New Way To Spend Tax Dollars
JoeRaisin
But now, if you are lazy and prefer to live on the government dole
(perhaps for a span of multiple generations) that's no reason you can't
get in on modern technology.
Now (as of September this year) if you are on Medicaid, live in public
housing of get food stamps, you can get a free phone (provided by
TracPhon - which is not a new program) and the government will be happy
to pay for over an hour of talk time every month (which IS new).
F.H.
> Some folks work hard in order to afford luxuries such as a cellular phone.
>
> But now, if you are lazy and prefer to live on the government dole
> (perhaps for a span of multiple generations) that's no reason you can't
> get in on modern technology.
The greatest enemies of us alcoholics are resentment, jealousy, envy,
frustration, and fear. (page 145)
> Now (as of September this year) if you are on Medicaid, live in public
> housing of get food stamps, you can get a free phone (provided by
> TracPhon - which is not a new program) and the government will be happy
> to pay for over an hour of talk time every month (which IS new).
"In dealing with resentments, we set them on paper. We listed people,
institutions or principles with whom we were angry. We asked ourselves
why we were angry. In most cases it was found that our self-esteem, our
pocketbooks, our ambitions, our personal relationships were hurt or
threatened." (pages 64/65)
Snopes: (Mixture of truth and fiction)
JoeRaisin
The Email Snopes is talking about is a mixture - what I posted is all fact.
https://www.safelinkwireless.com/EnrollmentPublic/benefits.aspx
F.H.
Two questions:
1.
Do you feel that ensuring basic telephone service for people at or below
135% of the federal poverty guidelines, disabled, on SSI (like my mother
was) is 'shaking the very foundations of this country?'
2.
Does /this/ statement reflect fact or opinion: (your opinion?)
JoeRaisin
No
> 2.
> Does /this/ statement reflect fact or opinion: (your opinion?)
> "if you are lazy and prefer to live on the government dole"
What else could it be?
Tex
If you really have to ask ...
JoeRaisin
I don't resent the folks getting the programs, I prefer the government
didn't offer them.
Look, the only problem I have with any of this is the government paying
for cell phone minutes. I understand the necessity of a land line - but
like everything the government does, they've got to find a way of making
it stupid and wasteful. I could see it in cases where, for one reason
or another, the land line offer isn't practicable.
Even then, TracFone was providing the minutes along with the phones but
for some reason that has offended the wastrels in Washington.
The sole purpose of big government, is to make itself needed so folks
won't insist on a smaller government. People seem to forget that every
single bit of power usurped by the feds during one administration, will
still be there when the next one comes along.
The folks who screamed the loudest when the patriot act was passed have
become oddly silent even though the most heinous provisions are still in
effect. On the other hand, many of those who applauded it when it was
passed have begun to get worried about the power it gives DC.
Politics of personality puts the focus on the wrong thing. We need to
be concerned with the laws that are being (have been) passed and focus
on the ins and outs of those rather than the clowns who enact/enforce
them. A well written law can help compensate for chuckleheads being in
power (since that's pretty much the only ones who survive - another
reason for term limits).
> 2.
> Does /this/ statement reflect fact or opinion: (your opinion?)
> "if you are lazy and prefer to live on the government dole"
If the shop owner on the corner sees a family in trouble and gives them
a loaf of bread, that's charity. When his door is kicked in by a band
of (federal) thugs who force him to give the family a loaf of bread,
it's not.
Point being, I'm all for 'safety nets' but view them as just that.
The high wire performers at the circus have a safety net, but it's only
used when needed and then for only as long as it's needed - they get off
of them in pretty quick order and start climbing back up the ladder.
They don't build their houses on them.
The safety net is not meant to be a permanent (and perhaps only) support
structure.
Eons ago, when I was just an impressionable high school lad (during the
Carter "malaise"), I was watching TV at my grandmother's house and it
was some Sunday morning news show. There was a woman complaining about
the level of compensation she was getting on welfare.
She told how her Grandmother raised her kids (I forget how many) on
welfare, her mother raised her and her siblings (again - I forget how
many) on welfare but that she only had two kids and couldn't make ends
meet on welfare.
The only thing I got out of that as a kid was that this woman's family
hadn't worked or contributed anything to society for three generations.
It's not resentment - but I don't think very highly of them.
JoeRaisin
> 'wealthy'. But I don't think stereotyping is anything but political
> propoganda. For every wealthy CEO who makes millions from people who
> trust a company, there are genuinely honest leaders who feel they are
> providing a service and looking to make it bettter and cheaper. I grew
> up (long ago, admittedly) in a part of the country where the only work a
> 'colored' woman could get was to iron and clean for a white woman and
> the pay wasn't even close enough to feed a family. We don't do
> sterilization in this country yet, but it was seriously discussed at one
> time for such 'burdens on society'. What a country. When I hear of
> welfare recepients, particularly being stereotyped, I wonder if we
> really know how many billions that people were bilked of by a white
> collared executive that doesn't get the stereotyping. I think, though
> can't provide the data, that more white collar people have their hands
> in your pockets lthan black madens who's level of 'morality' hinges more
> on sexual relations and baby making. It's really a shame that the
> greatest nation in the world hasn't figured out a way to have a job for
> everyone. Even the (gasp) communists of USSR fame had in their
> Constitution a constitutional right for employment.
> Unfortunately a lot of people in our part of the world will game a
> system for maximum benefit but not all of them. It's one of the reasons
> that black people get stereotyped still because as we know, white women
> don't do that. Or do they? Gaming is preferable to criminal activities
> I woud suppose...like robbing people of their lifetime savings with a
> pryamid investment scheme. Who do you think is a bigger liability (not
> tthat relativity matters, per se). We all should be honest and up front
> and merciful and loving, right? Welfare, at least, puts us on a
> moral/ethical scale, far beyond the countries of East Africa who just
> let their children starve. That's what a Christian nation would do,
> wouldn't it?
>
> Gary
>
The woman I referred to was white - and extremely fat to boot - I
remember wondering just who the hell is getting this woman pregnant...
RonG
"Gary" <yex...@sbell.net> wrote in message
news:2009112111063575249-yexxxx@sbellnet...
> It's really a shame that the greatest nation in the world hasn't
> figured out a way to have a job for everyone.
It seems to me that during the depression the government did in fact
provide jobs. This idea or concept was discussed during Obama's run for
office but nothing has come of it.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Works_Progress_Administration
RonG
F.H.
Whether or not its a resentment is for you to decide. I mention it
because I notice it is a recurring theme. I notice also that here you
follow up with examples like 'federal thugs kicking in the doors of
business owners' and recalling impressions of welfare ingrates from your
high school days. These images, (IMHO), are not benign.
I don't have a horse in this race but I think its worth pondering that
since we know 'resentments' are bad for us maybe we should take our
stereotypes down from the shelf and reexamine them every now and then,
see if they foster resentments. (FWIW, I think you will find more
examples of 'federal thugs' if you delve into the history of unions).
"To lick your wounds, to smack your lips over grievances long past, to
roll over your tongue the prospect of bitter confrontations still to
come, to savor to the last toothsome morsel both the pain you are given
and the pain you are giving back, in many ways it is a feast fit for a
king. The chief drawback is that what you are wolfing down is yourself.
The skeleton at the feast is you."
Frederick Buechner
JoeRaisin
Perhaps not, but they are part and parcel of how my world view was shaped.
It IS possible, you know, to dislike something without "resenting" it.
That was one of Ted's lines.
> I don't have a horse in this race but I think its worth pondering that
> since we know 'resentments' are bad for us maybe we should take our
> stereotypes down from the shelf and reexamine them every now and then,
> see if they foster resentments. (FWIW, I think you will find more
> examples of 'federal thugs' if you delve into the history of unions).
>
Thugish behavior is thugish behavior. It doesn't matter by who or
towards who - it's wrong.
F.H.
They called FDR and his administration all the same things you hear
today. Anti-American, Socialist, Communist etc.. I watched this
documentary the other night and although the information was not new to
me, I was still fascinated. Ee did not study it at /all/ in high school
and I think it shows in the thinking of my fellow alum all these years
later.
http://www.shoppbs.org/product/index.jsp?productId=3839142
This link provides a little better picture I think:
http://www.u-s-history.com/pages/h1586.html
F.H.
Yes I know. Your hairs to split.
> That was one of Ted's lines.
When the student is ready....... <eg>
>> I don't have a horse in this race but I think its worth pondering that
>> since we know 'resentments' are bad for us maybe we should take our
>> stereotypes down from the shelf and reexamine them every now and then,
>> see if they foster resentments. (FWIW, I think you will find more
>> examples of 'federal thugs' if you delve into the history of unions).
>>
>
> Thugish behavior is thugish behavior. It doesn't matter by who or
> towards who - it's wrong.
I have never seen the example (kicking in shop doors) you used. I've
heard of it but only in Germany, circa 1930's.
F.H.
> 'wealthy'. But I don't think stereotyping is anything but political
> 'colored' woman could get was to iron and clean for a white woman and
> the pay wasn't even close enough to feed a family. We don't do
> sterilization in this country yet, but it was seriously discussed at one
> time for such 'burdens on society'. What a country. When I hear of
> collared executive that doesn't get the stereotyping. I
<snip relevant stuff for space>
"The past is not dead. In fact, it's not even past." (Faulkner)
Here's a snippet from a reviewer of a new book by Kevin Bales,
"Disposable People: New Slavery in the Global Economy"
(Today there are an estimated 26 million people who are trapped in one
of the world's oldest forms of oppression. As always, the obvious won't
ring true to everyone)
The Review:
"Bales describes the major factors driving slavery today. First, the
post-WW II population explosion has created a huge and desperate reserve
army of the unemployed. Second, the process of proletarianization
continues in many so-called "developing" nations as millions of peasant
farmers are displaced by mechanization. Third, economic globalization
serves to break down the social fabric as materialism and greed
substitutes for the communal values that prevail in peasant societies."
Mr. Bales is careful to contrast the "New Slavery" of today with the
"Old Slavery" of the past. The New Slavery is clearly embedded within
the logic of post-industrial production, where capital avoids its social
and environmental responsibilities and ruthlessly exploits human and
natural resources for maximum profit. In this light, the New Slavery
represents the race to the very bottom of a brutal system that is
controlled by speculative investors and is accountable to no one.
JoeRaisin
>
Oh yeah!
I remember more than few... Uhm...
Never mind.
JoeRaisin
Ah, selective literalism.
Very convenient.
F.H.
Again, you /do/ seem to favor labels. There are two sentences, two
observations. Both are factual. 'Selected' for that reason. In your
first example you kind of alluded to the kicking down or doors to
extract charity from a reluctant small business owner, (the state
presuming to own that which it does not). Again, I have never seen or
heard of such a thing (here).
If you consider it a proper metaphor then we (I) are/am back, it seems,
to the original question about resentments. Pretty graphic picture
(IMHO) to describe your take on tax policy. The second sentence
(Germany) stands on its own, (although not a tax issue per se).
Selective literalism, I think, is generally reserved to describe
interpreting things biblical. (you won't catch /me/ doing /that/)
RonG
"F.H." <connec...@verizon.net> wrote in message
news:vcadnXO8AMvLp5XW...@giganews.com...
The unemployment situation still appears to be pretty bleak for the next
couple of years.
I think it would be difficult at best, for the government to come up
with a CCC or WPA program today and get a large majority of these
unemployed who are drawing unemployment compensation to offer to work a
manual labor job or relocate as they did for the CCC program, unless
perhaps it was either that or no unemployment compensation. And you know
how far that would get.
I do remember my father and uncles talking about working on the local
WPA projects but the work ethnic of my father's and grandfather's
generation is much different than today.
I note on the news, that the students out your way in Berkley are
protesting tuition increases. Who do they expect to pay if costs
increase and the state government can't come up with new money to pay
the state debts, costs, etc.?
The financial situation in this country is going to be very interesting
in the next few years to come.
RonG
F.H.
Costs are up 32%. Public education is facing deep cuts.
> The financial situation in this country is going to be very interesting
> in the next few years to come.
This is my analogy for predicting the future, America used to be the
WalMart of the planet, /other/ countries economies were like the
American business's competing with WalMart today. More and more, with
the passage of time, the global economy, the multi-nationals, will be
the Walmart of the planet and America will be like the small business's
struggling to survive. Just my intuition/
F.H.
To the students, I mean.
Tara Green
In many places, in order to receive that
help, the person has to put in a 35 hour work
week in either Work Force Training or as
office help for the agencies they are
receiving the assistance from.
In NYC, that's 35 hours per week for less
than $300 per month rental assistance (in a
city where the average rent is over $1200 per
month), medicaid and $75 in cash on a
bi-weekly basis.
Doesn't sound all that "Lazy" to me.
JoeRaisin
Where do they get the other $900 for the rent?
Well... I suppose it's actually the other $750 for the rent.
Tara Green
There's a difference between saying "the
averag rent is...." and saying that welfare
folks live in the average NYC apartment.
JoeRaisin
Got it.
And I am all for those folks getting a free land line. I just don't
think the government should be paying for their cell phone minutes.