Discussion about hot topics trending today

[Womble]

Then they will have to learn something, won't they? Sheesh! They can't use a computer, but if someone gives them a phone, they have no problem with that?

Imagine that. In many places in the world, and for increasing number of poor Americans, mobile phone is the only computer they can afford to have, and therefore know how to use.

Having a computer usually has two prerequisites - having a home, and having home internet. Poor people might not have one or both of these.

The most interesting question, though, is this: how much neglect of the poorer share of your population do you think makes economic sense? I'm not talking about the moral side of things right now; in purely money terms, how much help do you believe they should get in order to not be a drain on your economy?

Poor people, you see, are a drain on your economy in more ways than just welfare. Poverty breeds crime, infectious diseases, social mistrust, environmental pollution, you name it. Making things easier for poor people is oftentimes a smart investment simply because improving their situation saves money elsewhere.

[Chaka-Z0]

Honestly for those s*ck *****s I'd recommend Judge Dredd.

Making things easier for poor people is oftentimes a smart investment simply because improving their situation saves money elsewhere.

Don't talk about investments to Annoyed, he believes it's gambling. No wait, it's GAMBLING.

[Annoyed]

Don't talk about investments to Annoyed, he believes it's gambling. No wait, it's GAMBLING.

That's because it IS gambling.
You buy stock in a company or a group of companies. If they win, you win.
You place a bet on a football game. If they win, you win.

What's the difference?

[Annoyed]

Imagine that. In many places in the world, and for increasing number of poor Americans, mobile phone is the only computer they can afford to have, and therefore know how to use.

Having a computer usually has two prerequisites - having a home, and having home internet. Poor people might not have one or both of these.

The most interesting question, though, is this: how much neglect of the poorer share of your population do you think makes economic sense? I'm not talking about the moral side of things right now; in purely money terms, how much help do you believe they should get in order to not be a drain on your economy?

Poor people, you see, are a drain on your economy in more ways than just welfare. Poverty breeds crime, infectious diseases, social mistrust, environmental pollution, you name it. Making things easier for poor people is oftentimes a smart investment simply because improving their situation saves money elsewhere.

And how do these "poor people" end up in their situations? Did they hang out on a streetcorner with their friends, because it was cool? Or did they avail themselves of the free education provided by the taxpayers through the public schools?

Did they exercise responsibility when it comes to activities that may result in a child they have to put their life plans on the back burner to care for?

Did they commit crimes that result in prison sentences which puts a mark on your record which would make it difficult to obtain employment in the future?

Did they legally or illegally migrate to this country with no idea how they would support themselves besides expecting the taxpayers to support them.

Granted, there are legitimate hard luck situations, where it's no fault of the person. But what percentage of people in dire financial straits are there because of their own poor choices?

[Womble]

And how do these "poor people" end up in their situations? Did they hang out on a streetcorner with their friends, because it was cool? Or did they avail themselves of the free education provided by the taxpayers through the public schools?

Did they exercise responsibility when it comes to activities that may result in a child they have to put their life plans on the back burner to care for?

Did they commit crimes that result in prison sentences which puts a mark on your record which would make it difficult to obtain employment in the future?

Did they legally or illegally migrate to this country with no idea how they would support themselves besides expecting the taxpayers to support them.

Granted, there are legitimate hard luck situations, where it's no fault of the person. But what percentage of people in dire financial straits are there because of their own poor choices?

Does it matter? If their poverty is the fault of their poor choices, does it mean they should be left to their own devices and your taxes should shoulder the passive costs of it - when there are better ways of handling it?

[Annoyed]

Does it matter? If their poverty is the fault of their poor choices, does it mean they should be left to their own devices and your taxes should shoulder the passive costs of it - when there are better ways of handling it?

Yes, it does matter. If people know upfront that no one else is going to pick up the pieces after their poor choices, they might be motivated to make better choices.

Sort of like the way the family and friends of an alcoholic are not supposed to pick up the pieces of an alkie's drinking, so as not to be an enabler.

[Gatefan1976]

Yes, it does matter. If people know upfront that no one else is going to pick up the pieces after their poor choices, they might be motivated to make better choices.

Sort of like the way the family and friends of an alcoholic are not supposed to pick up the pieces of an alkie's drinking, so as not to be an enabler.

I wish you lived under the system you advocate, cause you would be a broke arse ex carriage worker with nothing.

[Annoyed]

I wish you lived under the system you advocate, cause you would be a broke arse ex carriage worker with nothing.

Not quite. I have never opposed a temporary period of assistance. Anyone can suffer injury or such that can force a career change. That is not what I oppose.
What I oppose is people choosing to make govt. support their career.

[Annoyed]

Webb: Redemption must be earned in Smollett hoax

Umm.. No. After the stunt this guy pulled, this guy can get in line behind Roseanne as far as begging for forgiveness from his audience is concerned. It shouldn't be forthcoming no matter what he does.

[Chaka-Z0]

I think you guys are talking apples and oranges. Annoyed is against welfare, which is the ''free money'' the poor get. That's not the debate here. The debate is helping the poor get out of their misery via incentives programs and support measures. Enough with the welfare leeches argument, they will always be like that and those folks don't give a sh*t, they love their K-Dinners and Blue ribbons, nothing you can do about it.

Womble said it, it's an investment and it increases the overall well-being of your fellow citizens. Without such programs, how does one get out of that vicious cycle?

1- You get a low salary
2- You pay bills / food / etc
3- You can only save a few dollars per month
4- Unexpected expenses happen (hospital bills (no healthcare), death of a loved one (Funeral arrangments)) etc.
5- You lose all your savings
6- Having no money, you can't spare any dollars for education nor missing a day at work
7- Back to burger flipping
8- Rinse and repeat

[Annoyed]

I think you guys are talking apples and oranges. Annoyed is against welfare, which is the ''free money'' the poor get. That's not the debate here. The debate is helping the poor get out of their misery via incentives programs and support measures. Enough with the welfare leeches argument, they will always be like that and those folks don't give a sh*t, they love their K-Dinners and Blue ribbons, nothing you can do about it.

Womble said it, it's an investment and it increases the overall well-being of your fellow citizens. Without such programs, how does one get out of that vicious cycle?

Absolutely, something can be done about it. They can be disqualified.

[Chaka-Z0]

Absolutely, something can be done about it. They can be disqualified.

Think about it for a minute dude. If they are disqualified, and get no money, where do you think they will turn to? Begging, crime or loitering. That means police intervention, which is X $ * hours, more inmates, etc.

You really think that's cheaper than paying them a small amount per month?

[Annoyed]

Think about it for a minute dude. If they are disqualified, and get no money, where do you think they will turn to? Begging, crime or loitering. That means police intervention, which is X $ * hours, more inmates, etc.

You really think that's cheaper than paying them a small amount per month?

I understand that people got to eat. So we could have govt. food distribution points, (No cash, that gets used for drugs/booze/etc.) with Govt. housing near these centers. We could even have job search centers built into these places, like libraries, w/ computer access, etc. But no cellphones, cable TV or any other luxuries.
And you had best not become pregnant while on permanent assistance. If you know you can't support yourself, you have no business having kids.

Do you have any idea how popular it is to "game the system?" I used to have a friend, now deceased that actually worked in the social service system. One of the most common scenarios was a young female, wanting to escape her parent's home, perhaps the parents were actually trying to discipline her. So she would simply get impregnated, and then go to social services and get herself set up with taxpayer funded housing, a benefits card, an "Obamaphone" (Yes, I know, he didn't start that program, but that's what they were commonly called)

If someone makes their career being a welfare leech, I'm not all that concerned with their comfort level.

Yes, it would be a lousy way to live, but if you're asking the taxpayers to feed, clothe and support you on a permanent basis, your standard of living is determined by those paying the bill.

You want better? Get a job and buy something better on your own.

Understand, I'm not talking about people who have suffered a temporary setback; I'm talking about the career leeches here, of which there are millions.

[jelgate]

You are missing the point again

[Womble]

Yes, it does matter. If people know upfront that no one else is going to pick up the pieces after their poor choices, they might be motivated to make better choices.

Sort of like the way the family and friends of an alcoholic are not supposed to pick up the pieces of an alkie's drinking, so as not to be an enabler.

Of course. Rehabs are fictional, no alkie's ever quit drinking and become a productive member of society once given some help... right?

And poor people are poor because of their choices. Not circumstances. Not the fundamental screwed-upness of the society around them in which for some to be successful others must be poor. Not because of poor health and outrageously expensive healthcare. Not because of their parents or grandparents' poor choices. Growing up poor is the child's choice as much as his mother's... or is it?