RE: Maine required people to do community service

RE: Maine required people to do community service (Full Version)

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

Message

bounty44 -> RE: Maine required people to do community service (2/12/2016 5:46:39 AM)
Compassion - A Christian Charity for Children in Need Christian Children's Charities Charity & Orphanages for Children \| God's Kids Orphanages Charity International \| Home Christian Charities Rank High in Top 100 U.S. Nonprofits Christian Children's Fund of Canada - Home one the most well known: focus on the family out of time at the moment, but tons more where those came from...

Lucylastic -> RE: Maine required people to do community service (2/12/2016 6:09:21 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: bounty44 quote: ORIGINAL: Lucylastic quote: ORIGINAL: bounty44 quote: ORIGINAL: Lucylastic but but but, the babies....sanctity of live non-sequiter: 1.a conclusion or statement that does not logically follow from the previous argument or statement. nah you just dont want to justify "life of the innocent unborn" with those you dont give a rats arse about once they are born still innocent... You want them born, you should be up with helping them IN their life.... didn't address the non-sequiter and then you added what is called an unwarranted assumption: "The fallacies of presumption also fail to provide adequate reason for believing the truth of their conclusions. In these instances, however, the erroneous reasoning results from an implicit supposition of some further proposition whose truth is uncertain or implausible." or just plain ol' this: "Making a presumption means assuming something is true or false without getting all the information necessary for verification." Im sorry, You have no standing to be taken seriously... keep spluttering.. Im not responding to what you want... Im posting my opinion based on your posts on this board. Nothing to do with unwarranted, or assumption, or presumed. certainly not implausible. YOUR words available for all to see... Your hilarious lack of comprehension about your own "unwarranted, assumed, presumed. and certainly implausible" insults and comments that you throw about willy nilly are making my day... bless your heart.

satanscharmer -> RE: Maine required people to do community service (2/12/2016 9:00:53 AM)
This whole thing is not entirely a new idea, forcing work or work-training for welfare. Not much different than poorhouses - providing food, clothing and shelter in exchange for work. That worked so well. I'm all for teaching a man how to fish. The problem is, he has to be willing to learn. If someone is unable or unwilling to learn, whatever the reason (lack of trust, ambition, understanding...), I have a difficult time letting them starve. It seems that's where the disconnect is. In today's time, with the ability and means, letting someone slip through the cracks because they don't do what we think they should do seems unconscionable. Some of the measures being taken, such as photos on cards, sound like great ideas for a bandaid. Still, you're going to get some that will find ways around it. To me, we're going about this the wrong way. We're trying to teach adults how to fish when some have never really fished in their life. May work for some, but it shouldn't be surprising that it won't work for all. For many, they were failed in the beginning and with little to no hope for the future. To me, the question shouldn't be 'how do we stop people from relying on the system,' but instead should be 'how do we prevent people from relying on the system'.

tj444 -> RE: Maine required people to do community service (2/12/2016 10:18:21 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: joether Easy way to solve the poor's problems; particularly those on welfare: Raise the Federal Minimum Wage to $15/hour. Would allow the majority of people with children to be just above the federal poverty level, while giving an increase to consumption for everyone else. All that buying power would create many more low tier jobs (which it sounds, Maine, has a huge lack of), which would increase middle class jobs within three months. great in theory but.. there are usually those nasty unintended consequences.. imo, what will happen is that should minimum wage earners get $15/hr, which is double what the Fed minimum is now.. watch rents also double, as well as other goods increasing in price.. cuz this is the Land-of-the-Free-to-Screw-Ya-As-Much-As-Possible, so the landlords and store owners would see the increase as a windfall for them too.. with higher rents, the cost of housing (to buy) would also increase.. and too, then the govt would have to adjust section 8 subsidies up higher as well.. just sayin'

CreativeDominant -> RE: Maine required people to do community service (2/12/2016 10:34:58 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: Lucylastic but but but, the babies....sanctity of live I'm not pro-life but could you please explain how believing in the sanctity of life and not believing that automatically leads to having to support those...and there are some... too lazy to feed themselves or their offspring is a contradiction? It's one thing to help children who cannot help themselves...and another to take care of adults capable of caring for themselves.

satanscharmer -> RE: Maine required people to do community service (2/12/2016 11:34:49 AM)
I've always had difficulty grasping why that's so difficult to grasp. To claim "sanctity of life" yet placing restrictions on it, hardly sounds like life is that highly regarded. quote: sanc·ti·ty ˈsaNG(k)tədē/ noun the state or quality of being holy, sacred, or saintly. "the site of the tomb was a place of sanctity for the ancient Egyptians" synonyms: holiness, godliness, blessedness, saintliness, spirituality, piety, piousness, devoutness, righteousness, goodness, virtue, purity; formalsanctitude "the sanctity of St. Francis" ultimate importance and inviolability. "the sanctity of human life" synonyms: inviolability; More quote: inviolable adjective in·vi·o·la·ble \(ˌ)in-ˈvī-ə-lə-bəl\ Simple Definition of inviolable Popularity: Top 40% of words : too important to be ignored or treated with disrespect "The phrase “sanctity of life” reflects the belief that, because people are made in God’s image (Genesis 1:26), human life has an inherently sacred attribute that should be protected and respected at all times. While God gave humanity the authority to kill and eat other forms of life (Genesis 9:3), the murdering of other human beings is expressly forbidden, with the penalty being death (Genesis 9:6). Humanity was created in God’s image, but sin has corrupted that image. There is nothing inherently sacred in fallen man. The sanctity of human life is not due to the fact that we are such wonderful and good beings. The only reason the sanctity of life applies to humanity is the fact that God created us in His image and set us apart from all other forms of life. Although that image has indeed been marred by sin, His image is still present in humanity. We are like God, and that likeness means that human life is always to be treated with dignity and respect." -http://www.gotquestions.org/sanctity-of-life.html Deuteronomy 15:11 For there will never cease to be poor in the land. Therefore I command you, ‘You shall open wide your hand to your brother, to the needy and to the poor, in your land.’ Matthew 5:42 Give to the one who begs from you, and do not refuse the one who would borrow from you. Romans 15:1 We who are strong have an obligation to bear with the failings of the weak, and not to please ourselves. Isaiah 58:10-11 Feed the hungry, and help those in trouble. Then your light will shine out from the darkness, and the darkness around you will be as bright as noon.The LORD will guide you continually, giving you water when you are dry and restoring your strength. You will be like a well-watered garden, like an ever-flowing spring. Proverbs 14:31 Whoever oppresses a poor man insults his Maker, but he who is generous to the needy honors him. Philippians 2:4 Do not be concerned about your own interests, but also be concerned about the interests of others. I must have missed the fine print somewhere that mentions "unless they are capable". With all of that...watching people starve because they don't help themselves doesn't sound like life is truly being respected.

DesideriScuri -> RE: Maine required people to do community service (2/12/2016 11:35:54 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: satanscharmer This whole thing is not entirely a new idea, forcing work or work-training for welfare. Not much different than poorhouses - providing food, clothing and shelter in exchange for work. That worked so well. I'm all for teaching a man how to fish. The problem is, he has to be willing to learn. If someone is unable or unwilling to learn, whatever the reason (lack of trust, ambition, understanding...), I have a difficult time letting them starve. It seems that's where the disconnect is. In today's time, with the ability and means, letting someone slip through the cracks because they don't do what we think they should do seems unconscionable. If someone is unwilling to work, or to learn, that person isn't "[slipping] through the cracks." That person is willfully making his/her way through the cracks. You can lead a horse to water, but you can't make it drink, right? If someone is choosing to not take care of him/herself, then who are we to intervene? It's a completely different story if someone lacks the capacity to work or to learn. Those people don't have a choice. We need to take care of them. Will people attempt to game the system? Of course. And, those people should be immediately ejected from the program once they are caught. quote: ... To me, the question shouldn't be 'how do we stop people from relying on the system,' but instead should be 'how do we prevent people from relying on the system'. I'm going to assume you meant "prevent people from needing to rely on the system" (correct me if I'm wrong). Obviously, if we didn't want people to rely on the system, we could get rid of the system (I wouldn't support that). I think it's good that we have a safety net for those that need it. At the moment, money is being taken from taxpayers to pay for those programs. I'd much rather see charities step up to the plate and take the programs over, paying for it out of donations (tax money no longer spent would either pay down the debt, or not get taken from the taxpayer in the first place). You're always going to have a segment of the population who will diligently work towards doing the least amount they can to get by. I have a great disdain for that when their getting by requires other people's money.

mnottertail -> RE: Maine required people to do community service (2/12/2016 11:36:38 AM)
then its not a sanctity of life issue is it? It is not as she indicated. But then again what about some of those who get foodstamps, and welfare, and so on, some of those cant help themselves and are you looking to help them, or is that more asswipe? Like the Wal-Mart folks.

satanscharmer -> RE: Maine required people to do community service (2/12/2016 12:07:03 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: DesideriScuri quote: ORIGINAL: satanscharmer This whole thing is not entirely a new idea, forcing work or work-training for welfare. Not much different than poorhouses - providing food, clothing and shelter in exchange for work. That worked so well. I'm all for teaching a man how to fish. The problem is, he has to be willing to learn. If someone is unable or unwilling to learn, whatever the reason (lack of trust, ambition, understanding...), I have a difficult time letting them starve. It seems that's where the disconnect is. In today's time, with the ability and means, letting someone slip through the cracks because they don't do what we think they should do seems unconscionable. If someone is unwilling to work, or to learn, that person isn't "[slipping] through the cracks." That person is willfully making his/her way through the cracks. You can lead a horse to water, but you can't make it drink, right? If someone is choosing to not take care of him/herself, then who are we to intervene? It's a completely different story if someone lacks the capacity to work or to learn. Those people don't have a choice. We need to take care of them. Will people attempt to game the system? Of course. And, those people should be immediately ejected from the program once they are caught. I agree with some of the things you have written here. The problem I have with this I can only best describe by comparing their situation to that of institutionalized criminals: that's all they know and rehabilitating them to think otherwise is a failed approach. Children on welfare are more likely to become adults on welfare...then we suddenly start taking an interest. quote: quote: ... To me, the question shouldn't be 'how do we stop people from relying on the system,' but instead should be 'how do we prevent people from relying on the system'. I'm going to assume you meant "prevent people from needing to rely on the system" (correct me if I'm wrong). Obviously, if we didn't want people to rely on the system, we could get rid of the system (I wouldn't support that). I think it's good that we have a safety net for those that need it. At the moment, money is being taken from taxpayers to pay for those programs. I'd much rather see charities step up to the plate and take the programs over, paying for it out of donations (tax money no longer spent would either pay down the debt, or not get taken from the taxpayer in the first place). You're always going to have a segment of the population who will diligently work towards doing the least amount they can to get by. I have a great disdain for that when their getting by requires other people's money. Again, relying on the community is not a new idea. It's when those resources were getting depleted that the government needed to step in. If we could get a better handle on poverty, I think it would be great if we could move it back to the communities (while keeping a safety net). There are people everywhere (I work with a few) that do the least amount just to get by. Some just make it look like they're even doing that much. It's frustrating, I agree. It makes me wonder why they're so different

Phydeaux -> RE: Maine required people to do community service (2/12/2016 12:24:02 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: satanscharmer I've always had difficulty grasping why that's so difficult to grasp. To claim "sanctity of life" yet placing restrictions on it, hardly sounds like life is that highly regarded. quote: sanc·ti·ty ˈsaNG(k)tədē/ noun the state or quality of being holy, sacred, or saintly. "the site of the tomb was a place of sanctity for the ancient Egyptians" synonyms: holiness, godliness, blessedness, saintliness, spirituality, piety, piousness, devoutness, righteousness, goodness, virtue, purity; formalsanctitude "the sanctity of St. Francis" ultimate importance and inviolability. "the sanctity of human life" synonyms: inviolability; More quote: inviolable adjective in·vi·o·la·ble \(ˌ)in-ˈvī-ə-lə-bəl\ Simple Definition of inviolable Popularity: Top 40% of words : too important to be ignored or treated with disrespect "The phrase “sanctity of life” reflects the belief that, because people are made in God’s image (Genesis 1:26), human life has an inherently sacred attribute that should be protected and respected at all times. While God gave humanity the authority to kill and eat other forms of life (Genesis 9:3), the murdering of other human beings is expressly forbidden, with the penalty being death (Genesis 9:6). Humanity was created in God’s image, but sin has corrupted that image. There is nothing inherently sacred in fallen man. The sanctity of human life is not due to the fact that we are such wonderful and good beings. The only reason the sanctity of life applies to humanity is the fact that God created us in His image and set us apart from all other forms of life. Although that image has indeed been marred by sin, His image is still present in humanity. We are like God, and that likeness means that human life is always to be treated with dignity and respect." -http://www.gotquestions.org/sanctity-of-life.html Deuteronomy 15:11 For there will never cease to be poor in the land. Therefore I command you, ‘You shall open wide your hand to your brother, to the needy and to the poor, in your land.’ Matthew 5:42 Give to the one who begs from you, and do not refuse the one who would borrow from you. Romans 15:1 We who are strong have an obligation to bear with the failings of the weak, and not to please ourselves. Isaiah 58:10-11 Feed the hungry, and help those in trouble. Then your light will shine out from the darkness, and the darkness around you will be as bright as noon.The LORD will guide you continually, giving you water when you are dry and restoring your strength. You will be like a well-watered garden, like an ever-flowing spring. Proverbs 14:31 Whoever oppresses a poor man insults his Maker, but he who is generous to the needy honors him. Philippians 2:4 Do not be concerned about your own interests, but also be concerned about the interests of others. I must have missed the fine print somewhere that mentions "unless they are capable". With all of that...watching people starve because they don't help themselves doesn't sound like life is truly being respected. What you are missing is the separation of church and state. Ironically. Sanctity of life is a religious expression; and the precepts to help the poor are religious precepts. What is required for religious purposes may not be identical to what is good policy for a state. Finally, one needs to recognize that well meaning short term entitlement may exacerbate a situation. Welfare benefits may allow a man to stay stuck taking free food - where hunger may motivate him to a better long term solution. It worked it for the Pilgrims....

satanscharmer -> RE: Maine required people to do community service (2/12/2016 12:37:01 PM)
quote: Sanctity of life is a religious expression; and the precepts to help the poor are religious precepts. What is required for religious purposes may not be identical to what is good policy for a state. That's exactly what I believe.

mnottertail -> RE: Maine required people to do community service (2/12/2016 12:38:38 PM)
Pilgrims actually died. Until they cut themselves loose from the corporations that held them enthralled here in America. Then we should be taxing the fuck and regulating the fuck out of corporations rather than give them all this welfare, unless one is forwarding a disingenuous nutsuckerism for the gulping by the feebleminded.

CreativeDominant -> RE: Maine required people to do community service (2/12/2016 1:24:43 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: mnottertail then its not a sanctity of life issue is it? It is not as she indicated. But then again what about some of those who get foodstamps, and welfare, and so on, some of those cant help themselves and are you looking to help them, or is that more asswipe? Like the Wal-Mart folks. Actually, those are the people who do deserve help. They're trying, they're not too "fucking proud" to work at McDonald's or Wal-Mart or wherever, they have the idea that "I've got a family, they're my responsibility". I have no problem knowing my taxes are going to help those people.

Hillwilliam -> RE: Maine required people to do community service (2/12/2016 1:43:53 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: Phydeaux Yes. And? Then, why are you seemingly upset that states aren't following "Welfare reform" that CLINTON pushed through congress?

mnottertail -> RE: Maine required people to do community service (2/12/2016 1:44:06 PM)
And how about the corporations, the technical managers, the stockholders, the ultra wealthy who are using your dollars because it would cut into their billions pile to pay a living wage, you ok with giving your taxes to them? The ne'er-do-wells on these programs we can agree have no need to be on them. However, we throw away more money on other things that should be looked at. One isn't breaking me, and one is. The issue is how to find people with the sack to fix it.

epiphiny43 -> RE: Maine required people to do community service (2/12/2016 2:29:19 PM)
(Reply to Thread, not mnottertail) Yada, yada. More piles of typical judgemental and punitive Right Wing knee jerk responses to structural issues of contemporary society the Right isn't even aware of, much less inclined to remedy. Not that the Left is competent to do anything even approaching societal engineering. At least they Care about other folks. If anyone should be doing 'community service', it's the tax freeloaders who are getting obscenely wealthy from corporate welfare and campaign contribution purchased tax breaks or complete immunity. And legalized larceny. America had full employment when over 70-90% of the 'employed' were in agriculture. As technology and mass manufacturing affected Every aspect of production and consumption, we transitioned to a service economy which is now about to move to an AI/robot manufacturing And service labor economy. It was foreseen over 2 generations ago that there simply wouldn't be enough renumerative work for much of the population to support itself with as technology advanced. Instead of all working less and distributing the productivity gains to all, the controlling members of corporations managed to emasculate the counterbalancing Unions with propaganda and keep more than the gains to themself. With friends like Gov Christy moving even vital civil servants like teachers backwards in actual pay while cost of living keep rising, only the 'Owners' and big investors have any chance in the changing economic world. Even many professionals are now reduced to individual work contracts of short duration as Every employee is squeezed for more profit for the share holders and top management. The cynical version of the new economics goes more like: "Life is like a shit sandwich. The more bread you have, the less shit you have to eat." This basic equation was only aggravated by Congress actually paying many US corporations to retrain foreign workers and ship their equipment and technologies to 'off-shore' locations. "Maintaining American Competitiveness" ended badly when the benefits all ended up with multi-nationals who paid what taxes they couldn't avoid, in the country of convenience with the lowest tax rate. Apple headquartered in Ireland??? Feeding the poor isn't a religious impulse or value, it's a HUMAN and social survival mandate. It's also how intelligent ruling classes keep starving mobs with torches and weapons away from the door, howling to take their heads. Which often happens when the repression isn't massively homicidal quickly enough. (Putin seems to have it all figured out!) Rome had the process dialed in with bread and circuses provided by the ruling families that all the Senators came from. TV, Netflix, cage fighting, 'Reality shows' and contact sports are the new circuses. SNAP is what keeps the unemployable, the structurally 'redundant' and the losers in the tax scams and 'Right to Work' changes the wealthy keep moving through legislatures impoverish the dying middle and working classes from violent revolt. It's just Cheaper to provide adequate welfare than to run a full police state to repress totally predictable rage at the concentration of wealth and the ignoring of the needs of the majority of the society. Twitter shares fell not because it's a dead platform, but because Growth slowed below projections for the Quarter. It's still growing, particularly outside traditional First World markets. It just no longer has it's basic internet business model all to itself. China and India (Now the two largest net markets) are building their own local versions that compete directly. The Model is still explosive.

CreativeDominant -> RE: Maine required people to do community service (2/12/2016 2:36:15 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: mnottertail And how about the corporations, the technical managers, the stockholders, the ultra wealthy who are using your dollars because it would cut into their billions pile to pay a living wage, you ok with giving your taxes to them? The ne'er-do-wells on these programs we can agree have no need to be on them. However, we throw away more money on other things that should be looked at. One isn't breaking me, and one is. The issue is how to find people with the sack to fix it. I don't agree with corporate welfare either, whether it be a so-called conservative corporation or a liberal/progressive boondoggle like Solyndra. I'm tired of hearing farmers butch about how they're conservative while taking money for corn for ethanol and tired of liberals whining about the "evils" of capitalism while climbing aboard the corporate subsidy gravy train.

mnottertail -> RE: Maine required people to do community service (2/12/2016 2:50:30 PM)
and I am tired of rightwingers saying they are going to fix it when they are a large part of the problem, in fact, many times the nexus of it, or that they have a plan when they have nothing but their dicks in their hands as usual. They dishonestly dig us deeper in, while prancing around in their rightwing savior modes. The money we throw away on the lazy welfare is nothing compared to what we are giving to the corporations. I say, fix the big problem first, quit whining about the insignificant shit like it means something. It aint even in the last order of business at this point.

Phydeaux -> RE: Maine required people to do community service (2/12/2016 5:44:25 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: satanscharmer quote: Sanctity of life is a religious expression; and the precepts to help the poor are religious precepts. What is required for religious purposes may not be identical to what is good policy for a state. That's exactly what I believe. there's hope for you yet...

CreativeDominant -> RE: Maine required people to do community service (2/12/2016 6:01:28 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: satanscharmer quote: ORIGINAL: DesideriScuri quote: ORIGINAL: satanscharmer This whole thing is not entirely a new idea, forcing work or work-training for welfare. Not much different than poorhouses - providing food, clothing and shelter in exchange for work. That worked so well. I'm all for teaching a man how to fish. The problem is, he has to be willing to learn. If someone is unable or unwilling to learn, whatever the reason (lack of trust, ambition, understanding...), I have a difficult time letting them starve. It seems that's where the disconnect is. In today's time, with the ability and means, letting someone slip through the cracks because they don't do what we think they should do seems unconscionable. If someone is unwilling to work, or to learn, that person isn't "[slipping] through the cracks." That person is willfully making his/her way through the cracks. You can lead a horse to water, but you can't make it drink, right? If someone is choosing to not take care of him/herself, then who are we to intervene? It's a completely different story if someone lacks the capacity to work or to learn. Those people don't have a choice. We need to take care of them. Will people attempt to game the system? Of course. And, those people should be immediately ejected from the program once they are caught. I agree with some of the things you have written here. The problem I have with this I can only best describe by comparing their situation to that of institutionalized criminals: that's all they know and rehabilitating them to think otherwise is a failed approach. Children on welfare are more likely to become adults on welfare...then we suddenly start taking an interest. quote: quote: ... To me, the question shouldn't be 'how do we stop people from relying on the system,' but instead should be 'how do we prevent people from relying on the system'. I'm going to assume you meant "prevent people from needing to rely on the system" (correct me if I'm wrong). Obviously, if we didn't want people to rely on the system, we could get rid of the system (I wouldn't support that). I think it's good that we have a safety net for those that need it. At the moment, money is being taken from taxpayers to pay for those programs. I'd much rather see charities step up to the plate and take the programs over, paying for it out of donations (tax money no longer spent would either pay down the debt, or not get taken from the taxpayer in the first place). You're always going to have a segment of the population who will diligently work towards doing the least amount they can to get by. I have a great disdain for that when their getting by requires other people's money. Again, relying on the community is not a new idea. It's when those resources were getting depleted that the government needed to step in. If we could get a better handle on poverty, I think it would be great if we could move it back to the communities (while keeping a safety net). There are people everywhere (I work with a few) that do the least amount just to get by. Some just make it look like they're even doing that much. It's frustrating, I agree. It makes me wonder why they're so different Wonder no more. The ones you speak of? They're LAZY. They have no work ethic and can't be bothered to learn one. They are however, smart enough to scam the system and make available less money for those who do indeed truly need it.

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

Collarchat.com © 2025

Terms of Service

0.046875