Welfare

[wdfcverfgtghm]

Welfare. This is Simple Enough of a topic. Mainly the debate I see as being the most fruitful is where should the cutt off line be?

[ERies7]

At 7/10/01 03:45 AM, Anarchypenguin wrote: Welfare. This is Simple Enough of a topic. Mainly the debate I see as being the most fruitful is where should the cutt off line be?

I don't know where I stand on welfare. Half of me says "Try to get back on your feet", half of me says "GET A JOB!".

[Slizor]

I don't know where I stand on welfare. Half of me says "Try to get back on your feet", half of me says "GET A JOB!".

So is that half of you saying that the unemployed are being lazy?

[Saiyajin-child]

Most Unemployed people are lazy shits. IN California, the people on welfare are richer than taxpayers.

Liberals piss me off. Gov't programs don't even work.

[pyroarchy]

At 7/10/01 03:45 AM, Anarchypenguin wrote: Welfare. This is Simple Enough of a topic. Mainly the debate I see as being the most fruitful is where should the cutt off line be?

"Don't quit your job! Millons of people on welfare depend on you!"

[Freakapotimus]

I'm very torn about it. I know there are a lot of people who could benefit from welfare, but I also hear more about the people who abuse the system. Help should be available for those who need it, but I think that spending 3+ years on welfare is just ridiculous! Get some money to feed your kids, and get a freakin job!

[Pantomime-Horse]

At 7/10/01 03:45 AM, Anarchypenguin wrote: Welfare. This is Simple Enough of a topic. Mainly the debate I see as being the most fruitful is where should the cutt off line be?

Welfare is different here, There deffinately are job snobs who think they're too good for any work, I lived with one But Most of Australias unemployment would be solved if the Government stopped shutting down Regional Industry.

[Pantomime-Horse]

At 7/11/01 09:51 AM, Trash_ wrote:

At 7/10/01 03:45 AM, Anarchypenguin wrote: Welfare. This is Simple Enough of a topic. Mainly the debate I see as being the most fruitful is where should the cutt off line be?

Welfare is different here, There deffinately are job snobs who think they're too good for any work, I lived with one But Most of Australias unemployment would be solved if the Government stopped shutting down Regional Industry.

I wouldn't be working if it weren't for Manpower, I'd been unemployed for 2 years & it there were literally not enough jobs, I wasn't getting welfare though, I didn't qualify because of what dad earned, never mind the fact he was & is $30,000 in debt.

[Slizor]

Most Unemployed people are lazy shits. IN California, the people on welfare are richer than taxpayers.

The typical view of the idiot. If you refuse to give a decent explaination then I will do the same

[ThunderBolt2001]

At 7/10/01 03:45 AM, Anarchypenguin wrote: Welfare. This is Simple Enough of a topic. Mainly the debate I see as being the most fruitful is where should the cutt off line be?

I think that people on welfare are a bunch of lazy bums. Welfare should have a limit on it like only a year or something. I hate paying taxes so that some motherfucker can live for free all their lives. If you ever get a ticket(I never did but I read my friend's) 75% of what you pay goes into a fund for the people who don't have car insurence. First of all people who don't have car insurence shouldn't be driving at all. Secound of all if the person without car insurence gets hurt we shouldn't give a shit if they live or die, unless they have a relative or friend that could pay the medical fees.

[shorbe]

I'm all for welfare for people who truly require it, such as the disabled, etc. However, most people don't require it.

That having been said, I'm past the point of giving a fuck and being responsible now.

You won't overhaul the welfare system. In Australia, approximately 22% of the population receives some form of government benefit. Given that most electorates are held by less than a 5% margin, it would therefore be political suicide to suggest welfare reform. As such, nothing will ever be done.

The only way to reform the system is to make it collapse. As I said, I'm past the point of being responsible. Fuck the government. Fuck society. I openly encourage people to fuck the system now. Collect welfare. Work cash in hand. Don't pay tax.

You may as well get whatever you can from the bastards. They don't care about you if you work hard and do the right thing, so work hard AND collect some form of welfare. The only way to level it out is to make everyone collect welfare. It's the only way of getting some of the tax they steal (and waste) from you back.

shorbe

[Slizor]

The only way to reform the system is to make it collapse. As I said, I'm past the point of being responsible. Fuck the government. Fuck society. I openly encourage people to fuck the system now. Collect welfare. Work cash in hand. Don't pay tax.

You may as well get whatever you can from the bastards. They don't care about you if you work hard and do the right thing, so work hard AND collect some form of welfare. The only way to level it out is to make everyone collect welfare. It's the only way of getting some of the tax they steal (and waste) from you back.

Bit of an anarchist are we?

[shorbe]

Slizor: Sort of. I've just come to realise that in this country, doing "the right thing" only makes you a sucker, because no one else is doing the right thing.

So yeah, fuck it. I'm out for number one.

shorbe

[shorbe]

by: Well, maybe if regional industry actually became efficient, instead of the unionised sheltered workshop that it is, then it wouldn't have to be shut down.

shorbe

[Pantomime-Horse]

At 7/15/01 07:56 AM, shorbe wrote: by: Well, maybe if regional industry actually became efficient, instead of the unionised sheltered workshop that it is, then it wouldn't have to be shut down.

shorbe

Actually the few industries that remain are as efficient or more so than the others of their kind, Efficiency is not actually the factor in the closures, the factor is that state governments have a vision of their industry being centralised into a central industrial zone instead of spread across the state so no matter how efficient the industry may be they'll still close it down & move it to the big cities.

There had been several overseas companies wanting to start New factories here but it was elements of government that put a stop to it, I haven't really got anything against foriegn own companies, a foreign owned company with Australian employees is preferable to an Australian owned company that operates offshore.

Clyde Engineering was a government department but in the privatisation of the rail industry they were sold off to a german company & many were made redundant.

Devro TeePak international Asia Pacific devision is based in Bathurst, it is the most advanced & efficient Small Goods facility in the world at this time & although currently stable this has been unstable even since it was running at current efficiency.

In any case I would be interested to read just exactly what you know of industry.

[Timisoara]

From each according to his ablities, to each according to his needs.

Simple as that.

[Morextremist]

Simpsons quote

Todd: daddy, what do taxes pay for?

Ned: well, they pay for roads, churches, schools, and for the people who don't feel like working, god bless'em

[pyroarchy]

Well welfare does help those who truly need it I've seen alot of people really get back together and then get good jobs after being on welfare, I mean everyone has their own problems money wise and other wise, welfare is a way of helping those in need of money, not every poor person brung themselfes to being poor. But the system does need to have a better filtering system.

[Slizor]

From each according to his ablities, to each according to his needs.

Simple as that.

And the surplus we store away, for harder days.

[TFX]

I believe that, as others said, the American welfare system should be based around those who can't work, and minimally around those who can. Those who can work and are on welfare are generally those who are either lazy or have been irresponsible. The government can't pay for either.

[Slizor]

Those who can work and are on welfare are generally those who are either lazy or have been irresponsible. The government can't pay for either.

What about when there is no jobs? You all seem to think that the world is full of jobs, if that was so then there would be no unemployment!

[pyroarchy]

At 7/15/01 06:01 PM, Slizor wrote:

Those who can work and are on welfare are generally those who are either lazy or have been irresponsible. The government can't pay for either.

What about when there is no jobs? You all seem to think that the world is full of jobs, if that was so then there would be no unemployment!

Theres always a job to fill.

[Timisoara]

At 7/16/01 08:18 AM, pyroarchy wrote:

Theres always a job to fill.

Actually capitalism relies on a "vast army of the unemployed" without this, workers won't have that fear that some other shmuck will take their crappy job.

Case-n-point:
when Greenspan was hiking intrest rates it was because he feared that a low unemployment level would cause workers to ask for higher wages (so, you know they could pay for basic services and such) thus lowering corparate profits.

Of course the ever so complacent american worker never did that.

There is not always a job to fill and even when their is, for the majority of the world's pop. It's daily wages are unable to pay for basic service, (health care, child care, plumbing, etc.)

individual welfare is also the hardest welfare to cheat on in America.

[reddeadrevolver]

At 7/10/01 03:45 AM, Anarchypenguin wrote: Welfare. This is Simple Enough of a topic. Mainly the debate I see as being the most fruitful is where should the cutt off line be?

Welfare should work like unemployment checks. If i'm correct, unemployment checks last for 13 weeks or if you get a job before then. So basically, welfare should last for, oh say, several months (2-3). Then funding from the government is cut off, unless you can prove to the state that you still need financial aid. You could then be granted another 2-3 month series of aid or until you find a job. But the cut off line is for 1 year. After one year, no more aid is given. It seems like it might work... but it's doubtful.

[Nirvana13666]

At 7/10/01 03:45 AM, AWESOMEPIRATE wrote: Welfare. This is Simple Enough of a topic. Mainly the debate I see as being the most fruitful is where should the cutt off line be?

I believe that it is great that a government helps its people when in need kind of like unemployment. What I don’t like is that instead of helping these people get back on their feet they just keep on giving. Most would think that is great but think about it. It is making our society even more dependent on them. Welfare doesn’t teach us to be leaders and take control of our lives it keeps up blind. It makes us think the government is out to fulfill our best interests when in fact giving out welfare benefits them in the end.

[bumcheekcity]

I believe Welfare should be high for the first 3 months or so, then it should be bought down, then bought down at three month intervals, so then you are trying to live on $5 a week, so you have to find a job. I hate all those people who sit on their arses all day and do shit.

It probably would work. In Social Security (Welfare for the Non-Brits among us) offices there are places where people with education go and get work. The only intelligent people in there are those that have come out from university or those that have been made redundant through no fault of their own. They have a small area with newspapers and computers where they look for jobs.

This obviously doesn't include the disables, but the lazy, who can live their whole lives off gopvernment payments, should get shit. I am not paying so they can sponge off me.

[JudgeDredd]

At 7/16/01 08:18 AM, pyroarchy wrote:
Theres always a job to fill.

Sure, there's always an updated robot to be intalled in some factory somewhere.

what's that u say? ..technology causing unemployment??

no ph33r, we'll just invent tourism for the rich to enjoy the sumptous delights that the poor can provide, whom in turn, can strive to be rich and take a much deserved vacation.....

[takeit2themax]

HEY! Crackheads have to get crack somehow!
Work hard they depend on you.

[karasz]

At 7/11/01 10:09 PM, ThunderBolt2001 wrote: I think that people on welfare are a bunch of lazy bums. Welfare should have a limit on it like only a year or something.

nah... if u have a job and need a wee bit of help welfare should help you... if ur unemployed then after a year its kick and off u go into a downward spiral of random buglaries on 7-11 so u can pay rent...

GOD BLESS AMERICA

I hate paying taxes so that some motherfucker can live for free all their lives.

ur right... bastard soliders, ya know risking to get shot at... i say we kick there ass...

taxes go to many different things not just welfare, and odds are the tax system wouldnt be completely redone if welfare was done away with...

If you ever get a ticket(I never did but I read my friend's) 75% of what you pay goes into a fund for the people who don't have car insurence. First of all people who don't have car insurence shouldn't be driving at all.

well captain funderbunk when ur Fuhrer IM sure u will have no problem for this...

although u are right, but the only way to find out if someone doesnt have car insurance is if u stop them and search their car, which if they have no reason to be stopped would be a violation of the 4th amendment which would get the jackass to walk... which means nothing would happen except the cop would probably be yelled at by someone...

if the person without car insurence gets hurt we shouldn't give a shit if they live or die,

thats the exact same thing i say to abortion... nothing like some good ole apathy to start the day...

unless they have a relative or friend that could pay the medical fees.

why on earth should we give a damn if they have a rich relative????

that makes no sense at all...