| Author |
Message |
    
J2blue
| | Posted on Saturday, February 05, 2011 - 07:03 pm: | 
|
Hey fellow bamanite. I appreciate your perspective but it is only one perspective as to what may happen when pressure gets applied to the addict. That same person who jeopardizes there benefits by taking drugs and getting caught may have to decide to taper their drug use to afford a few hot dogs since they don't have the extra money. Maybe they even realize that they don't have to live in the insanity and ask for a different kind of welfare - rehab! That is just as possible, and from my experience, more likely than enabling the addict with welfare funds. If they cannot make the choice to at least make their life a little better than they really need to be incarcerated, not kept on the government dole where they live there lives in chaos.
My father shared with me, he having survived the depression as a little boy, that foster homes are not happy places for children, but in some cases they can certainly be a better choice. When the parent's lives are so unmanageable that they can't care for themselves, let alone their children, then an intervention is needed. Take the kids away, I say. That has worked in the past, before the age of entitlements. Single mothers knew better than to keep having babies back then, too. The hardships they would face, even when they didn't have addiction or mental health issues, would be immense, and only compounded by having children out of wedlock.
To answer your question, NO, they won't starve. Instead they will be forced to adjust, even if they can't completely give the habit up. To believe as you suggest is way too black and white. Hunger is a powerful motivator, and only a few drugs are known to be more powerful than it. When a person has gone that far down the road of addiction they are already out of the welfare programs and surviving on the streets for their next fix. If they eat at all in a months time it is likely to be out of a dumpster.
So I say it will work, because it will help put the needed pressure on the individual to chose life or death. If they cannot or will not chose life then they need to be committed or incarcerated. We either help them to live a long and productive life, or we help them die as quickly as possible; to stretch that kind of suicide out for years is inefficient and inhumane. Whatever we do we shouldn't let them waste precious resources on chaotic, unproductive lives of misery... which is what maintaining them on welfare will do. |
Just_ziptab
| | Posted on Saturday, February 05, 2011 - 07:11 pm: |
|
We have local food pantry's and shelters for homeless. Is there really any need for more than that to help out the unfortunate? |
Bwbhighspl
| | Posted on Saturday, February 05, 2011 - 07:14 pm: |
|
it will help put the needed pressure on the individual to chose life or death.
Or they'll just mug someone to get money. Which is easier? Changing your life, or mugging someone to maintain what you want?
So you're saying they'll turn their whole life around, because they weren't given a handout. I respectfully disagree. I'll think they'll move on to crime (or increase their current rate of crime). You say they'll clean right up and become law abiding citizens.
Maybe. Maybe we should vote. Who says the drug addict will move on to crime? Who says the drug addict will quit drugs and get a job? |
Sifo
| | Posted on Saturday, February 05, 2011 - 07:18 pm: |
|
Who says the drug addict will move on to crime? Who says the drug addict will quit drugs and get a job?
I say you will get a bit of both. I still see it as the right thing to do. Isn't it better to turn some of them around, than to support the drug habits of all of them, and actually encourage more to turn to entitlements? |
Sifo
| | Posted on Saturday, February 05, 2011 - 07:29 pm: |
|
BTW, it's not just a matter of the choices that a drug addict will make given the various choices. It's also a matter of leading people into a lifestyle that encourages drug use. In my mind that is what we see under the current system. |
J2blue
| | Posted on Saturday, February 05, 2011 - 08:02 pm: |
|
What I said was: since they jeopardized their welfare benefits the pressure will increase on them to chose between self destruction and self improvement. If they chose self destruction and mug someone then they make it easier for society to take the next step - incarceration. And, to suggest that giving them just enough money to "maintain" will prevent crime is, ahem, illogical. On that last point, it is illogical because the progressive nature of addiction is to want ever more ad infinitum.
Of all the welfare recipients we are speaking about, those who might fail a drug test, not all are addicts. They do straighten up pretty quick when they pay for a party that just got out of hand. But for those who are addicts, the sooner they develop hard consequences for poor choices the sooner they will realize they need help... or they won't. If it is the latter, as I said before, then it becomes easy for society to see that is a person who needs to be incarcerated to prevent them from committing crimes against society. Allowing them to remain free to explore insanity is a sure fire way to increase the crime rate. |
Xbduck
| | Posted on Saturday, February 05, 2011 - 08:02 pm: |
|
Has anyone suggested putting them into the WIC program?(to tired to read everything) |
Xbduck
| | Posted on Saturday, February 05, 2011 - 08:03 pm: |
|
WIC is supposed to be harder to scam. |
R100rs
| | Posted on Saturday, February 05, 2011 - 08:55 pm: |
|
"Or they'll just mug someone to get money".and if the someone is me,i'll kill them.i'm surprised it took so long for some to say it. |
Kyrocket
| | Posted on Saturday, February 05, 2011 - 09:12 pm: |
|
Yeah R100rs that's what I thought when I read the mugging part. Ky is an open carry state and a CCDW state also, it's amazing how many are actually carrying concealed. May be the quickest way to make up their mind for them.
Although that's another thread altogether. |
R100rs
| | Posted on Saturday, February 05, 2011 - 10:19 pm: |
|
"Although that's another thread altogether."no rocket,i don't think so.we are talking about consequences of different actions and inactions.i've always had a burr under my saddle when people start talking about social welfare programs and them stating if i don't give someone my money,that someone will take it from me.i have always taken that as a threat.example,prisoners getting free college educations.because its cheaper than keeping them in prison.how about when you get out of prison,get a job digging ditches,go to night school.then i won't have to kill you when you break in my house. |
R100rs
| | Posted on Saturday, February 05, 2011 - 10:42 pm: |
|
oh,by the by.this isn't a internet what if conjecture exercise for me.15 years in and out of local county jails, heroin habits,drinking every day,all day.i didn't get my good looks kissing pretty girls.theres a thread going about how many times you have been unconscious,knocked out half dozen or so, beaten unconscious a couple times,choked twice.i would not denie anyone these graces. |
Blake
| | Posted on Sunday, February 06, 2011 - 02:01 am: |
|
Splr,
Try to imagine other possible scenarios. There are many. You seem stuck on the federal gov't as nanny or death as the only possibilities. You've never come to the aid of one in need?
You are free to work and provide for those who choose not to provide for themselves.
Why should I be forced to do so?
A full 47% of wage earners pay zero federal income tax. Many more pay less than the value they receive from the fed gov't. Looters and moochers. It is a demeaning existence lacking honor. All who contribute are lifted up.
The current system design is abhorrent to human nature. It breeds looters and moochers and ruins the spirit. It is evil. |
Bwbhighspl
| | Posted on Sunday, February 06, 2011 - 08:09 am: |
|
Sorry I haven't kept up with the thread. I ran out of smack and *crashed* hard, know what I'm sayin'?
If turning someone around was as easy as taking the money, rehab would be more effective, and cheaper. Ask Lindsay Lohan, Courtney Love, Britney Spears, Charlie Sheen, John Belushi, Michael Jackson, Heath Ledger....you get the idea. Too bad the dead ones didn't know how easy it was; it would have been nice to have another batman with Heath.
If anyone's in the area...first one's free. |
Ninefortheroad
| | Posted on Sunday, February 06, 2011 - 08:12 am: |
|
Update my nephew, the "Drug Screen Failure"....
He is not dead.
He has additional sources of Gov't programs to feed his stomach and habit.
He has not committed any crimes that we know of. He has had some close calls with the law and his father is in prison for drug trafficing, so he might be avoiding the crime solution to supplying his habit. (I think it is weed...)
My money says,
We have to remove the government supplied source of food and money to people using it to supply illegal habits.
Let's just try it a while!
The current way does not seem to be encouraging any one to change for the better. |
J2blue
| | Posted on Sunday, February 06, 2011 - 10:34 am: |
|
Spl, I think you just proved our point with that list of celebrities. While they were not on welfare, they each had money and no consequences till they went to jail or died. Had someone taken their millions away early in their career they likely would have changed. It is never a guarantee, but enabling is. Thanks for making our point stronger. |
Kyrocket
| | Posted on Sunday, February 06, 2011 - 12:49 pm: |
|
R100rs, my intent at the other thread altogether was aimed (no pun intended) at the "could you shoot someone if faced with the situation" thread. We've discussed it here before I believe but that's how it is with the internet. It's hard to read someone over a screen. My apologies for not being clearer. |
R100rs
| | Posted on Sunday, February 06, 2011 - 01:43 pm: |
|
no apologies necessary,except on my part.i went off on a rant that was not needed given the tenor of the discussion.i am a recovered drunk that has seen the results of kissing a sick persons ass. |
R100rs
| | Posted on Sunday, February 06, 2011 - 01:45 pm: |
|
"Looters and moochers. It is a demeaning existence lacking honor. All who contribute are lifted up.
The current system design is abhorrent to human nature. It breeds looters and moochers and ruins the spirit. It is evil." |
Bwbhighspl
| | Posted on Sunday, February 06, 2011 - 03:58 pm: |
|
J2Blue,
You're are saying that to properly rehabilitate someone, take away their money. They'll cleanup overnight.
Well open up a clinic, offer guaranteed results, you'll become rich. Probably nobel peace prize. After you've privatized it, the government will buy it, or even copy it.
Solid business plan. Guaranteed results.
Of course, what if you're wrong?
What, uh, what happens next? You know, if it doesn't work?
I know 99.9% of the people on this board carry guns and shoot everyone they don't like. I get that. And I know you'll attack them before they can attack you. And I know you're all trained in martial arts and poop bullets. And bolts of lightning out of your arse.
Or not. Prove me wrong. Open your clinic. You found the solution. |
Guell
| | Posted on Sunday, February 06, 2011 - 04:06 pm: |
|
And bolts of lightning out of your arse
thats only after chili night 
|
Bwbhighspl
| | Posted on Sunday, February 06, 2011 - 04:07 pm: |
|
Boy, I am good. I was looking over what I've written so far. Look what I've touched down on:
false dichotomy
confusing cause and effect
straw man argument
negative proof
red herring
biased sample (although you guys also are doing this)
appeal to fear
appeal to emotion (you guys, too)
I don't even know what I'm going to rotate in next, I'm really reaching deep into my bag of tricks. |
J2blue
| | Posted on Sunday, February 06, 2011 - 04:37 pm: |
|
No, j2blue didn't say: "that to properly rehabilitate someone, take away their money. They'll cleanup overnight." You can argue that with whomever you imagined said it, but I won't bite. |
Oldog
| | Posted on Sunday, February 06, 2011 - 06:03 pm: |
|
I'm all for drug screening to get welfare.
I'm also for unemployment insurance for people honestly looking for work.
I want Washington's corrupt spend thrifts out of my pocket.
Cause and effect, when it becomes more profitable to sit on ones arse and not work most will do it.
Washington and many states legislators seem to have lost track of the fact that the bucket is not bottom less,
the nations current track under Obammer and his ilk is that of failure, they have failed to learn history's lessons
If I were to loose my job and have to get
unemployment bennies I would have no problems with a pee test, and would happily turn in a doctors note for what should be in my system.
cause and effect, look around the effect in today's society is partialy
a.short term thinking
b.lack of personal responcibility
c.greed / lazyness
no lightning does not fly outa my arse, nor have i shot any one, but I believe that a strong society that is armed is a safe and civil one..... |
Ferris_von_bueller
| | Posted on Sunday, February 06, 2011 - 10:48 pm: |
|
It's common knowledge in Baltimore and I'm sure in other cities as well that drug addicts routinely use their food stamps to trade for cash to purchase drugs. The local stores are in on the scam offering fifty cents on the dollar. I see this as just another form of enabling. The food stamps aren't enough to support an addict for an entire month so they find other means. I seriously doubt it cuts down on crime to any measurable degree. |
Bwbhighspl
| | Posted on Monday, February 07, 2011 - 07:36 am: |
|
To whomever said this:
Had someone taken their millions away early in their career they likely would have changed.
So, if you take away their money, they'll cleanup. Maybe not overnight, but they'll cleanup. The money corrupted them.
Wish I could find who said that. That's the answer, though -- the money. It's the final solution. I want to be part of the team that takes the money.
-----------
What if it's Buell lightning out of your arse? |
Reepicheep
| | Posted on Monday, February 07, 2011 - 08:10 am: |
|
quote:Cause and effect, when it becomes more profitable to sit on ones arse and not work most will do it.
Yup. And toss in that when you "aren't working" you can be free childcare for the family, or work under the table. So you can easily find yourself in a position where with unemployment, you can just squeak by as a family and keep the house. But taking a job would make it impossible to do that (less pay, and now you need to pay for child care).
I really feel for people that are stuck... the right thing is to not take the money and make the changes you have to make... but the government came in and made a moral mess of it. They forced your employer (before they laid you off) to pay into an unemployment plan... so that was in some way part of your compensation and is perhaps a benefit you might argue you are entitled too. And with the unemployment offering a 1 (now 2?) year path to hanging tight and maybe keeping the house while the economy might bounce back, it would be really hard to not try that path... so you end up in this kind of long term limbo. Ugh. |
Brumbear
| | Posted on Monday, February 07, 2011 - 05:17 pm: |
|
The final solution hmm I think that ones been done. |
Aesquire
| | Posted on Monday, February 07, 2011 - 10:42 pm: |
|
What if it's Buell lightning out of your arse? I KNEW S1 saddles were uncomfortable!
A bit of history...
Sterilization was tried by the "Progressive" movement. It was once a very popular psuedo-science. Eugenics. ( That German guy ruined it for everyone, just like the swastika, a perfectly good religious symbol ) In fact, Planned Parenthood was founded in that movement.
We used to sterilize the feeble minded, etc. The Progressives once wanted to spay the chronic poor, and all those lesser races, and unfit.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=hQvsf2MUKRQ
(the best line is the very last )
I do believe I'm against the effort to spay the poor...... ( because I don't like the folk who do like the idea )
But it's a very easy to make argument. 'We become weaker as a people by protecting the weak. A good planned breeding program will make us a better race.' Sounds good? Don't count on being a breeder.
But the progressives are not on that track to perfection anymore, for the most part. They are using a newer economic model that calls for breaking the old state, not by violent revolution, but by spending so much on social programs that we go broke and buy into a program of, say, Hope and Change. but that's just an opinion... and no help to the issue at hand.
Drug Testing???
I say we are approaching the problem all wrong. Unemployment is projected by this admin to remain high until after they leave office. ( and continue to implement their policies ) So we are going to have a lot of out of place folk around. With less and less manufacturing, and what remains profitable trending too high tech for high school dropouts with no vocational training.... call them what you like.... serfs? but it's a big demographic.
So we are too humane and enlightened to embrace eugenics again... I'm good with that.
We might consider the "Brave New World" route and actually give drugs to the folk on the dole. Soma? anyone?. I'm sure Big Pharma can blend mood enhancers in a safe, "harmless" pill ( or inhaler, for the impatient ) Something that has you sit on your butt, non violently really enjoying soap operas, a range of buzz effects in a range of colors...??
Basic Soma in three grades from light buzz to "love ya man" drunk would be dole issue free. Of course everyone would know that the government sh&t was lame and Big Pharma could get rich selling designer, and well advertised "improved" versions......... Taxed, of course, so the workers pay for everything anyway, and the "smugglers/dealers" to the poor folk would have an economic niche.
Don't forget, Soma kills Cocaine and Heroin except for boutique users. Really going to torque off the cartels who bribe the politicians and police to make their living. With my proposed system the domestic dealers keep employed....
I actually would prefer to redesign the dole to have different rules that would less encourage "bad" behavior.
Your take on man's psychology should inform you on how. That's really the point here, isn't it?
(Message edited by aesquire on February 07, 2011) |
Aesquire
| | Posted on Monday, February 07, 2011 - 10:51 pm: |
|
Let's see, a Rave pill, what other models do we need? One for Bowling, say a 3 beer buzz with enhanced balance and vision... another for football games... dang, there's a lot of money to be made here.....
I get these thoughts...... anyone here working big pharma...... |
|
