byrnes@ge-dab.UUCP (Arthur J. Byrnes) (09/04/86)
(MUNCH) The discussion about poor people has been rather interesting, but no one has gotten to the real meat of the subject. We (the USA) have been spending more on poor people then any society in history. But the percentages have remained about the same, except for on notable figure. The more we spend on poor people, the more poor people we create! Some one here flamed the libertarians pretty badly, with a phrase something like; "They never look at the consequences." (sorry if I paraphrased too badly). I'm not a libertarian, but it seems they have the right idea. If we spend less on poor people, then we will have less poor people. Anyway, lets see some other solutions to this problem, since throwing gobs of money at it hasn't worked. Arthur J. Byrnes Disclaimer: these opinions are my own. (no one else wants them)
goldberg@su-russell.UUCP (09/09/86)
In article <343@ge-dab.UUCP> byrnes@ge-dab.UUCP (Arthur J. Byrnes) writes: > If we spend less on poor people, then we will >have less poor people. Actually, taking them out and shooting them might have the same effect only it would be faster. Mass gassing, I understand, is cheaper then wasting bullets. >Arthur J. Byrnes >Disclaimer: these opinions are my own. (no one else >wants them) How right you are! -Jeff Goldberg /* ** Jeff Goldberg ** ** ARPA: goldberg@russell.stanford.edu, goldberg@csli.stanford.edu ** UUCP: ...!hplabs!russell.stanford.edu!goldberg */
dce@mips.UUCP (09/09/86)
In article <199@su-russell.ARPA> goldberg@su-russell.UUCP (Jeffrey Goldberg) writes: >In article <343@ge-dab.UUCP> byrnes@ge-dab.UUCP (Arthur J. Byrnes) writes: >> If we spend less on poor people, then we will >>have less poor people. > >Actually, taking them out and shooting them might have the same >effect only it would be faster. Mass gassing, I understand, is >cheaper then wasting bullets. > I take this to mean that you think that cutting off poor people is akin to starving them. I don't agree with this. I do know that this statement has some shred of truth in it. There are poor people that commit suicide simply because they are a burden to the family, and many more have thought about it. The question here is whether simply giving money to the poor is a good idea. My opinion is that this country is creating a group of people whose best skills involve filling out forms and standing in lines. There are people in this country doing nothing because there is nothing for them to do. What's wrong with creating jobs for these people? People argue that creating jobs costs more money than simply giving the money away. That's true, but you get what you pay for. If it costs $10 an hour to pay someone $3.50 an hour to pick up litter out of ditches, we get a clean ditch and a working person (but is this person still poor?). If it costs $5 an hour to provide this person with a welfare check, we get a clean conscience and some happy welfare workers. >>Arthur J. Byrnes > >>Disclaimer: these opinions are my own. (no one else >>wants them) >How right you are! > >-Jeff Goldberg Arthur was silly to add that extra line. I don't blame Jeff for this last shot. David
showard@udenva.UUCP (Steve "Blore" Howard) (09/09/86)
In article <343@ge-dab.UUCP> byrnes@ge-dab.UUCP (Arthur J. Byrnes) writes: > >We (the USA) have been spending more on poor people >then any society in history. But the percentages >have remained about the same, except for on notable >figure. The more we spend on poor people, the more >poor people we create! > >I'm not a libertarian, but it seems they have the right >idea. If we spend less on poor people, then we will >have less poor people. > And if we napalm poor neighborhoods, we'll have even fewer. And if we make the death sentence mandatory for minor offenses, we'll have fewer criminals. And if we drown minority babies at birth, there'll be less racial disharmony. We're talking about human beings here, after all. Such cold-blooded tactics may look all right in the accountant's ledger, but who has to go out and say, "I'm sorry, Mrs. Jones, but we've decided to spend less money on poor people in order to get the infant mortality rate back up where it should be, so no more food stamps for little Johnny."? -- "I can walk like an ape, I can talk like an ape, I can do what the monkey can do" Steve "Blore" Howard, a Fun Guy from Yuggoth {hplabs, seismo}!hao!udenva!showard or {boulder, cires, ucbvax!nbires, cisden}!udenva!showard
mjranum@gouldsd.UUCP (Marcus J. Ranum) (09/10/86)
Whatever happened to Social Darwinism ? "Think of it as evolution in action...." -- Lightning flash, crash Better than my verses.... white Ueno ? Asakura ?
kas@hp-pcd.UUCP (kas) (09/10/86)
Seen on a bumper sticker:
"Work harder. Millions on welfare depend on you."
*
/ \
|---/---\---| Ken Scofield C-9355
| Gone | Hewlett-Packard PCD
| Jumpin' | Corvallis, OR
|-----------|
{ucbvax!hplabs, harpo, ogcvax}!hp-pcd!kasrob@dadla.UUCP (Rob Vetter) (09/11/86)
In article <343@ge-dab.UUCP> byrnes@ge-dab.UUCP (Arthur J. Byrnes) writes: > > If we spend less on poor people, then we will >have less poor people. Just like the captain of the Titanic said before it sunk, "If we bail less water out of the boat, we'll have less in the boat." I do understand your point, however the problem is not the amount spent, but the effectiveness of the spending. Charities regularly publish statistics on the amount of money regularly going directly to those in need. A 80% rate is considered excellent. As aid programs get larger, 50% is considered good. Generally the larger the organization, the smaller the percentage that gets to the purported recipients. The US government is one of the worlds largest. I'd like to see their statistics. -- Rob Vetter (503) 629-1044 [ihnp4, ucbvax, decvax, uw-beaver]!tektronix!dadla!rob "Waste is a terrible thing to mind" - NRC (Well, they COULD have said it)
david@tekig5.UUCP (David Hayes) (09/11/86)
In article <199@su-russell.ARPA> goldberg@su-russell.UUCP (Jeffrey Goldberg) writes: >In article <343@ge-dab.UUCP> byrnes@ge-dab.UUCP (Arthur J. Byrnes) writes: >> If we spend less on poor people, then we will >>have less poor people. > >Actually, taking them out and shooting them might have the same >effect only it would be faster. Mass gassing, I understand, is >cheaper then wasting bullets. > >>Arthur J. Byrnes > >>Disclaimer: these opinions are my own. (no one else >>wants them) >How right you are! > >-Jeff Goldberg If you are living comfortably on welfare, just what the hell is your incentive to go out and earn your own way? dave
speter@mit-trillian.MIT.EDU (Peter Osgood) (09/11/86)
In article <174@gouldsd.UUCP> mjranum@gouldsd.UUCP (Marcus J. Ranum) writes: > >Whatever happened to Social Darwinism ? Most of us rejected it because we realize that we are indeed our brother's keeper. ---peter osgood---
cramer@kontron.UUCP (Clayton Cramer) (09/13/86)
> In article <174@gouldsd.UUCP> mjranum@gouldsd.UUCP (Marcus J. Ranum) writes: > > > >Whatever happened to Social Darwinism ? > > Most of us rejected it because we realize that we are indeed our > brother's keeper. > > ---peter osgood--- Being "our brother's keeper" is a wonderful idea -- as long as people don't start becoming lazy just to avoid having to work. This is the heart of the opposition to making "welfare" (in quotes because the term is nebulous, and refers to a large group of only vaguely related programs) available to those who are able to work. (Especially since work is readily available.) Clayton E. Cramer
mc68020@gilbbs.UUCP (Thomas J Keller) (09/15/86)
In article <1067@kontron.UUCP>, cramer@kontron.UUCP (Clayton Cramer) writes: > > In article <174@gouldsd.UUCP> mjranum@gouldsd.UUCP (Marcus J. Ranum) writes: > > >Whatever happened to Social Darwinism ? > > > > Most of us rejected it because we realize that we are indeed our > > brother's keeper. > > Being "our brother's keeper" is a wonderful idea -- as long as people > don't start becoming lazy just to avoid having to work. This is the > heart of the opposition to making "welfare" (in quotes because the > term is nebulous, and refers to a large group of only vaguely related > programs) available to those who are able to work. (Especially since > work is readily available.) As usual, the 'libertarians' make seemingly reasonable statements which mask half-truths or deliberate misinformation. Sure, there is work available for *MANY* (not all) who are able to work. BUT, can one earn a LIVING WAGE doing the work that is available. In most cases, no. According to every survey and study I have encountered, of all the "new jobs" being created by the economy MOST are minimum wage jobs. It is simply not feasible to provide for a family on minimum wage. I suggest that this makes the 'libertarian' argument that there are jobs unfilled, therefore there are lazy people a crock. Sure, there are some lazy people. To typify all, or even most unemployed persons as lazy is a dishonest and deliberately misleading tactic. -- Disclaimer: Disclaimer? DISCLAIMER!? I don't need no stinking DISCLAIMER!!! tom keller "She's alive, ALIVE!" {ihnp4, dual}!ptsfa!gilbbs!mc68020 (* we may not be big, but we're small! *)
rt@cpsc53.UUCP (Ron Thompson) (09/16/86)
> >I'm not a libertarian, but it seems they have the right > >idea. If we spend less on poor people, then we will > >have less poor people. > > > And if we napalm poor neighborhoods, we'll have even fewer. And if we > make the death sentence mandatory for minor offenses, we'll have fewer > criminals. And if we drown minority babies at birth, there'll be less > racial disharmony. > Interesting how two people can read the same words and interpret them so differently. I took the first paragraph to mean that the less attractive we make it to be poor, the more incentive there will be to be something other than poor. Actually the only people that should be on the list for handouts are the mentally incompetent and the severely physically disabled. I see too many jobs open at minimum wages and above to believe otherwise. The first category I interpret to include people that have more children than they can afford to feed because they don't qualify for wages that will. I can't see justifying the punishment of children that have no control over the situation, but at the same time, I can't justify having others pay for the material possessions of those that don't have the responsibility to earn it themselves. -- Ron Thompson AT&T Information Systems Customer Programming (404) 982-4217 Atlanta, Georgia Services Center ..{ihnp4,akgua}!cpsc53!rt (Opinions expressed are mine alone.)
cramer@kontron.UUCP (09/17/86)
> In article <1067@kontron.UUCP>, cramer@kontron.UUCP (Clayton Cramer) writes: > > > In article <174@gouldsd.UUCP> mjranum@gouldsd.UUCP (Marcus J. Ranum) writes: > > > >Whatever happened to Social Darwinism ? > > > > > > Most of us rejected it because we realize that we are indeed our > > > brother's keeper. > > > > Being "our brother's keeper" is a wonderful idea -- as long as people > > don't start becoming lazy just to avoid having to work. This is the > > heart of the opposition to making "welfare" (in quotes because the > > term is nebulous, and refers to a large group of only vaguely related > > programs) available to those who are able to work. (Especially since > > work is readily available.) > > As usual, the 'libertarians' make seemingly reasonable statements which > mask half-truths or deliberate misinformation. > > Sure, there is work available for *MANY* (not all) who are able to work. > BUT, can one earn a LIVING WAGE doing the work that is available. In most > cases, no. According to every survey and study I have encountered, of all > the "new jobs" being created by the economy MOST are minimum wage jobs. > It is simply not feasible to provide for a family on minimum wage. > Minimum wage is still more money than welfare pays. If you can't raise a family on minimum wage, you can't do it on AFDC. > I suggest that this makes the 'libertarian' argument that there are jobs > unfilled, therefore there are lazy people a crock. Sure, there are some > lazy people. To typify all, or even most unemployed persons as lazy is > a dishonest and deliberately misleading tactic. > > tom keller "She's alive, ALIVE!" The most generous welfare program is AFDC. Recipients are seldom capable of working because they usually have small children at home. On the other hand, the reason the mother is receiving AFDC is frequently because the father of the kids is unwilling to work. I've seen it a lot in people I know. And yes, even where Tom Keller lives in Sonoma County, there are minimum wage jobs going begging. Clayton E. Cramer
scott@hou2g.UUCP (Ma-Ma-Ma-Max Ma-Ma-Max Headroom) (09/21/86)
If most of the "new jobs" are minimum wage jobs, simply pay out in welfare only the difference between what is being paid now, and what could be earned at minimum wage. That way, it forces people who simply do not WANT to work to get a job to feed their family. Scott
mc68020@gilbbs.UUCP (Thomas J Keller) (09/24/86)
In article <975@hou2g.UUCP>, scott@hou2g.UUCP (Ma-Ma-Ma-Max Ma-Ma-Max Headroom) writes: > If most of the "new jobs" are minimum wage jobs, simply pay out > in welfare only the difference between what is being paid now, > and what could be earned at minimum wage. That way, it forces > people who simply do not WANT to work to get a job to feed their > family. Great idea, Scott. Only two problems: 1) there *USED* to be such a program. The Reagan Adminstration dismantled it within months of taking office, on the grounds that it would save money. In point of fact, sufficiently large numbers of recipients, realizing they couldn't live on their part-time minimum wage jobs quit or got themselves fired, and went back to receiving full welfare benefits, thus costing the government much *MORE* money. 2) the fact is that in many places (California is one) one can actually survive (however meagerly) on welfare. One often cannot survive on a minimum wage salary. One reason for this is that while the actual cash income is approximately the same, under welfare (at least in Ca) one receives *SOME* medical benefits. In a minimum wage job, one does not. On a slightly different topic, I keep seeing 'libertarians' talking about those "irresponsible" welfare recipients who have large families. What these people fail to realize (deliberately, I suspect) is that today, there are many largish families on welfare that were large when the parents were earning, but due to massive layoffs in many industries, these families no longer have an independent income. Now, your typical 'libertarian' will argue that these folks should accept *ANY* job that comes along, regardless of pay scale. The fact that these families simply *CANNOT* survive at the pay scales of *MOST* available jobs doesn't even occur to 'libertarians'. And of course, these highly knowledgable 'libertarians' also fail to realize that fast food outfits seldom hire full time employees. Yet, the 'libertarians' are extremely fond of suggesting that these folks should take fast food jobs rather than accept welfare. Face it. "Libertarian" is a synonym for "cynical, self-righteous, self- satisfied, self-centered greedy bastard". -- Disclaimer: Disclaimer? DISCLAIMER!? I don't need no stinking DISCLAIMER!!! tom keller "She's alive, ALIVE!" {ihnp4, dual}!ptsfa!gilbbs!mc68020 (* we may not be big, but we're small! *)
cramer@kontron.UUCP (Clayton Cramer) (09/26/86)
> In article <975@hou2g.UUCP>, scott@hou2g.UUCP (Ma-Ma-Ma-Max Ma-Ma-Max Headroom) writes: > > If most of the "new jobs" are minimum wage jobs, simply pay out > > in welfare only the difference between what is being paid now, > > and what could be earned at minimum wage. That way, it forces > > people who simply do not WANT to work to get a job to feed their > > family. > > Great idea, Scott. Only two problems: > > 1) there *USED* to be such a program. The Reagan Adminstration dismantled > it within months of taking office, on the grounds that it would save > money. In point of fact, sufficiently large numbers of recipients, > realizing they couldn't live on their part-time minimum wage jobs > quit or got themselves fired, and went back to receiving full welfare > benefits, thus costing the government much *MORE* money. > Yes. About 10% of the recipients ended up on welfare. A bad decision by the Reagan Administration -- anyone that shows enough drive to work when they can sit around and collect welfare should be the LAST person cut off. > 2) the fact is that in many places (California is one) one can actually > survive (however meagerly) on welfare. One often cannot survive on > a minimum wage salary. One reason for this is that while the actual > cash income is approximately the same, under welfare (at least in Ca) > one receives *SOME* medical benefits. In a minimum wage job, one does > not. > Most of the bigger chains make medical insurance available to full-time employees (not free, however.) The bigger issue, though, is "Do you get better at a minimum wage job?" Yes. For most people, minimum wage jobs are a stepping stone to something a little better paying, or a temporary jobs while in school. Let me point out also that in areas like Santa Clara Valley, fast food restaurants usually start above minimum wage simply because there's a shortage of people interested in jobs. > > On a slightly different topic, I keep seeing 'libertarians' talking about > those "irresponsible" welfare recipients who have large families. What these > people fail to realize (deliberately, I suspect) is that today, there are many > largish families on welfare that were large when the parents were earning, > but due to massive layoffs in many industries, these families no longer have > an independent income. > There are areas of the country where whole industries have evaporated, at least partly because unions drove wage rates up to uneconomic levels. But there are a lot of people collecting welfare who have NEVER worked. > Now, your typical 'libertarian' will argue that these folks should accept > *ANY* job that comes along, regardless of pay scale. The fact that these > families simply *CANNOT* survive at the pay scales of *MOST* available jobs > doesn't even occur to 'libertarians'. And of course, these highly knowledgable > 'libertarians' also fail to realize that fast food outfits seldom hire full > time employees. Yet, the 'libertarians' are extremely fond of suggesting that > these folks should take fast food jobs rather than accept welfare. > If a person has any job skills at all, they aren't starting at minimum wage. My brother-in-law, when not stoned and collecting welfare, has held a variety of jobs, most of which paid between $900 and $1100 a month. This is a guy who graduated high school and has never worked more than two months at any one job in his life. He has no marketable skills of any sort except brute labor. I don't think Tom knows enough people in the welfare class. > Face it. "Libertarian" is a synonym for "cynical, self-righteous, self- > satisfied, self-centered greedy bastard". > > tom keller "She's alive, ALIVE!" Tom is still upset because I suggested that the reason he can't find a job he's willing to take is because he won't live Sonoma County. Of course, he's collecting disability, but trying to get a job. If he's disabled, he can't work. And if he can work, he shouldn't be collecting disability. Everyone now understand why Tom is so concerned that everyone be sympathetic to those who can work and don't want to? Clayton E. Cramer (libertarian, and very unsympathetic to people like Tom Keller)
mc68020@gilbbs.UUCP (Thomas J Keller) (09/28/86)
In article <1085@kontron.UUCP>, cramer@kontron.UUCP (Clayton Cramer) writes: >In article <1033@gilbbs.UUCP> (Thomas J. Keller) writes: > [much irrelevent text deleted to save space - tjk] > > Face it. "Libertarian" is a synonym for "cynical, self-righteous, self- > > satisfied, self-centered greedy bastard". > > > > tom keller "She's alive, ALIVE!" > > Tom is still upset because I suggested that the reason he can't find a > job he's willing to take is because he won't live Sonoma County. Of > course, he's collecting disability, but trying to get a job. If he's > disabled, he can't work. And if he can work, he shouldn't be collecting > disability. Everyone now understand why Tom is so concerned that everyone > be sympathetic to those who can work and don't want to? Cramer, *HOW DARE YOU*????? I corresponded with you private and attempted to explain my situation to you. Had I wished to discuss the matter with the entire net, I would have posted to the net. You had absolutely *NO* right to bring my personal comments to you into the public arena! Compounding the issue is the sleazy manner in which you take what I told you out of context, *AND* mis-represent most of what I said as well. I am not going to bore the net with the details of my personal problems, as I am sure most of these filk aren't interested. I do wish to clear up one issue, however: I am officially certified as disabled, for reasons that are none of your business. I collect SSI disability benefits as a result of this certification. While people with your limited intellectual capabilities may not be able to comprehend such an issue, the SSI regulations recognize that there is much positive benefit for both the recipient *AND* the government in encouraging recipients to attempt "Working in Spite of Your Disability" (quotation from SSI brochure on program of same name). Thus, recipients are permitted to work for a certain length of time as an experiment, to see if they can cope with the problems of working despite their disabilities, without losing eligibility for disability benefits. I have held one job under that program. It didn't work out (again, the reasons are none of your business). I want very much to try another time. I would *LIKE* to earn my own keep, as much for pride sake as to improve my living conditions. Fortunately, the SSI administration is willing to encourage my search. Unlike insensitive, narrow minded jackass 'libertarians', many people realize that a disabled person may not be able to re-locate for a job (particularly an entry-level job in a strange area), and that many jobs are simply not viable for such people. Thus disabled persons are not placed in a "take *ANY* job that comes along, regardless of location, nature or pay scale" situation. Cramer, I specifically pointed out to you 3 reasons why I could *NOT* relocate to the Silicon Valley area. You conveniently ignored all 3, and mis-represented my position as "won't" relocate. As you are *NOT* an MD nor a licensed psychotherapist, I do not consider you qualified to judge the merits of my reaons. Furthermore, you blatantly imply that I am defrauding the government by accepting disability benefits, despite the fact that you are completely unfamiliar with the regulations or rationale behind the disability system, and thouroughly unaware of the nature and scope of my particular disabilities (for the record, the things I did discuss with you didn't cover half of the problems). Finally, through innuendo, you imply that I am not working because I have chosen not to. Much as I never thought I would say something like this, Cramer, I sincerely hope that someone comes along to injure you along the lines of my injuries, such that you cannot work. I would dearly love to see you squirm. I wish to point out to all readers that my comments about 'libertarians' are gross generalizations, which I have held since long before I became disabled and unemployed. My comments and views regarding 'libertarians' have absolutely *NOTHING* to do with Mr. Cramer, or anything he has said to or about me, or about poor people in general. I would note that his sensitivity to my comments is, for me, indicative that I have struck a nerve, and further that in my opinion, Mr. Cramer does in fact personify most of what I consider to be reprehensible and unsavory about 'libertarians'. In closing, let me explain why I made this posting, in light of my recent announcement of temporary retirement from net participation. A friend wrote me a letter and pointed out Mr. Cramer's article to me, so I read it. After many hours of deliberation (and, frankly, a lot of cussing, fuming and screaming...my poor housemate had to take her daughter and leave the house for two hours), I finally determined that I had to make this posting. My retirement still stands, though I will monitor this newsgroup for a short while to see what, if any, excuses Mr. Cramer can make for his irresponsible, unethical and highly offensive behaviour. -- Disclaimer: Disclaimer? DISCLAIMER!? I don't need no stinking DISCLAIMER!!! tom keller "She's alive, ALIVE!" {ihnp4, dual}!ptsfa!gilbbs!mc68020 (* we may not be big, but we're small! *)
cramer@kontron.UUCP (Clayton Cramer) (09/29/86)
> In article <1085@kontron.UUCP>, cramer@kontron.UUCP (Clayton Cramer) writes: > >In article <1033@gilbbs.UUCP> (Thomas J. Keller) writes: > > [much irrelevent text deleted to save space - tjk] > > > Face it. "Libertarian" is a synonym for "cynical, self-righteous, self- > > > satisfied, self-centered greedy bastard". > > > > > > tom keller "She's alive, ALIVE!" > > > > Tom is still upset because I suggested that the reason he can't find a > > job he's willing to take is because he won't live Sonoma County. Of > > course, he's collecting disability, but trying to get a job. If he's > > disabled, he can't work. And if he can work, he shouldn't be collecting > > disability. Everyone now understand why Tom is so concerned that everyone > > be sympathetic to those who can work and don't want to? > > Cramer, *HOW DARE YOU*????? I corresponded with you private and attempted > to explain my situation to you. Had I wished to discuss the matter with the > entire net, I would have posted to the net. You had absolutely *NO* right to > bring my personal comments to you into the public arena! > You want our sympathy. You want our money. What you say in any context is relevant. > Compounding the issue is the sleazy manner in which you take what I told > you out of context, *AND* mis-represent most of what I said as well. I am > not going to bore the net with the details of my personal problems, as I > am sure most of these filk aren't interested. I do wish to clear up one > issue, however: > > I am officially certified as disabled, for reasons that are none of your > business. I collect SSI disability benefits as a result of this certification. Of course it's not any of our business. We might be able to judge whether you are disabled, or just plain lazy. > While people with your limited intellectual capabilities may not be able to > comprehend such an issue, the SSI regulations recognize that there is much > positive benefit for both the recipient *AND* the government in encouraging > recipients to attempt "Working in Spite of Your Disability" (quotation from > SSI brochure on program of same name). Thus, recipients are permitted to > work for a certain length of time as an experiment, to see if they can cope > with the problems of working despite their disabilities, without losing > eligibility for disability benefits. > > I have held one job under that program. It didn't work out (again, the > reasons are none of your business). I want very much to try another time. Why didn't it work out? Physical disability? That would be a very valid reason. Or is it your incredible temper tantrums (which the net gets to see a lot of) makes it impossible for you to hold a job? > I would *LIKE* to earn my own keep, as much for pride sake as to improve my > living conditions. Fortunately, the SSI administration is willing to encourage > my search. Unlike insensitive, narrow minded jackass 'libertarians', many > people realize that a disabled person may not be able to re-locate for a > job (particularly an entry-level job in a strange area), and that many jobs > are simply not viable for such people. Thus disabled persons are not placed > in a "take *ANY* job that comes along, regardless of location, nature or > pay scale" situation. > Especially, "pay scale". You told me you were offered a job programming in CP/M for $800/month. That sounds very low -- but maybe that's all your experience is worth. > Cramer, I specifically pointed out to you 3 reasons why I could *NOT* > relocate to the Silicon Valley area. You conveniently ignored all 3, and > mis-represented my position as "won't" relocate. As you are *NOT* an MD nor > a licensed psychotherapist, I do not consider you qualified to judge the > merits of my reaons. Furthermore, you blatantly imply that I am defrauding Of course. Let's not discuss the merits of your reasons. We could judge for ourselves then. > the government by accepting disability benefits, despite the fact that you > are completely unfamiliar with the regulations or rationale behind the > disability system, and thouroughly unaware of the nature and scope of my > particular disabilities (for the record, the things I did discuss with you > didn't cover half of the problems). > Or maybe you are defrauding a potential employer when you assert that you want a job, and are capable of doing a job. Are you disabled? It's possible -- but you have been complaining about having to move and how much you hate Santa Clara County -- this sounds like a matter of choice, not a matter of disability. > Finally, through innuendo, you imply that I am not working because I have > chosen not to. Much as I never thought I would say something like this, > Cramer, I sincerely hope that someone comes along to injure you along the > lines of my injuries, such that you cannot work. I would dearly love to see > you squirm. > Oh? So "you cannot work"? Then why are bitching and moaning in net.jobs that you can't find a job? Maybe you are legitimately disabled, and most employers are unable to accommodate your disability. That's unfortunate. But it's hardly an indication that employers are peculiar for not giving you the kind of job you want. > I wish to point out to all readers that my comments about 'libertarians' are > gross generalizations, which I have held since long before I became disabled > and unemployed. My comments and views regarding 'libertarians' have > absolutely *NOTHING* to do with Mr. Cramer, or anything he has said to or about > me, or about poor people in general. I would note that his sensitivity to > my comments is, for me, indicative that I have struck a nerve, and further that > in my opinion, Mr. Cramer does in fact personify most of what I consider to > be reprehensible and unsavory about 'libertarians'. > Your temper tantrums on the net in the past have indicated a serious emotional disturbance. In the past, I have made sincere, genuine attempts to be of help. You explained several months back in e-mail that you were having trouble finding a job. I made several useful suggestions, and the responses were all excuses why you couldn't. I'm tired of your bitching and moaning about things you either CAN'T change, or WON'T change. > In closing, let me explain why I made this posting, in light of my recent > announcement of temporary retirement from net participation. A friend > wrote me a letter and pointed out Mr. Cramer's article to me, so I read it. > After many hours of deliberation (and, frankly, a lot of cussing, fuming and > screaming...my poor housemate had to take her daughter and leave the house for > two hours), I finally determined that I had to make this posting. My I see why you can't hold a job. Someone says something you don't like and fly off the handle so badly that the people you live with have to leave? If anyone was considering hiring you before, seeing BY YOUR OWN ADMISSION what a childish temper you have should have stopped them from considering it. > retirement still stands, though I will monitor this newsgroup for a short > while to see what, if any, excuses Mr. Cramer can make for his irresponsible, > unethical and highly offensive behaviour. > > tom keller "She's alive, ALIVE!" I think it's time for you to look for psychological help. I'm just amazed how irrational you can be. Clayton E. Cramer