How LONG Until Immigrants Get Welfare?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:Funny, but I'm noticing a parallel between this thread and the one on whether low-income people should pay $10 to see a doctor (given that they have been provided free health insurance via great sacrifices from the middle class, who now are struggling themselves to afford medical insurance).

Liberals are arguing that the group that is worse off should be provided for, even if it makes the "better off" group worse off themselves. For example, we need to give illegals a oath to citizenship even though the majority will depend on govt assistance when we can't even afford to care for our veterans....and we should give lower-income all medical care completely free even though it has cost many middle-income people the ability to afford their own health insurance.

And before the bleeding hearts jump on me, I am NOT equating low-income with illegals. It is the philosophy behind it - that the underdog should be elevated even though it harms the group just above them and effectively lowers their standard of living. This, people, is socialism. That the lower get raised and the middle gets lowered until they are both "equal."

Not a liberal but want to point out a critical differentiation. Any time you take money from one group to subsidize the activity of the other group, you make the money-taken-from group worse off. Clearly, however, we agree that those who are better off should shoulder a larger amount of the burden, and we need to take care of those who are truly not able to care for themselves - it's what makes us a civilized society. So the taking of money in and of it self is not a problem.

The problem is the liberal belief that people should be "equal" in not just equal treatment and protection under the law, but equal in terms of outcome and quality of life. The world is not equal, so it's irrational to forcibly march towards this equality. Socialism and communism both tried to achieve this level of equality and both have failed spectacularly.

We can and should provide basic healthcare to those who are not able to help themselves. But we should not be providing "gold" level healthcare free, while middle class families struggle to afford "silver" level plans.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Funny, but I'm noticing a parallel between this thread and the one on whether low-income people should pay $10 to see a doctor (given that they have been provided free health insurance via great sacrifices from the middle class, who now are struggling themselves to afford medical insurance).

Liberals are arguing that the group that is worse off should be provided for, even if it makes the "better off" group worse off themselves. For example, we need to give illegals a oath to citizenship even though the majority will depend on govt assistance when we can't even afford to care for our veterans....and we should give lower-income all medical care completely free even though it has cost many middle-income people the ability to afford their own health insurance.

And before the bleeding hearts jump on me, I am NOT equating low-income with illegals. It is the philosophy behind it - that the underdog should be elevated even though it harms the group just above them and effectively lowers their standard of living. This, people, is socialism. That the lower get raised and the middle gets lowered until they are both "equal."

Why is socialism in terms of taking care of the most vulnerable in society such a dirty word? People in some European socialist countries seem to be happier than people in our country.

I am tired of my tax money going to welfare recipients who are too lazy to get a job, too. But, I also understand that there truly are people who need some help. How do we distinguish between those who are moochers and those who really need the help and are trying themselves.

I read about a county in New England where they tied food stamps to volunteering (things like cleaning up the streets etc). This only applied to people who didn't have small children. Magically, the number of food stamp recipients went down. I would like to see this kind of thing implemented throughout the country.

Ah-ha! That is the $64k question. (I'm the PP.) I've said similar things myself - that if only there was a way to figure out who really needed the money and who was exploiting the system. It actually concerned UE insurance, but the principle is the same. A young woman (mid-20s I'd guess) lost her job in April. She was out at the pool all day, all summer, reading paperbacks. When I asked her if she's worried that her UE will run out and she'll be out of a job, she told me....nah....I'll start looking at the end of August. Apparently she did, because she told me last month that she had a job.

Studies show this, too. There is a big uptick in people finding jobs within two weeks before UE runs out. I would love the example you gave in requiring people "pitch in" through volunteering to receive food stamps.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Funny, but I'm noticing a parallel between this thread and the one on whether low-income people should pay $10 to see a doctor (given that they have been provided free health insurance via great sacrifices from the middle class, who now are struggling themselves to afford medical insurance).

Liberals are arguing that the group that is worse off should be provided for, even if it makes the "better off" group worse off themselves. For example, we need to give illegals a oath to citizenship even though the majority will depend on govt assistance when we can't even afford to care for our veterans....and we should give lower-income all medical care completely free even though it has cost many middle-income people the ability to afford their own health insurance.

And before the bleeding hearts jump on me, I am NOT equating low-income with illegals. It is the philosophy behind it - that the underdog should be elevated even though it harms the group just above them and effectively lowers their standard of living. This, people, is socialism. That the lower get raised and the middle gets lowered until they are both "equal."

Why is socialism in terms of taking care of the most vulnerable in society such a dirty word? People in some European socialist countries seem to be happier than people in our country.

I am tired of my tax money going to welfare recipients who are too lazy to get a job, too. But, I also understand that there truly are people who need some help. How do we distinguish between those who are moochers and those who really need the help and are trying themselves.

I read about a county in New England where they tied food stamps to volunteering (things like cleaning up the streets etc). This only applied to people who didn't have small children. Magically, the number of food stamp recipients went down. I would like to see this kind of thing implemented throughout the country.

Ah-ha! That is the $64k question. (I'm the PP.) I've said similar things myself - that if only there was a way to figure out who really needed the money and who was exploiting the system. It actually concerned UE insurance, but the principle is the same. A young woman (mid-20s I'd guess) lost her job in April. She was out at the pool all day, all summer, reading paperbacks. When I asked her if she's worried that her UE will run out and she'll be out of a job, she told me....nah....I'll start looking at the end of August. Apparently she did, because she told me last month that she had a job.

Studies show this, too. There is a big uptick in people finding jobs within two weeks before UE runs out. I would love the example you gave in requiring people "pitch in" through volunteering to receive food stamps.

Of families that get food stamps, and enormous number are elderly or disabled. Of those that are of working age and not disabled, 60% of households have at least one adult working full time and 80% have an adult who worked full time within the last year. We are not going to save the budget by harassing food stamp recipients.

If you really want to trim the deficit, stop trying to be the world's policeman and cut military spending. We spend as much on the military as the next 24 largest spenders COMBINED.

[Anonymous]

I'm hoping wikileaks provides some info on what HRC really intends to do about illegal immigration, factory jobs moving out, etc.

Interesting show on CNN with Lisa Ling on drugs/heroin and Chicago. Ling said AA's moved to Chicago for jobs and jobs left/closed so decades later...

And the unstoppable flow of heroin from/through Mexico.

[Anonymous]

I'm a small retail business owner. Twice I have had an individual come into my business with a form that they have asked me to sign, stating that they asked for a job here and I turned them down. When I asked them if they would like to actually apply for a job, they said, "No, let me explain. I don't want a job. I just need you to sign this form saying I tried to get a job here so I can show Unemployment."

The fraud in the system is sickening.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

If you really want to trim the deficit, stop trying to be the world's policeman and cut military spending. We spend as much on the military as the next 24 largest spenders COMBINED.

But yet the world expects us to continue helping them!! America has always taken this role of helping the persecuted. What should we do instead - welcome them all here instead of trying to help them where they are?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Funny, but I'm noticing a parallel between this thread and the one on whether low-income people should pay $10 to see a doctor (given that they have been provided free health insurance via great sacrifices from the middle class, who now are struggling themselves to afford medical insurance).

Liberals are arguing that the group that is worse off should be provided for, even if it makes the "better off" group worse off themselves. For example, we need to give illegals a oath to citizenship even though the majority will depend on govt assistance when we can't even afford to care for our veterans....and we should give lower-income all medical care completely free even though it has cost many middle-income people the ability to afford their own health insurance.

And before the bleeding hearts jump on me, I am NOT equating low-income with illegals. It is the philosophy behind it - that the underdog should be elevated even though it harms the group just above them and effectively lowers their standard of living. This, people, is socialism. That the lower get raised and the middle gets lowered until they are both "equal."

Not a liberal but want to point out a critical differentiation. Any time you take money from one group to subsidize the activity of the other group, you make the money-taken-from group worse off. Clearly, however, we agree that those who are better off should shoulder a larger amount of the burden, and we need to take care of those who are truly not able to care for themselves - it's what makes us a civilized society. So the taking of money in and of it self is not a problem.

The problem is the liberal belief that people should be "equal" in not just equal treatment and protection under the law, but equal in terms of outcome and quality of life. The world is not equal, so it's irrational to forcibly march towards this equality. Socialism and communism both tried to achieve this level of equality and both have failed spectacularly.

We can and should provide basic healthcare to those who are not able to help themselves. But we should not be providing "gold" level healthcare free, while middle class families struggle to afford "silver" level plans.

Yes! I'm the PP, and you've articulated the problem better than I. Liberals don't understand it, but poor people are now provided the best of the best - fully paid gold plans - while much of the moderate class ($50s, $60s, thereabouts) are sacrificing to be able to afford the premiums on even a silver - and in many cases have been forced to go down to a bronze and hope they stay healthy. (Hence, the appearance of the "underinsured middle class".) Doctors are reporting that their patient load has reversed so that they are comprised primarily of "free" lower income, while the middle skip needed exams and treatments due to Their inability to afford it.

I, for example, have been forced to curtail twice weekly treatments to once a week, and "do my best" for myself on the skipped day, likely at some cost to my health. The poor, for whom all is paid, still get the twice weekly treatments THEY need (courtesy of my astronomical premiums.)

So what we have, as you pointed out, is BEYOND the idealistic and unfair Democratic socialist dream where everyone is equal...no matter how hard they work, how motivated they are, and yes....even how capable and smart they might be. We now have provided so much to the lower income (in terms of medical at least) that the poor have better health coverage than the middle - especially hard to swallow when the middle is asked to pay for the poor's better coverage.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Undocumented youth get lots of assistance from the government.

It's immediate. Once you're in the school system, services have kicked in - free/reduced meals, medical assistance (especially if the school nurse detects an issue), wrap around services, etc.

Schools have become social programs. People who don't live in areas with low-performing schools don't realize this, however, as the high-flying schools don't usually absorb these new arrivals.

This is very sickening.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:How long until brown skinned people are forced to produce citizenship documents in order to buy groceries or walk on a public street?

Why does everything about race? Typical liberal response. It sure gets old!

And so does your response - "typical liberal this" and "typical liberal that".

I was also sponsored when my ancestors came here - by a slave master! Get over yourself!

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:I'm a small retail business owner. Twice I have had an individual come into my business with a form that they have asked me to sign, stating that they asked for a job here and I turned them down. When I asked them if they would like to actually apply for a job, they said, "No, let me explain. I don't want a job. I just need you to sign this form saying I tried to get a job here so I can show Unemployment."

The fraud in the system is sickening.

This is bullshit. Most undocumented people live in the shadows.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Funny, but I'm noticing a parallel between this thread and the one on whether low-income people should pay $10 to see a doctor (given that they have been provided free health insurance via great sacrifices from the middle class, who now are struggling themselves to afford medical insurance).

Liberals are arguing that the group that is worse off should be provided for, even if it makes the "better off" group worse off themselves. For example, we need to give illegals a oath to citizenship even though the majority will depend on govt assistance when we can't even afford to care for our veterans....and we should give lower-income all medical care completely free even though it has cost many middle-income people the ability to afford their own health insurance.

And before the bleeding hearts jump on me, I am NOT equating low-income with illegals. It is the philosophy behind it - that the underdog should be elevated even though it harms the group just above them and effectively lowers their standard of living. This, people, is socialism. That the lower get raised and the middle gets lowered until they are both "equal."

Not a liberal but want to point out a critical differentiation. Any time you take money from one group to subsidize the activity of the other group, you make the money-taken-from group worse off. Clearly, however, we agree that those who are better off should shoulder a larger amount of the burden, and we need to take care of those who are truly not able to care for themselves - it's what makes us a civilized society. So the taking of money in and of it self is not a problem.

The problem is the liberal belief that people should be "equal" in not just equal treatment and protection under the law, but equal in terms of outcome and quality of life. The world is not equal, so it's irrational to forcibly march towards this equality. Socialism and communism both tried to achieve this level of equality and both have failed spectacularly.

We can and should provide basic healthcare to those who are not able to help themselves. But we should not be providing "gold" level healthcare free, while middle class families struggle to afford "silver" level plans.

Yes! I'm the PP, and you've articulated the problem better than I. Liberals don't understand it, but poor people are now provided the best of the best - fully paid gold plans - while much of the moderate class ($50s, $60s, thereabouts) are sacrificing to be able to afford the premiums on even a silver - and in many cases have been forced to go down to a bronze and hope they stay healthy. (Hence, the appearance of the "underinsured middle class".) Doctors are reporting that their patient load has reversed so that they are comprised primarily of "free" lower income, while the middle skip needed exams and treatments due to Their inability to afford it.

I, for example, have been forced to curtail twice weekly treatments to once a week, and "do my best" for myself on the skipped day, likely at some cost to my health. The poor, for whom all is paid, still get the twice weekly treatments THEY need (courtesy of my astronomical premiums.)

So what we have, as you pointed out, is BEYOND the idealistic and unfair Democratic socialist dream where everyone is equal...no matter how hard they work, how motivated they are, and yes....even how capable and smart they might be. We now have provided so much to the lower income (in terms of medical at least) that the poor have better health coverage than the middle - especially hard to swallow when the middle is asked to pay for the poor's better coverage.

The best of the best? Give me a break. I have great insurance and quite frankly, the best of the best doesn't take any insurance. Do poor people get the best housing? Food? Lifestyle? No, they don't. It's very expensive to be poor in the country. Why are you targeting people and not companies that employ them?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:How long until brown skinned people are forced to produce citizenship documents in order to buy groceries or walk on a public street?

Why does everything about race? Typical liberal response. It sure gets old!

And so does your response - "typical liberal this" and "typical liberal that".

I was also sponsored when my ancestors came here - by a slave master! Get over yourself!

Good for you. The overwhelming majority of people were not. Get over yourself.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:I'm a small retail business owner. Twice I have had an individual come into my business with a form that they have asked me to sign, stating that they asked for a job here and I turned them down. When I asked them if they would like to actually apply for a job, they said, "No, let me explain. I don't want a job. I just need you to sign this form saying I tried to get a job here so I can show Unemployment."

The fraud in the system is sickening.

Plus, in my jurisdiction at least, you only have to apply to two jobs a week to keep UE going. With the thousands of jobs posted online, why not require five a day, or 25 a week. As it stands now, an unemployed person seeking to game the system without actually seeking a job can wake up Monday morning, log on, find two jobs to apply to, and me done by 10 a.m. The rest of the week, vacation!

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I'm a small retail business owner. Twice I have had an individual come into my business with a form that they have asked me to sign, stating that they asked for a job here and I turned them down. When I asked them if they would like to actually apply for a job, they said, "No, let me explain. I don't want a job. I just need you to sign this form saying I tried to get a job here so I can show Unemployment."

The fraud in the system is sickening.

This is bullshit. Most undocumented people live in the shadows.

I didn't say they were undocumented. Sorry if that was assumed, but no.

[Anonymous]

Clinton's plan is to bankrupt the nation thru immigration and put us into global trade agreements to "save us".