Michael Moore says Money of the Rich isn't theirs

Remove all ads!

Um... You don't think forcibly removing a 4-year old from his/her parent(s) would not be an emotionally scarring moment whose affects may potentially last for life? And you would NOT consider that a form of punishment?

If you're only interested in holding the parents responsible, why the need for the emotional anguish of the kids? You may think they're terrible parents, but chances are, their children love them.

 

You would break up a family? Remove children from their moms? Because YOU THINK the parents are "useless and rotten?" Why do I keep thinking of RED China?

 

If the parent is totally unable to even partially provide the necessities of life, then they are placing that child in danger and thus they don't deserve to have the child. Especially if you factor in addictions and criminality, to stick to the ridiculous belief that "the child is always better off with its birth parents" is naive, ideological, and places children at risk, which is something as a society we are supposedly trying to avoid.

 

@ LKD,

I can't get behind that, and I think you're being a little harsh. If circumstances prevent otherwise capable parents from being able to provide life's necessities, it doesn't mean they no longer "deserve to have" their children - it means they need help. Help from family and friends first, of course. But barring that, the state - through a system they've paid into their entire tax-paying lives. When you start introducing things like neglect, negligence and criminal behavior, then it becomes another matter - as it endangers the well-being of the children. But at a fundamental level, the welfare system is designed to aid those who can't otherwise take care of themselves (those who've fallen on hard times or who've never NOT known hard times), not those who choose not to take care of themselves (the "leeches," etc.). Those who abuse that system are the exception, and should be weeded out to free up resources and aid for those who actually need and deserve it. Correct me if I've read you wrong, though.

 

Well, yeah, I like the way you just threw that in there. Too bad for you it has nothing to do with the discussion. So, if I'm understanding you correctly, there is a certain income range for the State to grant "the right" for parents to have children? Before you start removing children from poor families, you better come up with a solid, Constitutional, Due Process of Law for being able to sieze them from their parents. While you are at it, you might want to consider teaching your class some Charles Dickens, at least for the opportunity to revisist him for yourself.

 

Since when does being a single parent suddenly include addictions and criminal activity? That's just ridiculous

Before you slate single parents even more you might like to consider that they are the parent that STAYED. That is the parent who is fighting to provide for their child and that should be ADMIRED not slated and treated like trash! If you're going to treat anyone like trash it should be the complete bastard that left a partner and child behind!

 

I understand what you mean, but I don't think you understand what I mean. You're working from the premise that these kids exist and need help. I'm working from the premise that any such program in existence for 50+ years will cause the creation of more kids in such circumstances. Since the war on poverty started, the number of single black pregnancies going to birth has sky-rocketed. Interestingly, this has happened even with the legalization and supplimental payment for abortions.

I don't think you understand just how bad the infrastructure problem in the US is. Just in Hampton roads, probably about half of the existing sewer system needs to be completely replaced. Much of it has been in place since the colonies. We have wooden (or at this point probably wood mulch, or just soil) sewers still 'in the ground'. And that's not even mentioning the idiot lateral drillers who will bore right through sewer lines and water mains without telling anyone! And that's just sewers. Then you add bridges, roads, power lines, etc. The US infrastructure, by and large, was made to last about 50 years. Much of it was made 70+years ago. The US doesn't have an infrastructure problem. We have an infrastructure crisis.

I imagine they'll be pissed they aren't getting a cut, but it won't seriously hurt their business. This is work that (almost) no one's doing right now. These companies live on expanding infrastructure, payed for by private investors, into new developments.

Tell me how this is socialism? Yes, this was used by socialists in Russia, but as a means of controlling production. We in the US employ people in the government not to control production, but to administer the work of government. I argue that maintaining the nation's infrastructure is a part of that. Again, this is no more socialism than a city road crew patching a pot hole is socialism.

The typical ******** from the left. Drew, you've now proven yourself to be a race-baiter. You don't like the fact that Blacks are the only minority massively over-represented on welfare rolls, so anyone who points it out must be a racist. This is the lowest of the low, and the left so commonly sinks to it. It's sickening. It's the most worthless drivel I've seen on these forums for a long time.

You're so concerned with being right, you'll hide your face from a real problem. Blacks aren't on welfare because they're black. Blacks are on welfare because the War on Poverty was targetted primarily at black communities! Welfare was almost designed for them. And it hasn't worked. It hasn't raised them out of poverty.

I have no more time for this now. I have a job to go to.

Yes, but you couldn't, because your fence isn't government-owned infrastructure. State roads, county water lines, city sewers, things like that are what they'd work on, not your fence.

Basically, at the worst, the government would take over what would otherwise be a number of government contracts. I've said the government should be less reliant on outside contractors for years.

 

NOG,
the government that governs least is the government that governs best. Just wait, the Infallible Invisible Hand of the Holy Market will fix this. The US only need to cut taxes some more. It will be a paradise. I am sure you're relieved to hear that.

Lateral drillers not telling anyone? Gee, who would have thought construction permits have purpose other than getting big government on the back of the people, wasting hard earned tax payer dollars and creating red tape. Just saying.

 

Oh, I agree completely that the infrastructure in the US is terrible. I just don't think the way to fix it is to put 20% of the workforce in the United States, 99% of whom have no experience, knowledge, or training in constructing or repairing infrastructure, to work on it.

Not only is that way too many people for the task to be done, since you're taking mostly unskilled workers for the job, expect to get some unskilled work from them. Garbage in, garbage out.

We don't need 40 million unskilled laborers to fix the problem. We need engineers, land surveyors, construction crews (with people licensed appropriately to drive heavy machinery), with a couple of unskilled workers on each crew to switch the sign from "stop" to "slow" and direct cars around the work. In other words, the people we need most are the people you are least likely to find going through unemployment and welfare rolls.

Yes, it must be that - or maybe they are just poor.

Since when does being poor make you an addict or a criminal? I'm not saying there are no poor people who are criminal and no poor people who are addicted to drugs, but to imply all (or even an outright majority) are is simply not true.

Are you also in favor of removing children from middle class families if one of their parents gets busted for drugs? Or if one of them commits a crime? In the case of single parents, if one gets busted and goes to jail, well then naturally the kid cannot stay with them, but to just say: "They are poor, and are probably addicts and criminals anyway, so let's take the kid away" is wrong on so many levels.

And you think we're the ones being a bit naive?

 

But government funded infrastructure projects are socialism. Beware!

Flashback: Minneapolis bridge disaster draws attention to neglect of U.S. infrastructure, New York Times, Tuesday, August 7, 2007

Oh yes, there was something, wasn't there? I mean, who likes taxes, right? Cutting taxes is always popular. Everybody likes to keep his money. Is it responsible to do that? Who cares. In the current political climate, with anti-tax tea parties and nonsense like that, and claims that any tax increase will destroy the economy, the political feasibility of tax increase to repair crumbling infrastructure is pretty much nil.

It is a point not easily sold to Republicans today, never mind taxes, that crumbling infrastructure also destroys economies. Unlike taxes, it can even get people killed.

Just for proper perspective: The beginning of that destructive effect can be observed in the former Soviet republics in Central Asia where the infrastructure the commies built - bridges, roads, railways, power plants - they put a great emphasis on developing areas - is decaying, already negatively impacting the local economies.

 

It is so nice to see a leftist admit that people own their own money. A little bit of Michael Moore died today.

 

Leftist? Yeah right. I haven't cast a vote for a left party all my life

And wtf are you talking about anyway: I am opposed to confiscatory taxes. I oppose property tax because it is unconstitutional; the right to own property is constitutionally protected. What I am for is fairness. There are indications for me to assume that the US tax system is not fair as far as burden sharing is concerned: The tax increase nobody talks -- or asks -- about:

IMO the roots for the lack of interest in such topics have a lot to do with the Calvinist ideas about Predestination. As a Catholic such views are abhorrent to me. For those in a more cerebral mood today I recommend reading up on the The Protestant Ethic and the Spirit of Capitalism.

That you call me a leftist only shows how utterly abnormal in the Western comparison the US political landscape is - the Democrats are centre right, and the Republicans are right of that ... so presumably my centrist positions in America would make me a leftist democrat - and a conservative in Germany. Makes perfect sense.

To make it short: Snook, you are nuts. This partisan * is robbing you of your ability to think.

Spoiler

* Ragusa constantly rails against conservatives and their politics, he thus must be ... left to them i.e. a leftist. Riiight. I mean left to what? I'd say it fairly is easy for a thinking person to be to the left of cranks like, say, Dr. Don McLeroy of Texas Board of Education fame. You're blissfully ignoring just how cranky-extremist some Republican policies and positions are, and how prevalent that cranky extremism is. What informs your categorising apparently is simply slightly paranoid tribal allegiance in America's bi-polar political system - he is against the tribe, thus he is one of them. Nonsense, of course ...

 

I'm not the one who brought race into this by asserting that welfare is specifically aimed at blacks without raising even a shred of factual evidence in its defense. That was you, and you still have yet to provide that evidence, even going so far as to ignorantly claim that more Asians should be on welfare in defense of that assertion when, as a group, asians are the least likely to need or qualify for the program. I'm the race-baiter? Oh, clearly. You still aren't checking your "facts." Start.

Food stamps has an income threshold and you need to work, be actively seeking work and able to prove it, or be on disability to qualify. The means test also checks your assets and resources. Too many assets or too much cash on hand will disqualify you from the program. Explain how this program that anyone of any race can qualify for specifically targets blacks over other races. Cite facts. How does the Spanish language government literature detailing the program fit into your argument that the program specifically targets African Americans to the exclusion of other races?

Unemployment is an insurance program that everyone who works pays into. To qualify, you must experience a qualifying job loss. Misconduct will disqualify you from benefits. Not working will disqualify you from benefits. Benefits are tethered to the period worked and income earned before the job loss. Explain how this program that anyone of any race can qualify for specifically targets blacks over other racial groups. Cite facts. How does the fact that unemployment is proactively offered to military veterans during out-processing fit into your argument the program specifically targets African Americans to the exclusion of other races?

Medicaid has an income threshold and you need to work, be actively seeking work and able to prove it, or be on disability to qualify. The means test also checks your assets and resources. Too many assets or too much cash on hand will disqualify you from the program. Explain how this program that anyone of any race can qualify for specifically targets blacks over other racial subsets. Cite facts. There's Spanish literature for this one, too.

Subsidized housing programs provide lower cost housing to those that qualify. The program has an income threshold and you need to be working, actively seeking work and able to prove it, or on disability to qualify. The means test also checks your assets and resources. Too many assets or too much cash on hand will disqualify you from the program. Explain why this program that anyone of any race can qualify specifically targets blacks over everyone else. Cite facts. And yes, the government produces Spanish literature detailing this program, too.

More African Americans are on welfare because more of them qualify for welfare. The more you try to defend your assertions to the contrary, the more racist you look. Take your lumps or prove your assertion. With facts. Did you actually read the Census data that I gave you? It has lots of facts in it, and is a good place to start. Just, uh, don't be surprised when those facts lead you to a different conclusion than the preconceived one you're so stubbornly clinging to right now.

 

The state support for those who truly need it is a must. But the system must be strict and organized properly, to avoid abuses as much as possible.

In Central Europe, lot of people got used to it that working just isn't worth it. The problem is, this happened long ago, and complete layers of society got used to it (yes, mostly gypsies, but not only gypsies). They think it's normal. And this is what their children, grandchildren are taught too. That they deserve it automatically. Why? Because.

The new Hungarian Prime Minister, Viktor Orbán aims to estabilish a stricter social system. He said: "Our goal is that parents live for children, not from children".

Back to my main point, it's very hard to improve the situation when it's too late, i.e. when this "the state pays me, because I'm the poor" becomes an integral part of the mentality of certain layers of society. People who are unable to work should be helped, but those who are able to work but consider themselves "the poor" should not get a penny.

There will be always losers in any system. For example, those who irresponsibly undertake mortgages and then can't pay them back. In this case, little can be done.

 

This was probably inevitable.

 

I did not say that all single parents, or all poor parents for that matter, are criminals or addicts. What I did say is that those things are often factors in why some parents find themselves completely unable to provide the necessities of life for their kids. It's funny that when the idea of taking the kids away from these lousy parents (and I never once said that all poor or single parents are lousy parents) then the whole issue of "rights" comes up, as in "the government has no right to interfere", but when the idea of the resonsibilities these parents hold to their kids and to the society is brought up, it's suddenly everybody else's job to support the parents. Interesting in the extreme.

I think short term support for people when they are faced with unforeseen circumstances is great. And to address 8People's point, I believe that the parent who bailed should be legally compelled to provide support and take responsibility for (usually his) actions and choices. But if a parent of either gender claims to love the child, then they will do what's right for the child and give the child up to competant parents if it is clear that they haven't the means to provide basic necessities. That's a hard sacrifice, and it involves putting the needs of the child before the selfish needs and desires of the parent. But I oppose the use of tax dollars as a long term subsidy for imcompetant or foolish parents. Taxpayers should be able to keep they money that they earn for the benefit of their own children. If they want to donate to charities, that's their choice. Compelling that behaviour through excessive taxes is unfair.

EDIT: I forgot Aldeth's question -- the answer is yes, if a middle or high income / class family has drugs or serious addictions in the household, (that is to say, the parents are addicts or criminals) then absolutely the chidlren should be removed. Wealth doesn't excuse endangering the child, and I have never once implied that it does. My feelings on criminals are well known, and children shouldn't be subjected to that nonsense.

 

The most sad is when the children are starving and the parent spends the money (received from the state) for alcohol and cigarette (or simply in pub). Such parents don't care of their children, unfortunately.

 

That's why food stamps and subsidized housing are superior to cash benefits. They can't be squandered the way cash can and have to be used for their intended purpose.

 

Baronius hits on a touchy subject. Many people don't want to admit it, but the scenario he describes does happen -- frequently. I've seen it with my own eyes. My feeling is that once you have accepted public money, you have a responsibility to use it properly, and not selfishly or stupidly. We don't want to believe that some people do this sort of thing, but they do, it's easy to see and it's right in front of our noses. But it violates the romantic mindset of "he's poor because he never got a chance, and the horrible wealthy people never gave him one, so it's their fault he's an idiot who doesn't have the prioritizing sense God gave a goose"

 

There aren't a lot of welfare programs in the states that actually pay out cash. Unemployment is the glaring exception to the rule, but it's actually an insurance program that we all pay for. As long as he holds up his end of the bargain and engages in a good faith job search, it isn't really anyone's business whether an unemployment recipient squanders the money or uses it wisely, since he paid for his benefits in advance.