RE: An Enabling Government

RE: An Enabling Government (Full Version)

All Forums >> [Community Discussions] >> Dungeon of Political and Religious Discussion

Message

tazzygirl -> RE: An Enabling Government (2/11/2010 6:26:17 PM)
So your point is to end the program, force people to make decisions as to which bill to pay or what meds to buy, or to buy foods? Or is it your contention that people should be forced to buy what you deem to be nutrious foods despite the fact that what is best for us is costly as hell.

thornhappy -> RE: An Enabling Government (2/11/2010 6:39:27 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: Mercnbeth I would be the first to say the role of charities and churches is to provide assistance to those in need. I question it being a priority of government. I don't know how things are working out in your area, but the churches and food kitchens around here are tapped out. I do know that in San Diego, many church-based programs require that you sit through a sermon first.

juliaoceania -> RE: An Enabling Government (2/11/2010 6:48:16 PM)
quote: The problem is that wholesome, nutritous, food is too expensive, I agree with that, but having food stamps does not mean that there cannot be other methods employed to make nutritious food more so. quote: and the solution that foodstamps provide is to force everyone to eat the subsidized junk food, That is not true, people can pick the food they want to eat on food stamps, including the fact that some farmer's market vendors even accept food stamps today quote: its very possible to meet your caloric requirements and still be malnourished, they're 2 different things. Again, the problem is not food stamps, it is the lack of nutritious foods in poor urban areas... I interviewed someone that was fighting malnutrition amongst urban poor people... grocery stores did not carry enough wholesome foods and fresh foods as do their suburban counterparts... ending the food stamp program isn't going to stop that.

AnimusRex -> RE: An Enabling Government (2/11/2010 6:52:56 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: Mercnbeth Is giving away 'fish', as the matrix is currently constituted, something you support? Are you okay with the distribution of corporate welfare by manipulating the market demand through the hands of individual beneficiaries like Ms. Bostick so she can buy oxtail meat, a policy you support? These are your two main points- one, that we are handing out fish, instead of helping people become self-sufficient. Two, that the program funnels money to agribusiness, and becomes a hidden subsidy. For the first point, I would strongly prefer helping people become self-sufficient.But the question is how? Have you got any ideas? I would love to hear them. Even if we had an economy of 3% unemployment (the lowest amount feasible) there would still be pockets of people for whom circumstances are such they can't work and feed their children. How we go from 10% of the workforce unemployed (and another 7% discouraged of looking) to a place where we can blithely admonish people "bootstraps, bitches" is beyond me. Your second point has more merit- agribusiness DOES have a near-stranglehold over the US Senate; there are enough states with two Senators apiece that depend on agribusiness, that a tiny portion of the country wields an outsize influence on government. So naturally any program designed to help people eat gets tainted with pork for Archer Daniels Midland or Hormel or whatever. Again- I would love solutions. Mine is to tax the bastards where we can, elect politicians who are responsive to the people not corporations, and in general raise hell. If there are any welfare cases to be bootstrapped, it is the agribusinesses that are busy suckling the teat of the government for subsidies. I propose we agree that they should be cut off the welfare gravy train first, then we talk about Mrs. Bostick and her oxtail soup.

eyesopened -> RE: An Enabling Government (2/12/2010 7:07:12 AM)
I'm curious, what is your suggestion? How would you "teach a man to fish" instead of giving a fish? There was a time when I had to go apply for food stamps. I didn't want to. Yes, the application was easy. The interview however, was not. This person made me feel like a criminal, I was nearly accused of being a scam artist just because I dressed nicely and brushed my hair. She had me in tears. I nearly walked out but I had two little kids who needed to eat. The amount of food stamps I was awarded was not enough to provide steak and lobster for a family of three that's for sure. I already knew how to fish. I wanted to fish. I love fishing! But sometimes, just sometimes the fish aren't biting. So what is your proposal?

Mercnbeth -> RE: An Enabling Government (2/12/2010 8:48:10 AM)
quote: I'm curious, what is your suggestion? How would you "teach a man to fish" instead of giving a fish? Step one would be to take away he corporate incentive to the process. Corporate government welfare pays the corporate farms at both ends of the equation; not to farm and the sale through welfare programs. Corporations need customers, take the government out as a customer and you'd be amazed with what they come up with. Henry Ford didn't pay his workers a better wage out of kindness, he did so to create customers. If there were government care buying subsidies, he would not have done so. Meanwhile this situation with corporate farms and national grocery chains is a capitalist's dream of nationalization. As this thread proves, you have liberals supporting the allocation of taxes to reward capitalism. Strange bedfellows indeed. Take the distribution out of the grocery stores and out as a profit center for corporate farmers. Distribute food, not money, and not a credit card. Staff the facilities necessary to accomplish that goal with the people needing, deserving, and wanting the benefits. It apples value and worth to the process. It wouldn't be the final solution to your query, but it would help. Your personal situation and others representing currently at least 10% of the population at this point, needing to 'learn how to fish' is relevant in this perspective. Existence is a goal. You can 'exist' on subsidiary food stamps. Using the example provided by the times, I'd point to a reduced need for ambition to better ones personal economic situation when, in lieu of that, the government will provide the $146 you deem necessary so you can afford oxtail meat. The perspective I have is, why work for it if the government is giving it to you. Is that wrong? Maybe this will illustrate my point more. They want to extend unemployment for 99 weeks; why seek work until week 98? Human nature is what it is, people may talk and envy those doing better, having more; but as long as they are existing their ambition and effort is pointed more to complaining about others and their personal blight versus actively doing something about it. I hear all the excuses; I can't move. I can't learn a new trade. I can't do whatever... Remove he government net, or at least require personal involvement and accountability and amazingly people start overcoming those excuses. Government programs have good intent and there are exceptional circumstances where a flat out handout is necessary for survival. Those conditions don't exist 100% of the time. There is no exit strategy in the projections of any government entitlement program. That fact alone points to a government - special interest - corporate alliance with focus on one goal; keeping and expanding the status quo. Unfortunately at times like these, the entire system is strained to the point of breaking. Those not on some form of public dole, the 7/8th of the population are trending to the 1/8 instead of the other way around. There is incentive from many sources to do so. quote: I already knew how to fish. I wanted to fish. I love fishing! But sometimes, just sometimes the fish aren't biting. Move, re-train, get new bait; as a fisherman how much time do you give to a fished out hole before moving on and trying something else? If you have tried everything and it's still not working, it may not be the system - it may be the person, facilitated by an enabling 'good intent' based government program.

willbeurdaddy -> RE: An Enabling Government (2/12/2010 10:31:30 AM)
Too put it less politically correctly than Merc, some people will use any tool at their disposal to further themselves. Give them the tools. Other people will game the system so that they can accomplish as little as possible. Change the rules of the game and they will learn motivation. And there is one very rare group of motivated people who are caught in circumstances beyond their control and no amount of motivation will improve their situation. Help them.

AnimusRex -> RE: An Enabling Government (2/12/2010 11:15:40 AM)
There was a time when I agreed with both Merc and Wiilbe; But over the years, I grew to see that the biggest welfare cases are not individuals, but corporations. Consider the F-35 fighter jet; the Pentagon didn't want it, but a group of corporations and Senators conspired to force it upon the American people, simply to funnel money into private pockets. Billions were spent before the program was shut down. Or Halliburton in Iraq, or Blackwater, or KBR; all these corporations grow obscenely fat and rich off the American taxpayer, bilking the American people for things we don't want and can't use, exploiting their political connections to avoid the stress of competing openly in the free market, sucking hard at the public teat. But to all this we shrug and turn a blind eye, but reserve our outrage and indignation at Mrs. Bostik for the temerity in asking for food stamps to feed her family a bowl of oxtail soup. People, this is an obscenity, something straight out of Charles Dicken's Oliver Twist, where the owners of the ophanage dine on sumptuous meals of pheasant and wine, but are outraged that Oliver has the temerity to beg for a second bowl of gruel. Halliburton admitted that they "lost" perhaps a billion dollars in Iraq, that could never be tracked down. How many bowls of oxtail soup could be bought with that? If Mrs. Bostik were to claim one exemption more than allowed, she would be turned out of the program without mercy or allowance. But Halliburton was never punished, no one was held to account, and they continue to receive government contracts to this day. Until we bootstrap the corporate welfare queens, I am fine with Mrs. Bostik feeding her family at the taxpayer dime.

Mercnbeth -> RE: An Enabling Government (2/12/2010 11:37:02 AM)
quote: There was a time when I agreed with both Merc and Wiilbe; But over the years, I grew to see that the biggest welfare cases are not individuals, but corporations. Which is why I pointed out that ending Corporate welfare would be my first recommended action. However the consequence would not only be F-35 fighter jets, and the cash flow welfare payments to Halliburton. It would be Mrs Bostik too. Now are you still on board? Or is it a case that selective corporate welfare, paid through the hands of individuals while serving to perpetrate their personal poor situation, is justified? It is this condition that allows and facilities the Charles Dickens example you provide. The corporate farm conglomerates and the grocery chain owners would not be able to dine on the "sumptuous meals if not for the government subsidizing them by setting up a system where Mrs Bostik and millions more like her get a meager $148 to buy oxtail or any other commodity that would also be priced lower without the symbiotic system in place. The government sanctioned corporate benefiting welfare structure is a perfect example of a leeching parasite. The 'host' is unaware of, and often believes they are benefiting from, a process that in reality is destroying them. The only distinction is they've marketed the scheme so well that a good many people with good intent believe the process is beneficial or at minimum benign. Again, as much as I disdain the system and those perpetrating it, I have to admire their implementation and their ability to sell the concept to so many.

eyesopened -> RE: An Enabling Government (2/12/2010 12:10:00 PM)
Merc, I'm glad you provided your thoughts on a solution. I can't see any flaw at all. For me, the situation was temporary. I went into a new industry, was willing to commute further and it worked out better than I could have imagined. I was glad, however for the help. I would have had no problem whatsoever with going to a food distribution depot, accepting work hours for food. Not a problem at all. And I understand your point further. I was willing to do any work and actually found myself more marketable when I was employed than when I was unemployed. When my son-in-law could not find enough work as a tile-setter, he took work as a carpet installer or wood flooring, anything to keep an income. But my neighbor was a mortgage sales agent and she flat refused to look into the company I work for even though I told her they were hiring (They are still hiring) Her reasoning was that she would have to work for minimum wage during the training period (7 weeks) and that's less than her unemployment benefits. But had she bit the bullet (she had no dependents) she would be fully employed with healthcare benefits. She is still not working. I've stopped talking to her. Now. How do we implement the plan? Anyone have any ideas?

DarlingSavage -> RE: An Enabling Government (2/12/2010 12:55:08 PM)
quote: Again, the problem is not food stamps, it is the lack of nutritious foods in poor urban areas... I interviewed someone that was fighting malnutrition amongst urban poor people... grocery stores did not carry enough wholesome foods and fresh foods as do their suburban counterparts... ending the food stamp program isn't going to stop that. I believe they're called food deserts. Grocery stores are scarce, there are more convenience stores, and if those DO carry any fresh fruits and veggies, you better believe that they're going for high dollar. Since the areas are economically disadvantaged, then some people might spend their money on a candybar or two, and that becomes breakfast and lunch. It's sad. Grocery stores want to go to areas where they will make profits. Food banks typically ask for non-perishable items during food drives, so that takes out fresh foods. People typically donate foods that have been sitting in the pantry for a while and they want to get rid of it. And we're supposed to let people rely on charities for food resources and health care? Not everyone who is disadvantaged is an adult. Are we supposed to let children suffer? Wrong.

juliaoceania -> RE: An Enabling Government (2/12/2010 2:20:28 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: DarlingSavage quote: Again, the problem is not food stamps, it is the lack of nutritious foods in poor urban areas... I interviewed someone that was fighting malnutrition amongst urban poor people... grocery stores did not carry enough wholesome foods and fresh foods as do their suburban counterparts... ending the food stamp program isn't going to stop that. I believe they're called food deserts. Grocery stores are scarce, there are more convenience stores, and if those DO carry any fresh fruits and veggies, you better believe that they're going for high dollar. Since the areas are economically disadvantaged, then some people might spend their money on a candybar or two, and that becomes breakfast and lunch. It's sad. Grocery stores want to go to areas where they will make profits. Food banks typically ask for non-perishable items during food drives, so that takes out fresh foods. People typically donate foods that have been sitting in the pantry for a while and they want to get rid of it. And we're supposed to let people rely on charities for food resources and health care? Not everyone who is disadvantaged is an adult. Are we supposed to let children suffer? Wrong. I absolutely agree... I want a government that looks out for the most helpless amongst us... and children do not ask to be born, so we as a society need to look out for them.

Mercnbeth -> RE: An Enabling Government (2/12/2010 2:48:02 PM)
quote: Are we supposed to let children suffer? I never realized that the US had so many children wandering around the streets alone without parents or anyone there to feed them. You're right that's only going to only get worse if we end or try to change the status quo. After all, people have children, but it's the government's job to feed them. The fact that to do so requires a massive corporate welfare scheme is immaterial. Hell - that justifies the trillions in corporate welfare payments. So what if owners of farming corporations and national grocery chains can dine on "sumptuous meals of pheasant & wine" as ArnimusRex points out. We have got to keep these street orphans fed!

europeantrainer -> RE: An Enabling Government (2/12/2010 3:31:44 PM)
Vow oxtail is NOT cheap at least not in los angeles area,about $4 a lb,(filet minon $ 6 lb,in sunland supermarket) great for soup,they serve great one in one 5 star hotel in las vegas WYNN). Miss Darling I send YOU some ,dont eat the unhealthy noodles. THEY are preconditioning us to go to "goverment" place to eat,like the swine before slaughtering,which is coming anyway,JACK

DarlingSavage -> RE: An Enabling Government (2/12/2010 3:51:09 PM)
quote: We have got to keep these street orphans fed! You'd be surprised how many kids live on the street and they're not the ones that benefit from any governmental assistance cause they don't know how to get it or even that it's offered. So, I suppose that because some kid has a dad and mom that, according to how republicans think, are lazy and couldn't give a shit about going to work they just want that "free welfare ride" (cough cough), we're just supposed to let those kids suffer? quote: Vow oxtail is NOT cheap at least not in los angeles area,about $4 a lb,(filet minon $ 6 lb,in sunland supermarket) great for soup,they serve great one in one 5 star hotel in las vegas WYNN). Miss Darling I send YOU some ,dont eat the unhealthy noodles. THEY are preconditioning us to go to "goverment" place to eat,like the swine before slaughtering,which is coming anyway,JACK I'm not really a big meat eater. I do like steak occasionally, but other than that, oxtail does nothing for me. I couldn't care less. I really don't resort to eating Ramen noodles, I was just exaggerating. However, my fridge is usually only about 1/4 full. I like the Thai Kitchen noodles, they're a 3-4x as much as Ramen, which makes them about 0.75, depending on what grocery store you go to. As for the government giving me any food, I'm pretty sure they're not going to. Like I said before, I'm "too rich".[sm=cactus.gif][sm=givemebeer.gif]

rulemylife -> RE: An Enabling Government (2/12/2010 4:14:57 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: Mercnbeth quote: Are we supposed to let children suffer? I never realized that the US had so many children wandering around the streets alone without parents or anyone there to feed them. You're right that's only going to only get worse if we end or try to change the status quo. After all, people have children, but it's the government's job to feed them. The fact that to do so requires a massive corporate welfare scheme is immaterial. Hell - that justifies the trillions in corporate welfare payments. So what if owners of farming corporations and national grocery chains can dine on "sumptuous meals of pheasant & wine" as ArnimusRex points out. We have got to keep these street orphans fed! You are absolutely right Merc. Put those lazy brats to work and let them earn their meals. Repeal the child labor laws and stop rewarding their failure. Child hunger an increasingly complex problem - washingtonpost.com Gov't Finds Child Hunger Rose 50% In 2007 (Read the full report here.)

Mercnbeth -> RE: An Enabling Government (2/12/2010 4:32:22 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: rulemylife quote: ORIGINAL: Mercnbeth quote: Are we supposed to let children suffer? I never realized that the US had so many children wandering around the streets alone without parents or anyone there to feed them. You're right that's only going to only get worse if we end or try to change the status quo. After all, people have children, but it's the government's job to feed them. The fact that to do so requires a massive corporate welfare scheme is immaterial. Hell - that justifies the trillions in corporate welfare payments. So what if owners of farming corporations and national grocery chains can dine on "sumptuous meals of pheasant & wine" as ArnimusRex points out. We have got to keep these street orphans fed! You are absolutely right Merc. Put those lazy brats to work and let them earn their meals. Repeal the child labor laws ad stop rewarding their failure. Great to see you come in as an advocate for corporate welfare rml. Or is it agenda based support? Always good to have kids be the pawns in your war against self accountability, parental responsibility, and consequences for decisions and actions. Who better to have as the warriors and poster child for defending an ultimately defenseless position. In this case, even the straw man you set up doesn't work. Kids. The process of having them is the last individual action/consequence. After birth care and feeding is the governments job. Who benefits? As has been shown, corporate farms and their distribution networks; along with a few million burocrates and PAC organizations. All living high and individually nowhere near the circumstance of the Mrs Bostick; but using her as the point person poster child to achieve their goal. As you now use children. My my, rml working for the advancement of government paid corporate welfare. Congratulations on getting your mind right, and achieving your indoctrination! You know, if you are going to maintain this support, maybe you identify with the wrong party. Are you now going to join the Republicans? After all, they have a long standing history as a group advocating the same support for government subsides, and corporate payouts as you are supporting here.

juliaoceania -> RE: An Enabling Government (2/12/2010 4:37:40 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: Mercnbeth quote: Are we supposed to let children suffer? I never realized that the US had so many children wandering around the streets alone without parents or anyone there to feed them. You're right that's only going to only get worse if we end or try to change the status quo. After all, people have children, but it's the government's job to feed them. The fact that to do so requires a massive corporate welfare scheme is immaterial. Hell - that justifies the trillions in corporate welfare payments. So what if owners of farming corporations and national grocery chains can dine on "sumptuous meals of pheasant & wine" as ArnimusRex points out. We have got to keep these street orphans fed! Actually hunger amongst the working poor and their children is a real and ever present problem that food stamps have done much to ameliorate. This dismissiveness about the efficacy of this program does not change how successful it has been. To make it easy for you to gain and understanding I did the work of typing "hunger in America" for you so you might glean a little more knowledge on this topic than that NY Times article has obviously provided you... http://www.google.com/search?source=ig&hl=en&rlz=1G1GGLQ_ENUS366&=&q=hunger+in+america&aq=0&aqi=g10&oq=hunger+in+

juliaoceania -> RE: An Enabling Government (2/12/2010 4:46:09 PM)
quote: Consider the F-35 fighter jet; the Pentagon didn't want it, but a group of corporations and Senators conspired to force it upon the American people, simply to funnel money into private pockets. Billions were spent before the program was shut down. And it never ceases to amaze me that those who start these types of threads always want to FIRST cut those programs that help poor people and not those who are truly causing the deficit to go through the ceiling

DarlingSavage -> RE: An Enabling Government (2/12/2010 4:56:29 PM)
quote: And it never ceases to amaze me that those who start these types of threads always want to FIRST cut those programs that help poor people and not those who are truly causing the deficit to go through the ceiling Exactly!

Page: << < prev 1 [2] 3 4 5 next > >>

Collarchat.com © 2025

Terms of Service

0.046875