What's wrong with telling the welfare queens to get a job?

[Prinskaj]

Justify the existence of welfare. Why should the upper middle class pay the MOST in taxes to pay for welfare programs that WE don't need.
By redistributing money from the "middle-class", where it would most likely be put towards savings, into the hands of the poor, who will use this money to purchase goods and service, you create economic growth, which benefit the upper-classes more then anyone else.
Secondly because of the fact that they earn a lot more than is required to sustain their livelihood. And remember that these programs benefit all, if a "middle-class" person loses his job, the same welfare programs are available to him.
But what is really wrong with your statement is that there is no such thing as a "welfare queen", living a life on welfare is not a very nice existence.

[bcbm]

the upper classes should pay

[The Douche]

Increase welfare until the world gets so expensive that everybody needs to be on it.

[GoddessCleoLover]

"Welfare queen" has been a fallacious reactionary talking point since the likes of Ronald Reagan and George C. Wallace demagogued such notions almost fifty years ago. In fact, the American "social safety net" is meager and full of holes, as anyone who has ever been poor knows.

[Bostana]

So wait, Each year, freeloading corporations grab nearly $170 billion in tax-funded federal handouts to help them do the things they should be paying for themselves, and that doesn't even count all the corporate welfare they're getting from state and local governments. That's $1,388 a year from each of us going to provide welfare to the rich.

And you're focusing on the Working Class Mother trying to take care of her kids.

[Blake's Baby]

Hey, we have a Welfare Queen in the UK. She's the Queen. The state (ie, us) pays for her 4 houses, pays for her holidays, pays for her dysfunctional kids and grandkids... abolish the Welfare State I say.

At 'SocialJusticeActivist'... poor people in America pay a higher percentage of their income in taxes than you do (if you're 'upper middle class', whatever that means) so you really don't have a case.

Next!

[Ostrinski]

I don't feel the need to work.

[NewLeft]

Yes, and do you think the 'upper middle class' should pay more in taxes than the upper class? Welfare is not something you can easily get on over here, you need to practically liquidate all your assets.


Increase welfare until the world gets so expensive that everybody needs to be on it.
Sounds like Cloward–Piven.

[gorillafuck]

fuck off.

[l'Enfermé]

What's wrong with telling the "welfare queens" to get a job? Nothing. But it's rather pointless, seeing as how in this stage of capitalism, there are less jobs than there are people that need jobs. If you tell "welfare queens"(I think by that term you mean unemployed people)to get jobs, jobs won't fall out of the sky. They can't get jobs if jobs don't exist.

I don't think you'll find that Socialists/Communists/Anarchists support the concept of the "welfare state". It's terribly oppressive to the working classes.

[ProletariatPraetorian]

Justify the existence of welfare. Why should the upper middle class pay the MOST in taxes to pay for welfare programs that WE don't need.

The rich pay more in taxes because they own more, the more you own the more taxes you pay. If they want to pay less taxes then they need to stop buying up everything.

10% of $100k leaves you with $90k
10% of $50k leaves you with $45k

Taking 10% out of $100k leaves you with almost twice the average household income, taking 10% out of $50k is the difference between making ends meet.

[AmericanCommie421]

Marxists do not want welfare to exist. The means exist to nearly eradicate unemployment, hunger, homelessness, lack of access to health care, etc. In Socialist society you get what you earn. Capitalists idealouges often claim that, in the Capitalist system, those that work hardest reach the top and get what they earn. This is undeniably false, for, in Capitalism, as the Bible says "one sows and another reaps". The employer gains money his hired laborer earns. Following that piece of Capitalist mythology, one must come to the conclusion, as is often the case, that a wealthy CEO or investor works harder and contributes more to the grand picture of society than say, miners, construction workers, teachers, mechanics, etc. In Socialism and later Communism, for the first time, the idea that one should receive the benefits that they earn and work for the first time will be realized.
But, as a side note, some receivers of public assistance do abuse the system, are able to work and find more money by other means, or adjust their life style accordingly. I see this often in my home area, a location that has never been known for its millionaires since the population is overwhelmingly working class. But the life of a welfare beneficiary is not one of luxury. The overwhelming majority recieve it because they can find no work. You might as well tell starving children "Just get some food and stop asking for handouts!" Who knows how many families are barely staying afloat with the unemployed parents having to receive welfare, who knows how many honest, poor single parents must face the humiliation of not being able to provide for their children on their own, much less themselves? Now, are these defects of these people, or the system in which they live? One which creates unimaginably immense wealth, but does so on the labor of hundreds of millions of workers across the globe, combined into a single system, yet the full benefits of their work are denied to them because the resources which they use and their products are the "natural right" of another person that did not produce them and does not use them or depend on them but "owns" them?

[GPDP]

I don't see why I should justify anything when you never stick around to argue your case whenever you create threads anyway. All you do is make threads saying something reactionary, then when everyone refutes you, you never show your face in that thread again, and instead opt to create another one. Seems like a waste of time. Seems trollish.

[danyboy27]

Justify the existence of welfare. Why should the upper middle class pay the MOST in taxes to pay for welfare programs that WE don't need.

The only reason welfare is around is beccause initially the capitalists needed their worker surplus to be fed and sheltered so they could be eventually ''put into good use'' when the time will come, and also beccause not feeding or sheltering them caused serious problem to the production by revolting or rioting.

Basically, if you want to live in a capitalist system without a welfare program, be prepared to do what the members of the upper middle class of africa and south america do on a daily basis; hire 3 security guards, live in a gated community protected by mercenaries and electrical fence, keep your car windows up, avoid driving at night, get a kidnapping insurance, and live in the constant fear that you could be killed beccause your watch is pricey.

Capitalism is a crazy, insane sytem, capitalism without the safeguard of the state is even worst.

[Brosip Tito]

I support eliminating the current welfare system...and giving everyone a living fucking wage.

[~Spectre]

Justify the existence of welfare. Why should the upper middle class pay the MOST in taxes to pay for welfare programs that WE don't need.

Because it pisses you off.

[NewLeft]

Having those welfare queens on the street will disrupt your business. It's a good way to make sure they get out of your sight.

[Rafiq]

Even if such a myth exists, I, with uttermost unapologetic conviction, support the so-called "Welfare bums", if they are truly damaging the capitalist system, without of course, the proletariat class having the price. Basically, so long as the working class is not damaged directly, I see no problem with them.

[tachosomoza]

http://www.themarysue.com/wp-content/uploads/2011/10/ViriginaRometty.jpg

http://www.probertencyclopaedia.com/photolib/people/Queen%20Elizabeth%20II%20c1992%20%28PD%29.jpg

Fuck the welfare queens.

[Lev Bronsteinovich]

Fuck off. The term is an offensive jab at people who have nothing and get next to nothing. In order to qualify for "welfare" nowadays you need to have dependent children. So the real myths are that 1) Welfare exists in a meaningful sense and that people receive it, 2) Payments are large enough to do anything more than provide the barest subsistence, 3) There are a class of people living like royalty on these hard to actually get and paltry payments.

You go and try to qualify for it and then live on it. Asshole.

[CommunityBeliever]

Justify the existence of welfare. Why should the upper middle class pay the MOST in taxes to pay for welfare programs that WE don't need.* There is no such thing as an "upper middle class." There only two social classes: the bourgeoisie and the proletariat. The bourgeoisie controls the means of production and the proletariat does not.

* We communists believe that the only legitimate use of taxes is as a mechanism in a transitional worker's state. For example, the communist manifesto recommended "a heavy progressive or graduated income tax". Ideally there shouldn't be any taxes.

* Wherever we can get a capitalist society to go against its corrupt nature and satisfy social needs rather then personal greed, such as through the use of welfare programs, then we absolutely should do so. Even if that means taxing the so called "upper middle class."

[GoddessCleoLover]

The OP won't do that, nor will he defend his position. He just trolled us to see what type of reactions he could get.

[tachosomoza]

Fuck off. The term is an offensive jab at people who have nothing and get next to nothing. In order to qualify for "welfare" nowadays you need to have dependent children. So the real myths are that 1) Welfare exists in a meaningful sense and that people receive it, 2) Payments are large enough to do anything more than provide the barest subsistence, 3) There are a class of people living like royalty on these hard to actually get and paltry payments.

You go and try to qualify for it and then live on it. Asshole.

I actually had a guy tell me one time that all black people and latinos qualify for TANF and food stamps, even if they don't have kids. Sad world, this.

[Comrade Samuel]

Justify the existence of welfare. Why should the upper middle class pay the MOST in taxes to pay for welfare programs that WE don't need.

Because it's selfish reactionary fuck faces like you who ensure there will always be a capitalist system of haves and have-nots.

Troll harder comrade.

[rylasasin]

oh look, it's THIS asshole again.

[Ocean Seal]

Justify the existence of welfare. Why should the upper middle class pay the MOST in taxes to pay for welfare programs that WE don't need.
You tell me "Social Justice Activist"
And we don't need them? Are you sure, because if I recall unemployment is pretty high and most corporate types don't pay the lowliest of their wage slaves enough to live.
Also typing in caps is such a middle class moralist thing to do. Stop the wars if you are so worried about the upper middle class and their taxes.

[Drosophila]

Food stamps actually have a positive return, so money isn't actually lost on it. Defense spending, on the other hand, has a multi billion dollar budget and has a negative return.

[Prometeo liberado]

Justify the existence of welfare. Why should the upper middle class pay the MOST in taxes to pay for welfare programs that WE don't need.

If your gonna troll could you please just make it interesting? Please? And by your messed up logic I should not pay taxes for public education because I have no kids. Maybe we could pass a law that gives each individual the right to pick and choose which taxes she/he will pay. You might be on to something here. With many people opting not to pay for taxes for military build up we could end america's wars for good! Your a genious! Troll!

[Drosophila]

My question is why this guy hasn't been restricted yet. Are the mods asleep?

[o well this is ok I guess]

Whatever happened to posting pictures of cute animals

[eric922]

It's trolls like this that make me miss trolls like Budstruggle. Sure he was a right-wing troll, but at least he argued with you and tried to make it interesting. You could tell he gave a damn and took his trolling seriously, this guy just sucks.

[#FF0000]

Whatever happened to posting pictures of cute animals
http://i.imgur.com/ec8pQ.jpg

[tachosomoza]

http://lifeofpixels.com/wp-content/uploads/2011/10/Husky-Puppies3.jpg

[Prometeo liberado]

I'm jealous! How about some unicorn tacos up in here?

[Prometeo liberado]

http://ts1.mm.bing.net/images/thumbnail.aspx?q=1644167902616&id=b06c0a74d59530caf4766515429025a9&url=http%3a%2f%2f30.media.tumblr.com%2ftumblr_kqce 0mkurh1qzxqe4o1_500.jpg

[GPDP]

http://media.tumblr.com/tumblr_lm7ik3XZba1qd54hp.jpg

[¿Que?]

* There is no such thing as an "upper middle class." There only two social classes: the bourgeoisie and the proletariat. The bourgeoisie controls the means of production and the proletariat does not.

* We communists believe that the only legitimate use of taxes is as a mechanism in a transitional worker's state. For example, the communist manifesto recommended "a heavy progressive or graduated income tax". Ideally there shouldn't be any taxes.

* Wherever we can get a capitalist society to go against its corrupt nature and satisfy social needs rather then personal greed, such as through the use of welfare programs, then we absolutely should do so. Even if that means taxing the so called "upper middle class."
Regarding your first two points, I have to correct your mistake. First of all, Marx talked about various other classes, including the middle classes, sometimes but not always equated as the petit or petty bourgeoisie. Marx also talked about the peasantry some, and some other classes I can't recall. The importance of the two classes, the bourgeoisie and the proletariat, lies in the former being the dominant class under capitalism and the latter being the antagonistic class whose interests represent the interest of revolutionary socialism, that is to say, of all of humanity. Therefore, there are many classes, many class antagonisms, although the antagonism that matters is that between the bourgeoisie and the proletariat.

Secondly, if you read the 1872 preface to the manifesto, you'll note that they do away with the 10 point program after what they learned in the Paris Commune, which is to say, that you have to dismantle the state and build a workers state, you cannot build socialism from welfare or social reforms, or rather, with the existing state apparatus.

Thanks.

[9]

Because jobs are so easy to come by these days..

[Klaatu]

Justify the existence of welfare. Why should the upper middle class pay the MOST in taxes to pay for welfare programs that WE don't need.

Like most everyone, you fall into the trap of believing there is such a thing as "trickle down economics." There is no such thing as trickle down economics, never was, and never will be.

ALL WEALTH is created by the working class. Period. The Rich and U.M.C. do NOT create any wealth, only the lower working classes do. Money and wealth do not grow on trees. It has to be created by human effort. The workers' effort. Therefore, the actual mode of society is what can be called "trickle UP economics," because the capitalist class lives off of the workers' inherently-created wealth. Much like parasites. It is therefore not the poor that are parasites, it is the rich that are the parasites!

And they have invented this welfare in order to justify their taking of wealth that already rightfully belongs to the worker. We would not necessarily need welfare if we were able to prevent this 'trickle up' process in the first place. Pay people what they are really worth.
One way to do this is to allow only the workers to own the means of production, not parasitic billionaire business owners and their vastly over-paid top CEO executives, etc.

[Jimmie Higgins]

Justify the existence of welfare. Why should the upper middle class pay the MOST in taxes to pay for welfare programs that WE don't need.How many straw-men can you fit into one post?

Welfare Queens are a myth... most people who were on welfare before Clinton "ended welfare as we know it" were white males, but racist imagery and myths of minorities "gaming the system" were used to convince some people that welfare should be cut. Now that there's higher unemployment, I bet many of the people who bought into these arguments wish things were different.

The upper middle class pay a lower percent of their income to taxes. Corporations pay what, 7% of their profits... if I paid 7% of the money I have after rent and bills and food are paid, I'd be pretty happy with how little I had to pay. Instead I have to pay a higher percentage than the rich or corporations on top of cuts in services making other expenses such as bridge tolls, subway fares, college tuition, etc higher. These cuts and so on are just passing more of the tax burden away from the rich an onto the poor - the rich still get to have roads and ports to move their goods, they just make us pay for it now.

[Night Ripper]

Welfare Queens are a myth...

Bullshit. Just as a personal anecdote I watched a woman buy a cart full of groceries with food stamps and then pull out a wad of $20's to pay for her beer and cigarettes. She was white so don't even pull that racist bullshit with me. People love to game the system. Here's an example...


Thousands of documents show tens of millions of welfare dollars have been spent out of state, some at vacation resorts. The discovery is leading to new legislation to prevent welfare abuse.

. . .

The Times analysis found nearly $12 million was spent in Las Vegas, $1.5 million in Florida, $387,908 in Hawaii, and $16,010 withdrawn from ATMs on cruise ships.Source: http://abclocal.go.com/kgo/story?section=news/state&id=7704795

The above is an example of outright fraud but that's not even the real issue. The real issue is that there are people that have no incentive to get a job because they would actually have to work harder to get paid less.

Charity is fine. I donate my time and money when I can to people that are really trying to survive but also rarely need a little extra help. But being taxed through coercion, threats and intimidation, to keep other people floating, many of them so they can continue to live reckless lifestyles is absurd and disgusting.

[GoddessCleoLover]

I spent ten years working in the public mental health system and can testify first-hand that folks in that system barely subsisted. "Welfare" is a weasel word anyway. Properly speaking it refers to one Federal program (AFDC) for which only mothers of dependent children are eligible. The monthly payments are quite low. I have serious doubts whether welfare mothers go on cruises and such. Seems like an urban legend.

[TheGodlessUtopian]

Bullshit. Just as a personal anecdote I watched a woman buy a cart full of groceries with food stamps and then pull out a wad of $20's to pay for her beer and cigarettes. She was white so don't even pull that racist bullshit with me.

Some people "misusing" the system doesn't mean shit; many people need help to live and barely struggle to survive even with state aid.

Also, addiction to nicotine and alcohol are issues which need to be dealt with separately; addicts will do anything to get money in order to get their fix (at least according to A&E Intervention) so that women could have done anything to get that money,things which if she didn't have the addiction, she never would have gotten in the first place.What I'm saying is that just because she has "money" on her doesn't mean she still doesn't need help. People are people and will continue to have addictions even when struggling to survive.

[Night Ripper]

Some people "misusing" the system doesn't mean shit; many people need help to live and barely struggle to survive even with state aid.

Also, addiction to nicotine and alcohol are issues which need to be dealt with separately; addicts will do anything to get money in order to get their fix (at least according to A&E Intervention) so that women could have done anything to get that money,things which if she didn't have the addiction, she never would have gotten in the first place.What I'm saying is that just because she has "money" on her doesn't mean she still doesn't need help. People are people and will continue to have addictions even when struggling to survive.

What's your point? I'm tired of people on this forum making laundry lists of what's wrong with something yet fail to say what should be done about it or what the conclusion is. Yes, some people need help to live. How does that translate to me being forced at gunpoint to help them?

[TheGodlessUtopian]

What's your point? I'm tired of people on this forum making laundry lists of what's wrong with something yet fail to say what should be done about it or what the conclusion is. Yes, some people need help to live. How does that translate to me being forced at gunpoint to help them?

No one is forcing you, especially at gun point, to help them. Stop being dramatic.

If you are tired than kindly GTFO. ;)

[Revolution starts with U]

Bullshit. Just as a personal anecdote I watched a woman buy a cart full of groceries with food stamps and then pull out a wad of $20's to pay for her beer and cigarettes. She was white so don't even pull that racist bullshit with me. People love to game the system. Here's an example...

Source: http://abclocal.go.com/kgo/story?section=news/state&id=7704795

The above is an example of outright fraud but that's not even the real issue. The real issue is that there are people that have no incentive to get a job because they would actually have to work harder to get paid less.

Charity is fine. I donate my time and money when I can to people that are really trying to survive but also rarely need a little extra help. But being taxed through coercion, threats and intimidation, to keep other people floating, many of them so they can continue to live reckless lifestyles is absurd and disgusting.

1) squeaky wheel gets the grease. You're seeing the outlier and mistaking it for the general state.

2) Id put money down that says that person you saw works a full time job, possibly under the table, or is raising the children of a person that does (assuming her job isn't... maid! Actually...)

What's your point? I'm tired of people on this forum making laundry lists of what's wrong with something yet fail to say what should be done about it or what the conclusion is. Yes, some people need help to live. How does that translate to me being forced at gunpoint to help them?

How does it translate into you holding a gun to my head to not help them when the resources are available!?

[Decommissioner]

The above is an example of outright fraud but that's not even the real issue. The real issue is that there are people that have no incentive to get a job because they would actually have to work harder to get paid less.

If that were the case I'd be on welfare right now. Fuck working 60 hours a week for a meager paycheck when I can make just as much doing nothing! :rolleyes:

If this were actually the case, you would be hard pressed to find someone who wasn't a "welfare queen"

[Blake's Baby]

No to be fair, Night Ripper is right, wages are shit and people in work need to demand more, and conditions are shit and therfore people in work should demand better conditions too.

Thanks Night Ripper, you've shown us the way!

[Saviorself]

Let me start out by saying that I fully recognize that not all who live on welfare abuse the system, sometimes people just fall on hard times and need a helping hand, nothing wrong with that.

That being said, there are indeed societal leeches who, rather than deciding to get off their lazy asses and work for living, choose instead to live by way of government handouts. These people annoy the fuck out of me as they make those who legitimately need the assistance look bad. I know a couple who keeps pumping out children that they can not pay for just so they can get more government assistance. I know this is true because I have heard them say it before. This is disgusting to me.

In response to OP's question, I will pose a few of my own? Do you have children? I don't. Why should I be forced to pay taxes for schools when I don't need them? Do you drive? I don't. Why should I be forced to pay taxes to maintain the transportation infrastructure? Why should I be forced to pay taxes to support a war that I don't agree with or support?

Here's a novel idea: if you don't want to support these systems, stop working. Then you wont have money taken out of your check and then you wont have to support a system that you don't agree with. Of course, then you would be put into a position where you would need assistance. Would you be singing a different tune in that instance? Or would your (counter-productive) pride force you to starve to death?

[ProletariatPraetorian]

Bullshit. Just as a personal anecdote I watched a woman buy a cart full of groceries with food stamps and then pull out a wad of $20's to pay for her beer and cigarettes. She was white so don't even pull that racist bullshit with me. People love to game the system.

What youre not taking into account is that many people on welfare are making just enough to make them ineligable, however if theyre welfare checks, etc. are halted they will fall back into eligibility. Whats needed is jobs that pay a livable wage.

[Jimmie Higgins]

What's your point? I'm tired of people on this forum making laundry lists of what's wrong with something yet fail to say what should be done about it or what the conclusion is. Yes, some people need help to live. How does that translate to me being forced at gunpoint to help them?You need help to live. Who picks your food, who packages it, who drives it, who checks your food out at the store? We all need help to live, it's a society! The problem is that this organization of society makes us work in order to make the lives of a tiny few better rather than to make all of our lives better. And when we try and change that, we get guns put to our heads - literally.

You, on the other hand, have no gun pointed at your head when it comes to welfare. If you mean taxes in general, well if you avoid them, then yes, the government will eventually send someone to your house with a gun -- just like if you don't pay credit card debt or rent (which are vastly bigger thefts, costs, than tax in my life). Since you probably don't think that your taxes paying for the military, roads, and other infrastructure that you use are "someone pointing a gun at your head," then you can't say that welfare specifically is someone putting a gun to your head. Basically it's not about some "theft" but about your fucked up worldview.

And yes, people game the system. Who cares? If I was on welfare I'd try anything I could becuase welfare and unemployment don't go very far. The rich game the system, I guess we should get rid of stocks since people game them, we should also get rid of investments, banks, and so on according to you then. Part of the problem is that so much gaming of the system is perfectly legal when companies do it! The game is rigged.

My point about racism earlier was that this was the tool that was used to convince idiots that welfare was theft of "hardworking white people" (to quote the other political Clinton) for "lazy black women who just have lots of babies". It's the same with the prison system (the "willie horton ads" as just one of countless examples) and police - racist imagery and myths were created to dupe voters to sell their children's future in exchange for a robust police and incarceration state. It's divide and conquer.

[Rafiq]

No, guys, it's all a matter of free will. Everyone has equal opportunity to get a job, it's just some are more lazy and stupid than others. Freeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeee will! Yay liberalism!

[Sperm-Doll Setsuna]

Consumption argument from a socialist? Aggregate demand does not cause crisis



Hey dude FUCK YOU Some of us want to be PRODUCTIVE members of society



What holes



Dont you know that your efforts to make affordable tuition and green energy created corporate welfare? Stop welfare altogether



Poor people pay a lower % than I do



Then you dont deserve my money!



No fair tax across the board

Welfare recipients lie



Cut welfare and taxes and you can create your socialist commune



We dont have flat taxes stupid



I own my business I invest in it and I am responsible for the burden of costs I DESERVE the most rewards



You have nothing to say?



Africa needs foreign investment NOT socialism Remember african socialism was a failure



Living wage HOW With my money? No



Destroying capitalism for what? You marxists need to create contradictions to bring down capitalism now



Privatize welfare and I will invest to help people who I think DESERVE my money



Social needs? Like buying beer on my dime how about no
Marxist classes are bullshit read some Weber



Selfish? You want to have? then work



I dont give a rats ass about unemployment you want to know entitlement? all the people who dont take up a low wage job because they think they are entitled to better



Military does not account for most of budget



Are you stupid? I DONT SIT ON MY ASS ALL DAY I WORK TOO
You tell me whos the parasite? I who work more than 8 hours and invest in my business or the overpaid worker who only works for 8 hours and does not do more than manage stock



No white males were not the majority on welfare in california or arizona
I pay the HIGHEST in taxes where are you getting your info from
Corporates pay 20% Dont pull that 7% shit with me That is a bullshit number from the averages



Am I supposed to pity these pathetic people? How about work their way up

:laugh:

Please, if you're going to troll, do put more effort into it. It's just embarrassing when you spoon-feed us this awkward, thoughtless & bad rubbish. This is neither convincing nor sensible by any stretch of the imagination, and you end up sounding like... well, like you're drunk and watching sports while you're writing, or just stringing together incoherent words from townhall.com or Ayn Rand Circlejerkitute with some sort of TrollNow script.

[o well this is ok I guess]

Yes, some people need help to live. How does that translate to me being forced at gunpoint to help them? Congratulations, you've discovered class war.

[GoddessCleoLover]

I would have hoped for more effort from the trolls. This thread shows the rightist trolls not making much of an effort. SJA and NR are content with bumper sticker slogans. Yawn.

[Metacomet]

No, guys, it's all a matter of free will. Everyone has equal opportunity to get a job, it's just some are more lazy and stupid than others. Freeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeee will! Yay liberalism!


I know. I had the same opportunity for that job as the manager's 18 year old below average high school student nephew did at that last interview. I know it.

I must be reallllllllllllllllllllllllllllllyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyy yyy god damn lazy and stupid.

[Rafiq]

I know. I had the same opportunity for that job as the manager's 18 year old below average high school student nephew did at that last interview. I know it.

I must be reallllllllllllllllllllllllllllllyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyy yyy god damn lazy and stupid.

Actually rich kids worked really hard crawling out of their mothers vagina. That's why they have a lot of money, they used their free will. People on welfare only do it to make the taxpayers mad and rub it in their faces. They can afford basic necessities to live, but they do not, because they want to make Socialjusticeactivist mad. With his tax payers money, they are living lavish lives, smoking ciggarretes (Which the Bourgeoisie didn't produce or advertise for and cause addiction, obviously).

Free will was given to us by our lord and it's best we use it that way. If everywan just acted moral we would all eb fine. goddamn unions nad welfare bums tey don't even work a single cent in their life. I hate welfare queens, they are living lavish lifestyles off of OUR WELFARE!!! WWAAAAAAAAAA

[Lanky Wanker]

The bourgeoisie aren't really much different from people who choose not to work and claim benefits; their house, food and clothing comes from other people's hard work while they sit around skiving all day. Only differences are that the bourgeoisie are applauded for being lazy and taking other people's money, and that they do it in larger quantities.

[ÑóẊîöʼn]

What's your point? I'm tired of people on this forum making laundry lists of what's wrong with something yet fail to say what should be done about it or what the conclusion is. Yes, some people need help to live. How does that translate to me being forced at gunpoint to help them?

By "forced at gunpoint to help others" you really mean "compelled by the law to pay my taxes", since tax evaders aren't actually summarily shot.

Is it just the welfare part that bothers you, or are you as principled when it comes to the government using tax funds to build roads and schools?

If it's just welfare spending that bothers you, why are you concentrating on the small fry? Defence contractors and the agricultural sector get billions in handouts from the US government.

I can't help but notice that you "rugged individualist" types hardly if ever get worked up about corporate welfare, in spite of the fact that the wasteful excesses of such spending far exceed their counterparts in individual welfare.

Why is that?

[Prinskaj]

Consumption argument from a socialist? Being a socialist means that I oppose capitalism, and to oppose a given system you must first have an understanding of the system in question. And from this understanding it is clear, that within the capitalist system, the best way of creating economic growth (Which benefit the working class), is by giving money into the hands of people who will spend it, creating demand for supplies. This is basic economic theory.
It does not make me less of a socialist to work within the capitalist framework for the betterment of the working class, at least until revolutionary change can occur.

Aggregate demand does not cause crisis Did I even suggest that? No, I said that demand creates more markets for suppliers, which they need to meet and to do that they need to employ more labour. This creates economic growth.

[GPDP]

Well, I have to give it to the guy. He actually came back and responded. Too bad it was all ready-made right-wing slogans straight out of a bumper sticker.

[CommunityBeliever]

First of all, Marx talked about various other classes, including the middle classes, sometimes but not always equated as the petit or petty bourgeoisie. Marx also talked about the peasantry some, and some other classes I can't recall. The importance of the two classes, the bourgeoisie and the proletariat, lies in the former being the dominant class under capitalism and the latter being the antagonistic class whose interests represent the interest of revolutionary socialism, that is to say, of all of humanity. Therefore, there are many classes, many class antagonisms, although the antagonism that matters is that between the bourgeoisie and the proletariat.

Primitive communist society didn't have means of production, so it didn't have any distinct social relations to production. The Neolithic agricultural revolution introduced agricultural means of production and therefore agricultural class society. Marx and Engels described the variety of classes that existed in agricultural societies: "In ancient Rome we have patricians, knights, plebeians, slaves; in the Middle Ages, feudal lords, vassals, guild-masters, journeymen, apprentices, serfs; in almost all of these classes, again, subordinate gradations."

The industrial revolution drastically transformed the character of production. With the industrial revolution, the majority of the world's people were no longer focused on satisfying somatic energy needs so the variety of agricultural social relations to production were eliminated. In the process social relations to production became divided into two opposing camps: the proletariat and the bourgeoisie. This is explained in the communist manifesto: "Society as a whole is more and more splitting up into two great hostile camps, into two great classes directly facing each other — Bourgeoisie and Proletariat."

The importance of the bourgeoisie lies in its social relations to production; the bourgeoisie has exclusive control of the industrial means of production. The interest of the proletariat in revolutionary socialism is product of extant productive conditions and relations.


Secondly, if you read the 1872 preface to the manifesto, you'll note that they do away with the 10 point program after what they learned in the Paris Commune, which is to say, that you have to dismantle the state and build a workers state, you cannot build socialism from welfare or social reforms, or rather, with the existing state apparatus.Marx and Engels didn't completely do away with the 10 point program, they just further emphasised that the actions of the proletariat should be based upon historical conditions, which is something I never took issue with: "The practical application of the principles will depend, as the Manifesto itself states, everywhere and at all times, on the historical conditions for the time being existing, and, for that reason, no special stress is laid on the revolutionary measures proposed at the end of Section II (http://www.marxists.org/archive/marx/works/1848/communist-manifesto/ch02.htm)."


Marxist classes are bullshit read some WeberMarxism is based upon the productivist approach. The classes described by Marx and Engels are based upon different social relations to production. The only reason you would be anti-Marxism is either that you are anti-science or anti-technology.


I'm tired of people on this forum making laundry lists of what's wrong with something yet fail to say what should be done about it or what the conclusion is. I have made it pretty clear what is to be done. I want to make a communist society that is modeled after the free Internet. Such a society will be organised in terms of a cooperative network of individuals rather then a power hierarchy, and it will have a network that can distribute all personal goods for free. This is explained in the thread communism and the internet (http://www.revleft.com/vb/communism-and-internet-t168487/index.html).

[Klaatu]

I watched a woman buy a cart full of groceries with food stamps and then pull out a wad of $20's to pay for her beer and cigarettes.

I know of huge oil companies that get billions of $ of taxpayer subsidies, and then proceed to jack up the price of gasoline without rhyme or reason, at the same time they rake in billions of $ in profit, and get a huge George Bush tax cut, with even more tax cuts being proposed by Republican candidates (they even try to 'out-taxcut' one another)

[Klaatu]

Are you stupid? I DONT SIT ON MY ASS ALL DAY I WORK TOO
You tell me whos the parasite? I who work more than 8 hours and invest in my business or the overpaid worker who only works for 8 hours and does not do more than manage stock


So you own your own business? Suppose you tell us (A) how much you pay your "over-paid" workers, vs. (B) how much you pay yourself ...my guess is that you pay yourself about ten to twenty times that amount. Am I right? And then do you think that YOU are worth twenty times of what your slaves are worth? Who the fuck are you? What makes YOU better than them? Why should YOU have a right to exploit the 'lesser' worker? People like you are the very reason that I have learned to proudly and righteously shun capitalism all together.

[Tovarisch]

I don't feel the need to work.
I don't feel the need to work twice as much as I do to make-up for people like you.

[Franz Fanonipants]

ban op pls

[Franz Fanonipants]

I don't feel the need to work twice as much as I do to make-up for people like you.

this guy too

[¿Que?]

@CommunityBeliever
But the division of society into two classes is not a concrete phenomenon, so much as a process. It's conceivable that eventually all of society will be divided into these two classes, such is the trend of capitalism, as peasants move to the cities to find work, as petite bourgeoisie are pushed down to the class of proletariat as a result of competition with giant corporations. However, capitalism does not exist in a vacuum. It doesn't exist apart from what people actually do, and a lot of what people do is resist capitalism. Point is, my understanding of Marx is that the division of capitalism into those two classes represents a disposition of capitalism, not so much an established fact.

[CommunityBeliever]

Point is, my understanding of Marx is that the division of capitalism into those two classes represents a disposition of capitalism, not so much an established fact.

We are not in disagreement here. My emphasis on the distinction between the bourgioisie and the proletariat was intended for SocialJusticeActivist (http://www.revleft.com/vb/member.php?u=61292) who was using terms like "upper middle class" rather then social classes established by Marxism.

[GoddessCleoLover]

He was referring to income distribution rather than social class. American sociology typically uses the term class to refer to income levels rather than relationship to the means of production.

[ProletariatPraetorian]

We dont have flat taxes stupid


Am I supposed to pity these pathetic people? How about work their way up

A. I know we dont have a flat tax, it was an example, stupid.

B. How about we reduce you to zero and have you work your way up? The fact that you label those that have less than you "pathetic" shows just how much of an arrogant piece you are.

[MarxSchmarx]

BTW. Being a mother is much more than a full time job. You easily work 80+ hours a week. Being a single parent even more so.

[PhoenixAsh]

you are all barking up the wrong tree.



Why should the upper middle class pay the MOST in taxes to pay for welfare programs that WE don't need.

Because otherwise an army of poor will be stringing your sorry ass from a tree in order to obtain what you own and stole from them so they can eat again.

Pretty much the only reason...and pretty much historical fact.

[ProletariatPraetorian]

Question, how are other people being banned for significantly less than the shite these two are spouting?

[Jimmie Higgins]

No white males were not the majority on welfare in california or arizona
I pay the HIGHEST in taxes where are you getting your info from
Corporates pay 20% Dont pull that 7% shit with me That is a bullshit number from the averagesWell women make up the majority of people on welfare but numerically more whites have been on welfare than blacks. It's typically in the 40% white and 35% black range for assistance and yes, black people are over-represented but they are also vastly over-represented in poverty in the US and a a group of people blacks in the US are more reluctant than whites to take advantage of welfare. Besides the point is that racist myths such as the black welfare queen driving Cadillacs (I wonder if they buy them used from Mitt Romney's wife when she replaces her old ones) were used as a ploy to help transfer tax revenue from assistance to things like corporate welfare and tax breaks for companies. You may not personally think you are racist or act badly to people of other races, that's not what I'm arguing... but if you support these ideas you are supporting a racist argument designed to hurt the entire working class.

Where does your logic lead? It leads to things like the homeless woman who was just sent to prison for a minimum of 5 years for "stealing" public school for her child by enrolling him under a friend's mailing address in a nice area. Here in California they want to cut all public bussing to schools at the same time that charter-ization is happening which means there will be increased inequality in schooling by region since charters have to make a quarter of their money from private sources (meaning rich neighborhoods will have well-equipped schools paid for by parents and poor ones will have 3/4th the budget). This nor the welfare reform by your Republican heroes like Bill Clinton ;) was about cost or budget or whatnot, but about priorities. In the neo-liberal era for Dems and Republicans tax cuts for companies and repression (police and prisons) for workers and the poor is the order of the day and so their project for a generation has been to gut assistance programs and pass that revenue back to the rich and now their project is to deform the whole concept of public education because when you want to push wages down to $10/hr in manufacturing or have people work service jobs, then why send kids to school - teach em to read, write, add, and obey and then send them to work. Or, according to Newt Gingrich, teach them to read write and obey while they are working as custodians for the school.

[Jimmie Higgins]

So you own your own business? Suppose you tell us (A) how much you pay your "over-paid" workers, vs. (B) how much you pay yourself ...my guess is that you pay yourself about ten to twenty times that amount. Am I right? And then do you think that YOU are worth twenty times of what your slaves are worth? Who the fuck are you? What makes YOU better than them? Why should YOU have a right to exploit the 'lesser' worker? People like you are the very reason that I have learned to proudly and righteously shun capitalism all together.
Many small business people work really hard and often HAVE to be nicer to their workers since they can't offer as many benefits so they try to make up for it by allowing a looser less corporate atmosphere on the job. It's not a rule, I have worked for people who started shops because they actually like what they do and so it does feel like more of a team effort on a sort of surface level. Alternately I have worked for plenty of petty-bourgeois pieces of shit who didn't care what they were selling or how people (customers or workers) were treated. I worked with a guy who set up a fancy deli and I was paid well but he was a real estate developer and once the place was set up he flipped it within months of opening, pocketed the money, and everyone was fired. Another guy I worked for was straight out of business school and was using his parents money (they were also business people) to turn his school business model into reality. Again, he hired talented skilled people to set up the place, used the techniques and recipies developed by the cooks he originally hired, treated the main guy like he was a de-facto partner in the business and then fired him, stole what the guy had developed for the restaurant and then hired people who made $9/hr to do the professional cook's job.

At any rate, I don't think it's useful to look at individual petty-bourgeois owners (or even major capitalists) practices to illustrate the exploitation and other inherent tendencies in capitalism because how people individually behave changes and depends on circumstances or even personal style. Even some slave-masters were well-known for their kindness to their slaves, but that's an individual impression, not an overall view of the slave system -- being a well-treated slave is to still be a slave. So in the big picture of capitalism too, yes, as a class, the capitalists as well as the small capitalists have to exploit us and maintain an inherently fucked-up system in order to operate regardless of their individual temperaments, business models, or intentions.

[Ostrinski]

@OP if youll just keep subsidizing my dinner thatd be gr8 no hard feelings

[JeVousAimeGuillotine]

I have had the experience of being on welfare--including state health care and food stamps. Allow me to give you just a iota of insight into a family on food stamps.

First of all, there is no such thing as a welfare queen. On the 10th of every month, we got our food stamp money loaded automatically onto our EBT card. Those days, we would go to the store, and buy as much as we could, just to have enough food in the house. We would by JUST the basics. Ground beef, cheese, bread, milk. Basically, we bought what we could afford. That is why up until recently, I was very overweight. Because we couldn't afford to eat healthily every night, we had to eat processed food and drink sugary soda. I was trapped in a life wherein I was constantly subjected to disgusting qualities of food. However, I am totally grateful towards it--because without food stamps, we would have gone hungry. That is the goal of welfare after all, keep us so desperate for work in order to supplement the food stamps that we are willing to accept any demeaning wage that is offered to us by shady corporations.

More often than not, we would run out of food money by the end of the month. This wasn't because we are all disgustingly fat and eat too much. My family actually bought the cheapest food that they could, and we still occasionally had to be late on the rent a few days until the EBT money came in. The fact is, food stamps do not adequately provide enough funds to live a healthy, or even enjoyable lifestyle. Welfare is not intended to be adequate. It is intended to keep you stressed, desperate, and in line.

It was only after my Mom started earning a bit more money that we began eating a big better. We were no longer struggling at the end of every month to make ends meet. Or if we were, it wasn't two weeks. It was just a couple of days. Finally, my family went off food stamps recently, because we were finally making enough money to be considered out of welfare. I've lost 20 pounds and am feeling better about myself than I ever have. We are eating better. The fact is: In a capitalist system, money buys health and happiness. However, we still struggle--every day. We aren't rich. We aren't even middle class. We are poor working class, trying to get by. We were on Food Stamps for nearly 8 years before my Mom started making enough to stop needing them.

That is my own personal experience.

From my political viewpoint, welfare is both a cruel joke at the expense of the poor--and something vital to our existence. Without welfare, so many working class would starve, or be homeless. Welfare exists for two reasons.

1. To provide inadequate subsistence, in order to lower the standard of living for the working poor.

2. To keep the working poor strong enough to continue "reproducing themselves" without having to pay them out of pocket.

In reality, welfare provides a great service to the capitalist. It allows them to maintain their profits while continuing the cyclical nature of worker exploitation.

In reality, the reactionaries should favor the welfare state. It only allows them to keep getting richer--because of the suffering of others. Make no mistake. It is of my opinion that welfare is an evil. However, to simply do away with it would cause a chain reaction of events. Millions of people would starve--be homeless--become enslaved to the capitalist machine--and revolt against the bourgeoisie.

So, while doing away with welfare may be the catalyst for the revolution, it seems like a terrible means to an end. It would be inhumane and disgusting to sacrifice so many of the working poor for the future prosperity of the proletariat. Frankly, that would be hypocritical and illogical.

[Night Ripper]

You're seeing the outlier and mistaking it for the general state.

Read my post again. No I'm not. I've already said that fraud is "not even the real issue".


No to be fair, Night Ripper is right, wages are shit and people in work need to demand more, and conditions are shit and therfore people in work should demand better conditions too.

My wages and conditions are awesome. Of course, I actually have a technical skill from studying and working hard. However, yes, make all the demands you want, just do so nonviolently.


Id put money down that says that person you saw works a full time job, possibly under the table, or is raising the children of a person that does (assuming her job isn't... maid! Actually...)

It doesn't matter if she's working. If she's getting money from me to help her, it goddamn well better not be used so she can turn around and buy beer and cigerettes.


How does it translate into you holding a gun to my head to not help them when the resources are available!?

That's idiotic. If you want to take money out of your pocket and help anyone, please do so, I encourage it. However, don't touch my pockets.


If that were the case I'd be on welfare right now. Fuck working 60 hours a week for a meager paycheck when I can make just as much doing nothing!

If this were actually the case, you would be hard pressed to find someone who wasn't a "welfare queen"

Not everyone is willing/able to fire out the prerequisite number of offspring. Not everyone is so unskilled/unproductive that they can only get minimum wage jobs. Obviously, most CEO's aren't tempted to get on welfare but since I never said that, your response is just a strawman.


Here's a novel idea: if you don't want to support these systems, stop working.

Here's a novel idea: if you don't want to be mugged and your wallet stolen, stop working. Right, because the fact you have money is the issue, not the asshole robbing you.


Then you wont have money taken out of your check and then you wont have to support a system that you don't agree with. Of course, then you would be put into a position where you would need assistance. Would you be singing a different tune in that instance? Or would your (counter-productive) pride force you to starve to death?

If I'm starving and I steal food, I expect to be brought to justice, forced to pay off the cost of the food I stole, plus a little extra, and if I have no money, put to work until it's paid off. At no point will I be one of these self-entitled leeches demanding that I'm owed something just because I feel that I do.


No one is forcing you, especially at gun point, to help them. Stop being dramatic.

Oh the gun isn't being pressed against my temple but most criminal gangs don't need to flash their pieces every time to get results. They just need to make a few examples and the rest fall in line. If you are really that misinformed that taxes aren't enforced using violence then by all means, refuse to pay your taxes, throw away every letter the government sends you in the mail, eventually someone will show up in a costume to kidnap you and if you resist, you will be shot. There's nothing dramatic about that. That's just the reality of government taxation.


You need help to live. Who picks your food, who packages it, who drives it, who checks your food out at the store? We all need help to live, it's a society!

It's a society as long as it's voluntary. If I need your help then I should ask you and if you don't want to help me, I should respect your decision. Who picks my food? The person I pay to do it. If they don't want to do it, I'll have to do it myself. I'm not holding a gun to their heads. If they want to go be a farmer and live off the land, they can do that.


By "forced at gunpoint to help others" you really mean "compelled by the law to pay my taxes", since tax evaders aren't actually summarily shot.

Right, the tax evaders aren't shot for not paying their taxes, they are just locked up in cages. To actually get shot you need to resist being kidnapped and locked in a cage. But then again, to actually get shot by a mugger, you need to resist giving your wallet. It's the same thing, just a bit more elaborate with a few extra steps.


Is it just the welfare part that bothers you, or are you as principled when it comes to the government using tax funds to build roads and schools?

I don't care what the ends are, the means aren't justified. It's immoral to take money from people by force against their wills.


If it's just welfare spending that bothers you, why are you concentrating on the small fry? Defence contractors and the agricultural sector get billions in handouts from the US government.

I'm not concentrating on anything. I'm simply responding to a thread. If you make a thread about how much corporate welfare sucks, I'll post in it too. Don't pretend that I can't be against more than one thing at a time. That's a false dilemma.


I can't help but notice that you "rugged individualist" types hardly if ever get worked up about corporate welfare, in spite of the fact that the wasteful excesses of such spending far exceed their counterparts in individual welfare.

Corporate welfare isn't worse just because of the dollar amounts. It's worse because it props up failing businesses that should go under. If competition is being stifled then what's the point of a free market? Personal welfare is immoral and incentivizes laziness. Corporate welfare is immoral and fucks up the entire economy.


I know of huge oil companies that get billions of $ of taxpayer subsidies, and then proceed to jack up the price of gasoline without rhyme or reason, at the same time they rake in billions of $ in profit, and get a huge George Bush tax cut, with even more tax cuts being proposed by Republican candidates (they even try to 'out-taxcut' one another)

That's the equivalent of "he started it". I'm against all theft (taxation) and what it gets spent on will never make theft moral.


BTW. Being a mother is much more than a full time job. You easily work 80+ hours a week. Being a single parent even more so.

Who cares if you work for your own personal benefit? Why do I need to pay you for a job that doesn't benefit me. If it does benefit me, you wouldn't need to force me to pay you.


First of all, there is no such thing as a welfare queen.

So you were on welfare once and that makes you an expert? You've checked everybody out and know for a fact that they aren't abusing the system? Of course not, that's stupid. You being on welfare qualifies you to talk about one person. Your assertion that there are no welfare queens based on such limited information is intellectual dishonesty.

[Jimmie Higgins]

It's a society as long as it's voluntary.Capitalist societies, all class societies in modern times are vastly non-voluntary. You have to go back to the 1870s to find a time when more than a barely quantifiable fraction of US society had a voluntary choice between participating in society or living off some land somewhere. Those guys probably were still only in the 1,000s because even most frontier people just merely part of smaller versions of this same society. So any argument of this being a voluntary society, of people choosing to work minimum wage or rent shitty apartments voluntarily is complete fantasy to the extend that if you told a psychiatrist all this, you probably walk out of the office with a prescription for some pretty fun pills.


If I need your help then I should ask you and if you don't want to help me, I should respect your decision. Who picks my food? The person I pay to do it. If they don't want to do it, I'll have to do it myself.Delusions of grandeur...


I'm not holding a gun to their heads.
...paranoia...

If they want to go be a farmer and live off the land, they can do that....difficulty separating what's imagined from what's real.

Hmmm.

And on top of that arguing that a Chilean dictator who rounded up trade-unionists in a stadium and slaughtered them, disappeared and tortured people, and repressed the entire population was actually good for the country.

Hmmm.

Sociopath?

[Metacomet]

So you were on welfare once and that makes you an expert? You've checked everybody out and know for a fact that they aren't abusing the system? Of course not, that's stupid. You being on welfare qualifies you to talk about one person. Your assertion that there are no welfare queens based on such limited information is intellectual dishonesty.


The........................irony of what you just wrote is mind boggling.

[Thirsty Crow]

Justify the existence of welfare. Why should the upper middle class pay the MOST in taxes to pay for welfare programs that WE don't need.
Because if social security of some kind weren't in place, many people comprising the army of the unemployed, who aren't unemloyed because they're lazy but because capital has no need for their labour power (essentially maintained and developed by technological advancement which lessens the need for living labour), would be left for dead, and totally reliant on private charity (which is, nowadays, nowhere near enough to make life bearable for destitute people, and just imagine if social security were scrapped). Ultimately, capital needs social security for the maintenance of this army of the unemployed, since people at the verge of death cannot represent a threat of competition to thohttp://www.revleft.com/vb/revleft/editor/menupop.gifse who are emplyoed, and because the broader social and political conditions for maintainging global capitalism demand that particular states do not risk entering a revolutionary situation, which would be precipitated if living standards were to fall for the unemployed as a result of the dmeolition of so called welfare.

I don't even won't to get into this bullshit of poor poor "middle class" paying taxes etc.

[Night Ripper]

Name calling, how cute.


Capitalist societies, all class societies in modern times are vastly non-voluntary.

Yes they are, because of things like taxes, regulations, etc. Get rid of all that and we'll have a voluntary society. Nobody will be forcing you into a minimum wage job. You'll be able to go become a farmer or a hunter/gatherer if you want. Whining about how tough that would be doesn't generate any sympathy with me. The world does not owe you a living. Thanks for the childish comments though. It shows me the level of debate your side is bringing to the table.


The........................irony of what you just wrote is mind boggling.

There's nothing ironic in my claim that some people abuse the system. I've provided evidence for that. Try bringing something to the discussion instead of just "NO U" one-liners. This isn't 4chan.

[Metacomet]

Name calling, how cute.



Yes they are, because of things like taxes, regulations, etc. Get rid of all that and we'll have a voluntary society. Nobody will be forcing you into a minimum wage job. You'll be able to go become a farmer or a hunter/gatherer if you want. Whining about how tough that would be doesn't generate any sympathy with me. The world does not owe you a living. Thanks for the childish comments though. It shows me the level of debate your side is bringing to the table.



There's nothing ironic in my claim that some people abuse the system. I've provided evidence for that. Try bringing something to the discussion instead of just "NO U" one-liners. This isn't 4chan.


You dismiss someone's personal anecdote because it's irrelevant. However your own personal anecdotes are perfectly relevant and prove beyond a doubt that everyone on welfare/assistance is a "welfare queen"

(Looks out the window, doesn't see a Cadillac)

[Night Ripper]

However your own personal anecdotes are perfectly relevant and prove beyond a doubt that everyone on welfare/assistance is a "welfare queen"

You are either trolling or fail at reading comprehension. Either way, get a fucking clue. I never said or even suggested everyone or even most people on welfare are welfare queens. The article I linked to about welfare fraud even points out that the amount of fraud discovered is less than 1%.

Hint: Use the quote feature to avoid making strawman arguments.

[Revolution starts with U]

Nightripper, you make a voluntary choice to remain a US (or wherever) citizen. If you don't like welfare, you are free to move to one of the many countries out there that don't have it, anytime you feel like it.

Getting rid of taxes alone will not create voluntarism. Capitalists talking about voluntary JOBS, and free MARKETS, is just getting tiring. The words, in themselves, are contradictory. Being forced to work for someone else is not voluntary, things you pay for are not free. The only way to create a volunteer society is to provide all with basic subsistence, so that they can really choose what they want to do. That's voluntary. It's like Gaia put a gun to my head and made me trade with you, and from your privelaged position you call it "free will."

Foundationally, I'm not even in that much disagreement over whether or not people should be forced to pay for welfare (I actually think that when power and wealth reside more in the hands of the worker, who is more personally connected with the community, welfare will be OVERfunded, regardless of if forced or not). But as long as I have to pay the state to protect your private property, you have to pay to protect my nieces and nephews ability to eat. Cry about it :crying:

[Night Ripper]

Nightripper, you make a voluntary choice to remain a US (or wherever) citizen. If you don't like welfare, you are free to move to one of the many countries out there that don't have it, anytime you feel like it.

Getting rid of taxes alone will not create voluntarism. Capitalists talking about voluntary JOBS, and free MARKETS, is just getting tiring. The words, in themselves, are contradictory. Being forced to work for someone else is not voluntary, things you pay for are not free. The only way to create a volunteer society is to provide all with basic subsistence, so that they can really choose what they want to do. That's voluntary. It's like Gaia put a gun to my head and made me trade with you, and from your privelaged position you call it "free will."

Foundationally, I'm not even in that much disagreement over whether or not people should be forced to pay for welfare (I actually think that when power and wealth reside more in the hands of the worker, who is more personally connected with the community, welfare will be OVERfunded, regardless of if forced or not). But as long as I have to pay the state to protect your private property, you have to pay to protect my nieces and nephews ability to eat. Cry about it :crying:

It's fucking hilarious that you have no problem suggesting I move to the North Pole to avoid government taxation but if I suggest people actually provide for their own supper it's "ZOMG WAGE SLAVERY".

[Franz Fanonipants]

It's fucking hilarious that you have no problem suggesting I move to the North Pole to avoid government taxation but if I suggest people actually provide for their own supper it's "ZOMG WAGE SLAVERY".

you should be moved there involuntarily

[Night Ripper]

you should be moved there involuntarily

If only you had the balls to try it personally.

[Franz Fanonipants]

If only you had the balls to try it personally.

lol yeah bro i lack balls to make good on funny internet comments sorry

[Night Ripper]

lol yeah bro i lack balls to make good on funny internet comments sorry

At least you admit you're trolling. As for the "funny" part, we'll have to agree to disagree on that.

[Franz Fanonipants]

At least you admit you're trolling. As for the "funny" part, we'll have to agree to disagree on that.

are you this much of a stick in the mud irl or do you have a few chuckles while obsessively polishing your guns and worrying about the gov't? y/n

[Night Ripper]

are you this much of a stick in the mud irl or do you have a few chuckles while obsessively polishing your guns and worrying about the gov't? y/n

I'm only a stick in the mud on this website because the moderators are biased and make sure to give me an infraction for anything posted by me that isn't dead serious while letting people like you run wild. If I were to act like you, I'd be banned within a few hours. Personally, I think everything is funny and tragic at the same time. If you want to have fun with me, track me down on another forum site using Google. I use this nick elsewhere. I won't name any names because of course I'd receive an infraction for that too.

[Franz Fanonipants]

I'm only a stick in the mud on this website because the moderators are biased and make sure to give me an infraction for anything posted by me that isn't dead serious while letting people like you run wild. If I were to act like you, I'd be banned within a few hours. Personally, I think everything is funny and tragic at the same time. If you want to have fun with me, track me down on another forum site using Google. I use this nick elsewhere. I won't name any names because of course I'd receive an infraction for that too.

boy sounds rough that you have elected to post somewhere you hate as a result of your idiot politics

[Revolution starts with U]

It's fucking hilarious that you have no problem suggesting I move to the North Pole to avoid government taxation but if I suggest people actually provide for their own supper it's "ZOMG WAGE SLAVERY".

Ya, well... "ZOMG WAGE SLAVERY" as you say :thumbup:

If I'm forced to live under this shit I don't like, and you are forced to live under shit you don't like... tough titties for us.

The difference is the left recognizes the way out; through class struggle, and the eventual dominance of the productive class (most people). The right is just sitting around going "argh, government! Poor people run the government and that's the problem!" It's so delusional.
Make no mistake, my argument can eventually be boiled downt to the existence of class struggle, and your argument basically boils down to the existence of government. I find your view superficial and illusory. Government is a means people use for an end; that is personal profit at the expense of everyone else. If you can find it in government, it started amongst "private' citizens.

[Franz Fanonipants]

on the original topic:

i love foodstamps. when i qualified for foodstamps i ate healthier and cheaper than ever.

everyone in the united states should have 200 dollars worth of foodstamps assigned to them automatically.

[TheGodlessUtopian]

Oh the gun isn't being pressed against my temple but most criminal gangs don't need to flash their pieces every time to get results. They just need to make a few examples and the rest fall in line. If you are really that misinformed that taxes aren't enforced using violence then by all means, refuse to pay your taxes, throw away every letter the government sends you in the mail, eventually someone will show up in a costume to kidnap you and if you resist, you will be shot. There's nothing dramatic about that. That's just the reality of government taxation..

The pigs don't execute people for refusing to pay taxes. You still haven't shown any proof that some entity is forcing you to pay taxes.

[Metacomet]

You are either trolling or fail at reading comprehension. Either way, get a fucking clue. I never said or even suggested everyone or even most people on welfare are welfare queens. The article I linked to about welfare fraud even points out that the amount of fraud discovered is less than 1%.

Hint: Use the quote feature to avoid making strawman arguments.


Your right I'm such a troll I have -150+ rep.

[Night Ripper]

Your right I'm such a troll I have -150+ rep.

Of course I have bad rep. I oppose your ideology. But my post history speaks for itself. I actually believe what I preach and would love to practice it if/when states are seen to be obsolete and immoral. I'm not a troll. I'm not even here to convert you. I'd love to just coexist. Have your communes and leave me alone.

[Rafiq]

Of course I have bad rep. I oppose your ideology. But my post history speaks for itself. I actually believe what I preach and would love to practice it if/when states are seen to be obsolete and immoral. I'm not a troll. I'm not even here to convert you. I'd love to just coexist. Have your communes and leave me alone.

Good, go live in a dumpster. Just don't expext anyone to provide you with services. Or are you going to pay them with money? Oh wait, you have to earn that while interacting with us in our "communes"(communes aren't a fucking solution, anyway).

Basically, you want to be left alone while recieving electricity, food others made, etc. From people who aren't being "Left alone"?

[Rafiq]

If only you had the balls to try it personally.

You think you can fight hundreds of armed proletarians throwing you into the shit hole you deserve yo be in? Whoah, we gotta badass over here!

[danyboy27]

Africa needs foreign investment NOT socialism Remember african socialism was a failure

Africa already got a shitload of foreign money dirrected at plundering their ressources for a quick buck, the result today of such action is obviously mass povrety, cheap labor for the corporations and almost free access to ressources.

It does not change the fact that right now, the rulling class and the tiny upper class of those countries have to check their back all the time beccause of the massive amount of povrety and lack of services to stop those desesperate people to get a gun and kill a university teacher/buisnessman for his wristwatch.

The countries who did the best in the whole african continent are those with structured social program like South africa and Libya, those who did worst are those with no social programs and massive foreign investment like Nigeria and the democratic republic of congo and liberia.

I am not currently arguing with you about socialism, but about the necessity for a capitalist system to have state and social program to last more than a year or so.

Welfare programs are not socialists, it does not change the relation between the worker and private property.

[Drosophila]

Have your communes and leave me alone.

Enjoy being exploited for your labor in your shitty utopia.

[Night Ripper]

you are all barking up the wrong tree.



Because otherwise an army of poor will be stringing your sorry ass from a tree in order to obtain what you own and stole from them so they can eat again.

Pretty much the only reason...and pretty much historical fact.

So you think might makes right or are you confusing what does happen with what should happen?

[Saviorself]

Here's a novel idea: if you don't want to be mugged and your wallet stolen, stop working. Right, because the fact you have money is the issue, not the asshole robbing you.

If someone were trying to rob me, they would catch a bullet with their teeth. And if you are being robbed by anyone, it is the state taking the money from your checks. But my point still stands, if you don't like supporting these systems then stop working or find a job that doesn't tax income. Those are your only two options. Failing either of those: fucking deal with it.


If I'm starving and I steal food, I expect to be brought to justice, forced to pay off the cost of the food I stole, plus a little extra, and if I have no money, put to work until it's paid off. At no point will I be one of these self-entitled leeches demanding that I'm owed something just because I feel that I do.

When did I ever say anything about stealing food? Either address the points I actually made or don't bother replying. I have had enough strawman arguments on this site for one lifetime. But since we're on the subject; I would steal food before I let myself starve to death and I can't imagine there being anyone who, if they had the opportunity, wouldn't steal food to survive simply because of some bullshit moral qualm.

[Danielle Ni Dhighe]

I'm currently in a state disability program, which could be considered welfare. It's really difficult to live like royalty in the US on $197 per month.

[LOLseph Stalin]

To answer the OP, there's a little thing called compassion and helping out your fellow humans.

[gorillafuck]

At least you admit you're trolling. As for the "funny" part, we'll have to agree to disagree on that.it was funny regardless of ideology


Personally, I think everything is funny and tragic at the same time.you and I have different ideas of what is tragic

[Klaatu]

Many small business people work really hard and often HAVE to be nicer to their workers since they can't offer as many benefits so they try to make up for it by allowing a looser less corporate atmosphere on the job. It's not a rule, I have worked for people who started shops because they actually like what they do and so it does feel like more of a team effort on a sort of surface level. Alternately I have worked for plenty of petty-bourgeois pieces of shit who didn't care what they were selling or how people (customers or workers) were treated. I worked with a guy who set up a fancy deli and I was paid well but he was a real estate developer and once the place was set up he flipped it within months of opening, pocketed the money, and everyone was fired. Another guy I worked for was straight out of business school and was using his parents money (they were also business people) to turn his school business model into reality. Again, he hired talented skilled people to set up the place, used the techniques and recipies developed by the cooks he originally hired, treated the main guy like he was a de-facto partner in the business and then fired him, stole what the guy had developed for the restaurant and then hired people who made $9/hr to do the professional cook's job.

At any rate, I don't think it's useful to look at individual petty-bourgeois owners (or even major capitalists) practices to illustrate the exploitation and other inherent tendencies in capitalism because how people individually behave changes and depends on circumstances or even personal style. Even some slave-masters were well-known for their kindness to their slaves, but that's an individual impression, not an overall view of the slave system -- being a well-treated slave is to still be a slave. So in the big picture of capitalism too, yes, as a class, the capitalists as well as the small capitalists have to exploit us and maintain an inherently fucked-up system in order to operate regardless of their individual temperaments, business models, or intentions.

I digress, there certainly are very small, family-owned businesses that treat their workers well (their own legal-age kids!) For example, my local bakery and my butcher shop, as well as my favorite Chinese restaurant, all employ only their own family members (what parent would cheat their hard-working kid?)

It just miffs me that the right-winger troll here calls me "stupid" for recognizing the fact that workers deserve a fair rate of pay, especially considering the vastly-overpaid businessmen, athletes, radio-TV 'entertainers,' and last but not least, the "Bain Capital" criminals of the world.. :cursing:

[Regicollis]

Libertarians claim capitalism is voluntary. You don't have to get a job you don't like or live somewhere you don't like.

OK. Let's make a thougt experiment. Tomorrow I decide that I don't want to be part of the capitalist system anymore. Fuck it - I will just go and live off the land somewhere. But hey - somebody already owns all the land - especially the pieces of land you can actually live off.

Ahh fuck it. I'll just find some government-owned wilderness to live off. After all tit is only fair that I use the government's land as a compensation for the government taking my hard-earned money at gunpoint to pay for flatscreens and filet mignon for the welfare queens.

OK - there isn't much wilderness anywhere near where I live. It seems like it has all become cultivated and is now part of the capitalist system. I take a look at a map. The nearest wilderness seems to be in Norway (it was not the Norwegian state who robbed me but all states are the same) so I go there. It is lucky that I earned money for the ticket back when I was voluntarily part of the capitalist system.

Now I finally find myself in my wilderness free from taking part in the capitalist system. Now all I need to do is build some shelter, farm some land and hunt some animals... But what... I actually need tools and shit to do that. But getting my hand on that would mean that I would have to take part in the capitalist system to buy it. Fuck it - I'm a real man... I'll just use my bare hands...

...

I'll stop the thought experiment. Not taking part in the capitalist system seems entirely realistic and doable:rolleyes:

[Klaatu]

Regicollis, this makes me think of the Amish people here in the US. They do not wish to participate in capitalist society (for different reasons than ours) but find they must at some point trade with The English, in order to buy the things they need (special tools, medicines, etc)

[GoddessCleoLover]

While the Amish reject certain aspects of modernity they definitely take part in the capitalist economy and often quite successfully.

[Klaatu]

While the Amish reject certain aspects of modernity they definitely take part in the capitalist economy and often quite successfully.

Some factions do (Mennonites) while others do not.

[Sir Comradical]

1. Because the jobs aren't there.
2. If you're working for 2-7 dollars an hour, you probably still need welfare.

[LOLseph Stalin]

1. Because the jobs aren't there.
2. If you're working for 2-7 dollars an hour, you probably still need welfare.

That is true. I was raised in a single parent household and every day my mother struggled to get by even while working. Welfare actually provides very little. I'm on disability now and can't afford much of anything really.

[ÑóẊîöʼn]

Right, the tax evaders aren't shot for not paying their taxes, they are just locked up in cages. To actually get shot you need to resist being kidnapped and locked in a cage. But then again, to actually get shot by a mugger, you need to resist giving your wallet. It's the same thing, just a bit more elaborate with a few extra steps.

The mugger analogy, despite it being a useful rhetorical ploy when used with the politically naive, breaks down when you consider the larger picture. After all, how many muggers do you know that build roads, schools and hospitals using the money they acquire?


I don't care what the ends are, the means aren't justified. It's immoral to take money from people by force against their wills.

Your right to money does not exceed the rights of others to a decent standard of living, a major part of which is met by the provision of aforementioned services funded by taxpayer money.


I'm not concentrating on anything. I'm simply responding to a thread. If you make a thread about how much corporate welfare sucks, I'll post in it too. Don't pretend that I can't be against more than one thing at a time. That's a false dilemma.

The problem is that all you types who whinge on about the iniquity of having to pay taxes to support people on welfare are all exactly the same. You'll whine on and on and on and on and on about how horrible it is that people are able to claim welfare instead of starving in the streets, but it requires prompting from someone else to remind ideologues like you that so much more money is being is being to pumped to corporations who don't actually need it.


Corporate welfare isn't worse just because of the dollar amounts. It's worse because it props up failing businesses that should go under. If competition is being stifled then what's the point of a free market?

So you would have no problem with the government handing out money to successful businesses? They do that too, you know.


Personal welfare is immoral and incentivizes laziness.

[citation needed]

If what you said was true, then any attempt at establishing a welfare state would be an immediate and unmitigated failure, because they would collapse under the weight of claimants.

But in the real world, this doesn't happen. Just goes to show that free-market no-welfare types aren't concerned about reality, or their fellow citizens.

[TheGodlessUtopian]

I digress, there certainly are very small, family-owned businesses that treat their workers well (their own legal-age kids!) For example, my local bakery and my butcher shop, as well as my favorite Chinese restaurant, all employ only their own family members (what parent would cheat their hard-working kid?)

Plenty... I suppose you haven't seen many of those shows where the mother swaps families for a week or a month and enters into a home that runs a business. In short, from what I have seen on reality TV, not a good source I know, the families often don't even pay their kids as it is expected they will "help out."

Locally the petite-bourgeoisie down the road forced his kid to work in his store.The kid was 11 at the time (still works there). It wasn't very demanding work but it illustrates my point well.

I am sure there are many other who do give their children better treatment than "normal" employees, but I am simply trying to convey that there are many who do not give a rat's ass about reimbursing their kid's hard-work.

[Klaatu]

If welfare is so great, then everyone would be on it.

[Klaatu]

Plenty... I suppose you haven't seen many of those shows where the mother swaps families for a week or a month and enters into a home that runs a business. In short, from what I have seen on reality TV, not a good source I know, the families often don't even pay their kids as it is expected they will "help out."

Locally the petite-bourgeoisie down the road forced his kid to work in his store.The kid was 11 at the time (still works there). It wasn't very demanding work but it illustrates my point well.

I am sure there are many other who do give their children better treatment than "normal" employees, but I am simply trying to convey that there are many who do not give a rat's ass about reimbursing their kid's hard-work.

Of course, there are parents out there that would literally sell their children into white slavery. There are also new mothers that leave their newborn babies in dumpsters. :crying:

But that's not the norm.

[Sir Comradical]

That is true. I was raised in a single parent household and every day my mother struggled to get by even while working. Welfare actually provides very little. I'm on disability now and can't afford much of anything really.

With America's productive forces everyone should be on 80 grand at least.

[Left Leanings]

Hey, we have a Welfare Queen in the UK. She's the Queen. The state (ie, us) pays for her 4 houses, pays for her holidays, pays for her dysfunctional kids and grandkids... abolish the Welfare State I say.

At 'SocialJusticeActivist'... poor people in America pay a higher percentage of their income in taxes than you do (if you're 'upper middle class', whatever that means) so you really don't have a case.

Next!

Nice one.

I have lived on social security for years due to illness, despite going to university and giving it my best shot to get a job on graduation. It really pisses me off when peeps on benefits are castigated.

Unemployment and poverty, are blamed on the unemployed and the poor. But it is not our fault we are in this position. The prorities of the current economy, is designed to maximise the profits of the rich and powerful, not meet the material needs and aspirations, of the mass of little people.

And the Queen is definitely a recipient of social security. She is, effectively, 'on the dole'. Only her's is rather more lavish than Jobseeker's Allowance - and she is not required to 'sign on'.

Her accommodation is provided at public expense, just like mine (I live in housing association flat, and am on Housing Benefit). Buckingham Palace is a council gaff, only a bit bigger and grander haha :D

[brigadista]

Nice one.

I have lived on social security for years due to illness, despite going to university and giving it my best shot to get a job on graduation. It really pisses me off when peeps on benefits are castigated.

Unemployment and poverty, are blamed on the unemployed and the poor. But it is not our fault we are in this position. The prorities of the current economy, is designed to maximise the profits of the rich and powerful, not meet the material needs and aspirations, of the mass of little people.

And the Queen is definitely a recipient of social security. She is, effectively, 'on the dole'. Only her's is rather more lavish than Jobseeker's Allowance - and she is not required to 'sign on'.

Her accommodation is provided at public expense, just like mine (I live in housing association flat, and am on Housing Benefit). Buckingham Palace is a council gaff, only a bit bigger and grander haha :D

great post - she is indeed the original "welfare queen"

[Genghis]

By redistributing money from the "middle-class", where it would most likely be put towards savings, into the hands of the poor, who will use this money to purchase goods and service, you create economic growth, which benefit the upper-classes more then anyone else.
Secondly because of the fact that they earn a lot more than is required to sustain their livelihood. And remember that these programs benefit all, if a "middle-class" person loses his job, the same welfare programs are available to him.
But what is really wrong with your statement is that there is no such thing as a "welfare queen", living a life on welfare is not a very nice existence.

Problem is that there will be leakages. Much of the goods will be imported. So you are helping foreigners.

[zonmoy]

on the original topic:

i love foodstamps. when i qualified for foodstamps i ate healthier and cheaper than ever.

everyone in the united states should have 200 dollars worth of foodstamps assigned to them automatically.

I actually agree with this person, that should be at least the minimum, of course that should include something akin to ssi and other help for other expenses that a person would have.

[Dr. Rosenpenis]

Bullshit. Just as a personal anecdote I watched a woman buy a cart full of groceries with food stamps and then pull out a wad of $20's to pay for her beer and cigarettes. She was white so don't even pull that racist bullshit with me. People love to game the system. Here's an example...

Source: http://abclocal.go.com/kgo/story?section=news/state&id=7704795

The above is an example of outright fraud but that's not even the real issue. The real issue is that there are people that have no incentive to get a job because they would actually have to work harder to get paid less.

Charity is fine. I donate my time and money when I can to people that are really trying to survive but also rarely need a little extra help. But being taxed through coercion, threats and intimidation, to keep other people floating, many of them so they can continue to live reckless lifestyles is absurd and disgusting.

what's absurd and disgusting is this rhetoric that makes welfare recipients out to be political oponents of the middle and working classes, "gaming the system" and benefiting at the expense of others. when in fact theyre the most disadvantaged members of society who are at no position to exploit anyone.

[l'Enfermé]

The guy isn't so fond of being "taxed through coercion, threats and intimidation", yet he sees no problem with heavily-armed "private militias" running around "enforcing" property rights on the "might makes right" basis. Oh, the inconsistencies in this clown!

[Elysian]

The queen of England is living on dole worth billions, but no one tells her to go get a job. But if poor people try to beat the system, they are evil beyond measure. Amazing. Kill one, you're a murderer. Kill many, you're a conqueror.

[No_Leaders]

The whole notion makes me pretty sick to my stomach. It's like going to any corporate media website(msn, cnn, etc.) and reading the comments, sure boils my blood. Everyone likes to say "not my problem" or "i don't want to pay for some lazy person blah blah" The media pundits and politicians have done a great job of demonizing the poor who have no means or way to exploit anyone in the middle/lower class. Yet a lot of people who despise medicare, unemployment, SS, are these middle class brainwashed right wing nut jobs. It's sad people really need to open up their eyes and realize why these people are in these situations. There's an overall big picture that most everyone here sees, which is capitalism of course. Those same people do not look at capitalism as the cause, but rather jump to conclusions and make assumptions that those in dire need are all free loaders or lazy do nothings.

[brigadista]

after spending the last 2 weeks daily fighting with the DWP I have decided that anyone who manages to actually GET benefits deserves a medal...

[Left Leanings]

The whole notion makes me pretty sick to my stomach. It's like going to any corporate media website(msn, cnn, etc.) and reading the comments, sure boils my blood. Everyone likes to say "not my problem" or "i don't want to pay for some lazy person blah blah" The media pundits and politicians have done a great job of demonizing the poor who have no means or way to exploit anyone in the middle/lower class. Yet a lot of people who despise medicare, unemployment, SS, are these middle class brainwashed right wing nut jobs. It's sad people really need to open up their eyes and realize why these people are in these situations. There's an overall big picture that most everyone here sees, which is capitalism of course. Those same people do not look at capitalism as the cause, but rather jump to conclusions and make assumptions that those in dire need are all free loaders or lazy do nothings.

Exactly.

There are over 7000 people on the dole in my home town, and nothing like 7000 vacancies. People on sickness benefits are currently undergoing 'medical tests' , which will see many found 'fit for work', meaning even more people on the dole, competing for even fewer jobs, as the current crisis in capitalism deepens.

The UK government claims it wants to get the sick back to work. It doesn't cos there are no vanacies for them. The dole pays on average, a good £29 a week less than sickness benefits, and in many cases, a lot less.

It's a cost-cutting exercise for bloated capital farts.

[No_Leaders]

after spending the last 2 weeks daily fighting with the DWP I have decided that anyone who manages to actually GET benefits deserves a medal...

Agreed. My mother was laid off from her job because they company filed bankruptcy. The bank (citi bank to be exact) did not want to give the employees their final paychecks since the company owed the bank money for loans and shit. All the people were called into a meeting in the morning and told the company was closing down and the bank would not give an extension. No vacation time or anything else was paid, they got their final paychecks and that was that. Apply for unemployment and look for a new job..

When i was unemployed and applied for unemployment because of wrongful termination the company fought tooth and nail to keep me from getting the money. They even took it to court (which was done over the phone) i managed to win in the end and they had to pay me. I put so much effort into it, it was ridiculous how hard they make it on people. Another instance when i was 19 years old working at Subway i had no insurance since i got dropped from my dad's plan (i wasn't in school at the time) i applied for Access which is health insurance for low income. Apparently me making 7.00 an hour (min wage at the time) was too much and i did not qualify.

[Pretty Flaco]

If welfare is so great, then everyone would be on it.

except you can make minimum wage and still have an income too high to qualify for it.

[brigadista]

got a call from the actual benefits section[peopel you dont normally see or speak to] telling me the tel advice i was given was completely wrong - which was - not entitled....

the public numbers dont last any time at all if you have a pay as you go mobile because you can get charged for the call and use up all your credit - with all the options messages and then the hanging on time..

the whole uk benefits system is designed to defeat the claimant - i would love to know the current unclaimed benefits figure - bet it s huge

[Black_Rose]

The guy isn't so fond of being "taxed through coercion, threats and intimidation", yet he sees no problem with heavily-armed "private militias" running around "enforcing" property rights on the "might makes right" basis. Oh, the inconsistencies in this clown!


I wish it is still Lent (as one of my resolutions was to give up access to this forum) just so I wouldn't have to see his posts.

I want him to be banned.


what's absurd and disgusting is this rhetoric that makes welfare recipients out to be political oponents of the middle and working classes, "gaming the system" and benefiting at the expense of others. when in fact theyre the most disadvantaged members of society who are at no position to exploit anyone.

The phrase "gaming the system" is inherently bourgeois since it implies that the institutions of the system is inherently just or merciful (as it provides material aid for the unfortunate) with the exception that it is possible to "game". Those who use that phrase never question whether the system itself (capitalism) is just/efficient/benevolent, and a corollary that flows from that is that there are few (if any) "victims" of the system since those "victims" are merely parasitic, immoral, or talentless people unworthy of mercy and sympathy.

[Franz Fanonipants]

I wish it was still Lent (as one of my resolutions was to give up access to this forum) just so I wouldn't have to see his posts.

I want him to be banned.

he was

[Blake's Baby]

...

the whole uk benefits system is designed to defeat the claimant - i would love to know the current unclaimed benefits figure - bet it s huge

The ammount of money that should be paid out but isn't claimed you mean?

http://www.citizensadvice.org.uk/press_office201022

£16billion. That's a lot of money not going to the poorest people in society that should be.

[brigadista]

those figures are from 2010 - benefits system has changed - must be more now

this is interesting -

ATOS being the org contacted to assess medical needs of those claiming Disability living allowance

http://www.guardian.co.uk/society/2012/apr/12/atos-doctors-sign-official-secrets-act?INTCMP=SRCH

[Left Leanings]

those figures are from 2010 - benefits system has changed - must be more now

this is interesting -

ATOS being the org contacted to assess medical needs of those claiming Disability living allowance

http://www.guardian.co.uk/society/2012/apr/12/atos-doctors-sign-official-secrets-act?INTCMP=SRCH

Now this is very worrying. The private sector staff who carry out the medical assessments, are required to sign the Official Secrets Act. This makes it harder for them to blow the whistle, if patient safety is at risk.

And ATOS do not just assess claims for the Disability Living Allowance. They carry out tests for those on Incapacity Benefit and Income Support (due to sickness), as well.

At one time, all that was needed to claim sickness benefits, was medical certification (the so-called 'sick note'), from your General Practitioner.

GPs know their patients history and have a more personal connection. They are far better placed to determine whether an individual is fit for work or not.

What are the DWP saying? That GPs as doctors, are not medically qualified enough to determine incapacity, but some bureacratic asshole who doesn't know the patient, and works for a private company, is?

It's a fucking ruse to stealthily and viciously, deliberately find peeps fit for work, and get them to sign on the dole - cos dole pays less than sick pay.

Bastards. They can go fuck themselves ragged.

[Dr. Rosenpenis]

“Despite the fact that white single motherhood rose steeply in these years (and never-married white mothers collected welfare in record numbers), the mass media and many (white) Americans still responded to single motherhood in racially specific ways. In fact, as white single motherhood became more visible and tolerable for middle-class people (unprecedented numbers of whose own daughters became mothers without marrying), many politicians, policy-makers, and others reserved a special category of opprobrium for African-American single mothers. This group was still cast as poor by definition and costly to taxpayers. Ironically, the new tolerance for unmarried white mothers after Roe v. Wade deepened the isolation of black unwed mothers, now set apart as Welfare Queens. The mainstream media eagerly followed the new white, presumably middle-class unwed mothers by choice in the 1970s, even as the broad backlash against the “bad choices” of black unwed mothers was taking form. That single pregnancy and motherhood was still racially defined or so many Americans in the wake of the human rights movements, in the “era of choice,” was a harbinger, indeed.” — Rickie Solinger