Archived

This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.

The Lottery of Birth

23 posts in this topic

Posted

Like I said... Sad and bitter. You have my pity. Grow up.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Posted

you can't go a day without stirs or g5 whining about lazy welfare queens or countless other "i pretend i'm a free thinking independent" types whining about "welfare abuse" which isn't actually "rife with abuse" at all!

how is the system not rife with abuse? (i'm not saying it is, but i've yet to see some post hard data to explain why it isn't)

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Posted

how is the system not rife with abuse? (i'm not saying it is, but i've yet to see some post hard data to explain why it isn't)

shouldn't the burden of proof rest with the person making the assertion? also, how many times have you seen g5 or someone post a "SEE WELFARE ABUSE IS REEAAALLL" thread in which a person is actually being charged for the abuse (it's basically every time)? oh and "rife" is a p interesting word choice considering the study which i've posted here multiple times that found that less than 2% of welfare was obtained fraudulently. the bulk of whining about welfare boils down to "can you believe those poors have a refrigerator? WITH FOOD IN IT? what frauds!" and "this one time i was at wal mart and saw a black woman buying cigarettes and THERE'S OUR TAX DOLLARS AT WORK"

anyway, here's a thing

http://www.cbpp.org/...fa=view&id=3677

Such beliefs are starkly at odds with the basic facts regarding social programs, the analysis finds. Federal budget and Census data show that, in 2010, 91 percentof the benefit dollars from entitlement and other mandatory programs went to the elderly (people 65 and over), the seriously disabled, and members of working households. People who are neither elderly nor disabled — and do not live in a working household — received only 9 percent of the benefits.

Moreover, the vast bulk of that 9 percent goes for medical care, unemployment insurance benefits (which individuals must have a significant work history to receive), Social Security survivor benefits for the children and spouses of deceased workers, and Social Security benefits for retirees between ages 62 and 64. Seven out of the 9 percentage points go for one of these four purposes.

to me this type of spending doesn't constitute a problem and in fact keeps the rich alive. let the poor and their children go hungry and see how many bourgeois fugs are willing to leave their homes.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Posted

http://www.cbpp.org/...fa=view&id=3677

Such beliefs are starkly at odds with the basic facts regarding social programs, the analysis finds. Federal budget and Census data show that, in 2010, 91 percentof the benefit dollars from entitlement and other mandatory programs went to the elderly (people 65 and over), the seriously disabled, and members of working households. People who are neither elderly nor disabled — and do not live in a working household — received only 9 percent of the benefits.

Moreover, the vast bulk of that 9 percent goes for medical care, unemployment insurance benefits (which individuals must have a significant work history to receive), Social Security survivor benefits for the children and spouses of deceased workers, and Social Security benefits for retirees between ages 62 and 64. Seven out of the 9 percentage points go for one of these four purposes.

that is a hell of a find... legit source too. i'm interested in hearing responses to that data from people who constantly attack wastefulness in that area as one of the nation's biggest problems (i'm convinced a great many wrongful racial perceptions and conflict are paralleled by misconceptions related to the role of race, unemployment, and welfare, as though race = causation and not correlation.)

that said i do think it's important to consider the remaining two percent and see if there's a way to cut down on the wastefulness. anecdotal evidence has pretty much been decidedly nixed as accurate methodology, but still, is it worth exploring ways to make the system more efficient as long as those techniques don't affect those who are truly in need of it?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Posted

that 9% includes unemployment insurance and SS benefits. do you mean the remaining 2%?

one thing i've thought was weird as well is how republicans believe you can actually just sit at home and collect a welfare check and everything will be fine

it's as if they've never seen a homeless person

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Posted

yeah typo

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Posted

you'll find that i don't support a greater standard of living for those born with "good genetics" so i'm sorry to say your post is irrelevant and dumb but your post is irrelevant and dumb

why are "entitlements" bad until one feels entitled to the work of their parents?

did you think I meant wealth when I said good genetics because I didn't, I meant good genetics, like health, physique etc.

you have made an assumption about my view of "entitlements" and it doesn't matter how someone feels about the work of their parents, their parents still have to give it to them, and it is certainly their right to do whatever they please with what they have earned

what do you think should happen to people's estates when they die? please tell

and my mother gave me blue eyes that i have been complimented for my entire life and gotten laid because of more than once. what have your parents given you?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Posted

in a perfect world? it should be returned to the collective. (capital is dead labor, property is theft, etc etc)

in the real world? taxed to fuging death. if you want to give it to your kids, do it before you die (since you can't actually give anything to anyone or do anything at all once you're dead and gone), and accept the tax on the transfer of wealth. the daughter of bill gates is no more entitled to her father's estate than the daughter of anyone else. individual families controlling a poo ton of capital isn't very conducive to equality (source: the united fuging states), and the heir to a fortune is more of a parasite than the mythical welfare queen.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Posted

haterade-1.gif

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Posted

"behind every successful person"

are you calling people who inherit their wealth successful? lol

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Posted

no I wasnt I was just busting your balls to be honest, it was on the first page of google images so i used

every child is a parasite of their parents tho, it's the nature of the relationship

i don't hold things against people that they control, for better or worse, if you were born into money, talent, beauty good for you

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites