The Problem with Haven

Tenshinai wrote:

DarkEnigma wrote:But to just pretend that Grendelsbane or the Battle of Manticore or the assassinations or Arnold Giancola didn't happen is, IMHO, foolish of Elizabeth.

Ehm... Right, the asassination of Giancola... Yeah, mustn´t forget that.

Arnold died in what is specifically and clearly a random accident. It was part of Pritcharts problem, that she could no longer take action against him to find out if he was a Mesan agent or not.

Ummmm... staying out of this except for this one thing: Tenshinai, I believe you owe DarkEnigma an apology on this point. He never said Giancola was assassinated. He said "assassinations OR Giancola..."

If anything, he's guilty of poor punctuation or wording. I would have written it as: "...just pretend that Grendelsbane, or the Battle of Manticore, or the assassinations, or Arnold Giancola didn't happen..."

DarkEnigma wrote:

Tenshinai wrote:Yes well it´s a bit impossible to attack such extremely bad ideas without any overflow.

There are however no personal attacks, as i specifically phrased it to avoid that.
But i´m sure you noticed that considering that it is your native language.

Calling some one a "complete moron" is an ad hominem attack. For that matter so is your implication that I do not understand my "native language."

I'm probably going to get some flak for this. From *someone*.

To be fair DE, he actually *didn't* call you a moron. He said it makes you *look* like a moron. There's an extremely fine distinction, one that I've fallen afoul of on another board, but technically, no he didn't call you that.

That said, to prevent misunderstandings like this, it might be better if insulting language such as this were best left in the mind and off the keyboard.

There are a couple of things I would like to point out.

First, Neither Elizabeth nor Eloise were in a position to act as absolute rulers. Under Manticore's constitution, picking a fight with High Ridge over how to end the war would probably have ended in a heck of a scrap in the Lords that she could have lost, squandering a good deal of political capital as well as undermining the power of the throne, both of which she might be in a position to use more effectively later. So it was to prove, although Elizabeth didn't realize that High Ridges mechanizations would eventually lead to a resumption of the war with Haven under terms less favorable to the Star Kingdom than those which existed at the time of Buttercup.

Eloise was in an even more difficult situation. How she handled Manticore could very well have been the tipping point that determined whether or not the constitution of the restored Republic would survive. She had people who would have just loved to have restored the committee and perhaps even more who would merrily have gone back to the old rules under the Legislaturists. And, Haven experienced a rebirth of national pride following the overthrow of the committee and the end of the civil war. This was the minefield she had to navigate if her Administration --and the newly restored republic is to survive. And though her personal popularity is strong, her actual political position is quite fragile.

And right in the middle of this sits Manticore, sitting on its conquered systems and refusing to negotiate a peace treaty. Further, as far as Eloise could see at the time, falsifying the diplomatic correspondence, which so far as she could see proved that Manticore had no intention of negotiating in good faith or ever relinquishing systems which Haven believed were rightly a part of the Republic. Any head of state in Prichard's situation who had military options available would be looking to them. And Prichard did. Theisman and Foraker had given them to her.

Nor should Manticore have been surprised at Thunderbolt. Haven practically gave away their war plans when Theisman announced the existence of his modern navy. White Haven certainly wasn't surprised nor was Protector Benjamin. That was what the huddle at Grayson was all about which dispatched a Grayson fleet to Trevor's Star.

Finally, there is no textev to suggest that Haven, under the Republic, ever intended to conquer and absorb Manticore. What Prichard wanted all along was a peace treaty which returned the occupied systems with the exception of Trevor's Star to Haven so they could, if they chose, participate in the rebirth of the Republic. If she had to fight and dictate the terms of that in Mount Royal Palace, she would do it.

Don

n7axw wrote:Eloise was in an even more difficult situation. How she handled Manticore could very well have been the tipping point that determined whether or not the constitution of the restored Republic would survive. She had people who would have just loved to have restored the committee and perhaps even more who would merrily have gone back to the old rules under the Legislaturists.

There where people who had both view points. Arnold was one playing by the Legislaturist rules, which was part of why he was a problem. The other part was that too many other where playing by the committee rules and keeping their heads down.

roseandheather wrote:Just ignore Relax. He's a particularly virulent strain of conservative which has no concept of 'social responsibility'. Any welfare system has its problems, and Haven is an excellent illustration of the consequences of those problems getting out of hand, but our welfare system is nowhere near as bad as that same virulent strain of conservative makes it out to be.

BTW, have you looked at the FAQ pages on this site?
" Basically, the People's Republic of Haven was actually the United States of America after a cynical deal had been struck between a political elite and the "machine bosses" who were able to deliver bloc votes on a dependable, reliable basis. The people who became the Legislaturalists deliberately set out to create a situation in which there would be an enormous underclass completely dependent upon the state for its support and upkeep. What had begun as a principled effort to provide the best possible life for all of the Republic's citizens under the Legislaturalists' predecessors became, in effect, a means of permanently institutionalizing graft and corruption in a way which would keep the Legislaturalists (and their descendents) in power."

Tenshinai wrote:Not that that matters at all, this is a matter of realpolitik. Why do you think Pritchart and Elizabeth comment on how nothing but a total alliance would work?

And BOTH of THEM already KNOW that the other is trustworthy(AND have treecat confirmation on this), and that much/most of their wars were manufactured by the Malign.

And after the next election, when someone else gets elected? I'm sure that both the Sunni tribal leaders who signed on with the US in 2008-2009 and the US military leaders who made the deal were totally sincere. As were the leaders of Manticore who set up the Manticore Alliance and included the allies like Grayson and Erehwon. I'm sure they were totally sincere in their promises of inclusion, R&D support and consultation. But things change. Counting on your personal relationship with an elected official to protect you is not a great long-term plan when your survival is in question.

Tenshinai wrote:And you think the Haven military would just go along with that do you? After Theisman having had several years to root out the bad folks?

Yes. Or throw a coup and overturn the elected government. Is the RHN willing to destroy the elected government in violation of their oaths and duty because they don't like their orders? Or should they follow the law, their oath and their duty?

Equally, should the RMN have carried out a coup against the High Ridge government because they know they are leading them to disaster and betraying all their allies? How do you think that would that have worked out?

DarkEnigma wrote:Thanks for the references guys! I now have even more reading to do on top of all the side stories

You all have brought up very good points vis-a-vis Haven's economic recovery, and I am willing to concede the point. (I still think its a stretch that even Shannon Foraker could have gathered the manufacturing infrastructure, technical expertise, and sheer engineering genius to achieve parity with Manticore in just a few years, but I'm willing to file that under suspension of disbelief and move on.)

What of the other two issues though? Given Haven's track record (even under Pritchart), I can tell you that the last thing I would be doing if I were Elizabeth would be giving Haven Treecats and Apollo! I might be persuaded into a watchful truce while the threat of Mesa was dealt with but that would be the extent of it!

Hell, you could even make a strong case that turnabout is fair play and sabotage or a sneak attack on Bolthole was warranted once its location had been discovered. After all, the new Republic is young and fragile. Given that Havenite leaders tend to have short life-expectancies, who's to say that Pritchart will even be able to stay in power for the foreseeable future (much less restrain whatever impulse drove her to attack Manticore in the first place)?

DarkEnigma, you seem to think that the treecats are Elizabeth's to give, as if they are no more than animals or pets. Nothing can be further from the truth.

Firstly, because the treecats might look like wild critters, but they are anything but. No matter the level of their own civilization and culture, they are in fact sentient beings who have the full capacity to make their own informed choices and decisions. No one, and I do mean no one, except their own clan leaders, can make a treecat do something against their will. And the treecats have this nifty little talent that allows them to sense the integrity and truthfulness of other sentient beings, including humans. So those treecats who had contact with Pritchard after her arrival in Manticore - oh, noteworthy individuals who go by names such as Nimitz, Ariel, Samantha and Monroe - would most certainly have informed their fellow treecats (AND their two-leg partners) of their perceptions wrt Pritchard's honesty. For someone who has had a near-lifelong bond with a treecat, that 'cat's reassurances would certainly go a helluva lot far to let them trust a former adversary.

Secondly, Manticore has a constitution, which is taken rather seriously by most honest Manticorans. And that constitution contains specific clauses dealing with the treecats' status as sentient beings, both on the individual and collective levels. They have rights, don't you know? And one of those rights, I would imagine, would be something in the line of a prohibition against removing ANY treecat from Sphinx against its will.

Also remember that Elizabeth had access to Honor, whom she trusts implicitly, and Honor too has the capability to tell whether someone is speaking truth or not. Also, Elizabeth knows - not think, not suspect, but knows - that Honor would never even consider giving her any advice that went against Elizabeth's and the Star Empire's best interests.

As for Pritchard's track record, whilst it's true that Elizabeth was most put out by Pritchard's decision (which, by the way, wasn't hers alone and had to be ratified by the Havenite Senate) to go back to war, she and the entire Star Empire were well aware that at no point did Pritchard or the new Republic of Haven's government or armed forces act in any way in a dishonourable manner. In fact, they were scrupulous in their efforts to keep to the accepted tenets of interstellar law wrt warfare. And by doing so, they had managed to undo a LOT of the Manticoran public's hatred and hostility towards Haven.

Lastly, by the time Pritchard arrived in Manticore, Elizabeth had already become predisposed towards entering into some kind of peace deal with Haven, that would ultimately result in - at the very least - a neutral relationship between Manticore and Haven, but hopefully something more amicable. After all, Honor had convinced her to send her (Honor) to the Haven system itself with a peace proposal. Elizabeth - even at her most intransigent - was neither crazy enough nor stupid enough to even think that it was possible to completely wipe out all the people who regarded Haven with some measure of sympathy. And failing to do that, any attempt to humiliate or destroy the Haven Republic would simply result in more antipathy and hostility towards Manticore.

roseandheather wrote:Just ignore Relax. He's a particularly virulent strain of conservative which has no concept of 'social responsibility'. Any welfare system has its problems, and Haven is an excellent illustration of the consequences of those problems getting out of hand, but our welfare system is nowhere near as bad as that same virulent strain of conservative makes it out to be.

Sorry for another long post, but man the attitude and arrogance given off by RoseAndHeather and those like her really piss me off regarding this subject. They all blather on and use the "social responsibility" catch-all phrase justification to pigeon hole, castigate others, without any basis in reality of what the welfare system, foster care system, mecicare system, etc actually entails. It is also a near guarantee that anyone who uses this phrase has never actually gotten their hands dirty in these systems.

If you are like 99.999%; Let me guess...

I would place a $10,000 bet you have never worked an hour in "soup" kitchen in your life. If you have, it probably was not two hours and a near guarantee there was never a repeat showing of your august self. I will also bet you have never tried to actively get these people off welfare and into a steady job. It is a very rewarding experience, but you have to be careful not to be taken advantage of as well. Generally one learns after being way too compassionate once or twice. I will also bet you have never tried helping out in the foster care system either. Anyone who wants to do this, I have this to say: Regarding foster care "helping:" If you aren't willing to help at least once a week for an entire night/day, building an actual relationship with these needy children, please do not 'volunteer'. Showing up rarely or for short periods of time only reinforces how alienated these children are. It is a major commitment.

When you actually get your hands dirty and try to "help" these people instead of voting to take from others wallets to "help" them, let me know will ya? you will quickly understand that the system as constructed in our country(USA WA st. differs at the state level)actively keeps them there by rewarding them NOT to work(see below). Those like R&H, who I am near positive have never actually worked with those on welfare or tried helping anyone out of their problems outside of the welfare system where their only knowledge/reality of the subject consists of nothing more than a political hack job broad brushed swipe really piss me off. Get off your moral high horse and help out instead of only "helping" alleviate money out of others pockets to assuage your moral conscience you are unwilling to assuage via actually working with these people. Some really do need help. Some need help and are unwilling to accept it. Unfortunately, most, chose to be there via systematic choices they have made for years/decades previously. It is not a simple or clean cut subject. It is fraught with pain and suffering with a few rays of happiness thrown in.
________________________________________________

PS. To someone else up thread: We generally require folks to go for "interviews" and "submit" resumes obtaining welfare. There are many loop holes and exceptions to get around this requirement. Depends if it is welfare or unemployment benefits regarding the loop holes. Also depends if you have children or not. If you are single, yes, you can actually get cut off. But if you have children, it is next to impossible to get cut off.

Very rarely do the children get taken by DSHS. Personally, this should happen more often. The reason is rather sick as to why quite often these children are conceived to start with. Those who go on welfare, make sure to get "married" or not as the case may be, and have kids ASAP. Food stamps are given out irregardless of the previous scenarios in previous paragraph pretty much. Same goes for medicare. My cousin for instance receives over $1200 in food stamps every month for herself, her husband and two children you and I paid all the hospital bills for her to get pregnant and give birth along with checkups for the first two years of life. Also their rent. Officially the welfare rent only covers 6 months out of 12, but they delay their apartment supervisor and since they have children this adds yet more delay if anyone tries to evict them, so the government pays for 6 months rent, my cousin stiffs the the owner out of the other 6 months via manipulating the system and then moves onto the next sucker who is too stupid to not create an excuse denying her a lease. Low income housing is even worse set of problems that thankfully I have not had to deal with but only heard about so I will not go into it here. By the way: Ain't the dole great? I kid you not about my cousin and her kids. All because she and her husband choose not to work. After all if they started working, their benefits would be cut. So, anyone on welfare has to land a pretty good paying job to surpass the benefits "given" to them. Guess what? Lazy people willing to go on welfare to start with do not find "good" paying jobs where they get to sit on their butts all day long doing nothing but watching TV. Such jobs do not exist. My cousins husband quit being a security guard. It was too "hard". He wasn't "appreciated" enough. A Bleeping Security guard! That lasted all of 1.5 months. My cousin worked at a day care center for a while, but immediately quit after finding out that if she made too much money so their access to food stamps was going to be cut and next was going to be their rent. Oh the horrors! My cousins family on welfare are not unique.

Go work in a homeless shelter. Offer anyone of them a job bagging groceries. No takers. I can get mild cases of Down syndrome or those with similar afflictions, older kids and adults, to beam beatifically at me when I manage to get them this job. Generally only adults who live very close to said grocery. Got a young gal doing shelf stocking at night as well.

Offer welfare scum a job flipping hamburgers. No takers. "Oh horrors the stigma of entry level work"

Offer them a job working construction. A rare few will do this job for a few weeks and then promptly quit, or work so slowly you may as well not have him on the job, or just never show up leaving the contractor pissed off at me for being so compassionate and stupid.

Offer these homeless guys a job working in a greenhouse. No takers. Offer this job to a down syndrome kid and their parents who will drive them there and pick them up everyday and they will leap at the opportunity.

Offer these homeless or welfare recipients a job working on a farm. No takers. Not "classy" enough for them.

Offer these lazy scoundrels a job as a parking lot attendant right next to the BLEEPING! soup kitchen and I actually got one guy to do the job... For 1 month till he got fired as he was generally never there even though he could sleep RIGHT NEXT DOOR where free food and access to a shower was available! I did fill this slot with a woman attendant who had 3 children, hmm actually I think it was two, who was in flight from an abusive husband. That lasted 8 months till she was able to move on and is now working at Microsoft.

I can keep going with more personal examples and hordes of examples from others.

Sorry for long post

As your fellow car pool member to work most days: Well said.

You forgot to state that, yes, you believe in a welfare system etc, but its current implementation rewards those who wish to STAY in the system and punishes those trying to get OUT.

PS. Darn it you did get me reading these great books and reading these forums...

Relax wrote:

roseandheather wrote:Just ignore Relax. He's a particularly virulent strain of conservative which has no concept of 'social responsibility'. Any welfare system has its problems, and Haven is an excellent illustration of the consequences of those problems getting out of hand, but our welfare system is nowhere near as bad as that same virulent strain of conservative makes it out to be.

Sorry for another long post, but man the attitude and arrogance given off by RoseAndHeather and those like her really piss me off regarding this subject. They all blather on and use the "social responsibility" catch-all phrase justification to pigeon hole, castigate others, without any basis in reality of what the welfare system, foster care system, mecicare system, etc actually entails. It is also a near guarantee that anyone who uses this phrase has never actually gotten their hands dirty in these systems.

If you are like 99.999%; Let me guess...

I would place a $10,000 bet you have never worked an hour in "soup" kitchen in your life. If you have, it probably was not two hours and a near guarantee there was never a repeat showing of your august self. I will also bet you have never tried to actively get these people off welfare and into a steady job. It is a very rewarding experience, but you have to be careful not to be taken advantage of as well. Generally one learns after being way too compassionate once or twice. I will also bet you have never tried helping out in the foster care system either. Anyone who wants to do this, I have this to say: Regarding foster care "helping:" If you aren't willing to help at least once a week for an entire night/day, building an actual relationship with these needy children, please do not 'volunteer'. Showing up rarely or for short periods of time only reinforces how alienated these children are. It is a major commitment.

When you actually get your hands dirty and try to "help" these people instead of voting to take from others wallets to "help" them, let me know will ya? you will quickly understand that the system as constructed in our country(USA WA st. differs at the state level)actively keeps them there by rewarding them NOT to work(see below). Those like R&H, who I am near positive have never actually worked with those on welfare or tried helping anyone out of their problems outside of the welfare system where their only knowledge/reality of the subject consists of nothing more than a political hack job broad brushed swipe really piss me off. Get off your moral high horse and help out instead of only "helping" alleviate money out of others pockets to assuage your moral conscience you are unwilling to assuage via actually working with these people. Some really do need help. Some need help and are unwilling to accept it. Unfortunately, most, chose to be there via systematic choices they have made for years/decades previously. It is not a simple or clean cut subject. It is fraught with pain and suffering with a few rays of happiness thrown in.
________________________________________________

PS. To someone else up thread: We generally require folks to go for "interviews" and "submit" resumes obtaining welfare. There are many loop holes and exceptions to get around this requirement. Depends if it is welfare or unemployment benefits regarding the loop holes. Also depends if you have children or not. If you are single, yes, you can actually get cut off. But if you have children, it is next to impossible to get cut off.

Very rarely do the children get taken by DSHS. Personally, this should happen more often. The reason is rather sick as to why quite often these children are conceived to start with. Those who go on welfare, make sure to get "married" or not as the case may be, and have kids ASAP. Food stamps are given out irregardless of the previous scenarios in previous paragraph pretty much. Same goes for medicare. My cousin for instance receives over $1200 in food stamps every month for herself, her husband and two children you and I paid all the hospital bills for her to get pregnant and give birth along with checkups for the first two years of life. Also their rent. Officially the welfare rent only covers 6 months out of 12, but they delay their apartment supervisor and since they have children this adds yet more delay if anyone tries to evict them, so the government pays for 6 months rent, my cousin stiffs the the owner out of the other 6 months via manipulating the system and then moves onto the next sucker who is too stupid to not create an excuse denying her a lease. Low income housing is even worse set of problems that thankfully I have not had to deal with but only heard about so I will not go into it here. By the way: Ain't the dole great? I kid you not about my cousin and her kids. All because she and her husband choose not to work. After all if they started working, their benefits would be cut. So, anyone on welfare has to land a pretty good paying job to surpass the benefits "given" to them. Guess what? Lazy people willing to go on welfare to start with do not find "good" paying jobs where they get to sit on their butts all day long doing nothing but watching TV. Such jobs do not exist. My cousins husband quit being a security guard. It was too "hard". He wasn't "appreciated" enough. A Bleeping Security guard! That lasted all of 1.5 months. My cousin worked at a day care center for a while, but immediately quit after finding out that if she made too much money so their access to food stamps was going to be cut and next was going to be their rent. Oh the horrors! My cousins family on welfare are not unique.

Go work in a homeless shelter. Offer anyone of them a job bagging groceries. No takers. I can get mild cases of Down syndrome or those with similar afflictions, older kids and adults, to beam beatifically at me when I manage to get them this job. Generally only adults who live very close to said grocery. Got a young gal doing shelf stocking at night as well.

Offer welfare scum a job flipping hamburgers. No takers. "Oh horrors the stigma of entry level work"

Offer them a job working construction. A rare few will do this job for a few weeks and then promptly quit, or work so slowly you may as well not have him on the job, or just never show up leaving the contractor pissed off at me for being so compassionate and stupid.

Offer these homeless guys a job working in a greenhouse. No takers. Offer this job to a down syndrome kid and their parents who will drive them there and pick them up everyday and they will leap at the opportunity.

Offer these homeless or welfare recipients a job working on a farm. No takers. Not "classy" enough for them.

Offer these lazy scoundrels a job as a parking lot attendant right next to the BLEEPING! soup kitchen and I actually got one guy to do the job... For 1 month till he got fired as he was generally never there even though he could sleep RIGHT NEXT DOOR where free food and access to a shower was available! I did fill this slot with a woman attendant who had 3 children, hmm actually I think it was two, who was in flight from an abusive husband. That lasted 8 months till she was able to move on and is now working at Microsoft.

I can keep going with more personal examples and hordes of examples from others.

Sorry for long post

Relax wrote:

roseandheather wrote:Just ignore Relax. He's a particularly virulent strain of conservative which has no concept of 'social responsibility'. Any welfare system has its problems, and Haven is an excellent illustration of the consequences of those problems getting out of hand, but our welfare system is nowhere near as bad as that same virulent strain of conservative makes it out to be.

Sorry for another long post, but man the attitude and arrogance given off by RoseAndHeather and those like her really piss me off regarding this subject. They all blather on and use the "social responsibility" catch-all phrase justification to pigeon hole, castigate others, without any basis in reality of what the welfare system, foster care system, mecicare system, etc actually entails. It is also a near guarantee that anyone who uses this phrase has never actually gotten their hands dirty in these systems.

If you are like 99.999%; Let me guess...

I would place a $10,000 bet you have never worked an hour in "soup" kitchen in your life. If you have, it probably was not two hours and a near guarantee there was never a repeat showing of your august self. I will also bet you have never tried to actively get these people off welfare and into a steady job. It is a very rewarding experience, but you have to be careful not to be taken advantage of as well. Generally one learns after being way too compassionate once or twice. I will also bet you have never tried helping out in the foster care system either. Anyone who wants to do this, I have this to say: Regarding foster care "helping:" If you aren't willing to help at least once a week for an entire night/day, building an actual relationship with these needy children, please do not 'volunteer'. Showing up rarely or for short periods of time only reinforces how alienated these children are. It is a major commitment.

When you actually get your hands dirty and try to "help" these people instead of voting to take from others wallets to "help" them, let me know will ya? you will quickly understand that the system as constructed in our country(USA WA st. differs at the state level)actively keeps them there by rewarding them NOT to work(see below). Those like R&H, who I am near positive have never actually worked with those on welfare or tried helping anyone out of their problems outside of the welfare system where their only knowledge/reality of the subject consists of nothing more than a political hack job broad brushed swipe really piss me off. Get off your moral high horse and help out instead of only "helping" alleviate money out of others pockets to assuage your moral conscience you are unwilling to assuage via actually working with these people. Some really do need help. Some need help and are unwilling to accept it. Unfortunately, most, chose to be there via systematic choices they have made for years/decades previously. It is not a simple or clean cut subject. It is fraught with pain and suffering with a few rays of happiness thrown in.
________________________________________________

PS. To someone else up thread: We generally require folks to go for "interviews" and "submit" resumes obtaining welfare. There are many loop holes and exceptions to get around this requirement. Depends if it is welfare or unemployment benefits regarding the loop holes. Also depends if you have children or not. If you are single, yes, you can actually get cut off. But if you have children, it is next to impossible to get cut off.

Very rarely do the children get taken by DSHS. Personally, this should happen more often. The reason is rather sick as to why quite often these children are conceived to start with. Those who go on welfare, make sure to get "married" or not as the case may be, and have kids ASAP. Food stamps are given out irregardless of the previous scenarios in previous paragraph pretty much. Same goes for medicare. My cousin for instance receives over $1200 in food stamps every month for herself, her husband and two children you and I paid all the hospital bills for her to get pregnant and give birth along with checkups for the first two years of life. Also their rent. Officially the welfare rent only covers 6 months out of 12, but they delay their apartment supervisor and since they have children this adds yet more delay if anyone tries to evict them, so the government pays for 6 months rent, my cousin stiffs the the owner out of the other 6 months via manipulating the system and then moves onto the next sucker who is too stupid to not create an excuse denying her a lease. Low income housing is even worse set of problems that thankfully I have not had to deal with but only heard about so I will not go into it here. By the way: Ain't the dole great? I kid you not about my cousin and her kids. All because she and her husband choose not to work. After all if they started working, their benefits would be cut. So, anyone on welfare has to land a pretty good paying job to surpass the benefits "given" to them. Guess what? Lazy people willing to go on welfare to start with do not find "good" paying jobs where they get to sit on their butts all day long doing nothing but watching TV. Such jobs do not exist. My cousins husband quit being a security guard. It was too "hard". He wasn't "appreciated" enough. A Bleeping Security guard! That lasted all of 1.5 months. My cousin worked at a day care center for a while, but immediately quit after finding out that if she made too much money so their access to food stamps was going to be cut and next was going to be their rent. Oh the horrors! My cousins family on welfare are not unique.

Go work in a homeless shelter. Offer anyone of them a job bagging groceries. No takers. I can get mild cases of Down syndrome or those with similar afflictions, older kids and adults, to beam beatifically at me when I manage to get them this job. Generally only adults who live very close to said grocery. Got a young gal doing shelf stocking at night as well.

Offer welfare scum a job flipping hamburgers. No takers. "Oh horrors the stigma of entry level work"

Offer them a job working construction. A rare few will do this job for a few weeks and then promptly quit, or work so slowly you may as well not have him on the job, or just never show up leaving the contractor pissed off at me for being so compassionate and stupid.

Offer these homeless guys a job working in a greenhouse. No takers. Offer this job to a down syndrome kid and their parents who will drive them there and pick them up everyday and they will leap at the opportunity.

Offer these homeless or welfare recipients a job working on a farm. No takers. Not "classy" enough for them.

Offer these lazy scoundrels a job as a parking lot attendant right next to the BLEEPING! soup kitchen and I actually got one guy to do the job... For 1 month till he got fired as he was generally never there even though he could sleep RIGHT NEXT DOOR where free food and access to a shower was available! I did fill this slot with a woman attendant who had 3 children, hmm actually I think it was two, who was in flight from an abusive husband. That lasted 8 months till she was able to move on and is now working at Microsoft.

I can keep going with more personal examples and hordes of examples from others.

Sorry for long post

While a lot of what you say might be true - and NO, I am NOT getting into the merits of your argument here - I do object to the way you seem to paint every single welfare recipient with the same brush. Terms like "these people" and "welfare scum" do NOT add strength to your argument. Rather, such terms imply that you belong to that particular section of society that believes that, because things are good for you, they HAVE to be good for EVERYONE.

In other words, they indicate ignorance of the fact that there are in fact many people out there who do need help to survive and to get back on their own feet - not because they are lazy but because of economic, medical or other factors outside of their control. Such ignorance and lack of compassion do not enhance your position, but instead undermine it.

Moreover, your constant barrage of insults aimed at other members of this forum are unfortunate and disrespectful. You cannot expect respect if you're not willing to show respect.

Please refrain from such generalizations and disrespect, and I for one would be much more inclined towards giving serious consideration to your argument. Thank you.

hanuman wrote:While a lot of what you say might be true - and NO, I am NOT getting into the merits of your argument here - I do object to the way you seem to paint every single welfare recipient with the same brush. Terms like "these people" and "welfare scum" do NOT add strength to your argument. Rather, such terms imply that you belong to that particular section of society that believes that, because things are good for you, they HAVE to be good for EVERYONE.

In other words, they indicate ignorance of the fact that there are in fact many people out there who do need help to survive and to get back on their own feet - not because they are lazy but because of economic, medical or other factors outside of their control. Such ignorance and lack of compassion do not enhance your position, but instead undermine it.

*raises hand.

Hi. I'm a 33 year old german citizen. Since leaving school in 2000, I have been unemployed for a cumulative period of 5 to 6 years for medical reasons (clinical depression, to be precise), and have worked a variety of dead-end jobs in the years where I wasn't, until through a stroke of luck I landed at my current employer, where I can finally finish a proper job education in my chosen field. My experiences with unemployment, and receiving benefits, paint a picture that makes it hard to believe that anyone would put up with this willingly. For one, the money received is not enough to actually live with (it's barely enough to survive on, even in glorious socialist Germany), and getting jobs is actually kinda hard when you've spent a couple months on welfare. Taking one of these entry level jobs is strongly disincentivised, with benefits being cut quickly and harshly once you pass certain income thresholds. That anecdote about the cousin that quit a job because she was going to lose food stamps? That's not her being lazy, that's her not making enough money to get her family through the month.

And yeah, Relax, your account sounds a lot like you're succumbing to a massive dose of confirmation bias. You see those family members of yours apparently being lazy, you see those people you're helping not actually being able to benefit from that help, and you're probably seeing a lot of news articles and opinion pieces on how those welfare moochers are vampires draining the lifeblood out of society, and all that comes together into your opinion that public welfare is ultimately bad for society by enabling a subset of it to live without lifting a finger. What you're not seeing is that that subset is incredibly small compared to the vast majority of people on welfare, and that there are complexities to the situation of those on welfare that you are just not aware of.

Here's an interesting opinion piece by Charlie Stross about the dangers of demanding full employment. Please read it.