Tea Party's Carl Paladino Backs Welfare Prison

[Broomstick]

Well, isn't THIS appalling? You know, there's more than one reason I don't want to move to Buffalo to live with my sister (it has nothing to do with sister - she's great).

NEW YORK — Republican candidate for governor Carl Paladino said he would transform some New York prisons into dormitories for welfare recipients, where they could work in state-sponsored jobs, get employment training and take lessons in "personal hygiene."

Paladino, a wealthy Buffalo real estate developer popular with many tea party activists, isn't saying the state should jail poor people: The program would be voluntary.

There's voluntary and then there is arm-twisting... You know, things like food stamps are voluntary, too, but when you have no other means to eat suddenly you don't seem to have a choice after all.

But the suggestion that poor families would be better off in remote institutions, rather than among friends and family in their own neighborhoods, struck some anti-poverty activists as insulting.

Paladino is competing for the Republican nomination with former U.S. Rep. Rick Lazio. The primary is Sept. 14.

Paladino first described the idea in June at a meeting of The Journal News of White Plains and spoke about it again this week with The Associated Press.

Throughout his campaign, Paladino has criticized New York's rich menu of social service benefits, which he says encourages illegal immigrants and needy people to live in the state. He has promised a 20 percent reduction in the state budget and a 10 percent income tax cut if elected.

Funny, though - he has NO specific plans on how to do this. If you're curious, here is his official campaign website which is long on sound bites and almost empty of any substantive plan. Well, he mentions things like cutting money for schools, universities, and hospital charity care. I suppose that is, technically, a plan of sorts... but I digress from the main topic here, which is his plan for welfare recipients.

Asked at the meeting how he would achieve those savings, Paladino laid out several plans that included converting underused state prisons into centers that would house welfare recipients. There, they would do work for the state – "military service, in some cases park service, in other cases public works service," he said – while prison guards would be retrained to work as counselors.

All of which presupposes those on welfare are young and healthy and able-bodied.

"Instead of handing out the welfare checks, we'll teach people how to earn their check. We'll teach them personal hygiene ... the personal things they don't get when they come from dysfunctional homes," Paladino said.

I've heard of people referring to the "unwashed masses" but this takes the cake. Those dirty, filthy poor people! If only they would take a shower they'd enjoy the benefits of a free market and capitalism and get rich, just like Carl Paladino!

New York, like other states, receives a federal block grant to provide cash and other forms of welfare to very low-income residents. Federal law already requires welfare recipients to do some form of work to receive benefits.

Hey, Carl - here's an idea: instead of throwing poor people in prison and then finding make-work for them, WHY DON'T YOU WORK ON JOB CREATION IN THE FIRST PLACE? Seems to me it would save a few steps and time/money - which is what you claim to be about, right? Right? Or do you just want those damn dirty apes welfare cases as far away from you as possible? So you don't have to look at them.

New York's welfare rolls have grown slightly during the recession, while food stamp eligibility has almost doubled, according to the state.

Gee - isn't that happening EVERYWHERE? Also in the news: when it rains, the ground gets wet.

Paladino told The Associated Press the dormitory living would be voluntary, not mandatory, and would give welfare recipients an opportunity to take public, state-sponsored jobs far from home.

Why the 'far from home" part? Or is the real agenda here to get the poor people out of the cities and out of the way of the employed and/or wealthy?

"These are beautiful properties with basketball courts, bathroom facilities, toilet facilities. Many young people would love to get the hell out of cities," Paladino he said.

WTF? Does he think poor people in America don't have toilets? Maybe he thinks they shit in old coffee cans and piss against the trees or something (I've been to Buffalo in winter - no way are people pissing against trees in January. Maybe they're just really good at holding it until spring?)

This guy made his fortune in real estate. If there is a lack of toilets in Buffalo (which, by the way, I've never noticed when visiting but my relatives there are upper middle class) maybe he should look in the mirror. I mean, WTF - if he thinks poor people don't have toilets shouldn't he be doing something about that in his own fucking industry?

He also defended his hygiene remarks, saying he had trained inner-city troops in the Army and knows their needs.

"You have to teach them basic things – taking care of themselves, physical fitness. In their dysfunctional environment, they never learned these things," he said.

Right - because all poor people are 17 year old army recruits. And they smell funny. Or something.

Really, I'm getting an ugly sub-text here, but I don't have proof of what I think he REALLY wants to say here, but doesn't dare because those attitudes are just unacceptable to the general American public these days. Just a hunch, you know?

Ketny Jean-Francois, a former welfare recipient and a New York City advocate for low-income people, said Paladino's idea shocked her.

"Being poor is not a crime," she said. "People are on welfare for many reasons ... Is he saying people are poor because they don't have any hygiene or any skills?"

Yeah, honey, that's exactly what he's saying.

A Lazio spokesman didn't immediately return a message.

Paladino said he based his ideas on the Civilian Conservation Corps, a federal program that paid young unemployed men during the Great Depression to plant trees, build roads and develop parks.

Holy shit - what a gross distortion of the historical facts. Paladino's plans bear a closer resemblance to the US internment camps for Japanese citizens during WWII than they do to the CCC. For starters, CCC workers weren't housed in fucking prisons (though some of the camps set up to house workers were later converted to Japanese internment camps and German POW facilities. But they didn't start out as prisons).

Paladino said he would open the program both to long-term welfare recipients and to people who had lost their jobs during the recession.

Note the distinctions between "long term recipients" (you know, those unhygienic smelly poor people) and "people who had lost their jobs" (meaning "people sort of like Mr. Paladino who know how to use soap and water but somehow fucked up and became poor")

He said that he didn't know how he would pay for it but that prisons could be consolidated to make room.

Because criminals aren't crowded enough in the prison system... and the "didn't know how he would pay for it" is right in line with the details of the rest of his fiscal planning. And hey, didn't he say earlier that this whole shebang was supposed to be part of saving money? Yes, yes he did: "Asked at the meeting how he would achieve those savings, Paladino laid out several plans that included converting underused state prisons into centers that would house welfare recipients." OH, but now he doesn't know how he'll pay for those "savings", which aren't savings at all. So yes, the real agenda here is NOT saving money but getting those damn filthy ages people away from "proper" people. You know, the ones who have toilets and know how to shower.

Really, this presupposes that the poor are young, healthy, able-bodied, and free to go elsewhere (as well as having an ignorance of soap and water, apparently). There is NO provision here for the old, the disabled, those with young children or disabled dependents.

[PhilosopherOfSorts]

Are there no prisons? No workhouses? Yeah, fuck you too, Paladino. Makes me want to move to New York just so I can vote against this guy.

while prison guards would be retrained to work as counselors.

This caught my eye, does he really think that prison guards would make good counselors? I don't think they would, but I'd bet real money that they would make good slave overseers. This whole plan sounds like an attempt to bring slavery back, to me, anyway.

[General Zod]

I'd say this is pretty solid proof that the teabaggers are completely out of touch with how reality works.

[Serafina]

Well, at first i thought "hey, that doesn't sound too bad".
Getting homeless people of the street and offering them some minor employment and other support is not a bad idea after all. And using old prisons buildings might not be comfortable, but if they are available, why not?

Of course, this fails at so many points:
The prisons are not available, they are not empty. And the support is laughable - counseling is not that easy, and i doubt prison guards could manage it. And all that talk about "cleaning them" showed that he has no idea about cause and effect of being unemployed - and most of the other stuff he said reinforces that belief.
But worst of all, he does not mention any long-term programs. We have programs for unemployed people that are somewhat similar in some aspects - they do not include housing, since being unemployed normally does not result in being homeless. But they DO include concepts to get unemployed people real employment instead of petty jobs like picking garbage in public parks. They do not always work, are not perfect and so on - but they are there.

Overall, this sounds like a plan to get unemployed people out of sight and to exploit them a little bit as a bonus.

[General Zod]

Well, at first i thought "hey, that doesn't sound too bad".
Getting homeless people of the street and offering them some minor employment and other support is not a bad idea after all. And using old prisons buildings might not be comfortable, but if they are available, why not?

Of course, this fails at so many points:
The prisons are not available, they are not empty. And the support is laughable - counseling is not that easy, and i doubt prison guards could manage it. And all that talk about "cleaning them" showed that he has no idea about cause and effect of being unemployed - and most of the other stuff he said reinforces that belief.
But worst of all, he does not mention any long-term programs. We have programs for unemployed people that are somewhat similar in some aspects - they do not include housing, since being unemployed normally does not result in being homeless. But they DO include concepts to get unemployed people real employment instead of petty jobs like picking garbage in public parks. They do not always work, are not perfect and so on - but they are there.

Overall, this sounds like a plan to get unemployed people out of sight and to exploit them a little bit as a bonus.

The article is talking about welfare recipients, not homeless people. The two are not directly analogous.

[Serafina]

Ah, sorry. I suppose i thought "welfare=unemployment=homeless in the USA (for many)"
That makes it even worse tough. At least homeless people would get a real benefit from this - a place to live.
But unemployed people/welfare recipients do not need that, nor do they need most of the other stuff "offered".

[General Zod]

Ah, sorry. I suppose i thought "welfare=unemployment=homeless in the USA (for many)"
That makes it even worse tough. At least homeless people would get a real benefit from this - a place to live.
But unemployed people/welfare recipients do not need that, nor do they need most of the other stuff "offered".

The fact that New York actually has a pretty sizable homeless population makes it even worse, because if he was looking to reduce homelessness, then his suggestions might almost be sensible. But the ranting about illegal immigrants in the article should be a dead giveaway at who he's really targeting.

[Broomstick]

Ah, sorry. I suppose i thought "welfare=unemployment=homeless in the USA (for many)"

While unemployment can lead to homelessness, most welfare recipients do in fact have housing and in fact many of them to have some very paltry sort of employment (although not always legal). This is not a plan to house the homeless, it's a plan to displace the poor.

But unemployed people/welfare recipients do not need that, nor do they need most of the other stuff "offered".

Oh, there's so much here - his discussion of "inner city youth" implies young black men - in other words, he may be suggesting rounding up poor, young, black men and relocating them into prisons (renamed "camps" or "dorms" or something more pleasant) for the primary purposes of controlling them and avoiding nasty little things like desperate people throwing a riot, like back in the 1960's. Of course, by removing the black men from the the inner city you more or less leave the black women either single or connecting with men of other races - essentially genocide of the ethnic group. Not to mention he can then scold these same black men for "abandoning" their families!

Just for shits and grins - he's also rabidly anti-abortion and anti gay marriage of any sort. "Because that's the way I was raised" and I guess that's that! :puke:

[Temujin]

I'd say this is pretty solid proof that the teabaggers are completely out of touch with how reality works.

Sadly some of them aren't so much out of touch with reality, as simply want to alter it to suit their sick sociopathic Randroid fantasy of how reality should work. I've heard justifications like that from the fat Teabag sympathizing fuck of a boss. Of course, this is the same guy that decries the concept of altruism as a bad thing.

[Phantasee]

I liked his description of the "facilities". I can see how he made his fortune in real estate.

[darthdavid]

Well I know who's getting my vote for governor...

[Raw Shark]

Well, isn't THIS appalling? [snip]

Meh. It's seriously flawed, but I don't think it's moustache-twirling villainy. If I was living on welfare in Buffalo and had no job prospects, I would totally sign up for this given the chance.

NEW YORK — Republican candidate for governor Carl Paladino said he would transform some New York prisons into dormitories for welfare recipients, where they could work in state-sponsored jobs, get employment training and take lessons in "personal hygiene."

Paladino, a wealthy Buffalo real estate developer popular with many tea party activists, isn't saying the state should jail poor people: The program would be voluntary.

There's voluntary and then there is arm-twisting... You know, things like food stamps are voluntary, too, but when you have no other means to eat suddenly you don't seem to have a choice after all.

But the suggestion that poor families would be better off in remote institutions, rather than among friends and family in their own neighborhoods, struck some anti-poverty activists as insulting.

Paladino is competing for the Republican nomination with former U.S. Rep. Rick Lazio. The primary is Sept. 14.

Paladino first described the idea in June at a meeting of The Journal News of White Plains and spoke about it again this week with The Associated Press.

Throughout his campaign, Paladino has criticized New York's rich menu of social service benefits, which he says encourages illegal immigrants and needy people to live in the state. He has promised a 20 percent reduction in the state budget and a 10 percent income tax cut if elected.

Funny, though - he has NO specific plans on how to do this. If you're curious, here is his official campaign website which is long on sound bites and almost empty of any substantive plan. Well, he mentions things like cutting money for schools, universities, and hospital charity care. I suppose that is, technically, a plan of sorts... but I digress from the main topic here, which is his plan for welfare recipients.

That's a lot of things that I would prefer to not see cut, but welfare recipients who can't or don't volunteer for this getting their food stamps and other direct benefits taken away is not among his proposals that I can see.

Asked at the meeting how he would achieve those savings, Paladino laid out several plans that included converting underused state prisons into centers that would house welfare recipients. There, they would do work for the state – "military service, in some cases park service, in other cases public works service," he said – while prison guards would be retrained to work as counselors.

All of which presupposes those on welfare are young and healthy and able-bodied.

Presumably some of them are, and for the rest there is still welfare. Some people with jobs is better than none, isn't it?

"Instead of handing out the welfare checks, we'll teach people how to earn their check. We'll teach them personal hygiene ... the personal things they don't get when they come from dysfunctional homes," Paladino said.

I've heard of people referring to the "unwashed masses" but this takes the cake. Those dirty, filthy poor people! If only they would take a shower they'd enjoy the benefits of a free market and capitalism and get rich, just like Carl Paladino!

Personal hygiene covers a lot of ground besides taking a shower (though, anecdotally, I do have a friend who has been looking for a job for a long time now and completely failed to take a shower when I offered to drive him to an interview on a hot day specifically so he wouldn't walk in there smelling like shit. He didn't get the job). My white, middle-class parents managed to teach me how to brush my teeth incorrectly in a manner that eventually damaged my gums, for example, and if I'd continued that way long enough I could've lost some teeth, which would be pulled on the taxpayer dime if I was on welfare. Paying a real dentist to take an hour and show people how to do it right who would not otherwise go to the dentist unless they had to because they can't afford the copays could actually save some money down the road.

New York, like other states, receives a federal block grant to provide cash and other forms of welfare to very low-income residents. Federal law already requires welfare recipients to do some form of work to receive benefits.

Hey, Carl - here's an idea: instead of throwing poor people in prison and then finding make-work for them, WHY DON'T YOU WORK ON JOB CREATION IN THE FIRST PLACE? Seems to me it would save a few steps and time/money - which is what you claim to be about, right? Right? Or do you just want those damn dirty apes welfare cases as far away from you as possible? So you don't have to look at them. [snip]

I'd think that he would present good ideas for job creation if he had any, and hope that an opposing candidate who did so would get more votes. I don't think we can draw any conclusions about whether he thinks they're damn, dirty apes and doesn't want to look at them from this article, but some vocal members of his base clearly do, so a racist/classist/nationalist dog-whistle pandering to those who would like to hear that wouldn't surprise me regardless of how he personally feels. At least he isn't talking about criminalizing poverty outright, which some other vocal members of his base would also enjoy.

Paladino told The Associated Press the dormitory living would be voluntary, not mandatory, and would give welfare recipients an opportunity to take public, state-sponsored jobs far from home.

Why the 'far from home" part? Or is the real agenda here to get the poor people out of the cities and out of the way of the employed and/or wealthy?

The real agenda here is to get elected, and letting people who want to hear "Git them darkies offa mah street!" do so serves that goal, but when I read the "far from home" part I thought about what a pain in the ass it is for my unemployed friend to interview for a job across town, let alone across state.

"These are beautiful properties with basketball courts, bathroom facilities, toilet facilities. Many young people would love to get the hell out of cities," Paladino he said.

WTF? Does he think poor people in America don't have toilets? Maybe he thinks they shit in old coffee cans and piss against the trees or something (I've been to Buffalo in winter - no way are people pissing against trees in January. Maybe they're just really good at holding it until spring?)

This guy made his fortune in real estate. If there is a lack of toilets in Buffalo (which, by the way, I've never noticed when visiting but my relatives there are upper middle class) maybe he should look in the mirror. I mean, WTF - if he thinks poor people don't have toilets shouldn't he be doing something about that in his own fucking industry?

If he made his fortune in real estate, he is probably all-too-familiar with how long it can take people in low-income housing to get some plumbing done and how appealing a promise that they won't have to deal with that in the job camp could be. Would it be better to make slum lords actually fix shit promptly? Sure, but he'll have a much easier time getting elected if he doesn't go upside them and their wealth beforehand (assuming he'd even want to, which he probably wouldn't given his background but we can't really say from this - he could have tremendous remorse for all the times he personally delayed a toilet repair to line his pockets for all we know) and can't do anything about it until then.

He also defended his hygiene remarks, saying he had trained inner-city troops in the Army and knows their needs.

"You have to teach them basic things – taking care of themselves, physical fitness. In their dysfunctional environment, they never learned these things," he said.

Right - because all poor people are 17 year old army recruits. And they smell funny. Or something.

Really, I'm getting an ugly sub-text here, but I don't have proof of what I think he REALLY wants to say here, but doesn't dare because those attitudes are just unacceptable to the general American public these days. Just a hunch, you know?

Ketny Jean-Francois, a former welfare recipient and a New York City advocate for low-income people, said Paladino's idea shocked her.

"Being poor is not a crime," she said. "People are on welfare for many reasons ... Is he saying people are poor because they don't have any hygiene or any skills?"

Yeah, honey, that's exactly what he's saying.

Yep, just a hunch.

Paladino said he based his ideas on the Civilian Conservation Corps, a federal program that paid young unemployed men during the Great Depression to plant trees, build roads and develop parks.

Holy shit - what a gross distortion of the historical facts. Paladino's plans bear a closer resemblance to the US internment camps for Japanese citizens during WWII than they do to the CCC. For starters, CCC workers weren't housed in fucking prisons (though some of the camps set up to house workers were later converted to Japanese internment camps and German POW facilities. But they didn't start out as prisons).[/quote]

So what if they use prisons for this? The doors aren't going to be locked, are they?

Paladino said he would open the program both to long-term welfare recipients and to people who had lost their jobs during the recession.

Note the distinctions between "long term recipients" (you know, those unhygienic smelly poor people) and "people who had lost their jobs" (meaning "people sort of like Mr. Paladino who know how to use soap and water but somehow fucked up and became poor")

If he didn't say that, then many people who only recently ended up on the rolls, some of whom probably vote, might think that the program would serve the longest-term recipients first instead of those most eager to work, and then oppose it.

He said that he didn't know how he would pay for it but that prisons could be consolidated to make room.

Because criminals aren't crowded enough in the prison system... and the "didn't know how he would pay for it" is right in line with the details of the rest of his fiscal planning. And hey, didn't he say earlier that this whole shebang was supposed to be part of saving money? Yes, yes he did: "Asked at the meeting how he would achieve those savings, Paladino laid out several plans that included converting underused state prisons into centers that would house welfare recipients." OH, but now he doesn't know how he'll pay for those "savings", which aren't savings at all. So yes, the real agenda here is NOT saving money but getting those damn filthy ages people away from "proper" people. You know, the ones who have toilets and know how to shower.

I agree that he hasn't really thought the money part through (like it matters as much as making the appropriate noises to the teabaggers at the polls), but if, as he claims, the state does have underused prisons, then they are not overcrowded. Running underused prisons is wasteful, so consolidating them and using the spare/s for something else saves (or at least doesn't piss away) money. Compared to privatizing them and letting a corporation run it for profit with incentive to bribe judges to lock more poor people who can't properly defend themselves up (as we saw in a recent article about another state here), this seems like a good idea* to me.

*Except for repurposing guards as counselors - that's retarded, but he can't exactly propose that they just fire them all if he wants votes, and the guards who embody the worst stereotypes of the brutally sadistic screw wouldn't apply for a position where they'll be supervised by social workers who probably actually give a shit about civil rights, and wouldn't be moved out of their current jobs by their current employers who seem to at least tacitly approve of their methods and value their work anyway.

Really, this presupposes that the poor are young, healthy, able-bodied, and free to go elsewhere (as well as having an ignorance of soap and water, apparently). There is NO provision here for the old, the disabled, those with young children or disabled dependents.

... for whom there is still welfare. Those among the poor who are young, healthy, able-bodied, and free to go elsewhere could have the opportunity here to make a few bucks, send them home to dependents, and have something recent on their resume, complete with an employer who is more than happy to write a glowing recommendation if they deserve it (and maybe even if they don't), that will give them a major advantage over job-seekers who don't volunteer.

[The Yosemite Bear]

the tea party bringing things back to the 18th century

[Broomstick]

That's a lot of things that I would prefer to not see cut, but welfare recipients who can't or don't volunteer for this getting their food stamps and other direct benefits taken away is not among his proposals that I can see.

Page after page of his campaign site talks about cutting the social services and benefits for the state of New York. Everything else is on the chopping block, why not those?

All of which presupposes those on welfare are young and healthy and able-bodied.

Presumably some of them are, and for the rest there is still welfare. Some people with jobs is better than none, isn't it?

No, for the rest there is NOT welfare! I find it grossly disturbing how many people are completely ignorant of how "welfare" changed in 1996. You ONLY get a cash benefit (called TANF) if you have children. Childless adults get nothing beyond food stamps. Even if you DO have children you get TANF for only five years in a lifetime. After five years that is IT. You're done and all you and the kids get are food stamps.

Subsidized housing has a multi-year waiting in every part of the country. In my area there is a TEN YEAR waiting list for "Section 8" housing and the list is closed - if you didn't get on that list years ago tough shit, you CAN'T get on it now. Atlanta, Georgia recently had thousands of people show up for an application to have a CHANCE to get on their waiting list - essentially, they signed onto a waiting list for the waiting list.

If you are not healthy enough to do this work he is proposing tough shit - no, you do not have welfare. Well, you have food stamps. You can eat. That's about it. By the way - food stamps do not cover the cost of soap or deodorant. Gee, maybe that has something to do with the body hygiene, hmm?

SOME of the disabled get disability - but that is a FEDERAL program. Those people are on MediCARE, which is a FEDERAL program. That assumes they can get on disability at all - my husband was born with spina bifida, he has trouble walking, he's lost most of the use of one hand to arthritis... and according to the Social Security agency he is able bodied and capable of engaging in labor involving being on his feet all day! THAT is what the latest rejection letter told us. We're three years into fighting to get him disability - meanwhile, we're never sure if we've got money for rent, and in June I got cut off foodstamps because for two months my income was about $100 over the cut-off limit.

No, for the rest of us there is no welfare. None. If I wasn't capable of busting my ass 10-12 hours a day we'd be homeless. Alright, we'd be living in my sister's spare bedroom. Which is why you see poor families piled 12-20 people into three and four room apartments.

I've heard of people referring to the "unwashed masses" but this takes the cake. Those dirty, filthy poor people! If only they would take a shower they'd enjoy the benefits of a free market and capitalism and get rich, just like Carl Paladino!

Personal hygiene covers a lot of ground besides taking a shower

Oh, puh-LEEZ - he's talking about "bathrooms" and "toilets" as part of the facilities. He's saying poor people don't bathe.

Paying a real dentist to take an hour and show people how to do it right who would not otherwise go to the dentist unless they had to because they can't afford the copays could actually save some money down the road.

Except it's a real bitch when you have no money with which to by toothbrush or toothpaste, isn't it? Because food stamps don't pay for that, and if you don't have kids or you reached your five year limit on TANF you're fucked. All the knowledge about dental hygiene doesn't mean shit if you can't afford fucking toothpaste. Or regular trips to the dentist.

Why the 'far from home" part? Or is the real agenda here to get the poor people out of the cities and out of the way of the employed and/or wealthy?

The real agenda here is to get elected, and letting people who want to hear "Git them darkies offa mah street!" do so serves that goal, but when I read the "far from home" part I thought about what a pain in the ass it is for my unemployed friend to interview for a job across town, let alone across state.

Right. It's not about helping people, it's about warehousing them out of sight.

If he made his fortune in real estate, he is probably all-too-familiar with how long it can take people in low-income housing to get some plumbing done and how appealing a promise that they won't have to deal with that in the job camp could be.

What guarantee would there be that the repairs to the prison camps would be any better or prompter than to subsidized housing?

Holy shit - what a gross distortion of the historical facts. Paladino's plans bear a closer resemblance to the US internment camps for Japanese citizens during WWII than they do to the CCC. For starters, CCC workers weren't housed in fucking prisons (though some of the camps set up to house workers were later converted to Japanese internment camps and German POW facilities. But they didn't start out as prisons).

So what if they use prisons for this? The doors aren't going to be locked, are they?

Most prison doors default to locked. Not to mention there is a LONG history in the US of "undesirables" being held against their will with the excuse "it's for their own good".

When he starts bidding to have the locks on the prison doors removed maybe I'll start to trust in his good will, but until then I will be deeply suspicious.

If he didn't say that, then many people who only recently ended up on the rolls, some of whom probably vote, might think that the program would serve the longest-term recipients first instead of those most eager to work, and then oppose it.

I find it very telling that you think there is a direct correlation between length of time on government assistance and lack of desire to work. Why do you assume those who have most recently lost as a job are "most eager to work"? Are you saying that someone who has been unemployed a year is less eager to work than someone unemployed a week?

He said that he didn't know how he would pay for it but that prisons could be consolidated to make room.

Because criminals aren't crowded enough in the prison system... and the "didn't know how he would pay for it" is right in line with the details of the rest of his fiscal planning. And hey, didn't he say earlier that this whole shebang was supposed to be part of saving money? Yes, yes he did: "Asked at the meeting how he would achieve those savings, Paladino laid out several plans that included converting underused state prisons into centers that would house welfare recipients." OH, but now he doesn't know how he'll pay for those "savings", which aren't savings at all. So yes, the real agenda here is NOT saving money but getting those damn filthy ages people away from "proper" people. You know, the ones who have toilets and know how to shower.

I agree that he hasn't really thought the money part through (like it matters as much as making the appropriate noises to the teabaggers at the polls), but if, as he claims, the state does have underused prisons, then they are not overcrowded.

Not necessarially. "Consolidating" prisons to save money can mean simply cramming more people into less space so the now unused portion can be defunded. This does save money - and makes for miserable, overcrowded conditions. Is that the case in New York? I don't know, but this is a country that incarcerates a significantly higher percentage of its population than almost any other nation. I seriously doubt New York is a statistical aberration in that regard.

Really, this presupposes that the poor are young, healthy, able-bodied, and free to go elsewhere (as well as having an ignorance of soap and water, apparently). There is NO provision here for the old, the disabled, those with young children or disabled dependents.

... for whom there is still welfare.

ONLY if you have young children - otherwise there is NOT welfare! Is your disabled dependent an adult? Then no welfare. Unless you can get them on Federal disability, which is a crapshoot in most cases.

Those among the poor who are young, healthy, able-bodied, and free to go elsewhere could have the opportunity here to make a few bucks, send them home to dependents

If you have dependents are NOT free to go live in a communal dorm somewhere far away! Do you not see the illogic there? If you have young children who do you leave them with? Do you take them with you and make them stay in your jail cell "apartment" all day, all alone?

and have something recent on their resume, complete with an employer who is more than happy to write a glowing recommendation if they deserve it (and maybe even if they don't), that will give them a major advantage over job-seekers who don't volunteer.

Bullshit. The sort of make-work jobs likely to occur under this program won't impress anyone. Actually, they're likely to result in stigmatization. It will be unskilled labor, which is NOT in demand anywhere in the US outside of picking vegetables.

[Raw Shark]

Page after page of his campaign site talks about cutting the social services and benefits for the state of New York. Everything else is on the chopping block, why not those?

Does Paladino secretly fantasize about cutting what is left of welfare? Perhaps; the man is a teabagger. Does he say so there? No.

No, for the rest there is NOT welfare! I find it grossly disturbing how many people are completely ignorant of how "welfare" changed in 1996. You ONLY get a cash benefit (called TANF) if you have children. Childless adults get nothing beyond food stamps. Even if you DO have children you get TANF for only five years in a lifetime. After five years that is IT. You're done and all you and the kids get are food stamps.

Subsidized housing has a multi-year waiting in every part of the country. In my area there is a TEN YEAR waiting list for "Section 8" housing and the list is closed - if you didn't get on that list years ago tough shit, you CAN'T get on it now. Atlanta, Georgia recently had thousands of people show up for an application to have a CHANCE to get on their waiting list - essentially, they signed onto a waiting list for the waiting list.

If you are not healthy enough to do this work he is proposing tough shit - no, you do not have welfare. Well, you have food stamps. You can eat. That's about it. By the way - food stamps do not cover the cost of soap or deodorant. Gee, maybe that has something to do with the body hygiene, hmm?

SOME of the disabled get disability - but that is a FEDERAL program. Those people are on MediCARE, which is a FEDERAL program. That assumes they can get on disability at all - my husband was born with spina bifida, he has trouble walking, he's lost most of the use of one hand to arthritis... and according to the Social Security agency he is able bodied and capable of engaging in labor involving being on his feet all day! THAT is what the latest rejection letter told us. We're three years into fighting to get him disability - meanwhile, we're never sure if we've got money for rent, and in June I got cut off foodstamps because for two months my income was about $100 over the cut-off limit.

No, for the rest of us there is no welfare. None. If I wasn't capable of busting my ass 10-12 hours a day we'd be homeless. Alright, we'd be living in my sister's spare bedroom. Which is why you see poor families piled 12-20 people into three and four room apartments.

If you're proposing that we restore benefits to the previous higher levels then you've got my vote when you run against Paladino, but I don't think that it's fair to call this specific program coercive unless it cuts them further.

[snip] Except it's a real bitch when you have no money with which to by toothbrush or toothpaste, isn't it? Because food stamps don't pay for that, and if you don't have kids or you reached your five year limit on TANF you're fucked. All the knowledge about dental hygiene doesn't mean shit if you can't afford fucking toothpaste. Or regular trips to the dentist. [snip]

Giving people jobs should help to cover toothpaste.

If he made his fortune in real estate, he is probably all-too-familiar with how long it can take people in low-income housing to get some plumbing done and how appealing a promise that they won't have to deal with that in the job camp could be.

What guarantee would there be that the repairs to the prison camps would be any better or prompter than to subsidized housing?

None, but it would be more out in the open with people who are part of the system working on site rather than making periodic inspections.

So what if they use prisons for this? The doors aren't going to be locked, are they?

Most prison doors default to locked. Not to mention there is a LONG history in the US of "undesirables" being held against their will with the excuse "it's for their own good".

When he starts bidding to have the locks on the prison doors removed maybe I'll start to trust in his good will, but until then I will be deeply suspicious.

If by "deeply suspicious" you mean "starting to sound more and more paranoid..." Who in their right mind would volunteer to be locked up if, as I maintain above, they are not being coerced by the worsening of the conditions they otherwise face or some other means?

If he didn't say that, then many people who only recently ended up on the rolls, some of whom probably vote, might think that the program would serve the longest-term recipients first instead of those most eager to work, and then oppose it.

I find it very telling that you think there is a direct correlation between length of time on government assistance and lack of desire to work. Why do you assume those who have most recently lost as a job are "most eager to work"? Are you saying that someone who has been unemployed a year is less eager to work than someone unemployed a week?

I have plenty of words in my mouth without yours there as well, thank you. I do not think that those who have been out of work the longest and those who are most eager to work are mutually exclusive groups. I am saying that people who have been receiving benefits for a shorter length of time might assume that this plan would operate on a basis of "First come to welfare, first served" rather than "First come to volunteer, first served," perceive that as exclusionary to themselves, and react negatively in a manner that jeopardizes the program (and Paladino's campaign, but I'm not here to defend his altruism) unless explicitly assured otherwise as Paladino did.

Not necessarially. "Consolidating" prisons to save money can mean simply cramming more people into less space so the now unused portion can be defunded. This does save money - and makes for miserable, overcrowded conditions. Is that the case in New York? I don't know, but this is a country that incarcerates a significantly higher percentage of its population than almost any other nation. I seriously doubt New York is a statistical aberration in that regard.

Paladino publicly asserts that they have underused prisons, which can be verified or disproven by his political opposition, who will most certainly call him out on it if it's bullshit. Unless you're presenting some evidence that he's lying, I presume that his statement is accurate and base my point on that.

Those among the poor who are young, healthy, able-bodied, and free to go elsewhere could have the opportunity here to make a few bucks, send them home to dependents

If you have dependents are NOT free to go live in a communal dorm somewhere far away! Do you not see the illogic there? If you have young children who do you leave them with? Do you take them with you and make them stay in your jail cell "apartment" all day, all alone?

Perhaps "dependents" was the wrong word - I was picturing an able-bodied young person sending money home to a less-able-bodied Mother/sibling/spouse/etc who does not require full-time care, but is nevertheless less likely than they are to find work. Obviously this would not be the case for all welfare recipients, but it would be for those who, as stated above, are free to go elsewhere because dependents who require their care would take away that freedom (which sucks for everyone else, but this is still better than nothing).

and have something recent on their resume, complete with an employer who is more than happy to write a glowing recommendation if they deserve it (and maybe even if they don't), that will give them a major advantage over job-seekers who don't volunteer.

Bullshit. The sort of make-work jobs likely to occur under this program won't impress anyone. Actually, they're likely to result in stigmatization.

More stigmatization than not working at all?

It will be unskilled labor, which is NOT in demand anywhere in the US outside of picking vegetables.

Which is why he's also proposing job skill training. If you were an employer faced with two applications from people on welfare, one of whom has a letter saying they're a good worker who shows up on time and just finished a class where they learned how to do X Relevant Thing and one of whom does not, with all else being equal who would you choose?

[Zor]

the tea party bringing things back to the 18th century

This seems to be more out of the 19th century (as does alot of Libertarian theory mind you).

Zor

[Broomstick]

If you're proposing that we restore benefits to the previous higher levels then you've got my vote when you run against Paladino, but I don't think that it's fair to call this specific program coercive unless it cuts them further.

You can't cut what doesn't exist - seriously, except for food stamps there is NO welfare for people without children.

So - there's the choice of nothing and homelessness, or "volunteering" to be locked up without trial. Yeah, real great choice there.

[snip] Except it's a real bitch when you have no money with which to by toothbrush or toothpaste, isn't it? Because food stamps don't pay for that, and if you don't have kids or you reached your five year limit on TANF you're fucked. All the knowledge about dental hygiene doesn't mean shit if you can't afford fucking toothpaste. Or regular trips to the dentist. [snip]

Giving people jobs should help to cover toothpaste.

Won't cover dental visits, though.

If he made his fortune in real estate, he is probably all-too-familiar with how long it can take people in low-income housing to get some plumbing done and how appealing a promise that they won't have to deal with that in the job camp could be.

What guarantee would there be that the repairs to the prison camps would be any better or prompter than to subsidized housing?

None, but it would be more out in the open with people who are part of the system working on site rather than making periodic inspections.

I do not share your optimism. People who want to jail the poor for being poor rather than criminals are not likely to be altruistic. Given the punitive nature of the whole set-up I wouldn't be surprised if the victims volunteers are left to stew in their own mess for a time. Then scolded for living in filth.

If by "deeply suspicious" you mean "starting to sound more and more paranoid..." Who in their right mind would volunteer to be locked up if, as I maintain above, they are not being coerced by the worsening of the conditions they otherwise face or some other means?

So you think people SHOULD be locked up merely for being poor? Because giving people the choice between living in a prison (no matter how prettily renamed) or starving is really giving them no choice at all.

Those among the poor who are young, healthy, able-bodied, and free to go elsewhere could have the opportunity here to make a few bucks, send them home to dependents

If you have dependents are NOT free to go live in a communal dorm somewhere far away! Do you not see the illogic there? If you have young children who do you leave them with? Do you take them with you and make them stay in your jail cell "apartment" all day, all alone?

Perhaps "dependents" was the wrong word

Yes, it was.

I was picturing an able-bodied young person sending money home to a less-able-bodied Mother/sibling/spouse/etc who does not require full-time care, but is nevertheless less likely than they are to find work.

Why do we need to send these able-bodied young people away from home to a fancied-up prison to find them work, though?

and have something recent on their resume, complete with an employer who is more than happy to write a glowing recommendation if they deserve it (and maybe even if they don't), that will give them a major advantage over job-seekers who don't volunteer.

Bullshit. The sort of make-work jobs likely to occur under this program won't impress anyone. Actually, they're likely to result in stigmatization.

More stigmatization than not working at all?

Yes, possibly for the young. If someone, say, 20 years old has no work experience that's one thing, but if they have this sort of "volunteer" labor on their record it stigmatizes them as "welfare bum". You think employers don't do shit like that? It's right up there with refusing to hire people who live in the "wrong" neighborhood.

It will be unskilled labor, which is NOT in demand anywhere in the US outside of picking vegetables.

Which is why he's also proposing job skill training.

But he's not willing to pay for it - he's made that clear, this is all supposed to be about saving money (where it's not about imprisoning poor people for the crime of being poor, or displacing them so they're out of sight). What the fuck kind of job training do you think this asshole is going to provide for these people?

If you were an employer faced with two applications from people on welfare, one of whom has a letter saying they're a good worker who shows up on time and just finished a class where they learned how to do X Relevant Thing and one of whom does not, with all else being equal who would you choose?

I know a surprising number of employers who refuse to hire someone on welfare, or who has been on welfare, at all. Period. Just as there are employers who refuse to even consider the unemployed for a job - that's right, unless you're currently employed by someone else they don't even want you to apply. THAT is how stigmatized being poor has become in this country. For that matter, I have personally witnessed three co-workers over the years who were forced out once it became known they were going to Public Aid or receiving some form of assistance because a manager felt that they were no longer the "right" sort of people to "represent" the company - regardless of their work record.

Perhaps you have not encountered these attitudes in your working life. It will probably only be a matter of time.

Yes, it IS better to provide some sort of work for those on welfare, but we DON'T have to displace them from their families or lock them up to do it. This isn't about helping people, it's about warehousing them, controlling them, keeping them out of sight, and maybe a little exploitation thrown in for good measure.

[Raw Shark]

If you're proposing that we restore benefits to the previous higher levels then you've got my vote when you run against Paladino, but I don't think that it's fair to call this specific program coercive unless it cuts them further.

You can't cut what doesn't exist - seriously, except for food stamps there is NO welfare for people without children.

So - there's the choice of nothing and homelessness, or "volunteering" to be locked up without trial. Yeah, real great choice there.

Great? No. Better than a choice between nothing and nothing? Yes.

[snip] Except it's a real bitch when you have no money with which to by toothbrush or toothpaste, isn't it? Because food stamps don't pay for that, and if you don't have kids or you reached your five year limit on TANF you're fucked. All the knowledge about dental hygiene doesn't mean shit if you can't afford fucking toothpaste. Or regular trips to the dentist. [snip]

Giving people jobs should help to cover toothpaste.

Won't cover dental visits, though.

It won't give them a pony and a blowjob, either, but nobody said it would.

What guarantee would there be that the repairs to the prison camps would be any better or prompter than to subsidized housing?

None, but it would be more out in the open with people who are part of the system working on site rather than making periodic inspections.

I do not share your optimism. People who want to jail the poor for being poor rather than criminals are not likely to be altruistic. Given the punitive nature of the whole set-up I wouldn't be surprised if the victims volunteers are left to stew in their own mess for a time. Then scolded for living in filth.

Like I said, I'm not here to convince anybody that Paladino is an altruist. He's probably a big, fat jerk, but in this particular case I think he's a big, fat jerk with a pretty good idea that might be really good if he thinks it through more.

If by "deeply suspicious" you mean "starting to sound more and more paranoid..." Who in their right mind would volunteer to be locked up if, as I maintain above, they are not being coerced by the worsening of the conditions they otherwise face or some other means?

So you think people SHOULD be locked up merely for being poor?

No, I don't. You are being deliberately obtuse.

Because giving people the choice between living in a prison (no matter how prettily renamed) or starving is really giving them no choice at all.

People who are still receiving food stamps tend not to starve.

I was picturing an able-bodied young person sending money home to a less-able-bodied Mother/sibling/spouse/etc who does not require full-time care, but is nevertheless less likely than they are to find work.

Why do we need to send these able-bodied young people away from home to a fancied-up prison to find them work, though?

Because we tried and failed to find them work where they are?

Bullshit. The sort of make-work jobs likely to occur under this program won't impress anyone. Actually, they're likely to result in stigmatization.

More stigmatization than not working at all?

Yes, possibly for the young. If someone, say, 20 years old has no work experience that's one thing, but if they have this sort of "volunteer" labor on their record it stigmatizes them as "welfare bum". You think employers don't do shit like that? It's right up there with refusing to hire people who live in the "wrong" neighborhood.

The people who would be elligible to volunteer for this are already on welfare.

It will be unskilled labor, which is NOT in demand anywhere in the US outside of picking vegetables.

Which is why he's also proposing job skill training.

But he's not willing to pay for it - he's made that clear, this is all supposed to be about saving money (where it's not about imprisoning poor people for the crime of being poor, or displacing them so they're out of sight). What the fuck kind of job training do you think this asshole is going to provide for these people?

The kind that's better than nothing? Maybe some of them can train the others in a practical trade for their "bullshit make-work job." Surely some of them already have useful skills and experience, after all.

If you were an employer faced with two applications from people on welfare, one of whom has a letter saying they're a good worker who shows up on time and just finished a class where they learned how to do X Relevant Thing and one of whom does not, with all else being equal who would you choose?

I know a surprising number of employers who refuse to hire someone on welfare, or who has been on welfare, at all. Period. Just as there are employers who refuse to even consider the unemployed for a job - that's right, unless you're currently employed by someone else they don't even want you to apply. THAT is how stigmatized being poor has become in this country. For that matter, I have personally witnessed three co-workers over the years who were forced out once it became known they were going to Public Aid or receiving some form of assistance because a manager felt that they were no longer the "right" sort of people to "represent" the company - regardless of their work record.

Yes, yes, employers and other people who get to hold the whip are often dicks, I know. We had a whole thread where we watched Nasim have to change his name to James just to get an interview recently, which I also thought was fucked up, but I'd rather cheer him for putting one over on the fatcats and seizing whatever opportunity he could than shake my fists impotently at the injustice and wish it would go away.

Perhaps you have not encountered these attitudes in your working life. It will probably only be a matter of time. [snip repetition of fanciful paranoid speculation]

Oooh, scare me with your hard-earned wisdom in the ways of the world. News Flash: I, too, am currently poor, and I would seriously consider volunteering for this if I was desperate for work and it was available. I've even gone a little nuts from too much frustration and idle time and started ranting that the problem with employers, politicians, etc is not callousness and greed but in fact personal dislike of me, once or twice, which is what you're doing right now.

[Broomstick]

You can't cut what doesn't exist - seriously, except for food stamps there is NO welfare for people without children.

So - there's the choice of nothing and homelessness, or "volunteering" to be locked up without trial. Yeah, real great choice there.

Great? No. Better than a choice between nothing and nothing? Yes.[/quote]
I find it repugnant and immoral to force people to choose between utter destitution and homelessness and having to live in a jail cell. It is disgusting that anyone would consider forcing someone to choose between freedom and a place to sleep at night.

Because giving people the choice between living in a prison (no matter how prettily renamed) or starving is really giving them no choice at all.

People who are still receiving food stamps tend not to starve.

I don't know where you live, but in my part of the country - and in New York - people without shelter have an increased chance of freezing to death in winter. There's more to life than just food.

I was picturing an able-bodied young person sending money home to a less-able-bodied Mother/sibling/spouse/etc who does not require full-time care, but is nevertheless less likely than they are to find work.

Why do we need to send these able-bodied young people away from home to a fancied-up prison to find them work, though?

Because we tried and failed to find them work where they are?

Bullshit. We haven't done that at all. "Finding work for welfare recipients" means telling them that if they don't apply to a sufficient number of employers for a job during a week we'll cut them off from ALL aid and help.

Perhaps you have not encountered these attitudes in your working life. It will probably only be a matter of time. [snip repetition of fanciful paranoid speculation]

Oooh, scare me with your hard-earned wisdom in the ways of the world. News Flash: I, too, am currently poor, and I would seriously consider volunteering for this if I was desperate for work and it was available.

Seriously, you'd consider being incarcerated for the crime of being poor? You'd allow the government to ship you off to some remote location and keep you in a jail cell? You're willing to trade your freedom for three hots and a cot?

I just don't understand it - well, perhaps you are that much more desperate than I am. I am not sure I'd consent to being locked up in that manner, much less volunteer for it, even if the alternative was sleeping in a cardboard box and a high likelihood of death. It smacks too much of rounding up a group of undesirables for easy disposal.

[Terralthra]

Because giving people the choice between living in a prison (no matter how prettily renamed) or starving is really giving them no choice at all.

People who are still receiving food stamps tend not to starve.

I don't know where you live, but in my part of the country - and in New York - people without shelter have an increased chance of freezing to death in winter. There's more to life than just food.

Which is fine, but you said starve. If you didn't mean starve, maybe you shouldn't have said it.

[Raw Shark]

Great? No. Better than a choice between nothing and nothing? Yes.

I find it repugnant and immoral to force people to choose between utter destitution and homelessness and having to live in a jail cell. It is disgusting that anyone would consider forcing someone to choose between freedom and a place to sleep at night.

Good thing nobody's being forced, then, except by desperate economic circumstances, which this guy claims to want to do something about. Like I said, if you have a better idea for getting them into a job then you've got my vote.

Because giving people the choice between living in a prison (no matter how prettily renamed) or starving is really giving them no choice at all.

People who are still receiving food stamps tend not to starve.

I don't know where you live, but in my part of the country - and in New York - people without shelter have an increased chance of freezing to death in winter. There's more to life than just food.

Move the goalposts much? No matter, I shall punt - The proposal provides shelter, just not a form of shelter that you find pleasant enough.

Why do we need to send these able-bodied young people away from home to a fancied-up prison to find them work, though?

Because we tried and failed to find them work where they are?

Bullshit. We haven't done that at all. "Finding work for welfare recipients" means telling them that if they don't apply to a sufficient number of employers for a job during a week we'll cut them off from ALL aid and help.

Okay, so they did that dick maneuver and the people still don't have jobs, despite the very strong motivation. Creating local jobs out of nothing for them would be cheaper than shipping them off somewhere, and the teabaggers want to spend as little as possible, so it would please Paladino's own base to keep them where they are if he could. Whether it would please them more to just get rid of the poor no matter what it costs I shall leave as an exercise for speculation, but my gut tells me that money's going to win for all but the most hardcore racists and classists.

Oooh, scare me with your hard-earned wisdom in the ways of the world. News Flash: I, too, am currently poor, and I would seriously consider volunteering for this if I was desperate for work and it was available.

Seriously, you'd consider being incarcerated for the crime of being poor? You'd allow the government to ship you off to some remote location and keep you in a jail cell? You're willing to trade your freedom for three hots and a cot?

I just don't understand it - well, perhaps you are that much more desperate than I am. I am not sure I'd consent to being locked up in that manner, much less volunteer for it, even if the alternative was sleeping in a cardboard box and a high likelihood of death. It smacks too much of rounding up a group of undesirables for easy disposal.

I wouldn't volunteer if they were going to lock the doors. Nobody else would, either. Does he really need to explicitly say "We're just using a building we already have, not locking the doors from the outside?" He would probably offend even more people than he is now if he did say that, by revealing that he let such a batshit crazy thought cross his mind long enough to reject it.

[Liberty]

My white, middle-class parents managed to teach me how to brush my teeth incorrectly in a manner that eventually damaged my gums, for example, and if I'd continued that way long enough I could've lost some teeth, which would be pulled on the taxpayer dime if I was on welfare. Paying a real dentist to take an hour and show people how to do it right who would not otherwise go to the dentist unless they had to because they can't afford the copays could actually save some money down the road.

Wait, poor people can get their teeth pulled on the taxpayer dime? Living below the poverty level, I haven't been getting regular dental visits, which I should have when I was present but I didn't (the government paid my pregnancy medical bills, but not for a pregnancy dental visit, even though every pregnancy guide there is tells you to go to the dentist). The result? A year after my baby was born, I went to the dentist because I noticed a discolored spot, and I ended up shelling out $1000 to get my teeth fixed - I had six cavities. I don't seem to remember the government offering to help me out...the money just had to come from somewhere else. And people wonder why we spend $100 a month on food for a family of three...

In this state, the government will pay the medical bills for poor pregnant women and poor children. You're a 25 year old male out of work and penniless and you have a medical problems? Tough shit. You're a 23 year old non pregnant female with no income and no means of getting any and you have to get your appendix out? Deal. Dental? What are you, crazy?

And by the way, Raw Shark, Broomstick is pretty much an expert on this stuff. Have you ever been on welfare, or needed it? Didn't think so.

[Raw Shark]

My white, middle-class parents managed to teach me how to brush my teeth incorrectly in a manner that eventually damaged my gums, for example, and if I'd continued that way long enough I could've lost some teeth, which would be pulled on the taxpayer dime if I was on welfare. Paying a real dentist to take an hour and show people how to do it right who would not otherwise go to the dentist unless they had to because they can't afford the copays could actually save some money down the road.

Wait, poor people can get their teeth pulled on the taxpayer dime? Living below the poverty level, I haven't been getting regular dental visits, which I should have when I was present but I didn't (the government paid my pregnancy medical bills, but not for a pregnancy dental visit, even though every pregnancy guide there is tells you to go to the dentist). The result? A year after my baby was born, I went to the dentist because I noticed a discolored spot, and I ended up shelling out $1000 to get my teeth fixed - I had six cavities. I don't seem to remember the government offering to help me out...the money just had to come from somewhere else. And people wonder why we spend $100 a month on food for a family of three...

In this state, the government will pay the medical bills for poor pregnant women and poor children. You're a 25 year old male out of work and penniless and you have a medical problems? Tough shit. You're a 23 year old non pregnant female with no income and no means of getting any and you have to get your appendix out? Deal. Dental? What are you, crazy?

I, too, can't afford insurance. If you let a bad tooth go long enough (because the government won't help with things like fillings) it becomes a genuine medical problem that the ER would have to deal with. When people who can't pay go to the ER, the taxpayers end up footing the bill. QED.

And by the way, Raw Shark, Broomstick is pretty much an expert on this stuff. Have you ever been on welfare, or needed it? Didn't think so.

Whoa, haven't seen an appeal to authority in a while. Since you ask: I've been elligible for it several times, but refrained because I have no dependents and the need of others is greater. If I get too sick or injured to work, it will become my only option.

[Liberty]

I, too, can't afford insurance. If you let a bad tooth go long enough (because the government won't help with things like fillings) it becomes a genuine medical problem that the ER would have to deal with. When people who can't pay go to the ER, the taxpayers end up footing the bill.

Ah, so that's what you meant. I thought you meant that the government paid for poor people to have dentists pull their teeth if they went bad.

[Broomstick]

I, too, can't afford insurance. If you let a bad tooth go long enough (because the government won't help with things like fillings) it becomes a genuine medical problem that the ER would have to deal with. When people who can't pay go to the ER, the taxpayers end up footing the bill. QED.

And it's a fucking STUPID way to run things - because society is too cheap to pay for either regular dental cleanings or to fill a tooth when a cavity is minor people wind up losing entire teeth, have horrible infections, may even be hospitalized, all of which costs orders of magnitude more than a simple filling.

There have even been instances of people in the US dying from untreated cavities:

Death of a 12 year old child in Ohio from tooth decay

Death of a 12 year old boy in Maryland - for lack of coverage for even a routine tooth extraction (about $80 according to the report) the child ran up a quarter million dollar hospital bill before dying.

Again, this is FUCKING STUPID. It costs us MORE to neglect people than to give them the basic preventive care the middle and upper class take for granted.

Since you ask: I've been elligible for it several times, but refrained because I have no dependents and the need of others is greater. If I get too sick or injured to work, it will become my only option.

Then you are fucking stupid to not take advantage of assistance when you are in need. Do you think the aid you so piously refuse actually goes to someone else?

And if you are too sick or injured to work you will find that there is no safety net. You will be at the mercy of a hospital for charity care. They are under no obligation to do more than simply stabilize you and ship you out. Most healthy young males do NOT qualify for medical assistance. Getting disability benefits typically takes years to work through the system.

You are ignorant of what assistance is or isn't out there. You're talking out of your ass if you think "volunteering" to live in a prison is the answer.