In one breath you say words mean something, then in the next you negate that by denying the operational usage of the word welfare.
[PUG] DRUG TEST all college students, unemployment beneficiaries, public school children!!!
- Thread starter Billy
- Start date
In one breath you say words mean something, then in the next you negate that by denying the operational usage of the word welfare.
Yeah that's the tactful way of going, I enjoy pointing out peoples hypocrisies though. I think people who believe such absurdity should be made to feel embarrassed by such embarrassing beliefs. Since they are operating on irrational emotions, might as well stimulate another one, so they can understand.
. That's false. But its clear to me that you don't know where else to go with this so we will have to agree to disagree for now. When you think up a rational assertion let me know.
| 1. | health, happiness, prosperity, and well-being in general |
| 2. | a. financial and other assistance given to people in need |
| b. ( as modifier ): welfare services | |
| 3. | Also called: welfare work plans or work to better the social oreconomic conditions of various underprivileged groups |
| 4. | informal chiefly ( Brit ) the welfare the public agenciesinvolved with giving such assistance |
| 5. | chiefly ( US ), ( Canadian ) on welfare in receipt of financialaid from a government agency or other source |
answer the question. Do people in the military get financial assistance, aid, healthcare etc from the government?
I agree in principal but what would happen if they found someone was one drugs?
Are they planning to stop their welfare or force them into rehab?
I'm not 100% on this but I kinda think if it's the latter this may end up being a good thing. If it's the former..... disaster
Billy, I doubt your military = welfare would hold up in a court of law because of the word NEED
If you join the military you are not in need. You are trading your time for something. You're not getting something primarily because you're in need.
You could make the case that anyone that accepts a tax credit is accepting welfare though. I don't think the military thing is gonna work.
If you join the military you are not in need. You are trading your time for something. You're not getting something primarily because you're in need.
You could make the case that anyone that accepts a tax credit is accepting welfare though. I don't think the military thing is gonna work.
Are you being serious? Are you trolling me? haha You trickster you got me good. lol
I normally like to watch how things turn out with your arguments Billy but this time I can't resist.
First of all, Welfare, as your intial topic was refering to, is the program which offers financial assistance to people who do not have the means to support themselves. Financial aid is a program that gives money to students who are going to college based on need--meaning you do not earn enough money to financially pay for college and you get funds--it generally isn't much above tuition and books really (if you are lucky).
Military service is a job. The people who serve in the military are paid for work they have performed. Just because you do not think it is work doens't mean that it not work and therefore welfare. By your definition anybody with a job is on welfare. Of course, you could argue that without you owning the means of production yourself, you are basically at the welfare of someone else--but that is more a philisophical debate. Factually, those who work are pulling salaries for work performed and not considered to be on welfare.
However, people on welfare and in the military receive public funds. That is the extent of the similiarities of how they receive monies though.
I think your argument is poorly constructed in the "military people are on welfare".
To the topic of drug testing welfare recipients--the counter of that argument is: Why stop at the people receiving the benefit? If it is public money being used and drugs are illegal--why aren't we also calling for the testing of the people who profit from those who spend the benefits? Why no call to arms to drug test the landlords? The supermarkets? Wal-Mart? Shouldn't we also ensure that those who make a profit from public welfare funds also be drug free? The CEO's? The supervisors and managers? Why wouldn't we want to ensure that we are not supporting their drug habits and bad lifestyles?
See...that is where you see the true disparity in how we view the disenfranchised and the poor. Did that argument never cross your mind to think of it in that way? It is always about money and power. Those with the money and power exercise it against those who don't have it to keep them arguing amongst themselves rather than looking at them.
First of all, Welfare, as your intial topic was refering to, is the program which offers financial assistance to people who do not have the means to support themselves. Financial aid is a program that gives money to students who are going to college based on need--meaning you do not earn enough money to financially pay for college and you get funds--it generally isn't much above tuition and books really (if you are lucky).
Military service is a job. The people who serve in the military are paid for work they have performed. Just because you do not think it is work doens't mean that it not work and therefore welfare. By your definition anybody with a job is on welfare. Of course, you could argue that without you owning the means of production yourself, you are basically at the welfare of someone else--but that is more a philisophical debate. Factually, those who work are pulling salaries for work performed and not considered to be on welfare.
However, people on welfare and in the military receive public funds. That is the extent of the similiarities of how they receive monies though.
I think your argument is poorly constructed in the "military people are on welfare".
To the topic of drug testing welfare recipients--the counter of that argument is: Why stop at the people receiving the benefit? If it is public money being used and drugs are illegal--why aren't we also calling for the testing of the people who profit from those who spend the benefits? Why no call to arms to drug test the landlords? The supermarkets? Wal-Mart? Shouldn't we also ensure that those who make a profit from public welfare funds also be drug free? The CEO's? The supervisors and managers? Why wouldn't we want to ensure that we are not supporting their drug habits and bad lifestyles?
See...that is where you see the true disparity in how we view the disenfranchised and the poor. Did that argument never cross your mind to think of it in that way? It is always about money and power. Those with the money and power exercise it against those who don't have it to keep them arguing amongst themselves rather than looking at them.
My original point is that we are all on some form of "welfare" we receive money and assets for things we haven't done every single day. Why do we pick 1 segment of people and call it welfare, and not any others? I theorize its because culturally we have multiple meanings for words without operational definitions. I guess it probably is a philosophical debate, but if we are going to be using morality to decide who gets what then its always been a philosophical debate. Saying people in the military on welfare is a point made in conjunction with other points to make us think what welfare actually is. Welfare is NOT poor people getting food stamps and aid to eat. Welfare is essentially the receipt of benefits we have not earned ourselves. We are all on some form of assistance. Each and every one of us. If you don't even look at the government and you look more globally, our lifestyles are bloated up artificially upon the the taking of assets and resources of people we are stronger than. This has been my point all along before the nit pickers wanted to detract the conversation away from the crux of my OP. Which is that denying some people benefits because "they haven't worked for it and are using it for something we don't think they should" is hypocritical.
Obviously people in the military receive aid, health, etc which costs FAR MORE than what they contribute, so in that way it is a form of welfare. Read my OP's to get a clearer idea of what I was talking about now that the argument has been watered down in tangentry.
Exactly. Which was what I was originally getting at, why this absurd argument even exists in the 1st place. That there are class divisions and fear politics at work here. That the elite use this divisive shit to divide the poorer classes, and the slightly less poor class is where all the slug fest occur by people who want to climb and not be associated with the people they consider beneath them. My original theory is that this is just divisive class politics and kindergarten mentality by people too stupid to understand the situation.
NEED is a subjective term that can be debated. Again as I remember reading most people dont go into the military out of a desire to serve, but out of necessity. Kind of like how the military doesnt recruit in affluent areas, they recruit in places where there is plenty of poverty.
It can be debated but you won't win.
You don't get money primarily because of need like welfare. When you serve you're getting it primarily because you're making a trade of your time for money. You also trade being a civilian. There is opportunity cost involved. What does someone on welfare give up in exchange for money?
WASHINGTON - Most military recruits in the United States come from areas in which household income is lower than the national median, a non-profit group says.Nearly two-thirds, 64 percent, of recruits to the military were from counties that have average incomes lower than the national median National Priorities Project said. The group looked at Department of Defense data for 2004.
According to NPP, 15 of the top 20 counties that had the highest numbers of recruits had higher poverty rates than the national average, and 18 of the top 20 had higher poverty rates than the state average.
The U.S. military has long been considered a step away from economic hardship, a trend that is apparently continuing.
Military recruiting officials contend money is not the only reason people join the military, since it also attracts those looking for an opportunity for public service, travel, and structure and discipline.
http://www.military.com/NewsContent/0,13319,79770,00.html
According to NPP, 15 of the top 20 counties that had the highest numbers of recruits had higher poverty rates than the national average, and 18 of the top 20 had higher poverty rates than the state average.
The U.S. military has long been considered a step away from economic hardship, a trend that is apparently continuing.
Military recruiting officials contend money is not the only reason people join the military, since it also attracts those looking for an opportunity for public service, travel, and structure and discipline.
http://www.military.com/NewsContent/0,13319,79770,00.html
And yet its exactly that "need" that drives these people into the service. Just because they trade time for assistance does not mean its not still welfare. Welfare does not = money for nothing it is aid by the government for people who need assistance. Again they have put in many reforms and while true not all qualify, but many people on welfare are forced to work or pay it back.
irrelevant to the discussion. But one could make the subjective argument that they have to give up their pride, the last thing they have. What the hell else do they have? The ones with the means are forced into working, but again many do not because they have no one to watch the children, unless you want to pay even more money to give them free childcare so they can go work some menial job so we can all feel better about ourselves.
If you are being serious then its a poorly made and laughable argument. Your questions dont even meet your own definition of welfare. Yes military folks get all those things and it isnt welfare.
I would point out that I did refer to your initial OP about drug testing welfare recipients. I distinctly spoke of welfare as the program, not the ideal the conversation has evolved into.
It is not true that militiary people receive benefits they do not deserve--they are considered perks of a job (why they are called benefits) because they are financial boons given to keep valued employees. They are not welfare recipients as it is generally understood.
As a side note: Why not drug test all the people who get government contracts? JP Morgan is the company that issues the charge cards used by the government. Why not drug test the top management of that company in return for the government contract they administer?
On the deeper level, I agree with your argument as you stated in response to me. If you do not own the means of production, you are living at the mercy or welfare of those that do. I would however say that on its most basic level we are all interconnected and we all live with the help of the other. Them Christians have a saying within their mythology along the lines of "what you do to the least of us, you do to me" or somesuch. It is true. How we judge and condemn the other is how we judge and condemn ourselves. Have we not all used something that was given in an inproper way? There are very few things we do that require such vehement condemnation and not being able to support yourself and needing help shouldn't be one of them.
It is not true that militiary people receive benefits they do not deserve--they are considered perks of a job (why they are called benefits) because they are financial boons given to keep valued employees. They are not welfare recipients as it is generally understood.
As a side note: Why not drug test all the people who get government contracts? JP Morgan is the company that issues the charge cards used by the government. Why not drug test the top management of that company in return for the government contract they administer?
On the deeper level, I agree with your argument as you stated in response to me. If you do not own the means of production, you are living at the mercy or welfare of those that do. I would however say that on its most basic level we are all interconnected and we all live with the help of the other. Them Christians have a saying within their mythology along the lines of "what you do to the least of us, you do to me" or somesuch. It is true. How we judge and condemn the other is how we judge and condemn ourselves. Have we not all used something that was given in an inproper way? There are very few things we do that require such vehement condemnation and not being able to support yourself and needing help shouldn't be one of them.
No, it is not irrelevant to the discussion just because you say it is. It is relevant because you've got to prove they're the same or similar at least.
P.S. They just dropped most of those reforms because the states couldn't even come close to numbers that were decent. I think it was less than 30%.
Either way, I don't give a shit because I agree with your OP
just wondering if you could ever admit you were wrong...
