Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
What you're calling for is pretty much what the US Government did to Native Americans. Majority of the time the land was not arable.
Why can't we ever identify the conditions that create welfare? If we don't need it, then why does it exist?
As to the bolded, nobody is going to agree with you on that. I know City Councilpersons get paid $112K a year, but in NYC there's some districts where that's going to be hard to live on, and you have to live in your district.
Get real :-). Are the homeless (and other non-working) welfare recipients hunting bison and growing corn in NYC, of which they would be deprived if given basic housing somewhere 8x less expensive than NYC? No, people who don't work but use public subsidies should be using public subsidies somewhere where it is 8x cheaper to use them.
Conditions that create welfare are quite obvious, no effort needed to "identify" them: people not working, but having numerous kids, since welfare pays extra (in various forms, including larger housing) for extra kids. People who work to support themselves, and live within their means, do not create welfare.
What you're calling for is pretty much what the US Government did to Native Americans. Majority of the time the land was not arable.
Why can't we ever identify the conditions that create welfare? If we don't need it, then why does it exist?
As to the bolded, nobody is going to agree with you on that. I know City Councilpersons get paid $112K a year, but in NYC there's some districts where that's going to be hard to live on, and you have to live in your district.
Granted, some people are too stupid to perform any kind of work. Low IQ is a disability, and does warrant basic support from taxpayers. But if people are too disabled (due to low IQ or whatever) to work, how come they are not too disabled to parent kids?
Get real :-). Are the homeless (and other non-working) welfare recipients hunting bison and growing corn in NYC, of which they would be deprived if given basic housing somewhere 8x less expensive than NYC? No, people who don't work but use public subsidies should be using public subsidies somewhere where it is 8x cheaper to use them.
Conditions that create welfare are quite obvious, no effort needed to "identify" them: people not working, but having numerous kids, since welfare pays extra (in various forms, including larger housing) for extra kids. People who work to support themselves, and live within their means, do not create welfare.
No, you get real :-)
What do you expect people to do if you want to ship them somewhere out of the city with no wilderness skills, you'll end up paying more taxes to either transport them food, or to send people to teach them how to grow crops.
People who don't want to work don't create policy. Why are you not holding any contempt for the politicians?
__________________
"The man who sleeps on the floor, can never fall out of bed." -Martin Lawrence
Granted, some people are too stupid to perform any kind of work. Low IQ is a disability, and does warrant basic support from taxpayers. But if people are too disabled (due to low IQ or whatever) to work, how come they are not too disabled to parent kids?
Low IQ and the ability to earn money are not synonymous
__________________
"The man who sleeps on the floor, can never fall out of bed." -Martin Lawrence
Low IQ and the ability to earn money are not synonymous
Why don't you look up words you don't know (like synonymous) in the dictionary instead of using them in a wrong meaning? :-). In the US, where jobs are plentiful, only organic disability can make someone unable to earn money. Low IQ is a pervasive disability, and those who have it may be truly unable to perform any work, ie, to earn money (since money is earned by performing work).
Why don't you look up words you don't know (like synonymous) in the dictionary instead of using them in a wrong meaning? :-). In the US, where jobs are plentiful, only organic disability can make someone unable to earn money. Low IQ is a pervasive disability, and those who have it may be truly unable to perform any work, ie, to earn money (since money is earned by performing work).
So why not test everybody as soon as they're able to determine their IQ, and if it's low, ship them somewhere? Haha. Violating human rights is ok as long as you're stupid. Haha. You have a very outdated view of the world due to your lack of knowledge when it comes to modern technology. People are earning good money without having conventional jobs. And IQ means nothing when it comes to the ability to earn money.
This is exactly why capitalism is pervasive, it erodes your morality and makes you judge people based on how much money they have, which I'm sure you do.
__________________
"The man who sleeps on the floor, can never fall out of bed." -Martin Lawrence
I complain more about the spending, than I do taxes. Hell tax me more, but quit wasting my damn money!!
You have too much trust in politicians my friend. Especially when being a politician is a very, very, very cushy job nowadays. The more you give them, the more they will use it to keep themselves in power and more often than not it means doing the easiest thing for buying votes which is giving away tax revenue for free.
What do you expect people to do if you want to ship them somewhere out of the city with no wilderness skills, you'll end up paying more taxes to either transport them food, or to send people to teach them how to grow crops.
People who don't want to work don't create policy. Why are you not holding any contempt for the politicians?
You do not need any wilderness skills in a housing complex with water, electricity, heating and sewage. I don't believe that the only alternative to living in NYC, in 2024, is having wilderness skills :-). Food always needs to be transported somewhere, and if anything, it is easier and cheaper to transport it to a small place than to locations in NYC, due to the city traffic. Nothing would prevent people living on a public dime on a cheap land from learning how to grow crops (or from learning anything else) if they decided after all to leave the life of living on a public dime, and accept work as farm laborers - how is it necessary to live in NYC in order to grow crops??
Who says I am not holding any contempt for the politicians? :-) I have never expressed a particular respect here for politicking as an "occupation".
What you're calling for is pretty much what the US Government did to Native Americans. Majority of the time the land was not arable.
Why can't we ever identify the conditions that create welfare? If we don't need it, then why does it exist?
As to the bolded, nobody is going to agree with you on that. I know City Councilpersons get paid $112K a year, but in NYC there's some districts where that's going to be hard to live on, and you have to live in your district.
Conditions that create welfare? You mean being lazy, making bad decisions, abusing the system, etc? How many people On welfare do you think are there because they simply ran into bad luck that has very little to do with their actions and choices? I’d venture to guess that at least a third of people on various entitlement programs in NYC dont even need them. They’re just gaming/scamming the system because it’s so easy and they have no issue morally.
City council persons now make a base pay of $148K. There’s more money in perks/per diem for many. Even considering someone has no spouse with a second income, that’s plenty of money to live in any district in NYC.
You do not need any wilderness skills in a housing complex with water, electricity, heating and sewage. I don't believe that the only alternative to living in NYC, in 2024, is having wilderness skills :-). Food always needs to be transported somewhere, and if anything, it is easier and cheaper to transport it to a small place than to locations in NYC, due to the city traffic. Nothing would prevent people living on a public dime on a cheap land from learning how to grow crops (or from learning anything else) if they decided after all to leave the life of living on a public dime, and accept work as farm laborers - how is it necessary to live in NYC in order to grow crops??
Who says I am not holding any contempt for the politicians? :-) I have never expressed a particular respect here for politicking as an "occupation".
The poster is literally arguing you can’t force people out or NYC because they’d need to be self sufficient in a rural area otherwise.
The poster is either a master troll or was part of a major medical malpractice suit in their youth.
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
