The Poorhouse: Aunt Winnie, Glenn Beck, New Deal

[deziloooooo]

I believe that the assistance the military folks get are those lower ranks who have families..needed for housing and food. They qualify due to the # of family members and the salary paid them.

I think in the grand scheme of things..the military considers/believesd a lower rank will be a younger non encumbered member of ..with no family yet. Given a decent wage for their position and experience, given quarters and sustenance, and not such a bad deal for all parties at that stage of their enlistment.

That so many do have families or get them once they are part of the military is a fact.

I am not sure if in the initial recruiting of candidates , if say a potential recruit applies and passes all tests and interviews with flying colors , yet lets it be known to the recruiter he is married and has three kids, minors , at home, if that is considered a negative and enters into the decision of accepting them or not, possible a serving member has that information.

[Shirina]

I do not assume millions and millions are just lazy, I know this is a fact.

Oh you do? Well, why not prove it? As they say in internet parlance: Jpegs or it didn't happen. I'm certainly not going to simply take you at your word.

Having known welfare recipients here and there I can tell you that every single one of them was fully capable of doing some kind of work.

That is called "anecdotal" evidence. Unless you have known "millions and millions" of welfare recipients, your tiny statistical sample is meaningless. By the way, it isn't about whether they can do "some" type of work. It is whether that work will provide what they need. I've known people on welfare who could do "some" type of work, too, but they stayed on welfare because they needed medication or treatments for illnesses that they couldn't get from an employer. Without those medications, they couldn't work. What a Catch 22, given that an employer will generally make one wait 6 months to a year before benefits kick in, so these welfare recipients cannot make the transition from welfare to work. Of course, just by looking at them, you would assume the person is just lazy, but that's not the case.

So my anecdotal evidence cancels out your anecdotal evidence.

If you ask me, the ones that really need the help are people living on the street. Most of them suffer from some kind of disorder such as schizophenia or delusions.

That's true, they do, but most of them will never be employable, and they need money to pay for their treatments that will, most likely, last the rest of their lives.

The ones that are just drug addicts don't get a whole lot of pity from me. That is their choice.

I have little sympathy for them, as well, but these really aren't the kind of welfare recipients I'm talking about.

You open a door and there is no telling how many are going to come through it.

So we should slam it closed for everyone because some might abuse the system? By your logic, we should also close all stores because some people might shoplift from them.

It is not possible to know for 100% certainty that someone should receive welfare unless it is blatantly obvious there are disabled.

What if it's not obvious? For instance, there are numerous conditions that you can't diagnose simply by looking at it. Nerve disorders are especially problematic since they are not only invisible, they are difficult (and often impossible) to cure. In some cases, there aren't even any tests that can be run to confirm the condition exists. What do people with these conditions do?

All others are frauds.

Proof? Link? Evidence (non-anecdotal)? Fraud constitutes a deliberate attempt to falsify or lie to obtain something - in this case, welfare. It heavily implies criminal intent. For your carte blanche accusation to hold any water whatsoever, you will have to provide proof that everyone but the disabled are intentionally defrauding the government. I await the timely exposition of said proof.

[Shirina]

I noticed you pulled out certain sentences of my paragraph to try and make a point...dirty politics Shirina. If you want to have a discussion that's rational I'd be more than happy to, but I'm not going to run around in circles chasing my tail over somebody who pulls a sentence out of context. Sorries...

A sentence is only considered to be out of context if:

a) The sentence is later refuted by the original author later in the post

b) If placing the sentence in isolation changes its meaning

c) If an isolated sentence is used to prove a point that was not being made by the author.

My quotes of your post meets none of these three criteria. Therefore, claiming they are 'out of context' is not relevant in regards to the way in which I responded to them.

[Shirina]

Still not falling for it Shirina...nice try though.

There's nothing to "fall" for. That simply is the way it is.

However, it does get you off the hook from having to refute me.

[Shirina]

I think everybody else can see where you took a sentence out of context which is dirty politics.

And in what way did anything I say in regards to your post change the meaning of your post?

Just because I took a few sentences in isolation doesn't mean they are automatically out of context. You said if conditions are bad, join the military. I said that even military personnel qualify for and receive welfare. I even provided a link. You said there is a well paying job waiting for anyone who wants one. I asked if you were implying there was a labor shortage - since it seemed odd that there were all of these job vacancies during a time when god jobs are scarce.

How does anything I said constitute "dirty politics?" This is a serious question.

[burnsattornincan]

We continue that and we will lose good new people , know some already , disillusioned, who will spot these threads for what they are, more of the same, the old.

I have to hand it to you Mr. dezilooooo. A first reading of any one of your posts someone might think you are mentally challenged however this clever little sentence tells me quite the opposite. I know exactly what you infer, silence me and my views or this board will lose members and turn away new ones. You say things are being carried over from the old board and your constant whining to moderators is right there with everything else. I have to skip over most of your drivel however what I do read shows me that you have more in mind than just debate. You should be handled with great care and watched very closely in my opinion.

[deziloooooo]

You poor baby, your hemorrhoids are hurting again? so sorry.

[burnsattornincan]

Mr. ratchets, I was leaning toward your assessment and the last post by Mr. dezilooooo has confirmed it. Thanks.

[comokate]

"I read one of Ann Coulter's books"
I'm sorry to hear that....

Before you quote her as an authority on *anything*, realize she tried to insist that Canada fought in Viet Nam, and Jews needed to be "perfected" ( and what "separation of church and state" does that fall under? )

[steff]

Jews need to be perfected? OMG I'm still flabbergasted at some of the things she says and actually believes. It's just insane that people think that way.

[Tennesseer]

Would you expect anything less from Ann Coultergeist?

[Value Buy]

Tennesseer, I like your quote at the bottom of your messages, but I guess I do not understand it's true meaning.
I read it as saying, the deadbeat welfare groups are keeping the taxpaying citizens (those who have so much to give ) down and out, denying the taxpayers their just rewards for working hard, by over paying taxes to support the deadbeats.
Do I read it correctly?

[deziloooooo]

"We have to improve life, not just for those who...know how to manipulate the system but also for and with those who often have so much to give but never get the opportunity."
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
I kind of read it as the welfare groups who for all their life held down good jobs, paid their taxes, some members of , who when called upon by their government , to go off to fight in long away wars, even when they themselves didn't understand why, what was the danger, still answered their countries call and for those who made it back still breathing and functional, suddenly for so many, found them selves out of work, not insured for medical problens, and in many cases finding that they were being made to leave their homes because of financial problems of unable to find new employment , and when asking those in power why, got no answers and also wondering why fellow Americans who still were with work are so reluctant to help these groups in their time of need and why they find them selves being called disreputable names yet they did nothing wrong to get in this position.

Intersting how , same phrase, two entirely different interpertations. Mine is from a middle to the left and yours..........

[sanityjones]

Here; Now you don't have to make stuff up.

www.google.com/url?sa=t&source=web&cd=4&sqi=2&ved=0CDYQFjAD&url=http%3A%2F%2Fen.wikipedia.org%2Fwiki%2FDorothy_Height&ei=BLkiTf67IYqkngewvrWUDg&usg=AFQjCNEXR3VIX0oii4_V7nKNh6XvuUCYuw

www.brainyquote.com/quotes/authors/d/dorothy_height.html

[Shirina]

I read it as saying, the deadbeat welfare groups are keeping the taxpaying citizens (those who have so much to give ) down and out, denying the taxpayers their just rewards for working hard, by over paying taxes to support the deadbeats.

While Tennesseer's signature obviously means no such thing, your interpretation of it renders a fleeting but predictable window into the mindset of the conservative obsession with "deadbeats."

I think Ten's signature can be summed up in the old slogan, "A mind is a terrible thing to waste," and millions of them are wasted due to a lack of opportunity, lack of resources, lack of money. The poor are the ones who have so much to give but cannot do so. I'm sure the conservatives will demand these "deadbeats" go out and get a job, but would any of them actually hire someone they've already labeled as "lazy?" Probably not. Thus the cycle of poverty continues.

[Shirina]

Ann Coulter

Conservatives should be embarrassed at having such a bubblehead in their ranks.

[workpublic]

she's not a conservative

[Deleted]

In order to hire someone, they have to actually be LOOKING for a job

I know the rich keep getting richer, and the poor keep getting poorer....but WHY?

Could it be attitude, education, drive, and work ethics?

This country was founded on certain principle's and ideals....

It promised life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness

To pursue means to chase....to work.....to put forth an effort

Something to think about....

[warsaw (banned)]

Could be because the minimum wage has never been lower, schools never worse, college more expensive, fees and services more expensive, second chances harder to get (credit and computers), and rich people more greedy and arrogant- and no jobs available really for 3 years....thanks Pubs....

[Shirina]

So I ask again, how many conservatives would really hire someone who hasn't worked in several years, was on welfare, and has very little work history? And I'm not talking about lousy dead-end minimum wage jobs with few or no benefits scrubbing toilets.

[burnsattornincan]

So I ask again, how many conservatives would really hire someone who hasn't worked in several years, was on welfare, and has very little work history?

Conservatives? Why do you say it is only conservatives in such a position? Anyway, there are plenty of people with better qualifications looking for work so why would anyone hire someone as such? The problem is that all your semi menial jobs have been shipped offshore due to excessive and unrealistic union demands as well as excessive government taxes and regulations. That is the crux of the entire joblessness dilemma in the US and some other western countries, sorry to tell you dear Ms. shirina.

[Value Buy]

Jan 5, 2011 19:54:04 GMT -5 Shirina said:

So I ask again, how many conservatives would really hire someone who hasn't worked in several years, was on welfare, and has very little work history? And I'm not talking about lousy dead-end minimum wage jobs with few or no benefits scrubbing toilets.

Yes, maybe they would all qualify for $30 an hour jobs from the git go......
I wonder how many of these same people were hired at Microsoft, Cisco, or Apple, who had absolutely no job skills, or computer geek status and placed in what was considered, "livable wage jobs".
Of course I do not know if any of these companies were founded by "Conservatives", but we get to the same point.
Liberals are just as conservative as conservatives when it comes to business. If you can't make my company stronger by hiring you, I am not going to put you in a decent wage level position.
It is not called survival by the fittest for nothing.

[floridayankee]

Jan 5, 2011 19:54:04 GMT -5 Shirina said:

So I ask again, how many conservatives would really hire someone who hasn't worked in several years, was on welfare, and has very little work history? And I'm not talking about lousy dead-end minimum wage jobs with few or no benefits scrubbing toilets.

Ignoring the "hasn't worked in several years, was on welfare" part for a moment, I don't see a person as you describe getting many offers above entry level without work experience...whether the person doing the hiring is conservative or liberal.

As far as the "hasn't worked in several years, was on welfare" part goes, that would depend on why...and something that would likely be asked in an interview.