Violent Protests in Baltimore

[Melakon]

Then we should be able to tell elected officials where they can live, and what they're allowed to buy out of the money they receive from taxpayers. But since the money they receive is called salaries and not benefits, somehow that doesn't happen.

Not the same. Elected officials provide a service to theor constituents and are paid a wage in return for their services. Now we can certainly argue how well they do their jobs and if they deserve that wage but it's their money. Money that we, as taxpayers, have agreed to pay them in return for services rendered. People on food stamps provide no service to the taxpayers, they are simply given assistance in return for nothing.

I'm receiving money from the government right now, and haven't worked in almost 15 years.

 

[Tiger Devil Dog]

Are you a retired government employee? If so, then you are receiving a retirement package that was part of your agreed upon compensation for your services. Do you receive SS that you paid into your entire life? Then that is your money anyway that for some reason the government forced you to give to them because you obviously cannot be trusted to save for your own retirement. Are you disabled and incapable of performing a job?

If you aren't one of these then you're a leech and you're welcome. I'll be at work all week to make sure you can have some of my money to live on.

 

[BillJ]

Money that we, as taxpayers, have agreed to pay them in return for services rendered.

Me and my wife are taxpayers and have never been asked to agree to any salaries that public officials make.

 

[BillJ]

If you aren't one of these then you're a leech and you're welcome. I'll be at work all week to make sure you can have some of my money to live on.

God help your smug ass if you ever lose your job.

 

[Garak]

Are you a retired government employee? If so, then you are receiving a retirement package that was part of your agreed upon compensation for your services. Do you receive SS that you paid into your entire life? Then that is your money anyway that for some reason the government forced you to give to them because you obviously cannot be trusted to save for your own retirement. Are you disabled and incapable of performing a job?

If you aren't one of these then you're a leech and you're welcome. I'll be at work all week to make sure you can have some of my money to live on.

How much does your paper route pay?

 

[Tiger Devil Dog]

Yes but you voted them into office. And they voted themselves pay raises. That's how a republic works. in many states and localities public official salaries are voted on in a popular vote. I never agreed to daylight savings time but at some point in time an elected official put it into place. We can always try to vote in people who will vote to lower their own wages.

 

[Tiger Devil Dog]

God help your smug ass if you ever lose your job.

I have lost a job. It sucked ass. Luckily I had saved for such a rainy day and was able to tide myself over.

 

[BillJ]

God help your smug ass if you ever lose your job.

I have lost a job. It sucked ass. Luckily I had saved for such a rainy day and was able to tide myself over.

Got to be quite honest here, I simply don't believe you. I'm not even sure you believe most of the stuff you're posting here.

 

[Tiger Devil Dog]

That's okay. You don't have to believe me. It's the truth though. I was let go due to a problem with alcoholism. I don't blame anyone but myself. I managed to get myself sober and find new employment to provide for myself and my family.

 

[Mudd]

Oh, I believe the paper route. Not sure I believe any claims about adult, real life experience.

 

[Melakon]

If you aren't one of these then you're a leech and you're welcome. I'll be at work all week to make sure you can have some of my money to live on.

God help your smug ass if you ever lose your job.

Or have a stroke. A year with no money coming in at all waiting to be approved for benefits is a major pain.

 

[Tiger Devil Dog]

There's no reason to be rude. It's just a debate on the internet.

 

[Tiger Devil Dog]

Or have a stroke. A year with no money coming in at all waiting to be approved for benefits is a major pain.

So you are physically disabled and unable to work. If you had read my post you would realize that I have no problem with you receiving assistance.

 

[Trekker4747]

Then we should be able to tell elected officials where they can live, and what they're allowed to buy out of the money they receive from taxpayers. But since the money they receive is called salaries and not benefits, somehow that doesn't happen.

Not the same. Elected officials provide a service to theor constituents and are paid a wage in return for their services. Now we can certainly argue how well they do their jobs and if they deserve that wage but it's their money. Money that we, as taxpayers, have agreed to pay them in return for services rendered. People on food stamps provide no service to the taxpayers, they are simply given assistance in return for nothing.

Providing with a means of living and feeding themselves is a benefit to society by them not being more of a burden on it by them living on the streets and/or being possible crime problems as they struggle to maintain their existence.

Living on the streets causes more more of a decayed look on the urban landscape which can erode property values, discourage business owners from taking-up shop in the area and discourage people to use the area due to the homelessness. Either for safety concerns, the appearances of the homeless in the area, not wanting to be pestered by beggars, or simply the smell and other things associated with someone homeless.

Tax money is spent to set-up shelters or other services to help so the homeless has some form of shelter or source of food. Homeless tend to create some crime problems either through them begging in controlled areas, public drinking or (terrible as this is) just being in the "wrong" areas were homeless people aren't allowed. This creates more work for police officers meaning either we need more of them or need to accept the hit this takes on other, more serious, crimes. Arresting them uses up jail space necessitating either more/larger jails or over crowding jails. Putting them in jails costs money in the form of needing to feed and shelter them.

Homeless people are entitled to healthcare but since there's no way for them to pay for it, hospitals have to eat the costs and this results in higher healthcare for everyone else.

So, either some of our taxes goes to dealing with homeless people and taking care of them or "controlling" them, further paying for it on the erosion they cause to business. *OR* some of our tax money goes to providing funds to poor people so that they can maintain some form of life-style while in a home where they still provide for society by having some kind of job and having a home and stable conditions they have the chances of bettering their position.

This is part of what living in a society is. Some of us in better positions need to support those in worse positions. If local governments want to take a couple cents of the money they take from my taxes and use it so a poor person can buy groceries. Fine. No skin off my ass.

Did you know in Utah an experimental program in place has shown that it's cheaper to tax payers for the local government to put homeless people up in small apartments, feed, clothe, and clean them than it is for those people to be homeless and all of the problems and expenses that comes with it?

And those once homeless people living rent-free in fairly nice apartments with simple fixtures and limited internet are able to get back on their feet, get jobs, and contribute to society again.

That's fantastic! I don't even care that it costs less. It's something we *should* be doing. We shouldn't be ignoring poor people or the homeless and doing everything we can to help them either stay somewhat on their feet or back on their feet.

Again, we live in a society.

 

[Tiger Devil Dog]

Then we should be able to tell elected officials where they can live, and what they're allowed to buy out of the money they receive from taxpayers. But since the money they receive is called salaries and not benefits, somehow that doesn't happen.

Not the same. Elected officials provide a service to theor constituents and are paid a wage in return for their services. Now we can certainly argue how well they do their jobs and if they deserve that wage but it's their money. Money that we, as taxpayers, have agreed to pay them in return for services rendered. People on food stamps provide no service to the taxpayers, they are simply given assistance in return for nothing.

Providing with a means of living and feeding themselves is a benefit to society by them not being more of a burden on it by them living on the streets and/or being possible crime problems as they struggle to maintain their existence.

Living on the streets causes more more of a decayed look on the urban landscape which can erode property values, discourage business owners from taking-up shop in the area and discourage people to use the area due to the homelessness. Either for safety concerns, the appearances of the homeless in the area, not wanting to be pestered by beggars, or simply the smell and other things associated with someone homeless.

Tax money is spent to set-up shelters or other services to help so the homeless has some form of shelter or source of food. Homeless tend to create some crime problems either through them begging in controlled areas, public drinking or (terrible as this is) just being in the "wrong" areas were homeless people aren't allowed. This creates more work for police officers meaning either we need more of them or need to accept the hit this takes on other, more serious, crimes. Arresting them uses up jail space necessitating either more/larger jails or over crowding jails. Putting them in jails costs money in the form of needing to feed and shelter them.

Homeless people are entitled to healthcare but since there's no way for them to pay for it, hospitals have to eat the costs and this results in higher healthcare for everyone else.

So, either some of our taxes goes to dealing with homeless people and taking care of them or "controlling" them, further paying for it on the erosion they cause to business. *OR* some of our tax money goes to providing funds to poor people so that they can maintain some form of life-style while in a home where they still provide for society by having some kind of job and having a home and stable conditions they have the chances of bettering their position.

This is part of what living in a society is. Some of us in better positions need to support those in worse positions. If local governments want to take a couple cents of the money they take from my taxes and use it so a poor person can buy groceries. Fine. No skin off my ass.

Did you know in Utah an experimental program in place has shown that it's cheaper to tax payers for the local government to put homeless people up in small apartments, feed, clothe, and clean them than it is for those people to be homeless and all of the problems and expenses that comes with it?

And those once homeless people living rent-free in fairly nice apartments with simple fixtures and limited internet are able to get back on their feet, get jobs, and contribute to society again.

That's fantastic! I don't even care that it costs less. It's something we *should* be doing. We shouldn't be ignoring poor people or the homeless and doing everything we can to help them either stay somewhat on their feet or back on their feet.

Again, we live in a society.

Providing them with assistance is a benifit for society, that doesn't mean those receiving the benifit are providing are service in return for those benifits. The argument is whether or not we should be able to tell them what to do with the money that we as taxpayers give them. Not whether or not providing food and shelter for the poor is good or bad for society.

 

[Melakon]

Or have a stroke. A year with no money coming in at all waiting to be approved for benefits is a major pain.

So you are physically disabled and unable to work. If you had read my post you would realize that I have no problem with you receiving assistance.

You have no idea how much that eases my mind. It would help when quoting or replying to posts, if you included the user's name. This thread is moving very quickly, and it's not always easy to tell who you're addressing.

 

[Tiger Devil Dog]

Or have a stroke. A year with no money coming in at all waiting to be approved for benefits is a major pain.

So you are physically disabled and unable to work. If you had read my post you would realize that I have no problem with you receiving assistance.

You have no idea how much that eases my mind. It would help when quoting or replying to posts, if you included the user's name. This thread is moving very quickly, and it's not always easy to tell who you're addressing.

I apologize. I'm new here. I'll try to learn the particulars of this website as quickly as I can.

 

[Trekker4747]

Providing them with assistance is a benifit for society, that doesn't mean those receiving the benifit are providing are service in return for those benifits. The argument is whether or not we should be able to tell them what to do with the money that we as taxpayers give them. Not whether or not providing food and shelter for the poor is good or bad for society.

I don't think they should be told what they can and cannot do with the money. I can understand limiting/prohibiting vice items (alcohol, tobacco products) but I don't think types of food items should be limited or controlled. Nor do I think things like Brownback controls recently passed are right, things like not using public pools or using other entertainment venues. They should still be allowed to enjoy their lives.

Hard to do that when you're eating hamburger helper, store-brand canned vegetables and longing for a dip in a cool pool on a hot, summer, day.

It's a few cents out of my check, what do I care what a person on benefits does with it?

 

[Tiger Devil Dog]

Providing them with assistance is a benifit for society, that doesn't mean those receiving the benifit are providing are service in return for those benifits. The argument is whether or not we should be able to tell them what to do with the money that we as taxpayers give them. Not whether or not providing food and shelter for the poor is good or bad for society.

I don't think they should be told what they can and cannot do with the money. I can understand limiting/prohibiting vice items (alcohol, tobacco products) but I don't think types of food items should be limited or controlled. Nor do I think things like Brownback controls recently passed are right, things like not using public pools or using other entertainment venues. They should still be allowed to enjoy their lives.

Hard to do that when you're eating hamburger helper, store-brand canned vegetables and longing for a dip in a cool pool on a hot, summer, day.

It's a few cents out of my check, what do I care what a person on benefits does with it?

Nobody is telling them they can't enjoy their lives. Just that they can't enjoy their lives on the taxpayers money

 

[Amaris]

Providing them with assistance is a benifit for society, that doesn't mean those receiving the benifit are providing are service in return for those benifits. The argument is whether or not we should be able to tell them what to do with the money that we as taxpayers give them. Not whether or not providing food and shelter for the poor is good or bad for society.

I don't think they should be told what they can and cannot do with the money. I can understand limiting/prohibiting vice items (alcohol, tobacco products) but I don't think types of food items should be limited or controlled. Nor do I think things like Brownback controls recently passed are right, things like not using public pools or using other entertainment venues. They should still be allowed to enjoy their lives.

Hard to do that when you're eating hamburger helper, store-brand canned vegetables and longing for a dip in a cool pool on a hot, summer, day.

It's a few cents out of my check, what do I care what a person on benefits does with it?

Nobody is telling them they can't enjoy their lives. Just that they can't enjoy their lives on the taxpayers money

Why not? There are aspects of your life you enjoy because of taxpayer money. It is telling what is in a person's heart when they begrudgingly hand a morsel of food to a person in need, while concurrently holding the opinion that it would be better that they choke it down, lest they enjoy it.