization recognized bt the society as in charge. the organization then spends that money helping the poor.

Dont fear the G-word.
 
2012-08-08 12:15:43 AM

brianbankerus: BojanglesPaladin: Not arguing that welfare is insufficient, but can you explain to me how Romney's (or anyone really) income level affects yours? Would your situation be improved if Romney made 1/10th of his current income?

I don't begrudge Romney for his amazing track record of financial success. I do have a problem with him vowing to slash spending and balloon the deficit just so him and his rich friends can horde an extra few pounds of cash.

Romney won't say what he would cut, but he'd have to make deep and broad cuts across the board just to keep the deficit terrible, while still giving tax-cuts to the super-wealthy.


Don't forget his promise to dramatically increase defense spending by approximately $200 billion / year.

Imagine if they could secure $200 billion a year dedicated to mass transit expansion in the US and what that would do to US oil dependency.
 
2012-08-08 12:15:58 AM

Asa Phelps: BojanglesPaladin:
Not arguing that welfare is insufficient, but can you explain to me how Romney's (or anyone really) income level affects yours? Would your situation be improved if Romney made 1/10th of his current income?

Are you not familiar with the concept of wealth distribution?

The 99% work harder for less gain strictly so that the 1% can have cushier lives.

All we've done to separate ourselves from the feudal system is give up on the concept that the accident of birth can imbue one with the capacity and right to lead.

Granted, as the leisure class goes, Romney is a pikey. But he's still a leisurely pikey.


I'm familiar. I also reject it in its entirety and have since I left high school. The rich aren't stealing the proletariat's labor. There are a lot of problems without system, but your charicterization is fundamentally wrongheaded. IMHO. Your mileage may vary.
 
2012-08-08 12:16:17 AM

anfrind: There is one fundamental difference: you can't revolt against your masters if you don't have free will. Even the most advanced artificial intelligences that exist today (e.g. Watson) only know how to do one or a few specific tasks, and are simply not capable of doing otherwise. Building a true AI with free will may be an interesting academic challenge, but nobody would ever incorporate such AI into a system where life and limb is at stake.

Now, it IS conceivable that a robotic "slave revolt" could happen if a skilled hacker managed to take over lots of robots and reprogrammed them to act as makeshift soldiers--assuming that the worker robots were built in such a way that they could actually do some harm (I don't think my Roomba could ever be a danger to life and limb no matter how it was programmed). More likely, the hacker would shut them down, thereby forcing a kind of general strike until the hacked robots could be restored.


Yeah, that's why I said they may revolt. There are a lot of variables in play in our progress towards "robots do everything for us," and it's not inconceivable that some programmer will attempt to create artificial life just to see if it's possible. That new AI may or may not improve itself to the point where humanity is a liability. It's also not inconceivable that we decide beforehand that Asimov's Three Rules are pretty important and imprint them everywhere, yet someone might decide to create a non-restricted AI.

Granted, living in the U.S., we can't agree that climate change will kill billions of people in the next century because we like cheap gas, so it's unlikely that rules against robot uprising will be passed anytime soon, but assuming we live that long, robots may or may not rebel against us in the future.
 
2012-08-08 12:16:18 AM

odinsposse: bhcompy: odinsposse: BojanglesPaladin: Remind me again why a work requirement for those able to work is a bad thing again?

For most people, if they could get work they wouldn't need welfare.

So don't even go through the motions, right?

You realize welfare recipients have other requirements they need to fulfill don't you?


Which does not take nearly as much time as a job or job hunting
 
2012-08-08 12:18:54 AM

brianbankerus: BojanglesPaladin: Not arguing that welfare is insufficient, but can you explain to me how Romney's (or anyone really) income level affects yours? Would your situation be improved if Romney made 1/10th of his current income?

I don't begrudge Romney for his amazing track record of financial success. I do have a problem with him vowing to slash spending and balloon the deficit just so him and his rich friends can horde an extra few pounds of cash.

Romney won't say what he would cut, but he'd have to make deep and broad cuts across the board just to keep the deficit terrible, while still giving tax-cuts to the super-wealthy.

I'm willing to pay 10% more. I think everyone should be willing to give an extra 10%, if it means keeping our country afloat. I'm not rich by a damn site. I've got 4-kids now and my wife stays home with the boys, but I'm still willing to pay another 10%. Romney has more money than he could spend in 10 lifetimes, but he still wants to keep more for himself, even at the cost of our nation's economic stability. That's sociopathic behavior, and I can't support him because of it.


Thank you for your answer.
 
2012-08-08 12:21:40 AM

Sergeant Grumbles: OgreMagi: The problem with that kind of system is a lot of people would say "fark it" and not work even if they could.

This always assumes that people won't work at all. I'd rather assume that people will work at what they enjoy.
It's the same kind of theory behind happy employees being more productive.
What you're really saying is that people won't do shiat work for shiat wages anymore, as McDonald's and WalMart are going to have to pay more, instead of relying on the desperation to keep their wages rock-bottom.


I think it could work as long as the opportunity exists for everyone to find something they really enjoy and to do it. And right now, many people simply don't have those opportunities.

For example: I have a cousin who recently graduated from high school. She is an extremely talented artist (she once transformed an old dining chair into a sculpture of a cat), and her work is so good that she could use it to get into any art school in the country. However, she lives in a tiny town in Ohio where there are very few opportunities for her to put her talents to use (and I suspect she doesn't really want to move far away). Whereas if she lived in Silicon Valley, she could get a membership with TechShop and create all manner of cool art pieces, and/or enroll in art classes at any of half a dozen colleges and universities that are all within easy commuting distance of each other.
 
2012-08-08 12:27:32 AM

anfrind: Sergeant Grumbles: OgreMagi: The problem with that kind of system is a lot of people would say "fark it" and not work even if they could.

This always assumes that people won't work at all. I'd rather assume that people will work at what they enjoy.
It's the same kind of theory behind happy employees being more productive.
What you're really saying is that people won't do shiat work for shiat wages anymore, as McDonald's and WalMart are going to have to pay more, instead of relying on the desperation to keep their wages rock-bottom.

I think it could work as long as the opportunity exists for everyone to find something they really enjoy and to do it. And right now, many people simply don't have those opportunities.

For example: I have a cousin who recently graduated from high school. She is an extremely talented artist (she once transformed an old dining chair into a sculpture of a cat), and her work is so good that she could use it to get into any art school in the country. However, she lives in a tiny town in Ohio where there are very few opportunities for her to put her talents to use (and I suspect she doesn't really want to move far away). Whereas if she lived in Silicon Valley, she could get a membership with TechShop and create all manner of cool art pieces, and/or enroll in art classes at any of half a dozen colleges and universities that are all within easy commuting distance of each other.


So she has a largely unmarketable skill, doesn't want to take other work and doesn't want to take steps to become employed like move because she doesn'tfeellikeit? Are you saying she SHOULD be entitled to Welfare then?
 
2012-08-08 12:27:41 AM

MaudlinMutantMollusk: The Jami Turman Fan Club: So...you have no problem with your coworkers being mental patients who were kicked out of hospitals? Drug addicts? Violent felons? Or is it OK as long as somebody else has to work with them?

And you assume all homeless people fit into those categories? Having been homeless, I find that rather amusing

/and you've obviously never worked at Apple


What the fark? Where did I mention homeless? Where did the guy I replied to mention homeless?

That doesn't even qualify as a strawman. It's more like the cardboard cutout people put on their door on Halloween.
 
2012-08-08 12:27:47 AM

anfrind: I think it could work as long as the opportunity exists for everyone to find something they really enjoy and to do it. And right now, many people simply don't have those opportunities.


With a guaranteed government stipend anywhere you go, it's much easier to pick up and move from someplace where you have no opportunity.
As for your cousin not wanting to move, well, can't have everything.
 
2012-08-08 12:29:09 AM

Godscrack: [img809.imageshack.us image 728x470]


I can't make out what's written under HALT in that pic -- is it 'Hammerzeit' or 'Schweinhund!,' ?
 
2012-08-08 12:30:43 AM

martissimo: Nadie_AZ: The mormon idea of 'welfare' is interesting. You go over your finances and then talk with the bishop. They usually will help with food, first. You get an ok for a certain amount of food, take that down to the church storehouse and get the food (I volunteered at one that looked like a mini grocery store). In exchange for this, you volunteer at the warehouse or cannery, or wherever as you can to pay it back.

It is interesting in that this could work on a very local scale. But there is no corporate profit in this, so I can't see him embracing it.

I usually work in 2 man teams on my job sites (as a commercial carpenter lots of jobs are 2 man jobs due to size, sometimes larger, but usually 2) and one frequent partner I've worked with is a Mormon, he's a really nice guy and good carpenter.

He says they will even help out and pay your rent and shiat in hard times if you need it, sounds like they really do help each other quite a bit

/sounds like socialism to me
//had to put something snarky in there, this is fark


The problem is they ONLY help each other out. Fark people like you and me that aren't Mormon. You know those numbers the church reports in "aid." Ya...that only goes to fellow Mormons. No one else.
 
2012-08-08 12:31:14 AM

BojanglesPaladin: So she has a largely unmarketable skill, doesn't want to take other work and doesn't want to take steps to become employed like move because she doesn'tfeellikeit? Are you saying she SHOULD be entitled to Welfare then?


I think he's saying that with a different economic model - or the same model with a minimal safety net - she could do fulfilling, valuable work instead of having to sublimate her talents and abilities to the Party capitalist class.
 
2012-08-08 12:34:27 AM

BojanglesPaladin: So she has a largely unmarketable skill, doesn't want to take other work and doesn't want to take steps to become employed like move because she doesn'tfeellikeit? Are you saying she SHOULD be entitled to Welfare then?


Don't be obtuse. She has a skill that brings a lot of joy to a lot of people and that contributes something beautiful to the world, and zero opportunities to pursue it precisely because it's not treated as a valuable skill under the current system. Therefore, it would be cool to see what she could accomplish if she wasn't worried about how to keep the lights on and could actually hone her talents.

In an ideal world, this would be possible. We have the resources to make sure everyone's basic needs are taken care of, as well as the infrastructure to support it. We just don't have a political or economic system pushing in that direction.

I don't expect that to change, but continuing to advocate for more opportunities for the wealthiest among us to accumulate even more while we ignore everyone else and their well being doesn't create a future with a whole lot of promise.
 
2012-08-08 12:35:21 AM

A Dark Evil Omen: BojanglesPaladin: So she has a largely unmarketable skill, doesn't want to take other work and doesn't want to take steps to become employed like move because she doesn'tfeellikeit? Are you saying she SHOULD be entitled to Welfare then?

I think he's saying that with a different economic model - or the same model with a minimal safety net - she could do fulfilling, valuable work instead of having to sublimate her talents and abilities to the Party capitalist class.


Exactly. It's a great point too.
 
2012-08-08 12:35:44 AM

A Dark Evil Omen: BojanglesPaladin: So she has a largely unmarketable skill, doesn't want to take other work and doesn't want to take steps to become employed like move because she doesn'tfeellikeit? Are you saying she SHOULD be entitled to Welfare then?

I think he's saying that with a different economic model - or the same model with a minimal safety net - she could do fulfilling, valuable work instead of having to sublimate her talents and abilities to the Party capitalist class.


I'll wait to see his answer, rather than your projection.
 
2012-08-08 12:36:23 AM

BojanglesPaladin: A Dark Evil Omen: BojanglesPaladin: So she has a largely unmarketable skill, doesn't want to take other work and doesn't want to take steps to become employed like move because she doesn'tfeellikeit? Are you saying she SHOULD be entitled to Welfare then?

I think he's saying that with a different economic model - or the same model with a minimal safety net - she could do fulfilling, valuable work instead of having to sublimate her talents and abilities to the Party capitalist class.

I'll wait to see his answer, rather than your projection.


You do that, dear.
 
2012-08-08 12:36:36 AM

BojanglesPaladin: brianbankerus: BojanglesPaladin: Not arguing that welfare is insufficient, but can you explain to me how Romney's (or anyone really) income level affects yours? Would your situation be improved if Romney made 1/10th of his current income?

I don't begrudge Romney for his amazing track record of financial success. I do have a problem with him vowing to slash spending and balloon the deficit just so him and his rich friends can horde an extra few pounds of cash.

Romney won't say what he would cut, but he'd have to make deep and broad cuts across the board just to keep the deficit terrible, while still giving tax-cuts to the super-wealthy.

I'm willing to pay 10% more. I think everyone should be willing to give an extra 10%, if it means keeping our country afloat. I'm not rich by a damn site. I've got 4-kids now and my wife stays home with the boys, but I'm still willing to pay another 10%. Romney has more money than he could spend in 10 lifetimes, but he still wants to keep more for himself, even at the cost of our nation's economic stability. That's sociopathic behavior, and I can't support him because of it.

Thank you for your answer.


Really? Well shiat, you're welcome.

Normally I just bashed for my diatribes. Thank YOU for not being a dick about it. Seriously.
 
2012-08-08 12:38:22 AM

AdolfOliverPanties: mrshowrules: I always thought welfare was backwards. Every adult citizen should receive a basic survival stipend regardless how rich or poor you are. Work to make extra money or not with no penalty.

Eliminate food stamps, unemployment insurance, disability insurance, old age pensions etc... etc... No application. No eligibility requirements and you could eliminate an enormous chunk of the Federal Government because you could get the IRS to process the payments.

If you support a social net with dignity and small Government this is the only solution.

You are got-damned right. In this society, NO ONE should be homeless. If you want one room with a shower and shiatter, heat and electric, you can get it. Want TV? Want a car? Want books to read? That is extra and completely up to you. Want anything beyond the basic existence? Work for it, and get as much as you can. No one will begrudge you being rich if everyone at least has the basics to start with and you worked to get more.


Neither one of you will ever, ever get the republican nomination with dangerous ideas like that.
 
Displayed 50 of 348 comments

First | « | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | 7 | » | Last | Show all

View Voting Results: Smartest and Funniest


This thread is archived, and closed to new comments.

Continue Farking
Submit a Link »






Report