No free loading welfare spongers in south Africa unlike the UK soft touch
Printable View
No free loading welfare spongers in south Africa unlike the UK soft touch
I thought the world has been overpopulated for quite a while now, and the birth rate isn't slowing down. Getting people power should be the least of the problems.
As I said before, one step is to administer a birth control shot to women on welfare. They wanna get on their feet? Don't exacerbate the problem getting knocked up while off their feet.
Some are just in it for the money. It is not government's job to simply give you money.
Work or rot.
It's bad enough that hard working folk fall on hard times. That and the disabled. It should be governments job to help pull those folk up by the bootstraps but fuck an oppurtunist full-time freeloader.
Freeloaders need to be identified and cut the fuck off. That tough love will either spur a criminal, hard worker, or street beggar. Cut off the street beggar and you'll get one of the first two. Society and government should not have to pay a ransom to stop the beginnings of criminals.
I am guilty of giving food to bums whenever they say they are hungry. I wish I would stop that shit. I NEVER give money (anymore). I did when I was much younger.
As far as giving a bum a sandwich, I'd give spare change to working person if they needed it so I guess it's not a stretch. Thank goodness it doesn't come up often.
Could you send me a tuna mayo on rye, please :)
What's "rye please"?
Well you look close enough to a bum that I might oblige.:PQuote:
Originally Posted by Gripper
Busyman: Robs microwaves from the rich, complains about the poor:smilie4:
Come on busy...the war on poverty is over.....the poor lost ;)Quote:
Originally Posted by j2k4
Dabblng with humour again. :no2:
Responding to maebach's post regarding refugees, naturally there's a transition period until they learn the language. I fail to see the similarity between refugees and people taking advantage of the system. Refugees are by definition one of the marginal groups we're required to help.Quote:
Originally Posted by j2k4
Also, I refuse to make the assumption that children of people unwilling to work grow up to become non-workers themselves. If that were the general rule, the system would have failed horribly already! Think about it.
Birth control shots? I take it these won't be voluntary... I take it "land of the free" should only apply as long as your income meets a certain standard? It's quite an obvious thing to say, but.... more often than not people are on welfare for a reason. Naturally their situation may foster depression, worthlessness, and even apathy - among other things. Often the problem is just as much within the system as within the person. Instead of suggesting horrendous non-humanitarian practices like birth control shots and what not, these people should be helped to take a step up from their situation. What you're suggesting would certainly do no good at all...Quote:
Originally Posted by Busyman
Of course there are freeloaders in every society, but assuming as a rule that people on welfare, or people of general marginality are such seems quite far fetched imo.
I guess it comes down to the question if one assumes people are inherently good, or if they're inherently bad. Of course that assumtion doesn't take into account outer factors. What I'm trying to say is that often people seems so eager in blaming the victim that they forget about the larger society in which that person belongs. For instance, it's all too easy to blame the homeless for his plight. By doing so you're implying that you are in control of your destiny, just as the homeless rotting on the street were responsible for his faith - while of course disregarding the rules of the game in which we all are a part; Society.
So, instead of beeing so eager at blaming the victim, perhaps you should take a look at the higher order of things, and try to change that which do not work. Regarding the homeless in the US, personally I think you should all quit assuming that he choose to live like an animal, and face the facts staring you in the face; Most of them obviously have problems. I guess it's an inevitable side effect of living in an extreme individualistic society...
Quote:
Originally Posted by thewizeard
ahctlucabbuS,
Excellent post, I enjoyed reading that.
Thank you.
Did I silence all, or were the subject simply exhausted?
Huh?Quote:
Originally Posted by ahctlucabbuS
Did you read what I wrote...at all...ta lla?
Who said about blaming the victim? Who said folks on welfare are victims?
The birth control shots would be voluntary. How could they not be?
Do you think the government would tie the woman down, kicking and screaming, jab her with a needle.....then hand her a welfare check?:O
So say gubment doesn't give the birth control shot, she's getting welfare checks, and then.......she has a baby.
Now she has a harder time going to work and the gubment pays more money. She's outta commision (so to speak) even longer and will receive more money for a longer period of time.
That seems to works great now.
Nice going.
Protest and cut the welfare money down to $5/month.
Protest! Protest! Freedom for the masses!!
Quote:
Originally Posted by Busyman™
Quote:
I am guilty of giving food to bums whenever they say they are hungry. I wish I would stop that shit. I NEVER give money (anymore). I did when I was much younger.
Did you read what you wrote? My blaming the victim comment were aimed at that quote. You didn't flat out say you were blaming the victim, true.... However it's easy to infer so, with your comment in the context of this thread (freeloaders). You're obviously not considering possible outer factors. How many were mentally ill again? Right, I forgot, you think mental illness is a form of voluntary character flaw.
I recognise some people abuse the system, but the problem with this thread, as I've hinted to, is that people are far too eager to generalise and condemn a system based solely on those few individuals. A discussion on the subject is all good (and I'm all for fairness in the system), but don't degrade people of sincere marginality. The system is there as a safety net, and it would be a far cruder world to live in without it.
Regarding the homeless, if nothing you should open your pockets (more mental health facilities for instance). Instead you're spending how much on the military, and other money sinks that far exceeds whatever you're wrongly handing to freeloaders.
As for birth control shots. It can't possibly be voluntary if the woman is refused the check should she not comply, now can it? It may be passive force, but you're still taking her freedom. As I stated, it would end up with segregation based on income.
Then again, most governments in the western world is concerned with raising the number of births. So, you should only be so lucky to have a kid born to a mother on welfare, who will wipe your ass a few years down the road. :no2:
Not I, said the rabbit.Quote:
Originally Posted by ahctlucabbuS
If anything, sparsely populated areas need to be built up. Just the southern part of my county alone is getting 1800+ new homes built. We don't need to raise the number of births.
You sorta miss the point in spouting off some classism statements. A woman on welfare with children has a harder time than one without. Now I'm not saying if a woman already has a child that she should not receive welfare. I'm saying that the government should try to ensure that a woman on welfare is not making her own problem worse (and ours, the taxpayers) by having kids while trying to get on her feet.
That is one of main points of the welfare system. It is to help those that are able bodied, do for themselves.
I think governement should be able to regulate welfare in this manner....especially when it increases in length and amount if it wasn't regulated.
What can a woman say? "I should be able to have kids while on welfare and receive more welfare for those kids."
Nuh-uh.
Every woman I know personally that either had a kid when they were young and/or struggling really bad financially has told me that having a kid under those circumstances slowed them down even though their child was a blessing and most of these woman never hit the welfare system.
They either had family to fall back on or worked umpteen jobs.
I can't imagine a logical defense for a woman in the system.
/moved to the drawing room.
Please, no. Then people stop discussing it and just post set-pieces from their agendas.Quote:
Originally Posted by Gripper
OK I'll take that back then :)
Cheers mate.Quote:
Originally Posted by Gripper
Busyman, I agree with you on this one point - A woman on welfare is not really suited to take care of a child. It's your method for taking care of the problem I can't take seriously. But, you know, never mind beating a dead horse and all.
As a side note, birth rates in the developed world are steadily declining, thus giving birth (no pun intended) to a number of problems, of which ass wipings are only one of many. You know, I'm glad this were left in the lounge....
I don't get what's wrong with the method? I mean you wrote alot but explained nothing. It's easy to write a well thought out post that many can cheer but where be de substance?Quote:
Originally Posted by ahctlucabbuS
Regarding what's in bold, my method doesn't solve the problem. It's only a drop in the bucket in helping to solving the problem.
Ffs, you mention declining birth rates as a side note as if to say "oh man, we can't have welfare recipients being responsible.":stars:
Welfare...we should just get rid of it.
The side note were intended at this statement, and was more of a quick way to end the post as I couldn't be arsed to write at length in the middle of the night.Quote:
We don't need to raise the number of births.
Of course welfare recipients should be responsible, they're not, however, taking control of their lives with a birth control shot up their arses. Can't you see the freedom and individual autonomy taken away by such measures?
My posts were largely opposing generalizations and degradation of marginalized groups based on the actions of the few. These topics tend to degrade into a downward comparison self esteem fest, in which the people making the more insidious claims often are not of a too high a status themselves - kicking people below themselves to feel more valuable. While of course failing to grasp the fact that there are far deeper money sinks out there which goes to causes of more questionable character, and the fact that all plight need not necessarily lie within the individual of such marginalized faith - often within the system which tend to favour people of specific stature. Of course if you believe people on the streets deserve to be there, failing to see the underlying causes (like mental illness for instance) they will serve as a self fulfilling prophecy of human waste. Heck, I'm not trying to be the messiah here, I just believe there are more humane ways to handle the issue, and that every person deserve some respect, and a welfare check (if nothing else) without beeing treated like some animal.
On a side note, I can't believe I wrote 'stayed' in my previous post.
I'm at work, so this is going to have to be really short..
You can force women getting welfare onto birth control just as soon as you force men getting welfare onto birth control. It's an act that requires two. So, say, five years for the USA? Unlikely, but we may as well speculate.
http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/3543478/
:shuriken:
A post can only be called excellent if it makes good, substantiated points and it is also well constructed. The reader doesn't have to agree with everythng that is said to recognise that a person has achieved this. There are some posts which deserve "good point", there are some which deserve "well written" there are a few which are "excellent".Quote:
Originally Posted by Busyman™
The fact that you posted the above says more on your ability to understand, than it does about the quality of his excellent post. Your predictable quasi-"hood" bunkum is at best tedious and at worst offensive.
Mmk, then the above in bold isn't adressing anything that I've said. Cool.Quote:
Originally Posted by ahctlucabbuS
Now how is it that government is taking control of a person's life merely due to a shot. What about the doling out of money?:blink:
A person certainly has the individual autonomy of getting a welfare check.
Men can't have babies. Women don't need to have sex to get pregnant.Quote:
Originally Posted by MagicNakor
First things first.
Anything else?
No one yet has said anything as to how it would be wrong for women to take the shot.
Would the individual have anything to say in the matter? No, because money is power. You'd effectively get one class of people denied to take part of the most humane/natural activity - reproduction - simply because the people in power say so. If you read my posts, I believe that there are more to individual marginality than simply individual differences. If you don't want people to reproduce under marginalized conditions, you'd better make sure you provide for the lesser "classes" by raising their standard of living.Quote:
Originally Posted by Busyman™
In the same vein, It's not too difficult to grasp that the groups in power have much to lose by granting marginalized groups the same means to success.
Keep in mind, I'm not advocating illegitimate welfare, but from a point of view that people on welfare generally have a valid reason, society obviously needs to provide effective means to solve those reasons if it are to oppose welfare checks to the needing.
What I'm hinting at, is how you look at the differences in society. Is it a, more or less conscious, attempt by people in power to secure their own stature - or is it the marginalized individual's failure to raise their living standard to the same level? With that question in mind, remember that the earth would not be able to support every human beeing with that same quality of life....
So, again with the large picture of things, I'm not simply commenting on your question of birth control shots per se. Such a proposal is too far out there to even be considered by any group in power, given the massive uprising it would have (I'd hope).
I was unaware that the majority of women on welfare were also participating in in vitro fertilization. Or perhaps there have been a spike of virgin births? Or is it merely a case of what's good for the goose isn't good for the gander?Quote:
Originally Posted by Busyman™
Aside from infringing on a woman's right to say what can or cannot go into her own body, there are several medical issues with hormonal birth control. Pills tend to have fewer issues than shots.
:shuriken:
Yup, the large picture of things is that people should help themselves. By no means do I advocate getting rid of welfare. However, the way you talk is to shout at government for the inaction of those needing help.Quote:
Originally Posted by ahctlucabbuS
I can tell you that right now in DC, for instance, people actually flock there from other areas because of it's welfare program.
I already know of a bigger picture regarding folks on welfare. Things like the influx of drugs are part of it. However, my way addresses the issue of removing a barrier that holds many back from bettering themselves and is actually pretty easy to implement. Your way simply is to simply allow generational welfare to continue at it's current state and pace....blame government for most of it as if the jobs are simply nonexistent.
Either my scope on the matter is one thing at a time. Government should have the right to require a shot to women before receiving welfare. Government will sure as hell will have to pay for that baby. If she does not want to receive welfare, government does not require a shot.
I don't see what the issue is. The thing you've said that addressed that (in red) has been proven wrong. You talk this "because the people in power say so" while at the same time asking the people in power for money then that the recipients are being marginalized.:pinch:
Those issues would be addressed just like they currently are. By a doctor.:stars: It is not infringing on her right. She can refuse. I thought I said that already.:dry:Quote:
Originally Posted by MagicNakor
From:Quote:
Originally Posted by Busyman™
You want women to be rendered temporarily infertile so they can receive welfare. Why not have it both ways? Babies can't be created without viable sperm.Quote:
Originally Posted by Busyman™
:shuriken:
I'd guess you'd only need to step out your front door to see proof of the inaction in action.Quote:
Yup, the large picture of things is that people should help themselves. By no means do I advocate getting rid of welfare. However, the way you talk is to shout at government for the inaction of those needing help.
I'm not cool with generational welfare, and I don't believe it works that way (for the most part). There are other ways to handle it than involuntary birth control. If you read my post, I'm saying society have a responsibility to better the conditions, and to provide more opportunities for people to better themselves.
If your mother worked under difficult times, more power to her.
True.Quote:
Marginalized conditions is not synonymous with welfare recipients. Get it through your head. My mother never went on welfare but she worked her ass off under marginalized conditions. She is better off now and so am I.
Welfare recipients are however marginalized, given their previous history which proceeded their need for welfare (physical/psychological illness etc. etc.). People on welfare are further living marginalized simply by beeing poor. Under such circumstances I'd guess it would be quite hard to advance in life, which as I see it one should work to better. Of course there are people who will never be able to work, people I believe, society have a duty to take care of (and no, not a duty to take care of their fertility).
I don't see what you are getting at. The part in red is how I picture it would get if birth control were implemented. So, yes, you would get one class of people denied reproduction; people on welfare :whistlingQuote:
I don't see what the issue is. The thing you've said that addressed that (in red) has been proven wrong. You talk this "because the people in power say so" while at the same time asking the people in power for money then that the recipients are being marginalized.
As long as many people live of substantian wealth, money they will never ever have use for - then that society, which foster such hording of resources, have a duty to take care of people at the bottom. The earth can't foster every one of us living as large as the few.
Did you also know that capitalism works best under conditions of some unemployment, working as a buffer against increased wages? Needless to say there will always be people at the bottom, and a society which foster such should take care of those, it in fact, are dependent upon. So capitalism must take its share of responsibility then - you can't simply reduce the issue completely to the individual.
Edit, I can't agree more regarding abuse of the system. Obviously if enough people abused it - it would break. Just thought I'd make that clear once and for all.
I think it needs to be pointed out that there is no magical shot that would safely prevent pregnancy and it is unlikely there will be one anytime soon. The depo injection (which I assume people are thinking of here) is not suitable for all women, has lots of fun side effects and should only be taken for a limited period of time (around 5 years). What happens if someone who is genuine seeks welfare but has been on the depo-injection for an extended period of time? Also, the depo injection is not 100% guaranteed to prevent pregnancy.
The pill wouldn't work as someone could just "accidentally" forget to take it if they wanted to "accidentally" get pregnant. The coil wouldn't work either, it can be removed. As it stands, the only 100% method to prevent pregnancies would be to administer hysterectomies to all the women on welfare. Obviously this is not reversable once she manages to get a job.
Even if someone did invent a magic shot, would a woman be able to object to the shot due to their religion? If so, then I predict a sudden surge in convertions to the Catholic church. I'm sure there are numerous other exceptions that could be exploited by those that abuse the system but would have to be in place.
I'd also predict a rise in sexually transmitted infections within the welfare class if this rather silly idea was ever actually implemented.
:lol:
Good point.
Agreed, but not quite an excellent post.Quote:
Originally Posted by ahctlucabbuS
The thing is life is like a game, there's competitors. Inevidably there's going to be winners and losers. No one or the other. The Government enables these people by giving them the necessities of life, with-out labor and not knowing when to stop the wagon, so to speak. The real messed-up part of it all is that most of these people don't seem to have any self respect or pride (in a being too proud sense) for that matter. It's like they don't want better for themselves and there family. Speaking of family, most of these people or not educated at all. Don't know much about life (I know that's a broad-statement but I grew up in the ghetto so I kinda know what I talking about), so what are they suppose to teach there kids. Work etiquette? lol. What ends up happening is that the child becomes a teen. Having no structure or discipline and start wanting what mom or dad can't provide an start on the journey of crime-life.
I don't think there's a right or wrong way to handle this issue, I mean let's be rational. It's human nature the world is filled with greedy, selfish people. It's hard to work around it.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Zequabie
Important points, well-presented.
Whatever focus exists is very narrow; possibilities are limited, action is ineffectual.
Those on the outside console themselves with the existence of government-administered "benefits" and strive mightily to keep their hands clean and themselves safe.