This is why social programs don't work.

We may earn a small commission from affiliate links and paid advertisements. Terms

We need a nationwide ad campaign to convince people that being lazy, and having no respect for your country, your fellow man, or yourself is no way to live. We need to make America take a long hard look in the mirror. We need to show people that it's a good thing to be responsible and have pride in working hard. And, show that people who don't do that are lesser beings.

Your entire theory is based on the flawed assumption that people in general have a good moral compass.
 
We need a nationwide ad campaign to convince people that being lazy, and having no respect for your country, your fellow man, or yourself is no way to live. We need to make America take a long hard look in the mirror. We need to show people that it's a good thing to be responsible and have pride in working hard. And, show that people who don't do that are lesser beings.


gee... is that all???
should be pretty simple
ill get started on it after lunch
;)
 
We need a nationwide ad campaign to convince people that being lazy, and having no respect for your country, your fellow man, or yourself is no way to live. We need to make America take a long hard look in the mirror. We need to show people that it's a good thing to be responsible and have pride in working hard. And, show that people who don't do that are lesser beings.
they will tell you to get fucked and laugh in your face. will probably call you a Nazi in the process.
 
thats why it needs to be done in the background with little to no publicity.

first, start evaluating cases. and on a case by case basis, cut the benefits. have somebody go out and do a surprise inspection on the home and possessions of the individual/family. if it seems like they are doing much better than than they should be able to on the amount they receive in welfare, then they lose it.

before anybody starts talking about how much it would cost to pay people to do these inspections, think about it from this angle.
lets say that on average this inspector goes to 50 homes per month.
and the average amount these families receive is about $600 (which, i think would be much lower than real life due to family sizes, etc)
out of these 50 homes, we discover that 15 no longer qualify for welfare/gov assistance.
so thats 600 x 15 = 9,000/month saved
now, if the inspector makes about $2500/month then thats a profit.
hell, pay them $3500/month and allow them to be armed or allow them to have assistance at any time they feel it may be necessary.

after a couple of years of that we'll be saving a shitload of cash.

while doing these inspections, they could be administering drug tests, and evaluating whether the family should be getting less, or more assistance based on individual cases.

find drugs? lose benefits.
these inspectors should be hired based on a psych evaluation to tell how easily they could be swayed to look the other way, and how soft that would be when put in these kinds of situations.


after these steps are taken, then slowly we can put more money into job training and once these people do the training, start slowly weaning them off of whatever benefits they are getting.
if they decline the job training and dont have a legitimate medical excuse, then they should be denied anymore assistance from the government.

if they do provide medical reasoning as to why they cannot perform these duties then they should be able to go in and evaluate that persons medical history. if there is nothing in the history that would suggest whatever it is, then they should be checked in by a dr hired for this purpose.

help those who actually need to be helped.
assist those who need temporary help while at the same time offering them some kind of job training or better college assistance. (id rather my tax dollars go to helping somebody get educated and start the path to a better life than pay them to do nothing)
kick the leeches to the curb.
 
Would you volunteer to be the first to go through the ghetto do home inspections, and then tell people they won't be getting anymore benefits?
 
so as part of that plan, we have illegal search, and illegal access to private medical history
unless of course you think poor people don't get the same rights as the rest of us

just playing devil's advocate here

mandatory drug testing should most certainly be part of the mix
if you need to pass a piss test to work at fucking mcd's, you should have one to get free money
 
so as part of that plan, we have illegal search, and illegal access to private medical history
unless of course you think poor people don't get the same rights as the rest of us

just playing devil's advocate here

mandatory drug testing should most certainly be part of the mix
if you need to pass a piss test to work at fucking mcd's, you should have one to get free money

You need to prove your financial status to get a loan, mortgage or credit card. Why would we not expect you to prove your finacial status when getting gov. handouts? I say if you want the handout you jump through the hoop. The tricky part is to make sure you make fair assessments regarding what is above and beyond "necessary"
 
none of the things you mentioned above involve an illegal search of your home

although i agree with the theory, the implementation would be a matter of controversy
 
so as part of that plan, we have illegal search, and illegal access to private medical history
unless of course you think poor people don't get the same rights as the rest of us

just playing devil's advocate here

mandatory drug testing should most certainly be part of the mix
if you need to pass a piss test to work at fucking mcd's, you should have one to get free money

Many have tried that argument, but it's not valid since you have to provide 6 months of bank records just to get the benefits in the first place. I completely agree that if you expect the taxpayer to pay your way, that you should be able to pass a drug test, we shouldn't be paying for people's drug/alcohol habits. The caveat to that would be that I would like to see drug addiction treated as the social problem that it is, and not as a criminal issue, that way people that are down on their luck, and fall into a life of drugs actually would have some hope of getting out of that downward spiral.
 
none of the things you mentioned above involve an illegal search of your home

although i agree with the theory, the implementation would be a matter of controversy

It's not an illegal search, it's part of the contract between you and the state to receive free taxpayer money. Don't want your house searched? Don't want to take UA's? Don't ask for free taxpayer money.
 
Would you volunteer to be the first to go through the ghetto do home inspections, and then tell people they won't be getting anymore benefits?

absolutley. i would do this job without hesitation.
you wouldnt have to tell them to their face that they wont be recieving any benefits, that can be done in a letter.

so as part of that plan, we have illegal search, and illegal access to private medical history
unless of course you think poor people don't get the same rights as the rest of us

just playing devil's advocate here

mandatory drug testing should most certainly be part of the mix
if you need to pass a piss test to work at fucking mcd's, you should have one to get free money

its not illegal search, there isnt any searching, its just a basic home inspection to keep your government paycheck.
we can go into peoples homes to check on the conditions any time there are children involved to deem them fit or unfit parents. this would be no different.
illegal access to medical history is a joke, that shit is already on databases that can easily be accessed by doctors, and you think the government cant access them?
we wouldnt be searching for drugs or anything like that, just looking at the overall condition of the home.

somebody recieving benefits shouldnt have a 62 inch plasma tv with an xbox and ps3. or a car with 30 inch wheels on it, or 12 inch subs inside.
they probably shouldnt have granite counters with stainless appliances. or copius amounts of alcohol in the fridge.

a casual walk through would reveal all you would need to see. and as long as the program is run correctly, there would be no heads up for these random checks, and shouldnt need to open any closets. or look under the beds.


and like stated above, you want government help? prepare to give up something. life isnt free.
 
absolutley. i would do this job without hesitation.
you wouldnt have to tell them to their face that they wont be recieving any benefits, that can be done in a letter.



its not illegal search, there isnt any searching, its just a basic home inspection to keep your government paycheck.
we can go into peoples homes to check on the conditions any time there are children involved to deem them fit or unfit parents. this would be no different.
illegal access to medical history is a joke, that shit is already on databases that can easily be accessed by doctors, and you think the government cant access them?
we wouldnt be searching for drugs or anything like that, just looking at the overall condition of the home.

somebody recieving benefits shouldnt have a 62 inch plasma tv with an xbox and ps3. or a car with 30 inch wheels on it, or 12 inch subs inside.
they probably shouldnt have granite counters with stainless appliances. or copius amounts of alcohol in the fridge.

a casual walk through would reveal all you would need to see. and as long as the program is run correctly, there would be no heads up for these random checks, and shouldnt need to open any closets. or look under the beds.


and like stated above, you want government help? prepare to give up something. life isnt free.

Problem is that over the course of a few years, one can accumulate things like TV's car, etc, relatives, "No Credit" places that charge $15 a month for 25 years. Someone having stuff doesn't mean that's what they are spending all their money on. Hell I've got a really nice home theater, but only paid a fraction of what it would all cost new, except my TV.
 
Problem is that over the course of a few years, one can accumulate things like TV's car, etc, relatives, "No Credit" places that charge $15 a month for 25 years. Someone having stuff doesn't mean that's what they are spending all their money on. Hell I've got a really nice home theater, but only paid a fraction of what it would all cost new, except my TV.

i think his point was that if you are receiving "aid" from the government, you should be spending what little money you DO have on necessities and/or education.
 
Which is what food stamps attempt to do.

The real question is---

if food and housing is provided, what else do you spend your welfare money on?
clothes, 22's, blunts, 40's, and bitches
 
Problem is that over the course of a few years, one can accumulate things like TV's car, etc, relatives, "No Credit" places that charge $15 a month for 25 years. Someone having stuff doesn't mean that's what they are spending all their money on. Hell I've got a really nice home theater, but only paid a fraction of what it would all cost new, except my TV.


$15/month on a tv is $15 that hasnt been properly prioritized.

i dont fucking care how much its costing per month. its not a necessity and its not something tax dollars should be paying for.

wanna say it was given to you as a gift? well, then maybe you should be telling your friends and family that you need a job, or some money to help you out before they give you a tv.

its called prioritizing.

poverty as defined by our government:
lacking the resources to meet the basic needs for healthy living; having insufficient income to provide the food, shelter and clothing needed to preserve health.

a tv is not a basic need. neither is a cell phone, or nice rims.

me and my wife are lucky if we pull in over 18k a year together. and thats right above poverty by the new standards.
do i have a nice big tv? nope. i have a 26inch old school tube tv that was given to me by a friend. hell, i dont even have cable.
we have nice things, but we also live well within our means. we could have a bigger place, but that would mean moving to a shittier part of town, and we both enjoy being in the best part of middle tennessee, so we make do with what we can comfortably afford here.

i could probably get government assistance if i really want to, but i wont. i refuse to do that. we both have a little bit of money saved in the bank and we can afford to do things that we want.
but, we make a lot of sacrifices in between.

and we're both perfectly happy with this. the only complaint i have is about our place, and i only hate it between the hours of 9:30pm and 1am when i have to be quiet.
 
Throw a kid in the mix.... and you'll find yourself needing more money i bet.

Which goes back to my national neutering campaign :X
 
Throw a kid in the mix.... and you'll find yourself needing more money i bet.

Which goes back to my national neutering campaign :X

Yip, a lot of people that would otherwise by ok have a kid, or five, and that compounds the problem.
 
Which is what food stamps attempt to do.

The real question is---

if food and housing is provided, what else do you spend your welfare money on?
clothes, 22's, blunts, 40's, and bitches


I find it very ironic how all the poor, needy, helpless people on government “assistance” have at least 5 the following:

1.)Cable TV
2.)Internet Access
3.)Xbox, Playstation, etc
4.)A cellular telephone (at least $40/mo)
5.)Money for drugs/booze/cigs OR for movies/mcdonalds/leisure activity
6.)Free food (from stamps)
7.)A Car

Why do people need cellphones, xbox, cable tv and drugs on my dime? I dont even have cable tv OR an xbox, and my internet is 19.99/mo from verizon and is slower than a salted snail... plus i seldom go out (tired from working), do not own a car, buy ALL my own food and PAY my own RENT.
 
Because we (the tax payers) keep voting in democrats and socilists who think this is the 'right thing to do' because 'no child should grow up poor' or any other slogan.
 
Back
Top