Total Posts:19|Showing Posts:1-19
Jump to topic:

Government Aid

nonentity
Posts: 5,008
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
1/29/2010 4:25:53 PM
Posted: 6 years ago
http://eedition.toronto.24hrs.ca...

This is a Toronto newspaper, picked it up this morning. You need to "flip" the pages to page 5, and read the article titled "Youth facing sex charges lives alone in $350,000 group home". Then zoom in. It's a short article. I don't know how long the link will be good for so if someone can figure out how to post a picture of the article that would be great.

So after reading the article...

It just makes me angry to know that the government aids people who are basically a virus to society, or otherwise contribute nothing to society, and yet it is almost damn near impossible for students to get grants. It's bad enough to see people receiving welfare cheques and child benefit cheques and they're using the money to get their hair and nails done, with no real plan for the future, when I'm a struggling student who can't even get a government loan. It makes sense that when people are poor, they steal, and the government is trying to prevent that, but just look at the article posted. It just really grinds my gears. How is it that they just piss away money on useless human beings and yet students have to fight tooth and nail just for the privilege of owing money?

I will apologize in advance for having offended anyone but seriously... I think the government has its priorites effed up. Any thoughts?
nonentity
Posts: 5,008
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
1/29/2010 4:34:29 PM
Posted: 6 years ago
For a quick run-down of the article:

-this 14-year-old kid is facing sex charges
-meanwhile he lives in a $350,000 "group home" BY HIMSELF
(mind you, these are sizable houses in Mississauga, like probably 4-bedroom upstairs, basement floor and everything)
-he gets $150 A WEEK as a freaking "allowance"---why am I working a part-time job for?
-all expenses paid, like a freaking vacation, meals prepared, laundry washed
-he has "all the latest computer games" and I just spent 4 hours of pay on a new MP3 player

I may as well become a sex offender if the government will treat me like this. Soo ridiculous.
honkerburger
Posts: 77
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
1/29/2010 5:18:27 PM
Posted: 6 years ago
At 1/29/2010 4:34:29 PM, TulleKrazy wrote:
For a quick run-down of the article:

-this 14-year-old kid is facing sex charges
-meanwhile he lives in a $350,000 "group home" BY HIMSELF
(mind you, these are sizable houses in Mississauga, like probably 4-bedroom upstairs, basement floor and everything)
-he gets $150 A WEEK as a freaking "allowance"---why am I working a part-time job for?
-all expenses paid, like a freaking vacation, meals prepared, laundry washed
-he has "all the latest computer games" and I just spent 4 hours of pay on a new MP3 player

I may as well become a sex offender if the government will treat me like this. Soo ridiculous.

But people is poor and its the right thing to do. He should also get national healthcare for free cuz 150 isn't enough.
PervRat
Posts: 963
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
2/8/2010 1:57:33 AM
Posted: 6 years ago
CEOs are a virus to society. Anyone who makes more than an average earning takes more than their share, by definition.

Leaving everyone to the mercy of capitalists should well be a crime.

And condemning a group of people for a few bad ones is a mark of supremacism and ignorance.
PervRat
Posts: 963
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
2/8/2010 1:58:10 AM
Posted: 6 years ago
But people is poor and its the right thing to do. He should also get national healthcare for free cuz 150 isn't enough.

Nah, 45,000 people should die because they cannot get health care, as happens every single year in the U.S.
Danielle
Posts: 21,330
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
2/8/2010 10:51:46 AM
Posted: 6 years ago
At 2/8/2010 1:57:33 AM, PervRat wrote:
CEOs are a virus to society. Anyone who makes more than an average earning takes more than their share, by definition.

... Seriously?
President of DDO
Korashk
Posts: 4,597
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
2/8/2010 11:08:44 AM
Posted: 6 years ago
At 2/8/2010 1:57:33 AM, PervRat wrote:
CEOs are a virus to society. Anyone who makes more than an average earning takes more than their share, by definition.

Leaving everyone to the mercy of capitalists should well be a crime.

And condemning a group of people for a few bad ones is a mark of supremacism and ignorance.

In response to the original topic, yes, anyone getting these things from a government regardless of situation is stupid. The government shouldn't care about individuals.

In response to the quoted section. Some people have to make more than the average, that's what makes it an average. If no one made more than the average then the average would just get lower and keep getting lower if no one made more than it. This cycle would continue until everyone made the same amount of money, which would be zero dollars.

^^ I know that this is a bad explanation, but hopefully you get my point.
When large numbers of otherwise-law abiding people break specific laws en masse, it's usually a fault that lies with the law. - Unknown
I-am-a-panda
Posts: 15,380
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
2/8/2010 1:20:54 PM
Posted: 6 years ago
At 2/8/2010 1:57:33 AM, PervRat wrote:
Socialists are a virus to society. Anyone who takes more than an average earning more than their share, by definition.

Leaving everyone to the mercy of capitalists should well be a crime.

And herein lies the inherent problem of socialism. You takeover the economy and distribute the average GDP per head to each person to be fair. Problem is, that GDP pretty soon shrinks, so poverty ensues.

Of course, if this cash is left to the free market where it can grow, living standards are eventually raised.


And condemning a group of people for a few bad ones is a mark of supremacism and ignorance.

Lol, paying a 14 tear old to sit on his @ss while he lives in spacious 4 bedroom house is a-okay, and setting up your own business isn't? LOL.
Pizza. I have enormous respect for Pizza.
Reasoning
Posts: 4,456
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
2/8/2010 1:41:48 PM
Posted: 6 years ago
At 2/8/2010 1:20:54 PM, I-am-a-panda wrote:
And herein lies the inherent problem of socialism. You takeover the economy and distribute the average GDP per head to each person to be fair. Problem is, that GDP pretty soon shrinks, so poverty ensues.

Which is one of the reasons why it is not only an immoral form of socialism but also inefficient.

Of course, if this cash is left to the free market where it can grow, living standards are eventually raised.

Which is one of the reasons why consistent, intelligent socialists advocate free market socialism.
"What we really ought to ask the liberal, before we even begin addressing his agenda, is this: In what kind of society would he be a conservative?" - Joseph Sobran
I-am-a-panda
Posts: 15,380
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
2/8/2010 1:46:06 PM
Posted: 6 years ago
At 2/8/2010 1:41:48 PM, Reasoning wrote:
At 2/8/2010 1:20:54 PM, I-am-a-panda wrote:

Of course, if this cash is left to the free market where it can grow, living standards are eventually raised.

Which is one of the reasons why consistent, intelligent socialists advocate free market socialism.

Oxymoron much :P?
Pizza. I have enormous respect for Pizza.
Reasoning
Posts: 4,456
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
2/8/2010 1:49:59 PM
Posted: 6 years ago
At 2/8/2010 1:46:06 PM, I-am-a-panda wrote:
Oxymoron much :P?

"A second form of market socialism has been termed "free market socialism" because it does not involve planners. Pierre-Joseph Proudhon developed a theoretical system called mutualism, which attacks the legitimacy of existing property rights, subsidies, corporations, banking, and rent. Proudhon envisioned a decentralized market where people would enter the market with equal power, negating wage slavery. Proponents believe that cooperatives, credit unions, and other forms of worker ownership will become viable without being subject to the state. Market socialism has also been used to describe some individualist anarchist works which argue that free markets help workers and weaken capitalists." - Wikipedia[1]

[1] http://en.wikipedia.org...
"What we really ought to ask the liberal, before we even begin addressing his agenda, is this: In what kind of society would he be a conservative?" - Joseph Sobran
PervRat
Posts: 963
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
2/8/2010 5:36:19 PM
Posted: 6 years ago
At 2/8/2010 10:51:46 AM, theLwerd wrote:
At 2/8/2010 1:57:33 AM, PervRat wrote:
CEOs are a virus to society. Anyone who makes more than an average earning takes more than their share, by definition.

... Seriously?

Gee. Lemme think ... CEO destroys a company, gets tens of millions of dollars. The toilet scrubber works hard, does their job very well, works overtime, can barely make rent or housepayment, can't afford college for kids ... which one is being a leech, again?

I am so sick of this "those who are paid the least for doing the most work are the biggest leeches" @ss-backwards bullpucky, or this "liberals evilly want to re-distribute wealth" from those who fight to continue re-distributing wealth by concentrating it into an elite few.
PervRat
Posts: 963
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
2/8/2010 5:37:50 PM
Posted: 6 years ago
At 2/8/2010 1:49:59 PM, Reasoning wrote:

"A second form of market socialism has been termed "free market socialism" ...

ROFLMAO.

Anarchy = no government = no currency = no market. No regulation, no enforcement, no judges.
mongeese
Posts: 5,387
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
2/8/2010 5:48:21 PM
Posted: 6 years ago
At 2/8/2010 5:36:19 PM, PervRat wrote:
At 2/8/2010 10:51:46 AM, theLwerd wrote:
At 2/8/2010 1:57:33 AM, PervRat wrote:
CEOs are a virus to society. Anyone who makes more than an average earning takes more than their share, by definition.

... Seriously?

Gee. Lemme think ... CEO destroys a company, gets tens of millions of dollars.
The economics are simple. The CEO originally proved to be a very good choice for the company, earning the company billions of dollars in profit from the decisions he makes. A salary in the millions seems perfectly economical. When said CEO gets behind in the times, he receives a severance package, and they move on to the next CEO, who makes more profitable decisions than the previous CEO.

The toilet scrubber works hard, does their job very well, works overtime, can barely make rent or housepayment, can't afford college for kids
However, people just don't care that much about toilet scrubbing. Let's say that the guy scrubs thirty toilets per hour, and he's paid fifteen dollars per hour. People would be willing to pay fifty cents for their toilet to be clean. However, people would not be willing to pay ten dollars for their toilet to be clean. It's simple economics.
... which one is being a leech, again?
Neither. This is capitalism.

I am so sick of this "those who are paid the least for doing the most work are the biggest leeches" @ss-backwards bullpucky
They don't do the most work. You ignore the fact that CEOs also do work, work valued more highly than scrubbing toilets. Additionally, this thread began in concern to a sex offender in a government-paid $350,000 house. Try justifying that.
...or this "liberals evilly want to re-distribute wealth" from those who fight to continue re-distributing wealth by concentrating it into an elite few.
Trickle-down economics. The standard of living will increase overall, as opposed to socialism, which, as already described, lowers the GDP and the standard of living over time. Most humans just have the corrupt notion that they must be as good as their neighbors, or else their life is worthless.
wjmelements
Posts: 8,206
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
2/8/2010 5:53:22 PM
Posted: 6 years ago
At 2/8/2010 5:37:50 PM, PervRat wrote:
Anarchy = no government = no currency

False. Currency cameinto being in the market system, not as the result of government action.

no currency = no market

Also false. Barter economies.
in the blink of an eye you finally see the light
nonentity
Posts: 5,008
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
2/8/2010 6:05:20 PM
Posted: 6 years ago
At 1/29/2010 5:18:27 PM, honkerburger wrote:
At 1/29/2010 4:34:29 PM, TulleKrazy wrote:
For a quick run-down of the article:

-this 14-year-old kid is facing sex charges
-meanwhile he lives in a $350,000 "group home" BY HIMSELF
(mind you, these are sizable houses in Mississauga, like probably 4-bedroom upstairs, basement floor and everything)
-he gets $150 A WEEK as a freaking "allowance"---why am I working a part-time job for?
-all expenses paid, like a freaking vacation, meals prepared, laundry washed
-he has "all the latest computer games" and I just spent 4 hours of pay on a new MP3 player

I may as well become a sex offender if the government will treat me like this. Soo ridiculous.

But people is poor and its the right thing to do. He should also get national healthcare for free cuz 150 isn't enough.

Um he does get national health care for free, we live in Canada. Secondly, 150 is not enough for a 14 year old? When I was his age, my parents gave me $5 a week for lunch.
nonentity
Posts: 5,008
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
2/8/2010 6:17:45 PM
Posted: 6 years ago
At 2/8/2010 5:36:19 PM, PervRat wrote:
At 2/8/2010 10:51:46 AM, theLwerd wrote:
At 2/8/2010 1:57:33 AM, PervRat wrote:
CEOs are a virus to society. Anyone who makes more than an average earning takes more than their share, by definition.

... Seriously?

Gee. Lemme think ... CEO destroys a company, gets tens of millions of dollars. The toilet scrubber works hard, does their job very well, works overtime, can barely make rent or housepayment, can't afford college for kids ... which one is being a leech, again?

I am so sick of this "those who are paid the least for doing the most work are the biggest leeches" @ss-backwards bullpucky, or this "liberals evilly want to re-distribute wealth" from those who fight to continue re-distributing wealth by concentrating it into an elite few.

Honestly. If you can't afford kids, don't have them. Sorry, but I can't bring myself to care. And if he can't afford college for his kids, then that's exactly what I'm talking about, with the government never giving out loans, let alone grants, for students who are actually trying to make something of themselves and then there's people out there sitting on their butts collecting government aid. I see it all the time where I work. These women pushing strollers and cashing their government cheques to get their hair and nails done. It's revolting.

And it's ignorant to think just because a person is making a lot of money, that they must be a leech on society. Look at Oprah. Even she gets angry when she sees people blaming their environment for their circumstances (like that homeless man who was given $100,000 and before the documentary was even premiered, he was homeless again http://en.wikipedia.org...(2005_film)). It's not like she's a "special" case, almost anybody can make something of themselves if they actually DO something.

People act like rich people don't deserve to be rich. Like if I'm paying for 4 years of schooling for my Bachelor's degree and 2 years for my Masters and 5 or 6 more years for my PhD, I'm not doing all this work and paying all this money just to make an "average" salary. I'm not ashamed to say I wanna be rich, goddamit. If I wanted to be paid "average" I'd become a toilet scrubber and not a Registered Psychologist.

My mother would always tell me "you reap what you sow". And government aid is simply not fair. It's not fairly distributed and even if some people do need it, it shouldn't be a permanent crutch and it definitely should be kept to a bare minimum.

(To see the link I posted go to "disambiguation")
PervRat
Posts: 963
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
2/9/2010 12:44:29 AM
Posted: 6 years ago
At 2/8/2010 5:48:21 PM, mongeese wrote:
At 2/8/2010 5:36:19 PM, PervRat wrote:
At 2/8/2010 10:51:46 AM, theLwerd wrote:
At 2/8/2010 1:57:33 AM, PervRat wrote:
CEOs are a virus to society. Anyone who makes more than an average earning takes more than their share, by definition.

... Seriously?

Gee. Lemme think ... CEO destroys a company, gets tens of millions of dollars.
The economics are simple. The CEO originally proved to be a very good choice for the company, earning the company billions of dollars in profit from the decisions he makes. A salary in the millions seems perfectly economical. When said CEO gets behind in the times, he receives a severance package, and they move on to the next CEO, who makes more profitable decisions than the previous CEO.

LOL ... a lot of CEOs get millions even while driving companies into the ground ... so fail there, mongy.

The toilet scrubber works hard, does their job very well, works overtime, can barely make rent or housepayment, can't afford college for kids
However, people just don't care that much about toilet scrubbing. Let's say that the guy scrubs thirty toilets per hour, and he's paid fifteen dollars per hour.
Fifteen? More like $7

Don't care that much about toilet scrubbing? You never really appreciate something until no one does it. The front restrooms at Wal Mart during the holidays can be the standard for your office toilets if you really don't care.

People would be willing to pay fifty cents for their toilet to be clean. However, people would not be willing to pay ten dollars for their toilet to be clean. It's simple economics.

I'd be willing to bet you'd change your mind having to visit a restroom that's never clean. No one person has to pay $10 for a toilet cleaner to get paid a decent, living wage for an office busy enough to hire one. Level the paying field. No one person is worth thousands of times another person, and to have such obsene differences of pay that get worse every year is inexcusable.

CEOs get millions because good ol' boys give them millions. Someone getting $20 million per year has no business complaining payroll is to expensive, yet the CEO is always the one complaining about having to pay people.

... which one is being a leech, again?
Neither. This is capitalism.
Capitalism does not change who the mooch is taking way more than their share. That's a caste system.

I am so sick of this "those who are paid the least for doing the most work are the biggest leeches" @ss-backwards bullpucky
They don't do the most work. You ignore the fact that CEOs also do work, work valued more highly than scrubbing toilets.
What exactly do they do?
Additionally, this thread began in concern to a sex offender in a government-paid $350,000 house. Try justifying that.
I believe he was convicted. The system worked because he got caught. Not everyone on public assistance is this person, and shame on anyone who believes that is so.

Trickle-down economics.

Proven not to work. Give money to the wealthy, they hoarde it. The wealthy are the end drain of a nation's wealthy ... they take it all and give little.

The standard of living will increase overall,
No, it doesn't. Never has. Canada and Europe have much better living conditions for their poorest than the U.S. because they have much stronger social safety nets.

as opposed to socialism, which, as already described, lowers the GDP and the standard of living over time.

Patently false.

Most humans just have the corrupt notion that they must be as good as their neighbors, or else their life is worthless.

No, most humans believe they must be better than their neighbors, which is how we get a few wealthy people and a lot more homeless folk.
I-am-a-panda
Posts: 15,380
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
2/9/2010 12:17:25 PM
Posted: 6 years ago
At 2/9/2010 12:44:29 AM, PervRat wrote:
LOL ... a lot of CEOs get millions even while driving companies into the ground ... so fail there, mongy.

And that's the choice of the company. Obviously they'll replace him if they think he's incompetent


, and he's paid fifteen dollars per hour.
Fifteen? More like $7

Don't care that much about toilet scrubbing? You never really appreciate something until no one does it. The front restrooms at Wal Mart during the holidays can be the standard for your office toilets if you really don't care.

Then hire another cleaner?


I'd be willing to bet you'd change your mind having to visit a restroom that's never clean. No one person has to pay $10 for a toilet cleaner to get paid a decent, living wage for an office busy enough to hire one. Level the paying field. No one person is worth thousands of times another person, and to have such obsene differences of pay that get worse every year is inexcusable.

LOL, your idea "Everyone is equal" is retarded. Someone with a degree with engineering is far more valuable than someone who dropped out high school at 15 and cleans toilets.

Don't believe me? Hire the toilet scrubber to design and build a bridge.


CEOs get millions because good ol' boys give them millions. Someone getting $20 million per year has no business complaining payroll is to expensive, yet the CEO is always the one complaining about having to pay people.

Because they get profit and run the business, because they're competent enough too.

Capitalism does not change who the mooch is taking way more than their share. That's a caste system.

lol. The idea of "everyone's share" is based on GDP per head, which exists because of capitalism.

What exactly do they do?

Lead a company, make financial decisions, etc.

I believe he was convicted. The system worked because he got caught. Not everyone on public assistance is this person, and shame on anyone who believes that is so.

Of course not, but this glitch in the system is unacceptable.

Proven not to work. Give money to the wealthy, they hoarde it. The wealthy are the end drain of a nation's wealthy ... they take it all and give little.

Actually, they give as much as they need.Without these "oppressed" classes, they wouldn't have employees.

No, it doesn't. Never has. Canada and Europe have much better living conditions for their poorest than the U.S. because they have much stronger social safety nets.

Or the fact they have strong pre-established economic situations, and many have reverted back to free market ideals. They can afford to be socialist. You'll notice the countries with the best GDP per head are tax havens.

Patently false.

'Splain how GDP through logical economic terms, increases GDP per head.


No, most humans believe they must be better than their neighbors, which is how we get a few wealthy people and a lot more homeless folk.

Wealth is relative. And human competition is the reason we have capitalism, not vica versa.
Pizza. I have enormous respect for Pizza.