We are a commune of inquiring, skeptical, politically centrist, capitalist, anglophile, traditionalist New England Yankee humans, humanoids, and animals with many interests beyond and above politics. Each of us has had a high-school education (or GED), but all had ADD so didn't pay attention very well, especially the dogs. Each one of us does "try my best to be just like I am," and none of us enjoys working for others, including for Maggie, from whom we receive neither a nickel nor a dime. Freedom from nags, cranks, government, do-gooders, control-freaks and idiots is all that we ask for.
Our Recent Essays Behind the Front Page
Tuesday, December 16. 2014
Disgusting greedy capitalist pigs: Highest earning musicians of 2014
Office work is dangerous
Highest earning musicians of 2014
Black newspaper takes on black-on-black violence
The mob is alive and well in the unions
Which Costly Family Most Deserves to Enter the Moocher Hall of Fame?
How ignorant jerks are going to treat good cops now; ‘I’m scared for my life . . .he’s trying to Mike Brown me
Social conservatism, marriage, and class:
Media swoon: Elizabeth Warren, unlike Ted Cruz, hailed as a principled crusader
The Democrats Double Down - Will Republicans seize the opportunity?
VDH: Epitaph for Hope and Change - Obama has fundamentally transformed America, all right — but not as he intended.
“If you make jokes about people who are going to kill you, there is a sort of tendency to hold back a little.”
‘He Must Have Loved Ones, Too’ - Pathological altruism in Sydney.
German Leader Denounces Anti-Immigrant Surge
Last week the news arrived that the most popular name given to boys in the UK in 2014 was "Mohammed." The reactions and non-reactions to this story betrayed the deep unease and denial that are now part of the debate around Islam in modern Britain.
At its 27th birthday parade, Hamas vows to destroy Israel
Display comments as (Linear | Threaded)
A quick internet search of white privilege will point to the origins of this idea see here:
But, the most recent and well organized push to get "white privilege" built into the next generation of white students --- that organized push began in Seattle only a couple of years ago. Guess whose kids are doing the push?
"Which costly family most deserves to enter the moocher hall of fame?"
There should be a limit on total individual and family benefits in a welfare state. It is ludicrous to tax people earning $24k a year to give "free stuff" to someone being given $50k a year in cash and benefits. I would suggest that a good limit would be to limit the total benefits to any adult to no more then they could earn under the minimum wage. I would also think that a lifetime cap is necessary to prevent the entitled from taking advantage of taxpayers forever. There is little doubt that welfare encourages crime and a unproductive life both for the adults and their children. Welfare is toxic and the more you give welfare recipients the more they turn to drugs and crime. Which brings me to the last suggestion and that is that every welfare recipient should have to work 8 hours a day 5 days a week to remain eligible for benefits. They could sweep streets, pick up trash in the park, help older people or babysit for others who are working. Something should be given in return for what they get from the taxpayers.
while sounding nice in general, it unduely punishes people ending up on welfare due to no fault of their own.
Think the chronically ill, the disabled, those who after 20-30 years of working their arses off find themselves unemployed and unable to find a job because they're too old (and try getting a more junior job in another field, you're not getting that either because there are many younger people unemployed to take that job who are cheaper than you are).
OMG! They should EARN it? That's too much like, (to quote Maynard Krebs) WORK! (a 4-letter word)
I've checked my White Privilege container; it's empty.
The Mob Is Alive: Link Doe Not Work**********************************
Top Brit Baby Name: Nothing to see here; move along.
Two additional trends which might contribute to lower abortion rates:
1. There are less children from pro-abortion women in the child bearing age group. The abortions these women had means that the children they did not have are not among those choosing.
2. Many women of child bearing age are aware that they themselves survived a 1 in 4 chance of being aborted.
I assumed the Clintons or Obamas were going to top the list. Have any of them done an honest day's work ever?
Pro-lifers haven't "made their peace" with out of wedlock pregnancies. They encourage women to keep the baby, but they also encourage them to stop the lifestyle that leads to the unwanted pregnancy in the first place. They don't want these women to continue getting pregnant out of wedlock, they want these women to get married and give the child a stable future.
The chronically ill and disabled would be applying for disability, not welfare. Welfare is not for people who are unable to work...welfare was only supposed to be a short-term helping hand for those going under hard times.
"unduely punishes people"
Really! I am 71 years old and began working at age 13. In my entire working life I have often held two jobs and have been unemployed exactly one week. I think you are telling me that having worked for 55 years that I have been unduely punished for 55 years. I can't identify with that kind of thinking. I am happy to have worked all my life and proud to have supported myself and four children. "Unduely punished" should really refer to the poor taxpayer who has to pay for the free loaders. Welfare is unsustainable. I would actually prefer to eliminate it period. But I think the ony way to "save" it is to reduce the benefits and take away the incentive for able bodied people to exploit it. If we don't change it in a way that dramatically reduces to costs and incentives then it will collapse along with our economy. What the welfare recipients need is a good dose of the old fashioned work ethic.
One last suggestion for reforming welfare is to make it a state program only. It is unconstitutional for the federal government. If it were handled by the states the citizens would have more control over their law makers bad decisions.
If that were true, they'd have a way off of welfare through work. Instead, earn a dollar at honest work, lose $10 of that "free" assistance.
I think a good place to start would be for welfare recipients to have to leave their house and go to some designated place and be there for 8 hours a day -whatever 8 continuous hours you choose from 8 am to 11 pm.
At this designated place: there will be no drinking, no smoking, no drugs, no pajamas, and no cursing, and no sleeping. What they do there is their business - but they have to be quiet and courteous. Children will be welcome and activities provided if they are not in school.
In other words, you can's sit at home and watch TV, drink beer, smoke dope, and fornicate for least for 8 hours a day.
At the end of your eight hour shift your EBIT card will be credited for the appropriate amount. If you don't show up or don't have an excuse - you don't get paid.
This can hardly be seen as onerous by the libs - so there is a possibility that it could be enacted. It encourages positive behavior and some may figure, "if I have to get up and go somewhere - I might as well go to work.
It has the added benefit of curtailing "under the table" work while collecting welfare. So people who are double dipping may just do their "under the table" jobs as full time employment