- My Forums
- Tiger Rant
- LSU Recruiting
- SEC Rant
- Saints Talk
- Pelicans Talk
- More Sports Board
- Fantasy Sports
- Golf Board
- Soccer Board
- O-T Lounge
- Tech Board
- Home/Garden Board
- Outdoor Board
- Health/Fitness Board
- Movie/TV Board
- Book Board
- Music Board
- Political Talk
- Money Talk
- Fark Board
- Gaming Board
- Travel Board
- Food/Drink Board
- Ticket Exchange
- TD Help Board
Customize My Forums- View All Forums
- Show Left Links
- Topic Sort Options
- Trending Topics
- Recent Topics
- Active Topics
Started By
Message
Government Benefits
Posted on 4/23/25 at 8:47 am
Posted on 4/23/25 at 8:47 am
Widespread government benefits and subsidies are doing more harm than taking up tax funding. They hurt the community.
Everyone wants to live in safe and decent neighborhood. And let's face reality, the people on these government benefits are typically uneducated, unemployed, and less respectful of surrounding property. The government benefits allow these people to live in the same neighborhoods as hardworking lower and middle class Americans. We can preach all we want about equality and kindness, but when there's a guy smoking crack on the street corner and selling drugs in his house, it's not somewhere you want to raise kids. It's a slap in the face of people that worked hard to get into that neighborhood.
This causes unhappiness in that population of hardworking families (the people we actually should be helping). They then are burdened with the stress of figuring out a solution to the country's problem, because it has come the their door step. This causes a spike in blue collar wages, because they now need more money to avoid these people, or they see they can be subsidized to live in the same neighborhood, so they give up. This causes higher wages for plumbing/trucking/construction work, which is then passed on to the general consumer. The elite class does not feel the financial burden and the renting in city class does not deal with these costs either. They are heavily carried by the working single family. The corporate world really doesn't produce much, so they are less likely to raise wages, further stifling the middle class.
I think they should gut these programs and heavily reform the social construct of the poverty class. Fear of poverty should be driving people to work.
Everyone wants to live in safe and decent neighborhood. And let's face reality, the people on these government benefits are typically uneducated, unemployed, and less respectful of surrounding property. The government benefits allow these people to live in the same neighborhoods as hardworking lower and middle class Americans. We can preach all we want about equality and kindness, but when there's a guy smoking crack on the street corner and selling drugs in his house, it's not somewhere you want to raise kids. It's a slap in the face of people that worked hard to get into that neighborhood.
This causes unhappiness in that population of hardworking families (the people we actually should be helping). They then are burdened with the stress of figuring out a solution to the country's problem, because it has come the their door step. This causes a spike in blue collar wages, because they now need more money to avoid these people, or they see they can be subsidized to live in the same neighborhood, so they give up. This causes higher wages for plumbing/trucking/construction work, which is then passed on to the general consumer. The elite class does not feel the financial burden and the renting in city class does not deal with these costs either. They are heavily carried by the working single family. The corporate world really doesn't produce much, so they are less likely to raise wages, further stifling the middle class.
I think they should gut these programs and heavily reform the social construct of the poverty class. Fear of poverty should be driving people to work.
5
Posted on 4/23/25 at 8:55 am to theliontamer
They should be redesigned to help people get off assistance. Instead theyre designed to punish you if you start to succeed and cut off the assistance if you dont stay down.
This is why poor people blow their tax returns the second they get them. If they put it in the bank, byebye welfare. You have too much in the bank to qualify.
This is why poor people blow their tax returns the second they get them. If they put it in the bank, byebye welfare. You have too much in the bank to qualify.
Posted on 4/23/25 at 9:05 am to theliontamer
Somewhere between 10-12 million children in this country live below the poverty line. Do you separate them from their parents and put them all in foster homes because their parents are really lazy and/or really shitty with money?
Not trying to virtue signal or any shite like that, I promise. It's a legitimate question.
Not trying to virtue signal or any shite like that, I promise. It's a legitimate question.
Posted on 4/23/25 at 10:03 am to Violent Hip Swivel
We need to focus on reducing these people from having children in the first place, stop incentivizing it. We need to put forth an effort to attract the middle class to have children. It is a dangerous spiral we are caught in. The poverty class is not starving, they are eating junk food and drinking soda. A little more regulation would force them to make do with limited staples as opposed to corporate sponsored obesity. The children already eat in the schools also. And yes, you will be disadvantaged if you are raised by shitty parents. Life is not fair. It is not everyone else's fault that your parents were shite heads, and if they cant provide the bare minimum services to raise you, then maybe state sponsored homes would actually be better for you.
Posted on 4/23/25 at 10:47 am to theliontamer
quote:
Widespread government benefits and subsidies are doing more harm than taking up tax funding. They hurt the community.
Everyone wants to live in safe and decent neighborhood. And let's face reality, the people on these government benefits are typically uneducated, unemployed, and less respectful of surrounding property. The government benefits allow these people to live in the same neighborhoods as hardworking lower and middle class Americans. We can preach all we want about equality and kindness, but when there's a guy smoking crack on the street corner and selling drugs in his house, it's not somewhere you want to raise kids. It's a slap in the face of people that worked hard to get into that neighborhood.
This causes unhappiness in that population of hardworking families (the people we actually should be helping). They then are burdened with the stress of figuring out a solution to the country's problem, because it has come the their door step. This causes a spike in blue collar wages, because they now need more money to avoid these people, or they see they can be subsidized to live in the same neighborhood, so they give up. This causes higher wages for plumbing/trucking/construction work, which is then passed on to the general consumer. The elite class does not feel the financial burden and the renting in city class does not deal with these costs either. They are heavily carried by the working single family. The corporate world really doesn't produce much, so they are less likely to raise wages, further stifling the middle class.
I think they should gut these programs and heavily reform the social construct of the poverty class. Fear of poverty should be driving people to work.
Let me know when I can donate to your campaign.
It's all Marxism in action, and it is killing every nation that implements it.
Posted on 4/23/25 at 10:48 am to theliontamer
quote:
Fear of poverty should be driving people to work.
Hunger is a heck of a motivator but the folks in this country don't have the stomach for what needs to be done to correct the problems within the entitlement community...
Posted on 4/23/25 at 10:53 am to Violent Hip Swivel
quote:
Somewhere between 10-12 million children in this country live below the poverty line. Do you separate them from their parents and put them all in foster homes because their parents are really lazy and/or really shitty with money?
Not trying to virtue signal or any shite like that, I promise. It's a legitimate question.
You can't allow emotions to drive economic decisions. That's what Marxism is all about. If you treat it emotionally, now all measures are subjective and you will eventually fall to the lowest common denominator.
You have to address the incentive structure. Stop subsidizing people's poor life choices. Make life hard for lazy and immoral people again.
Posted on 4/23/25 at 10:55 am to YouKnowImRight
number of children should not increase welfare payments. The amount should be set the more kids you have means the more budgeting you must do
Posted on 4/23/25 at 11:35 am to Violent Hip Swivel
quote:
Somewhere between 10-12 million children in this country live below the poverty line. Do you separate them from their parents and put them all in foster homes because their parents are really lazy and/or really shitty with money?
Not trying to virtue signal or any shite like that, I promise. It's a legitimate question.
Cap benefit amounts and structure them to promote people improving their situation and getting off them, not making it a generational lifestyle. Change the "benefit cliff" to a taper as people do begin to earn more.
SNAP needs to be reconfigured to match WIC - the system is already place with limitations on the types and amounts of foods that can be purchased monthly. Basic nutrition is provided, not extravagant wants and unhealthy junk food.
Reliance on the "community school" model to provide wraparound services for every need for the child and their family is not sustainable. Schools are now tasked with providing special needs assessments, SPED, speech therapy, occupational therapy, breakfast and lunch, as well as many schools packing backpacks for children to take home with meals and snacks for evenings and weekends, teaching English to the child and in some cases offering classes for the whole family.
Some parents have come to expect that their child *will* receive all their school supplies, backpack, uniforms or school clothes at no charge to them every year. Some parents also know that there will be endless angel trees every Christmas to sign up for and make sure someone else provides gifts for their children. And we have now structured these programs in a way that the parents can come pick up the gifts and present them to their children as if they purchased them themselves. The intent is to "preserve the family's dignity" but the result is the children watching their parents not work, or work minimally, and yet magically provide a full Christmas dinner and gifts every year. This sets the precedent for the child early that someone else will always provide for them and the cycle of dependency continues.
A family's living standard on benefits should be very basic, if it is too comfortable there is no motivation to improve your situation.
Posted on 4/23/25 at 12:11 pm to YouKnowImRight
quote:
You can't allow emotions to drive economic decisions. That's what Marxism is all about. If you treat it emotionally, now all measures are subjective and you will eventually fall to the lowest common denominator.
You have to address the incentive structure. Stop subsidizing people's poor life choices. Make life hard for lazy and immoral people again.
The argument against this is that government isn't a business and that a business' goal is to maximize profit, or at least that's what I remember from macroeconomics class, and obviously that's not the goal of government.There is plenty of overlap between running a business and running a government, but there also are plenty of differences.
Two things can be true at the same time. 1) There are inefficiencies in our government and too many free-loaders. 2) Government always has to put a human face to a challenge (unlike businesses) and the richest nation-state in the history of the world shouldn't have barefoot kids and half-starved kids.
...It's really complicated basically, regardless of how hard people try to simplify it.
This post was edited on 4/23/25 at 12:13 pm
Posted on 4/23/25 at 12:14 pm to Violent Hip Swivel
quote:
and put them all in foster homes
There is a nationwide shortage of foster homes, so this wouldn't even be a viable option.
Posted on 4/23/25 at 12:16 pm to theliontamer
quote:
veryone wants to live in safe and decent neighborhood. And let's face reality, the people on these government benefits are typically uneducated, unemployed, and less respectful of surrounding property.
That's a mean thing to say about senior citizens.
Posted on 4/23/25 at 1:30 pm to Lightning
I don't understand how people spend years on government assistance. You have to produce something. If you don't produce anything and take money from the government you should not be allowed to vote.
Posted on 4/24/25 at 2:10 pm to 4cubbies
Should force all these LGBT couples to adopt American kids instead of foreign ones.
Page 1 of 1
Popular
Back to top
Follow TigerDroppings for LSU Football News