A blog on objective thought in today's irrational, subjective world tackling some of the hardest questions of existence using reason and logic.
(Draginol did part I)
Published on December 29, 2004 By John Galt In Philosophy
Yes, under the losers are losers for a reason file:

Woman on welfare with 3 kids and no husband (dead beat too aparently) finds $40,000 in cash. Turns in money. Gets reward of $2000.00. News media loves it, great Christmas story and all because hey, poor person wins lottery is marginally ethical. (miracle)

Law in Ontario says that whatever you make while on welfare gets deducted from your welfare. Media exposes, boo hiss!!! Government aquiesses and does rowsing speach on rewarding honesty blah blah blah. Woman gets her welfare cheque AND gets the $2000.00.

John Galt prays woman does something useful with the money like buy a business suit and enroll in college courses so that she can get an education and get a job. John Galt doesn't hold breath though, cause he know's what's coming.

Boxing Day, media does follow up story about how the woman spent all $2000 (almost all, I'll get to where the rest is going to go) on toys for her kids. (meanwhile kid breaks one of the toys on national television so you see money flushing down the toliet right there in front of your eyes). Woman brags about how happy her kids were with all of the crap gifts she gave them yada, yada, yada. Then explains that the rest of the money is ear marked for Boxing Day sales for more crap.

Yes, people are losers for a reason. This woman got a free ticket to a self-sufficent life, and long term happiness for her kids where they could have had good clothes, good food and respected themselves instead of leaching off society. But instead, she pisses the money away and buys crap for them that does nothing to help their situation.

Losers are as losers do. They are that way for a reason. We need to stop helping them be losers and let them be losers without the government stealing my money to facilitate them doing it (a gang is still a gang even if they have M16s and F18s that fall from the skys because of not enough memory in their 486 computers on board). It would be amazing how fast most losers would stop being losers as soon as they weren't allowed to be losers by the government writting them a cheque every month (and yes, we'd still have homeless, but I did my own study during university (only thing I learned that was at all usefull) on the subject of homeless and why they're homeless in the first place. I'll share it with you... it's more losers are as losers do though, so get ready.) and they're also there for a reason. Well except for the mentally impaired (God I'm being PC tonight! ) but then we try and cut back as much funding as we can for the only people that society should ligitimently work to help... brilliant system eh?

Comments (Page 1)
3 Pages1 2 3 
on Dec 29, 2004
Gait's new year resolution: spare the rod over the backs of women on welfare.
on Dec 29, 2004
Na, just take the welfare away entirely. I'd rather have a new street bike than pay for a twit to waste money all of the time and continually destroy her life every opertunity she gets (especially when she's given the opertunity instead of earns it). See I work. I produce. I deserve the money I make. She steals the money she gets (via the government) and does a piss poor job at that.

Your only job in life is to support yourself (and your children if you have them). It's not hard. It really is quite easy. You don't have to be intelligent, you don't have to be athletic, you just have to put some effort into it. And that's what they don't like. They'd rather steal (or more precisely let someone else steal for them, because they're even too lazy to steal for themselves) than put effort into it. And don't bother with the "bad luck" bullshit. It's just that: Bullshit.
on Dec 29, 2004

I did my own study during university (only thing I learned that was at all usefull) on the subject of homeless and why they're homeless in the first place. I'll share it with you... it's more losers are as losers do though, so get ready.) and they're also there for a reason. Well except for the mentally impaired (God I'm being PC tonight! ) but then we try and cut back as much funding as we can for the only people that society should ligitimently work to help... brilliant system eh?

the history of homelessness as we know it today is fairly short--at least in america.  i dont know if your research led you back as far as the 50s.  while there may have been transients (mostly male) who didnt reside any place permanently, i doubt there were more than a couple thousand altogether.  there were people who were chronically unemployed by choice or consequence of their own foolishness, but i doubt anyone who lived in the 50s and 60s in america will disagree that the only place we ever saw colonies of people living on the streets was on film or in news reports about third world countries.

you might find it interesting to do another study (it wont take very long actually) to determine why that changed.   the answer(s) are well within google reach.

on Dec 29, 2004
Yeah a bit of a simplistic analysis really John. Nice as it would be to think that just because she has 2 grand suddenly she could afford to put herself through college despite the fact that she probably didn't have the marks to get into college, this is the real world. 2 grand would probably buy about one year of college, during which time she would obviously have to somehow bring in the dough and most importantly raise her kids. And of course it would only buy that tuition if she could get in, which she probably couldn't, because fortunately there are still some academic requirements for getting in.

"without the government stealing my money to facilitate them doing it "

boy poor you, I'm crying into my expensive keyboard with sympathy.
on Dec 29, 2004

There are truly hard luck cases out there.  But they are the minority.  Most "poor" people in the United States are poor because, simply put, they are losers.

You could increase welfare three-fold and they would still squander it.  Most people I've met who think of the "noble poor" have no real experience in dealing with them on a day to day basis (unless they themselves are poor and it's not their fault they had 3 out of wedlock children, got addicted to heroine, and can't hold a job).

on Dec 29, 2004
Champas Socialist:

First in Ontario the socalist have made it so that anyone over the age of 23 doesn't have to have the grades to get into College.
Second College is cheapo here. Unviersity is very much more money, but College is cheap. That's because we use College in the correct definition of the word instead of the US definition of the word that has been bastardized to mean Princton and Havard which are actually universities. To go to Georgian Collage, one year of tuition is ~$2000 for someone on an income to pay for and even then you can get student loans to help you with the rest, which she could have easily used some of her welfare cheque for (instead of beer) to pay the rest off like the rest of us do. For someone on Welfare, you get it for almost nothing, so it could have easily been done without any hassle at all.

Thus you entire position is based on ignorance. But then the socialist position IS based on ignorance.

The answer that you suggest I google is because society around the 50s and 60s started giving people something for nothing. Actually it started before then, but the effects started to be noticed because it took that long for people to change their view of being lazy) It was welfare in all of it's various forms that caused homelessness and losers. If you want proof of this, look at the Canadian unemployment rate compared to the US. All things being equal there should be fewer people on welfare based on the socialist position. However Canada has a higher unemployment rate that the US. Why? Because it's more profitable to steal money through welfare than it is to work at a 7-11. In fact, if you look at it, there is a direct corrolation between the rise of socialism in the west and the west's homelessness/welfare problem (they're pretty much the same thing). So if you want to be honest with yourself, blame the real creator of the problem: Socialism.

Hard luck cases come from people making stupid choices in the first place. It's buying the 50" TV set instead of keeping 3 months of income in the bank at all times to ensure that if something bad does happen you can get back up on your feet. It's the 50 credit cards all maxed out at 28% interest that causes the hard luck cases. Stupid choices does not a sympathy make. You get what you pay for and reap what you sow, and pay for the consequences of your own actions. So by defintion there is no such thing as a hard luck case, only stupidity that cause people to not plan ahead so that they could deal with shit happening. (i.e. deciding that instead of house insurance they would buy another 24 of beer a month and then they're house burns down (true story))
on Dec 29, 2004
"Most people I've met who think of the "noble poor" have no real experience in dealing with them"

Guess those charity workers just do it because they like wasting their lives.

"There are truly hard luck cases out there."

I don't think it's necessarily much to do with bad luck as the fact that our society values certain skills and attributes and not every one has those attributes trained in them. Our education system works well for developing some people's skills, and not well for others. Add to that the fact that many people grow up in situations that make school success extremely unlikely, and really it ain't that surprising that our system works to make sure some people end up on welfare.

"Most "poor" people in the United States are poor because, simply put, they are losers."

Boy well that was a convincing argument. Quit whinging about how poor little you loses all your money to those bloody bums. Get over it.
on Dec 29, 2004
Hmm, I say "2 grand would probably buy about one year of college"

Then you counter me by saying " To go to Georgian Collage, one year of tuition is ~$2000"

Hang on, no you just agreed with me.

"welfare cheque for (instead of beer)"

I thought it was toys. Or do you just assume that everyone on the dole pisses their pay up against a wall?

"Thus you entire position is based on ignorance. But then the socialist position IS based on ignorance."

Look I make no secret of the fact that I'm an Australian in Australia, not the USA, but come on get your hand off it. You may disagree with socialism, but it makes you look foolish when you just make blanket statements like this.

"It's buying the 50" TV set instead of keeping 3 months of income in the bank at all times to ensure that if something bad does happen you can get back up on your feet. "

In many cases this is true. But not everyone is born into the privilege you and I were either. Not everyone got the relatively smooth upbringing we got. It is possible to overcome some of the odds that people face from day one of their lives, but I doubt many of us who were born into the middle class or the working class would have reacted any differently if faced with the same difficulties.
on Dec 29, 2004
To go to Georgian Collage, one year of tuition is ~$2000 for someone on an income to pay for and even then you can get student loans to help you with the rest, which she could have easily used some of her welfare cheque for (instead of beer) to pay the rest off like the rest of us do. For someone on Welfare, you get it for almost nothing, so it could have easily been done without any hassle at all.


That's just balls. You cannot get student loans/OSAP and get welfare at the same time. A full year term at Georgian is not just 2000.oo. You're not even factoring in books, additional fees, childcare costs, transportation, etc,. Hell, there are so many arguements that you have presented in your article that are way off... factoring in population and available employment opportunities is something that you've left out.

I do agree that remaining on welfare v/s that great 7/11 job is often the choice that is made, but don't leave it as such a simplistic notion that people are too damned lazy for not taking it. There's way more to it than just that: again, factor in transportation costs, childcare costs... in many cases, its the latter two that end up becoming the necessity. You end up having to remain on welfare because, financially it's costing more to get a legitimate job than not.


on Dec 29, 2004

The answer that you suggest I google is because society around the 50s and 60s started giving people something for nothing.

would it not have been a total waste of our time (not to mention the world's valuable virtual paper resources) to suggest you look for information to further reinforce your own conclusion? 

in a way, your response isnt that far off the mark--altho not by intent on your part.  homelessness--the kind seen in america and canada--is a direct result of giving a specific group of people something and nothing actually.  reagan was elected governor of california in the mid-60s because, among other things, he promised to balance the state budget.  unfortunately for him--and the people who voted him into office--that was an impossible task due to a number of factors, most beyond reagan's control. 

using recently enacted legislation, intended to prevent  abusive forcible confined of the mentally ill in state hospitals as part of the previous governor's program to rehabilitate the state's mental health program, reagan first fired so many of the psychiatrists and psychologists working at state outpatient clinics that the inpatient population grew to record levels.  the state was taken to court by state fire marshalls and ordered to reduce hospital occupancy.  at the time, estimated cost of treating a mentally ill inpatient was $20,000 a year and there were, at that point, 40,000 patients approximately in 13 state hospitals. reagan had 14,000 of them removed from hospitals by bussing them to their counties of origin--wearing only the clothes on their backs-- and released. each was given $1. this was followed by the closure of more than half of the state's mental hospitals.  while this saved the state a substantial amount of money, it became a model for every other state and--when reagan was elected president--the federal system as well. consequently tens of thousands of former mental patients were dumped out on the streets. it's estimate that at very least 1/3 of all homeless people today are mentally ill.

on Dec 29, 2004
You are a freaking dickhead and I hope you get hit by a car, you yuppie scumbag..
on Dec 29, 2004

Turns in money.


after rereading this, i realized this is the part that really brands her a loser. 

on Dec 29, 2004
Reminds me out of the book The Losers I read once about a bunch of people on welfare. Sad story about someone who was going to University from a rich family got hit by a car and lost his leg and arm. Point is he lived in this town where the people there were losers. He tried to use the people there to make a business to generate a future. The business fails and ultimately he becomes a loser there for a long time, just living off the system. One day he picks himself off the street and gives time to charity helping out people even less fortunate. Gets over a pain-addicted pain-killer life and does something usefull. Here's a woman with an opportunity to do sometihng usefull and she pissed it away. The 40k yes she could have kept it and helpped her family. Yes she could have taken the reward money + welfare check and gone to college. Just to give her family a future, but here she's just another loser who will always be on welfare because hey she gets her monlthy celibration of good times. It's party time in Welfre land time to light up and booze up. It's party time here lets piss away our future from one check to another.
on Dec 29, 2004
Reminds me out of the book The Losers I read once about a bunch of people on welfare. Sad story about someone who was going to University from a rich family got hit by a car and lost his leg and arm. Point is he lived in this town where the people there were losers. He tried to use the people there to make a business to generate a future. The business fails and ultimately he becomes a loser there for a long time, just living off the system. One day he picks himself off the street and gives time to charity helping out people even less fortunate. Gets over a pain-addicted pain-killer life and does something usefull. Here's a woman with an opportunity to do sometihng usefull and she pissed it away. The 40k yes she could have kept it and helpped her family. Yes she could have taken the reward money + welfare check and gone to college. Just to give her family a future, but here she's just another loser who will always be on welfare because hey she gets her monlthy celibration of good times. It's party time in Welfre land time to light up and booze up. It's party time here lets piss away our future from one check to another.
on Dec 29, 2004
Reminds me out of the book The Losers I read once about a bunch of people on welfare. Sad story about someone who was going to University from a rich family got hit by a car and lost his leg and arm. Point is he lived in this town where the people there were losers. He tried to use the people there to make a business to generate a future. The business fails and ultimately he becomes a loser there for a long time, just living off the system. One day he picks himself off the street and gives time to charity helping out people even less fortunate. Gets over a pain-addicted pain-killer life and does something usefull. Here's a woman with an opportunity to do sometihng usefull and she pissed it away. The 40k yes she could have kept it and helpped her family. Yes she could have taken the reward money + welfare check and gone to college. Just to give her family a future, but here she's just another loser who will always be on welfare because hey she gets her monlthy celibration of good times. It's party time in Welfre land time to light up and booze up. It's party time here lets piss away our future from one check to another.
3 Pages1 2 3