# Do you believe some people need permanent government assistance?



## HDRider (Jul 21, 2011)

Did you know that 14% of people have an IQ below 84. The Army will not take a person with an IQ less than 84. They are considered untrainable. 

If 84 is too high a cutoff for you, consider less than 3% have an IQ less than 70.





__





IQ Percentile and Rarity Chart







www.iqcomparisonsite.com








Intellectual functioning is assessed with an exam by a doctor and through standardized testing. While a specific full-scale IQ test score is no longer required for diagnosis, standardized testing is used as part of diagnosing the condition. A full scale IQ score of around 70 to 75 indicates a significant limitation in intellectual functioning. 









Psychiatry.org - What is Intellectual Disability?


Learn about intellectual disability, including symptoms, risk factors, treatment options and answers to common questions.




www.psychiatry.org


----------



## Hiro (Feb 14, 2016)

HDRider said:


> Did you know that 14% of people have an IQ below 84. The Army will not take a person with an IQ less than 84. They are considered untrainable.
> 
> If 84 is too high a cutoff for you, consider less than 3% have an IQ less than 70.
> 
> ...


I think about 535 of them have found employment in the House of Reps and the Senate, the rest are in state houses and governor's mansions. Well, so it would appear anyway.


----------



## poppy (Feb 21, 2008)

Hiro said:


> I think about 535 of them have found employment in the House of Reps and the Senate, the rest are in state houses and governor's mansions. Well, so it would appear anyway.


 My wife's uncle in the town north of us used to say whenever someone moved into town and didn't know how to do anything and was too dumb to learn, they put him on the police dept. It appeared to be true in that town. Sort of the same thing.


----------



## TripleD (Feb 12, 2011)

I'm probably in the wrong business to respond but here goes. I've seen three to four generations always continue to stay on it. Maybe three ever get off section8 . I wish I had I better feeling about it... Before anyone tries putting me down for it maybe I'm just used to it?


----------



## Mish (Oct 15, 2015)

Technically the military doesn't give IQ tests, they loosely correlate the ASVAB score to IQ. Even if you score poorly the ASVAB, you can study and take it again and likely will do better, unlike an IQ test (I mean I guess you could study for an IQ test but I'm not sure how that would work, unlike the practical application type testing that is the ASVAB). I also think they can take people with a lower IQ, there's just a restriction on how much of the force can be in that range, and you can get a waiver for almost anything.

Not to get into semantics but...I guess I did 

To answer your actual question, it depends. If the person is incapable of functioning as in independent adult and they do not have family/friends willing/able to care for them, I guess we as a society have a decision to make. Either take care of them or put them out in the woods to die. We already do that for people with other disabilities, I'm not sure why incapacitating mental disabilities should be different.


----------



## TripleD (Feb 12, 2011)

Mish said:


> Technically the military doesn't give IQ tests, they loosely correlate the ASVAB score to IQ. Even if you score poorly the ASVAB, you can study and take it again and likely will do better, unlike an IQ test (I mean I guess you could study for an IQ test but I'm not sure how that would work, unlike the practical application type testing that is the ASVAB). I also think they can take people with a lower IQ, there's just a restriction on how much of the force can be in that range, and you can get a waiver for almost anything.
> 
> Not to get into semantics but...I guess I did
> 
> To answer your actual question, it depends. If the person is incapable of functioning as in independent adult and they do not have family/friends willing/able to care for them, I guess we as a society have a decision to make. Either take care of them or put them out in the woods to die. We already do that for people with other disabilities, I'm not sure why incapacitating mental disabilities should be different.


I've spent alot time in the woods . Either on the farm or hunting leased land. Never have I seen a single one who was left there to die? You want to go round up the homeless and force them to go somewhere?


----------



## Mish (Oct 15, 2015)

TripleD said:


> I've spent alot time in the woods . Either on the farm or hunting leased land. Never have I seen a single one who was left there to die? You want to go round up the homeless and force them to go somewhere?


Metaphorically, of course!


----------



## rambler (Jan 20, 2004)

I think both they and society in general was not well served when they were mainstreamed a couple decades ago.

I think there were good intentions, and for sure the old institutions weren’t a good deal either I can understand some attempt at change.

but mostly they were just dropped into society and abandoned with the “mainstreaming.” That was not good either.

you have a good question. They need more care than we are willing to give them as a society, and it seems many their family doesn’t want to put in the effort either.

and, so, there we are. What do we do?

paul


----------



## thesedays (Feb 25, 2011)

rambler said:


> I think both they and society in general was not well served when they were mainstreamed a couple decades ago.
> 
> I think there were good intentions, and for sure the old institutions weren’t a good deal either I can understand some attempt at change.
> 
> ...


I believe that a lot of the increases in various social issues are the result of deinstitutionalization, not just of the intellectually disabled, but also the mentally ill. I'm not talking about people who can live in the community and look after themselves with minimal assistance; I'm talking about people who, well, can't.

There are definitely situations where mainstreaming disabled children in school is a good idea, and others where it does not benefit anyone, least of all the disabled people themselves.


----------



## Twp.Tom (Dec 29, 2010)

In a civilized society, You must take care of those that can't/won't take care of themselves. What if it were You, or one of Your Loved ones? Many of Americans don't mind spending a BIG chunk of their tax dollars , supporting the defence industry. How about helping/ supporting folks that need help?-and I am not talking about millionaires and billionaires!


----------



## SLADE (Feb 20, 2004)

Hiro said:


> I think about 535 of them have found employment in the House of Reps and the Senate, the rest are in state houses and governor's mansions. Well, so it would appear anyway.


It starts at the top.
. Mr Bone spurs. Paper towel man. Golf boy. Mr mini watt. Golden showers boy. The toilet king.
Some of the least effective action figures.
All on the public dole.


----------



## poppy (Feb 21, 2008)

I take the Biblical view on this like everything else. We are admonished to help those mentally or physically unable to take care of themselves. Also widows and orphans. However, we are not to help those who simply refuse to work. The Bible says a man who will not provide for his family is worse than an infidel and that if a man won't work he shouldn't eat.


----------



## gilberte (Sep 25, 2004)

poppy said:


> My wife's uncle in the town north of us used to say whenever someone moved into town and didn't know how to do anything and was too dumb to learn, they put him on the police dept. It appeared to be true in that town. Sort of the same thing.


Would it surprise you to learn that the average IQ of police officers in this country is 104?


----------



## poppy (Feb 21, 2008)

gilberte said:


> Would it surprise you to learn that the average IQ of police officers in this country is 104?



Have they tested the IQ of every police officer in the country? I know most cops are smart enough to do the job and no doubt some are very smart. However, in small towns getting the job is more likely due to having a friend or relative on the city council or otherwise politically connected. I've seen it over and over all my life.


----------



## gilberte (Sep 25, 2004)

No, I doubt they have tested every officer in the country. Yes it's true that there are some less than ideal hiring practices still going on which need to be dealt with. Overall this country is doing pretty well with police services, despite media hype and selective mania.


----------



## SLADE (Feb 20, 2004)

We all have a part to play in the grand scheme called economy.
As production becomes ever more automated we will need more consumers and less producers.
Maybe working will become a thing of the past.
You may receive your income on a chip in your eyeball.
IQ will not matter. Only that you are a happy consumer.


----------



## Wolf mom (Mar 8, 2005)

I've been around the block on this one, and most likely am jaded, but I think there's too many people on the "dole" that don't belong there. 

Too many people locked into the "system", too many people gaming the "system", too many people indoctrinated into believing they can't rise above the "system". Too many people believing today that merit (whatever happened to that word?) doesn't qualify, but your skin color and sex qualify....


----------



## HDRider (Jul 21, 2011)

Mish said:


> Not to get into semantics


You are correct. The military does not give an "IQ". I read that failure of the test the Army does give equates to an 84 or below.


----------



## NRA_guy (Jun 9, 2015)

No. But I do think that natural selection should be allowed to eliminate the lazy, the incompetent, the incurably sick, and others who cannot (or will not) sustain themselves.

That would be 99% of the politicians . . .


----------



## Farmerga (May 6, 2010)

Twp.Tom said:


> n a civilized society, You must take care of those that can't/won't take care of themselves.


Can't? Yes. Won't? Absolutely not. Those who won't work should feel the powerful motivation, to change their outlook, known as hunger.


----------



## NRA_guy (Jun 9, 2015)

The problem is letting the government determine who "requires" assistance.

It starts out with medical assistance for impoverished children and elderly who have truly pitiful medical problems that are readily correctable (like the kids you see on TV with cleft palate).

And before long the workers are paying for sex change operations for prisoners.

Politicians are more interested in getting votes than in properly managing YOUR tax dollars.

As Margaret Thatcher famously said, "Any politician who promises to rob Peter to pay Paul can always count on getting Paul's vote."

I like the "Not yours to give" story by Davy Crockett when Davy was a US Representative:

Not yours to give

(Copy attached for when the internet rulers purge what's left of non-socialist propaganda.)


----------



## Irish Pixie (May 14, 2002)

Yes. I believe some people need permanent government assistance.


----------



## Farmerga (May 6, 2010)

I think some people need permanent assistance, not necessarily from government.


----------



## GTX63 (Dec 13, 2016)

Farmerga said:


> I think some people need permanent assistance, not necessarily from government.
> 
> That is what your fellow man is for.
> Help from the government never comes from their heart, but always from your pocket and not always willingly.
> The individual or private group will always get a better return on their efforts that any public program.


----------



## muleskinner2 (Oct 7, 2007)

HDRider said:


> Did you know that 14% of people have an IQ below 84. The Army will not take a person with an IQ less than 84. They are considered untrainable.
> 
> If 84 is too high a cutoff for you, consider less than 3% have an IQ less than 70.
> 
> ...


No, the world needs ditch diggers. Instead of just cutting them a check, I think something like the old CCC camps would be a good idea. With a safe place to live and a job to do, most of them would learn a trade, and move on in life. Those who did not learn and move up, would have a job for life. The vast majority would learn something and move up. Maintaining trails in the National Forests, has been neglected for decades. Fighting fires in a forested area would be much easier, with maintained roads and trails already in place. In California they could be put to work scooping poop on the streets and sidewalks. The truly mentality ill should be treated, and given a place to live. Living in a institution would be a terrible life, but better than living on the street.


----------



## Mish (Oct 15, 2015)

GTX63 said:


> That is what your fellow man is for.
> Help from the government never comes from their heart, but always from your pocket and not always willingly.
> The individual or private group will always get a better return on their efforts that any public program.


In theory you'd be right. In practice that is terrifying for people that need help.

My daughter is severely disabled and probably will never be able to support herself. My husband and I have fairly small families, and we're some of the youngest members, so when we're dead and gone odds are all of those other people that would/could help her are also going to be long dead and gone. I'm not going to throw my daughter's life to the wind and hope my fellow man or some other individual or private group will take care of her.

Of course we're planning as best we can for her financial future, but having a safety net there for her puts me somewhat at ease if our plans fail or something unpredictable goes south. We also have the resources to set some things up for her, my heart breaks for the families that don't have those resources and have to put their loved ones futures into a wing and a prayer of the goodness of their fellow man.

It's easy to think not having some sort of government support for those who can't support themselves is OK when you don't have that staring you in the face. It's less easy when that someone is a person you love with all your heart and you realize that you're not always going to be around to take care of them.

I am not smart enough to figure out how you stop the abuse of the system, but I do think the system needs to exist for those who truly need it.


----------



## GTX63 (Dec 13, 2016)

Mish said:


> In theory you'd be right. In practice that is terrifying for people that need help.
> 
> My daughter is severely disabled and probably will never be able to support herself.


I agree with you completely. Unfortunately, it shouldn't be just a theory.
The private system was in place long before the government decided to use it as a vote harvesting mechanism.
The government system has deeper pockets, a somewhat anonymous method of utilizing assistance and little accountability. It pushes out much of the desire for private entities to grow and develop past the church and faith based companies.
The corruption and the dependency will never be corrected, reduced or even fully acknowledged.
The system is upside down, and rather than admit it and correct it, we continue to expect more from the same.


----------



## SLADE (Feb 20, 2004)

Local assistance programs in the past were riddled with corruption and controlled by little potentates.
These same little potentates controlled local politics.
It never did work. It never will work.


----------



## GTX63 (Dec 13, 2016)

Nope, your wrong and short on history.
Government entitlements are a fail. Are and always will be.
They save lives and support people based on an awful premise.
When a private support system is corrupt or poorly run, their are options and choices.
Do some homework and come back prepared. Thanks.


----------



## Irish Pixie (May 14, 2002)

SLADE said:


> Local assistance programs in the past were riddled with corruption and controlled by little potentates.
> These same little potentates controlled local politics.
> It never did work. It never will work.


Yes. The private work farms, poor houses, etc. had horrendous abuses and were run without much, if any, oversight. The reason we have governmental social programs is because the private ones did not protect and properly care for the those people.

Religious organizations (not all) only help those they deem worthy, not everyone who needs it. My opinion is that they will exclude anyone that doesn't follow their doctrine. Individuals used to make sure family were cared for, but that's not always a given now. 

It's a nice thought to think we don't need safety nets, but we do, and I believe we always will.


----------



## RJ2019 (Aug 27, 2019)

poppy said:


> I take the Biblical view on this like everything else. We are admonished to help those mentally or physically unable to take care of themselves. Also widows and orphans. However, we are not to help those who simply refuse to work. The Bible says a man who will not provide for his family is worse than an infidel and that if a man won't work he shouldn't eat.


We are not to help those who simply refuse to work. Shall we, then, judge who is or isnt worthy of charity? I'm all for able bodied folks doing for themselves, but maybe the line is a little difficult to define at times


----------



## GTX63 (Dec 13, 2016)

RJ2019 said:


> We are not to help those who simply refuse to work. Shall we, then, judge who is or isnt worthy of charity? I'm all for able bodied folks doing for themselves, but maybe the line is a little difficult to define at times


The government judges, and does a piss poor job of it.
Look around.


----------



## SLADE (Feb 20, 2004)

GTX63 said:


> Nope, your wrong and short on history.
> Government entitlements are a fail. Are and always will be.
> They save lives and support people based on an awful premise.
> When a private support system is corrupt or poorly run, their are options and choices.
> Do some homework and come back prepared. Thanks.


You are wrong. lets no fixate on an ignorant past.


----------



## random (Jul 23, 2020)

thesedays said:


> There are definitely situations where mainstreaming disabled children in school is a good idea, and others where it does not benefit anyone, least of all the disabled people themselves.


My daughter would be a good example of that. Autistic, had a lot of problems early on in school, ended up mainstreaming herself. (At one point she actually refused to go to her pull-out special ed class and just did the work with everyone else, kept up just fine)



Wolf mom said:


> Too many people locked into the "system", too many people gaming the "system", too many people indoctrinated into believing they can't rise above the "system". Too many people believing today that merit (whatever happened to that word?) doesn't qualify, but your skin color and sex qualify....


On your first point, my daughter, again, is a good example. She is on SSI and Medicaid, but also works a part-time job. She wouldn't mind working full time, but if she earns too much, her SSI is canceled. That also means that her Medicaid is canceled, and she can't afford the insurance to replace it ("exchange" rates are ridiculous). She ALSO can't accumulate more than $2000 in assets or her SSI is canceled. A couple years ago we had to scramble to spend a surprise inheritance so she could keep her medical coverage, which is the only reason we have to keep the SSI.

There's an example of how the system locks people in. No assets allowed, no earning allowed. And with rates jacked up by legislation (8 years ago she could have afforded private insurance) she can't find a path out.


----------



## Wolf mom (Mar 8, 2005)

Irish Pixie said:


> Yes. The private work farms, poor houses, etc. had horrendous abuses and were run without much, if any, oversight.


_It's easy to talk about poor houses and mental institutions; how horrible they were and we can never do that today. What is NOT spoken about is what we have learned about what people in dire straights need to move forward to succeed and how to house those that need lifelong assistance. Change is hard. For the government, many times impossible._


----------



## goodatit (May 1, 2013)

HDRider said:


> Did you know that 14% of people have an IQ below 84. The Army will not take a person with an IQ less than 84. They are considered untrainable.
> 
> If 84 is too high a cutoff for you, consider less than 3% have an IQ less than 70.
> 
> ...


what does IQ have to do with gov't assistance?


----------



## MO_cows (Aug 14, 2010)

I think we have raised the standard of living so high that some people are never going to meet it without assistance. It's not just food clothing and shelter anymore like during the Great Depression. Now the cost of health care is so high, anyone with an income below middle class whose employer doesn't provide health insurance, won't be able to afford it. Some places you gotta have a car. Car insurance keeps going up. Rents in a lot of places are ridiculous. The lower tier earners have been priced out of modern American life.

Are we OK with some living 3rd world or not? If not, provide the assistance.


----------



## Mish (Oct 15, 2015)

random said:


> My daughter would be a good example of that. Autistic, had a lot of problems early on in school, ended up mainstreaming herself. (At one point she actually refused to go to her pull-out special ed class and just did the work with everyone else, kept up just fine)
> 
> 
> 
> ...


I don't know if you're familiar with ABLE accounts, but it might be something to look into. We've just started exploring them for our daughter. Having her stuck in the poverty trap scares the living daylights out of me, this may be a way to temper that a little bit.


----------



## po boy (Jul 12, 2010)

We have spent between 21 and 25 trillion on our war on poverty and the end results are more poor, more single-family homes and more high school dropouts.
What we have is a failure and that's not going to change.
There are some people that will always need help and they should get that help delivered with little scalping by bureaucrats. 
Able-bodied people should work for whatever they receive and I don't mean sitting around somewhere for a few hours.


----------



## Macrocarpus (Jan 30, 2018)

I thsink that there were some good points made here. First, removing the mentally ill from institutions was, I think, a mistake. Many of them wound up on the street---incapable of staying on their meds without supervision. 

Second, human charity demands that we help those who cannot help themselves, but it does not require us to build a system thjat rewards sloth. Our system now discourages women on welfare from marrying---instead, they have a "baby daddy" who may service several women, each of whom receives welfare payments. 

I believe we'd be better off if we required every woman who produces a child to identify the fatheer, thru DNA if necessary, and then require that man to support his children---

-If the "baby daddy" could not do it I'd put him to work on a public works program as the Egyptians did--only instead of pyramids I'd put them to work building canals, tunnels and lift stations moving water from the great lakes, the Mo and Miss rivers to the SW deserts. 

Then I'd give the woman a job as well, cut her income to the bare necessities and jail her if her children did not finish school. 

Finally, I'd figure out some way to improve the overall IQ of the country. This might require some draconian measures, but what the hell, I'm a tyrant. Before the era of governmental charity nature took care of that.


----------



## mreynolds (Jan 1, 2015)

random said:


> SSI.
> 
> There's an example of how the system locks people in. No assets allowed, no earning allowed. And with rates jacked up by legislation (8 years ago she could have afforded private insurance) she can't find a path out.





random said:


> My daughter would be a good example of that. Autistic, had a lot of problems early on in school, ended up mainstreaming herself. (At one point she actually refused to go to her pull-out special ed class and just did the work with everyone else, kept up just fine)
> 
> 
> 
> ...


And that right there is the main issue. They don't want you off of assistance or they would have a way where you could work your way out of it. As it is now you have to turn down that raise or end up losing money.


----------



## Farmerga (May 6, 2010)

mreynolds said:


> And that right there is the main issue. They don't want you off of assistance or they would have a way where you could work your way out of it. As it is now you have to turn down that raise or end up losing money.


It is almost like the government WANTS great swaths of the population to be dependent on it.


----------



## audacity (Feb 14, 2020)

poppy said:


> I take the Biblical view on this like everything else. We are admonished to help those mentally or physically unable to take care of themselves. Also widows and orphans. However, we are not to help those who simply refuse to work. The Bible says a man who will not provide for his family is worse than an infidel and that if a man won't work he shouldn't eat.


I've seen this sentiment a lot recently, and I'm concerned when it comes into play without regards to _why _someone would "refuse" to work. 

You see this a lot with the argument of, "Why should I do X, when I can do Y and earn more money?", especially when 'Y' happens to be government assistance. In my mind, if 'X' is so miserable that nobody is willing to do the work for a salary that is less than government assistance, then 'X' is most likely in a predatory position and is either underpaid, too unsafe, or too greedy in what it is asking of workers (i.e: "You must be available 24-7 with on-call availability with less than 2 hours notice!" for a PT, variable schedule). You can't say you refuse to help people because they refuse to be slaves and still think you're taking the moral high ground.

There's also "soft refusal", which is a major problem in more rural communities -- in other words, you shouldn't have an assistive program that requires work when the community that program is serving has more people in it than it does jobs they'd actually qualify to work at. I'm a strong proponent that if you are going to _require work, _then you should be providing it. If you can't place somebody because you _literally_ have nowhere to put them, or they can't actually reach any of your available jobs, or your jobs directly interfere with healthcare or well-being, then you need to provide them assistance anyway and not just sweep them under the rug.


----------



## HDRider (Jul 21, 2011)

goodatit said:


> what does IQ have to do with gov't assistance?


How should a person get by if they do not have the mental capacity to work?


----------



## NRA_guy (Jun 9, 2015)

_‘Give a man a fish and he will eat for a day. Teach a man how to fish and you feed him for a lifetime.’_

But if you give him a fish to eat EVERY day, he loses his incentive to fish.

If the government is going to give someone a home, food, medical services, a cell phone, and spending money for those other things, why would he ever opt to get up every morning, go to work, pay for his own home, food, medical needs, and cell phone---and then have to pay taxes on all of that?

Far too many people are willing to live a government-furnished meager lifestyle that requires no effort rather than exert the effort to have a better lifestyle.


----------



## mreynolds (Jan 1, 2015)

Farmerga said:


> It is almost like the government WANTS great swaths of the population to be dependent on it.


That is my belief. Otherwise, everyone in Washington is a total idiot. It doesn't even take an IQ of 83 to figure out those numbers.


----------



## mreynolds (Jan 1, 2015)

audacity said:


> I've seen this sentiment a lot recently, and I'm concerned when it comes into play without regards to _why _someone would "refuse" to work.
> 
> You see this a lot with the argument of, "Why should I do X, when I can do Y and earn more money?", especially when 'Y' happens to be government assistance. In my mind, if 'X' is so miserable that nobody is willing to do the work for a salary that is less than government assistance, then 'X' is most likely in a predatory position and is either underpaid, too unsafe, or too greedy in what it is asking of workers (i.e: "You must be available 24-7 with on-call availability with less than 2 hours notice!" for a PT, variable schedule). You can't say you refuse to help people because they refuse to be slaves and still think you're taking the moral high ground.
> 
> There's also "soft refusal", which is a major problem in more rural communities -- in other words, you shouldn't have an assistive program that requires work when the community that program is serving has more people in it than it does jobs they'd actually qualify to work at. I'm a strong proponent that if you are going to _require work, _then you should be providing it. If you can't place somebody because you _literally_ have nowhere to put them, or they can't actually reach any of your available jobs, or your jobs directly interfere with healthcare or well-being, then you need to provide them assistance anyway and not just sweep them under the rug.


You don't even need to do that. Just allow them the ability to work their way out. 

I worked a few decades in upgrades of government housing. Paid for by both government and private. I can't tell you how many times I heard the problem about not being able to work out of it. The only way is to take a cut for about 5 years. The cut gets worse as the year goes. Why are we (our government) making it near impossible to do. If you don't have kids it's easier. If you do then I guess Bob can eat on odd days and Jane on even days. 

Your looking at the wrong people as to the problem. Look at your politicians. Blue and red.


----------



## TripleD (Feb 12, 2011)

It's almost for every dollar they make to work out of the system the powers take 75 cents off their rent payment .That's for section 8. It's a hard way out.


----------



## mreynolds (Jan 1, 2015)

TripleD said:


> It's almost for every dollar they make to work out of the system the powers take 75 cents off their rent payment .That's for section 8. It's a hard way out.


I understand it is the same for snap. Probably pretty much everything. Eventually you just stop trying.


----------



## TripleD (Feb 12, 2011)

mreynolds said:


> I understand it is the same for snap. Probably pretty much everything. Eventually you just stop trying.


I have one study and get her ged. When they found her a job it was over. Didn't want to lose that check...


----------



## MO_cows (Aug 14, 2010)

The assistance programs don't have any exit strategy built into them. People get trapped. You make one dollar over the limit, poof benefits go away before you are ready and you are worse off. It's a disincentive to try and earn more and work your way up. It's an incentive for black market income. Friend of mine had a hard time getting out of subsidized housing after a bad divorce. Anybody less determined and stubborn would still be there.


----------



## po boy (Jul 12, 2010)

MO_cows said:


> The assistance programs don't have any exit strategy built into them. People get trapped. You make one dollar over the limit, poof benefits go away before you are ready and you are worse off. It's a disincentive to try and earn more and work your way up. It's an incentive for black market income. Friend of mine had a hard time getting out of subsidized housing after a bad divorce. Anybody less determined and stubborn would still be there.


That is a problem and I imagine it is intentional.
If they are working full time and need assistance, there should be a graduated scale for benefit reduction based on what they earn over the limit. Reducing the benefit by 20% of their over-limit earnings would be an example. A reasonable scale should be one that gives an incentive to earn more.
Able-bodied that do not work should work and give credit against their benefit. Say work 40 hours for a $400 dollar benefit.


----------



## TripleD (Feb 12, 2011)

I'm just about immuened to the system. I guess I've seen that too long! Dad does have one lady moving into a new habitat house. Double amputee, daughter in the 40's plus two grand children. Her family living with her / useless. CNA comes every day. Getting a new 4br brick house.


----------



## MichaelZ (May 21, 2013)

My wife’s aunt has a very low iq due to a birth defect. She gets government assistance and works with a counselor, but she also works, doing what she can. This world has gotten so complicated that even those with a normal iq have a tough time figuring it all out!


----------



## TripleD (Feb 12, 2011)

MichaelZ said:


> My wife’s aunt has a very low iq due to a birth defect. She gets government assistance and works with a counselor, but she also works, doing what she can. This world has gotten so complicated that even those with a normal iq have a tough time figuring it all out!


I have to cut some stringers for some steps tomorrow. Between them and crown moulding is my least favorite thing to do on a house... maybe I'm normal.


----------



## GTX63 (Dec 13, 2016)

Being disabled or having severe health issues is different from being lazy. Being dumb or of a low IQ is not the same as being allergic to responsibility.
Yet they all get tossed into the same "safety net", and as others have alluded, it is a net we are told is designed to catch people, yet it seems more for keeping them from escaping.


----------



## NRA_guy (Jun 9, 2015)

To my way of thinking, taking money that I have worked to earn and giving it to somebody else is no different than what Robinhood, Jesse James, and Al Capone did.

I will give a needy person the shirt off my back . . . or the money I earned, but I do not want anybody (including politicians) forcefully taking my money and giving it to others. 

That would be akin to the government coming into my vegetable garden and taking vegetables that I have worked so hard to grow and giving them to "the needy".

Or putting some homeless person in my spare bedroom because the government deems his needs are greater than mine.

"From each according to his ability, to each according to his needs (as determined by the government, of course)". Sound familiar? It's a slogan popularized by Karl Marx and is a basic principle of communism.


----------



## homesteadforty (Dec 4, 2007)

This is not directed at you personally but is merely comments I'm putting out for all.



NRA_guy said:


> To my way of thinking, taking money that I have worked to earn and giving it to somebody else is no different than what Robinhood, Jesse James, and Al Capone did.


But Robinhood and Jesse James were considered heroes by those they helped.



> *I will give a needy person the shirt off my back . . . or the money I earned*, but I do not want anybody (including politicians) forcefully taking my money and giving it to others.


Yeah... I will too. Problem is that most won't and there's not enough donations to go around... what happens to the rest? (I'm talking about those truly in need)



> That would be akin to the government coming into my vegetable garden and taking vegetables that I have worked so hard to grow and giving them to "the needy".


The government doesn't take my vegetables but I do grow a lot extra so I can help some. I prepare around eight to a dozen CSA style boxes and take some to church on Sunday and deliver others to local elderly and to several "families in need". I feel bad afterwards because I know of another dozen or fifteen people/families that sure could use some help.

The meager amount received from public assistance around here won't really cover one person... much less a family of 3 or 4 (or more). IIRCC, the total benefits (SNAP, Medicaid, housing, energy assistance, cash benefits) for a single parent with 2 children is under the poverty limit. BTW... the housing monthly benefit is roughly $400... and you must have individual bedrooms for male children, female children and parent... how many 3 bedroom dwellings do you know for rent for $400?

The cash benefits will not even cover insurance, gas, etc. for a single vehicle... much less the cost of the vehicle. The free cell phones are useless in about 50% of the area (no signal). The "suggested" budget they give these people gives an amount of $50 per month for clothing and personal needs (hygiene products) for parent and 2 kids. Energy assistance (gas, electric, propane and/or wood) comes out in the fall... it is limited to a certain number of households... if you can get it you will receive a grand total of around $400.

You can get all these "grand" benefits, if, and only if, you can find a way 30+ miles into town every 3 months for benefit review appointments.

Finally (though not comprehensively), you cannot receive any form of "income" from other sources... no side work, no monetary help from family or friends, etc.


----------



## TripleD (Feb 12, 2011)

homesteadforty said:


> This is not directed at you personally but is merely comments I'm putting out for all.
> 
> 
> 
> ...


I thought I lived in a poor county. I have to at least ask your state? Section 8 will pay 800 for a three bedroom. Plus a utility allowance of near 200. I've seen too many sitting no the porch drinking at 9am.


----------



## Hiro (Feb 14, 2016)

TripleD said:


> I thought I lived in a poor county. I have to at least ask your state? Section 8 will pay 800 for a three bedroom. Plus a utility allowance of near 200. I've seen too many sitting no the porch drinking at 9am.


Regardless of the state, Medicaid benefits are not restricted by dollar amounts of payout only by provider just like us on private insurance and complaining about a free cell phone only working in 50% of the geography seems like complaining about the filling in the pie at a free all you can eat pie buffet......Anyway, carry on.


----------



## homesteadforty (Dec 4, 2007)

TripleD said:


> I thought I lived in a poor county. I have to at least ask your state? Section 8 will pay 800 for a three bedroom. Plus a utility allowance of near 200. I've seen too many sitting no the porch drinking at 9am.


West Virginia.

I've seen that with a few but around here most on assistance are single moms with kids. In my immediate area 8 fathers have been lost in ten years. 1 motorcycle accident (on the way to work in the mines), 2 in mining accidents, 2 on platforms drilling for gas, and 2 while working at logging. The last was lost to cancer at 31 years old.

Section 8 amount is determined based on income (in this case 30% of the total).

I'm certainly no expert on this but have some knowledge from helping several people apply for benefits... so I may be a little off on some things... but not by much.


----------



## juncmg3340 (Jul 31, 2020)

Farmerga said:


> Can't? Yes. Won't? Absolutely not. Those who won't work should feel the powerful motivation, to change their outlook, known as hunger.


I believe the exact same thing those who cant fend for them selves should be helped but just because they wont doesnt mean you should do it for them.

"Give a man a fish he eats for the day. Teach a man to fish he eats for a lifetime." 

If the lazy or stupid wont work to better themselves for the greater good why should I do it for them. Everybody needs to conrtibute otherwise the world fails.


----------



## TripleD (Feb 12, 2011)

homesteadforty said:


> West Virginia.
> 
> I've seen that with a few but around here most on assistance are single moms with kids. In my immediate area 8 fathers have been lost in ten years. 1 motorcycle accident (on the way to work in the mines), 2 in mining accidents, 2 on platforms drilling for gas, and 2 while working at logging. The last was lost to cancer at 31 years old.
> 
> ...


Around here section 8 is trying to get us "landlords" to switch over by paying more than the people who are working. I can't do it. Dad does on some of his but its guaranteed .I play by my rules....


----------



## homesteadforty (Dec 4, 2007)

Hiro said:


> Regardless of the state, Medicaid benefits are not restricted by dollar amounts of payout only by provider just like us on private insurance


You are correct that medicaid payouts are not restricted... but in this case I was referring to their value as insurance... that is what is used in benefit value calculations.



> ...and complaining about a free cell phone only working in 50% of the geography seems like complaining about the filling in the pie at a free all you can eat pie buffet......Anyway, carry on.


That statement seems a little idiocentric. Having a phone (free or not) that only works in 50% of an area... but not in _your_ area is exactly like not having a phone at all... especially if you need it for work (a lot of places won't hire you if you don't have a phone), or to do phone benefit reviews rather than trying to find a way to get to the office thirty miles away, or to try to find other sources of food after your SNAP benefits runs out, or if you need to phone local churches and charities to try to get assistance with an electric shutoff or in emergencies, or if you just want to talk to family or a friend because you're an elderly shut in that hasn't seen another live person in a week... or more..., etc., etc., etc.

BTW... I'm quite happy with my pie (that I make myself from ingredients I grow myself), not having any phone (free or not) and not having any electric (by design)... but I _can _see past the end of my nose and realize that there are a whole lot of decent people in need... and I don't need to think less of them to feel better about myself.


----------



## GTX63 (Dec 13, 2016)

homesteadforty said:


> Section 8 amount is determined based on income (in this case 30% of the total).
> 
> I'm certainly no expert on this but have some knowledge from helping several people apply for benefits... so I may be a little off on some things... but not by much.


Income and family size are two of the common criteria.
ie, a single mother with no reported income and 2 children may qualify for $584 in rent subsidy; 3 children may bump her to $667, etc. Any household income is counted against her, thus the common sight of work boots kicked under the bed but no feet that fit them during a normal housing inspection.
There is plenty of money from the private sector to support the number of folks who truly need help. The government creates a product with no expectations or real incentive to leave it. I honestly don't blame many who choose it over the shorter term private money which does not promote generational dependency.
Bob puts money in my mailbox every week whether I still need it or not. Joe says if I'll drive to his place and help him for the day he'll pay me. Hard for Joe to compete with what Bob is doing.
The general federal entitlement is a narcotic that the prescriber knows does little more than keep the user in a controlled state of white washed misery.

Again, this is separate from the much smaller group of disabled or health challenged who are lumped in with the gen pop of social service dependents.


----------



## SLADE (Feb 20, 2004)

All of the assistance programs are a subsidy to the private sector.
For every payment made by a person on assistance there is another person in the private sector with his hand out to collect that payment.


----------



## po boy (Jul 12, 2010)

SLADE said:


> All of the assistance programs are a subsidy to the private sector.
> For every payment made by a person on assistance there is another person in the private sector with his hand out to collect that payment.


Are implying they spend the money? Absolutely brilliant!


----------



## SLADE (Feb 20, 2004)

po boy said:


> Are implying they spend the money? Absolutely brilliant!


I don't get your point.


----------



## po boy (Jul 12, 2010)

SLADE said:


> I don't get your point.


Forgive me, I was not aware you couldn't.


----------



## GTX63 (Dec 13, 2016)

There is no greater charitable organization on the earth than the United States. 
It is because of free market capitalism and the ability of private entities to raise funds, goods and services that this is possible.
Government programs by their design stagnate such growth with thin thresholds for, and long terms of participation.
One could say the current state of entitlements are a low level of expection for people in distress and a low level of expectation for the good of mankind to help them; or it is purpose driven for reasons other than you are led to believe.
Again, this is not related to those affected by severe health and disability related conditions.


----------



## Hiro (Feb 14, 2016)

homesteadforty said:


> BTW... I'm quite happy with my pie (that I make myself from ingredients I grow myself), not having any phone (free or not) and not having any electric (by design)... but I _can _see past the end of my nose and realize that there are a whole lot of decent people in need... and I don't need to think less of them to feel better about myself.


Presumptuous pie always tasted a little bitter to me. So, I try to avoid it. If you enjoy it, have at it...


----------



## SLADE (Feb 20, 2004)

For your consideration.

*America Is Not Really a Free-Market Economy - The Balance*
www.thebalance.com › america-is-not-really-a-free-marke...


----------



## poppy (Feb 21, 2008)

SLADE said:


> All of the assistance programs are a subsidy to the private sector.
> For every payment made by a person on assistance there is another person in the private sector with his hand out to collect that payment.



Why would someone on assistance be making payments? Payments are not a good idea for anyone but especially the poor. The old expression 'pay as you go and then you don't owe' is good advice. Only borrow money if you have a good plan to use it to make more money. Not many people can afford to start a business or get into the property rental game without borrowing money and that is fine. Unfortunately I see too many people on assistance due to bad decisions. If you are getting tattoos, you are not in need of assistance. If you are spending your time protesting or rioting, you do not need assistance. If you like carousing all night and sleeping all day, you do not need assistance. You need to grow up.


----------



## poppy (Feb 21, 2008)

SLADE said:


> For your consideration.
> 
> *America Is Not Really a Free-Market Economy - The Balance*
> www.thebalance.com › america-is-not-really-a-free-marke...



It is as free as you will find. Like it or not, there are things we need and those things have to be paid for and thus we have taxes. I hate taxes but I do see the need for some of them.


----------



## GTX63 (Dec 13, 2016)

No country raises more money for charitable causes than the United States. Just is.
Feelers and the low information grazer will have difficulty understanding one's reluctance with supporting those who can and should support themselves using tax dollars with taking spoons out of babies mouths.
It isn't about one's IQ so much as their true ability and desire to support themselves.


----------



## random (Jul 23, 2020)

po boy said:


> There are some people that will always need help and they should get that help delivered with little scalping by bureaucrats.


First time I read that I thought it said "with a little scalping of bureaucrats". Can't say I would object 



mreynolds said:


> And that right there is the main issue. They don't want you off of assistance or they would have a way where you could work your way out of it. As it is now you have to turn down that raise or end up losing money.


I once applied for assistance. I had been working two jobs and lost one of them, the one that paid the most. Thing is, it paid the most because I worked the most hours. I had another job that paid a LOT more ($25/hour) but I only worked 6 hours/week.

They required that I attend certain classes on "how to get a job" (something that I really didn't have a problem with), and those classes were at the same time as my $25/hour job. They would not provide any benefits otherwise - so, forego what income I DID have to take a class I didn't need to get a little money for a little while.

I found another way.



NRA_guy said:


> To my way of thinking, taking money that I have worked to earn and giving it to somebody else is no different than what Robinhood, Jesse James, and Al Capone did.


The Robin Hood legend has been severely corrupted.


----------



## SLADE (Feb 20, 2004)

poppy said:


> Why would someone on assistance be making payments? Payments are not a good idea for anyone but especially the poor. The old expression 'pay as you go and then you don't owe' is good advice. Only borrow money if you have a good plan to use it to make more money. Not many people can afford to start a business or get into the property rental game without borrowing money and that is fine. Unfortunately I see too many people on assistance due to bad decisions. If you are getting tattoos, you are not in need of assistance. If you are spending your time protesting or rioting, you do not need assistance. If you like carousing all night and sleeping all day, you do not need assistance. You need to grow up.


If a big shot borrows money to build a hotel and then stiffs the contractors and goes bankrupt is that guy a deadbeat.?


----------



## SLADE (Feb 20, 2004)

GTX63 said:


> No country raises more money for charitable causes than the United States. Just is.
> Feelers and the low information grazer will have difficulty understanding one's reluctance with supporting those who can and should support themselves using tax dollars with taking spoons out of babies mouths.
> It isn't about one's IQ so much as their true ability and desire to support themselves.


How many rich guys make money off old uncle sugar daddy?


----------



## po boy (Jul 12, 2010)

random said:


> First time I read that I thought it said "with a little scalping of bureaucrats". Can't say I would object


Should have said "as'' but I have never been perfect. Why start now


----------



## Farmerga (May 6, 2010)

SLADE said:


> If a big shot borrows money to build a hotel and then stiffs the contractors and goes bankrupt is that guy a deadbeat.?


No, "that guy" is using constitutionally authorized laws for the purpose for which they were intended.


----------



## Farmerga (May 6, 2010)

SLADE said:


> How many rich guys make money off old uncle sugar daddy?


I can think of several hundred....in Congress.


----------



## SLADE (Feb 20, 2004)

Farmerga said:


> No, "that guy" is using constitutionally authorized laws for the purpose for which they were intended.


We disagree.


----------



## SLADE (Feb 20, 2004)

Farmerga said:


> I can think of several hundred....in Congress.


We disagree.


----------



## homesteadforty (Dec 4, 2007)

GTX63 said:


> Income and family size are two of the common criteria.
> ie, a single mother with no reported income and 2 children may qualify for $584 in rent subsidy; 3 children may bump her to $667, etc. Any household income is counted against her, thus the common sight of work boots kicked under the bed but no feet that fit them during a normal housing inspection.


The amount payed by section 8 varies by area. HUD uses several factors to determine said amount including FRM (fair market rent) calculated in over 2500 different markets. A factor on top of this is that (last I heard) there is a five year waiting list to get into section 8 housing.

The work boots under the bed is a fairly common theme in some areas but is not that common around here. One thing I'm trying to point out is that, dismissing the preconceptions from a handful (given the number of people in need) of stereotypes, personal experiences and anecdotal stories, there are a lot of decent people who really need help.



> There is plenty of money from the private sector to support the number of folks who truly need help. The government creates a product with no expectations or real incentive to leave it. I honestly don't blame many who choose it over the shorter term private money which does not promote generational dependency.
> Bob puts money in my mailbox every week whether I still need it or not. Joe says if I'll drive to his place and help him for the day he'll pay me. Hard for Joe to compete with what Bob is doing.
> The general federal entitlement is a narcotic that the prescriber knows does little more than keep the user in a controlled state of white washed misery.


I agree with everything here except I would venture a guess that the "private sector" money may be available in some areas... but not in many.  Food pantries (one run by the only large church in town, the Salvation Army and Goodwill) in this area typically run out in two days. Local village churches typically struggle to get enough donations to maintain their buildings... the work is often done by parishioners, but supplies and materials are hard to come by. Outside of the only "large" town in the area (population of a couple of thousand) there are no businesses other than mom and pop general stores, a diner or two, a couple of dollar stores and such... so there's no money there either.

A huge part of the local population scrapes by as best they can on "hillbilly ingenuity" but there are more than a few that for various reasons just can't really make it. I know a number of people/families that would love to get off public assistance but with very high unemployment and the general economic situation (even before the shut down) there is little hope. 



> Again, this is separate from the much smaller group of disabled or health challenged who are lumped in with the gen pop of social service dependents.


Yep... the truly disabled, mentally ill, and elderly should be cared for.


----------



## NRA_guy (Jun 9, 2015)

homesteadforty said:


> But Robinhood and Jesse James were considered heroes by those they helped.


Yep. And elected officials who vote for increased welfare benefits (at the expense of taxpayers) are likewise considered heroes by those they help.

And in a democracy, numbers count; so they simply buy votes with welfare, grants, special tax breaks, and sole-source contracts.

Elected officials figured that out long, long ago, which is the reason they first opted to let non-taxpayers vote. It's why some politicians are pushing for prisoners and illegal immigrants to have the right to vote. By the way, allowing non-taxpayers the right to vote set the stage for the inevitable evolution of the US from a republic to a socialist nation.

Suffrage - Wikipedia


----------



## homesteadforty (Dec 4, 2007)

NRA_guy said:


> Yep. And elected officials who vote for increased welfare benefits (at the expense of taxpayers) are likewise considered heroes by those they help.


I agree with your post completely... well said.


----------



## SLADE (Feb 20, 2004)

I never met a person on welfare that voted.
More than a few on food stamps did vote but none on welfare.


----------



## homesteadforty (Dec 4, 2007)

SLADE said:


> I never met a person on welfare that voted.
> More than a few on food stamps did vote but none on welfare.


Do you _typically_ hang around the polls asking people that vote if they're on food stamps or welfare... strange pastime  !


----------



## SLADE (Feb 20, 2004)

homesteadforty said:


> Do you _typically_ hang around the polls asking people that vote if they're on food stamps or welfare... strange pastime  !


Do you?
How do you know politicians are buying votes if the people on welfare are not voting?
Seems odd that you would say that if you don't know what you are talking about.


----------



## po boy (Jul 12, 2010)

SLADE said:


> Do you?
> How do you know politicians are buying votes if the people on welfare are not voting?
> Seems odd that you would say that if you don't know what you are talking about.


He sees the money coming out of his paycheck and he is smart.


----------



## homesteadforty (Dec 4, 2007)

SLADE said:


> Do you?
> How do you know politicians are buying votes if the people on welfare are not voting?
> Seems odd that you would say that if you don't know what you are talking about.


No... I don't.

Your second sentence is incoherent and incomprehensible but I'll take a stab. Politicians buying votes is well documented and understood. I tried but I can't see a way to connect the second half of your question to the first half... sorry.

And BTW... I didn't say anywhere that "people on welfare are not voting".

I know very well what I'm talking about... I just can't figure out what you're talk about (still )???


----------



## thesedays (Feb 25, 2011)

Mish said:


> I don't know if you're familiar with ABLE accounts, but it might be something to look into. We've just started exploring them for our daughter. Having her stuck in the poverty trap scares the living daylights out of me, this may be a way to temper that a little bit.


I have a relative who just might benefit from something like this. I'll ask her parents if they know about it next time I have the opportunity.


----------



## TripleD (Feb 12, 2011)

SLADE said:


> I never met a person on welfare that voted.
> More than a few on food stamps did vote but none on welfare.


I've seen those voters on church buses and given sample ballots. That was at early voting. A county commissioner told them come on in. We are going to show these white people today. I had already voted.


----------



## NRA_guy (Jun 9, 2015)

SLADE said:


> All of the assistance programs are a subsidy to the private sector.
> For every payment made by a person on assistance there is another person in the private sector with his hand out to collect that payment.


I don't disagree, but that's kind of "The Broken Window Theory of Economics":

The Broken Window Fallacy

By the way, guess what group (other than the welfare recipients) pushed for a switch from the government giving free food to the needy to giving the needy food stamps that could be used to buy groceries in a local grocery store:

Yep. The grocery store owners.

They saw the free food give-away as direct competition and food stamps as a chance to increase sales.


----------



## SLADE (Feb 20, 2004)

NRA_guy said:


> I don't disagree, but that's kind of "The Broken Window Theory of Economics":
> 
> The Broken Window Fallacy
> 
> ...


I agree.
The snack food industry is another big recipient. The industrialized farming industry. The auto industry and most any other industry you and I can think of.

I would argue that we are no longer a free market economy but a welfare state.

We are not a welfare state just because the poor need a hand out. As you and I can see that handout is encouraged and received by industry.That's just another indirect subsidy to industry We are a welfare state because every aspect of our economy is dependent on gov dollars.

If industry is not allowed to fail and receives handouts from the gov we have lost our free market status.

I have to wonder are we that different from China?
Our politics have a certain American flavor and we get to pretend we are a free people but we really are not.
Every aspect of our lives is controlled. From birth to death.

It's complex and one should wonder. Who's behind the curtain.


----------



## Farmerga (May 6, 2010)

SLADE said:


> We disagree.


I would be deeply disturbed if we didn't.


----------



## 397950 (Feb 14, 2020)

Hiro said:


> I think about 535 of them have found employment in the House of Reps and the Senate, the rest are in state houses and governor's mansions. Well, so it would appear anyway.


They're not alone!! They have close blood relatives in every YES! EVERY! government on the planet


----------



## TripleD (Feb 12, 2011)

Griz375 said:


> They're not alone!! They have close blood relatives in every YES! EVERY! government on the planet


You didn't include the media !


----------



## cjennmom (Sep 4, 2010)

100 is an average IQ, your everyday Joe Q. Public.
115 counts as above average.
125 starts the gifted range.
160 is genius for men, but women are counted genius at 150 since they have more connections between the two halves of their brains (in other words, they get as much done at 150 as men do at 160).



gilberte said:


> Would it surprise you to learn that the average IQ of police officers in this country is 104?


----------



## TripleD (Feb 12, 2011)

cjennmom said:


> 100 is an average IQ, your everyday Joe Q. Public.
> 115 counts as above average.
> 125 starts the gifted range.
> 160 is genius for men, but women are counted genius at 150 since they have more connections between the two halves of their brains (in other words, they get as much done at 150 as men do at 160).


Ten years here and only 35 posts! At least you have bitten your tongue more than me...


----------



## thesedays (Feb 25, 2011)

SLADE said:


> I never met a person on welfare that voted.
> More than a few on food stamps did vote but none on welfare.


And how did you know if someone was on welfare and/or food stamps? Last I checked, they don't have it stamped on their foreheads.


----------



## NRA_guy (Jun 9, 2015)

thesedays said:


> And how did you know if someone was on welfare and/or food stamps? Last I checked, they don't have it stamped on their foreheads.


Because they voted in the Democrat primary. Duh!


----------



## HDRider (Jul 21, 2011)

Most everyone agrees that we should fund the mentally and physically disabled. 

Some do not agree with the government doing the "sharing". I would suggest in no time of human civilization have the disabled lived off the voluntary charity of the individual. 

We all agree there is waste and fraud. It is impossible to know how much. I would suggest it is very small in the overall scheme of things.


Approximately 76.4 million or 44.4% of Americans won’t pay any federal income tax in 2018 

Approximately 52.2 million (or 21.3 percent) people in the U.S. participated in major means-tested government assistance programs each month in 2012, according to a U.S. Census Bureau report


----------



## TripleD (Feb 12, 2011)

That ''ever lasting gumball'' doesn't exist! ...


----------



## Bearfootfarm (Jul 13, 2006)

SLADE said:


> I never met a person on welfare that voted.
> More than a few on food stamps did vote but none *on welfare*.


Whom you've "met" is meaningless.
It's the same thing.


----------



## Bearfootfarm (Jul 13, 2006)

cjennmom said:


> 160 is genius for men, but women are counted genius at 150 since they have more connections between the two halves of their brains (in other words, they get as much done at 150 as men do at 160).


Half the men do things just to suit the women. That's what takes more resources.


----------



## TripleD (Feb 12, 2011)

Bearfootfarm said:


> Whom you've "met" is meaningless.
> It's the same thing.


He/ she must not get many people at all. If so why didn't they vote? Just probably sepressed !


----------



## SLADE (Feb 20, 2004)

We sound more like Russia every day.


----------



## TripleD (Feb 12, 2011)

TripleD said:


> That ''ever lasting gumball'' doesn't exist! ...


It was gobstopper. Willy Wonka and the chocolate factory. It's been more than 40 years since I saw it...


----------



## SLADE (Feb 20, 2004)




----------



## Redlands Okie (Nov 28, 2017)

Bearfootfarm said:


> Half the men do things just to suit the women. That's what takes more resources.


Now that is funny and sad at the same time.


----------



## TripleD (Feb 12, 2011)

SLADE said:


> I've got the golden toilet. I've got the golden toilet.


So did Saddam Hussain! Didn't work out well...


----------



## homesteadforty (Dec 4, 2007)

SLADE said:


> He yuk He yuk What cha think goober be it is or be it not?





SLADE said:


> I've got the golden toilet. I've got the golden toilet.


????? Please expound.


----------



## Twp.Tom (Dec 29, 2010)

HDRider said:


> How should a person get by if they do not have the mental capacity to work?


They could always become politicians, government employees, or cops?-Maybe get involved in religion?


----------



## barnbilder (Jul 1, 2005)

I'm not a social worker, but I do animal control, and humans are animals. You have your wild raccoons, they migrate to exploit food sources with the seasons. Have babies in caves and hollow trees. Somebody clear cuts the patch of white oaks they were accustomed to feeding on in the fall, they don't stay there and starve, they move a few ridges over. They are raised by a mother that teaches them where spring rains bring tadpoles, where blackberries ripen, and where the oaks grow, the things they need to survive. 

Urban raccoons are a different animal. They don't know what a hollow tree is. They look for uncapped chimneys and loose gable screens. They eat garbage, pet food, and bird seed. If you take away the bird seed they get angry, might chew a hole in the garage door to get to it. They don't move to new food sources, because they have a tiny home range, their mom never had to learn about other food sources, no need. So you have a highly artificial version of a natural species, living outside of nature. 
Raccoons are only as smart as they need to be to live in the environment they are raised in . There is no incentive to expand territorial knowledge of alternative food sources in an artificial abundance of food sources. So it becomes generational, and dependent, and continues in a parallel plane to less dependant members of the same species.


----------



## barnbilder (Jul 1, 2005)

There has been some discussion in biological circles to consider urban wilife as separate subspecies. They have evolved enough to display clear distinction in some cases. Notable example would be Canada geese. The wild version is migratory possibly nesting in the near arctic and wintering in the south. The nuisance version are referred to as the resident Canada goose. They are all descended from captive wild birds used as live decoys at hunt clubs. These were released with the passage of laws that made the practice illegal. With generations of captivity killing their migration memory they now nest in the golf course water hazard or HOA retention pond, and winter a couple miles away at a river or lake. And they have expanded their population and range. But a few generations erased the adaptations they made as a species to avoid degrading their habitat and they now rely on human population control and habitat modification to prevent them from basically starving themselves out with goose feces induced habitat degradation. So they are a highly artificial version of a wild or natural species, just like multigenerational welfare recipients.


----------



## cjennmom (Sep 4, 2010)

TripleD said:


> Ten years here and only 35 posts! At least you have bitten your tongue more than me...


----------



## cjennmom (Sep 4, 2010)

So what about the other half of them? Slackers! 



Bearfootfarm said:


> Half the men do things just to suit the women. That's what takes more resources.


----------

