Hurricane Katrina
witch:
Quote from: Judecat on 2005 September 26, 06:54:36
...he moves into the projects with her, and gives her half his pay under the table...
Are 'projects' housing areas where only people on benefits are supposed to live?
Quote from: Judecat on 2005 September 26, 06:54:36
And again -- I don't trust the government with money.
No, because as you go on to say, so many people have their snouts in the trough. So why would you penalise beneficiaries for copying the greedy behaviour of those more well off?
Quote from: Judecat on 2005 September 26, 06:54:36
For instance -- do you know what State Governments are doing, and being allowed to do with the tobacco settlement money-- that they sued to force the tobacco companies to pay for medical care for smokers -- The Feds handed out the money with no stipulations of what it was to be used for, so instead of earmarking it for the stated purpose -- to keep the state from having to subsidize my emphesema -- the treated it like a windfall, lotto win. We got new roads, farms got bought so we could build new state offices in the western part of the state. The governer built a new fence around the state house to keep his dog from getting loose, oh yes, and tax breaks for people to build ugly oversized hotels. The Department of Health and Mental Hygene got no one penny of the money -- not for Medical care, research or even anti smoking ads. All this in a state that was so far in the red that they had cancelled all cost of living , seniority or merit raises for state employees, and he have had a 20 year hireing freeze.
If that's true, it really sucks.
Quote from: Judecat on 2005 September 26, 06:54:36
I'm a layed off State employee who truely beleives that we need less government, and not more.
I thought that's what Greg was saying, less bureaucracy, not more, then there's more chance of the money getting where it was originally intended.
Judecat:
I don't know enough about forums to separates the quotes from my reply -- so I'm gonna copy and paiste.
Are 'projects' housing areas where only people on benefits are supposed to live? -- The projects are where no one wants to live unliess they have too. The worse one in this city was buildings a city block square -- 28 stories high -- I think 10 units per floor-- and the way to get to each front door was open air "sidewalks" on each floor -- enclosed in chain link fence. 4 buildings -- with no play areas except the walkways and sidewalks and no green spaces at all. There's more room an privacy in a habbitrail (plastic hampster habitat).
No, because as you go on to say, so many people have their snouts in the trough. So why would you penalise beneficiaries for copying the greedy behaviour of those more well off?
I'm not trying to say penalise the beneficiaries -- I just beleive the beneficiaries will be getting anything by the time the government gets done with it. And in other posts I've stated that under the rules of giving everyone a living wage, the way the real poor would loose out, is that some folks who are working might decide not to -- so they will be taking instead of contributing -- reducing everyone's share of the pie. I would really be more willing to hand my money over to the Catholics to distribue, than to let the government get their hands on it, and I'm not even Catholic.
If that's true, it really sucks. Tell me about it. Spent the tobacco money, and then had to lay off 230 social service and health department employees to ballance the budget.
I thought that's what Greg was saying, less bureaucracy, not more, then there's more chance of the money getting where it was originally intended.
I'm not talking about less bureaucracy -- I'm talking about less government period.
If I lived in a bunker somewhere and had to kill and skin my own dinner, then I would not actually be beholden to the government. The more Uncle Sam gives the more he takes away. That's one of the reasons that I think that this country didn't free the slaves, we just changed the terms of servitude. If you depend on others for the bare essentials, then you have to follow their rules. (but then this just gets into another one of my pet rants about the American Civil war)
Judecat:
Looks like I scared everone away -- I'm sorry!!
laeshanin:
Nah, Judecat, we just ain't certain how to respond.
I think that government can be corrupt too, but it does it, in the developed nations, in underhanded ways and manages to convince you that it has your best interests at heart.
Quote from: SimsHost on 2005 September 25, 22:11:21
When you venture into the discussion of socialized everything, you're moving away at right angles from what I suggested. I'm talking about reducing the level of socialism in the welfare industry tremendously. The government would not tell people how to spend their money or create industries to support them. (Another flaw in the plan: some small percentage of the human population are not able to make purchasing decisions for themselves. That's another baby we'd want to keep when we toss out the bathwater, but at a tiny scale compared to what we do now.) Instead of establishing free clinics, pay the money directly to the people and let them make their own decisions about where to go for health care. Instead of soup kitchens, let them decide where to buy their food. Instead of of public housing projects, let the people decide how to spend their housing dollars.
The key point here is that I have more faith in the average individual's ability to make these decisions than in the government's ability to decide these things for them. I also have much more faith in private industry to provide safe, comfortable housing, quality medical care, and good food and clothes at the best price.
Take housing as an example. If we make builders compete for those housing dollars, they'll build the best-quality housing they can for low-income families. With government housing projects, we have all sort of mischief and even worse added cost because of the burden of writing and enforcing extremely detailed government regulations. The trouble is that if the government does it, we need those picky regulations to determine a standard of performance for contractors. But if private enterprise builds the housing, then the people who will be living there will be the judges of whether it's the nicest place they can afford.
A Brit speaking here, so have been brought up with a Health Service which, despite having people moan about it, is second to none. The NHS saved my life, not once but twice, and has saved the life of many people. It has its faults - waiting lists, staff shortages, to name a few - but without it many people in this country would not be able to afford health care. For those of us who can afford it, we have the choice to place money into insurance and/or buy our health care wherever we want. The NHS is a safety gap that works damn well.
As for housing, well, you may have a point, but the price of property in the UK has risen so steeply that it is beyond the reach of most people to even consider buying a house. I live in a small, two bed-roomed mid-terrace built in 1905 and when I bought it 4 years ago the value was £60,000. It is now valued at £120,000. That's a pretty steep rise! I couldn't afford to buy a house in today's market; they're too damn expensive! God knows how first time buyers manage, and as for those on the lower end of the societal scale earning £12,000 pa, they haven't got a snowflake's hope in hell. Not unless old Nick goes to work on skis that is... And renting property is a dead end, plus you have the "added bonus" of the private landlord who likes to see the tenant living in squalor most of the time, but also likes rent in regularly and takes a massive deposit.
Builders aren't interested in anything except a profit, so I cannot imagine them building "best". It isn't true here, so why would they be more likely to in the States which is a far more machiavellian society than Britain? Mostly, all the bastards try to do is pass you off with shoddy goods.
Judecat:
It also seems to be that the state government at least doesn't care about houseing either -- since the projects are subsidized -- the tennet pays 50 dollars --the state pays the other $550. For that amount of money they could put the welfare beneficiaries in regular garden appartments. (Garden Apartments here are the ones that are two stories with 4 appartments and a central stairway, with grass and trees out front. Usually have about 20 to 40 units per complex -- although I used to live in one very large complex with 150 units).
The main problems I have with socialized medicine are 1) we keep hearing about people in Canada who have to spend their own money to come to the US for surgeries, because the waiting list is so long. 2) I've heard that countries like Canada and England are not doing medical research because there is no money to be made in research, and 3) my own beleif that medical insurance itself is what has driven up the price of medical care. My mother in law charges $50 dollars an hour if are paying for it yourself, $100 if insurance is paying (because they are only gonna give her 50 of it anyway), and $175 if it's a prisoner or someone else the goverment is paying for (they end up paying her 75 or 100 dollars -- but they are usually really sick) (Mother in law is a pychiatrist.) Most doctors charge everybody the same - so if you don't have insurance you can't afford care.
Navigation
[0] Message Index
[#] Next page
[*] Previous page