FSTDT Forums
Community => Politics and Government => Topic started by: armandtanzarian on March 17, 2012, 04:01:07 am
-
http://rackjite.com/archives/9454-Maher,-Pelosi-people-on-welfare-in-New-York-video.html
Last week Bill Maher featured interviews with the reddest of the red in MS, which seem to fit the liberal stereotypes of what Republicans are. Now, comes Alexandra Pelosi's interviews with the people in the welfare line in NYC. As you expect, they're also seemingly stereotypes of the welfare kings derided by conservative media.
Have fun.
-
"Welfare king" isn't really the right phrase to use here. Searching for "welfare king" on the internet gives me lists of rich white men seemingly benefiting from the government somehow. I think "absent black father" is a more apt term. Also, I wonder how those people are satisfying the income requirements for welfare, given that at least one was apparently able-bodied.
-
I know that the purpose of these videos was to play on stereotypes, but I doubt these people are recieving "Welfare" as in TANF, because that program has more or less been turned into a jobs program (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Personal_Responsibility_and_Work_Opportunity_Act) since 1996,and have a cut off date of 5 years. It also fails to address the question of are the "baby mamas" the ones in the jobs, I've seen many guys just leech off the women.
Also as a die in the wool liberal, I want to punch these assholes, because they give a bad name to otherwise decent people who really need assistance.
-
I use to manage a work crew of people who were habitually on unemployment...They would work for one or sometimes two financial quarters in order to qualify, and then get fired or disappear. I was always teetering on this insanely fine line of feeling sorry for them, because they were raised fucking poorly-and wanting to tell them to grow the fuck up.
-
So someone stepped up to the plate to defend red-neckism, eh? Classy.
-
Do these idiots know that when they say things like this and abuse the system, they just fire up conservative folks to end the system? Even if they do abuse it (which they do), do they need to boast about it?
:Waits to see this come November as a GOP commercial:
-
Do these idiots know that when they say things like this and abuse the system, they just fire up conservative folks to end the system? Even if they do abuse it (which they do), do they need to boast about it?
:Waits to see this come November as a GOP commercial:
Take it up with Alexandra Pelosi, with this hasty made video. She did because she wanted to be "fair" and show both sides. And yes, one can clearly see that it was made in a haste. In the MS one, it seems to be a bit more in depth, this one seems to be very shallow, and it doesn't even acknowledge that there are cut off dates and requirements, and just in my opinion adds more fuel to the fire.
-
Well it might be noted attached to the video is an interview with Pelosi, so maybe some of the answers you seek might be in this interview.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=0QlOWd2Afok
-
As someone who would be ecstatic if McDonalds paid me to flip burgers at this point, I sort of want to kick the "I'll take a career, not a job" guy.
-
As someone who would be ecstatic if McDonalds paid me to flip burgers at this point, I sort of want to kick the "I'll take a career, not a job" guy.
You work a job while you look for a career. I'm still pissed about my situation, and I can't pay all the bills I get, but man/woman/cis/trans up for at least part time work while you look.
-
As someone who would be ecstatic if McDonalds paid me to flip burgers at this point, I sort of want to kick the "I'll take a career, not a job" guy.
You tend to need the later to get the former; very few career jobs are just going to hire any old guy off the street unless he's got one hell of a skill-set. And even then, in this economic climate, if you don't have a job when you apply for your dream career, they might just set you aside anyway because they don't know why you're currently jobless and there's nothing in their budget for giving a damn. If you (generic "you") just keep holding out for a career, you're going to find yourself with a massively out-of-date skill set and a major gap in your employment record that'll make you even more undesirable, and then a job might be the best you can get.
-
Well it might be noted attached to the video is an interview with Pelosi, so maybe some of the answers you seek might be in this interview.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=0QlOWd2Afok
I saw it on Real Time on Friday night, the only thing she says in the interview, is that we spend more on corporate welfare than on social welfare, nothing new there. No acknowledgement that "Welfare" has been reformed since 1996, no acknowledgement on what type of "welfare" these leeches are looking for. No acknowledgement that the bulk of them probably don't vote to begin with, or probably can't vote because they may be felons, no acknowledgement that welfare fraud isn't as common as people like to make it out to be. You don't get anything of this. Also with the asshat who "wants a career rather than a job" she asks when was the last time you had a job, rather than how long have you've been on whatever program. That doesn't mean shit, I was unemployed for 2 years, I wasn't on welfare or food stamps. This leech could of been leeching off a girlfriend, or friends, or famliy for the five years, who knows?? As I said before it was done in a haste because she got blowback from the right over the Mississippi video.
-
And yes, one can clearly see that it was made in a haste. In the MS one, it seems to be a bit more in depth, this one seems to be very shallow, and it doesn't even acknowledge that there are cut off dates and requirements, and just in my opinion adds more fuel to the fire.
Welfare is temporary. Redneckism is forever.
-
And yes, one can clearly see that it was made in a haste. In the MS one, it seems to be a bit more in depth, this one seems to be very shallow, and it doesn't even acknowledge that there are cut off dates and requirements, and just in my opinion adds more fuel to the fire.
Welfare is temporary. Redneckism is forever.
Welfare isn't temporary, if you listen to conservatives...it's like 1996 never happened, and it annoys me to no end that welfare myths never seem to end, it's really sad when you see "liberals" buy into the shit also.
-
And yes, one can clearly see that it was made in a haste. In the MS one, it seems to be a bit more in depth, this one seems to be very shallow, and it doesn't even acknowledge that there are cut off dates and requirements, and just in my opinion adds more fuel to the fire.
Welfare is temporary. Redneckism is forever.
Welfare isn't temporary, if you listen to conservatives...it's like 1996 never happened, and it annoys me to no end that welfare myths never seem to end, it's really sad when you see "liberals" buy into the shit also.
I’m not quipping on the imaginary world of conservatism. I’m quipping on legal reality.
-
Personally I don't feel people should receive welfare if they're not going into a high payoff or otherwise useful job.
-
Personally I don't feel people should receive welfare if they're not going into a high payoff or otherwise useful job.
I think if they had the ability to go into a high payoff/useful job, they wouldn't need to be on welfare in the first place -_-
-
Re-training programs that the government can fund.
-
Re-training programs that the government can fund.
And when are they going to get the time to visit these programs while working two or three minimum-wage jobs, just to get the money to pay for stuff?
Food stamps don't pay the bills, nor do they buy diapers. Welfare already has a requirement that people actively look for employment. The problem is that the amount of potential workers exceed the number of jobs, and that has actual workers by the short hairs.
-
Re-training programs that the government can fund.
And when are they going to get the time to visit these programs while working two or three minimum-wage jobs, just to get the money to pay for stuff?
I was thinking that the government could help with the bills and stuff while they are at school. Then they would only need one part time job to help.
The problem is that the amount of potential workers exceed the number of jobs, and that has actual workers by the short hairs.
If the government invested in R&D programs and rebuilding infrastructure that would create millions of jobs.
-
And you know we can't have that.
-
Okay then, Lexikon. Let me put it this way.
Even if the government re-training paid for all of their food, their needs, and their bills, you would then deny them welfare if they don't get a high-paying job...
...which isn't always in their control. For one thing, corporations don't WANT to pay people high-wage. They want to pay people as shit wages as possible for as much work they can get out of them as possible.
And considering that unemployed > potential jobs, the corporations can afford to pick the cheapest bidder. They don't care about actual skill, just so long as they're qualified.
By your logic, the people who don't get picked for arbitrary reasons then lose welfare even if they keep looking for jobs but don't get them.
Your logic is exceedingly dangerous. Welfare is a safety net. It shouldn't have the qualifier of "You only get welfare if you make yourself useful to society" because that is a terrible, terrible line of thought. It's a safety net. Its only requirement should be when you're too poor to sustain yourself. None other.
-
Your logic is exceedingly dangerous. Welfare is a safety net. It shouldn't have the qualifier of "You only get welfare if you make yourself useful to society" because that is a terrible, terrible line of thought. It's a safety net. Its only requirement should be when you're too poor to sustain yourself. None other.
And “Useful” is way too subjective, too. And even those infrastructure projects mentioned earlier are going to require a lot of shitty positions as well.
-
I'd be totally cool with the idea of the gov't offering free training courses for particularly useful skills or trades, if only because it might give disadvantaged people another avenue of pursuit for their job search. Doesn't guarantee a job, but a varied skill set can make you useful to a wide-enough job market that you might have a greater chance of pulling in something worthwhile. You can learn a trade if you join the military, so why not offer the same to the civilian population?
As an aside, I wish the gov't would set the "minimum wage" as the actual minimum livable wage. Around here minimum wage is like $7.25, which is about $2 less than the minimum livable wage. Given that Maine's got a history of our businesses being a bunch of cheap-ass bastards, $7.25 is often the starting wage they'll pitch - or $7.50 if you've got 5+ years work experience. This leads to the vast majority of people being on welfare or - if they can get their employer to give them a stable schedule (very rare) - they work 2-3 jobs just to make bills. Why not just skip all that bullshit and actually pay people what they need to get by modestly as the bare minimum?
-
I'd be totally cool with the idea of the gov't offering free training courses for particularly useful skills or trades, if only because it might give disadvantaged people another avenue of pursuit for their job search. Doesn't guarantee a job, but a varied skill set can make you useful to a wide-enough job market that you might have a greater chance of pulling in something worthwhile. You can learn a trade if you join the military, so why not offer the same to the civilian population?
As an aside, I wish the gov't would set the "minimum wage" as the actual minimum livable wage. Around here minimum wage is like $7.25, which is about $2 less than the minimum livable wage. Given that Maine's got a history of our businesses being a bunch of cheap-ass bastards, $7.25 is often the starting wage they'll pitch - or $7.50 if you've got 5+ years work experience. This leads to the vast majority of people being on welfare or - if they can get their employer to give them a stable schedule (very rare) - they work 2-3 jobs just to make bills. Why not just skip all that bullshit and actually pay people what they need to get by modestly as the bare minimum?
the issue is that the minimum wage has not been adjusted for inflation
-
Okay then, Lexikon. Let me put it this way.
Even if the government re-training paid for all of their food, their needs, and their bills, you would then deny them welfare if they don't get a high-paying job...
Not necesairly. If they have a useful job related to subjects like green energy, R&D, agriculture, and transportation they shouldn't be denied.
...which isn't always in their control. For one thing, corporations don't WANT to pay people high-wage. They want to pay people as shit wages as possible for as much work they can get out of them as possible.
Well, if they get a government job, they could be aid well. Furthermore, I think we should support small and local businesses and co-ops to make it easier.
Your logic is exceedingly dangerous. Welfare is a safety net. It shouldn't have the qualifier of "You only get welfare if you make yourself useful to society" because that is a terrible, terrible line of thought. It's a safety net. Its only requirement should be when you're too poor to sustain yourself. None other.
The government should have a responsibility to stabalize its economy. People should have an incentive to go into jobs that make our country strong and shouldn't be steered in another direction. Furthermore welfare is currently to make yourself useful to society since, like you said, but also because it allows to people to buy products that keep the economy running.
-
This article (http://www.gothamgazette.com/article/fea/20030714/202/454) is from some years ago (2003), but it does address the problem with welfare to work reform.
-
the issue is that the minimum wage has not been adjusted for inflation
Oh, I know, I'm just griping. Last time I checked Americans are making around half of what they should be making.
-
Do these idiots know that when they say things like this and abuse the system, they just fire up conservative folks to end the system? Even if they do abuse it (which they do), do they need to boast about it?
:Waits to see this come November as a GOP commercial:
Take it up with Alexandra Pelosi, with this hasty made video. She did because she wanted to be "fair" and show both sides. And yes, one can clearly see that it was made in a haste. In the MS one, it seems to be a bit more in depth, this one seems to be very shallow, and it doesn't even acknowledge that there are cut off dates and requirements, and just in my opinion adds more fuel to the fire.
I hate to say it but from living. Missouri I have seen folks from both videos. I have to deal with them everyday.
Not everyone who is poor is like this. But then the ones who aren't fuck ups don't stand out by definition.
Welfare does need to be reformed. Problem is cons have controlled the debate and what they mean by reform is end. Which puts liberals in the position of defending a crappy system because it's still better then the alternative conservatives want (for others anyway)
-
the issue is that the minimum wage has not been adjusted for inflation
Oh, I know, I'm just griping. Last time I checked Americans are making around half of what they should be making.
I wouldn't say half, but it would be nice if my parents made more now than they had 10 years ago. I'm not looking forward to having to find a way to support them around the same time I'm putting a kid through college.
-
Do these idiots know that when they say things like this and abuse the system, they just fire up conservative folks to end the system? Even if they do abuse it (which they do), do they need to boast about it?
:Waits to see this come November as a GOP commercial:
Take it up with Alexandra Pelosi, with this hasty made video. She did because she wanted to be "fair" and show both sides. And yes, one can clearly see that it was made in a haste. In the MS one, it seems to be a bit more in depth, this one seems to be very shallow, and it doesn't even acknowledge that there are cut off dates and requirements, and just in my opinion adds more fuel to the fire.
I hate to say it but from living. Missouri I have seen folks from both videos. I have to deal with them everyday.
Not everyone who is poor is like this. But then the ones who aren't fuck ups don't stand out by definition.
Welfare does need to be reformed. Problem is cons have controlled the debate and what they mean by reform is end. Which puts liberals in the position of defending a crappy system because it's still better then the alternative conservatives want (for others anyway)
1. I'll put this (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Personal_Responsibility_and_Work_Opportunity_Act) up again, it was reformed in 1996, is it full proof, no, are there still some cheats around, yes but there is always going some who play the system no matter what, but those people are an extremely small minority compared to the rest of those on the program.
2. Not recognizing that reform made to welfare in 1996 is what the right wants people to do, and people keep falling for it all the time, even "liberals". Was there a better way of going about reform, yes but that's never going to happen in this country because the right are always in control of the debate, and our mainstream "left" party is center-right in reality, and too busy trying to get the votes of the people who will never vote for them to begin with.
3. Also what Alexandra Pelosi did was a hasty made video just to appease the right wing due to blowback she got from the Mississippi video (Shit, at least the people in the Mississippi video, one could feel pity for them). She has a shitload money, she has connections(Afterall, she is Nancy Pelosi's daughter) to do something meaning full, but she'll probably sit back, snicker and count her money like a rightwing stereotype of rich liberals.
-
.....
1. I'll put this (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Personal_Responsibility_and_Work_Opportunity_Act) up again, it was reformed in 1996
Ok I think you misunderstood me.,
I didn't say it hadn't been changed and we called that "reform". I said it needed reform. As in the change they did didn't work (at least from the left's POV). In part because Clinton and the Dems were trying to triangulate the GOP and so much of this ended up stealing conservative ideas.
3. Also what Alexandra Pelosi did was a hasty made video just to appease the right wing due to blowback she got from the Mississippi video (Shit, at least the people in the Mississippi video, one could feel pity for them).....
My understanding is that it was always the plan to show both of these side by side. Yes, maybe I misremember but I could have sworn that maher they would be showing poor people in blue states when they originally aired the mississippi video.
Not that I agree with maher or pelosi that if you "piss off both sides" you must be doing something right. That's a logical fallacy.
But again I think you misunderstood me. I see people like those in BOTH videos.
I see stalwart republicans who say vote God, Gays and Guns and rant about the evil socialist system while sitting comfortably in their hover rounds provided by medicare dollars.
And I see people who game the system, who think others should support them and lie to get it rather then work
Hell, some of them are the same people.
Hasty response or not, this does not seem invalid with my own experiences.
-
I agree that it should've been reformed in a better way, but as I said it's not going to happen as long as we have a Democratic party that would rather be republican lite than a real "left" or even a center-left party. Clinton is nothing more than neo-liberal scum, just like what most of the party has become, which is the real crime. I'm sorry for misunderstanding you.