Hurray for police states

It’s not a stereo-type; it is just one fraction of folks on social security-- the ones that don’t deserve it. I talk to this group every day, and most even admit they could work, they just don’t want to. And they really do spend a large portion of their government checks on drugs, even going so far as to live on the street so all the check can go to crack or alcoholic. I wish it was just a cliché and anecdotes but I'm talking about real people I know first hand, and statements that are first hand, not rumor.

Any serious attempt to address social issues must include discussions that criticizes the existing system.

LB

i'm going go out on a limb here and say that texas probably isn't the best benchmark or average for the country though. social security though is kind of a far stretch from individual rights and police states though. everyone thinks they're the good guy and that the way they live their life, sometimes you get knee deep in it any many make bad calls or simply are in the wrong place with the wrong people and their life and liberties erode away. the justice system isn't all that fair and yes the truly guilty whether murders, ponzi schemers, or corporations drag the system on for years while many others are simply pushed into and down under the system.
don't kid yourselves though if you think that these small rules on paper though only effect the "bad guys" as thats all subjective if you upset the wrong people either by being some kind of political activist of any breed or locality, or maybe you just fit some stereotype--either way more laws on the books that make locking someone up is not a good thing if you're an individual who values freedom especially when you already live in a country with the highest incarceration rate. what's that quote "those who would give up their liberty for a little security, deserve neither and will lose both"?

also Obama is on tract now to have more prosecutions against whistleblowers than any other us president, even using the espionage act which is nearly a century old and meant for spies to do so. high road my ass. sometimes i wonder if obama is more bipolar than biracial...

The "cliché" is when that character is mentioned each time the topic is discussed, while the % of this character or other characters are not mentioned at all. Then a "fraction" as you say, becomes the stereotype. Most stereotypes are based on a fraction since a fraction is enough to fuel the stereotype. It's a cognitive flaw we all have and it doesn't solve problems.

That said, a homeless drug addict cannot work even if they say so. Their perception of themselves isn't more relevant than if they said they were Elvis and abducted by aliens. An expert should know this. Their entire brain pattern have changed and their ladder of needs is perhaps permanently resorted where the drug is now prioritized over physical survival needs such as sleep, food and physical health.

We pay for these people. It's not a character problem, it's a drug problem. We may not pay to support their drug problem but to keep our streets clean and protect potential victims of the drug addicts cravings. We pay because as a general principle the payment does lead to improvement.

So it's not a system problem related to payment, but a system problem related to drugtrade. If you wish to track the root of this moneydrain it's in the drugtrade, not in government payouts to people who "chosen" to be a homeless drug addict. No people "choose" that, even if they say so.

There are a couple of psychological reasons why they say so actually. It's actually a form of self-empowerment to say you have "chosen" your situation in a culture who repeatidly promote the idea if free will. The fact is, they are losers, a reality that most people cannot accept. We lie to protect our identity all the time.

Lord_Brownie said:

It’s not a stereo-type; it is just one fraction of folks on social security— the ones that don’t deserve it. I talk to this group every day, and most even admit they could work, they just don’t want to. And they really do spend a large portion of their government checks on drugs, even going so far as to live on the street so all the check can go to crack or alcoholic. I wish it was just a cliché and anecdotes but I'm talking about real people I know first hand, and statements that are first hand, not rumor.

Click to expand...

Can you give some examples of their background/age? Your reply seem hard-ass firsthand but I'm guessing some context is missing here.

not everyones homeless for the same reasons, though many do have severe mental problems, though how much of that was causes or exacerbated by homelessness varies i suppose. many "actual" veterans end up in similar cases or spiral down before they even hit the streets. though the apathy with which most homeless are treated makes it understandable while many make it hard to fathom, not unjustly so, that so many of them claim to be vets. regardless while their are indeed some who like the vagrant, not part of society lifestyle, for many its not a choice and between the ptsd and drugs for numerous injuries that veterans have and continue to receive for eons its not very patriotict or just that so many of them simply ebb away from our conciousness like sand castles once built that are trampled on or simply washed away__tide in__tide out

Your right, Hishadow, it just wears me out and I get hard nosed about things, sorry if I seem hateful towards anyone, I don't mean to be. I work by butt off to take care of everyone, even those I think are taking too much advantage of the system. And i'm not against social security, I just feel that in this area it is abused.

To answer your question, I don't have any hard numbers. Typically they live in the projects locally, or on the streets. The ones who live in the projects and milk the system (not those who work or have a obvious physical disability) are mostly black or white.

There are a few folks who live on the street and get a social security checks who are mentally ill and would have problem holding a basic job due to their odd behavior, they are not the ones who take advantage.

And this is far from the police state topic it started with. Guess I was feeling wordy when I started earlier.
LB

curious said:

what's that quote "those who would give up their liberty for a little security, deserve neither and will lose both"?

Click to expand...

Since the philosophy of freedom begun, the limits became evident. The only one with almost complete freedom is a tyrant. Whats even more evident now is that an insecure society is the least free, so the above quote could as well speak about fairies and unicorns. When the US tried to speak about freedom with the soviets, they accepted. The soviets thoughts the US wanted to resolve their lack of freedoms such as not being free to walk in the park at night without fear.

Kant proposed to think about principles that would work if everyone followed them. Neither the US nor the Soviets were able to create a free society. We might never get to see one, but needless to say, it's not found in 18th century philosophy, or 19 and 20 for that matter.

I know you have atleast one less homeless to worry about. A former "work colleague" used to live as a homeless near some bridge somewhere in Los Angeles. He said that getting food usually wasn't a problem, people were nice and usually gave him some money. He once had to resort to stealing food though and got caught. When it was discovered he had Norwegian citizenship he was shipped off by flight immediately. Arriving in Norway, still pennyless, he had to beg for transport back his hometown. Don't know what he was doing in the US, but he is incredibly obsessed with movie stars and celebrities, and spends a lot of time memorizing movie facts.

Does he quality?

curious said:

what's that quote "those who would give up their liberty for a little security, deserve neither and will lose both"?

Click to expand...

It was "Those who would give up Essential Liberty to purchase a little Temporary Safety, deserve neither Liberty nor Safety." The bolded was bolded because it's usually forgotten, even though it pretty much gives the quote a whole different meaning.

Übereil

dteowner said:

That's a rather philosophical question and I don't know that anyone could give you a definitive answer. My opinion, FWIW, is that your second question is closest to the mark. The American culture is more individualistic, which is going to make Americans more amenable to moving outside societal boundaries. I would further offer that our liberal friends have done their level best to eliminate personal responsibility and measurable consequences for making that choice, making it less personally costly for people to operate outside those bounds. The risk/reward balance is totally out of whack and it's predictable and expected that we'd be in the mess we're in.

Click to expand...

Should point out that crime rates in the US have always been high, even in the days of very limited government, say, prior to 1900. Further those consequences, IE the inability to feed themselves, afford housing, etc. caused a great deal of crime and social upheaval before the advent of the social safety net.