The Ferguson thread / additional race discussion
- Thread starter bit_pattern
- Start date
- Status
Bardeaux
Bluelight Crew
^ This concept published in zerohedge has been thoroughly debunked somewhere in this forum.
To summarize, the number of people receiving food assistance dwarfs the number of people receiving cash assistance, which dwarfs the number of people receiving housing assistance etc. So no, statistically, one is not better off reaping government benefits than earning $69k per year because so few people are actually receiving every benefit possible.
Which would you choose? Which ever programs you might be eligible for, or a position that pays $69k per year?
To summarize, the number of people receiving food assistance dwarfs the number of people receiving cash assistance, which dwarfs the number of people receiving housing assistance etc. So no, statistically, one is not better off reaping government benefits than earning $69k per year because so few people are actually receiving every benefit possible.
Which would you choose? Which ever programs you might be eligible for, or a position that pays $69k per year?
LosBlancos
Ex-Bluelighter
I would choose the position paying $69k a year because I'm a driven person and love getting up every day for a purpose. You and the other board members don't see the extent of welfare fraud out there, my friend works at a 7/11 you'd be amazed the people paying for food in LINK cards (food stamps) wearing the latest $200 sneakers to be released and driving away in a newer model Cadillac.
Many would prefer to sign up for whatever programs they are eligible for and making untaxable income from under the table pay, drug sales, or prostitution. Think about the people claiming benefits whom have never worked and contributed into the system at all in their lives, they are the definition of the word "parasite".
Bardeaux
Bluelight Crew
And what portion of welfare recipients would you say this applies to?
Personally (which also applies to many people I know), I receive food and medical benefits while also working two jobs and attending school full time. Generalizing welfare recipients into the caricature welfare queen is myopic at best and otherwise dubious.
LosBlancos
Ex-Bluelighter
A large number and this comes from personal experience having been to Oakland, Chicago, Los Angeles, many of the larger cities in America. People needing welfare because they have CHOSEN to have numerous children out of wedlock, CHOSEN not to pay attention in school or learn a trade. I'm sure large numbers of receipients have garnered hundreds of thousands in aid and contributed maybe ten thousand in taxes over the course of their life. Here is a prime example:
LosBlancos
Ex-Bluelighter
Bardeaux
Bluelight Crew
Right, but what happened to the whole "nothing but raw data" thing?
Less than 10% of recipients are able bodied, unemployed and of working age and less than 20% receive benefits for more than 5 years.
Your personal experience may be important to you, but your personal experience isn't particularly valuable to me. We can dissect things down to how many people on welfare own a toaster as per Fox News, but I trust you can see where I'm coming from.
Less than 10% of recipients are able bodied, unemployed and of working age and less than 20% receive benefits for more than 5 years.
Your personal experience may be important to you, but your personal experience isn't particularly valuable to me. We can dissect things down to how many people on welfare own a toaster as per Fox News, but I trust you can see where I'm coming from.
Most people i know on the dole would be lucky to have a old pair of cheap sneakers and a piece of shit dirt bike made of spare parts for getting around on never mind $200 sneakers and a fuckin Caddy. That's a bullshit argument right from the get go because your using maybe what 1% of people on welfare (if that much mind you) to tar the whole lot with the same brush.
If i had a nickle for everytime i have heard some Conservative use that argument which is not really a argument at all id be driving a caddy by now
I don't understand this idea that because you believe in "meritocracy", that somehow the poor are deserving of any indignities and hardships they face. It's an argument that chooses to overlook so many important socioeconomic factors, and has little basis in reality.
Blaming people for their misfortune is really counter-productive and seems like a form of misguided envy. Like poor people are getting something for nothing.
It's easy to be so hard-line about social welfare if you've never had to face living on the street or going hungry because your financial needs are not being met.
Blaming people for their misfortune is really counter-productive and seems like a form of misguided envy. Like poor people are getting something for nothing.
It's easy to be so hard-line about social welfare if you've never had to face living on the street or going hungry because your financial needs are not being met.
legalizeall
Bluelighter
- Joined
- Nov 29, 2012
- Messages
- 967
Its just a frustrating thing to see people abuse it, lie about their situation on forms to get more money, show little interest in pulling themselves out of the situation, and hustle what they receive on drugs or other things that dont benefit their kids. Not everyone does this but its a fair percentage that do. Im not saying any particular race does it more either. Seems to be equal when it comes to who is milking the system.
Its noticeable in america. What happens is officials see this and start cutting funding so the people that really need it are left with very little to work with. They see too many people using it for long term which is not what its designed for. Designed to help you get back on your feet and off the programs but alot of people exploit it.
So the taxpayers that have their money going there get upset and pissed off cause its not just poor people that have fallen on hard times. Its a mix but too many have fallen on hard times cause they have lack of motivation or decent work ethic. They are on the government tit and dont want off. People get tired of that and tired of working hard to see their money go to someone with no intentions of bettering themselves and who are enjoying the loopholes in the system to get all the money they can. You can see people that are getting something for nothing.
Ive had to use some assistance when i lost my job and was having trouble finding work. Even with unemployment, its very hard to make ends meet but i was single with no kids which qualifies me for less. Its surprises me to hear people think that race makes a difference with those programs when its not that way at all.
Last edited:
I think they 'abuse' of welfare is just dramatically exaggerated.
While there may be plenty of examples of people playing the system, I suspect there are many, many more people who genuinely need assistance. Sadly their lives are not what most people want to hear about - so they do not rate a mention (amongst the press, politicians, etc).
In contrast, "welfare cheats" are a favourite target of certain media and political interests - so they are grossly overrepresented, thus tainting the perception of most "joe taxpayer" types that work for a living (ie most of us).
Compared to the wasteful govt spending in bank bail-outs, military funding and things of that nature, the negative impact of such welfare recipients is negligible.
Even if people are cheating 'the system' - is that not better than those same people ripping off and thieving from other citizens?
Seems better to me, but I'm particularly in favour of the welfare state.
While there may be plenty of examples of people playing the system, I suspect there are many, many more people who genuinely need assistance. Sadly their lives are not what most people want to hear about - so they do not rate a mention (amongst the press, politicians, etc).
In contrast, "welfare cheats" are a favourite target of certain media and political interests - so they are grossly overrepresented, thus tainting the perception of most "joe taxpayer" types that work for a living (ie most of us).
Compared to the wasteful govt spending in bank bail-outs, military funding and things of that nature, the negative impact of such welfare recipients is negligible.
Even if people are cheating 'the system' - is that not better than those same people ripping off and thieving from other citizens?
Seems better to me, but I'm particularly in favour of the welfare state.
legalizeall
Bluelighter
- Joined
- Nov 29, 2012
- Messages
- 967
Your a bit off because its the middle class who are being fucked. The working class is the middle class. That is who all the money is being purged from. Your vision of whats going on here isnt quite accurate and is limited. Going off what you "hear" from a few people that live here doesnt go for the whole country. You dont have to turn to crime cause your down on your luck. Thats a excuse to me. If you have the right motivation and drive, then you can overcome anything but to blame stealing or doing criminal acts on anybody but yourself is a weak and pathetic person. Thats part of the problem here is people cant take ownership of what they do and instead point the finger. Its cause of you i did this. Or if you werent like this, I wouldnt have to do that. Thats bullshit. Man up and deal with the consequences of it or change your situation. Ive had some really hard times and have never thought to turn to a life of crime and then blame someone for it. What a great way to self destruct. They have a right to have the nerve to wonder that cause its a cope out to blame people. Cry and cry about it, isnt what a man does.8(
Last edited:
This "man up and deal with it" attitude is the ugly side of meritocracy that I mentioned before.
I know there is this tough "rugged individualist" mythology in American culture - and that's fine, but it's also a victim-blaming mentality in my opinion.
It's all well and good to believe that wealth is the result of hard work and poverty is the result of bad choices or laziness - but it doesn't reflect the reality of lot of people's lives - especially in times of high unemployment/economic downturn/recession.
And assumptions like that are no way to form coherent or functional social welfare policies.
I know there is this tough "rugged individualist" mythology in American culture - and that's fine, but it's also a victim-blaming mentality in my opinion.
It's all well and good to believe that wealth is the result of hard work and poverty is the result of bad choices or laziness - but it doesn't reflect the reality of lot of people's lives - especially in times of high unemployment/economic downturn/recession.
And assumptions like that are no way to form coherent or functional social welfare policies.
LosBlancos
Ex-Bluelighter
That's all fine and dandy but Obama wants to grant amnesty to millions of formerly illegal aliens, that will be millions more on the welfare programs and higher taxes. It's like a sales business they have their employees that bring it thousands in dollars of business every day and those that can't get a sale but their still paying them, instead of firing the ones not bringing in money they are going to hire even more, so the productive workers get paid less.
Escher's Waterfall
Bluelight Crew
Government assistance is like making less than a US minimum wage job. It really sucks.
But in my state, since we're pseudo-socialists, we have an excellent state health insurance for poor people. It is so civilized - you go to the doctor, pay a small co-pay, whatever the doctor recommends is covered by the state insurance, and drugs have a small additional co-pay.
Contrast with my private insurance - doctor prescribes a drug, the insurance company declares it doesn't see a reason why I need it, then that decision has to be appealed, it takes weeks, and finally the insurance company caves in and admit that the doctor may actually be right and covers the drug. Then god forbid if the doctor prescribes a test - half the time the insurance company doesn't want to cover that.
State health insurance is the only thing I really miss about being poor.
LosBlancos
Ex-Bluelighter
Wrong. From Forbes...
Since 2009, the Fair Labor Standards Act has dictated that the federal minimum wage is $7.25 an hour. Some people think that’s too low; others think it’s too high. But it turns out that, in 35 states, it’s a better deal not to work—and instead, to take advantage of federal welfare programs—than to take a minimum-wage job. That’s the takeaway from a new studypublished by Michael Tanner and Charles Hughes of the Cato Institute.
“The current welfare system provides such a high level of benefits that it acts as a disincentive for work,” Tanner and Hughes write in their new paper. “Welfare currently pays more than a minimum-wage job in 35 states, even after accounting for the Earned Income Tax Credit,” which offers extra subsidies to low-income workers who take work. “In 13 states [welfare] pays more than $15 per hour.”
Losing ground in the war on poverty
The welfare system, at its best, is a system that gives people a way to live when they can’t find work for themselves, when they’re down on their luck. At its worst, the welfare system rewards people for not working, and incentivizes people to develop habits that make it harder for them to find work in the future, miring them in permanent poverty.
http://www.forbes.com/sites/theapot...ays-more-than-minimum-wage-work-in-35-states/
Bardeaux
Bluelight Crew
^Maybe this is an indicator that it's time to drastically raise the wage? Adjusting for inflation, the federal minimum is almost 30% lower than it was in 1968. We would have to raise it to $10.10 just to be on par with the 1968 minimum wage.
LosBlancos
Ex-Bluelighter
Watch as more jobs get shipped to China or India, or replaced by technology as we keep raisining minimum wage.
Unbelievable when I post a story on welfare disincentive to work because it pays more than minimum wage it isn't indication to lower welfare but rather raise minimum wage. Minimum experience, minimum skills, minimum effort=minimum wage. Many people on minimum wage are fresh off the boat and $8 an hour is more than they'd earn all day of back breaking labour in their native country.
The drug coverage in my province is one part of the social system we got right. Most drugs except newer expensive ones like say Butrans patches (Bupe patches) or something like say Invega may not be covered. Ontario is the best in this regard as they have much better coverage when it comes to anti-psychotics and painkillers but oddly enough they suck when it comes to covering mood stabilizers and anti-depressants so yeah i guess every place has it's trade off's. Unless you make over a certain amount (id have to look it up now but i think it's $20 000 a year before you start paying anything then you don't pay much but there is of course a cut off point) it's free which is better then most private insurances. As for universal health care despite the sorry shape current and previous governments have left it in thank good fucking jesus for it. If i lived in the US i have no doubt i would have died years ago.
As for the whole pull yourself up by your own bootstraps arguments some have on here i'll let a wiser man speak for me on that "Capitalists are no more capable of self-sacrifice than a man is capable of lifting himself up by his own bootstraps" -Lenin
How does lowering the minimum wage help? If they move the jobs to China or India or any place with a lower minimum wage they should not be able to sell their products here as far as i am concerned. If enough countries did that then they wouldn't have a market thus they would have to up their wages. Granted Syndicalism developed in these countries would do more for the workers themselves. And yes your right those ungrateful bastards off the boat how dare they have the nerve to ask for a wage they can live on. Why not just make them real slaves again instead of having them pretend they have any freedom at all? Give the unruly ingrates a taste of the lash to make them work faster i say 8)
Last edited:
ebola?
Bluelight Crew
whitey said:
These trends will continue regardless of minimum wage regulations in the US (or is it Australia? You tell me. . .). No one can do anything to eliminate or even significantly reduce China's current dominance in manufacturing of finished goods, particularly electronics. Jobs have been continually replaced by technology for the past 300 years or so. Luckily, novel industries and new technologies emerge continually, so outsourcing doesn't entail loss in a zero-sum game. For example, in the US, our manufacturing sector has specialized more and more in the production of capital goods (Brenner, R 2002). This sector of the economy has remained robust, particularly during economic upturns, and benefits from demand created by China's massive manufacturing output of finished goods (ibid).
Can't comment much on Australia's macro-economy though, sorry. . .
ebola
- Status