Friday, June 10, 2011

An admittedly hyperbolic but not completely unfounded analogy...

Know what bugs me?  Movie theatres.

They are cramped, overpriced and everyone knows that today's films are full of the sex and the violence and are destroying our children and our minds.

What really gets my panties in a bunch, though, is the knowledge that right now, there are people receiving welfare - that's right.. social assistance, money from the government, our hard-earned tax dollars - and using that money to go to the movies!

I don't ever feel the need to go to the movies. Why should MY hard-earned tax dollars go people who are too lazy to work and instead just want to spend all day inside a movie theatre, watching low-brow brain-cell killing so-called cinema? Sure, some people only go maybe once a month, but what about people who go EVERY DAY? No, if MY MONEY is supporting them, it should be going toward FOOD, and SHELTER and HEAT.

I'd like to see the government set up special ushers at every movie theatre in the country to check to make sure welfare recipients aren't using their money to go to the show. They could put special chips in welfare recipients, and scan every person as they go in. If you're caught going into a movie theatre, then you lose your assistance. Yes, these people may end up homeless on the street, or may end up resorting to petty crime to subsist and end up in jail where my tax dollars would end up supporting them anyway, and at a far higher cost than the average reciever of assistance. 

But think of how much welfare money we'd save!! I'm sure the cost to put a chip in every single recipient AND hire people to man the entrances to the theatres would surely be offset if we could just get those damn movie goers off the system!

*************************************************
REVISED: The preceding was a piece of satire in response to the florida welfare law that requires every new welfare recipient to submit to a drug test.  I don't actually have a problem with people on welfare going to the movies.  Sarcasm fail.


Basically, I hate the idea of people ripping off the system as much as anyone, but the drug testing law seems like a case of using carpet bombing to kill a few spiders.  If the study cited in this article is any indication, then the cost of mandatory testing will cost more than would be recouped by getting the drug users off the system:
As part of a pilot program in Jacksonville and parts of Putnam County from 1998 to 2001, 8,797 people applying or receiving welfare benefits were drug tested.
Of those, 335 tested positive, according to a Senate analysis of the bill.
Basically my point is this.  Tax dollars shouldn't go to recreational drug use.  Fair enough.  But what about other frivolous expenditures?  How far do we go to ensure that tax monies go only to food/shelter/heat and at what cost?  Do we cut off an arm to get rid of a hangnail?

16 comments:

  1. Would you rather they buy a movie ticket every day, or a bottle of booze?

    ReplyDelete
  2. Dear Yandie,
    Because I love your blog so much, I've given you a blog award. Again. :)

    ReplyDelete
  3. @Josh, If I really believed that film was as damaging as I make it out to be here, then neither, since either would be considered pretty frivolous if someone is having trouble putting food on the table. But the point is where does the line get drawn? And would the cost of drug testing every recipient offset the cost of getting the people who test positive off the system?

    @Sarah - Thank you! I'll come check it out.

    ReplyDelete
  4. Exactly, where's the line before you cross into Orwellian 1984?

    ReplyDelete
  5. Oh dear... I don't ACTUALLY think we should check for people at the movies. I think we're on the same side here. My sarcasm is not translating well. Basically, I'm taking a cheap shot at the law in Florida, by saying "Where does it end...?" If others don't like welfare recipients buying drugs, well what about other things? Do we get to police people on them as well?

    I'm going to try and clarify that in the disclaimer.

    ReplyDelete
  6. My turn to "Oh dear!" Sarcasm translated just fine. I'm just, you know, being a dick.

    ReplyDelete
  7. Yandie, excellent points, all. Actually, I had not considered, prior to this, what it would cost to drug test. It's been the topic of conversation at more than a couple of places recently...

    Pearl

    ReplyDelete
  8. Great points.

    You would be shocked in you knew some of what our tax dollars are used for done here by similar people.

    ReplyDelete
  9. LOL While reading the beginning I was like WTFWTF Did I just stumble into the wrong end of the Internet? And then I thought, no it's satire...wait for it...wait for it... HAH!

    ReplyDelete
  10. The miniskirt thread post all over again lol

    ReplyDelete
  11. Yes! Only for that one I read it first before the satire version. =P

    ReplyDelete
  12. (is ashamed of my birth state)

    ReplyDelete
  13. Once upon a time in a world far far away people worked for their money. In my time people think they are owed an existence. I'm OK with helping I'm not OK with handouts.

    ReplyDelete
  14. Once upon a time in a world far far away, jobs weren't being outsourced to countries where corporations could afford to pay workers a dollar a day; there was possibility of advancement from entry level to management positions; there was such a thing as job security. Once upon a time, income rates moved at a pace with the cost of living.

    Once upon a time in a world far far away people were able to get ONE job and advance through a company, knowing that if they did their job well, they'd probably keep it for forty years, without fear of being arbitrarily laid off because their job had been sent to a kid in Bangladesh.

    Once upon a time people could get a job based on their experience, or a willingness to learn and be trained, without the need for a degree or a college diploma. People were able to go into the work world without first going into thousands of dollars worth of school debt, because once upon a time a degree was a way to get ahead, not a way to keep up.

    Once upon a time, people didn't work 2 and 3 crappy service sector jobs only to find they still weren't making ends meet.

    As someone who has received assistance on a few occasions in the past, I always resent the idea that people on assistance feel they are owed an existence, or that they lazy or unwilling to work.. or that they are NOT working (see the point about crappy service sector jobs).

    Yes, there are people who are milking the system, but I'm willing to bet it's a far lower percentage than people like to make it out to be.

    ReplyDelete
  15. Hi Yandie,

    It has been a long while since last I commented here, but, wow. That last comment of yours was well articulated. I agree completely with your thesis.

    It's easy to bully poor people. They can't afford a lawyer, are generally underrepresented at the polls, and, worst, are usually mis-informed about their rights. So when I hear, "Once upon a time, people WORKED for money," I just wanna spit.

    There are millions and millions who would just LOVE a chance to work.

    Cheers, and keep up the great content,
    Rick

    ReplyDelete

Engaging in discussion and/or general sucking up.. that's where it's at!

Like what you see?