BF2S Forums Open Question To Anti-Social Welfare Types

DBBrinson1 wrote:

Bullshit.  You or Cam don't know me - yet another Nazi reference because I don't goose step to your drum...  Weak.

All I have to go off, all anyone has to go off, is what you post on this forum. As such comments regarding you or your viewpoints will entail some measure of assumption.

DBBrinson1 wrote:

As to your dull points -do you know my financial past/present situation?  Didn't think so.  You know where I've been and done, what type of neighborhoods I've lived in??  You assume because of my position on the issue that I'm the "evil, rich, spoiled, brat that doesn't really give a fuck about the little guy" (actually Kerry&Heinz).  What a narrow minded typical BIGOTED STEREOTYPE.

I didn't assume you were rich or spoiled and evil is a word I reserve for slightly more heinous characters than yourself.
 

DBBrinson1 wrote:

I'd haven't and never will rely on that system -as long as i breath I will continue to earn a living in any way possible.

That's a little extreme. What happens if the US goes headlong into a prolonged recession where the labour force is larger than the amount of available jobs? Do you intend to emigrate?

DBBrinson1 wrote:

People like you are financial leeches on society and enablers to those with no drive or ambition.

Did you see my tax bill last year? My father raised us in Donegal in rural Ireland in the 1980s when Donegal was an economic blackspot and jobs were unbelievably scarce, so that he could look after his widowed mother. In between collecting benefits and working whenever he found the work he had the drive and ambition to build a house for his family and send me to university in Dublin. He now owns a BMW coupé, a treat he richly deserves. He was not a leach. He used the hand up given to him by a socialist society to make something of himself and provide the best future possible for his children.

DBBrinson1 wrote:

Furthermore, I would a wager (how about a nut punch *wink HOS) that your stereotypical "apex of human behavior, morality and ethics"  (religious/conservative people) donate more to charity than those liberal/democrats.  I posted a link to study above (a whole book published -that you obviously haven't read which addresses the topic.  You must have been too busy doing good in soup kitchens elsewhere to see it...  So then why if I'm all ready giving a portion of my money to Charity, why the fuck do you need to come along and robin hood me deciding who I to GIVE my money away to?

Charity schmarity. You may be generous but for every one generous person there is there will be 9 who won't put their hands in their pockets at all. Human nature. As for myself: money gets direct debited off my account monthly for two charities - ElectricAid and Goal. And that's on top of the tax I pay.

kthxbai

Last edited by CameronPoe (2007-06-03 07:11:02)

Spark wrote:

Well sorry, sir. Don't let us get in the way of your unlimited drive and ambition. Don't let us get in the way. Just drive us out of the road, run us over. According to you, we shouldn't give a shit! Newsflash: people do.

So are you suggesting we should systematically exile all people who require welfare? You haven't answered his point. You haven't addressed the fact they are TEMPORARY CASES. You haven't addressed the fact that given a little help and support, most people can bounce back and become useful members of the economy. Now get off the high horse and address the issues.[/b]

Well Spark, this isssue always makes for some good comedy as well as a healthy helping of cognitive dissonance. The same people who say that people in bad straits should "just pull themselves up by their bootstraps", not rely on charity, "do like I did" or any of that other shit will also claim they give more to charity even after getting done with an extended rant about how charity and giving other people a hand up is just encouraging them to be leeches on society. I can't quite figure it out myself, but I have a few theories.

One is that it's upbringing and what they absorb from the media and society around them. Since the Reagan era (may he rot in place), there's been a pervasive idea that almost everyone on welfare is a cheating parasite with twelve kids, a cadillac and a crack cocaine habit that could finance a small country. Having been one of those angsty little teenage conservatives for a good portion of my life, I believed that bullshit too. Ending up laid off with a family to support and no one in my life in a position to help me out cleared up that illusion pretty fucking fast.

That's why I always have a little chuckle when I see someone making these chest-thumping declarations about "I would never rely on the system to help me". Yes, yes you will. If you care about your family more than how you look to other people, you will. Once you realize that your pigheaded pride isn't going to pay the bills or feed your kids, you will. You'll either make the same tough decisions other people make every godsdamn day and do shit that you don't want to do for the sake of the people that count on you, or you'll find yourself by yourself and wondering where you went wrong.

My other theory is that it's necessary to maintain their own illusory worldview. In their simple little black/white dichotomy world, everyone who works hard and does what they're told prospers. Everyone who doesn't suffers for it and rightly so; call it "God's will" or whatever, people who don't follow the dictates of society fall on bad times and they deserve what happens to them just as the prosperous deserve their prosperity. Again, a pretty prevelant idea in the world, reinforced almost constantly by popular media. They don't consider that it might not be true because they can't. It would mean they're not special. It would mean that they're not outside the whims of chance and chaos and that a series of random events could easily put them in the same place as that ragged-looking guy offering to clean their windshield with a filthy rag for a buck. It would mean that they're not condemning people who are all uniformly pathetic criminal-minded lazy parasites but just people; some good and some bad just like anyone else. It would mean that junkies and bums and prostitutes and street kids are actual human beings and not just the inevitable detritus of society, deserving of no more consideration or concern than a newspaper fluttering across the street in a strong breeze or a discarded soda can.

Mainly it's all about keeping a lid on themselves. Being able to sleep at night. Not feeling bad when they pretend not to see the legless guy in the wheelchair at the bus stop and his cup with a few bits of small change in it. Not thinking about what tomorrow might bring for them. It's about nailing a big ol' fucking happy-face mask over the face of the world so they don't have to look at the ugly parts.

HunterOfSkulls wrote:

Spark wrote:

Well sorry, sir. Don't let us get in the way of your unlimited drive and ambition. Don't let us get in the way. Just drive us out of the road, run us over. According to you, we shouldn't give a shit! Newsflash: people do.

So are you suggesting we should systematically exile all people who require welfare? You haven't answered his point. You haven't addressed the fact they are TEMPORARY CASES. You haven't addressed the fact that given a little help and support, most people can bounce back and become useful members of the economy. Now get off the high horse and address the issues.[/b]

Well Spark, this isssue always makes for some good comedy as well as a healthy helping of cognitive dissonance. The same people who say that people in bad straits should "just pull themselves up by their bootstraps", not rely on charity, "do like I did" or any of that other shit will also claim they give more to charity even after getting done with an extended rant about how charity and giving other people a hand up is just encouraging them to be leeches on society. I can't quite figure it out myself, but I have a few theories.

One is that it's upbringing and what they absorb from the media and society around them. Since the Reagan era (may he rot in place), there's been a pervasive idea that almost everyone on welfare is a cheating parasite with twelve kids, a cadillac and a crack cocaine habit that could finance a small country. Having been one of those angsty little teenage conservatives for a good portion of my life, I believed that bullshit too. Ending up laid off with a family to support and no one in my life in a position to help me out cleared up that illusion pretty fucking fast.

That's why I always have a little chuckle when I see someone making these chest-thumping declarations about "I would never rely on the system to help me". Yes, yes you will. If you care about your family more than how you look to other people, you will. Once you realize that your pigheaded pride isn't going to pay the bills or feed your kids, you will. You'll either make the same tough decisions other people make every godsdamn day and do shit that you don't want to do for the sake of the people that count on you, or you'll find yourself by yourself and wondering where you went wrong.

My other theory is that it's necessary to maintain their own illusory worldview. In their simple little black/white dichotomy world, everyone who works hard and does what they're told prospers. Everyone who doesn't suffers for it and rightly so; call it "God's will" or whatever, people who don't follow the dictates of society fall on bad times and they deserve what happens to them just as the prosperous deserve their prosperity. Again, a pretty prevelant idea in the world, reinforced almost constantly by popular media. They don't consider that it might not be true because they can't. It would mean they're not special. It would mean that they're not outside the whims of chance and chaos and that a series of random events could easily put them in the same place as that ragged-looking guy offering to clean their windshield with a filthy rag for a buck. It would mean that they're not condemning people who are all uniformly pathetic criminal-minded lazy parasites but just people; some good and some bad just like anyone else. It would mean that junkies and bums and prostitutes and street kids are actual human beings and not just the inevitable detritus of society, deserving of no more consideration or concern than a newspaper fluttering across the street in a strong breeze or a discarded soda can.

Mainly it's all about keeping a lid on themselves. Being able to sleep at night. Not feeling bad when they pretend not to see the legless guy in the wheelchair at the bus stop and his cup with a few bits of small change in it. Not thinking about what tomorrow might bring for them. It's about nailing a big ol' fucking happy-face mask over the face of the world so they don't have to look at the ugly parts.

Completey missed the points of my last post.  Who has the mask on?     Your bar of soap called. It wants its box back.

oug wrote:

HunterOfSkulls wrote:

^^^...

How very true. +1 to you sir.

Forgive me for backtracking on this conversation, but I'd like to know exactly how much money "welfare" amounts to in the US, seeing how most who disagree with it are Americans. The concept of people living solely on welfare is new to me. I guess it varies depending on how many children one has etc, but just to get an idea of what we're talking about here.

very small checks.  nothing you could buy a car with.

Well, $240 is not nearly enough to feed 3 people, but still its more than I would expect. Would one person get the same? And who is entitled to welfare? I mean, is it necessary to have worked for some time and so on? Or is it just there for anyone?

oug wrote:

Well, $240 is not nearly enough to feed 3 people, but still its more than I would expect. Would one person get the same? And who is entitled to welfare? I mean, is it necessary to have worked for some time and so on? Or is it just there for anyone?

A lot of things are factored in.

Number in household and current income for starters. And that's income before you pay bills and rent; they really don't give a crap about that for the most part because unless it's a dire emergency (and sometimes even if it is a dire emergency) they don't give cash or rent/bill assistance. I suppose everyone is eligable but there are tons of things that'll disqualify you or lower your benefits once you're in the system.

DBBrinson1 wrote:

B.Schuss wrote:

with all due respect, people lose their jobs without their own fault these days all the time. What makes you think you're so special that it is absolutely impossible that you should ever have to rely on welfare yourself ?

And as far as the precious book you mentioned is concerned, that doesn't impress me one bit. This forum is not about who can quote from the most impressive book or study. How about you give us your personal opinion on welfare instead ?

Sorry Schuss, I think you missed my personal opinion on welfare - it is posted page back.  The "precious book I mentioned" wasn't meant to impress you.  I've observed people in D&ST back up their arguments here with facts.  I'm sorry that the summary of the book which is based on a factual study was posted - I merely provided all with background as to what, and why I posted it.

ah, my mistake, you are refering to this ?

DBBrinson1 wrote:

Well, they might have to *shiver* get jobs... Then *shiver* be a productive member of society.  Why the fuck should I bust my ass at work, then nod my head when money I've earned is TAKEN from my check and given to people who contribute nothing to society?  Why the fuck should my hard working ass have to pay for/pay more for health care - than some dickhead who does nothing?  Enlighten me CAM... Why the hell should I give a penny to someone who is too pathetic to pull up their boots and help themselves?

Your last "point"... Let me see if I understand you correctly -you want to appease criminals by paying them off?

Pathetic.

Sorry Brinson, but I thought that was a rant, and not a serious answer. For someone who is so deliberately opposed to stereotypes, you're pretty good at spreading them out, I must say..

Not everyone on welfare abuses the system. A lot of people lose their jobs without their fault in this day and age, even with good qualification. How do you adress that ? And what makes you think you're so special that it could never happen to you ?

And about that book; I get the irony here.
I don't mind people backing up their opinion with facts, don't get me wrong.
But while reading through the stuff you quoted, I could not find much that would back up what you said earlier about welfare. Moreover, from what I can draw from the reviews on amazon, the book doesn't even deal with tax-funded state welfare systems, but rather with "the dynamics of the charitable nature in some Americans and what those "givers" have in common", i.e. it seems to be a sociological study about people who give to private charities, not a study about the benefits of a tax-funded welfare system.

Which is why I concluded that you still haven't given us a serious answer. ( no offense, note the smiley ).

HunterOfSkulls wrote:

A lot of things are factored in.

Number in household and current income for starters. And that's income before you pay bills and rent; they really don't give a crap about that for the most part because unless it's a dire emergency (and sometimes even if it is a dire emergency) they don't give cash or rent/bill assistance. I suppose everyone is eligable but there are tons of things that'll disqualify you or lower your benefits once you're in the system.

I'm sure that is the case. But then there's so many people complaining about bums who live on welfare like leeches and so on. Based on these facts, their opinion seems completely unjustifiable...

DBBrinson1 wrote:

The only stereotype I want to push is that hard working people like me don't like having money TAKEN from me given to people who don't do anything but leech off society.
I don't believe in having my money taken and given to someone else who doesn't work especially when there are jobs available.  I'm sure that there are people that use the system as intended.  But, I was writing to those merely satisfied to do as little as possible and expect free everything.

Personally I don't look at tax money as my money. It's the government's money. The services they provide me with day in day out that facilitate economic and social progress in my country are something that I must pay for. I owe the collective that money so that I can live in a functioning society in which I can make a living, feel safe, stay healthy and get educated.

DBBrinson1 wrote:

I may one day be in the position where I would qualify, and again you don't know my personal background so how do you know that I haven't all ready been there (not) done that?

DBBrinson1 wrote:

I'd haven't and never will rely on that system -as long as i breath I will continue to earn a living in any way possible.

Me confused...

DBBrinson1 wrote:

I posted the book summary and link to it in reply to the shot Varegg took at me about lacking compassion.  It was off topic but relevant to the discussion.  Why if I all ready donate money to charity should someone else come along, pick my pocket, and decide who to GIVE my money to?

They aren't picking your pocket. They are extracting payment from you and the rest of the collective for services rendered by the collective in maintaining as free, fair, healthy, educated and law-abiding a society as possible in which the majority can make a decent living. The charity argument is ridiculous. Humans are, by nature, greedy and on balance the vast majority would either give nothing or give a woefully small amount of their earnings to those who need it.

Social welfare is necessary even if in some small amount of cases it is a 'necessary evil'.

Last edited by CameronPoe (2007-06-05 06:26:14)

CameronPoe wrote:

Personally I don't look at tax money as my money. It's the government's money. The services they provide me with day in day out that facilitate economic and social progress in my country are something that I must pay for. I owe the collective that money so that I can live in a functioning society in which I can make a living, feel safe, stay healthy and get educated.

Although the issue for some is that the use of taxes for certain services become politicized - so some of it get spent in areas or programs which they don't want to support.  So the counter argument which DBBrinson is talking about is having control over where the money is spent.  Alternatively, there's many programs which are flawed or can be handled differently - and people don't like supporting it even though they have to.  Welfare is a popular target because there are a few members of society who would rather sit on their ass instead of making minimum wage - but again focusing on the minority of welfare folks and generalizing on the whole...

I knew someone who would only work for one year (long enough to quality for unemployment) and then start screwing around and not doing his job until he got fired...and then collect a check for a few months before going back to work.  A real scumbag - he's a leech in the true sense of the word - he'd schedule sales visits in cities he wanted to visit...call the people he was going to see and cancel, and then spend the week doing the tourist thing on the company...

Last edited by Pug (2007-06-05 06:46:25)