NPR: Economy in Crisis; Families cannot afford meat

[MJZiggy]

Thank you Zig, for proving my point.

You're right, you CAN pick and choose, but so can I, so can Bobblehead, so can Kiwon, even Tex and Tyrone...

This is the fundamental reason why our GOVERNMENT should not be involved in these programs. Your line is about 50 miles farther back than mine is, but it doesn't make me less right than you. Yet, if I posted all of my views around here, I'd be seen as an "unsympathetic jackass".

You are looking at this through ONLY YOUR eyes and your point of view. Look at it through mine.

I don't want to see people starve, I want to see them work. I don't want them to freeze, I want them to pay the God-Damned heat bill (sorry to resemble Tex for a moment).

But when you offer, they take it, and don't develop the learnings from the lessons, because well meaning people like you let them out of the their consequences time and time again. This is the basic reason why our entitlement government is not working, and will never work, and we'll eventually borrow our way into bankruptcy. There can be no other result. Why work when you can watch Oprah all day and someone else will pay your bills? It doesn't encourage them to achieve, quite the opposite, it encourages them to become even more dependent than they already are.

I don't doubt your sincerity, but I do doubt your excecution. You make the common mistake of thinking that people share your views and your morals and your desire to achieve and better yourself. They don't. They are, in large measure, using you and your sincere nature.

I reiterate, and clarify, IF our government is involved in entitlement programs, you can't complain and you must just accept what you get. See, even if there is only one idiot in the world who supports the two in this story, (and there must be, because someone wrote the story), then that person is a PART of the government in some small way (through their citizenship and taxes), so their viewpoint matters... as long as they aren't conservative or libertarian, then they are fair game for ridicule.

I did not prove your point at all. I was speaking to what those programs were initially thought up for, namely to help people bridge the gap during a sudden crisis until they could get back on their feet. They were never intended to be permanent, nor do I think they should be. Give them all the entitlements you want, but correct the mistake they made in initial concept--the idea that people could be so lacking in personal pride that they would never correct the financial problem and get themselves out of the program. Give the two fatties a deadline and a GED program (ok, and maybe a bus pass for a month) and they will eventually fend for themselves. If they don't, they will become much thinner. But the government has every right to cut or regulate programs that perpetuate dependence.

[bobblehead]

I don't want to see people starve, I want to see them work. I don't want them to freeze, I want them to pay the God-Damned heat bill (sorry to resemble Tex for a moment).

----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Just for the record, RetailGuy, I'm not the conservative who emphasizes a lack of compassion, etc. While I'm generally not much for liberal government programs, I'm only half-heartedly against them, and would prefer a bit of a safety net to seeing even rotten Americans who may deserve it, suffer.

I hope you read my posts and STRIVE to resemble me instead of apologizing for it.

Tex is giving a fair representation of himself, while misrepresenting my view. He is for gov't handouts, I am for policy that creates jobs and competition in he workforce so those evil rich people have to pay more in wages. You can give money to a poor person, but you aren't really helping them. Even the fatty in the article said something like "i don't want ??? what I want is a job" I give her credit, she gets it better than a lot of people do.

I know you didn't name me tex, but I somehow felt I was implied (with others). I don't have a lack of compassion, I just don't think its compassionate to create a dependant. I recongnize problems and look for the BEST solution, but most liberals look for the most simplistic feelgood solution.

[retailguy]

I don't want to see people starve, I want to see them work. I don't want them to freeze, I want them to pay the God-Damned heat bill (sorry to resemble Tex for a moment).

----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Just for the record, RetailGuy, I'm not the conservative who emphasizes a lack of compassion, etc. While I'm generally not much for liberal government programs, I'm only half-heartedly against them, and would prefer a bit of a safety net to seeing even rotten Americans who may deserve it, suffer.

I hope you read my posts and STRIVE to resemble me instead of apologizing for it.

Tex, my comparison was directed at the "God-damned" part of my comment. I recognize where your viewpoints are, and agree with a lot of them. I do not strive to "emulate" you, sorry, but I don't think the level of confrontation you engage in here, solves anything. Perhaps it makes you feel better, that I don't know, but I don't strive to be like that at all.

[retailguy]

I did not prove your point at all. I was speaking to what those programs were initially thought up for, namely to help people bridge the gap during a sudden crisis until they could get back on their feet. They were never intended to be permanent, nor do I think they should be. Give them all the entitlements you want, but correct the mistake they made in initial concept--the idea that people could be so lacking in personal pride that they would never correct the financial problem and get themselves out of the program. Give the two fatties a deadline and a GED program (ok, and maybe a bus pass for a month) and they will eventually fend for themselves. If they don't, they will become much thinner. But the government has every right to cut or regulate programs that perpetuate dependence.

Well, Zig, if you can't see that you proved my point, then I'm not sure what to do. You did, whether you see it or not.

My point was, and is, that YOU see a need for change after reading the article. You don't feel sorry for the people in the story. However, obviously, unless the NPR reporter secretly desires to work for the Onion, then that person DOES NOT agree with you, or me.

I don't even agree that the programs you advocate with limits work. Does that make me wrong? Does that make the NPR guy wrong? Does that make you wrong?

Exactly what you argued proves my point that our government should not be engaged in these types of programs. None of the 3 of us agree with one another, yet each thinks our viepoint is correct. The Government by default must try to listen to each of us, and act accordingly. It won't work. It hasn't worked. It's created a lot of bad blood, debt, unworking social programs, dependence, and ruined many many people from productive livelihood, and helped very very few people overcome their circumstances.

You were the poster child for defending that viewpoint why stating all the things should change based on what YOU believe. Let's say you changed the government to represent EXACTLY what you believe. What about those who disagree with you?.... Do they have a voice, even if they're wrong?

This is why government shouldn't be involved in this, but since it is, we must just accept what we get. We cannot make this work to anyone's satisfaction, even those getting the damned handout.

[retailguy]

Tex is giving a fair representation of himself, while misrepresenting my view. He is for gov't handouts, I am for policy that creates jobs and competition in he workforce so those evil rich people have to pay more in wages. You can give money to a poor person, but you aren't really helping them. Even the fatty in the article said something like "i don't want ??? what I want is a job" I give her credit, she gets it better than a lot of people do.

I know you didn't name me tex, but I somehow felt I was implied (with others). I don't have a lack of compassion, I just don't think its compassionate to create a dependant. I recongnize problems and look for the BEST solution, but most liberals look for the most simplistic feelgood solution.

Bobblehead, I agree with the "compassion" part of your argument, but it doesn't always work to stand on principle. I agree with your viewpoint, in large order, and I really realy respect Barr. However, a vote for Barr, does NOTHING for fixing what is wrong with the world. That's where the libertarians lose me. They stand on principle at the cost of losing ANY say in what goes on.

Sometimes you've got to gag, then pull the Hammer for John McCain, in the hopes that if he gets elected we'll see less situations as depicted in the NPR article.

That article makes me ill. Those people genuinely believe that they "deserve" a larger handout then they are receiving. They blame "society" for the fact they can't find work, can't get a car that runs, and can't as a result get to work....and are incapable of finding ANY solution without outside help.

Our social programs created this viewpoint (or at least helped). It has taken multiple generations but we're there. A significant portion of the electorate thinks, acts and believes as they do. What a waste of a potential productive life. It is very sad.

[retailguy]

I refuse to pay for them to take the easy way out. I have lost 20 pounds in the past month just by making minor changes to my diet, walking up the stairs instead of taking the elevator, and doing some light exercising.

I call bullshit on this. 5 pounds a week, with only minor changes...lol.

Hey, he's 22. He could lose 5 pounds by typing a 30 page paper. Wait until he hits 40, he wouldn't be able to stem the gain with the changes he's made.

[MJZiggy]

I'm not talking about my viewpoint. I'm talking about the INTENT of the original design of the programs. You don't see people buying Fritos with WIC checks. Why is that?

And since when has the government ever listened to me or given a rats ass about my individual viewpoint ever?

Oh. And my viewpoint that things need to change was in no way influenced by this article. I've never thought that assistance should be more than a stopgap for regular people.

[HowardRoark]

I refuse to pay for them to take the easy way out. I have lost 20 pounds in the past month just by making minor changes to my diet, walking up the stairs instead of taking the elevator, and doing some light exercising.

I call bullshit on this. 5 pounds a week, with only minor changes...lol.

Hey, he's 22. He could lose 5 pounds by typing a 30 page paper. Wait until he hits 40, he wouldn't be able to stem the gain with the changes he's made.

Exactly.

I was going to type the exact same thing a few minutes ago, but my energy level was too low.

[retailguy]

I'm not talking about my viewpoint.

From your first post:

MJZiggy wrote:
I got 3 words.

Diet and exercise. (they can afford to both stop eating AND get off their fat asses and walk if Granny loses the car.)

This is why it pissed me off that MATC stopped offering a GED course. God knows these pigs need it.

This isn't "your" viewpoint? Ok. Whatever. <sigh>

I'm talking about the INTENT of the original design of the programs. You don't see people buying Fritos with WIC checks. Why is that?

They don't need to buy fritos with the WIC check, because they can use their own money since we've "liberated" them from using their own money to buy things that their children need.

WIC does get milk into the mouths of children (presumably), however, at the cost of the Mother believing it is NOT her responsibility (and the baby's father too). We've "transferred" that responsibility to the state (and ultimately the taxpayer)....

And since when has the government ever listened to me or given a rats ass about my individual viewpoint ever?

It isn't about "individual" viewpoint. It is about the "collective" viewpoint of those that agreed with you. 50 years ago, you'd band with others of "like" mind and start a charity and "fix" it. Now, when the government is involved we must "be fair" to all citizens (or at least strive to be).

Oh. And my viewpoint that things need to change was in no way influenced by this article. I've never thought that assistance should be more than a stopgap for regular people.

It may not have been influenced but this article affected you. The government you voted for has put these programs into place over your lifetime and they don't resemble what you say you want - AT ALL.

You say you want something that isn't achievable. They've tried for 50 years and have failed at achieving anything remotely similar to what you want. Yet you want them to keep trying? I don't get that.

[MJZiggy]

I just can't make a 3 foot quote so you'll have to follow along.

The fact that I think they're fat pigs who could do with a diet and exercise has absolutely nothing to do with entitlement programs. And yes, it did piss me off that MATC stopped offering GED which wasn't an entitlement program either but helped a lot of people start over after quitting school.

What exact problem do you have with offering an entitlement with a deadline? Why is a deadline an impossible dream.? 24 months from your first check comes your last. And in the middle, education, and job training or no check. Do you think that the majority of taxpayers like this system and want it to remain as is? Do you think the majority don't think it's broken? And yes. If it's broken they should not just throw up their hands and declare it unfixable. Try something new for pity's sakes, but if you're gonna try the same damn thing over and over and expect a different result...

And I'm just not that old, RG. This started before I got here, but thanks for aging me...lol. There are still plenty of charities trying to fix the problems. I get a newsletter every month from the nice minister who runs a local homeless shelter in town and runs from all appearances a decent addiction program as well. They tend to come out of his programs very religious people.

[retailguy]

I just can't make a 3 foot quote so you'll have to follow along.

I have no problem following along. Nailing it down is perhaps a different matter, but, I can successfully tack jello to a tree, so I'll be fine.

The fact that I think they're fat pigs who could do with a diet and exercise has absolutely nothing to do with entitlement programs. And yes, it did piss me off that MATC stopped offering GED which wasn't an entitlement program either but helped a lot of people start over after quitting school.

But quite honestly, there wouldn't have been an article for you to criticize them if it hadn't been for entitlement programs would there? Also, if there weren't entitlement programs, sadly, both of these women would probably have jobs and support themselves, but that's not the way it is. We have them, and they're on them, and the poor souls can't afford meat.

What exact problem do you have with offering an entitlement with a deadline? Why is a deadline an impossible dream.? 24 months from your first check comes your last. And in the middle, education, and job training or no check.

And that's what that minister down the street is doing, or some variant, with much greater success than the government has ever done.

Go ahead and name one state government that does things this way. Many have tried, NONE have succeeded. Why is that?

Do you think that the majority of taxpayers like this system and want it to remain as is? Do you think the majority don't think it's broken? And yes. If it's broken they should not just throw up their hands and declare it unfixable.

Great theory, but it doesn't work this way in the world I live in. Or the one you live in. Yes, the majority thinks it's broken, but they keep voting in those who want to break it further. They keep sending their money to the ACLU and others who sue everytime reforms are made.

At some point, you have to throw all the good ideas in the trash can, and just STOP. Because, nothing anyone tries will ever make the "majority" happy. 50+ years proves that.

Try something new for pity's sakes, but if you're gonna try the same damn thing over and over and expect a different result...

What you're proposing has been tried many many times, and it's EXACTLY what you're proposing to try yet again. And you are expecting a different result. Remember "Workforce Wisconsin"? Do you think those of us that live in Wisconsin (not me or you) think it's working? Heck, the first thing that the guy that followed Tommy Thompson did was revise, repeal and change it.

Trying something NEW is to admit the same old tired entitlement programs don't work.

And I'm just not that old, RG. This started before I got here, but thanks for aging me...lol.

Aging you? Please. I'm married and would do no such things. These programs started before BOTH of us got here. I'm not that old either, however, at some point you have to take responsibility for them, because you did vote for them, by voting for people that supported/expanded/touted them. They also built their careers around keeping the entitlements in place as Falco so rightly pointed out.

You share responsibility, as do I, and every other person that reads this.

There are still plenty of charities trying to fix the problems. I get a newsletter every month from the nice minister who runs a local homeless shelter in town and runs from all appearances a decent addiction program as well. They tend to come out of his programs very religious people.

Really too bad you had to inject religion into this discussion. But hey, that's to be expected I guess. Let me apologize for the well meaning Christians who were a bit too exhuberant and then a bit too judgemental when they talked with you. Deep down they really just wanted to share what they had, but that went horribly wrong. Hopefully one day, you can overcome that and see what I've received in a positive light. If not, well maybe you can just see that not all of us have to preach and judge those that don't adopt Christianity.

I'll guarantee you one thing. That minister down the street is making more headway with this issue than out government ever has. And if they come out of there a "little too religious" but with jobs, self esteem, and the ability to figure out how to get their car paid for and how to afford meat, well then I'll take that because it's better than the alternative.

One thing I know for sure, there is NO ONE in that church that is still "being supported" after 24 months. The leeches have moved on by then, because they can't handle the message that God put them on this earth to work, not to take....

My reference to charity, for clarity sake, WAS NOT related to religious charity, though there are lots of those. There are plenty of non-religious charities too. The religious ones tend to have a bit more money, but hey, then you've got to look at the donor base, and I can't fix all the worlds problems. If the "non-religious" types don't want to give, then, well they don't want to give.

[texaspackerbacker]

I don't want to see people starve, I want to see them work. I don't want them to freeze, I want them to pay the God-Damned heat bill (sorry to resemble Tex for a moment).

----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Just for the record, RetailGuy, I'm not the conservative who emphasizes a lack of compassion, etc. While I'm generally not much for liberal government programs, I'm only half-heartedly against them, and would prefer a bit of a safety net to seeing even rotten Americans who may deserve it, suffer.

I hope you read my posts and STRIVE to resemble me instead of apologizing for it.

Tex, my comparison was directed at the "God-damned" part of my comment. I recognize where your viewpoints are, and agree with a lot of them. I do not strive to "emulate" you, sorry, but I don't think the level of confrontation you engage in here, solves anything. Perhaps it makes you feel better, that I don't know, but I don't strive to be like that at all.

And I respect you and your posts too--and agree with many of them. I was mostly joking about striving to emulate my posts--just like when I say Rush Limbaugh has people scouting my posts for material--MOSTLY joking.

As for being confrontational, I VERY seldom say anything derogatory about other posters--although I do quite a bit of "if the shoe fits" sort of thing as with Bobblehead above. When I say "God damned" something or somebody, I generally mean it sincerely, as I am referring to forces which are IMO deliberately harming and disrespecting this country--and "damning"--which basically is praying that God consign them to the lowest region of hell, as leftist politicians and media assholes so richly deserve--is exactly the fate I'm wishing for their sick evil asses. I hope I explained my reasoning clearly enough ........

[texaspackerbacker]

I don't want to see people starve, I want to see them work. I don't want them to freeze, I want them to pay the God-Damned heat bill (sorry to resemble Tex for a moment).

----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Just for the record, RetailGuy, I'm not the conservative who emphasizes a lack of compassion, etc. While I'm generally not much for liberal government programs, I'm only half-heartedly against them, and would prefer a bit of a safety net to seeing even rotten Americans who may deserve it, suffer.

I hope you read my posts and STRIVE to resemble me instead of apologizing for it.

Tex is giving a fair representation of himself, while misrepresenting my view. He is for gov't handouts, I am for policy that creates jobs and competition in he workforce so those evil rich people have to pay more in wages. You can give money to a poor person, but you aren't really helping them. Even the fatty in the article said something like "i don't want ??? what I want is a job" I give her credit, she gets it better than a lot of people do.

I know you didn't name me tex, but I somehow felt I was implied (with others). I don't have a lack of compassion, I just don't think its compassionate to create a dependant. I recongnize problems and look for the BEST solution, but most liberals look for the most simplistic feelgood solution.

Bobblehead, I suppose the truth of your position and mine is somewhere in between. I respect your zealotry against liberal social programs and in favor of fairness. I wish you were as fervent against the REAL sinister activity of government on all levels--regulation/sticking its ugly nose into good normal people's business.

I certainly do not support these leftist social programs either--even though you seem to accuse me of that. I only say--as Ronald Reagan said--that inevitably, there will be a percentage of losers, trash, dregs of society--whatever we choose to call them who just won't succeed no matter how many lofty and logical free enterprise opportunities and solutions are placed in front of them. Observation of life in this country proves the truth of that. And many of those pathetic souls have kids too. You may claim to NOT be without compassion, but in following a policy of fairness to its logical conclusion, some people WILL suffer.

It inevitably comes down to a choice of let it happen or bail them out. Sorry, but conservative that I am, I still lean toward the latter.

[MJZiggy]

RG, I'm not familiar with the Wisconsin program you speak of as I left there a long time ago. Perhaps that was structured as a persoal stopgap measure, I don't know, but if it didn't have a timeline for getting people out of itself and firm qualifications for getting the money and what that money could be used for, then it's not what I'm talking about.

And I didn't bring Father John into the discussion to disparage or criticize religion, more to demonstrate that he is absolutely not in a government program and that with many addicts, "giving yourself up to a higher power" is often very successful. Wait. I just thought of this. Isn't giving yourself up to a higher power abdicating responsibility just as giving yourself up to the govt. is? That's beside the point.

I agree that the dear Father is doing better than the government and what I'm saying is not that the govt. should give up, but that they need to operate closer to what he is doing. He doesn't have the space or the resources to allow someone to flounder in his system. Neither should the government.

And if you don't believe that the will of the people can fix a problem then we may as well pack it in and become a dictatorship because that's what you're saying when you say that we all know it's broken but it should go away. I don't want unemployment compensation to go away, and frankly that's an entitlement program that does work well. It's a model for what I'm talking about. You get what you need at the time and have a time limit on it.

Who said non-religious people don't give? Don't be silly.

[HowardRoark]

Wait. I just thought of this. Isn't giving yourself up to a higher power abdicating responsibility just as giving yourself up to the govt. is?

Ziggy, I hope this was just a random musing, because it is quite frankly ridiculous. Comparing God (higher power…..I guess you could have been talking about Superman though) to Government? People who give themselves up to God do not abdicate responsibility; they actually start acting responsible..

Higher Power = Government…….explains a lot though.