you know where this country would be? right back to where we were in the Great Depression. The homeless rate would be through the roof. Bread lines would be forming, etc,etc. but it seems that is what most of you righty's want, right?
someone come up with the bullshit of "No we wouldn't!"
we'd be paying less in taxes, so everyone would have a little more cash.
to that i say bullshit, and if you think about it just for a second, you will realize why that is total and complete bullshit.
be as long as they were during the great depression..
vital lifesaving services?
And that every single person in every single department performing every single function that the $3.7 Trillion dollar federal goverment provides is VITAL?
Are you ready to defend the Constitutionality of all of the above and all that it implies?
If so, then make your case.
If not, then maybe, just maybe your engaging in a bit of hyperbole.
their is not much hyperbole in what he said..
The only way the government can take total control away from the people, is if the people need the government to feed them..
FWIW, I think this is the socialist plan mrnt
The American way is that people have helped each other, communities helped each other, families, ect.
Homelessness was not through the roof in the Depression and there were not thousands living in Grand Central Park. There were fewer homeless in SF in 1938 than in 2011.
If it is bullshit, where were the homeless in Los Angeles.
Before Medical and Medicare there were not thousands dying in the street. There were thousands of charitable hospitals that treated people for free, and the care was very good. My father was a doctor in the 50's and he said the Catholic hospitals were 100 times better than any county clininc or hospital.
Shriners, Masons, Ceders, Mt. Sinai, St Jude.
The Jews had their private hospitals in L.A. and they had charity events. All the Christians bought seats and donated. Then six months later, the Christians would have a charity event for their hospitals, and Jews bought tables galore and made donations. The podium for the St. Jude event had the same people as the Ceders event.
Think of this: Before the government handout after 9-11, by private donations, over a billion dollars was raised in donations. Remember Leno selling his motorcycle There would thousands of things. The Red Cross had so much money it didn't know what to do with it, and that was just one of a thousand charities. Why did they need the Government program at all?
Private charities do it much more efficiently and less expensively than governement programs.
One reason why Obama wants to limit deductions is people will give less to private charities, so then the state can take the money that would have been deducted and treat people. The problem is that the state just makes them dependent.
I'm in agreement with phil on this. I'm old enough to remember a time when there was no Food Stamp, (SNAP), program, no WIC, no Medicare, no Welfare Program, no EBT cards, no FEMA, no SS Disability, (Have you been to a Social Security office lately? Over half the people there for benefits are under age 45, WTF?), and on and on.
There are legitimate reasons for some public assistance, but the 'freebie' programs get bastardized to the point that many people absolutely refuse to work for a living. Why should they? All their needs are provided by Uncle Sam, using taxpayers' money. In the UK, that's called 'being on the dole'. It is a career for some here also.
A distant member of my family is married to a slacker that is a 3rd generation welfare recipient. No one in that family has ever held a job. My family member does work, and she is ridiculed by others of her husband's family for doing so.
Remember when unemployment insurance benefits was for 26 weeks...and it STOPPED there? Now it seems to go on forever. Read the Sunday paper classifieds. There are pages of job openings. If a person with a BS degree in Computer Science has to work in WalMart for a time, so be it. Problem is, many won't accept a position lower than their previous employment these days. They'd rather take the government's 'free money'. Where's their pride?
Savings account? 401K? What are they? Fuck that, I need a new truck to haul my new boat to my time share, and a new flat screen TV with 300 premium channels, and cigarettes, booze, designer clothes to wear, $150 Nikes for my kids, (they aren't going to wear $39.95 shoes to school, oh hell no), and our annual CanCun vacation. Retirement? That's 25 years away...and I want everything NOW. Oh shit...I just got layed off. Now what? Go see Uncle Sam, that's what.
but the main point was we would be in deeper shit without these social services RIGHT NOW.
100% agree the system is completely and utterly abused. it should be 2 consecutive years MAX for able bodied people. you cant get your shit together in 2 years, fuck you, your on your on. That will sure get them to get off there ass and find any type of work. there should also be a max on lifetime welfare benefits. like 5-7yrs max.
...but, for where we are now, and because we either don't have or impose benefit limits, i was merely saying we would have a whole bunch of hoovervilles popping up if it wasn't for social services.
There are legitimate reasons for some public assistance, but the 'freebie' programs get bastardized to the point that many people absolutely refuse to work for a living. Why should they? All their needs are provided by Uncle Sam, using taxpayers' money. In the UK, that's called 'being on the dole'. It is a career for some here also.
A distant member of my family is married to a slacker that is a 3rd generation welfare recipient. No one in that family has ever held a job. My family member does work, and she is ridiculed by others of her husband's family for doing so.
Remember when unemployment insurance benefits was for 26 weeks...and it STOPPED there? Now it seems to go on forever. Read the Sunday paper classifieds. There are pages of job openings. If a person with a BS degree in Computer Science has to work in WalMart for a time, so be it. Problem is, many won't accept a position lower than their previous employment these days. They'd rather take the government's 'free money'. Where's their pride?
Savings account? 401K? What are they? Fuck that, I need a new truck to haul my new boat to my time share, and a new flat screen TV with 300 premium channels, and cigarettes, booze, designer clothes to wear, $150 Nikes for my kids, (they aren't going to wear $39.95 shoes to school, oh hell no), and our annual CanCun vacation. Retirement? That's 25 years away...and I want everything NOW. Oh shit...I just got layed off. Now what? Go see Uncle Sam, that's what.
greed, selfishness, and ego was in check. It will not happen today when the prevailing discourse is greed, more greed, selfishness and me, meeeeeeee, culture.
It was the same then. People made lots of money. A businessman tried to make a million bucks, a lot of money in those days was the same. He was the same person as today. His DNA hasn't changed.
The big difference is that now people are taught to look to the government first, and not last.
WHen my cousing got into a college he couldn't afford, he didn't even think of government scholarships. His two "rich[er]" uncles pitched in and he got a part time job at an Ivy League school. If someone went to an uncle today and saying, I need money, the uncle would say, "apply for a scholarship, and if you don't get it, I will help."
And why not say that? He pays taxes for scholarships. His nephew should get one.
If he didn't have a rich uncle in 1956 there were a dozen other options before a government grant.
The same thing with disaster relief. In the old days, people first looked to family and then community. If there were less fed help now, they would do the same. But why ask your neighbors for help when the feds will give you money.
One last word: of all the options, using the fed it the least cost effective, since you have to collect money locally, send it to Washington, and send it back. It is also the most subject to fraud.
The food stamp program is rife with fraud. The people who are hungry, a very small amount, could be fed for a fraction of the cost.
just like the other time you tried to debate me, you simply claim you are right and anyone who disagrees must be wrong.
Well I am calling Bullshit on you....
We did not have a fraction of the Social services we do now during the 50s or the 60s, in fact not even in the 70s. Don't you find it ironic that the more social services we roll out the more f**ked up things get and the more down hill we go...
But of course you wouldn't, that would include rational thought and observation, which you have already proved to be incapable of....
i stopped on the last blog cause when you start patronizing me (thats just how i read it) there is no point in continuing.
in your ideological thinking, you think all the business owners would pass on the savings as wages, right?
the sad thing is we probably both agree government should be smaller, just in different areas.
by your logic: don't you find it telling, that as all the wealth continues to be skewed to one side, things keep getting more fucked up... But of course you wouldn't, that would include rational thought and observation, which you have already proved to be incapable of.... 
There is a huge difference between patronizing, and flat out calling bullshit on you, which is what Snow did. FWIW I agree with him, and I think with a few more years of life experience you may come to agree with him, and me.
Every generation thinks they have it harder than any other generation in history, and your generation is no exception. You and those like you are so busy crying about how bad things are and how little opportunity there is to see how many people are still prospering, despite this so called lack of opportunity.
I would suggest that you go out and put some real sweat and hard work into your chosen profession and come back in a few years when you have earned the right to complain. In the meantime you sound like a spoiled brat who already has is good, but complains it should be perfect. and no I am not being patronizing, I am being downright condescending. lol but I mean every word I said.
1
: to act as patron of : provide aid or support for
2
: to adopt an air of condescension toward : treat haughtily or coolly
3
: to be a frequent or regular customer or client of
#2. he was patronizing on another thread, not this one.
i'm doing pretty good for myself. no complaints here. i bring these things up because they are worthy of discussion. and the last thing i would be called by anyone that knows me is spoiled. definitely was in the poverty level when i was growing up. worked my ass off through college and accumulated a substantial amount of student loans. i would say i make a modest living by most standards but was able to pay them off by knowing how to manage money.
but your entitled to your opinion...and to be completely wrong.
i for one hate the sense of entitlement most people have. that is a problem, along with the accumulation of wealth on one side.
would it make you rightys happy if i say i have voted republican about half the time? cause i have, i agreed with the ideas. but thats for another thread.
Every generation thinks they have it harder than any other generation in history, and your generation is no exception. You and those like you are so busy crying about how bad things are and how little opportunity there is to see how many people are still prospering, despite this so called lack of opportunity.
I would suggest that you go out and put some real sweat and hard work into your chosen profession and come back in a few years when you have earned the right to complain. In the meantime you sound like a spoiled brat who already has is good, but complains it should be perfect. and no I am not being patronizing, I am being downright condescending. lol but I mean every word I said.
You're the one who said basically if anyone disagreed with you, they were wrong.
No debate, no responses, they were just wrong....
THAT IS PATRONIZING, AND THAT IS BULLSHIT...
Consider yourself called out...
It's helps.
But it's not a lot to survive by choice.
I wonder how many TER active posters are receiving EBT. I can't believe I'm the only one.
Maybe that should be a poll question.
I went with my homeless friend to eat at a church one day and the food was tasteless.
With the Obama card you can find places that sell you cooked food, which they are not supposed to and eat better.
ah, and the answer to the OP is that if there was no social services more people would be breaking into your house or car.
If there were no food stamps or social services, crime may not increase at all. There was greater poverty in the depression, but much less crime.
And the crime that existed then was not committed by hungry people committing burglary. It was by bootleggers needing more money for a fancy life style.
The vast majority of crimes that I see, includling residential burglary, are not caused by people who are destitute. In 25 years of handling crime, I have seen one case of a homeless person breaking into a garage to steal something. Every other crime involved people who had a place to live and food on the table. They just wanted to steal something or rape some one.
If they stole, it was because they wanted a new pair of Air Jordons. 1,000 cases and one was by someone stealing out of need. I know at least 20 other defense attorneys that I speak to frequently, and I may have heard of one or two cases like that in decades.
When hunger is a problem.
Hungry people revolt, and with all this class warfare it wouldn't surprise me if they don't start burning down the rich neighborhoods