More
2

It's a matter of fact that those who are poor tend to typically lower IQ. You can dispute this all you want, but facts are facts. I think we ought to treat the poor who collect welfare with more rigor and give them more attention. I think there needs to be an end to the neoliberal ways of throwing money at them and expecting them to have a clue with what to do with it.

https://i.imgur.com/SyETooH.png

When you're on welfare, you should accept a cut in financial freedom in return for assistance. National economies have to meet a certain criteria for getting aid and/or loans. Why shouldn't the poor? Welfare should be a tool for learning and paving the way for preventative measures. I could liken the individual to an economy of an African banana republic. Unless you take the leap to meet certain conditions, you should be ineligible for welfare.

We ought to control the spending of those on welfare. They're poor because they have no money management ability. Why do we continue to just give them money when it doesn't help? I think it's shocking that beneficiary parents are given the liberty to buy drugs with public money while children have to go without food. Why aren't we controlling their spending habits?

The best way to control their spending is by direct targeting of welfare. Food stamps are a great example of a streamlined welfare programme with very little abuse. There are certain eftpos-like cards that work for certain goods and services. We should deploy that to those who demonstrate they have the mental capacity to handling of their own finances.

Why aren't we more stringent towards the poor's treatment of public housing? They're allowed to move into a house, trash it, then get rewarded with another one where the cycle repeats. There's no respect for the property of others. If you destroy more expensive welfare like public housing, you should be homeless on the streets. There are plenty of good properties, publicly owned, that have been plagued by individuals who destroy entire blocks. That is a roof that could and should be going to a mother fleeing an abusive situation with her children.

I can't stand the lack of push to not get a job. Inter-generational illiteracy, unemployment and reliance on the state. We should be pushing to get people off welfare as soon as possible. If there isn't the jobs at the lower-end, we should be training them up in apprenticeships or getting them involved in some form of workfare.

There are legitimate cases for welfare for those naturally unlucky. We can and should still target to help their needs directly. The crippled deserve direct help. Fortunately, the status quo does this already. There doesn't need to be any specific widespread change in this area.

I believe we need to be controlling the poor on welfare. They don't deserve the same amount of economic freedom as someone who earns their income. Their economic liberties should be sacrificed in exchange for assistance.
It's a matter of fact that those who are poor tend to typically lower IQ. You can dispute this all you want, but facts are facts. I think we ought to treat the poor who collect welfare with more rigor and give them more attention. I think there needs to be an end to the neoliberal ways of throwing money at them and expecting them to have a clue with what to do with it. https://i.imgur.com/SyETooH.png When you're on welfare, you should accept a cut in financial freedom in return for assistance. National economies have to meet a certain criteria for getting aid and/or loans. Why shouldn't the poor? Welfare should be a tool for learning and paving the way for preventative measures. I could liken the individual to an economy of an African banana republic. Unless you take the leap to meet certain conditions, you should be ineligible for welfare. We ought to control the spending of those on welfare. They're poor because they have no money management ability. Why do we continue to just give them money when it doesn't help? I think it's shocking that beneficiary parents are given the liberty to buy drugs with public money while children have to go without food. Why aren't we controlling their spending habits? The best way to control their spending is by direct targeting of welfare. Food stamps are a great example of a streamlined welfare programme with very little abuse. There are certain eftpos-like cards that work for certain goods and services. We should deploy that to those who demonstrate they have the mental capacity to handling of their own finances. Why aren't we more stringent towards the poor's treatment of public housing? They're allowed to move into a house, trash it, then get rewarded with another one where the cycle repeats. There's no respect for the property of others. If you destroy more expensive welfare like public housing, you should be homeless on the streets. There are plenty of good properties, publicly owned, that have been plagued by individuals who destroy entire blocks. That is a roof that could and should be going to a mother fleeing an abusive situation with her children. I can't stand the lack of push to not get a job. Inter-generational illiteracy, unemployment and reliance on the state. We should be pushing to get people off welfare as soon as possible. If there isn't the jobs at the lower-end, we should be training them up in apprenticeships or getting them involved in some form of workfare. There are legitimate cases for welfare for those naturally unlucky. We can and should still target to help their needs directly. The crippled deserve direct help. Fortunately, the status quo does this already. There doesn't need to be any specific widespread change in this area. I believe we need to be controlling the poor on welfare. They don't deserve the same amount of economic freedom as someone who earns their income. Their economic liberties should be sacrificed in exchange for assistance.

8 comments

[–] PMYA 6 points (+6|-0)

Some poor people might be retarded. But I think you have it the wrong way around. A poor person scoring low on an IQ test does not necessarily mean they're poor because they're stupid, it's probably that they're stupid because they're poor.

Parents in low income households not being able to spend time with children, not getting into good schools, not pursuing higher education, constant stress, living in rough areas etc are not symptoms of being stupid, they're symptoms of being poor.
[–] Mattvision 2 points (+2|-0) Edited

A poor person scoring low on an IQ test does not necessarily mean they're poor because they're stupid, it's probably that they're stupid because they're poor.

IQ tests target intelligence, not education. It's almost entirely a matter of the individuals genetics. The idea that upbringing has any real influence on it is a myth, and contrary evidence has been appearing over and over again. 'Nurture over nature' (at least when it comes to IQ) is only really taken seriously in leftist academic circles, and is on par with socialist economic theories and gender science.

Source

2

3

4 (this is a big one, it says that environmental influences on children are temporary)
[–] PMYA 2 points (+2|-0)

It's almost entirely a matter of the individuals genetics

I am not seeing this at all in the links you provided though.

A major review of studies on twins published last year in the journal Nature Genetics found that 49 percent of the average variation for human traits and diseases comes down to genetics, while 51 percent was due to environmental factors.

"Scientists are probably just as split as they have always been on the nature vs. nurture issue," John Protzko, a developmental psychologist at the university and the study's lead author, said in a statement. "Almost all will agree that it is a mix of both; but that is largely where progress ends."

The researchers found that environmental interventions boosted intelligence -- but only temporarily. The gains in intelligence were not permanent; rather, they diminished over time, illustrating what the researchers refer to as the "fadeout effect."

"You can't just go in, change one aspect of the children's lives, and expect permanent gains," Protzko said. "Eventually, the experiment ends and they go back into their same homes and environments."

So I'll put it forward again. A kid growing up in a shit environment is almost certainly going to be affected by their surroundings.
[–] Sarcastaway 3 points (+3|-0)

Who's more retarded: the poor, or the people that allow the system that makes more poor people?

I have a hard time calling those people retarded when they're just taking full advantage of a system of free stuff designed to ingratiate an entire economic class to a particular party.
[–] OeeThaGreat 2 points (+2|-0) Edited

I don't think they need to controlled but all of their welfare programs need to be greatly limited. Food stamps should only cover basic foods, nothing prepackaged, no snacks. Just straight up cheap ass bread, rice, beans, fresh veggies/fruit and the cheapest cuts of meat. The government could offer some sort of mandatory cooking class for those who want to sign up for food stamps.

And don't get me started on their free medical shit. I work with a dude that goes to the ER for EVERYTHING. Last week he went to the ER because his belly hurt (he skipped out on work to do it). The doctors fucking told the guy it was gas! He went in because he may have had slight discomfort and needed to fucking fart! My point is that a lot of these people are to fucking stupid to realize what constitutes a real medical emergency, but because it's free, they will head over to the doctor because of every little ache or pain, wasting the hospitals time and tax payer dollars. That free medical shit needs to be limited to real emergencies only, broken bones and real problems not some simple things just because they have some slight discomfort. Meanwhile, a Navy veteran I know has to jump through hoops just to get the proper medical care he needs. Even for an ER visit he needs to call up veteran affairs, wait for a nurse to respond, then sign off on the visit. It's utter bullshit how we treat our vets worse than lazy poor people.
[–] [Deleted] 1 points (+1|-0)

That free medical shit needs to be limited to real emergencies only

Who should triage that?
[–] OeeThaGreat 0 points (+0|-0)

I'm not saying anyone needs to be deciding which patient is a priority, it just shouldn't be free. They have every right to go in to the ER over a belly ache, but when it turns out to be fucking gas, then that patient should be required to pay that bill. I bet a lot of those people with free health insurance would be a lot less likely to waste everyone's time and money at the ER if they had to pay that bill when they go in for a freaking hang nail.
[–] KillBill 0 points (+0|-0)

I had a woman complain to me that she had to go through bins for food yet smoked a packet of cigarettes a day. That's 30 dollars a day or more just there. I can eat like a king for 30 dollars a day. I also suspect she had a meth or at least dope habit. That shit doesn't come cheap either. Shes is on a disability pension for some mental illness and that's 440AUD a week no tax. She never buys anything new, and her house is a low rent commission house part of which is paid by rental assistance. She does run her heater all day and night which means the bill must be enormous.

Meanwhile when I got sick for a while i was left on the unemployment benefit, they didn't care that I was paying off a loan costing me 240 a week and I was eating 2 minute noodles most nights to survive and could barely afford to run a heater.

On the other hand what the fuck are governments doing to educate people? Why aren't they teaching them some life skills instead of this short term memory stacking bullshit that is doled out now. Teach people how to do simple budgeting, teach them how to eat healthy and stack energy for endurance and ignore the advertising bullshit big food companies peddle 24/7, teach people how to sew and cook and fix their cars.

©2016-2022 Phuks LLC. All Rights Reserved.
ToS | Privacy | Changelog | Canary | Donate | Bugs | License
Served by c7693d2284ae