Poll of the Day > Trump says People who DON'T WORK, then you DON'T EAT!! Do you agree with that???

(+) Yeah! (+)

I'm pretty sure most people who benefit from welfare do work.

Starvation will not happen in the US, because there is an abundance of food everywhere.

What will happen is people with no money who are hungry will commit crimes, and end up in jail.

Which will get them food, medical care etc, but cost WAY more.

Even if you cut back on how much is spent on theprisoners and make it even worse (and many prisons are already pretty horrible due to over crowding), it still will cost taxpayers far more then the current program.

That being said, no food stamps without work is a fine program IF you ensure that anyone who needs foodstamps has a job they can do to receive them (even if it's 2 hours a day or something doing community service, cleaning a park etc).

I'm all for no food without work, but the work part needs to be made available for everyone, even those with disabilities (answering phones etc).

Just cutting programs and telling people to handle it, is just going to create more crime and more deperate people....it will lead to more spending not less, and more misery all around, including for those who are already working and have been.
---

Go pick up trash all day and get payed. Major cities should be all about it. Expand housing and sent out the trash collectors.
---

OneTimeBen posted...

Go pick up trash all day and get payed. Major cities should be all about it. Expand housing and sent out the trash collectors.

So who pays for their childcare while they are out picking up trash? You gonna have the kids out there working too?
---

Mead posted...

OneTimeBen posted...

Go pick up trash all day and get payed. Major cities should be all about it. Expand housing and sent out the trash collectors.

So who pays for their childcare while they are out picking up trash? You gonna have the kids out there working too?

They get themselves arrested when they need health care. Don't have kids if your homeless. And they get taken to a better life.
---

Yes, barring circumstances beyond people's' control.
---

InfestedAdam posted...

On another note, with how much food that goes to waste in the U.S., I see no reason to not serve the excess food to those in need. Hell, plenty of food are still good after the sell-by date but are thrown away by markets.

Simple: Liability.

If that poor person gets sick from your expired food. Lawsuit. No matter what sort of disclaimer you have or warnings you give. This is the US we're talking about.
---

wolfy42 posted...

Just cutting programs and telling people to handle it, is just going to create more crime and more deperate people....it will lead to more spending not less, and more misery all around, including for those who are already working and have been.

---

Really fucking sad the way we are headed.
---

I wonder what trump would have been if he didn't inherit 43 million dollars?

And during the elections numerous financial experts extrapolated that trump would have been worth way more money than he is today if he simply left that 43m in a typical stock bond type of brokerage account. Even with the severe downturns of the securities market and economy that occurred during his lifetime.

trump probably lays awake at night wishing he was Michael Bloomberg.


As for the topic-

I think food stamps and welfare shouldn't be withheld and especially not Medicaid and Medicare (why the Aca made no philosophical sense- but that's another issue), but there should be a work requirement for them. Either a person is gainfully employed or provides some type of function for the city under a program of some kind.

So yes- one should have to "work to eat" but trumps scenario doesn't take into account those that for one reason or another have difficulties finding a job, are disabled or in some fashion trying to but unable to work or find employment.
---

I didn't vote in the poll because my response falls under "other".
---

BlackScythe0 posted...

I'm pretty sure most people who benefit from welfare do work.

Then those individuals wouldn't be affected.

wolfy42 posted...

Starvation will not happen in the US, because there is an abundance of food everywhere.

What will happen is people with no money who are hungry will commit crimes, and end up in jail.

Which will get them food, medical care etc, but cost WAY more.

Even if you cut back on how much is spent on theprisoners and make it even worse (and many prisons are already pretty horrible due to over crowding), it still will cost taxpayers far more then the current program.

That being said, no food stamps without work is a fine program IF you ensure that anyone who needs foodstamps has a job they can do to receive them (even if it's 2 hours a day or something doing community service, cleaning a park etc).

I'm all for no food without work, but the work part needs to be made available for everyone, even those with disabilities (answering phones etc).

Just cutting programs and telling people to handle it, is just going to create more crime and more deperate people....it will lead to more spending not less, and more misery all around, including for those who are already working and have been.

Except no, what will happen is that other sources will pick up the legitimate slack while people who were defrauding the government (a lot of bodegas will cash out EBT benefits for 75 cents on the dollar) will move to a new entitlement to defraud.

Mead posted...

OneTimeBen posted...

Go pick up trash all day and get payed. Major cities should be all about it. Expand housing and sent out the trash collectors.

So who pays for their childcare while they are out picking up trash? You gonna have the kids out there working too?

The same people who pay their childcare costs while they're sitting on the couch: The government or checks from their baby daddy. That's assuming they even have kids.



GeoMaggs posted...

InfestedAdam posted...

On another note, with how much food that goes to waste in the U.S., I see no reason to not serve the excess food to those in need. Hell, plenty of food are still good after the sell-by date but are thrown away by markets.

Simple: Liability.

If that poor person gets sick from your expired food. Lawsuit. No matter what sort of disclaimer you have or warnings you give. This is the US we're talking about.

Except expanded Good Samaritan laws can correct that -- as well the food itself going through an intermediary -- and we're talking about food ABOUT to expire rather than just expired food.
---

Conner4REAL posted...

I wonder what trump would have been if he didn't inherit 43 million dollars?

Literally the same as now because he never inherited 43 million dollars.

Conner4REAL posted...

And during the elections numerous financial experts extrapolated that trump would have been worth way more money than he is today if he simply left that 43m in a typical stock bond type of brokerage account. Even with the severe downturns of the securities market and economy that occurred during his lifetime.

"Lots of financial experts" was bullshit and so was the claim that he inherited 43 million. The closest I could find to your bullshit claim was a reference that a writer estimated that the COMPANY he took over was worth $40m (and, after 8 years of running it, his estimated worth was $200m which is a better result than a stock) but you can't invest a company in a typical stock.
http://www.politifact.com/florida/article/2016/mar/07/did-donald-trump-inherit-100-million

/Conner4REAL posted...

So yes- one should have to "work to eat" but trumps scenario doesn't take into account those that for one reason or another have difficulties finding a job, are disabled or in some fashion trying to but unable to work or find employment.

Oh, so your problem is that you can't read which is what causes you believe these nonsense claims?

1) It's not Trump making the claim.

2) The person who allegedly made the claim didn't actually say what Ducky said -- according to this article anyway

3) It specifically applies to able-bodied persons. The actual quote -- copied with Ducky's errors -- is "If you're on food stamps and you're able-bodied, we need you to got o work"
---

Zeus posted...

The same people who pay their childcare costs while they're sitting on the couch: The government or checks from their baby daddy. That's assuming they even have kids.

Don't you have to have kids to recieve welfare?
---

I don't agree with taking medical care away, but this I'm kind of 50/50. There are too many people just mooching away. They need to fix this by creating jobs though. You can't just take all this away with nothing to replace it.

It depends. I mean, I don't work, but I also don't require any money from the government to eat... The real irony here is that without his family, Trump is too stupid to have to gotten where he is.
---

Zeus posted...

Except no, what will happen is that other sources will pick up the legitimate slack while people who were defrauding the government (a lot of bodegas will cash out EBT benefits for 75 cents on the dollar) will move to a new entitlement to defraud.

Mead posted...

So who pays for their childcare while they are out picking up trash? You gonna have the kids out there working too?

The same people who pay their childcare costs while they're sitting on the couch: The government or checks from their baby daddy. That's assuming they even have kids.

You know, people who think like you honestly make me mad. You seem to refuse to accept the reality that things don't always work out for the best and that there are times when people genuinely need assistance that isn't provided by the market or normal charity. You make assumptions about the lifestyles of people you've never even met and don't seem to have any empathy for based off of dubious grounds. Any suggestions you have are oversimplistic and seem to lack any thoroughness or care. And what does it add up to?

You know, I'm on SSI myself, and Medicaid, and have been for most of my adult life. I have a number of mental issues that make it practically impossible to find work, or to finish school. I live month to month on a currently reliable but very meager income, and my options are severely limited. You wouldn't believe how distressing that is to me, especially since I'm actually quite ambitious and have anxiety issues and have a fairly strong idealistic streak. I'm not happy in my current situation but I do my best to deal with it. The truth is in California I'm relatively safe from the policies proposed by you and those in power with your ideology, but it is not an easy life, nor one I have had as much control over as I would like, and any danger to federal programs could affect me directly. Honestly if they were not as available to me there is a decent chance I would be homeless now. And there are many people in a worse position than I am and who are less secure, and I guarantee you from personal experience as well as study that we far outnumber anyone defrauding you or the government.

The policies you advocate are literally putting people's lives at risk. It is certainly making people less secure. Yet you don't understand that and don't accept it. Your cognitive dissonance, your unfounded faith in the market system, your appeals to a just world fallacy, your misunderstandings of basic aspects of how people think, all of these things will result in people actually dying if they are allowed to influence policy. In no world can you justify that. There is no scenario where people can be dismissed like that, who have just as much right to happiness and security as you do. There is nothing more awful than letting people suffer and possibly die, and there is nothing more distressing that someone's casual ignorance to the damage they cause to other's lives.
---

MrZAP17 posted...

InfestedAdam posted...

Realistically are there even enough jobs out there for every able body citizen to fulfill? Not counting positions that are being outsourced or less valid, more stuff is being automated nowadays.

Quick answer: no. No, there are not.

Yes, there are enough (or rather, close enough).

Whatever the case, it appears that the decline in the unemployment rate in the past year is not simply a reflection of workers dropping out of the labor force. Jobs are plentiful and the only reason the unemployment rate is not falling faster is because the remaining unemployed/discouraged/part time workers do not have the skills required by employers today, flunk the drug tests, or are unwilling to take the jobs that are available.

http://www.numbernomics.com/nomicsnotes/?p=7268

I believe most countries do the same calculations for unemployment; which is people over the age of 15 to 65 (retirement age) who are able to work. Not every 15 year old will be willing to work as they are still in high school. Not everyone retires at 65, either, meaning jobs held by 65+ year olds could technically be given to those under the age of retirement.
---

Mead posted...

Zeus posted...

The same people who pay their childcare costs while they're sitting on the couch: The government or checks from their baby daddy. That's assuming they even have kids.

Don't you have to have kids to recieve welfare?

I think that's for the WIC food checks.
Welfare seems to be different.
---

we really just need to subsidize everything to the point were we work based on one thing
when we have all this shit to worry about it always goes over budget
just make it so you have to worry about the amount of food you have and watch stress melt away

now it's like worry about the house, car, health, food, water, electricity

a couple of those things are free and the others are expensive because of monopolies
---

Work to eat! Damn fucking right! Go trump!

---

SunWuKung420 posted...

the one on the left looks photoshopped

why wouldn't they use a larger font for the headline to fill that gap?
---

Mead posted...

Zeus posted...

The same people who pay their childcare costs while they're sitting on the couch: The government or checks from their baby daddy. That's assuming they even have kids.

Don't you have to have kids to recieve welfare?

No, you don't. A lot of entitlement benefits are income-based only. You get added benefits for having kids, though, which often wind up not going to the kids.

MrZAP17 posted...

You know, people who think like you honestly make me mad. You seem to refuse to accept the reality that things don't always work out for the best and that there are times when people genuinely need assistance that isn't provided by the market or normal charity. You make assumptions about the lifestyles of people you've never even met and don't seem to have any empathy for based off of dubious grounds. Any suggestions you have are oversimplistic and seem to lack any thoroughness or care. And what does it add up to?

That is the reality. It makes me mad that people like you refuse to acknowledge the widespread abuse in the system. There are bodegas who make most of their money defrauding the system. Likewise, there are countless able-bodied people -- who are able-minded as well -- who sit idle.

MrZAP17 posted...

You know, I'm on SSI myself, and Medicaid, and have been for most of my adult life. I have a number of mental issues that make it practically impossible to find work, or to finish school. I live month to month on a currently reliable but very meager income, and my options are severely limited. You wouldn't believe how distressing that is to me, especially since I'm actually quite ambitious and have anxiety issues and have a fairly strong idealistic streak. I'm not happy in my current situation but I do my best to deal with it.

Then you should be forced to seek help for those issues rather than using your disability as a crutch. You claim that you're ambitious, but actually ambitious people find a way to overcome their problems. And frankly, your situation is only made worse by your inaction. Arctic -- who you may or may not have known on these boards -- had the same issues. And you know what happened to him? He succumbed to doing nothing and turned into an extremely bitter human being. I don't want that for you. I want you to put the effort into fixing yourself so you can be a functional adult capable of pursuing happiness and working to maintain society.

MrZAP17 posted...

And there are many people in a worse position than I am and who are less secure, and I guarantee you from personal experience as well as study that we far outnumber anyone defrauding you or the government.

At the end of the day, people deliberately defrauding the government and NEETs who refuse to get help to deal with their claimed anxiety issues are both refusing to contribute to society. It's not like you have a physical disability impairing you from working -- especially one sustained *while* working -- which you should be seeking treatment for or trying to work through. If you live in California like you claim, you should be able to take advantage of the countless free social programs to receive counseling. Change doesn't happen unless you want it and, if you actually wanted it, you'd be putting in the effort. As for your anxiety, clearly it's not so bad as to stop you from posting which people with more legitimate anxiety problems can't do.

MrZAP17 posted...

The policies you advocate are literally putting people's lives at risk

You mean encouraging people who can work to work is putting lives at risk? -_- Honestly, think of this as GIVING you a life by encouraging you to go out into the real world and live among us.
---