Jump to content



Photo
* * - - - 3 votes

this country is so f*cked up its not even funny.


  • Please log in to reply
224 replies to this topic

#181 slidecage

slidecage

    Nothing to say

  • CAGiversary!

Posted 28 September 2013 - 12:50 PM

Slidecage:

 

I figure there must be a limit on out-of-pocket, just that they haven't set it yet. Otherwise, there's no difference between being insured and not being insured.

 

As for the write-offs, I'm not sure how they'll play out yet. But if a person signs up in October and pays for the months of October through December, I'm not seeing a large problem with them at least being able to write off a portion of that, based on what they did pay. 

 

As for why a salary of $25000 can only cover 12%, versus 85% if at $24,999, that is one of the problems when a central authority tries to plan things. They simply set different tiers for different levels of coverage, and how close you are to the borders does not matter. It's the same way they define poverty levels or tax brackets. It's not even close to perfect, but that is how it works. 

no they said they have no way to set up an out of pocket limit for the first year.  ALSO  dont see why they would have to pay for oct-dec  since none are covered till Jan 1

 

wow they took everything off that site and now  added a 4th plan. going to be fun come tuesday what they cost 


WOOOO I STINK

#182 willardhaven

willardhaven

    Thief of Life

  • CAGiversary!

Posted 28 September 2013 - 12:56 PM

Let's get back to square one.


First, I did not say "major abuse". I said "abuse" But, let's look at that. Let's take your 1% number. We will pretend that it's wholly accurate.

In 2012, FNS nearly spent 78.5 BILLION Dollars.

One percent of that is $785,000,000.

At the average benefit of $4.80/day, that would be enough benefits for 448,059 additional individuals in need for an entire year.

So... nearly half a million people are denied benefits because of abuse in the system. But it's not a major concern.

 

Your exact words were "abuse is a major reason why the system is spread so thin." It's not. The sequester cut $4.5 billion and the house just passed $40 billion in cuts.

 

Your math/logic doesn't work either. Based on your estimate, more people would be denied benefits if we increased the budget of SNAP. Try again?


PaulManda.png


#183 dohdough

dohdough

    Sum Dum Guy

  • CAGiversary!

Posted 28 September 2013 - 02:14 PM

I have to argue semantics, because otherwise I can't tell if you're misunderstanding what I said, or what my purpose is.

 

Regarding beer vs. diet soda, I don't have to explain it, I just have to know how people react when something they like for whatever reason is taken away from them. The argument applies as much to beer and soda as sex and drugs. You read my post as though I'm making a tautological statement of fact, and I apologize if it came across that way. But the point I was trying to convey, which you seem to have missed, is that if people can find a legal acceptable substitute, they will. If they cannot, they'll find other, less-legal ways to get what they want.

 

But let's put that aside, and address your restated question. First, the thing to keep in mind is WHY do people drink soda or beer? You can't just focus on taste and ignore everything else. 

 

1. Why do people who don't like a poor tasting soda not drink it? Because they can find substitutes. Why do people drink soda in the first place? My GUESS is for taste and caffeine.

 

Now, let's be generous and assume the diet-soda has the same amount of caffeine, but a worse taste. Thanks to the nature of markets, there are plenty of other sodas out there that cost the same, have the same amount of caffeine, but a good taste. In short, to buy the diet soda is to pay the same amount of money for an inferior product. Do you pay $1 for (caffeine+good taste) or $1 for (caffeine+bad taste)?

 

2. Why do people who don't like the taste of beer drink it? Because they're drinking it to get drunk, or socialize, or look cool. They're.not drinking it for the taste. Also, because they can't find an appropriate substitute. 

 

What are the possible substitutes for beer as a method of getting drunk? Wine? Whiskey? The problem is that they cost more, or perhaps they're too strong. So if the person is a lightweight who wants to get drunk on a budget, he's stuck with beer.

 

To be fair, there MAY be taste issues regarding beer. I imagine that's why there are beers which taste of oranges, or whatever. And in those situations, if a person doesn't like the taste of a Miller's, they might go for the marginally less bad Blue Moon. Or vice versa, because taste is subjective.

 

---

 

Now, to get back to your demand that I explain why something tastes good, the short answer is: I cannot, at least not for everyone. Everyone has their own preferences. People who drink wine claim they can taste "a hint of cedar, apples, this is a full-bodied drink." Whereas to someone like myself, it all tastes like burning rat pee. Are they lying, or am I? Neither. Taste is a purely subjective issue.

 

---

 

Lastly, on what grounds do you claim that non-alcoholic beer is more popular than alcoholic beer? To me, non-alcoholic beer seems like a total waste of money, and could only appeal to the very small group of people who like the taste of beer, but don't want to get drunk.

No, people make semantic arguments like yours when they don't really know all that much about what they're talking about, which you've demonstrated. If you're going to make a semantic argument, you need to define how you're using the term, why you're using the term in that way, and why we should use the term in the way you want us to use it.

 

My question about non-alcoholic beer being more popular than alcoholic beer was a typo and should've said the opposite. Either way, you've already answered the question like I thought you would: caffeine and alcohol play an important role in our decision to choose items with those two components rather than something that tastes about the same without those components. Which means that our choices ARE influenced by things more important than taste and if taste is subjective, the critical question to ask is what makes things taste "good" and this is an answerable question that has seen tons of research. You might not know, but believe me, we know exactly why people prefer certain types/brands of food products over others. To go back to my McDonalds example, they're not a multi-billion dollar international corporation because their food is good and they know it. You briefly hint on this socialization aspect of it, but then drop it.

 

Taste has less to do with it than the effects we get from it, whether it's to satiate hunger or induce intoxication. Your brain will literally trick you into liking something that you didn't like before if what you're ingesting triggers a certain part of if that releases chemicals that make you feel pleasure.

 

Using "taste" as an answer has it's place, but I don't think this is a good application of it when addressing a more complex issue.


dohdough.png


"Speaking of which, there's another elitist prick that argues constantly on the Politics forums by the name of dohdough. He's a complete douche, but at least he keeps his posts in that cesspool of useless opinions. He gets my runner-up nomination."


Thanks for the nomination for the Most Memorable CAG Villan 2012, Blade!

#184 Rasen

Rasen

    CAGiversary!

  • CAGiversary!

Posted 28 September 2013 - 04:57 PM

For whatever reason, you've chosen to pick away at my example of food, when the bigger argument was about preferences and substitutes. Could I have worded it more carefully, or picked a more precise example? Sure, my bad. I just wanted to throw out something that most people would immediately relate to. (Incidentally, your picking away at my soda example and ignoring the larger argument is a semantic argument. Take from that what you will.)

 

So let's immediately decide on which definition of "taste" we're going to use from this point on. "Taste - as a measure of flavor" instead of the more economic "taste - as a measure of preference."

 

To me, I get zero caffeine boost from soda. (And before you claim addiction, I drink about one can a month, for about the past 12 years. But my tolerance is skyhigh from years of chugging it down like water.) So let me ask you: why do I drink it now? Furthermore, let me ask you: do you get a caffeine boost from soda? 

 

Next: if you can claim to know why one tastes better than the other, I ask of you to explain to me why does Coke taste better to me than Pepsi? Or Sprite better than Sierra Mist? And if these corporations know the answer to this, why does Pepsi continue to use the inferior formulation?

 

I don't know why you keep bringing in McDonalds, or some "socialization," so here's all I have to say on the subject: I LIKE McDonald's food. I even like the "taste - as a measure of flavor." I do not think of it as quality food.  



#185 UncleBob

UncleBob

Posted 30 September 2013 - 01:43 PM

Your exact words were "abuse is a major reason why the system is spread so thin." It's not. The sequester cut $4.5 billion and the house just passed $40 billion in cuts.
 
Your math/logic doesn't work either. Based on your estimate, more people would be denied benefits if we increased the budget of SNAP. Try again?


I guess this is part of the reason we will never see eye-to-eye on this.

I don't equate budget cuts due to rabid overspending in our government to folks cheating the system and, basically, stealing money from it.

It's like "Oh, man... my hours got cut this week. It's just like that time someone broke into my house and stole my stuff."
"The ultimate weakness of violence is that it is a descending spiral, begetting the very thing it seeks to destroy, instead of diminishing evil, it multiplies it."

#186 detectiveconan16

detectiveconan16

    Look at that deal. It's so great!

  • CAGiversary!

Posted 30 September 2013 - 11:27 PM

Less than five hours left and how dare our President say Great Congress is demanding ransom to do its job.


Batsugunner.png


#187 slidecage

slidecage

    Nothing to say

  • CAGiversary!

Posted 01 October 2013 - 01:43 AM

Less than five hours left and how dare our President say Great Congress is demanding ransom to do its job.

i want them  come out screaming i go  CRAZY FOR COCOA PUFFS   :)

 

love how the president  goes  congress is  holding the country  ransom  yet  he admited he will not talk to anyone about changing anything   its  his way or  nothing .

 

these fools who are holding signs up  that say IMPEACH OBAMA  are the same  fools who voted for him last year.  TOO BAD  YOU GET  WHAT YOUR DESERVE 


WOOOO I STINK

#188 detectiveconan16

detectiveconan16

    Look at that deal. It's so great!

  • CAGiversary!

Posted 01 October 2013 - 10:37 AM

Congress writes and passes the laws, they've had plenty of time to write something that could either go his way or change his way. Besides according to the news, Obama doomed us all for not writing the bills and passing the laws that prevented a government shutdown.


Batsugunner.png


#189 slidecage

slidecage

    Nothing to say

  • CAGiversary!

Posted 01 October 2013 - 12:02 PM

Congress writes and passes the laws, they've had plenty of time to write something that could either go his way or change his way. Besides according to the news, Obama doomed us all for not writing the bills and passing the laws that prevented a government shutdown.

wrong he even said    If they passed any law that messed with obamacare he would veto it and he was not talking to anyone  about changing anything. It was his way or nothing 


WOOOO I STINK

#190 willardhaven

willardhaven

    Thief of Life

  • CAGiversary!

Posted 01 October 2013 - 01:42 PM

I guess this is part of the reason we will never see eye-to-eye on this.

I don't equate budget cuts due to rabid overspending in our government to folks cheating the system and, basically, stealing money from it.

It's like "Oh, man... my hours got cut this week. It's just like that time someone broke into my house and stole my stuff."

 

"Rabid overspending" is what is keeping the economy afloat right now. People are not spending money. Businesses are not spending money. If the government stops spending money, who do you expect to generate the activity necessary to increase employment?

 

To get back to the topic, let's continue with your analogy:

 

"Oh man... my hours got cut this week. It's just like that time someone stole a box of cereal out of my house. The cereal was a major financial hardship."

 

I'm not saying SNAP fraud is desirable. However, the House is doing much more harm than the abusers. SNAP is considered one of the best government programs because it provides a direct benefit to citizens and the economy with little overhead.

 

I was thinking of another problem with your voucher solution. Using SNAP as it is, you can still take advantage of everyday coupons and bargain-hunting to stretch your benefits further. It's much more flexible. Vouchers cost the program more money because when a retailer raises their price, the cost to the program would have to increase. If the budget were cut, they couldn't cut your milk voucher by 10%. The current system allows for less bureaucracy, isn't that what you want?


PaulManda.png


#191 slidecage

slidecage

    Nothing to say

  • CAGiversary!

Posted 01 October 2013 - 02:01 PM

"Rabid overspending" is what is keeping the economy afloat right now. People are not spending money. Businesses are not spending money. If the government stops spending money, who do you expect to generate the activity necessary to increase employment?

 

To get back to the topic, let's continue with your analogy:

 

"Oh man... my hours got cut this week. It's just like that time someone stole a box of cereal out of my house. The cereal was a major financial hardship."

 

I'm not saying SNAP fraud is desirable. However, the House is doing much more harm than the abusers. SNAP is considered one of the best government programs because it provides a direct benefit to citizens and the economy with little overhead.

 

I was thinking of another problem with your voucher solution. Using SNAP as it is, you can still take advantage of everyday coupons and bargain-hunting to stretch your benefits further. It's much more flexible. Vouchers cost the program more money because when a retailer raises their price, the cost to the program would have to increase. If the budget were cut, they couldn't cut your milk voucher by 10%. The current system allows for less bureaucracy, isn't that what you want?

talk about   jacking up prices. I been buying  tons of boxes   of  CLUB CRACKERS (they are 4 per box and coupons and sales that gave them to me for around 1.50 a box  so i have like 20 boxes).  went  to walmart the last few weeks and noticed all  of them were gone.  Well last friday they were back and noticed something funny about them.   the boxes are now  11.9 oz  they used to be 16 oz for the same price 


WOOOO I STINK

#192 dohdough

dohdough

    Sum Dum Guy

  • CAGiversary!

Posted 01 October 2013 - 04:43 PM

For whatever reason, you've chosen to pick away at my example of food, when the bigger argument was about preferences and substitutes. Could I have worded it more carefully, or picked a more precise example? Sure, my bad. I just wanted to throw out something that most people would immediately relate to. (Incidentally, your picking away at my soda example and ignoring the larger argument is a semantic argument. Take from that what you will.)

 

So let's immediately decide on which definition of "taste" we're going to use from this point on. "Taste - as a measure of flavor" instead of the more economic "taste - as a measure of preference."

 

To me, I get zero caffeine boost from soda. (And before you claim addiction, I drink about one can a month, for about the past 12 years. But my tolerance is skyhigh from years of chugging it down like water.) So let me ask you: why do I drink it now? Furthermore, let me ask you: do you get a caffeine boost from soda? 

 

Next: if you can claim to know why one tastes better than the other, I ask of you to explain to me why does Coke taste better to me than Pepsi? Or Sprite better than Sierra Mist? And if these corporations know the answer to this, why does Pepsi continue to use the inferior formulation?

 

I don't know why you keep bringing in McDonalds, or some "socialization," so here's all I have to say on the subject: I LIKE McDonald's food. I even like the "taste - as a measure of flavor." I do not think of it as quality food.  

I'm picking on your example because what tastes "good" to you is largely a product of the environment you grew up in and the food you have access to. Part of that environment is the marketing that Coke and McDonalds spends billions of dollars on. If you grew up in another part of the world, you'd be loving certain delicacies that would currently make your stomach turn.

 

If you like Coke more than Pepsi, what makes you think that Pepsi naturally has the inferior formula? Are your taste buds the the benchmark that all food should be judged by? As for your predilection to Coke products, that's probably just what you were used to growing up.

 

You're asking me why you drink soda now? Regardless of your choice and frequency, your body still recognizes the effects it has on your body and triggers the rewards-center of your brain everytime you have a can, which is the same thing as what McDonalds' marketing and chef's want to happen. It's one giant Pavlov experiment and you're the dog. We all are. If they can't socialize us into buying their product, then they'll do it through chemistry.

 

"Taste" isn't some nebulous concept that just happens in a vacuum.

 

 

 

talk about   jacking up prices. I been buying  tons of boxes   of  CLUB CRACKERS (they are 4 per box and coupons and sales that gave them to me for around 1.50 a box  so i have like 20 boxes).  went  to walmart the last few weeks and noticed all  of them were gone.  Well last friday they were back and noticed something funny about them.   the boxes are now  11.9 oz  they used to be 16 oz for the same price 

 

You should be blaming Walmart, not the government. In case you've forgotten or never learned, Walmart has the purchasing power to dictate to the manufacturer what goes on their shelves and at a particular unit size and price point. Even if Keebler has decided to decrease the packaging size, it has absolutely nothing to do with the government, but with these corporations fleecing you.


dohdough.png


"Speaking of which, there's another elitist prick that argues constantly on the Politics forums by the name of dohdough. He's a complete douche, but at least he keeps his posts in that cesspool of useless opinions. He gets my runner-up nomination."


Thanks for the nomination for the Most Memorable CAG Villan 2012, Blade!

#193 slidecage

slidecage

    Nothing to say

  • CAGiversary!

Posted 01 October 2013 - 10:30 PM

I'm picking on your example because what tastes "good" to you is largely a product of the environment you grew up in and the food you have access to. Part of that environment is the marketing that Coke and McDonalds spends billions of dollars on. If you grew up in another part of the world, you'd be loving certain delicacies that would currently make your stomach turn.

 

If you like Coke more than Pepsi, what makes you think that Pepsi naturally has the inferior formula? Are your taste buds the the benchmark that all food should be judged by? As for your predilection to Coke products, that's probably just what you were used to growing up.

 

You're asking me why you drink soda now? Regardless of your choice and frequency, your body still recognizes the effects it has on your body and triggers the rewards-center of your brain everytime you have a can, which is the same thing as what McDonalds' marketing and chef's want to happen. It's one giant Pavlov experiment and you're the dog. We all are. If they can't socialize us into buying their product, then they'll do it through chemistry.

 

"Taste" isn't some nebulous concept that just happens in a vacuum.

 

 

 

 

You should be blaming Walmart, not the government. In case you've forgotten or never learned, Walmart has the purchasing power to dictate to the manufacturer what goes on their shelves and at a particular unit size and price point. Even if Keebler has decided to decrease the packaging size, it has absolutely nothing to do with the government, but with these corporations fleecing you.

obama wife said we are eating too much junk food  that is why the sizes  went down   :)            

 

 

What is up with all the bigger size food being made in  MEXICO . family size Oreos   ,  toothpaste   ect ect ect .. normal size  says made in USA someplace  Jumbo size  MADE IN MEXICO   LOL


WOOOO I STINK

#194 slidecage

slidecage

    Nothing to say

  • CAGiversary!

Posted 01 October 2013 - 10:43 PM

LOL  just heard on the news the congress is going to send a bill saying   they are going to pass a  bill that  fund certain parts of the goverment or  states  and obama goes he would  veto  it cause they  just cant go  picking  out  stuff they like and passing it and cutting out the rest  and that is not fair. 

 

 

 

 

HEY OBAMA   TAKE A LOOK IN THE  MIRROR THAT IS THE SAME THING YOU DID WITH OBAMACARE 


WOOOO I STINK

#195 mrsilkunderwear

mrsilkunderwear

    Just Do It.

  • CAGiversary!

Posted 01 October 2013 - 11:58 PM

LOL  just heard on the news the congress is going to send a bill saying   they are going to pass a  bill that  fund certain parts of the goverment or  states  and obama goes he would  veto  it cause they  just cant go  picking  out  stuff they like and passing it and cutting out the rest  and that is not fair. 

 

 

 

 

HEY OBAMA   TAKE A LOOK IN THE  MIRROR THAT IS THE SAME THING YOU DID WITH OBAMACARE 

You better take that back. Obviously our president is not playing politics and just wants to take care of our well being. 



#196 UncleBob

UncleBob

Posted 02 October 2013 - 12:32 AM

I was thinking of another problem with your voucher solution. Using SNAP as it is, you can still take advantage of everyday coupons and bargain-hunting to stretch your benefits further. It's much more flexible. Vouchers cost the program more money because when a retailer raises their price, the cost to the program would have to increase. If the budget were cut, they couldn't cut your milk voucher by 10%. The current system allows for less bureaucracy, isn't that what you want?


I disagree - you seem to be unfamiliar with how WIC works. WIC tells the retail they'll pay $X for ProductY. Period. If the retailer raises the price of the product 300%, WIC still pays them $X.

However, with both WIC and SNAP, as prices increase, spending power will decrease. WIC will eventually have to start looking into raising the amount given to the retailers or risk losing their participation in the program. With SNAP, they have to start looking at increasing the amount given to folks so they do not starve. However, the awesome thing is, a voucher for a gallon of milk gets you a gallon of milk. $3 worth of SNAP credit may or may not get you a gallon of milk, depending on where you go. You'll have a more stable food budget month-to-month.

And, again, with the putting words into my mouth. I have never said "less bureaucracy." As I've said before, I understand that chanting "more" or "less" doesn't fix anything.
"The ultimate weakness of violence is that it is a descending spiral, begetting the very thing it seeks to destroy, instead of diminishing evil, it multiplies it."

#197 willardhaven

willardhaven

    Thief of Life

  • CAGiversary!

Posted 02 October 2013 - 03:26 PM

I disagree - you seem to be unfamiliar with how WIC works. WIC tells the retail they'll pay $X for ProductY. Period. If the retailer raises the price of the product 300%, WIC still pays them $X.

However, with both WIC and SNAP, as prices increase, spending power will decrease. WIC will eventually have to start looking into raising the amount given to the retailers or risk losing their participation in the program. With SNAP, they have to start looking at increasing the amount given to folks so they do not starve. However, the awesome thing is, a voucher for a gallon of milk gets you a gallon of milk. $3 worth of SNAP credit may or may not get you a gallon of milk, depending on where you go. You'll have a more stable food budget month-to-month.

And, again, with the putting words into my mouth. I have never said "less bureaucracy." As I've said before, I understand that chanting "more" or "less" doesn't fix anything.

 

I was under the impression that the limits were higher than most retail prices to encourage participation. So WIC sets a limit which is arguably higher than the price of the item in question. This also encourages retailers to raise the price of WIC-eligible items.

 

I'll restate: beneficiaries can't take advantage of pricing or coupons. A voucher will get you one gallon of milk, even if the voucher limit is $8 and the sale price is 2 gallons for $8.

 

You're right that the vouchers have some advantages with regard to limiting unhealthy choices and ensuring a defined minimum of staples with short-term cost protection. They're both good programs which compliment each other. That's why a lot of families are eligible for both.


PaulManda.png


#198 slidecage

slidecage

    Nothing to say

  • CAGiversary!

Posted 02 October 2013 - 11:49 PM

was a lady on tv   tonight  complaning about not  having enough money to  make ends meet. Lives in wis,

 

its  hard to live on 1200 a month   when  a loaf of bread and a gallon of milk cost over 10 bucks.

 

Where the hell is this lady buying  milk and bread at 

 

Gallon of milk  2 to 3 bucks.

Bread   a  buck   tops  

 

thats 3 to 4 or even 5. No where near  10.   Now if your buying top of the line deans milk at 6 per gallon then  maybe you should  NOT BE ON FOOD STAMPS 


WOOOO I STINK

#199 RedvsBlue

RedvsBlue

    Rocket Science Level

  • CAGiversary!

Posted 03 October 2013 - 03:27 PM

was a lady on tv tonight complaning about not having enough money to make ends meet. Lives in wis,

its hard to live on 1200 a month when a loaf of bread and a gallon of milk cost over 10 bucks.

Where the hell is this lady buying milk and bread at

Gallon of milk 2 to 3 bucks.
Bread a buck tops

thats 3 to 4 or even 5. No where near 10. Now if your buying top of the line deans milk at 6 per gallon then maybe you should NOT BE ON FOOD STAMPS


This whole thread started because you wanted to get on public assistance, were denied, and then bitched and moaned about it not being fair. So kindly, shut the Fuck up about others on public assistance because that was something you ascribed to do not that long ago.

#200 egofed

egofed

    CAGiversary!

  • CAGiversary!

Posted 06 October 2013 - 03:20 AM

I put out this question again, how do we stop generational welfare use?

#201 Spokker

Spokker

    CAGiversary!

  • CAGiversary!

Posted 07 October 2013 - 06:05 PM

This whole thread started because you wanted to get on public assistance, were denied, and then bitched and moaned about it not being fair. So kindly, shut the Fuck up about others on public assistance because that was something you ascribed to do not that long ago.

 

When you believe in welfare, you have to take the good with the bad, and one of the bad things is that it engenders resentment in those who cannot get it. 



#202 slidecage

slidecage

    Nothing to say

  • CAGiversary!

Posted 08 October 2013 - 01:34 PM

This whole thread started because you wanted to get on public assistance, were denied, and then bitched and moaned about it not being fair. So kindly, shut the Fuck up about others on public assistance because that was something you ascribed to do not that long ago.

worked for the last 20+ years what these people work.

 

zero years just having more  ...... babies 


WOOOO I STINK

#203 RedvsBlue

RedvsBlue

    Rocket Science Level

  • CAGiversary!

Posted 10 October 2013 - 12:10 AM

worked for the last 20+ years what these people work.

zero years just having more ...... babies


Now who's sounding entitled? 20 years of work entitles you to govt assistance despite not even needing it?

#204 UncleBob

UncleBob

Posted 11 October 2013 - 05:23 AM

I put out this question again, how do we stop generational welfare use?

It doesn't exist. Duh.


"The ultimate weakness of violence is that it is a descending spiral, begetting the very thing it seeks to destroy, instead of diminishing evil, it multiplies it."

#205 slidecage

slidecage

    Nothing to say

  • CAGiversary!

Posted 11 October 2013 - 02:01 PM

Now who's sounding entitled? 20 years of work entitles you to govt assistance despite not even needing it?

over those who   sit on their asses and never worked     

 

yes i do 

 

 

it was YOUR CHOICE TO have children  why the Fuck should i support them


WOOOO I STINK

#206 mrsilkunderwear

mrsilkunderwear

    Just Do It.

  • CAGiversary!

Posted 11 October 2013 - 09:18 PM

Now who's sounding entitled? 20 years of work entitles you to govt assistance despite not even needing it?

Paying taxes for 20 years? Fuck yeah it entitles you something. 



#207 Msut77

Msut77

    Occam's Shank

  • CAGiversary!

Posted 11 October 2013 - 09:47 PM

I put out this question again, how do we stop generational welfare use?

There isn't a law called the generational welfare user law of 1943 etc., there were new standards set more than a decade ago that capped benefits by year's over a lifetime.  What I am getting at, if you would like to be taken seriously. You should point out which programs you have  a problem with,  document the amount of revenue spent and the kicker the documented ABUSE rather than just use and go from their. Because you know work an  quantify ing things makes st. Rand cry.


wahhhhh noone helped me so they must not help anyone. - knoell

#208 egofed

egofed

    CAGiversary!

  • CAGiversary!

Posted 12 October 2013 - 04:11 AM

There isn't a law called the generational welfare user law of 1943 etc., there were new standards set more than a decade ago that capped benefits by year's over a lifetime.  What I am getting at, if you would like to be taken seriously. You should point out which programs you have  a problem with,  document the amount of revenue spent and the kicker the documented ABUSE rather than just use and go from their. Because you know work an  quantify ing things makes st. Rand cry.



Your poor punctuation and grammar hinder the delivery of your statements. I am against any program that provides taxpayer money to people or corporations that don't contribute back into the system in a meaningful way. Many govt handouts are unlimited in timeframe. Snap, subsidized housing, etc. I'll give you two examples of abuse that I have experienced in just my two past work shifts. A 21 year old woman living in govt housing who is unemployed and unwed reminded my partner and I of how nice we were to her four months ago when responding to her miscarriage. She told us this as we were transporting her uninsured butt back to the ER because she is now three months pregnant.

We transported a 28 year old woman and her 14 year old pregnant daughter to the hospital. Do the math on that one. I just want some regulations to prevent procreation by idiots living off of tax money. Eventually a lot of lazy, irresponsible people would pass away without leaving a continuing legacy of ever increasing moochers.

#209 RedvsBlue

RedvsBlue

    Rocket Science Level

  • CAGiversary!

Posted 12 October 2013 - 05:40 AM

Wow, you really went the way of let all welfare recipients die off for the good of darwinism... I really have no idea what to say except I'm absolutely astounded that someone whose job is to save people's lives is actually advocating to just let people die for no other reason than the fact that they're on welfare. No concern for how they got there or whether they even have a chance of getting themselves out, just let them die?

I really, really hope that's hyperbole because if that's what you truly believe then I really do feel sorry for you that you're that cynical about your fellow human that you would value their entire existence and whether it should continue based solely on their lack of economic success in this world...

Look, I'm not trying to be too judgmental here but you should probably be considering a new career if you have this much anger and animosity toward people whose lives are in your hands.

#210 Msut77

Msut77

    Occam's Shank

  • CAGiversary!

Posted 12 October 2013 - 09:44 AM

 I am against any program that provides taxpayer money to people or corporations that don't contribute back into the system in a meaningful way. 

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Action_T4

 

The plural of anecdote is not data. You strike me as the kind of guy who had parents that took care of everything.


wahhhhh noone helped me so they must not help anyone. - knoell