[ButterflyLion]

I don't understand why she says she's struggling. Does anyone know what kind of house she bought?

ETA: The video shows the house she's moving from AND the house she bought.

[Jet_man1969]

Its in the video......

[ButterflyLion]

Jet_man1969, on 07 March 2012 - 05:57 PM, said:

Its in the video......

Thanks. I remember now. The first scene was the house she was moving from and then it did show one she had bought. Towards the end of video where she said she was struggling made me wonder if she had bought an expensive house, but I didn't notice it looking that expensive ...

[SusieQ404]

She's not struggling, she's greedy and lazy and a brat. She said that she's going to continue to use her card until it gets cut off. Maybe her case needs to be re-examined and her card revoked because she doesn't seem to be the type to do the right thing.

[PUBBY]

One of the tricks of the wealthy is to use other people's money ... i.e. the money they put at risk.

They set up limited liability companies and then borrow money for the venture. They are able to do this in part because they are known to have assets and in some cases those assets are at least partially at risk ... but sometimes not.

It even sometimes goes to absurdity. Former Arkansas governor Winthrop Rockefeller was well known (at least by a friend of mine who was appointed Ark. DNR director back in the 1960s) to go out on the town for dinner, drinks and the like without so much as a penny in his pocket. Others were expected to pick up the tab, pay the tips and take care of the little things.

The point is that freeloading is not limited to the poor; others pay their way and others will do most anything to avoid doing so.

And before you get all haughty, think who would be hurt if we passed a law saying that lottery winners had to repay all the public assistance they had received in their lives. If you did that, first, the poor would cease playing the lottery and second the lottery would go broke.

pubby

[dana]

But, but, she only has like 500k after taxes! I mean like you know she kinda needs it, like she's struggling... Greedy little wench.

[Happy Wife And Mom]

Why do I see her having to invest in paint to cover up the love letters that she is sure to get spray painted on her house

[LPPT]

Obviously she was spending her money on lottery tickets while on assistance also.
Honestly I don't think it is unusual that people on disability, SS, and other forms of assistance to spend money on legalized gambling.
In fact I have seen people that I know for a fact are getting SS buy lottery tickets by the handful.
There is a reason that some people are poor, they have been making bad financial decisions all their lives.
It simply can not go on forever because it is so unnatural, animals with natural flaws that make it impossible for them to care for themselves usually die before reproducing and passing on the flawed gene in future generations.

I am a very compassionate person, and I don't mind helping others, but I think we are fighting a natural imbalance with social programs. The number of worker bees are dwindling, simply put there are not enough worker bees to support the colony.
All I can say is it is going to be awful when nature takes it's course.

[dana]

I just hate to see such blatant abuse of the system. I try so hard not to judge, but I'm human. She probably doesn't know any better. I guess what gets me is I know so many people who genuinely need the help and they can't get it. I see her taking advantage and it makes me mad.

[ButterflyLion]

PUBBY, on 07 March 2012 - 06:43 PM, said:

One of the tricks of the wealthy is to use other people's money ... i.e. the money they put at risk.

They set up limited liability companies and then borrow money for the venture. They are able to do this in part because they are known to have assets and in some cases those assets are at least partially at risk ... but sometimes not.

It even sometimes goes to absurdity. Former Arkansas governor Winthrop Rockefeller was well known (at least by a friend of mine who was appointed Ark. DNR director back in the 1960s) to go out on the town for dinner, drinks and the like without so much as a penny in his pocket. Others were expected to pick up the tab, pay the tips and take care of the little things. The point is that freeloading is not limited to the poor; others pay their way and others will do most anything to avoid doing so.

And before you get all haughty, think who would be hurt if we passed a law saying that lottery winners had to repay all the public assistance they had received in their lives. If you did that, first, the poor would cease playing the lottery and second the lottery would go broke.

pubby

In this case I was thinking with the money she had she had a chance to have a different type of life. After I thought about though it is possible but not likely because most people do the same type of things with a lot of money that they did when they had much less. Many lottery winners are bankrupt in a short period of time.

[Starr & Dru's Nana]

As was pointed out in the article, when "income" is used to determine qualification for assistance, there will be people who have plenty of money coming in through investments or like this person, lottery winnings, but who have little or no "income". I know of several people in the past who received Medicaid or other types of assistance and yet lived in $300,000+ houses and drove brand new cars.

[TabbyCat]

She apparently lacks any personal integrity.

Sad.

[Shananigans]

People scam the system everyday. Why is this case so special?

[ButterflyLion]

Shananigans, on 08 March 2012 - 12:07 AM, said:

People scam the system everyday. Why is this case so special?

When people take advantage of the system it is news and even though others may have done something similar it doesn't stop it from being news. Not too many people have their photo taken with a huge check and are receiving government food stamps a few months later though.

[PUBBY]

LPPT, on 07 March 2012 - 06:59 PM, said:

Obviously she was spending her money on lottery tickets while on assistance also.
Honestly I don't think it is unusual that people on disability, SS, and other forms of assistance to spend money on legalized gambling.
In fact I have seen people that I know for a fact are getting SS buy lottery tickets by the handful.
There is a reason that some people are poor, they have been making bad financial decisions all their lives.
It simply can not go on forever because it is so unnatural, animals with natural flaws that make it impossible for them to care for themselves usually die before reproducing and passing on the flawed gene in future generations.

I am a very compassionate person, and I don't mind helping others, but I think we are fighting a natural imbalance with social programs. The number of worker bees are dwindling, simply put there are not enough worker bees to support the colony.
All I can say is it is going to be awful when nature takes it's course.

On one level I kind of agree with you but on another level the abundance of free time for human beings is as much a blessing as it is a curse. What you're failing to realize is that while 50 years ago, you needed 60 strong men with hand trucks and forklifts to run a warehouse operation. Today, a similar operation - we will say it is an Amazon warehouse - involves six workers who oversee the automated systems.

Farm labor is the same. You didn't see the change I did in the Delta Laurie but the figures tell the story. In 1950, the county I grew up in (Mississippi County) Arkansas was the second most populated county in the state ... and it mostly share croppers and farm hands. The population has declined by about 50 percent (from over 82,000 in 1950 to 46,000) by the 2010 census largely because mechanized/industrial farming just doesn't need the same number of worker bees as you say.

That said, the land and the productivity of that land continues to increase as it is blessed by copious amounts of ground water (the aquifer fed by the Mississippi River is enormous). Still, because vast amounts of land are held by comparatively few land owners, the wealth is highly concentrated. As a whole, the first congressional district in Arkansas is considered the poorest in the nation. Oh, and with the mechanization of agriculture and other labor saving advances in the factories that are there, unemployment is high despite the high out-migration in previous decades.

Still, overall as a people, even with fewer of us working, our ability to produce goods and services remains unparalleled and it is this abundance of goods that is the measure of wealth.

Indeed, imagine if one super robot was made that could perform all the work of all the people in the county - I mean this machine has so many arms, gears and whatever that it could give backrubs and plant the fields simultaneously. Literally this robot puts everyone out of their job because it does it better than anyone.

So, this puts us in an even worse situation than we are now. No one has a job. There is plenty of stuff for everyone mind you because the machine makes it, but no one is making any money to buy it.

What do we do? How do we get food to those who need it? Clothes to the naked and homes to the homeless?

Understanding what people are or should do when they don't have to scrape out a living hand to mouth is really among the most daunting challenges. We're facing it today and that is really the folks you suggest are 'sad' and 'useless.'

They're neither. They are wealthy with time and they need to figure a way to use it. That is our challenge. Indeed, that is the purpose of education - to give us the ability to motivate ourselves in new ways and in new directions.

pubby

[LGM]

PUBBY, on 08 March 2012 - 01:33 AM, said:

On one level I kind of agree with you but on another level the abundance of free time for human beings is as much a blessing as it is a curse. What you're failing to realize is that while 50 years ago, you needed 60 strong men with hand trucks and forklifts to run a warehouse operation. Today, a similar operation - we will say it is an Amazon warehouse - involves six workers who oversee the automated systems.

Farm labor is the same. You didn't see the change I did in the Delta Laurie but the figures tell the story. In 1950, the county I grew up in (Mississippi County) Arkansas was the second most populated county in the state ... and it mostly share croppers and farm hands. The population has declined by about 50 percent (from over 82,000 in 1950 to 46,000) by the 2010 census largely because mechanized/industrial farming just doesn't need the same number of worker bees as you say.

That said, the land and the productivity of that land continues to increase as it is blessed by copious amounts of ground water (the aquifer fed by the Mississippi River is enormous). Still, because vast amounts of land are held by comparatively few land owners, the wealth is highly concentrated. As a whole, the first congressional district in Arkansas is considered the poorest in the nation. Oh, and with the mechanization of agriculture and other labor saving advances in the factories that are there, unemployment is high despite the high out-migration in previous decades.

Still, overall as a people, even with fewer of us working, our ability to produce goods and services remains unparalleled and it is this abundance of goods that is the measure of wealth.

Indeed, imagine if one super robot was made that could perform all the work of all the people in the county - I mean this machine has so many arms, gears and whatever that it could give backrubs and plant the fields simultaneously. Literally this robot puts everyone out of their job because it does it better than anyone.

So, this puts us in an even worse situation than we are now. No one has a job. There is plenty of stuff for everyone mind you because the machine makes it, but no one is making any money to buy it.

What do we do? How do we get food to those who need it? Clothes to the naked and homes to the homeless?

Understanding what people are or should do when they don't have to scrape out a living hand to mouth is really among the most daunting challenges. We're facing it today and that is really the folks you suggest are 'sad' and 'useless.'

They're neither. They are wealthy with time and they need to figure a way to use it. That is our challenge. Indeed, that is the purpose of education - to give us the ability to motivate ourselves in new ways and in new directions.

pubby

....I'm pretty sure you took my Econ course last semester.

You sound, nearly verbatim, like my professor when he explained the current state of America and American unemployment.

By the way, said professor is German. Not just German descent, but actually born/raise/educated there and is just here teaching for a few semesters, so he doesn't have a political bias.

[cherokeewoman]

She must know how to play the system... I have know people who really need help and had to jump thru hoops here in Paulidng to get it, been denied several times before they got the help they needed, then there are those that seem to live off the system with no problems, what is their secret?

[The Postman]

ButterflyLion, on 08 March 2012 - 12:55 AM, said:

When people take advantage of the system it is news and even though others may have done something similar it doesn't stop it from being news. Not too many people have their photo taken with a huge check and are receiving government food stamps a few months later though.

That is wrong for her to do that. Here in Georgia something similar is happening in the new tax reform. Look at the way it increases taxes on people making $40,000 to $60,000 a year. Then there is a drop at $60,000 to $100,000 a year, then the taxes are decreased down down down. Look at $500,000 and above.

[attachment=114389:taxreform.jpg]

And, people like this lottery winner is hitting us from the other side.

This post has been edited by The Postman: 08 March 2012 - 01:51 AM

[LGM]

cherokeewoman, on 08 March 2012 - 01:45 AM, said:

She must know how to play the system... I have know people who really need help and had to jump thru hoops here in Paulidng to get it, been denied several times before they got the help they needed, then there are those that seem to live off the system with no problems, what is their secret?

Government assistance is divided into different districts, most often by county. If she lives in an overloaded district (and, from the news report of 50% on food stamps, I would say they're more than overloaded), it's not hard to slip through the cracks.

Someone I know, for example, set up child support payments through Child Support Services immediately after their divorce. It was just easier for them to have it taken care of automatically. Because they're in Dekalb County (which is insanely overloaded), they were told it would take 6 months or longer to process simple paperwork to have the child support reduced (something both parents are supportive of). They will have the father's old income records, new income records, and paperwork to have it done, for six months before doing anything about it...all the while, he's stuck paying the old amount (nearly double) on the new salary or the system automatically suspends his license.

I have friends in a nearby county who set it up the same way, and had their paperwork done and child support changed in 3-4 weeks.

Once you get on the program, it's not that hard to stay on it. They send you letters telling you to sign on and re-certify your information. If your employer or income has changed but it's not being reported to the state database, they're not likely to have a clue.

That being said, I've been turned down numerous time in Paulding for being $26-50 dollars over the low income level. Asked the lady (nicely) what I was supposed to do with $26-50, and she said 'Buy groceries'. For a month? o.O When I asked how much I would be approved for if I met the income level, her response was '$564 a month'.

....seriously? I can't feed my family on $50 a month, but I could feed TWO on that.

[ButterflyLion]

PUBBY, on 08 March 2012 - 01:33 AM, said:

...

Still, overall as a people, even with fewer of us working, our ability to produce goods and services remains unparalleled and it is this abundance of goods that is the measure of wealth ...


... They are wealthy with time and they need to figure a way to use it. That is our challenge. Indeed, that is the purpose of education - to give us the ability to motivate ourselves in new ways and in new directions.

pubby

LGM, on 08 March 2012 - 01:44 AM, said:

....I'm pretty sure you took my Econ course last semester.

You sound, nearly verbatim, like my professor when he explained the current state of America and American unemployment.

By the way, said professor is German. Not just German descent, but actually born/raise/educated there and is just here teaching for a few semesters, so he doesn't have a political bias.

In general it's seems like currently there is so much focus on pursuing money---and more stuff. When I was growing up we had much less stuff---and survived ok. Money is needed in a modern society and has a certain amount of value---and that is all. Substituting money and material goods for things that money can't buy does not work well. It may distract someone for a while but in the end there is a void.

Does anyone see people becoming more interested in things money can't buy: supportive relationships with other people, a spiritual life, etc.?

What if wealth was not measured so much in terms of "goods" but more along the lines of good lives?

For example with so many advances in some areas why aren't Americans healthier? I've known of several people recently needing heart surgery for blocked arteries and other heart conditions at 20 years younger than their parents. Some of the parents are living long healthy lives and their children are the ones with heart disease.

[LPPT]

ButterflyLion, on 08 March 2012 - 02:21 AM, said:

In general it's seems like currently there is so much focus on pursuing money---and more stuff. When I was growing up we had much less stuff---and survived ok. Money is needed in a modern society and has a certain amount of value---and that is all. Substituting money and material goods for things that money can't buy does not work well. It may distract someone for a while but in the end there is a void.

Does anyone see people becoming more interested in things money can't buy: supportive relationships with other people, a spiritual life, etc.?

What if wealth was not measured so much in terms of "goods" but more along the lines of good lives?

For example with so many advances in some areas why aren't Americans healthier? I've known of several people recently needing heart surgery for blocked arteries and other heart conditions at 20 years younger than their parents. Some of the parents are living long healthy lives and their children are the ones with heart disease.

At one time a large chunk of our economy was based on the manufacturing of stuff.
People were purchasing the stuff and it kept our economy going very well.
The manufacturing moved over seas, the economy began to be based on importing and selling stuff. The labor of those working to sell imported stuff was devalued inhibiting their ability to buy the stuff that makes that part of the economy robust.

I think a basic human need is to be productive and creative. Such as building a comfortable home, either by creating the artifacts oneself or by acquiring from others through your productivity.

One has to wonder if we are seeing a lot of social problems related to less productivity in large segments of society.
This woman will probably use the money to consume until it is gone.
She has the opportunity to be very productive, she could start a business perhaps provide jobs for others. She could live a productive life and be a creator.
I imagine it will never cross her mind.

[krwills]

Let's see...she gets to spend her time doing what she wants.
I get to spend my time working.
Hard for me to deside who is the smart one here.

I have always worked and pulled my own way, and supported those who can't or won't support themselves.
It is not easy. I have no say in what our government takes from me, or what they do with it, This is democracy to it's finest.
God bless America.
Yes I do vote.....but I vote for one crook or the other. Who do you vote for?

[LPPT]

krwills, on 08 March 2012 - 09:48 AM, said:

Let's see...she gets to spend her time doing what she wants.
I get to spend my time working.
Hard for me to deside who is the smart one here.

I have always worked and pulled my own way, and supported those who can't or won't support themselves.
It is not easy. I have no say in what our government takes from me, or what they do with it, This is democracy to it's finest.
God bless America.
Yes I do vote.....but I vote for one crook or the other. Who do you vote for?

Would you feel the same if you got paid to do what you really loved and you could live comfortably and securely on that pay.
I think that as we get more physically comfortable as a society that the issues of emotional feelings towards the work we do becomes a much bigger deal to us.
I think one thing that modern society has taken away from people is pride in their productivity. You and I are gardeners, we take pride in our accomplishments when we see the beauty that comes from our labor. There is very little pride to be found as a cog.

[lowrider]

LPPT, on 08 March 2012 - 08:17 AM, said:

One has to wonder if we are seeing a lot of social problems related to less productivity in large segments of society.
This woman will probably use the money to consume until it is gone.
She has the opportunity to be very productive, she could start a business perhaps provide jobs for others. She could live a productive life and be a creator.
I imagine it will never cross her mind.

Now she has more money and time on her hands to buy more lottery tickets.

[LPPT]

lowrider, on 08 March 2012 - 10:11 AM, said:

Now she has more money and time on her hands to buy more lottery tickets.

Which she was doing anyway when she was on assistance.
Our society is geared towards the possessions we acquire through our labor.
She will be very proud until she blows it all.

[krwills]

LPPT, on 08 March 2012 - 10:03 AM, said:

Would you feel the same if you got paid to do what you really loved and you could live comfortably and securely on that pay.
I think that as we get more physically comfortable as a society that the issues of emotional feelings towards the work we do becomes a much bigger deal to us.
I think one thing that modern society has taken away from people is pride in their productivity. You and I are gardeners, we take pride in our accomplishments when we see the beauty that comes from our labor. There is very little pride to be found as a cog.

Oh heck yes.
I would love to have a job where I could feel like I had done good deeds, a job where I could feel like I had made something better, or actually helped a person become a better person. I'd like to be able to give life an uplift when it needed it, or just beautiful areas for people to enjoy.
I cannot make money doing the things I enjoy, so I make money to be able to do the things I enjoy.
I used to have a little more free time, than I do now.
I did a some volunteer work at nursing homes, helping establish some gardens & birdfeeding programs.
It would be nice to have a paying job like that. It became pretty costly to to provide the materials on a steady basis.
I also enjoy sewing and have very little time to do that either
I suppose I was never smart enough to find a way to support myself & my children doing the things I love.
(or to win the lottery) LOL!

[PUBBY]

LPPT, on 08 March 2012 - 08:17 AM, said:

At one time a large chunk of our economy was based on the manufacturing of stuff.
People were purchasing the stuff and it kept our economy going very well.
The manufacturing moved over seas, the economy began to be based on importing and selling stuff. The labor of those working to sell imported stuff was devalued inhibiting their ability to buy the stuff that makes that part of the economy robust.

I think a basic human need is to be productive and creative. Such as building a comfortable home, either by creating the artifacts oneself or by acquiring from others through your productivity.

One has to wonder if we are seeing a lot of social problems related to less productivity in large segments of society.
This woman will probably use the money to consume until it is gone.
She has the opportunity to be very productive, she could start a business perhaps provide jobs for others. She could live a productive life and be a creator.
I imagine it will never cross her mind.

And why won't it cross her mind?

Education is the reason. Hell, that you might do something productive with your life and understanding that in all its wonder and glory is about the only thing you learn with a liberal arts education. ... and until you recognize the importance of people dreaming up things to do in this context, you consider people recommending four-year college degrees to be snobs like Rick Santorum. (Did it ever make you wonder why the elites in the GOP are quite well educated yet the party seems downright hostile towards education?)

But all that aside, if only a few people have access to money - winning the so-called monopoly game of life being the pin-headed ambition of more than a few - and they want those who don't have much to pay all the taxes and they don't want to do anything other than put it into offshore interest bearing accounts that are used to finance high profit ventures like smuggling and drugs ... well a significant portion of the society are going to do without resources - even for health.

If it would take 100 people to go harvest a ten acre farm that using their labor, effort and tools that suit human beings would feed 110 people or you have a choice of using three people on that ten acre farm using better tools and techniques that would be burdened and unworkable with the 97 other workers but will feed 250 people ... which do you opt for?

The only problem is that for some reason we had no problem with paying those 97 for stooping down and picking up and bagging stuff but now that we have a better way of doing that job - their job - we refuse to pay them for not doing it even though we make a lot more money not employing them ... but only if they still have the wherewithal to buy what they used to help produce.

pubby

LGM: It really isn't political ... what we're experiencing for the most part is fact. The reaction to it is political. One side says if they aren't responsible for their plight - society doesn't give them much in the way of choices - we tend to be compassionate and understanding. Then there are those whose reaction is the notion that they aint gonna pay nobody to sit on their butt and spend their welfare check while Iz got to clean commodes at the lucky 8 motel. Why I'd vote for the Debbil over Jebeusus if it'd get them lazy folks off the couch.

pubby

[LPPT]

Is your point that people that can't or don't produce much still add value to society by the simple act of consuming?

[ButterflyLion]

Pubby,

There are many ways of contributing to the good of others. Not all depend on a college education---or a job. Where are people's hearts? That is one thing to consider. And it's even backed up by some of the research done by The Heartmath Institute and others.

[Starr & Dru's Nana]

Never ceases to amaze me at how people think that those who receive government assistance are ALL lazy and unproductive people. Or how people think that if you receive government assistance you should have NO extras like lottery tickets, nights out or anything else. C'mon, realize that these people who receive assistance are people just like you. Yes, there are those who cheat the system but that has been done for decades.

Case in point: I know of a family who is receiving Medicaid for the kids in spite of the fact that while the family "income" (from wages) is minimal, and at times zero, they are FAR, far from destitute and in fact live in a beautiful McMansion which is paid for and none of them will ever have to worry about money.

Now, take my daughter and SIL. They live in a house my hubby and I own and I pay the utilities. Neither of them work. She is a full time mom to their two little ones, both under 4. He had been driving a taxi but in spite of working 16 hour days 7 days a week, they were unable to pay for car insurance and a tag so they sold their car and he quit the job because he was afraid the stress was going to kill him. They have ZERO income. Zilch. Nada. Yet, the idiots at DFCS claim they made too much money to qualify for Medicaid and not enough for the kids to be on PeachCare. They have been waging this battle with DFCS since the youngest one was born and she turned 2 at the end of January. The older daughter is old enough for Pre-K in the fall but she needs one more immunization which they have no money to pay for and the DFCS idiots can't seem to understand that ZERO income means ZERO income. My daughter said she really hates to say it but she is beginning to think that because she is a native born white American she can't get the assistance they desperately need.

[PUBBY]

LPPT, on 08 March 2012 - 11:04 AM, said:

Is your point that people that can't or don't produce much still add value to society by the simple act of consuming?

that is not my point but it is 'a point.' Indeed, there are many whose sole training in how to cope with life revolves almost exclusively around consumption.

Think about it. Many are women whose sole accomplishment was to marry a man that allowed them the option to acquire items on a whim. They are highly prized by advertisers. Many of those on welfare were those whose consumption habits so decimated the man in their life that the man abandoned them leaving them as wards of the state.

We have literally trained (not educated) millions of people and no just women to be nothing but consumers.

My point is the importance of the liberal arts education is that it teaches that the life style of the materialistic consumer is limited in its satisfactions.

One of the things learned or at least observed is that many whose sole task is to consume tend to be those whose behaviors blossom into various forms of mental illness including hoarding and other OCD behaviors (the woman with 20,000 pairs of shoes like Emelda Marcos.)

To see what our society is really teaching consider those things a 15 year old girl would consider cool. Now list the brand names of those things. The very fact that brand names are associated is evidence of our societies emphasis on consumer/consumption and not production-creation. I mean there may be a few mid-teenage girls who would say the best thing yet is a trip to the planetarium or the Smithsonian Institute ... but most would opt for a trip to the GAP or Old Navy.

Indeed, they can't name the 101 or however many elements there are but you can bet they could name 101 brands of clothing, shoes and cosmetics.

The point is that psychologically, we've conditioned folks to gain satisfaction from consumption and ownership of things and, to quote to Rolling Stones - you can be a man if you doesn't smoke the same cigarette as me, I can't get no, Satisfaction.

Or an even better explanation of our consumer-centric society comes from Janis Joplin:



Never a thought of working for the money to buy the mercedes, eh.

pubby

[LPPT]

ButterflyLion, on 08 March 2012 - 11:08 AM, said:

Pubby,

There are many ways of contributing to the good of others. Not all depend on a college education---or a job. Where are people's hearts? That is one thing to consider. And it's even backed up by some of the research done by The Heartmath Institute and others.

This conversation is about the heart, it is about a society devaluing one's labor or contribution to society to the point that one can not sustain ones self or family.
We have progressed pass the survival mode through huge advances. The question now is where do we go from here.
There is no past template to base our future on. I would watch the Jetson's as a kid remember how robots did everything for them. It looked pretty cool, but I never thought about what I would do if robots did everything for me.

I have typed thousands of words today to communicate my thoughts, A hundred years ago I would have spent hours with pen and quill others would have labored hard long hours to create the ink and paper I used.
Who do we value more, me for my mind in writing, the person that cut the tree? the person that made the paper.
How is our value system formed in modern society.
The needy person has value to the provider.

[ButterflyLion]

LPPT, on 08 March 2012 - 11:36 AM, said:

This conversation is about the heart, it is about a society devaluing one's labor or contribution to society to the point that one can not sustain ones self or family.
We have progressed pass the survival mode through huge advances. The question now is where do we go from here.
There is no past template to base our future on. I would watch the Jetson's as a kid remember how robots did everything for them. It looked pretty cool, but I never thought about what I would do if robots did everything for me.

I have typed thousands of words today to communicate my thoughts, A hundred years ago I would have spent hours with pen and quill others would have labored hard long hours to create the ink and paper I used.
Who do we value more, me for my mind in writing, the person that cut the tree? the person that made the paper.
How is our value system formed in modern society.
The needy person has value to the provider.

Pubby said:

Quote

My point is the importance of the liberal arts education is that it teaches that the life style of the materialistic consumer is limited in its satisfactions.

I see that kind of thing coming from the heart. My Dad's mother never went to college. She was left as a young woman with 5 children when my grandfather died from pneumonia. She lived to be 90 and I never saw her when she didn't have a thankful attitude.

[PUBBY]

ButterflyLion, on 08 March 2012 - 11:08 AM, said:

Pubby,

There are many ways of contributing to the good of others. Not all depend on a college education---or a job. Where are people's hearts? That is one thing to consider. And it's even backed up by some of the research done by The Heartmath Institute and others.

Absolutely there are many ways of contributing to the good of others.

A little known fact: Why don't we make welfare recipients work for their checks - you know pick up garbage on the side of the road, etc.?

The reason is that we can have one guy stand over a check printing and mailing center at the capital and over see the distribution of 200,000 welfare checks a month whereas you'd have to hire a bureaucracy of 3000 including managers, project developers, group captains plus you'd have to buy 2,000 ten passenger vans and 2,000 trailers to stack the trash (not to mention the tons of plastic bags) just to cover the logistics of folks having to go pickup garbage on the side of the frigging road to get their checks.

Of course you could hire some of the recipients to do the overseeing but you'd have to pay them more. Anyway, I think you can see it would get real expensive real fast to make people actually work for their welfare.

Now consider the option of cutting it off?

You now have a human being programmed to be a consumer and you've totally removed any source of money save their working for it or stealing. Since there are few jobs and many now needing not just food and clothing, we can imagine that a larger portion - given the choice of starve or steal, will chose the former. No problem, we catch them and send them to jail ... at $40,000/inmate for food, medical care, housing, guarding, etc.

That $800/month welfare check seems like quite a bargain to society when compared to the cost to the taxpayer being more than four times as much than the welfare.

Should we make educational opportunities available to them? I think so.

But the bottom line, we do things the way we do not because it is stupid to do them that way most times ... but because if you really look at the situation, it is the smart or at least smarter way to do them.

pubby

As far as the woman with the lottery ticket ... I think the lottery commission ought to publish publicly the list of winners of more than $10,000. I further think that those in those offices where assistance is rendered ought to cross reference that public list and investigate whether the individuals who won the lottery remain eligible. Heck, I'd even give them an option to pay something like $100,000 lump sum to remain in the system (kind of like an annuity). The idea is that given lottery winner's history, it is likely little more than a year or two before they are back destitute anyway.

[ButterflyLion]

PUBBY, on 08 March 2012 - 11:54 AM, said:

Absolutely there are many ways of contributing to the good of others.

A little known fact: Why don't we make welfare recipients work for their checks - you know pick up garbage on the side of the road, etc.?

pubby

But if people's hearts were different isn't it more likely that they would choose to contribute by picking up trash, volunteering somewhere, etc.?

[LGM]

PUBBY, on 08 March 2012 - 11:30 AM, said:

that is not my point but it is 'a point.' Indeed, there are many whose sole training in how to cope with life revolves almost exclusively around consumption.

Think about it. Many are women whose sole accomplishment was to marry a man that allowed them the option to acquire items on a whim. They are highly prized by advertisers. Many of those on welfare were those whose consumption habits so decimated the man in their life that the man abandoned them leaving them as wards of the state.

We have literally trained (not educated) millions of people and no just women to be nothing but consumers.

My point is the importance of the liberal arts education is that it teaches that the life style of the materialistic consumer is limited in its satisfactions.

One of the things learned or at least observed is that many whose sole task is to consume tend to be those whose behaviors blossom into various forms of mental illness including hoarding and other OCD behaviors (the woman with 20,000 pairs of shoes like Emelda Marcos.)

To see what our society is really teaching consider those things a 15 year old girl would consider cool. Now list the brand names of those things. The very fact that brand names are associated is evidence of our societies emphasis on consumer/consumption and not production-creation. I mean there may be a few mid-teenage girls who would say the best thing yet is a trip to the planetarium or the Smithsonian Institute ... but most would opt for a trip to the GAP or Old Navy.

Indeed, they can't name the 101 or however many elements there are but you can bet they could name 101 brands of clothing, shoes and cosmetics.

The point is that psychologically, we've conditioned folks to gain satisfaction from consumption and ownership of things and, to quote to Rolling Stones - you can be a man if you doesn't smoke the same cigarette as me, I can't get no, Satisfaction.

Or an even better explanation of our consumer-centric society comes from Janis Joplin:

<iframe width="420" height="315" src="http://www.youtube.com/embed/i-4AheUl6ls" frameborder="0" allowfullscreen></iframe>

Never a thought of working for the money to buy the mercedes, eh.

pubby

I agree, but don't at the same time. For me, personally, that's exactly what my liberal arts education has taught me (so far....I'm a junior, so I still have a ways to go).

[LPPT]

ButterflyLion, on 08 March 2012 - 12:05 PM, said:

But if people's hearts were different isn't it more likely that they would choose to contribute by picking up trash, volunteering somewhere, etc.?

Society sees that as demeaning labor, it is often used as a punishment.

[LGM]

LPPT, on 08 March 2012 - 12:45 PM, said:

Society sees that as demeaning labor, it is often used as a punishment.

Which is just .

While you're not likely to find me picking up trash on the side of the road (I was hit by a car two summers ago and am now petrified of getting hit again), I can't see helping people, or helping the environment, or helping society as punishment. It's my duty.

[LPPT]

LGM, on 08 March 2012 - 12:48 PM, said:

Which is just .

While you're not likely to find me picking up trash on the side of the road (I was hit by a car two summers ago and am now petrified of getting hit again), I can't see helping people, or helping the environment, or helping society as punishment. It's my duty.

When you think about what other jobs does society see as demeaning?

[ButterflyLion]

LPPT, on 08 March 2012 - 12:45 PM, said:

Society sees that as demeaning labor, it is often used as a punishment.

I know people who are convicted of crimes are often sent to jail or prison. Taking away their freedom to come and go as they choose, etc. is part of their punishment. I see some picking up trash along the roads so that is part of their punishment? (I didn't know if it was something they were required to do or if they had a choice?)