thranx said:
richardhutnik said:
thranx said:
richardhutnik said:
scat398 said:
Sometimes the truth hurts but the reality is most people are not driven enough to be uber-successful. We have people who chose to stay at home and unemployed because the check they receive from the government is actually more than a 9-5 job, that's the truth.
I don't blame those people for sitting at home though when the government gives them that option, I blame the government for babying people. Personally I'd like to see either an immediate reduction in unemployment benefits or 90 suspension of benefits. Some people right now need a good kick in the ass to get off the couch. |
So, do you think the laziness could be cured if the government would go into homes of people who didn't find jobs after their unemployment rant out and execute them and then show this is what happens to people who don't get work? Do you think the unemployment rate could drop to zero if the penalty for not finding work happened to be upped? Consequences works wonders, right?
You do know that, at least in NY state, they require people who are unemployment to apply to a certain number of jobs each month to keep their unemployment, right?
|
Who said people need to be shot and executed? All that needs to happen is that failure needs to be an option again. Sometimes people will fail at life, and if we stop these people from failing they will not learn from their mistakes and make the right choices. I am sure the impending starvation and homelessness would keep enough fear in people to et them motivated when they get that close, or to save for a rainy day so they do not get that close to the edge. Instead we have been rewarding the wrong behavior by giving those who too much help too soon. It rewards bad behavior that will han be retaught and redone. The government are also not the only ones that are able to help, people can often go to a church of any denomation and get help. Especially if they are willing to work and to clean up their act. About the onley ones in society that really need the governments help should be the mentally ill.
|
So, in other words, you prefer that people die of starvation and homelessness, rather than being shot. How about a compromise position, where there is an active campaign to get those who are losers to want to kill themselves, and then a merciful assisted suicide? It could be paid for by harvesting their organs everywhere. That is win-win. There would be consequences this way, and it be managed. Might even be able to build a surplus out of managed failure in society. And once, the herd is thinned down by the elimination of losers, then you really have things take off.
Do you even remotely understand how the current welfare system is set up and who gets help? You may have a case when discussing women who get pregnant and have children, so she gets money for her kids. To toughen that up, you can still standby that children born into such environments get no help from kids. There is the good old leave the baby in the dumpster as a solution. Beyond this, do you even know how the system works, regarding people on welfare? Are you aware they are on a timetable, and have to actually get involved with looking for work and finding something? Or are you totally unaware of this?
|
Your exagerations are getting old. Its that kind of attitude that leads to long term unemployment, i have no optoins. I gave you an option in my post, they can go to get help from almost any church. Not die of starvation. My argument is that our welfare system in its current state is broken and only serves to exacerbate problem and i feel it would be left better in the hands of the people. People aren't cold and heartless and will tend to help those around them, especially through various churches, and often i feel these organiztions do a better job as they offer help in getting needed items, and in re education so people make the right choice. If you see the only option for people is to starve you need to think out side of the box. Government assistance or starvation aren't the only options.
|
@richardhutnik. I understand your points, despite the uneeded exagerations and I am also familiar with the current public assistance system (not in New York mind you, but in California, although they are similar). Just to get this out of the way right now, if you think for one minute that the requirements by the state to receive benefits are anything but a bunch of rubberstamping and one big giant circle jerk we are not going to find common ground. Our current system is designed to have you jump through just the right number of hoops to keep uncle sam sending you a check and nothing more, it's a lesson in CYA to the ultimate extreme.
But my point was that these individuals are not stupid, they know what they are doing and are making a concious choice to not work for minimum wage or slighlty better because they can and do receive more from the goverenment to stay home. We can talk all day long about the lady with five kids that can't work because she can't afford daycare but the truth is she shouldn't have five kids, she shouldn't have any kids, but you can't say that can you?
The truth is people need to go back to work at reduced wages. These wages overtime will reduce prices and will lower the burden on the federal government. But you have to decide if that is what you really want. We both know the circe gets smaller as the number of unemployed increases. More people on federal assistance, less taxes come in, less demand for goods, more unemployed, more people on federal assistance...raise taxes...and so on, we both know it doesn't end well.
