babies havin rabies posted:

Last night on NPR some guy (forgive me for not having specifics, it was a 3 mile drive) was talking about how the 50s and 60s are idealized and said that Americans and the media have always been absolutely outraged about some injustice or crisis, perceived or actual, and the country has always had problems even relatively speaking with things like labor rights, inequality, poverty and education. The conclusion is it is pointless or even an outright dishonesty to hold up a single decade in our short history as a golden era.

Arglebargle III posted:

We will end this

You should send her a graph of state education funding and teaching hires plummeting. I don't know if you're a teacher but I am and it's loving tough getting a job in the U.S. right now. You should at least explain that when the economy crashes government tax revenues crash at all levels and government employees really do feel the pinch. They just don't get their pensions stolen because the government actually has to keep its legal obligations, unlike corporations.

quote:

The Area Number, the first three digits, is assigned by the geographical region. Prior to 1973, cards were issued in local Social Security offices around the country and the Area Number represented the office code in which the card was issued. This did not necessarily have to be in the area where the applicant lived, since a person could apply for their card in any Social Security office. Since 1973, when SSA began assigning SSNs and issuing cards centrally from Baltimore, the area number assigned has been based on the ZIP code in the mailing address provided on the application for the original Social Security card. The applicant's mailing address does not have to be the same as their place of residence. Thus, the Area Number does not necessarily represent the State of residence of the applicant, neither prior to 1973, nor since.

Aeka 2.0 posted:

I'm a little bit confused by the wording here, and I just had twins. Their first 3 digits do not match at all, not even close. So I'm still confused as to what the first 3 numbers are. Residence and mailing address were both the same, what am I missing?

Facebook posted:

Natas Dog posted:

I prefer the opposite, that no one should have to take a drug test to prove their value to society.
Yesterday at 8:21am

TheOtherGuy posted:

Then I say don't accept the check... show yoru value to society.
16 hours ago

Natas Dog posted:

I too live in a world of black and white, where everyone lives and grew up under the exact same level of privilege that I myself enjoy. Therefore, I can condescend to anyone I feel like without a shred of human empathy.
4 hours ago

Natas Dog posted:

I guess I'll elaborate. I would agree with this sentiment if we were to apply it to anyone receiving government money, not just welfare. Big banks should have been forced to take piss tests, and if they failed they shouldn't have gotten bailout money. Farmers should be forced to drug test themselves, and if they fail they lose their subsidies. Churches should be forced to test and lose their tax exempt status if anyone fails. But, in reality, we feel like somehow the poor are a bigger burden on society despite my above examples. There was a proposal in Indiana that failed because the bill was amended to require their congressman and senators to take a drug test too. If that doesn't illustrate the ridiculous double standard we have towards the poor, I don't know what does.

This also assumes that we're only talking about 'illegal' drugs, which is a stupid line in the sand to begin with. I know plenty of alcoholics and smokers who would happily back this policy despite the hypocrisy inherent in backing it. Drug abuse is a social problem that has farther reaching implications than this short sighted policy would address. Would we prescribe treatment to drug abusers excluded by this policy? Would we just let them die in the street? How about their children? The only winner in this scenario is the company administering the drug tests. Meanwhile society as a whole will pay the extraneous costs that this short sighted policy neglects to address.

The reality of the situation is that roughly 2% of welfare recipients would be excluded by this policy. At a cost of roughly 50 dollars per urinalysis, it would cost more to administer the tests than you save in payments. This is just a backwards way of doing things, and only a terrible person with terrible social views would support it. The whole argument boils down to "I hate poor people and think I know better than they do" despite poverty in this country being a generational issue and those advocating these policies having never really experienced true poverty themselves; walk a mile in another man's shoes, as the saying goes. We like to pretend that hard work and perseverance is all it takes to get ahead, but the reality is we don't live in a meritocracy and the just world fallacy is just that, a fallacy. Everyone likes to pretend that the privilege they enjoy is a product of their hard work and dedication, but as a rule their lot in life a a direct product of generations of familial privilege, it's more about who you know and not who you are, so to speak. Unemployment is the highest it's been in a long time and instead of heaping scorn on those who are in a position to take advantage of the programs designed to soften their fall from grace, maybe we should be pressuring those at the top to improve the employment situation and provide opportunities.

We piss away (pardon the pun) far more money when it comes to federal spending every year on bigger boondoggles than welfare and this is a side issue that does nothing but distract from much larger examples of fraud that get pulled off on a daily basis. It gives people one more reason to heap scorn on the poor, despite them already being all but disenfranchised from the current system; and I find it to be in poor taste. Then again, it's always easier to pick on those who don't have a voice than to focus your ire on those with the money and power to fight back against any pressure you might lay on them. I've got plenty more I could use to elaborate my position, but I guess I'll stop here for now since I'll be surprised if this even gets read, let alone any thoughtful replies.
3 hours ago

TheOtherGuy posted:

My world has a lot of "gray." and i was not brought up in a priviledged way. There are too many people who depend on this aid, that should not. single mothers were rewarded for having more children... they get more welfare money, and the kids are no better off. rewarding the wrong behaviors promotes the wrong outcomes.
about an hour ago

Natas Dog posted:

I'd hardly consider the pittance they get to be anything akin to a reward. If you'd ever been in a situation where you were receiving government assistance, you'd probably see it the same way. That's not even counting the shame factor that comes along with being the kid who qualified for free lunches at school. I welcome anyone who thinks that welfare is somehow a 'reward' for being poor to go ahead and try it sometime. It sucks, and I find every attempt to legislate even more hurdles on top of what is already a pretty onerous process to be done in poor taste.

Of course that also cuts against the grain of my Judeo-Christian upbringing as well. Here's a little picture that says it better than I can:
about an hour ago

TheOtherGuy posted:

my wife works in the HS cafeteria... numbers of kids getting free lunches have increased dramatically, and they display no "shame factor" at all. they also get free breakfast... many have false nails, many gold chains, etc.. just about all have fancy cell phones. i don't mind at all helping people who really need assistance but show they are trying to take care of themselves responsibly.
56 minutes ago

Natas Dog posted:

So how does forcing a urinalysis on their parents do that? Or are you suggesting some other policy be implemented, like a "Poor people can't have nice things" bill?
48 minutes ago

Natas Dog posted:

If you want to throw around anecdotes all day I can do that too, but I'm relating my personal experiences and views, not making up straw men to support my argument. The fact that more people are on free lunches now is a sign that not only wages but the number of available jobs is a major problem, not that these people should sell all their worldly possessions and only qualify for free lunches if they show up wearing a barrel like the old depression era comic strips used to use.
43 minutes ago

TheOtherGuy posted:

this is a circular argument. welfare reform enacted a few years ago forced people to take care of themselves, which ultimately improves their mental well being and self esteem. it is easier today to qualify for aid than it ever was. much of the aid is via Social Security. There are churches and other charities they can go to for help (yes, i donate a fair amount to various charities). government assistance should not be a prolonged condition, regardless of the qualifications to receive assistance. It should be a temporary assistance to allow folks to work out some of their problems and fend for themselves again. they should also sacrafice in order to receive assistance. I fear this dialog will not lead to any further meaningful conclusions.
33 minutes ago

Natas Dog posted:

It's not a circular argument at all, right now it's just a series of strawmen that I'm batting at. The initial post that initiated this dialog has been addressed in my posts above, and now I'm just responding to other boogeymen that are completely unrelated and would in no way be addressed by forcing welfare recipients to pee in a cup.

As it stands now, the federal government mandates that you only qualify for 5 years of welfare assistance over your entire lifetime, so it's already temporary. It's not any easier to qualify today than it was 5 years ago, there are just more people who qualify due to falling wages and high unemployment. There are certainly other charitable outlets, but historically they have been woefully inadequate to treat the problem of systemic inequality. Social Security wouldn't have been implemented if indeed that wasn't the case. Whether you'd like to concede it or not, qualifying for these programs means you're already sacrificing quite a bit. It's not like people are taking their welfare money and buying houses, cars, or anything else on the pittance that they get; they're barely treading water.

If you don't want to debate the issue any further that's your right, but when I see people advocating regressive social policies I make it a point to illustrate how regressive they are and point out the specific issues that I see with those regressive policies. My goal isn't to sway you, because you're obviously pretty invested in your regressive views of poor people and their supposed burden on society. My goal is to sway bystanders who may not be completely sold on your dystopian view of how poor people are responsible for ruining our great american way of life. For what it's worth, I've enjoyed our dialog. I hope that you've at least considered what I've said, instead of compartmentalizing it and writing it off as the ramblings of a liberal nutjob without applying any critical thought to your own views.

Believe it or not, I used to share very similar views to the ones you put forth here, despite growing up poor with all the negative social stigma that came with it. It was only through educating myself on the issues and learning that my views were far more rooted in blind faith than any kind of concrete data that I changed them; and I realized most of them were passed on to me via my own family and accepted by me unquestioningly. It wasn't until I decided to really interrogate my own terrible views that I started to realize maybe they weren't as grounded in reality as I'd have liked to believe. It's my belief that only through continuing dialog can other people be prompted to question their own views.
2 seconds ago

TheOtherGuy posted:

I hate the terms "progressive" and "regressive" as the connotate that if you aren't called "progressive" then somehow you are "regressive" or "backward." Somehow "progressive" implies good. sofisticated name calling or classification. FYI Social Security is not just for old people. There are many folks who get "compassion" allowances (benefits), and "disability" benefits. SS recently added more "compassion" qualifications.. easier to get. A lot of folks who have run out of unemployment or other government assistance programs have all of a sudden applied for and were approved to receive "disability" benefits. Of course I don't have access to the reasons for applying and being approved, but it seems quite suspicious to me. I don't blame them for applying, but it seems odd to me that they are (now?) really disabled.? If they really are, good for them. A lot of money in SS is spent on other than "old age retirement" benefits. we have known several folks who have been on the poor side.. years ago you "sucked it up" and improved yourself. today they rely too much on aid (opinion). IF they are doing drugs or spending money on what you called "nice things," when those paying the taxes are not living it up with fancy phones, etc, it seems unfair that they should receive subsidies. Get it together. By the way I think 5 years is a long time to receive aid, if that is the current limit. There are multiple programs, and some folks move from to the other when they run out.. illustrated above with social security disability benefits. we have helped other relatives ourselves. where are these folks families? I am tired of paying all the time with no option to opt out.
39 minutes ago · Like

Natas Dog posted:

When you take a step backward from the status quo, you are regressing, simple and plain, nothing sophisticated about it. It's not the connotations that should bother you, it's the fact that you're advocating the removal of protections that are in place for very solid reasons that should. If you want to combat fraud and keep better tabs on how that money's being spent, I hate to tell you but there are already ways of doing exactly that, but they vary from state to state. Actual studies of fraud statistics show them to be ridiculously low, and they have been since Clinton's welfare reforms in the 90s.

While most the programs you listed aren't really welfare, I'll give you that there are plenty of outlets for assistance available depending on your circumstances. I'm having a hard time seeing that as an objectively 'bad' thing though. Unless we're calling any time that the government gives money to someone else 'welfare' and therefore 'bad'. In that case, how about we tackle the billions in subsidies, tax incentives, and grant money the government gives out every year as corporate and scientific welfare; since they tend to eclipse the amount spent on assistance for the poor by orders of magnitude?

While things may appear suspicious to you, that doesn't mean that they are. Much of the data you say isn't available to you is actually tracked via the various watchdog groups that make it their job to police fraud in government, if you care to actually look for it. The reality is that fraud is harder to pull off today than it was 10, 20, or even more years ago thanks to the internet and increased sharing of information between states and their local governments. Fraud still exists, but it's not nearly as big as you'd like to paint it to be. If you've got studies that illustrate the opposite, I'd honestly love to see them since all the reading I've done points to exactly the opposite. And in that vein, I too abhor fraud and would feel compelled to inform the government if I encountered it, as should any american who cares how his tax dollars are spent.

I don't know where I gave you the impression that I thought Social Security was only used to pay retirement benefits, but I assure you I know the myriad of programs that my social security money pays for. I must say that I'm actually pretty satisfied that my tax dollars are being made available for those programs, especially since I was the beneficiary of those programs in my youth. They gave me the extra push to becoming the productive member of society that I am today, instead of some miser blaming the government for all my problems.

To revisit the 'nice things' argument, you'll have to show me some studies that people on welfare spend all their money on these fancy phones (which tend to replace home phones, or are poor people not allowed to have phones in your ideal welfare state too?). As far as their other possessions go, who's to say that they didn't acquire all those things before they fell on hard times, and why should they have to wait until they're destitute to apply for assistance? It smacks of the old Ronald Reagan "Welfare Queen" anecdote from the 80s, when in reality there was no welfare queen that he could point to, it was just a made up person to help him sell the idea that welfare is somehow bad.

There's a way of opting out, but it requires becoming an expatriate. That's the double edged sword of living in a democracy, tyrrany of the majority. Aside from that, you're left with debating the issues and passing regressive legislation to do away with the policies you find distasteful if you can garner enough support. In order to do that, however, you need to convince enough people that your way is actually the better way, which in my case will require far more evidence than I've seen put forth here or anywhere else I've read.

I'm not sure if there's anything I missed in your long running paragraph, but I tried to hit all the talking points you brought up in some semblance of order. If there's anything I neglected to address, let me know and I'll elaborate further.
2 seconds ago · Like

TheOtherGuy posted:

it is simple... it is easy to make excuses for why people are "entitled." You can also believe that no one is cheating the system. you can believe the statistics if you want to. fraud is hidden until uncovered, when it becomes a statistic, so to me the studies are not very credible. if they knew where all the fraud was they would stop it. the government is not good at efficiency... pretty simple, and i believe accurate by any measure. I do not trust the government to be effective and efficient... it isn;t their money either, and I am sure that people do take advantage of it. Banks - blame it on greed and the Federal Reserve... taking care of themselves (Fed is non-government group of banks)... bailouts, and other tax loopholes - blame the politicians.. they write the tax laws, mostly for their friends benefit. this back and forth could go on for a long time on various facets. I believe that if you have assets, you should use them before asking for assistance. people used to feel some amount shame and reluctance for requiring assistance.. today they are "entitled"...or "owed".... the money comes from the government... Many people continue to accept unemployment payments instead of taking a lower paying or menial job. time for people to accept some responsiblity for their condition. example - taking drugs?... too bad.. no money until you get into a program to clean up.... courts have held that you can't force people work for the government aid... which i think is wrong and I don't understand.. since that is the case, I don;t see a problem having to meet some requirements to receive the aid...., but then again...... why not take it - it isn't their money. unfortunately each of the items believed to be benevolent, and done with a good intention, do get abused and adding them together becomes a lot of real money.
27 minutes ago · Like

Natas Dog posted:

Wow, I don't even know where to start. At this point your entire argument seems to be that no one can be trusted and the only moral person is someone who doesn't get government assistance. I, however, feel quite differently. I feel that by holding up the poor as some kind of example of what's wrong with this country is attacking the symptom, not the underlying causes. Most people aren't just content to sit on their butts all day and collect those big fat government checks, most would rather be working if there was work available. Most people realize that the money they get on welfare is terribly inadequate to subsist even at current levels, and there's no way I can see someone sitting there enjoying his steak tartar on the government dole when I know how little they actually get in assistance.

You can't just dismiss every study done as flawed or inadequate just because that's the way you feel. There are a great many institutions out there that all have eyes on these programs for varying reasons, and even the organizations that hate the idea of social welfare have trouble uncovering fraud. It's not some grand conspiracy to take money from the working class and give it to the poor. It's hard enough for the government to keep top secret military info from getting leaked; do you honestly believe that they're somehow able to conspire to keep the working man down despite that?

The government can't be both all powerful and completely incompetent at the same time, so pick one and stick with it. If they're so incompetent, they wouldn't be able to pull of a conspiracy of this magnitude. And on the flip side, if they're so cunningly efficient, then why would they use that cunning to give poor people all our hard earned money to buy their fancy phones and gold chains? Why wouldn't they use it to do something more productive like stimulate growth and make jobs available for those that are languishing below the poverty line with their infinite power?
2 seconds ago · Like

Natas Dog posted:

Again, sorry if I missed any of your points. You're kind of going off on a rant with these endless paragraphs full of ellipses, so I'm having a hard time zeroing in on your underlying points.

TheOtherGuy posted:

Federal Reserve (is not part of the government) is a cartel/conspiracy among member banks to have the taxpayer subsidize their losses.... and we do.... and still are paying TAP and Twist, and the rest of the money printing. Check it out. The Federal government is trying to be all powerful and IS generally incompetent financially. We borrow 40 cents of every dollar spent. hmmmmmmm. keep spending. check out the value of the fiat dollar over the past 50 years... straight down. those two facts show the incompetence. Obamacare while well intentioned shows the desire of the government to be all powerful. so back to spending on welfare and the like, i have no problem setting the bar high to qualify, so we can start getting some of the spending under control.... many other things could be cut or eliminated as they bring no real value, like Energy Dept, which was created by Jimmy Carter with a mission to reduce our reliance on imported oil... a failure, and all powerful regulator...they do some worthwhile things, but have way too many people... but these are topics for another day. l8r
16 hours ago · Like

Natas Dog posted:

I've always wondered what it looked like seeing someone go off the deep end on facebook. Somehow you took a post about forcing welfare recipients to take drug tests and managed to find your way all the way around to blaming the Fed for conspiring with banks. This is a common tactic when someone can't debate the issue at hand and instead wants to change the subject to catch his opponent off guard; you see it all the time in Primary debates. By meandering so far from the point we've moved from a constructive dialog to what we see in the post above mine.

Here's a little chart I like to refer to when debating people, it helps keep things organized so that I don't get off on a rant and sound like a crazy person. http://i.imgur.com/Xs3Nb.jpg. There's also a handy pyramid that outlines typical debate responses that I find useful. You want to try to stick to the top three tiers of the pyramid, otherwise debates tend to devolve into the bottom tiers of Ad Hominem and Name Calling. http://i.imgur.com/WRrU8.jpg. I highly recommend using them both in the future, as it will likely help you walk away from debates learning something about both your opponent and possibly even yourself. It's hard to understand other people's viewpoints if you live in a virtual echo chamber of terrible opinions. I encourage everyone to engage in open discussion on the issues that they feel strongly about with people that share a differing opinion, simply because it helps reinforce in your own mind any views that are valid and helps you replace any invalid views using and new information gleaned from the conversation. Sadly, that's not what we commonly see in political debates anymore and it's shameful.

I'd just like to close by saying that I did enjoy our initial back and forth on the initial post and the state of welfare in general, but I don't make decisions with my feelings because they're often wrong thanks to a crazy psychological phenomenon called confirmation bias. I prefer to use concrete information to make my decisions, and every study I've read points to the fact that urinalysis will do nothing significant to the number of people currently collecting welfare and is nothing but a feelgood measure to make mean spirited people with an axe to grind against those dirty poors feel better about their own lot in life.

Original Posta posted:

It was quit interesting to read the posts...glad I could be of assistance.
27 minutes ago · Like

TheOtherGuy posted:

I can be amusing sometimes OP. tons of fun. ;-)
8 minutes ago · Like

Natas Dog posted:

Up until it went off topic it was pretty entertaining, glad I could be your verbal sparring partner for a day.

Mr. Banana Grabber posted:

You didn't remark on one of the more interesting parts of his writing which is his insistence that suffering is necessary for those on welfare. I'm not sure where it comes from but there's this mentality that in order to succeed we must suffer and if we're not suffering then we're meant to feel guilty about it. It might come from being American, it might come from being Christian or it might come from being a capitalist. It ties in very well with the old chestnut of the rich being the hardest workers and the poor being lazy since the rich suffer through their hard work and the poor must have chosen not to work hard since they're obviously not successful.

Mr. Banana Grabber posted:

That was fabulously well-written and even if you may have started out a little harsh, I hope that this person actually does critically analyze his own beliefs.

You didn't remark on one of the more interesting parts of his writing which is his insistence that suffering is necessary for those on welfare. I'm not sure where it comes from but there's this mentality that in order to succeed we must suffer and if we're not suffering then we're meant to feel guilty about it. It might come from being American, it might come from being Christian or it might come from being a capitalist. It ties in very well with the old chestnut of the rich being the hardest workers and the poor being lazy since the rich suffer through their hard work and the poor must have chosen not to work hard since they're obviously not successful.

Sarion posted:

They were born after June 25th of last year? If so their numbers were assigned under a new randomization scheme. The first three digits have no significance for them. It is determined randomly now to make identity theft more difficult.

http://www.ssa.gov/employer/randomization.html

KillerBean posted:

I don't even know why you even bother - especially over Facebook. It comes down to people (who post here) that want to engage in dialogue utilizing quantitative/qualitative arguments versus people (who post uninformed poo poo on facebook) that want to spout incoherent talking points using ambiguous terms.

For instance, you assert a logical argument such as "The reality of the situation is that roughly 2% of welfare recipients would be excluded by this policy. At a cost of roughly 50 dollars per urinalysis, it would cost more to administer the tests than you save in payments" and what you get in return is "There are too many people who depend on this aid, that should not."

NatasDog posted:

On that note, he came back with another rant and I came back with another measured rebuttal.

KillerBean posted:

For instance, you assert a logical argument such as "The reality of the situation is that roughly 2% of welfare recipients would be excluded by this policy. At a cost of roughly 50 dollars per urinalysis, it would cost more to administer the tests than you save in payments" and what you get in return is "There are too many people who depend on this aid, that should not."

Aeka 2.0 posted:

Ah thanks, yeah they were born on Jan 1st of this year.

Bombadilillo posted:

His problem was the kids weren't ashamed. He wants children to be ashamed that they have free/discounted lunches because they are poor. How is it the kids fault at all? Hang your head little Timmy, I want some return for those fishstick I bought you.

Bombadilillo posted:

His problem was the kids weren't ashamed. He wants children to be ashamed that they have free/discounted lunches because they are poor. How is it the kids fault at all? Hang your head little Timmy, I want some return for those fishstick I bought you.

SmuglyDismissed posted:

I propose we install an electronic monitor that tracks enzymes and chemicals in the bodies of all people who receive government aid. If we detect that they may be experiencing happiness, love, excitement or anything like that we can terminate their benefits instantly. If they take MY TAX DOLLARS, they need to feed sad, hopeless and ashamed.

Bombadilillo posted:

His problem was the kids weren't ashamed. He wants children to be ashamed that they have free/discounted lunches because they are poor. How is it the kids fault at all? Hang your head little Timmy, I want some return for those fishstick I bought you.

yaoi prophet posted:

Sarion posted:

Both had an affair with Marylin Monroe? Are you sure this isn't a joke.

RPZip posted:

It pretty clearly is a joke, and a funny one at that.

Dr Christmas posted:

That goddamn urinalysis picture is popping a lot up on my previously-strangely-clear-of-right-wing-bullshit Facebook wall.

Sarion posted:

Yeah, I didn't read it all, I just skipped around and read a few before I posted. It is pretty good

yaoi prophet posted:

Mr Ice Cream Glove posted:

http://www.wset.com/story/16618896/day-of-purity-video-getting-international-attention

Liberty University Presents: Purity Bear

Soviet Commubot posted:

Politifact posted:

Catherine McCormick-Lelyveld, a spokeswoman for Michelle Obama, told us via e-mail that Michelle Obama's staff is now closer to 25 people.

How does that stack up?

"First lady Michelle Obama’s staff is no different in size than that of her predecessor, Laura Bush -- around 25 people -- and is based on a similar staffing model," said McCormick-Lelyveld. "So suggestions that our staff is larger are wrong. While every first lady approaches the job differently, the responsibilities of the office of the first lady have grown over the years to include planning and hosting hundreds of events at the White House and across the city of D.C., planning and supporting domestic and foreign travel with and without President Obama, receiving, cataloging and responding to thousands of pieces of mail, and supporting the first lady’s active schedule in support of the President -- hence the staff size for both Mrs. Bush and Mrs. Obama."

The size of a first lady's staff fluctuates year to year. First ladies typically have several staff members each handling correspondence, press, social engagements and projects. At 25, Michelle Obama's staff is similar in size to her immediate predecessors.

Mr Ice Cream Glove posted:

http://www.wset.com/story/16618896/day-of-purity-video-getting-international-attention

Liberty University Presents: Purity Bear

myron_cope posted:

Oh no, endorsed by the communist party That might mean something

Mr Ice Cream Glove posted:

http://www.wset.com/story/16618896/day-of-purity-video-getting-international-attention

Liberty University Presents: Purity Bear

Loving Life Partner posted:

Why Valentine's day and not prom night?