How to Slow Firearm Deaths Without Banning All Guns

[The Nature Boy 4,224]

Fair question

and it is such a big topic one can't give a simplified answer which would have any meaning but I will say this.

-The goal should not be to "make people whole" but rather to "get them by". When you allow charity cases to eat as well as those who provide the charity, you not only mock the givers but also give no incentive for people to provide their own food..... and you attract freeloaders.

The food stamp program should be ;like a beans and rice style warehouse.

See the principle rule in life is, when you make bad decisions, there is a price-tag associated with, this works EVERYWHERE except where Gov't is involved. People see the burden you have to carry and the ripple effect is it changes community attitudes that action you took.

When your actions of dropping out of school or getting knocked up effect those around you such as your family, those around you place social pressure on you to do the things which are good for you and in turn,

good for the community.

The Gov't is the least capable of doing charity. And because everyone is paying for Gov. to do it via taxes, private groups tend to back off.

The effect has been devastating to the Churchs. Churches used to fund (and still do to a large degree) all kinds of social programs to serve the poor. If you never looked into it you would assume no "old folks homes" or Private hospitals or Orphanages never even existed.

But because GOv. has taken this over,.... the Church is floundering for a social purpose, which is why they send unreal amount of money overseas..... but sending money is no substitute for involving ones self in the lives of the needy in a personal way.

But at any rate, the Poverty industry in DC is intrenched that there is no undoing it now... short of a total Economic collapse.

The number of people employed by the Gov't poverty programs of one type or another boggles the mind, so it is unbeatable, I don't care how many bodies are swept off the street nightly because of it... in fact, that only gives purpose to a new agency to deal with this problem.

You nailed it. When you bad choices are not uncomfortable then you learn nothing. So many Liberals think people on public assistance hate getting it and would do anything to get off it. That is far from the truth, in many cases it is a a deliberate lifestyle choice. I know that is hard for many who have not grown up around so much of it to believe, but it is the truth.

[decocker 7,198]

Ok so enlighten me as to why forcing people in Govt housing to participate in it's up keep would not work.

section8 housing is owned by slumlords for the most part, least it is here. they don't put money into their properties, even for necessary maintenance. unless you're suggesting government officials sport white gloves and go door to door checking for windowsills that need dusting (absurd), why would you suggest the government fund renovations for slumlords properties?

[decocker 7,198]

When your actions of dropping out of school or getting knocked up effect those around you such as your family, those around you place social pressure on you to do the things which are good for you and in turn,

good for the community.

never fails.

[Danno 1,228]

never fails.

"knocked up" =getting pregnant when you have neither the commitment of marriage nor the means to give the child the best start possible.

This is a perfect example of ..... not government but "social shame" which minimizes actions which are harmful to the person and beyond.

You want the knocked up teen to have no stigma placed on her actions .... I suggest without stigma, you end up with more knocked up teens which in turn mean more felons and broken lives.

You are concerned with the individuals "feelings", I take a more broad and long term community approach.

Oddly enough Mayor Bloomberg and myself kinda meet on this one issue, I hear he is running adds addressing teen-pregnancy and peeps like you are complaining.

http://www.wnd.com/2013/03/trouble-in-the-nanny-state/

section8 housing is owned by slumlords for the most part, least it is here. they don't put money into their properties, even for necessary maintenance. unless you're suggesting government officials sport white gloves and go door to door checking for windowsills that need dusting (absurd), why would you suggest the government fund renovations for slumlords properties?

Maybe you are not aware but the Gov't has a number of ways to give away housing, Section 8 is just one.

[The Nature Boy 4,224]

section8 housing is owned by slumlords for the most part, least it is here. they don't put money into their properties, even for necessary maintenance. unless you're suggesting government officials sport white gloves and go door to door checking for windowsills that need dusting (absurd), why would you suggest the government fund renovations for slumlords properties?

Ok first of all you have tighter standards and codes to rent section 8 than your average home. I just put one of my homes section 8 and I had to do all kind of upgrades. Also they do come inspect it regularly. So you are way off base.

The maint I was suggesting is cutting their won grass, painting, etc. All the stuff most homeowners have to do or pay to have done. In other words make them give back something

[decocker 7,198]

You want the knocked up teen to have no stigma placed on her actions .... I suggest without stigma, you end up with more knocked up teens which in turn mean more felons and broken lives.

keep going..

[decocker 7,198]

Ok first of all you have tighter standards and codes to rent section 8 than your average home. I just put one of my homes section 8 and I had to do all kind of upgrades. Also they do come inspect it regularly. So you are way off base.

The maint I was suggesting is cutting their won grass, painting, etc. All the stuff most homeowners have to do or pay to have done. In other words make them give back something

i know there are standards and inspections. i also know there are ways out of them. and they aren't high standards.

cutting grass? painting? again - they're giving back to the owners who already profiting from slumming. people in the position to own property, who choose to rent section 8 aren't sacrificing anything to be owed by their tenants.

[himher 634]

Reversed for the nature boy

i know there are standards and inspections. i also know there are ways out of them. and they aren't high standards.

cutting grass? painting? again - they're giving back to the owners who already profiting from slumming. people in the position to own property, who choose to rent section 8 aren't sacrificing anything to be owed by their tenants.

True.

The tenants of section 8 housing should cut grass and paint and maintain the properties of the taxpayers that are subsidizing them, not their own home since that person is "profiting from them". I can see potential in this.

Aren't property owners paying taxes and aren't those taxes being used to subsidize section 8 housing? What is wrong with expecting the people to maintain the home or be removed from qualification for the rent assistance for it?

Edited March 15, 2013 by himher

[decocker 7,198]

What is wrong with expecting the people to maintain the home or be removed from qualification for the rent assistance for it?

nothing at all. why is the assumption that people who receive housing assistance are slobs? you think that people who receive section 8 can't be evicted for trashing a property?

any sort of solution, is going to involve a method of getting out of poverty and off of public assistance. i think everyone here can agree that this should be the premise for reform. yet all you are offering are methods of monitoring people to make sure they 'behave' properly. recommending they 'cut grass' or 'mandatory birth control' or 'eat nothing but rice and beans' does not achieve anything other than status quo in the welfare line. social shaming, another ridiculous proposal, means nothing to impoverished people who have never known anything but the shame of being poor, having family in jail, absent parents, drug addictions, suffered abuse, etc..you can't further shame someone who is rock bottom.

and as far as danno's whole bit about the church not being able to properly care for the sick, poor, and needy because the government has taken this task from them..if they're not capable of charity as necessary or have to send all their aid to foreign countries - how bout we start taxing them?

[The Nature Boy 4,224]

Reversed for the nature boy

True.

The tenants of section 8 housing should cut grass and paint and maintain the properties of the taxpayers that are subsidizing them, not their own home since that person is "profiting from them". I can see potential in this.

Aren't property owners paying taxes and aren't those taxes being used to subsidize section 8 housing? What is wrong with expecting the people to maintain the home or be removed from qualification for the rent assistance for it?

Or even pick up trash at aprks and do lawn works at public places to help offset the burden

[himher 634]

nothing at all. why is the assumption that people who receive housing assistance are slobs? you think that people who receive section 8 can't be evicted for trashing a property?

any sort of solution, is going to involve a method of getting out of poverty and off of public assistance. i think everyone here can agree that this should be the premise for reform. yet all you are offering are methods of monitoring people to make sure they 'behave' properly. recommending they 'cut grass' or 'mandatory birth control' or 'eat nothing but rice and beans' does not achieve anything other than status quo in the welfare line. social shaming, another ridiculous proposal, means nothing to impoverished people who have never known anything but the shame of being poor, having family in jail, absent parents, drug addictions, suffered abuse, etc..you can't further shame someone who is rock bottom.

and as far as danno's whole bit about the church not being able to properly care for the sick, poor, and needy because the government has taken this task from them..if they're not capable of charity as necessary or have to send all their aid to foreign countries - how bout we start taxing them?

I'm not quite sure that labelling poor people as "slobs" is appropriate. But it you wish to by all means be my guest. The offered discussion was simply an avenue to link money paid to or on behalf of someone to work done by that person. That's called compensation for work. The rest of us, the ones who get up every day and go out to do work, call that a job.

There is otherwise no avenue for getting off of poverty and off of public assistance that does not involve work. None.

Here is the criteria that I personally have to meet in order to receive compensation for my work: I have to get randomly drug tested. If I get popped, my badge won't work the next day and I won't even get a chance to collect my own stuff. I have to go in to the DHS every 5 years, submit to fingerprints and background check and carry a little homeland security-issued card to every site I work in. If I have any number of different things on my record then I don't get to work. I have to answer for and be accountable for my time and send in status reports on ongoing work, I have to send in closure reports of completed work, I have to send in schedules for planned work. So do you think these are methods of monitoring me and my peers to ensure that we behave properly? Dam skippy they are. The fact that there are any number of things that can happen that will prevent me from paying my bills and feeding my family is an incentive to not do these things. This is true for everyone around me and I suspect that this is true for the majority of people who work and for a majority of employers who compensate people for their work.

So yes, it is appropriate that the same standards that are applied to the rest of us (who by the way pay for all of the programs under discussion and cheerfully live under these standards of "behave properly" or starve) be applied to those who are receiving compensation in a different way. People fundamentally are the same everywhere. They will adjust their behaviours and activities to what has the highest benefit. To suggest poor people or minorities would react differently would be wrong.

The more school the rest of us complete the higher the compensation. Tie public benefits to education. The more work the rest of us do the higher the compensation. Tie public benefits to community service with minimum level of responsibility for the place you live. Our employers tie compliance to the law to our employment. Tie public benefits to drug use and tie them to criminal behavour. People who are compensated at different rates for things like education, work, record and penalized for things like substance abuse and criminal record compete and when people compete and they develop pride in themselves.

[himher 634]

nothing at all. why is the assumption that people who receive housing assistance are slobs? you think that people who receive section 8 can't be evicted for trashing a property?

any sort of solution, is going to involve a method of getting out of poverty and off of public assistance. i think everyone here can agree that this should be the premise for reform. yet all you are offering are methods of monitoring people to make sure they 'behave' properly. recommending they 'cut grass' or 'mandatory birth control' or 'eat nothing but rice and beans' does not achieve anything other than status quo in the welfare line. social shaming, another ridiculous proposal, means nothing to impoverished people who have never known anything but the shame of being poor, having family in jail, absent parents, drug addictions, suffered abuse, etc..you can't further shame someone who is rock bottom.

and as far as danno's whole bit about the church not being able to properly care for the sick, poor, and needy because the government has taken this task from them..if they're not capable of charity as necessary or have to send all their aid to foreign countries - how bout we start taxing them?

As to the churches the only charity I see is the charity they give to their contractors to expand their buildings and the charity they give their leadership for nice homes and cars. It does not sit well with me to subsidize Mitt Romney's contributions to the Morman church. We shouldn't tax the churches, but we shouldn't subsidize their collection pots by 20-30% by letting the members write off "charitable contributions" to their building funds and <cough>vacations<cough> mission trips either.

[decocker 7,198]

There is otherwise no avenue for getting off of poverty and off of public assistance that does not involve work. None.

i completely agree with this. this is why i believe as a country we need to shift our attention and money to domestic issues by creating programs and community efforts that offer education, job training, after school programs, mentorships, community based daycare programs, health clinics that offer not only physical but mental evaluations and care and lastly, jobs. living wage jobs.

[decocker 7,198]

As to the churches the only charity I see is the charity they give to their contractors to expand their buildings and the charity they give their leadership for nice homes and cars. It does not sit well with me to subsidize Mitt Romney's contributions to the Morman church. We shouldn't tax the churches, but we shouldn't subsidize their collection pots by 20-30% by letting the members write off "charitable contributions" to their building funds and <cough>vacations<cough> mission trips either.

exactly. i find it disgusting, these mega churches. however-i don't think that the majority of missionaries are "on vacation". they are genuinely trying to improve people's lives - i just wish they would focus on the hurting in the u.s. first and foremost. honestly - with all the churches in this country - they should be able to pull off both.

Or even pick up trash at aprks and do lawn works at public places to help offset the burden

generally speaking, public parks employ people to do these jobs already.

[himher 634]

exactly. i find it disgusting, these mega churches. however-i don't think that the majority of missionaries are "on vacation". they are genuinely trying to improve people's lives - i just wish they would focus on the hurting in the u.s. first and foremost. honestly - with all the churches in this country - they should be able to pull off both.

generally speaking, public parks employ people to do these jobs already.

I didnt say anything about missionaries whose wages are excluded from taxes anyway. I was referencing to the local church "mission trips" where they gather the gang together for a tax free church funded trip.

There is a huge difference.

The previously noted aid recipients are living aren't they? The combination of recieved programs constitutes a living wage if they are housed, fed, and have their medical care covered and paid for.

Therefore something is owed back to the community who sustains their living and generates that living wage. That something owed includes work and a personal responsibility to meet the requirements the rest of us have to meet in regards to following the laws and GETTING the education that is put in front of them to get.

Unlike you I do not believe that anyone can give someone an education. "Give them an education" is stated over and over on this board. Well I don't know anybody who was given an education anywhere. Everyone I know who has an education was given a book and a classroom and they went to that classroom with that book and got it. That also involved doing work.

Edited March 15, 2013 by himher