More than enough to make it relevant. How many people on welfare have children that need to be raised?
[PUG] DRUG TEST all college students, unemployment beneficiaries, public school children!!!
- Thread starter Billy
- Start date
More than enough to make it relevant. How many people on welfare have children that need to be raised?
I understand that. Govt jobs and programs do extend and influence the private sector as well. I wouldn't be comfortable saying that raising children was harder than military service but it's always nice to hear someone acknowledge that it is not easy.
I am not afraid to say it. At the end of the day you can hang up your boots and bunk down in the military... you dont get to not be a mother just because the shift is over. Emotionally the toll on a person raising a child IMO is much higher than being in the military with the caveat of the poor soldiers who are forced into a situation where they have to kill someone and then struggle with that for the rest of their lives, but that is not even close to the majority of the entire military personnel. As far as I am concerned unless you are on actually on the ground killing people and taking fire you are just in the service collecting benefits that far outweigh the work you put in. I would say I am anti-military but pro soldier. I look forward to the day when there is enough opportunity in the world that young men and women don't have to enlist in a catch 22 so they can fund their future. I know SOME of them are there for the cause... what cause that is I am not sure. But I know many soldiers, in my family as well and most of them went in because they were broke as fuck and needed help in their lives, not because they wanted to defend anybody's freedom. That's just invariably the thing that gets mentioned the most. What pisses me off are the people who serve, and say that but never get put into a combat situation... I always have to ask them... when they say it. "who are you defending me from so I can speak?" Because the only people threatening my freedom here is the government. Guess who owns the military? The government. The government has plenty of examples of sending in troops to crush peoples freedom, but they tell me they are defending me... I dont get it.I understand that. Govt jobs and programs do extend and influence the private sector as well. I wouldn't be comfortable saying that raising children was harder than military service but it's always nice to hear someone acknowledge that it is not easy.
I would say that depends on branch and when they served and where they are. This is my opinion of course but the emotional toll on those men over there now is huge, and it is also the same for those who had to go to Bosnia and the Marines that served in Desert Storm. In a firefight you don't really know what's going on, but now even more so it's worse because you are always on point and are handcuffed more to what you can do to keep yourself alive. You're always on guard. It's why we are seeing so much PTSD and serious psychological problems. Raising a child doesn't give anyone PTSD. It's just hard but it's very very rewarding. At the end of the day after I put Abby to bed I lie in bed with my laptop.
OH, I just caught your edit. Yeah, I'm talking about those who have seen combat.
Last edited:
IDK about this military is welfare thing, unless you want to extend that to the presidency, congress, police, firemen, BMV drivers license attenders, etc etc etc. Even if you do extend it to those, its just nonsense.
Or could go further and include private sector jobs from businesses that the state contracts to provide goods/services. That would be me.
That's why I made the caveat, people in a combat situation are the ones doing the grunt work of the "defense" which in my opinion hasn't been about defense since the 1940s. We no longer need defense, now we just occupy and police things. That doesn't qualify as defending my rights IMO, sorry but that's what I believe. Especially when the military now has the power to arrest me and detain me indefinitely and deny my due process rights. That's why I don't get all teary eyed at parades and memorials and all that. I feel for the human cost of BOTH the Americans AND people Americans kill (far outnumbering our own casualties) but as for what they are doing? Defense of my rights? no... sorry not buying it. It hasn't been noble since we dropped Nuclear weapons on Japan. That's when we went from Defense to conquest. And I stand by my point that willingly putting yourself into that kind of a system is a form of welfare. I dont care if anyone thinks thats "extreme" or not... it has nothing to do with how we FEEL and everything to do with what we are actually doing.
The soldiers with their boots on the ground taking hits and being ordered to murder civilians, I fear for them the most. They bear the greatest cost of these terrible things we force them to do. I don't think what they are doing is so much noble, as it is tragic, since they ultimately pay the costs. For every other person that "served" but never went on the ground and actually had to deal with the shit going on, you didn't defend anything, my rights least of all, you got handed a job and resources. Welfare. And you have no right to put yourself in the same league as the men and women who actually had to be in the shit on the ground and eat up all that madness and misery and take it to their graves.
Why is it nonsense? they eat up more resources than the people on welfare. And I am not sure all of their jobs are necessary.
Which was my entire premise to begin with. we label 1 group of people welfare based on the fact that they receive government funding for resources. And then we label other groups other things even though they cost more and do the same exact thing. If we are to be consistent, then its ALL welfare, or none of it is. You cannot pick and choose which group you want to discriminate against, which is why I labeled the entire shit sandwich from the get go as hypocritical.Or could go further and include private sector jobs from businesses that the state contracts to provide goods/services. That would be me.
eeehhhh I don't know. I was playing around because if you took it to the end that's where you're going go. That sounds like a raven is like a writing desk statement. I'm not going to sit here and say, "MY GOD BILLY YOU'RE RIGHT! I'M COLLECTING WELFARE TOO EVEN THOUGH I'M WORKING! I'M PART OF THIS SHIT SANDWICH!"
The bottom line is that once you give away your freedoms, you don't get them back. The creep of the government's ability to drug test won't stop at the feet of the disenfranchised and poor. Business will also piggyback on the work done by the government. How about drug testing you because you receive healthcare benefits from your employer? Requiring you to have your DNA on file if you want a driver's license? Government sticking it's nose into your life on this level is never good.
I have always said that you either believe in helping others or you don't. I don't give a rats ass how people spend their welfare money. It is there for them to take personal responsibility for it. You can set up guidelines to ensure that it spent a certain way but you cannot 100% guarantee it will be spent the way you want it to be spent. Once you start placing conditions on stuff it means you really don't want to help others. It is this irrational fucked up view where people whine that "it isn't fair"---you know what, you are right. It isn't fair you work and drug addict doesn't. However it doesn't change the fucking fact that they are a human being and if they get $200 bucks in welfare and spend $20 bucks on food but blow the rest....they have been helped and they had the opportunity to be fed.
As far as labeling people's posts as "rants", that is all a bit of personal opinion that is the real red herring. If I want to say that I think Christians are evil hypocrites, I will say it. That doesn't mean that you have to accept my opinon as valid or correct in any way. See, the same way when you say how great Christians are...I don't have to believe it (and I generally don't). The whole part of meaningful dialogue is for people to be able to speak what they believe and feel--there is no need for anybody to give that weight or merit if they don't want too---you can't control other people. Control is an illusion, acceptance is a choice. The thing about debate is that it is the process by which we learn the give and take of interacting with others who are different from us--if we all parroted the same crap to each other this would be an amazingly boring place.
I have always said that you either believe in helping others or you don't. I don't give a rats ass how people spend their welfare money. It is there for them to take personal responsibility for it. You can set up guidelines to ensure that it spent a certain way but you cannot 100% guarantee it will be spent the way you want it to be spent. Once you start placing conditions on stuff it means you really don't want to help others. It is this irrational fucked up view where people whine that "it isn't fair"---you know what, you are right. It isn't fair you work and drug addict doesn't. However it doesn't change the fucking fact that they are a human being and if they get $200 bucks in welfare and spend $20 bucks on food but blow the rest....they have been helped and they had the opportunity to be fed.
As far as labeling people's posts as "rants", that is all a bit of personal opinion that is the real red herring. If I want to say that I think Christians are evil hypocrites, I will say it. That doesn't mean that you have to accept my opinon as valid or correct in any way. See, the same way when you say how great Christians are...I don't have to believe it (and I generally don't). The whole part of meaningful dialogue is for people to be able to speak what they believe and feel--there is no need for anybody to give that weight or merit if they don't want too---you can't control other people. Control is an illusion, acceptance is a choice. The thing about debate is that it is the process by which we learn the give and take of interacting with others who are different from us--if we all parroted the same crap to each other this would be an amazingly boring place.
Because what everyone is talking about is:
and
Welfare is meant to be a temporary financial relief for families who are undergoing hard times. Welfare recipients are getting a supposed minimum level of funds. Welfare is a social safety net. Calling senators or congressmen or people who have full-time jobs is not a form of financial relief, it is what people are doing to earn their living. Government employees are getting a level of financial compensation that provides at least (hopefully) a living wage or more.
Having a necessary job is not what makes it welfare, its what makes them a crook.
College students are not getting a form of relief either, they are getting either a loan or a grant. A grant is not welfare, it is a subsidy or an investment. (what kind of investment can be discussed later) Obviously a loan is not welfare.
You can't just lump everything connected to the government under the term welfare because words mean things, and that is not what welfare means. Personally if people are living in a place that is so shitty that welfare pays them enough to live forever and they are going to get over on the government then good for them, it costs me probably less than $.01 in taxes. I'm willing to give them that once a year, just for a laugh.
Last edited:
Sure I can, college students who get aid, are getting free money... how is that not welfare?
Working in the military they provide you with everything including a job... how is that not welfare?
You think everyone who joins the army is doing because they want to serve? I posit that many if not most do it because of lack of opportunity.
because it is not temporary relief for hardship.
Yes they want to serve and in return they get want to get paid. AKA work and get money in return. If all they do is stand there and the government has decided to pay someone for standing, that is fair compensation. I shouldnt have to define what work means and what compensation means.
Aside, everyone who joins collects their paycheck, no one is an unpaid volunteer. Noone is giving back their paycheck. In fact you have to get it deposited into a bank account ( I assume it even has to have your name on it, except for allotments) If unpaid volunteering is what you mean by serve then correct, no one is "serving". To "serve in the military" doesnt mean you do it for free, everyone knows that and if that is what you mean I have to wonder where you get your information from.
Pretty much this. I have a friend who's going into the military, and it's been hell on her. She wants to be a botanist, but she's going into the military anyway because her whole family is military and she just says she "needs" to because everyone else in her family does it. Her two youngest siblings (one 3 and one 4) are already being placed into military schools that are, to my understanding, designed to basically prepare and ship them into respective branches (the 3 year old is the Marines and the 4 year old is the Navy).
It's actually kind of disgusting. Making things worse are the drunken times when she's been crying and saying how scared she is of holding a gun or dying. It breaks my heart. [/tangential rambling]
btw, if we're going to talk about all those evil lazy people on welfare who are just making the debt worse or whatever, then what do we say about all those government tax cuts on the rich? The bank bailouts?
So because you do a job (one that is provided to you) its not welfare? I disagree. Work is the production of something in society or a service that fills a need. I am not sure being a soldier is either of those. Possibly the need, but I wouldn't call it a need at all. We don't need a military out there conquering the rest of the world. As far as I am concerned they are just living and being paid off of tax dollars not adding much to the economy, so you really cant call it work by the traditional standards. They also get full benefits and funding for education for real jobs. Sounds like welfare to me.
Oh its pretty obvious that the majority of the people who serve do it for the benefits and free money, not because they want to go out and help with the conquest of the world. Thats just the moral branding people use to pretend its not what it is. I know over 100 people in the military various branches, 2 of them are believers in defending the US (from what I am not sure) the rest went in because they couldnt afford college or find a job.
Didnt they do some poll one time and it showed that the military is filled with the poorest people in the country? Certainly isnt a bunch of affluent kids signing up to serve.
It is obviously a service, that is why it is called the service, and that is why when you work there is is called serving. When you are all done you have served. The military is a service quite obviously.
Correct, we do not need to conquer the rest of the world. We could instead sit on the border and shoot invading navy ships or even sleep and do nothing. But again, words mean something and just working for the government doesnt make you a welfare recipient.
I'm not sure why it would have to anyway. You don't have to go that direction (military service = welfare) to make the argument that drug testing welfare recipients is hypocrisy. The invasion of privacy, keeping govt small, etc. is the best place to find common ground and go from there.