A Welfare Nation?

[Fins4ever]

Black people in general seem to think that they are owed something and expect certain things that others in this country don't. They seem to also want to have and do things that they think other groups shouldn't get to have or do. That in itself is racism.

I think that your comment really only applies to a small minority and most blacks or other races don't feel a sense of entitlement that you refer to. However, those in that small minority make things miserable and stir the pot for the others.

Also, the Jesse Jackson's and Al Sharpton's of the world make it more difficult to come together as a nation.

I have always said, our forefathers had no idea when they enslaved Africans, that it would be a debt that America would never be able to repay in the eyes of their descendants.

Your great, great grandfather was a slave. OK, what do you want me to do about it? Give you free stuff? lol

[badger6]

You could maybe try MAD Magazine or the Sunday comics...should be created

Well aside from where the definition came from, can you tell me what about it is inaccurate or unacceptable to you ?

Badger's already admitted he's a racist, pseudo-justified it, and stated that he didn't care what anyone else up here thinks. Please stop calling him out on it, as listening to him spew intolerance-spiel that's not-so-cleverly disguised as self righteous social commentary is right up there with "listening to Gilbert Gottfried reviewing Keeping Up With The Kardashians" on my "That Shit Gets Old in a Hurry" list.

I agree totally. If people are hung up on whether I am a racist or not, that's fine. Like I said earlier, I won't lose sleep over what "internet people" think of me. However, maybe a new thread or poll should be created called, "Is Badger6 a sorry motherfucking piece of shit racist who should die ?" and be discussed there. The topic here is "A Welfare Nation" and I have kindly stated that the statistics show that people of color lead in these categories. No one has refuted these statements as of now, so I will take it that most here agree with my statements. If not speak up.

[badger6]

Misanthropy for the win.

Misanthropy 4 us all, proceed sir 

[badger6]

I just want to know where all this free shit I'm supposed to feel entitled to is. My Jetta needs rims and I'd look like a badass with gold teeth.

 Well I think we both know that stereotypes and generalizations don't apply to individuals in said group, they apply as a whole on a population level. But that begs the question, are you seeking attention ? Why are you twisting this to make it about you personally when you know that it's not about you on a singular level ?

[Dave Gray]

OK, conservatives: I'm trying to be as clear and respectful as possible.  Meet me half-way.

Here's the rub:

I don't think that the world exists as you describe it.  I agree that a hoodlum hanging out on the porch, using his welfare check to buy bong hits and his food stamps to buy lobster, while some poor sap with two kids busts his ass in a cole mine has to live on macaroni -- That pisses me off, too.

And I'm sure there are cases where that happens -- but they are so few are far between that they are statistically irrelevant.  So, where you paint this as a solvable problem -- I disagree -- at least not at the cost of harming those that we all want to protect.

Instead, when the right goes after entitlements, they gloss over the fact that the vast majority of those that take advantage of these programs are the elderly, the disabled, the working poor, veterans, etc. -- people that the masses generally agree are worth helping out.

So, when liberals are painted as those propping up a system where we don't want people to work, it's just not true.  We just think that the problem doesn't exist to the extent that you do, and to solve it the way you're asking would mean severely hurting those that really need it.

[badger6]

I know the way the information is being provided is quite extreme but at times, there are points being made by badger6 in terms of personal responsibility, but it probably applies for a lot of low income people, not just the black population. For instance, I believe the personal responsibility just isn't there and their (poor people) priorities are messed up. I live by a very low-income area but it's not shocking to see people living in a 400sq.ft. house with a run down cadillac sporting new 22"-chromed out rims with the new iPhone. I will admit, I know nothing of their financial situation or even their background, but just from the outside looking in, how in the world can you be spending money on luxury items like that when you live in a dilapidated house? It just never made sense to me.

Anyway, carry on.

You better stop kind of agreeing with me. You will be labeled according to the racist you hang out with 

You bet your ass that there are points being made by me. The funny thing is that no one here has even admitted a lack of personal responsibility. And you're right, it does apply to all low income people. Actually, it applies to all people across the board. But if colored people lead in a good majority of negative categories, there must be a reason why. Not just "the white devil slave master" did it to us. That's not personal responsibility, it's a cop out.

[Cathal]

^^^ Like I said before, I have no problem with non-pc people (as I feel like I am one). A lot of people don't want to hear that the problem is their own doing and they don't want to have the personal responsibility to make things right, instead they'll vote for whoever will give them free stuff. Some times people are just down on their luck and all they have is welfare, which is fine. Just have the right priorities with your current situation.

I think I have kind of made it clear that I'm not registered as conservative or liberal, I just prefer to not be labeled as anything. If anything, maybe libertarian? I dunno. That's what my ex-coworker, who was a libertarian said he would classify me as.

[badger6]

OK, conservatives: I'm trying to be as clear and respectful as possible.  Meet me half-way.

Here's the rub:

I don't think that the world exists as you describe it.  I agree that a hoodlum hanging out on the porch, using his welfare check to buy bong hits and his food stamps to buy lobster, while some poor sap with two kids busts his ass in a cole mine has to live on macaroni -- That pisses me off, too.

And I'm sure there are cases where that happens -- but they are so few are far between that they are statistically irrelevant.  So, where you paint this as a solvable problem -- I disagree -- at least not at the cost of harming those that we all want to protect.

Instead, when the right goes after entitlements, they gloss over the fact that the vast majority of those that take advantage of these programs are the elderly, the disabled, the working poor, veterans, etc. -- people that the masses generally agree are worth helping out.

So, when liberals are painted as those propping up a system where we don't want people to work, it's just not true.  We just think that the problem doesn't exist to the extent that you do, and to solve it the way you're asking would mean severely hurting those that really need it.

I disagree totally. The way I see it is that the Democrats need the minority vote to win the majority of the time. They know this. They know the more drugs (ie, free shit) they offer minorities, the more they will become dependent on them (ie, the democrats) for their free shit. Minorities think that democrats are their friends, they are not. What they are doing is buying votes of the lower class with entitlements in order to keep their power and justify their salaries. In a general sense, the both are milking the system and both responsible.

[Brian Fein]

^^ Sometimes its not about the vote.  Think bigger.  Believe it or not, BOTH candidates are trying to improve the country.  Sometimes its about helping people and improving things, not just getting votes.

[Dave Gray]

I disagree totally. The way I see it is that the Democrats need the minority vote to win the majority of the time. They know this. They know the more drugs (ie, free shit) they offer minorities, the more they will become dependent on them (ie, the democrats) for their free shit. Minorities think that democrats are their friends, they are not. What they are doing is buying votes of the lower class with entitlements in order to keep their power and justify their salaries. In a general sense, the both are milking the system and both responsible.

I'm not talking about "Democrats".  I'm talking about me and my views.  I certainly understand that politicians court voting blocks, but I do not have views to court any kind of vote.  I ask, please legitimately criticize my position.

[Fins4ever]

OK, conservatives: I'm trying to be as clear and respectful as possible.  Meet me half-way.

Here's the rub:

I don't think that the world exists as you describe it.  I agree that a hoodlum hanging out on the porch, using his welfare check to buy bong hits and his food stamps to buy lobster, while some poor sap with two kids busts his ass in a cole mine has to live on macaroni -- That pisses me off, too.

And I'm sure there are cases where that happens -- but they are so few are far between that they are statistically irrelevant.  So, where you paint this as a solvable problem -- I disagree -- at least not at the cost of harming those that we all want to protect.

Instead, when the right goes after entitlements, they gloss over the fact that the vast majority of those that take advantage of these programs are the elderly, the disabled, the working poor, veterans, etc. -- people that the masses generally agree are worth helping out.

So, when liberals are painted as those propping up a system where we don't want people to work, it's just not true.  We just think that the problem doesn't exist to the extent that you do, and to solve it the way you're asking would mean severely hurting those that really need it.

I will meet you 1/2 Dave. I agree that those that abuse the system are in the great minority and those who get assistance need it. However, there should be something in place to ensure that the situation is temporary and they can get back to productive lives. Agree?

Have to disagree that conservatives gloss over the fact that most on programs are elderly or vets. I have never heard one single conservative (politician for that matter) criticize helping those people.

Just one question. Since the food stamp program has almost doubled during the current administration, does this mean the population of elderly and homeless has also doubled?    

[SCFinfan]

OK, conservatives: I'm trying to be as clear and respectful as possible.  Meet me half-way.

Here's the rub:

I don't think that the world exists as you describe it.  I agree that a hoodlum hanging out on the porch, using his welfare check to buy bong hits and his food stamps to buy lobster, while some poor sap with two kids busts his ass in a cole mine has to live on macaroni -- That pisses me off, too.

And I'm sure there are cases where that happens -- but they are so few are far between that they are statistically irrelevant.  So, where you paint this as a solvable problem -- I disagree -- at least not at the cost of harming those that we all want to protect.

Instead, when the right goes after entitlements, they gloss over the fact that the vast majority of those that take advantage of these programs are the elderly, the disabled, the working poor, veterans, etc. -- people that the masses generally agree are worth helping out.

So, when liberals are painted as those propping up a system where we don't want people to work, it's just not true.  We just think that the problem doesn't exist to the extent that you do, and to solve it the way you're asking would mean severely hurting those that really need it.

Well stated. This is why we should discuss entitlement "reform" rather than the "cutting" of entitlements. We all know that entitlements/benefits aid those people who need them, and that their so doing is a very, very good thing for society.

But, similarly, we (read: moderate conservatives) fear the tremendous sovereign debt which they cause us to pile on (source: http://econperspectives.blogspot.com/2009/10/us-federal-government-spending-by.html). The trouble is this: our intentions w/ these programs are good, and the effect they have are good... but, like any company looking off into the future, are they feasible over the long term?

If we continue on w/ the programs (and the government in general, to be fair) *as they are* we will eventually run out of money, and the government will not be able to pay off its creditors, and the whole system will collapse, because our money is based in the solvency of the federal government. (I think we can all agree that this is true.) Whichever generation bears the brunt of that calamity is going to really struggle. We have seen this happen before, in the wreckage of western Europe for the five to six-hundred years subsequent to the fall of Rome. I'm not trying to fear-monger here, I just think it should be admitted that, when a large, centralized government which governs over a large territory collapses (for whatever reason; as the Roman fall was precipitated more by outward invaders than internal economic pressures) the result is very bad and persists for a long, long time.

In my opinion, what we need to agree on is as follows:

1. Someone is going to have to bear the brunt of cuts, or restructuring, to some extent. This brunt, or pain, should be spread as widely as possible to negate the pain of the overall effect.

2. The programs that help people, and which can be restructured, ought to be, to preserve them. This will hurt many, many people, because it'll cause them to spend much more out of pocket, and have to work much longer, BUT, I believe it's necessary for one of the currently existing generations (boomers, Gen-X, Millenials) to have to sacrifice so that society as we know it can continue.

3. The rich, probably the top 20% of earners, need to accept the fact that they will have to sacrifice the most. Yes... they are the "job creators." Great. However, if a person earns 10 million a year, re-invests 70% of it, and they live off the 3 million, they're going to have to learn to live, let's say, off of 500k a year. I realize that is a pinch, and I realize that this means 'high taxes' (which are, frankly, a bogeyman for conservatives), and I realize that, in the world as we know it, this means rich folk will move away from those nations who are suffering under tremendous sovereign debt, to those nations which aren't, and which are tax havens, BUT, let's just say it: if you love your country, and are a patriot, you'll sacrifice for it. And, as I've said... we're going to all have to sacrifice to get things back on track. After all - if you run away from your country w/ your millions, but those dollars suddenly become worthless... then you won't remain rich.

4. [Easily the most controversial] The Constitution, as regards the federal government (but not the people, or their *Constitutional* rights - not benefits), needs to be suspended. Think of it as a bankruptcy - we should vote on someone who'll hold the Federal Government in a type of receivership until such time as it is on an inextricable path to solvency. This person would do so in 4 year terms, like the president, and he would not be restricted by the other branches of government, which would ceaselessly bog down the procedure to appease their constituencies. I am well aware that this could go very, very badly. All one could do is hope that it wouldn't - there are some historical precedents (like Cincinatus - http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cincinatus#Dictator) that indicate that it MAY not... but who knows.


In my opinion, the real trouble started w/ the baby-boomers. They, because they were so well-treated by their parents, (who'd suffered so horribly in the Depression and WW2) reached adult life with a mind that was not prepared to sacrifice, to give up things, to spend themselves for something more important than their individual desires. Thus, they (in some cases good, and in some cases bad) demanded and received more and greater rights. This was fine, insofar as it went, but, simultaneously set a dangerous precedent, as the subsequent generations, raised by adult children (not trying to offend any baby boomers here, but you have to admit many of the people in your generation are just that) were farther and farther away from the concept of sacrifice, and incapable of performing it.

And now we are where we are.  We are close enough to the cliff's edge to feel the faint pressure of fear, but, not close enough to feel compelled to do something about it. It's a shame - the WW2 generation, I believe, would have.

Thanks for reading my rant.

[Pappy13]

...but it probably applies for a lot of low income people, not just the black population. For instance, I believe the personal responsibility just isn't there and their (poor people) priorities are messed up. I live by a very low-income area but it's not shocking to see people living in a 400sq.ft. house with a run down cadillac sporting new 22"-chromed out rims with the new iPhone.

How is that any different from the millionaire who spends $10,000 a month on a penthouse suite (or however much they are), has 4 lamborghini's, 3 houses, 2 boats and a cottage in the moutains and ends up broke? Irresponsibility isn't something that's only for the poor, PLENTY of rich people are equally irresponsible. The only difference is that we call rich people eccentric. They have so much money they made up their own word for irresponsibility.

[Cathal]

^^^ Fair enough. I don't have a problem with that. We were talking about lower income people in the current conversation. Of course, at the time, they could afford it so they can spend their money however they'd like to, if they kept in mind their wealth may not last. I think our culture looks more down on those who had everything and lost it for being stupid/reckless and are less likely to help those kind of people, while turning a kind of blind eye to those with barely anything but have luxury items.

[Pappy13]

However, maybe a new thread or poll should be created called, "Is Badger6 a sorry motherfucking piece of shit racist who should die ?"

I was thinking more along the lines of misguided soul that I should pray for.