dwalb wrote:"People should be helping People" is absolutely right. The govt getting involved is nothing but political cannon fodder. The govt is the last place people should go looking for welfare. The govt has never been efficient, and being the worst canidate it should be the last option in welfare.
Listen closely: I agree that the government is inefficient, and that it is the worst candidate for organizing welfare. But it is the only candidate.
There is nobody else out there ensuring that charity dollars get where they need to go quickly and equitably. If there were no government charity, and then one year everybody decided they cared more about cute kittens than homeless people, and they gave all their charity dollars to the Save the Kittens Foundation, what would happen to those homeless people? Somebody has to run things from a central location or the system simply won't physically work. And there's no group that can do that besides the government. Even if you were to invent a private corporation to do it, it would be so large (and inefficient, and costly, and non-beholden to the public) that it would basically be government by another name. Governing
needs to happen here. Advocate for the improvement of government all you want--I will stand right beside you and shout just as strongly. But to advocate that government leave is simply not a solution to this problem.
dwalb wrote:The poor dont have enough time to cook. They work too hard, not enough time in the day.
Let's try something.
The minimum wage in my home state (Texas) is $5.75 an hour. Let's round that up to $6 just for fun. And we'll even pretend you don't pay any taxes on that.
Okay. So you have a minimum wage job and you work 12 hours a day (legal limit) and you take home 6 * 12 = 72 bucks per day. That's 2160 dollars a month. I have two kids, which means I need at least two bedrooms--that's over half the money gone right there, especially when you add in utilities and all. Shit, I can't buy clothes and food for myself and two kids on that! Let alone my car payments, my gas--and savings? Forget about it. Alright, I'll get a second job. Now I'm working 2 jobs a day, 8 hours each, plus an hour commute over all (I'm low-balling that one), for a total of 17 hours. I get home, I hug my kids (if they're still awake), I shove a burrito in my mouth, I sleep for five hours, I get up and do it all over again. Day in. Day out. Motherfucker, you think I have time to find recipes and bargain shop and eat fucking health food? I'm not working hard enough for you? Shit.
dwalb wrote:Did i say i want people to starve? No. i want government out of the majority of charity work. Yes, one of the outcomes is people going hungry. They'll find ways to survive. People do that, its weird. Who'd a thunk that people can survive without govt intervention...
Actually, one of those outcomes is that people will go so hungry that they die. Of starvation. People do that, too. It sucks.
You make it sound like the majority of people on welfare are working their butts off, trying to make ends meet.
That is sadly far from the case.
Hey, look, the entire argument is stalled because neither of us has bothered to use any data beyond personal experience. Funny how that happens.
dwalb wrote:Luckily i haven't got anyone to worry about but myself, so the money is sufficient and i'm surviving.
I've bolded the operative word there.
Poverty doesn't exist in the united states because the white man is keeping you down. Poverty exists because people arnt willing to work hard enough, or have made dumb enough decisions to completly stunt their own life. (didn't graduate highschool, got into major trouble with the law.)
It doesn't really matter. It's stupid to use poverty as a punishment like that--to say, "You deserve to be poor because you made bad choices." Why? Because those people still affect you. They represent a drain on the economy. It's much smarter to give them enough money to get them back on their feet, back in school, back to work creating economic value that eventually makes your own life better.
@garm. Yup they leave for the year, cause the govt implemented that control. What if you were to look at rates of people who've been on govt welfare, and then returned with in a 5 year window. You'd be surprised how easy it is to fool the system.
I think a lot of your problems boil down to "the system is flawed", which I think everybody here agrees with. The problem is when you conclude "so we burn the system to the ground" where most people would say, "uh, why not just fix the system?" I don't think anybody here is opposed to efficiency, accountability, or ensuring that welfare recipients really are using the money to get back on their feet and not just subsist. I think they are opposed to cutting those people off completely, or telling those people to rely on private charity (which is unreliable), or telling those people that it's their own damn fault for not working 23 hours a day instead of 18. Or telling them that because a single adult can save up enough money to pull himself up by his bootstraps, obviously a family of six can do the same thing just as easily.