![]() |
I find it terrible how bitter people get about this stuff. Be grateful you don't need gov't help. So it doesn't work perfectly in all situations... how could it, really? For every person you see with a lot in their "cash account" there are plenty of people who don't get enough who are eating ramen every night and putting off the dentist for years because they don't have any money.
|
Quote:
|
Quote:
|
Quote:
|
Quote:
Quote:
Quote:
You do have to taking employment counseling under certain conditions for EBT, but if you are employed and still qualify for it because you have a big family or whatever, you don't have to do anything else AFAIK. |
We should eat the poor's babies
|
Quote:
A ton of docs take Medicare. Very few take Medicaid. |
Quote:
You could be employed but still not make enough money and continue getting benefits from food stamps while being employed. In that case I do not believe you'd have to attend any type of class. But it's been some years since I really learned about this stuff. |
right
that is what i was trying to say |
Quote:
|
The only thing the government should be doing is handing people some bootstraps. Because it's all you need. Providing you have the will to pull on them and are not one of those poor people who are like "depressed from being poor". Being poor should be a motivation to make something out of yourself. If these people were taught anything in the (probably limited) time they went to school it should be that.
|
That's a joke right?
|
Quote:
|
That's stupid. Why make people do work that machines are already doing?
How about the poor see some of the extra wealth we generate from industrialization |
Because occupational therapy and benefitting directly from the fruits of their own labour will boost the mood of most humans, whereas alienation from the land that feeds them, and idleness, tends to create problems.
|
Work for the sake of work is really patronizing...
|
The problem is that industrialization allows workers to produce 10 times more than they used to making a lot of jobs obsolete and yet the proles see very little of the wealth that's generated as things become more efficient.
We should be trying to move to a point where straight up labor is obsolete, not the other way around |
Work for the sake of creating a worthwhile product and benefitting from that labour is not 'work for the sake of work'.
Don't know if you follow the news or have heard about this thing called Peak Oil, but our go-to cheap fertilisers and pesticides are about to run out. In addition to that, intensive farming has created a lot of pollution and land degradation. Using human labour in place of machines (which require fuel or an energy source to operate - this comes with its own set of problems) is IMO a viable business model - most discerning consumers are now weary of food produced by intensive, pesticide/fertiliser heavy, GM monoculture farming. A lower yield, higher labour cost operation is far more sustainable. Humans need food. Producing it and selling it, and receiving an equal share of the profits, is not in any way...work 'for the sake of work'.... |
Quote:
|
Well that's different. If you're saying that humans can do the labor in a way that's better than machines then sure
|
Yes, let's set the tractors and combines aside so poor people can bust their asses in the blazing sun all day. If the workers are paid a living wage, it will cause produce and food prices to skyrocket, along with falling corporate profits. Nobody is going to get behind that, vixnix.
|
Quote:
The model of working so you don't starve is not ideal, and we should be trying to move away from it. (But obviously it is the best we can do for now) |
| All times are GMT -4. The time now is 04:57 PM. |
Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.6.8
Copyright ©2000 - 2020, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
Smashing Pumpkins, Alternative Music
& General Discussion Message Board and Forums
www.netphoria.org - Copyright © 1998-2020