This WILL reduce welfare rolls
Lance
will lower the number of people on welfare in both electoral,
and covert ways. While voting for those who would eliminate
the welfare bonanza that currently exists, we could also use
tactics that will make welfare recipients reluctant to seek
out their freebees. A small group of persons with a video
camera could document those who enter, and exit the
building at the main welfare office, food stamp center, and
the like. If asked what they are doing, they could simply state
that they are documenting those who are seeking out benefits
for purposes of pursuing repayment which will be forced by
upcoming legislation. I think this could go a long way in
reducing welfare dollar output. What do you think?
Alric Knebel
Similiar to my "C-SPAN: Daily Right-Wing Crank Phone Call of the Day,"
I'll think I'll start another daily post: "The Crackpot Post of the
Day." This second commitment will be much easier than watching a tape
of C-SPAN and taking notes to insure that I've quoted the caller
accurately. With a post, all I'll have to do is hit the "Post
Follow-up Article" and relabel the wacko article header; the
crackpot's words will speak for him (or her, but 99 out of a 100
times, it's a "him"). So here is the first "Crackpot Post of the
Day!"; I'm sure there will be others. But first, this commmentary.
The original title of the article selected was "This WILL reduce
welfare rolls." I didn't know whether to label this post as a
"crackpot post" or simply grant the writer a "Knuckle-Dragging,
Slope-Skulled Author Award." It's a tough call. Anyway, the writer's
name, which is both a noun for a piercing tool and a verb for incising
boils and hemorrhoids, is "Lance." Lance likes to spend his time
masturbating to pictures of horses asses and editing his personal ad:
"SWMT [Single White Male Troglodyte] seeks SF [Single Female]
interested in peeping in people's windows, crossdressing, wearing
concealed poo-poo diapers to Bruce Willis movies, watching my "Faces
of Death" video collection, looking up all the big words in HOOTERS
magazine, and working on a petition drive to get Rush Limbaugh back on
TV. And -- oh, yeah -- long walks on the beach. UF [Upright Female]
preferred if she doesn't talk back too much, but I will settle for a
less erect species."
I know what you're thinking: "Lance didn't write that." No, he
didn't. He went to a professional ad writer because Lance knew his
limitations. But he did provide a lot of input. I think the ad will
get him exactly what he wants, if he has it printed in the right
places.
Anyway, this is it for today, the very first "Crackpost Post of the
Day." The award goes to the Lancemaster ("Lance" <lanc...@tir.com>),
who wrote:
_____________________________________________
Alric Knebel
al...@datasync.com
_____________________________________________
Lance
I'm sure that you're just as brave/flaming when you talk to people
face to face.
>
>The original title of the article was "This WILL reduce welfare
F. Prefect
>I think it would be constructive for us to take action which
>will lower the number of people on welfare in both electoral,
>and covert ways. While voting for those who would eliminate
>the welfare bonanza that currently exists, we could also use
>tactics that will make welfare recipients reluctant to seek
>out their freebees. A small group of persons with a video
>camera could document those who enter, and exit the
>building at the main welfare office, food stamp center, and
>the like. If asked what they are doing, they could simply state
>that they are documenting those who are seeking out benefits
>for purposes of pursuing repayment which will be forced by
>upcoming legislation. I think this could go a long way in
>reducing welfare dollar output. What do you think?
>
When god passed out brains, you were in the can.
F. Prefect
In the beginning the Universe was created. This has made a lot of
people very angry and been widely regarded as being a bad move.....
Douglas Adams
Joe
to embarrass welfare recipients is alive and well, even though it has no
redeeming qualities. You seem to be one of many who while looking for a
financial advantage decide it's ok to put people down when they're already
down.
The Republican/Religious Right has done everything it can to deny women the
right to an abortion and then they want to follow it up with embarrassing
them if they need help. Even idiots surely realize that a young girl that
makes a sexual mistake will need help. Please keep track of the fact that
the sex drive over rides judgement. If it wasn't for this powerful drive few
of us would be here.
This unenlightened selfishness, of the Republicans, is cloaked in virtue and
even justified by the Religious Right. How the R/RR can live with
contradictions of their view is a real mystery. Didn't Christ say, not to
suffer little children?
Joe
Lance wrote in message <729ri0$ek4$1...@ramp2.tir.com>...
Alric Knebel
>It looks like you have no class at all. Your post speaks for itself.
>I'm sure that you're just as brave/flaming when you talk to people
>face to face.
Mr. Lance, I gave you EXACTLY what you deserved. Your post was an
affront to every value for which American stands. Not only did you
mock the condition of a segment of the population already weakened by
their condition, you took it further and recommended that we victimize
them further and nationally humiliate these people to worsen their
condition. The way I see it, direct argument is wasted on your kind.
The best solution is to turn your mockery onto itself, because the
values upon which such ideas as yours are based are nonexistent;
arguing from a moral high ground would be a waste of time. You're
arrogant, which makes you dumb to reason. It doesn't, however, make
you dumb to mockery, which stings those most who posture themselves
haughtily. It didn't even matter to me if YOU were offended. I
wanted to hold you up for ridicule for everyone else in the
newsgroups. That I chapped your ass was a bonus. On a serious note,
you must generally hate people or yourself to a great degree to enjoy
concocting such cruelties against the weak. And I'm sure my post
speaks well of me, regardless of your reaction. If I had been you and
had had my ass deservedly chaffed by someone having such a damn good
time, I would have reacted similarly. I recommend that in the future
you be a little more considerate, and if you can't be considerate,
stop having such a good time being a monster.
>>The original title of the article was "This WILL reduce welfare
>>rolls." I didn't know whether to label this post as a "crackpot post"
>>or simply grant the writer a "Knuckle-Dragging, Slope-Skulled Author
>>Award." It's a tough call. Anyway, the writer's name, which is both
>>a noun for a piercing tool and a verb for incising boils and
>>hemorrhoids, is "Lance." Lance likes to spend his time masturbating
>>to pictures of horses asses and editing his personal ad: "SWMT [Single
>>White Male Troglodyte] seeks SF [Single Female] interested in peeping
>>in people's windows, crossdressing, wearing concealed poo-poo diapers
>>to Bruce Willis movies, watching my "Faces of Death" video collection,
>>looking up all the big words in HOOTERS magazine, and working on a
>>petition drive to get Rush Limbaugh back on TV. And -- oh, yeah --
>>long walks on the beach. UF [Upright Female] preferred if she doesn't
>>talk back too much, but I will settle for a less erect species."
_____________________________________________
Alric Knebel
al...@datasync.com
_____________________________________________
Jim Hauser
values. Your assumption that a segment of the population is weak is quite
arrogant on your part. It is in fact an insult to that segment of the
population to which you were referring. If I were to believe what the
liberals have told me about myself I would be standing in line with my hand
out and be indebted to those who perpetuated the myth by voting for them.
But I was not brought up to believe that crap. I was told that if you were
honest and worked hard you would get along quite well in the world. I was
told correctly. It works. And now as an adult I am not indebted to any one
group of politicians because they "helped" me out. A politician has to earn
my vote. It is not for sale or barter.
There was a time when poverty was the best incentive to get out of poverty.
Now it is a viable alternative lifestyle created by the liberals. The
original purpose of welfare and food stamps was as a temporary measure for
those who truly needed it and there are people who fit that category. What
it has become is the largest free handout to whoever wants it. It has also
become the largest instance of vote buying this country has ever seen.
You say that people will be embarrassed if the were filmed getting food
stamps. So What! Most of them should be.
The segment of the population that you were referring to overcame some very
great odds. They overcame being sold into slavery by their own country, they
overcame slavery and the gained civil rights. To call them weak is a gross
overstatement and extremely racist. I recommend in the future that you will
be a little more considerate.
Go look for some real victims.
Alric Knebel wrote in message <3648c97b.42720610@news>...
Alfred Kimmel
would you do if you had to take walfair - would you kill yourself.
America gives so much money away overseas we can do some good here at
home. A large majority of the homeless were at one time in the Armed
Forces serving their country. It is easy chastise those that cannot
standup for theirself. Without welfair what would the fatherless home
do. What would people that have been injured do. The next time you see
someone sleeping on the street think about what YOU have done to make
the world a better place to live in - instead of kicking a dog when its
down.
David Cross
>
>I think it would be constructive for us to take action which
>will lower the number of people on welfare in both electoral,
>and covert ways. While voting for those who would eliminate
>the welfare bonanza that currently exists, we could also use
>tactics that will make welfare recipients reluctant to seek
>out their freebees. A small group of persons with a video
>camera could document those who enter, and exit the
>building at the main welfare office, food stamp center, and
>the like. If asked what they are doing, they could simply state
>that they are documenting those who are seeking out benefits
>for purposes of pursuing repayment which will be forced by
>upcoming legislation. I think this could go a long way in
>reducing welfare dollar output. What do you think?
Why don't you just go the whole hog and admit you're a closet fascist?
Guido Lawenstein
David Cross schrieb in Nachricht ...
You don't want to spend money on wellfare?
Think about it this way:
-You could as well pay a couple guards to protect your home from starving
people trying to find something to eat there. Or do you expect the
government to that for you? I think THAT would be a waste of money.
-You could look at it from an economic perspective: wellfare benefits
increases consumption (because poor people tend to spend their money on
products rather than taking it to the bank). This would create jobs and
therefore the countries wealth.
-You wanna life all by yourself? Go and find your own planet then.
Alric Knebel
Look at this, everybody: Another slope-skull lifts his knuckles off
the ground just long enough to mimic a human. First, you
shit-for-brains, club-wielding grunt, I never said these people I'm
defending are WEAK. I said their conditions makes them weak, and by
that, I mean the condition of poverty makes them vulnerable to the
whims of the more solidly middle- and upper-class society, and to any
emergencies that might disrupt the flow of their subsistence. Second,
I was not in any way, shape, or form insinuating that the people I was
talking about had slaves in their lineage. Statistically, there are
more white people on welfare than any other race. So your bigotted
assumption belies YOUR racism. And what a disingenous display: While
pretending to defend their dignity from "liberals" like me, you swipe
at the programs YOU assume they are misusing. Which is it? Are you
defending them, or are they a program-abusing, lazy race? What a
slope-skull you are! Do you think you can express yourself and not
give yourself away? When your brain churns through an idea, your
thoughts thunk down like someone wielding a sledgehammer that is far
too heavy for him: You follow the thought only half way, then let it
go because thinking is too hard for you, and you end not knowing what
you said or what your even talking about. Let me set you straight on
the situation as it really is.
First, regardless of the lesson the Neanderthals you elected to
Congress have inculcated to the mooing masses otherwise known as their
constituents, liberal politicians and welfare programs did not create
poverty, and neither do they foster that condition. Poverty existed
long before the liberals and programs came along. The liberal
politicians RESPONDED to the condition of poverty, and that response
led to the programs. Contrary to what the monkeys argue, the programs
themselves were never intended to eradicate poverty; the programs were
designed as a means to alleviate some of the suffering and hardship of
poverty. When you remove the programs, the poverty will still be
there, with the misery compounded by the lack of assistance for those
unfortunate enough to live in it.
Another erroneous assumption is that the programs were set up as a
temporary measure. Where did you get this information? Rush?
Gingrich? Lott? Are low-paying jobs a temporary phenomena in our
society? If not, then enrollment in a program might not be temporary.
If it's not, suffering and misery is mitigated by the program to some
degree. That's a good thing, whether you have the moral sense to
realize it or not. The only real solution to the problem of poverty
is for the purveyors of capitalism to adopt a less exploitive approach
to enterprise. Until that day comes, the programs will be the only
solution for the misery generated by a society that postures Christian
values while practicing social Darwinism. And that's what YOU
practice, social Darwinism. You're okay with it; I'm not. It's a
question of values; I have them, you don't. Instead of complaining
about these programs, you should be humbly thankful that you have no
need for them. And while you're at it, you should maybe ask for
wisdom and look inward to see what it is that possesses you to wish
further hardship on men, women, and children you have never met, who
wish you no harm, and whose lifestyles in no way affect yours. That
is a good question, and you need to be asking it. Pick apart your
attitudes and separate them as you would spilled fiddle sticks;
examine your emotions until you discover the shit fertilizing these
hateful thoughts of yours. The first thing you should learn is that
you ain't all that enough be feeling superior to those struggling in
the poverty class. If you resent the help they get because you can't
get any help yourself while considering yourself laboring under
hardship, then maybe you should be supporting broadening eligibility
so you can apply for benefits, too.
My own values, which you attempt to besmirch in your benighted mind by
sneeringly attaching the misnomer of "liberal values," are based on
simple common decency, a set of core principles ostensibly supported
by almost every religion and culture in the world, but practiced only
by a few. So my values are not "liberal values," though I've
discovered that liberalism is the best expression for them in a
political context. The values came first, based on a private sense of
something decent and moral; the political affiliation came later, when
the values needed expression as a solution to social ills and national
vision.
And on what are YOUR values based? Have you even thought them through
enough to gauge their eventual consequences if they were practiced
unchecked? Like a rocking chair stranded with cobwebs, your own
thinking is creaky and outdated. You evidently haven't studied enough
history, since there are many examples past and present of the
consequences of unfettered capitalism. India is a current example, as
is Mexico. If you like those systems so much, maybe you and your kind
should move there, where you social Darwinism can go unchecked, and
your monkey values won't disrupt the evolution of civilization. If
you think that humiliating people on welfare is a fine idea, your
departure can't come quick enough for me.
Anonymous
>It looks like you have no class at all. Your post speaks for itself.
>I'm sure that you're just as brave/flaming when you talk to people
>face to face.
It looks like you like to fuck little boys, Lance. Retards like you should
be banned from voting.
Alric Knebel
>I think it would be constructive for us to take action which
>will lower the number of people on welfare in both electoral,
>and covert ways. . . .
By golly, Lance-a-lot. You're a bonafide target of disdain. Look at
this thread. And I'm so proud to have been the very first to pick you
out of the crowd and throw stones, and mine was the ONLY post you
responded to. Makes me feel kind of . . . special.
Jim Hauser
Alric Knebel wrote in message <3648e715.50298557@news>...
____________________________________________
Poverty! What do you know about poverty? To you it is just a figure that is
put together by a bunch of liberals who have no idea what poverty is. You
must be doing pretty good if you can afford a computer. People who are truly
in poverty can not even afford the flour to make a loaf of bread. People
that are truly in poverty must walk quite some distance to get the water
that they need on a daily basis. These things are not happening in this
country.
Your values appear to be based on hate. You can't wait for my departure. How
does human decency fit in there? When you can not adequately defend your
views you resort to calling people names.
Their conditions make them weak? Their conditions were put in place by
liberal Democrats. The Democrats convinced them that they were weak and they
bought it.
As far as my values are concerned I have thought them through and gauged the
eventual result. It would result in a country were all people are equal. It
would result in country that would allow anyone to go as far as they wanted.
It would allow anybody to be somebody. What my values would not allow is a
group of people being falsely dependent on federal handouts.
I have been through hard times in my life. Have you? I made it without the
help of the liberal socialist democrats. What the heck have you done besides
call people names?
Edward-Yemíl Rosario
<snip>
>Poverty! What do you know about poverty? To you it is just a figure that is
>put together by a bunch of liberals who have no idea what poverty is. You
>must be doing pretty good if you can afford a computer. People who are truly
>in poverty can not even afford the flour to make a loaf of bread. People
>that are truly in poverty must walk quite some distance to get the water
>that they need on a daily basis. These things are not happening in this
>country.
Another reactionary and unelightened response to a post filled with much thought and insight. What a
waste. You guys, the neocons, dittoheads, and moral posse, all state beliefs about "liberals,"
"values," as if they were foregone facts. The gentleman requested that you come back with something
substantial and all you could muster is the same dribble. Pathetic.
Peace Out,
Edward-Yemíl Rosario
New York University
"I have a problem with an institution such as the independent
counsel that has no real accountability, that goes on and on
like Tennyson's brook, without end and with an open-ended
checkbook."
- Henry Hyde in defense of Oliver North
Rose
a multi tiered ceiling limit.
Anybody who needs it can 'barrow' from this fund but are required to pay
back the borrowed amount beginning 6 months after the initial withdrawal. If
an individual fails to to payback the amount, liens on future withdrawals
will be made. Liens could also be placed on paychecks, property or other
items of value or can be 'worked off'. If all attempts to pay back the loan
fails then it should be considered a crime and appropriate penalties applied
and all future access to the welfare loan program be revoked for a minimum
of 10 years.
Rose
Lance wrote in message <729ri0$ek4$1...@ramp2.tir.com>...
>I think it would be constructive for us to take action which
>will lower the number of people on welfare in both electoral,
Alric Knebel
>
>Poverty! What do you know about poverty? To you it is just a figure that is
>put together by a bunch of liberals who have no idea what poverty is. You
>must be doing pretty good if you can afford a computer. People who are truly
>in poverty can not even afford the flour to make a loaf of bread. People
>that are truly in poverty must walk quite some distance to get the water
>that they need on a daily basis. These things are not happening in this
>country.
>
>Your values appear to be based on hate. You can't wait for my departure. How
>does human decency fit in there? When you can not adequately defend your
>views you resort to calling people names.
What do I know about poverty? A lot! I was born and raised in it. I
lived in the projects until I was sixteen. My mother one time ate
molded bread so her children could eat the unspoiled food. She also
made bread from the flour included in boxes from the federal
government that was generically referred to back in the sixties as
"commodities." Her children smeared that bread with peanut butter
obtained from the same boxes. At the age of thirteen, I experienced a
particularly threatening event that fixed for the next thirty years
how I would react to the world. From that age on, I never had an
inkling of what I wanted to be; all I knew is what I wanted to avoid,
and anyone with even the most basic tools for self-actualization will
tell you that the first rule is to fix your sights on where you want
to go, not on what you want to avoid. In the interim between that day
and my awareness of its importance to my development, I was like a
caged animal on fire. I am thankful now to have at least achieved the
awareness of it.
So you see, my little monkey, I understand poverty very well, and
unlike a lot of other people traumatized by that experience, I am able
through my own gifts to articulate the insidious effects it has on a
person's development. Maybe this ability to express myself is a
God-given gift, and it will serve no other purpose than to empower me
in these crude dialogues and make people like have to work harder to
justify your empty values. Maybe that's it, and to also provide
others like me with the words to defend what they instinctively know
is morally right: that unfettered capitalism is an insidious system
that without mitigating measures creates societal dysfunctions that
must be dealt with sooner or later. Why do you think the jails and
prisons are filled to overflowing? From what econmic group do you
think most inmates come? And why do you think prisons are so cruel?
If prisons were places housing offenders from the more affluent
classes, they wouldn't be so backwards and cruel as to draw the
censure of international organizations like Amnesty International. Of
course, you probably still have the Republican hook in your cheeks
that describes our prisons are havens of bliss, and THAT'S why crime
is so rampant: We're not cruel enough to prisoners.
The United States is morally a third-world country, and people like
you make it so and are committed to keeping it so. Hardships have
never been, and will never be, the character-building experiences you
claim them to be. Too much struggle breaks more people than it makes,
and the evidence supports my view, not yours. Sure, there are some
inspiring stories showcasing a particular person as having overcome
great difficulties to achieve some great thing. But we focus on what
they accomplish, not on how they felt and what was driving them to
accomplish whatever it is that brought them into the spotlight. I
once read a story about Steve McQueen as told by his wife. He had
been an orphan, I think, and she said when he ate, he ate as if he
expected someone to come and take his plate before he was finished.
Was that essential to the man's character? Did not his previous
experiences deprive him of a sense of security ALL OF HIS LIFE? His
emotional perseveration prevented him from savoring his later
successes, and regardless of what he accomplished, he, too, had been
traumatized by his earlier sense of want. These are facts. Look into
them.
I don't like the country you want to create, where the poor are mocked
and humiliated for doing what they can to make ends meet. The country
I want to live in is better than the animal kingdom you want to
maintain. Republicans again and again tell us how morally empty we've
all become, but it is their fiscal policies which express the more
pervasive moral deprivation. And you and the rest of your species
support it.
And you're right: I do call people like you names. That's because I
realize we're engaged in a war for the soul of America, and the other
side has recruited the likes of Rush Limbaugh and Roger Ailles for the
front lines, destroying dignified political debate by debasing the
opponents. I've seen it again and again, the sneering references to
liberals while never addressing liberal successes. Rush has become a
millionaire doing it. I've taken a lesson from him and have come to
appreciate the effectiveness of the same techniques. Never refer to
the other side except in the most derisive terms: "Monkeys," "knuckle
draggers," and "social Darwinists" seem to me the most vivid for my
purposes. You don't like it? Well, welcome to your world. It's a
jungle out there, but -- hey, what the hell -- it builds character.
Alric Knebel
>
>I think the best way to eliminate welfare is to make it a personal loan with
>a multi tiered ceiling limit.
>Anybody who needs it can 'barrow' from this fund but are required to pay
>back the borrowed amount beginning 6 months after the initial withdrawal. If
>an individual fails to to payback the amount, liens on future withdrawals
>will be made. Liens could also be placed on paychecks, property or other
>items of value or can be 'worked off'. If all attempts to pay back the loan
>fails then it should be considered a crime and appropriate penalties applied
>and all future access to the welfare loan program be revoked for a minimum
>of 10 years.
This was an easy pick, the sequel to "Lance." We'll title it "The
Bride of Lance," in which Lance convinces his mad creator that if poor
people can get welfare, it's only fair that someone provide him with a
mate. The creator succumbs to Lance's importuning and stitches
together a second creature that only a monster could love. Of course,
Lance falls amorously spellbound and names the creature "Rose." But
to consummate his passion, he has to take his bride to the North Pole,
where he derives a sense of only RELATIVE warmth from her frigid
embrace. Lance ends up freezing to death and Rose ends up eating her
young to stay alive. I think this is referred to in literature as
"tragicomedy."
Eric, da Red
Jim Hauser <jdha...@ametro.net> wrote:
>American values are not about free handouts. That would be called liberal
>values.
How much did you pay for the Second Amendment?
--
Usenet Insult Of The Week: "Gawd.. I thought you had pulled your head out
of your ass. but you just remodeled your colon.."
Jim Hauser
Do you by chance write for the Boston Globe?
Jim Hauser
>Another reactionary and unelightened response to a post filled with much
thought and insight. What a
>waste. You guys, the neocons, dittoheads, and moral posse, all state
beliefs about "liberals,"
>"values," as if they were foregone facts. The gentleman requested that you
come back with something
>substantial and all you could muster is the same dribble. Pathetic.
>Peace Out,
>Edward-Yemíl Rosario
>New York University
> Regrettably, [the Independent Counsel Statute] was permitted to lapse
when its reauthorization became mired in a partisan dispute in the
Congress. Opponents called it a tool of partisan attack against
Republican presidents and a waste of taxpayer funds. It was neither." -
Bill Clinton, June 30, 1994
>
>"I have a problem with an institution such as the independent
>counsel that has no real accountability, that goes on and on
>like Tennyson's brook, without end and with an open-ended
>checkbook."
> - Henry Hyde in defense of Oliver North
That was very well written but an attack on me in no way answers any
questions. Why do you call me unenlightened? Is it because my views of the
world come from what I see with my own eyes and not something that is
filtered through the media? Am I unenlightened because I realize that the
government is picking my pocket without my consent? Am I unenlightened
because I refuse to believe that the government can cure any social ills? Or
am I unenlightened because I do not think the way that you do?
Where do you come up with these names? I've never been called a dittohead
before. I am not sure if that is supposed to upset me or not. I will choose
not.
If the gentleman you were referring to was expecting a serious response he
should have at least asked a question or posed an idea first. His post was
nothing more than a well written attack on my character. Pure dribble.
P.S. Your spell checker needs work.
Alric Knebel
I assume you're accusing me of making this up. Wasn't it an author
for The Boston Globe who was fired for fake enterviews? Well, this is
not the case here. Everything I said was true.
Jonathan Leffingwell
>population, read how this person or that person took advantage of the
system
>and got some free money. the truth of the matter is that most people really
>needed the services they were receiving.
I can't speak for all or most welfare recipients, but I can speak for one
recipient that I know very well. She has been on welfare for over five
years, and says she has no desire to get off of it, since it pays better
than most jobs in her area. It's a no-brainer for her...bust her buns for
minimum wage, or watch soaps for a "competitive salary"? Again, I do not
pretend to portray her as representative of the entire welfare-dependent
population, but I also reject that she is in a microscopic minority.
>let me ask you this...would you want to hire most of the people
>who were on welfare? i'll bet you wouldn't touch them. a large percentage
>have disabilities (mostly learning disabilities) and need accommodations
just
>to work.
I haven't met many people who propose cutting those with learning
disabilities off entirely. However, an old co-worker's boyfriend was deaf
in one ear, and he was collecting disability for it...so he did not want to
work. He was big, strong man who could easily tear me in half. Is it your
contention that he has a God-given right to live off of my money?
>people who want to do
>away with welfare entirely are just selfish. "hey, i made my money. why
>should i give it to some bum who can really work?" it is that kind of
>attitude that is going to cause many more children to not get the nutrition
>they need and to end up being a cost to the taxpayer much more than if we
had
>put forth the ounce of prevention.
Liberal hogwash. You have a lot of damned nerve, attempting to make people
feel guilty for being "selfish" and having the audacity to want to keep
their own money! Children are not going to starve because Uncle Sam is
telling their deadbeat able-bodied parents to get off of their rumps and
work like the rest of us. If you want to debate a plan on how to get
able-bodied people into the workplace and provide childcare, I'm all ears.
No one thinks that people who cannot work due to a disability should be cut
off of welfare...but no reasonable adult wants to keep those who CAN work on
welfare. I've got no problem spending my tax dollars on those who need it,
not those who refuse to better themselves!
>-----------== Posted via Deja News, The Discussion Network ==----------
>http://www.dejanews.com/ Search, Read, Discuss, or Start Your Own
wig...@hotmail.com
> David Cross schrieb in Nachricht ...
> >In article <729ri0$ek4$1...@ramp2.tir.com>, lanc...@tir.com says...
> >>
> >>will lower the number of people on welfare in both electoral,
> >>and covert ways. While voting for those who would eliminate
> >>the welfare bonanza that currently exists, we could also use
> >>tactics that will make welfare recipients reluctant to seek
> >>out their freebees. A small group of persons with a video
> >>camera could document those who enter, and exit the
> >>building at the main welfare office, food stamp center, and
> >>the like. If asked what they are doing, they could simply state
> >>that they are documenting those who are seeking out benefits
> >>for purposes of pursuing repayment which will be forced by
> >>upcoming legislation. I think this could go a long way in
> >>reducing welfare dollar output. What do you think?
you see, this is the problem. you, who have never worked with the welfare
population, read how this person or that person took advantage of the system
and got some free money. the truth of the matter is that most people really
needed the services they were receiving. i am working on a grant to assist
individuals who are or were on welfare make the transition into the
workplace. let me ask you this...would you want to hire most of the people
who were on welfare? i'll bet you wouldn't touch them. a large percentage
have disabilities (mostly learning disabilities) and need accommodations just
to work. without accommodations, they will surely not last in their jobs
(assumming an employee hires them in the first place). people who want to do
away with welfare entirely are just selfish. "hey, i made my money. why
should i give it to some bum who can really work?" it is that kind of
attitude that is going to cause many more children to not get the nutrition
they need and to end up being a cost to the taxpayer much more than if we had
put forth the ounce of prevention.
-----------== Posted via Deja News, The Discussion Network ==----------
Zepp
>I think the best way to eliminate welfare is to make it a personal loan with
>a multi tiered ceiling limit.
>Anybody who needs it can 'barrow' from this fund but are required to pay
>back the borrowed amount beginning 6 months after the initial withdrawal. If
>an individual fails to to payback the amount, liens on future withdrawals
>will be made. Liens could also be placed on paychecks, property or other
>items of value or can be 'worked off'. If all attempts to pay back the loan
>fails then it should be considered a crime and appropriate penalties applied
>and all future access to the welfare loan program be revoked for a minimum
>of 10 years.
>
>Rose
So you advocate the return of debtors' prisons, and feel that it's
better to spend $30K a year to imprison someone who cannot pay off
their welfare debt than it is to spend $15K on the welfare itself, and
toss in job training and child care while we're at it.
Incidently, most welfare reciprients are women with young children.
What do you propose to do with all the kids who's mothers you've
tossed in jail for the crime of being poor?
>
>
>
>Lance wrote in message <729ri0$ek4$1...@ramp2.tir.com>...
>>I think it would be constructive for us to take action which
>>will lower the number of people on welfare in both electoral,
>>and covert ways. While voting for those who would eliminate
>>the welfare bonanza that currently exists, we could also use
>>tactics that will make welfare recipients reluctant to seek
>>out their freebees. A small group of persons with a video
>>camera could document those who enter, and exit the
>>building at the main welfare office, food stamp center, and
>>the like. If asked what they are doing, they could simply state
>>that they are documenting those who are seeking out benefits
>>for purposes of pursuing repayment which will be forced by
>>upcoming legislation. I think this could go a long way in
>>reducing welfare dollar output. What do you think?
>>
>>
>
>
-------------------------------------------
Noot, Noot, Nooty, Goodbye!
Noot, Noot, Nooty, Don't cry...
--Apologies to Al Jolson
----------------------------------------------------
Not dead, in jail, or a slave?
Thank a liberal.
-----------------------------------------------------
Be good, servile little citizen-employees:
Pay your taxes so the rich don't have to.
When in doubt, call a stoat,
'cos a ferret has merit!
-----------------------------------------------------
Jim Hauser
Alric Knebel wrote in message <364a19a9.28549300@news>...
>>"Jim Hauser" <jdha...@ametro.net> wrote:
>>
>>Do you by chance write for the Boston Globe?
>
>I assume you're accusing me of making this up. Wasn't it an author
>for The Boston Globe who was fired for fake enterviews? Well, this is
>not the case here. Everything I said was true.
>
>
>Alric Knebel
>al...@datasync.com
>_____________________________________________
Finally! A dignified response that does not call people names. Thats more
like it. And better yet, you are not hiding behind a phony name and e-mail
address. This is very refreshing!
I am curious about a couple of things. You grew up in the projects and had a
tough go at it. What was the driving force that got you out of the projects?
Was it something that came upon you personally or was it someone who
inspired you? Was it a government program or policy that helped you get out
of there? Or was it just guts and determination on your part?
It sounds like your life might make a quite interesting story. If so it
might be best told without calling people names and putting labels on
certain groups. I guess I was lucky when I was growing up. Our bread didn't
get moldy it just got stale. I didn't see moldy bread until I moved down
here to Jackson County. Do you remember the powdered milk? That stuff was
horrible!
The other day I drove through Carver Village on the way home and one thing
hit me as I looked at the people standing outside in front of their units.
They looked more like prisoners then tenants. In the past twenty years I
have tried to hire some of these disadvantaged people for some one day
manual labor for cash that would not affect their status as far as their
income level was concerned. The only individual who took me up on the offer
turned out to be one of the best employees that I ever had and is now
working at Chevron as an operator. The ones that turned me down are still
standing on the corner waiting for the next day to roll around.
Just so you know that I am not a dittohead, last week one of our Republican
city counsleman offered a motion to cut down on section 8 housing in
Pascagoula. You may have read about it in the Press or the Sun Herald. Quite
frankly I am opposed to this. I have seen abuses of section 8 housing but it
does have one real advantage over living in a project. It allows an
individual to raise children in a much better environment. It may cost more
initially but the paybacks are much better.
So you see, I am not a mean spirited dittohead and all of those other names
that some folks would like to call me. I have handed plenty of five dollar
bills to folks just to help them get through the day. But the thing is this,
when I hand someone a bit of cash there are no strings attached. When the
government does so there are. There is one thing that my grandfather (the
grandson of a slave) taught me. If you hold your hand out for something you
are most likely to get a string tied around your wrist.
Gary Forbis
>The other day I drove through Carver Village on the way home and one thing
>hit me as I looked at the people standing outside in front of their units.
>They looked more like prisoners then tenants. In the past twenty years I
>have tried to hire some of these disadvantaged people for some one day
>manual labor for cash that would not affect their status as far as their
>income level was concerned. The only individual who took me up on the
>offer turned out to be one of the best employees that I ever had and is now
>working at Chevron as an operator. The ones that turned me down are still
>standing on the corner waiting for the next day to roll around.
A few years back I heard a story about how elephants are(were) trained.
When they are very young they are tied down with a heavy chain and
then beaten. When they try to flee the chain holds them back. They
are beaten until they quit resisting. At this point they may be tied down
with thin ropes to simple pegs in the ground.
When I was a kid I saw some horses standing with the reins just laying
over the hitching posts (Yes, farmers still road horses to town in the
fifties.)
The thing is, animals become accustomed to their situation and after awhile
do not try to assert themselves (except in desperation moves.) Even
mild prodding will not cause them to break their mental bonds.
And so it is with humans. I'm sure the people you mentioned were
prisoners, though no bars were visible.
Edward-Yemíl Rosario
>questions. Why do you call me unenlightened? Is it because my views of the
>world come from what I see with my own eyes and not something that is
>filtered through the media?
You are in the dark, my friend because it's not enough to marginalize ppl from the other party, or
the gov't. as demonic and consdier that an apt response. You answered no questions nor even
attempted to offer any analysis of the issue we're discussing. Your post is a prime example of the
knee-jerk conservatism so popular round these parts.
>Where do you come up with these names? I've never been called a dittohead
>before. I am not sure if that is supposed to upset me or not. I will choose
>not.
<snip>
the term is reserved for those who just mouth conservative dogma with no reagrd to critical
thinking.
>Am I unenlightened because I realize that the
>government is picking my pocket without my consent?
<snip>
You're entitled to move or vote against such policies, my freind.
As it stands, I doubt many US citizens would approve of raping the first amendment just so that we
could take pictures of mostly poor white women and children for the express purpose of humiliating
them in public.
>Am I unenlightened
>because I refuse to believe that the government can cure any social ills? Or
>am I unenlightened because I do not think the way that you do?
<snip>
Let's see: gov't.'s inability to solve problems: rural electrification, the TVA, the imposition of
an educational system that allowed us to persevere through 2 world wars intact, the freakin' road
you drive on to get to work, if you DO work, this forum which allows you to communicate with the
rest of the world...Do I need to go on?
>
>If the gentleman you were referring to was expecting a serious response he
>should have at least asked a question or posed an idea first. His post was
>nothing more than a well written attack on my character. Pure dribble.
<snip>
I would suggest you re-read the post because the gentleman did pose some hard questions that require
more than your paltry "you evil liberals....." response.
>P.S. Your spell checker needs work.
<snip>
Yeah, yeah, your reading skills need some work.
Peace Out,
Edward-Yemíl Rosario
(Confirmed Liberal, Socialist-Democrat, Fornicator,
and occassional Liar)
"I don't remember!!!
-Ronnie on Iran-Contra
eisn...@idt.net
> I think the best way to eliminate welfare is to make it a personal loan with
> a multi tiered ceiling limit.
> Anybody who needs it can 'barrow' from this fund but are required to pay
> back the borrowed amount beginning 6 months after the initial withdrawal. If
> an individual fails to to payback the amount, liens on future withdrawals
> will be made. Liens could also be placed on paychecks, property or other
> items of value or can be 'worked off'. If all attempts to pay back the loan
> fails then it should be considered a crime and appropriate penalties applied
> and all future access to the welfare loan program be revoked for a minimum
> of 10 years.
>
> Rose
>
>
>
> Lance wrote in message <729ri0$ek4$1...@ramp2.tir.com>...
> >I think it would be constructive for us to take action which
> >will lower the number of people on welfare in both electoral,
> >and covert ways. While voting for those who would eliminate
> >the welfare bonanza that currently exists, we could also use
> >tactics that will make welfare recipients reluctant to seek
> >out their freebees. A small group of persons with a video
> >camera could document those who enter, and exit the
> >building at the main welfare office, food stamp center, and
> >the like. If asked what they are doing, they could simply state
> >that they are documenting those who are seeking out benefits
> >for purposes of pursuing repayment which will be forced by
> >upcoming legislation. I think this could go a long way in
> >reducing welfare dollar output. What do you think?
This will take care of the black, lesbian, single mothers. Now what do
you suggest we do with corporate welfare?
> >
> >
--
To get random signatures put text files into a folder called ³Random Signatures² into your Preferences folder.
kenfran
>
> I think the best way to eliminate welfare is to make it a personal loan with
> a multi tiered ceiling limit.
> Anybody who needs it can 'barrow' from this fund but are required to pay
> back the borrowed amount beginning 6 months after the initial withdrawal. If
> an individual fails to to payback the amount, liens on future withdrawals
> will be made. Liens could also be placed on paychecks, property or other
> items of value or can be 'worked off'. If all attempts to pay back the loan
> fails then it should be considered a crime and appropriate penalties applied
> and all future access to the welfare loan program be revoked for a minimum
> of 10 years.
>
> Rose
Require Dwayne Andreas to pay back the billion dollars
a year that Archer Daniels Midland gets in corporate
welfare. Follow him around with a video camera
documenting how he spends his welfare money, and tell
his banker that you are documenting his spending so
that the government can force him to pay it all back by
attaching his bank account.
------------------------------------------------------------------
Andreas announces that global capitalism is a delusion.
"There isn't
one grain of anything in the world that is sold in a
free market. Not
one! The only place you see a free market is in the
speeches of
politicians. People who are not in the Midwest do not
understand
that this is a socialist country."
--Dwayne Andreas, head of Archer Daniels Midland
-------------------------------------------------------------------
Also follow around Jose Fanjul with the camcorder,
recording how he spends all his ill-gotten gains from
sugar price supports that cost the people of the U.S. a
billion a year.
>
> Lance wrote in message <729ri0$ek4$1...@ramp2.tir.com>...
> >I think it would be constructive for us to take action which
> >will lower the number of people on welfare in both electoral,
> >and covert ways. While voting for those who would eliminate
> >the welfare bonanza that currently exists, we could also use
> >tactics that will make welfare recipients reluctant to seek
> >out their freebees. A small group of persons with a video
> >camera could document those who enter, and exit the
> >building at the main welfare office, food stamp center, and
> >the like. If asked what they are doing, they could simply state
> >that they are documenting those who are seeking out benefits
> >for purposes of pursuing repayment which will be forced by
> >upcoming legislation. I think this could go a long way in
> >reducing welfare dollar output. What do you think?
> >
> >
--
=========================================================
I see in the near future a crisis approaching that
unnerves me and causes me to tremble for the safety of
my country. ... corporations have been enthroned and an
era of corruption in high places will follow, and the
money power of the country will endeavor to prolong its
reign by working
upon the prejudices of the people until all wealth is
aggregated in a few hands and the Republic is
destroyed.
--Abraham Lincoln, Nov. 21, 1864 (Letter to Col.
William F. Elkins)
These capitalists generally act harmoniously, and in
concert, to fleece the people.
--Abraham Lincoln, 1837
=========================================================
Mike Koewler
There is much truth in that some poor people are conditioned to accept
their economic condition. I've heard kids in school state they are
proud to be on welfare - their grandmother was, their mom is, and they
will be.
I don't know the answer for situations where the parent or parents don't
know how, will not or cannot encourage their children to get a good
education. I do believe that with welfare as it is in many states,
there is not the incentive to succeed, as there would be without a
lifetime guarantee of some money, some food and some clothing.
Several months ago, when Ohio imposed a time limit for welfare benefits,
there were dire predictions of class warfare, starvations, all the
recipients living in the streets. I read recently where the opposite
has occured. The find jobs rather than starve. Now, if they can pass
on to their children that a good education is a key to finding a job,
and a solid job history means promotions, maybe the need for welfare
will be so small that no one will care that it exists, except for the
truly needy.
Mike
Mike Koewler
First, I am talking about people who "can" work, not the severely
disabled, etc.
First, announce that welfare will have a time limit, unless certain
conditions are present (disability, for instance).
Provide job training, at no cost. If necessary, include day care at the
learning center so mothers with little babies will not have an excuse.
Do not take away other welfare benefits just because a person gets a
job. Allow them to retain food stamps, health insurance, child care,
subsided housing for a year or two. Provide advanced job training so
that the person could advance.
Don't penalize them dollar for dollar - if they make $1,000 a year more,
they only lose $500 in benefits.
Do not make welfare a right - just because a teen becomes pregnant,
drops out of school and has a baby, she should not have a right to a
free income for the rest of her life. Train her, give her a job in City
Hall answering phones. Give him a job as a clerk. A year later, his or
her "internship" is up, and they find a job in the private sector.
Others take their place. (This would also lower the cost of
government.)
We can't just through the welfare population to the wolves, but if we
teach them to fend for themselves, and they know they will have to, they
will respond.
Mike
Fester986
Section 8, another quarter are elderly housing subsidized by the state, and the
rest of the units go at market rates, approximately starting at 450 a month for
a basic one bedroom to about 800 a month for a three bedroom. I have worked
there during the summers for three years now and I have some observations.
1) Is there a hardcore group of people who live off of public assistance and
have no intention of ever leaving it. YES
My first year that I worked there, a normal nuclear family with mother, father,
and three kids were at the pool every day. I would talk to them in order to
pass the day, and knowing the patrons makes my job easier, preventive
maitenance. The mother had been in the projects for 30 years, her husband had
lived in Boston projects for 20, and then moved in with her for the last ten.
They thought it was a great situation. The eldest child was 13 and declared
that she waiting until she was 16 so she could sign herself out of high school,
and get her own apartment, and her younger brother was planning the same thing.
This is the typical perception of all people on public assistance. From my
observations, these people are in the smallest minority, maybe 5 percent of the
entire population of assitance recipients.
2) I worked three summers at this complex. Every year, there were plenty of
new kids coming to the pool for the first time, and a good third to half of the
kids I used to fool around with, throw in, play tag with had moved away into
either houses or market rate apartments. I saw high turnover rates, people
wanted to get out.
3) I talked to the mothers who would come down to the pool to watch the kids.
Usually one mother would watch three or four other people's kids as their
parents were at work. Everyone within this group which I talked to voiced the
desire to get out. Most were doing something about it. The mothers would stay
home during the day, watch the kids and neighbor's kids, while their husband or
boyfriend worked, and then they would work nights or weekends. One women,
young, attractive and damm intelligent, had a 4 year old daughter, and the
father had left suddenly with no alimony a couple of years prior. The mother
was attending U-Mass Lowell full time studying information management, working
as a police dispatcher, and still finding time to teach her daughter how to
swim. I still keep in touch with her, infrequently, and now she is working for
Raytheon, making well over 40k
3) Public assistance is needed, and it works in most cases. People still have
some sense of shame or a modicum of pride in providing for themselves, but
sometimes shit happens and help is needed. There is some need to get the 5%ers
to stop sponging, but to do so by hurting people who need help and want to
improve themselves is not the right way to do so.
Dave