StarDestroyer.Net BBS

Do you think our nation would be better off without all of the non working, government milking, drug using individuals? I am talking about the trashy people that occupy ghettos, barrios and slums.

Now, I am no Nazi but I am curious to see what everyone thinks. Would society be better off without them?

Yes.

Uhm, that's a hard question, let me think

(small pause)

Yes


Mind you, I am talking about the ones you described, the gov't milkers who don't even attempt to work for a living.

People who are productive members of society and try to get by in the world are fine by me, but those who would sit back on their butts and draw welfare just because they can piss me off.

That is the problem I have with socialism in the US, there are too many people who would take advantage of it.

Do you mean getting rid of them(concentration camps) or finding ways for them to improve their status so they are no longer "lower class"?

The first option is absurd. All people who are "non working, government milking, drug using individuals" aren't that way by choice. Just because your poor doesn't mean your unfit. That's basically social darwinist bullshit. Besides even if you did get rid of them, the concept of lower class would merely shift upwards. Where would it end?

The only real option for attempting to eliminate a lower class is to try and find a way for them to improve their economic standing and help them kick their drug habit. How that will be done I don't know but it's the only humane way of eliminating those kinds of people.

Clone Sergeant wrote:All people who are "non working, government milking, drug using individuals" aren't that way by choice.

Oh, so, they were forced to start using crack, not attempt to work, and to sit around the house all day living off welfare because they don't want to get a job.

Yeah, right...

A significant portion of homeless people are homeless by choice, btw. You don't have to pay taxes or anything.

Superman wrote:Do you think our nation would be better off without all of the non working, government milking, drug using individuals? I am talking about the trashy people that occupy ghettos, barrios and slums.

Now, I am no Nazi but I am curious to see what everyone thinks. Would society be better off without them?

Well, obviously society would be better off if such a class didn't exist. But a solution to the existance of such a class has evaded us for so long precisely because it doesn't exist.

Not everyone from the lower class are welfare cashing drug using bums.

Yes, but society would still be better off if they never existed.

We're not saying we should wall off the ghettos and let them starve and eat each other, but that if they just disappeared.

Let me tell a little story: I know a kindergarten teacher who once asked all the kids in the class what their parents did for a living. One kid refused to answer, and when he discussed it with his parents, his parents were ANGRY at him. You see, they were angry at him for trying to shove his bougeoisie notions of the employment and self-worth down the kid's throat. In their words, "We believe the welfare system is more than adequate for ours needs." and they thought he was WAY out of line in implying that people with jobs are better than those without. Take what you will from that story; it's true.

....

That's almost revolting.

Superman wrote:Do you think our nation would be better off without all of the non working, government milking, drug using individuals? I am talking about the trashy people that occupy ghettos, barrios and slums.

Now, I am no Nazi but I am curious to see what everyone thinks. Would society be better off without them?

Not everyone that lives in the what you call 'Ghetto's" are on drugs or trashy. and most of them are "NOT" on welfare.

I don't know about everyone else, but I am just referring to the moochers who live off welfare because they don't want to attempt to get a job.

Superman wrote:Do you think our nation would be better off without all of the non working, government milking, drug using individuals? I am talking about the trashy people that occupy ghettos, barrios and slums.

Now, I am no Nazi but I am curious to see what everyone thinks. Would society be better off without them?

Of course, and it would be nice if the government didn't subsidize the existence of that class.

Durran Korr wrote:Of course, and it would be nice if the government didn't subsidize the existence of that class.

If you don't subsidize them, they would turn to crime. "They already do," you may argue, but it would be a lot worse. Social safety nets are a response to the 1930's, because nobody wants a repeat performance.

NF_Utvol wrote:

Clone Sergeant wrote:All people who are "non working, government milking, drug using individuals" aren't that way by choice.

Oh, so, they were forced to start using crack, not attempt to work, and to sit around the house all day living off welfare because they don't want to get a job.

Yeah, right...

Well it's true. I've spent a lot of my adult life unemployed. And it's so easy to fall into that downward spiral. First of all your depressed coz you can't find work. Then you start drinking to try and get over the depression, then when the drinking just isn't enough you consider alternatives. And it goes deeper and deeper.

I've been there in the debths of unemployed depression and if it wasn't for my family I'd be one of those "non working, government milking, drug using individuals" as you all refered to them.

The one thing I definitely don't understand is this "dignity" bullshit. We have many measures in our society designed to ensure that people on welfare can live with "dignity". In Canada, we give them money instead of foodstamps because foodstamps are "humiliating". Excuse me, but what dignity is there in accepting handouts? Give them a hand up by all means, but never let them forget what it is, just in case they start getting comfortable there.

Superman wrote:Do you think our nation would be better off without all of the non working, government milking, drug using individuals? I am talking about the trashy people that occupy ghettos, barrios and slums.

Now, I am no Nazi but I am curious to see what everyone thinks. Would society be better off without them?

Yes, society would be much better off without Dolist parasites mooching off the government. And there are poor people like that. And you can't really get rid of them. Such an existance is amazingly attractive to some people. Even if you were to have all the parasites shot tomorrow, you'd probably have other potential parasites lining up to take their place at the government teat.

AdmiralKanos wrote:

Durran Korr wrote:Of course, and it would be nice if the government didn't subsidize the existence of that class.

If you don't subsidize them, they would turn to crime. "They already do," you may argue, but it would be a lot worse. Social safety nets are a response to the 1930's, because nobody wants a repeat performance.

Or if you don't subsidize them, they realize that they can't continue to receive free money for doing what they're doing. Subsidies create more of whatever is being subsidized. The belief that giving free money to the scum of the Earth (and yes, I realize not all welfare bums are the scum of the Earth) is going to induce them to stop being the scum of the Earth is like saying that giving money to a profitable oil company is going to make it stop producing oil.

Mike, I think they should be made to be as embarassed as possible. If you make them too comfortable, they might never get off of Welfare.

AdmiralKanos wrote:The one thing I definitely don't understand is this "dignity" bullshit. We have many measures in our society designed to ensure that people on welfare can live with "dignity". In Canada, we give them money instead of foodstamps because foodstamps are "humiliating". Excuse me, but what dignity is there in accepting handouts? Give them a hand up by all means, but never let them forget what it is, just in case they start getting comfortable there.

So they just give money out as welfare in Canada?

Uhm, isn't that a bit dumb, seeing that cash could be used to buy just about anything. Food stamps can only be used to buy the necessities, to keep people from using them to buy booze and drugs.

No because its impossibul and the systems which attempt to do so don't work. Your lower class might not be starving, but it will always exist. You can wipe out the middle class and make the upper class very small. But the lower class isn't going anywhere.

It would be nice if everybody was at least among the working poor (and "poor" people, in this country, usually own a color television set, their own car, very often their own home, and are MORE likely to be obese than the rich). But so long as there's a safety net for people who've genuinely fallen on hard times, there's going to be those who take advantage of it because it's easier than working. Welfare reform in the States was supposed to correct that by putting a lifetime cap on Welfare benefits and funding "back to work" programs, but there's always going to be a small permanant underclass subsisting off the government or crime or both. It's human nature.

Sea Skimmer, That sounds alot like communism, Small upper class, no middle, large lower class.

The poor are poor through three reasons
1. Hard Timers, Those who fall down for awhile, get laid of from some company and are taking unempoylment for awhile, those that might have had some temporary problem
2. The disabled, Mentaly or physicaly these people can't work
3. The Lazy, those that do not work, or will not work and live off other people's money.

Talk to your avarage well off person
How many of them got there by sitting around and wanking off on the couch?(Aside from B&B) No the avarage well off person got there by busting there ass for eight to fifteen hours a day, day in day out building their business or their carrier to where it is now