Stupidity at its finest...

I am awaiting mguar's multiple post response to come at any minute.

What about creating places that are "welfare deserts" ie, you can't get government help in those areas.

I'm sure those more liberal than myself would say that such an idea is racist and focused on removing minorities from places like New Orleans, but you could contend that the "welfare desert" affected everyone equally. You can't get FEMA Insurance, you can't get Food Assistance, you can't get Cash Assistance...hell...you can't even get Medicare/MedicAid.

The goal of such a program would be design for force people to get the hell out unless they can cover their own ass.

Is that any different than keeping people from building in floodplains?

I can pick up any planning magazine and find numerous articles about how American have a habit of staying places with no opportunities (rural areas, Detroit), building in places that are bound to get washed away (New Orlean, Barrier Islands) and expecting the government to take care of them.

I recently heard a debate between a zoning officer/municipal supervisor and a resident about the resident's contention that he was not in a FEMA designated flood plain. The simple answer was this, while his likelihood of flooding was very low, it should not be the fault of the taxpayer when his house floods, and without insurance, he would likely be eligible for government assistance. He contended "I wouldn't take a dime from the government"....yea right, buddy.

mattmacklind said: My experience both as a social worker and as a prosecutor is there is a huge population of people, arguably growing, that are borderline retarded, has no impulse control and limited capacity for reason. There is no teaching or reasoning. That is what I meant by radical poverty. It isn't radical insofar as it is extreme, it is radical in the sense that there is no program, school, job training, jail, or any social program you can engineer that will change it.

That is the most profund statement on the nation's current state of affairs I have ever heard. No matter which side of the argument you fall on, this is the elephant in the room everyone is trying to ignore. With all the technology at our disposal, a large portion of our populace is becoming less healthy (mentally and physically), less educated, less willing or able to make meaningful contributions to society. Frankly I have not seen this issue adequatey addressed by anyone on either side of the political debate. Eventually, Idiocracy may be more than just a mildly funny movie.

06HHR wrote: less willing or able to make meaningful contributions to society. Frankly I have not seen this issue adequatey addressed by anyone on either side of the political debate.

And you won't. The figures I saw just before the last election was that 50+% of the country was on some sort of government dole. If you rile them up and threaten to take away their free money they WILL vote. And they can vote themselves whatever money & terms they want.

PHeller wrote: He contended "I wouldn't take a dime from the government"....yea right, buddy.

FWIW, my area in Indiana was classified as an exceptional drought and became eligible for federal loans......several people around us are taking those and buying new equipment then claiming their crop insurance for the crop. We think this is wrong, so we won't take any money. Sure, since most of our equipment is older(and paid off), and each tractor and our combine cost more than most people's houses, we could have taken loans to purchase more acerage, but this boils down to ethics and personal pride, which we value more than just money. We got lucky, our crops were hurt, but not as bad as the rest.

Some people need the help, some don't.....the government doesn't seem to care enough to look into it. Thats what makes this one and the same issue.

mattmacklind wrote: My experience both as a social worker and as a prosecutor is there is a huge population of people, arguably growing, that are borderline retarded, has no impulse control and limited capacity for reason. There is no teaching or reasoning. That is what I meant by radical poverty. It isn't radical insofar as it is extreme, it is radical in the sense that there is no program, school, job training, jail, or any social program you can engineer that will change it.

Actually, that's not true. There is a social program that will change it, called Personal Responsibility . It's just that that good ship started warming its boilers when FDR got elected, and it sailed out of Reality Harbor permanently in the late '50s and early '60s. What we are reaping now are the long-term benefits of the programs that drove that ship away from us. We have bred successive generations of people who expect to be spoon-fed, mentally and physically, and like any group that is artificially subsidized, the population of that group has exploded.

So now we have chained ourselves to a monster of our own creation, that is much larger and more powerful than we are, and it will beat us to death if we try to break those chains. And yet people still think it's a noble and good thing to keep feeding the monster.

4cylndrfury wrote: Lets say your kid is jumping on the trampoline, and you tell them not to jump too close to the edge cuz they could fall and get hurt, and they do it anyway, and fall and get hurt. You feel bad because your kid has a scraped elbow and a busted lip, and theyre crying and dirty, so you clean them up, speak gently to them, make them feel better, and then give them a sucker.

That's exactly what I would do. Are you saying that if your child got hurt you'd leave them laying on the ground crying alone and shout "YOU SHOULD HAVE LISTENED TO ME YOU PIECE OF E36 M3?" Because that's not good parenting and I would not want to live in your world. My child cries and needs help, I comfort them and help them.

dculberson wrote:

4cylndrfury wrote: Lets say your kid is jumping on the trampoline, and you tell them not to jump too close to the edge cuz they could fall and get hurt, and they do it anyway, and fall and get hurt. You feel bad because your kid has a scraped elbow and a busted lip, and theyre crying and dirty, so you clean them up, speak gently to them, make them feel better, and then give them a sucker.

That's exactly what I would do. Are you saying that if your child got hurt you'd leave them laying on the ground crying alone and shout "YOU SHOULD HAVE LISTENED TO ME YOU PIECE OF E36 M3?" Because that's not good parenting and I would not want to live in your world. My child cries and needs help, I comfort them and help them.

I'd burn the berkeleying trampoline in front of them

<-----more reasons why I shouldn't have kids

carguy123 wrote:

06HHR wrote: less willing or able to make meaningful contributions to society. Frankly I have not seen this issue adequatey addressed by anyone on either side of the political debate.

And you won't. The figures I saw just before the last election was that 50+% of the country was on some sort of government dole. If you rile them up and threaten to take away their free money they WILL vote. And they can vote themselves whatever money & terms they want.

50+% is a lot. I'm barely squeaking by. Where's my berkeleying money?!

But really, that sounds really high. [flounder]Like Todd Akin high.[/flounder]

The rich will take the handout, just as quickly as the poor. The old believe they worked for it, the young say they'll pay back more. The sick say they don't have an option, the healthy says it only fair. Take it all away and we'll be animals, fighting for our share. If only we worked for what we needed, and gave away the rest, with greed and sloth exterminated, America would be best.

dculberson wrote: That's exactly what I would do. Are you saying that if your child got hurt you'd leave them laying on the ground crying alone and shout "YOU SHOULD HAVE LISTENED TO ME YOU PIECE OF E36 M3?" Because that's not good parenting and I would not want to live in your world. My child cries and needs help, I comfort them and help them.

...AND you should use that pain and comfort as a lesson opportunity to reinforce the idea that they need to make better choices in what they do. Thus they learn from their mistakes, and grow into useful adults who understand that help is available in emergencies, but that ultimately, choosing better behaviours leads to less pain. <~~~ GOOD parenting.

Instead, what we do is continue to comfort them repeatedly and fix their problems and make sure the big bad scary world of reality never intrudes on their precious little existences. Therefore they never grow up to understand the value of actively avoiding pain, because the lesson that gets reinforced is that mommy and daddy will make the pain go away anytime something bad happens. <~~~ BAD parenting.

One definition of insanity is to do the same thing over and over and over, yet expect different results.

In reply to alfadriver:

Eric, why do you assume when someone makes a strong statement essentially saying "our government is broken" that they are an uncaring azzhat?

I disagree strongly with disabling people and holding them down, which is what our government is exceptionally good at.

I also care, a lot.

There are very few people I know who gave 10 years of their life volunteering to help poor people. I am one of them.

There are very few people I know who have been on the front lines volunteering to assist with over a dozen different large natural disasters. I am one of them.

There are very few people I know who take off work unpaid to go to places like Haiti to smuggle in medical supplies. I am one.

There are very few people I know who have spent 2 weeks every year volunteering in poor communities for over 20 years. I am one of them.

I really don't care if you don't like me. I make no apologies for the lifestyle I have chosen, and am proud of the impact I have had in poor communities and the relationships I have developed. I have sacrificed hundreds of thousands of dollars in income potential to contribute to the lives of thousands of poor people over the years, and I don't regret one bit of it. I wish I could do more.

Bottom line...I do NOT believe in giving a man a fish when I am capable of teaching him to fish, and I make the effort to teach to fish regularly.

I most certainly do not believe in giving a man so many damned fish that he chokes himself to death, or is incapable of raising his family or being a responsible citizen. I believe in giving till it hurts, but giving a hand up, not a hand out.

dculberson wrote:

4cylndrfury wrote: Lets say your kid is jumping on the trampoline, and you tell them not to jump too close to the edge cuz they could fall and get hurt, and they do it anyway, and fall and get hurt. You feel bad because your kid has a scraped elbow and a busted lip, and theyre crying and dirty, so you clean them up, speak gently to them, make them feel better, and then give them a sucker.

That's exactly what I would do. Are you saying that if your child got hurt you'd leave them laying on the ground crying alone and shout "YOU SHOULD HAVE LISTENED TO ME YOU PIECE OF E36 M3?" Because that's not good parenting and I would not want to live in your world. My child cries and needs help, I comfort them and help them.

If they fall, you clean them up, and then paddle their ass for disobeying. Needing help is one thing, being an asstard and EXPECTING help is another thing entirely.

$127billion spent on corporate subsidies vs $55 billion on human welfare.

Yep, the poor are really our problem

There is a lot more "welfare" spent on big, rich corporate farms and oil subsidies than those damn humans who can't fish.

Let's just kick all the people out of the flood plains, hurricane zones, earthquake zones, toronado alley, drought prone areas, and areas where giant fires happen. We can squeeze our poulation into 50% less land can't we?

You People!

DaveEstey wrote: You People!

Cone_Junky wrote: $127billion spent on corporate subsidies vs $55 billion on human welfare. There is a lot more "welfare" spent on big, rich corporate farms and oil subsidies than those damn humans who can't fish.

Frankly, BOTH types of welfare are the problem, not the solution. It is interesting that you assume that anybody who is against personal welfare must be for corporate welfare.

Cone_Junky wrote: Let's just kick all the people out of the flood plains, hurricane zones, earthquake zones, toronado alley, drought prone areas, and areas where giant fires happen. We can squeeze our poulation into 50% less land can't we?

Who said anything about "kicking them out"? How about just reducing the amount of federal artificial insulation that is provided, and let everybody who lives there assess the actual cost/benefit ratio for themselves?

Interesting false dichotomies there.

N Sperlo wrote: 50+% is a lot. I'm barely squeaking by. Where's my berkeleying money?! But really, that sounds really high. [flounder]Like Todd Akin high.[/flounder]

You're probably part of that group and don't even know it.

For example, I work for a sub-25 employee business. There are certain tax rebates that we qualify for. Bam - I'm recieving government money. I wonder if mortgage rebates are counted.

And I'm sure it doesn't even count corporate welfare, even though corporations are people, somehow.

Duke wrote:

Cone_Junky wrote: $127billion spent on corporate subsidies vs $55 billion on human welfare. There is a lot more "welfare" spent on big, rich corporate farms and oil subsidies than those damn humans who can't fish.

Frankly, BOTH types of welfare are the problem, not the solution. It is interesting that you assume that anybody who is against personal welfare must be for corporate welfare.

Cone_Junky wrote: Let's just kick all the people out of the flood plains, hurricane zones, earthquake zones, toronado alley, drought prone areas, and areas where giant fires happen. We can squeeze our poulation into 50% less land can't we?

Who said anything about "kicking them out"? How about just reducing the amount of federal artificial insulation that is provided, and let everybody who lives there assess the actual cost/benefit ratio for themselves? Interesting false dichotomies there.

Not quite. There is a lot of talk about why these people don't leave or why they came back. Simple, it's thier home. Same reason people returned to thier homes (or foundations) in CO. No talk here about those idots who live in a forest and then want a gov't handout when a forest fire burns down thier belongings. Only one slight mention of corporate (agr) welfare and no one jumped on the bandwagon of E36 M3ting on that. Just a long thread about these moochers sucking off the gov't teat down south.

It is all in how you phrase it, isn't it?

Corporate welfare:

Tax breaks given by cities/states/counties to encourage a business to relocate to their area to bring jobs, especially in disadvantaged areas. You aren't against creating jobs for working people, are you?

Tax breaks to oil companies to make domestic oil production economic versus importing foreign oil. How can you possibly want to increase our dependance on foreign oil, which helps fund terrorism?

You have to admit: forest fires, major earthquakes, tornadoes, etc. are cyclical things that often go decades between large events for a given locality, even if an entire region is prone to them.

But New Orleans gets pounded like a drunk sorority girl every berking year, on top of the fact that it is in an inherently unsustainable position relative to sea level.

In reply to Cone_Junky:

Just how many people did you think would jump on that bandwagon after you posted about it 15 MINUTES ago?

Duke wrote: But New Orleans gets pounded like a drunk sorority girl *every berking year*, on top of the fact that it is in an inherently unsustainable position relative to sea level.

OMG, how dare you use common sense and logic to explain yourself. Didn't you know you are supposed to use your heart and feelings to work these things out.

yamaha wrote:

PHeller wrote: He contended "I wouldn't take a dime from the government"....yea right, buddy.

FWIW, my area in Indiana was classified as an exceptional drought and became eligible for federal loans......several people around us are taking those and buying new equipment then claiming their crop insurance for the crop. We think this is wrong, so we won't take any money. Sure, since most of our equipment is older(and paid off), and each tractor and our combine cost more than most people's houses, we could have taken loans to purchase more acerage, but this boils down to ethics and personal pride, which we value more than just money. We got lucky, our crops were hurt, but not as bad as the rest. Some people need the help, some don't.....the government doesn't seem to care enough to look into it. Thats what makes this one and the same issue.

This was the slight mention of agricultural welfare (over an hour ago) that no one took any further, thank you very much.