Minorities vs entitlements

[golfournut]

As we all know, there are multitudes of minorities. For example: people with hazel eyes or smokers or obesity or mustache. But when does a minority actually get classified as a "minority group"? Is it when that minority becomes a threat to the majority or perceives to be a threat? Or possibly when they speak as one. I don't know the answer. It seams though the majority spends a lot of time, monies and effort to appease a minority group.
What do you all think?

Posted with my Droid EO Forum App

 

[greg334]

There are less minorities than you would think but the threshold is when the majority in political office wants to create a class of slaves.

 

[golfournut]

There are less minorities than you would think but the threshold is when the majority in political office wants to create a class of slaves.

Hmmm!


Posted with my Droid EO Forum App

 

[greg334]

Well think about this a bit.

Until the need for social justice, everyone had a chance to be someone regardless what they were - black/white, Male/Female. Many of which didn't feel they were poor and many knew that hard work would provide them with their needs,

When the guys and gals who saw such inequity demanded that the nation help all of these people out, they had to classify them in order to control them. They made another dependent group of people who have been told that they need help regardless because they were poor, black, female or what ever and in doing so they created a new class of slaves.

TO put this into historical perspective, the slave of the 18/19th century became dependent on their owner for food, clothing and shelter. They in return gave the owner their labor.

Fast forward this to today, the person who depends on welfare, student loans/grants, food stamps, welfare phones in return give their vote to the political party that give them more stuff.

So it comes down to a non-scientific but very political thing, the threshold is when the majority in political office wants to create a class of slaves.

 

[golfournut]

Well think about this a bit.

Until the need for social justice, everyone had a chance to be someone regardless what they were - black/white, Male/Female. Many of which didn't feel they were poor and many knew that hard work would provide them with their needs,

When the guys and gals who saw such inequity demanded that the nation help all of these people out, they had to classify them in order to control them. They made another dependent group of people who have been told that they need help regardless because they were poor, black, female or what ever and in doing so they created a new class of slaves.

TO put this into historical perspective, the slave of the 18/19th century became dependent on their owner for food, clothing and shelter. They in return gave the owner their labor.

Fast forward this to today, the person who depends on welfare, student loans/grants, food stamps, welfare phones in return give their vote to the political party that give them more stuff.

So it comes down to a non-scientific but very political thing, the threshold is when the majority in political office wants to create a class of slaves.

So, in order to change this process and stop spending all the money, the majority of the people whose taxes are used to create those "slaves" as you put it need to vote out those that seek to create that environment in order to gain more votes. Is that what you are saying?
Posted with my Droid EO Forum App

 

[witness23]

It seams though the majority spends a lot of time, monies and effort to appease a minority group.
What do you all think?

You obviously have a minority in mind and an entitlement in mind, care to elaborate?

Two questions I have for you is:

Which "minority group" are you speaking of?

Which "entitlement" are you speaking of?

 

[golfournut]

You obviously have a minority in mind and an entitlement in mind, care to elaborate?

Two questions I have for you is:

Which "minority group" are you speaking of?

Which "entitlement" are you speaking of?

The minority group is US Veterans.
The entitlements are medical, housing and jobs or lack of.
The law requires mortgage companies to not foreclose on active duty military while on deployments. Still happens.
The law requires National Guardsmen to have their same civilian job when returning from deployments. No one is enforcing that and a lot come home to no job and todays employers are reluctant to hire a returning vet because of all the bad press regarding post distress disorder.
Returning vets with combat injuries need to be watched over by outside groups to ensure proper medical treatment are offered. Especially those with missing limbs.

Posted with my Droid EO Forum App

 

[witness23]

The minority group is US Veterans.
The entitlements are medical, housing and jobs or lack of.
The law requires mortgage companies to not foreclose on active duty military while on deployments. Still happens.
The law requires National Guardsmen to have their same civilian job when returning from deployments. No one is enforcing that and a lot come home to no job and todays employers are reluctant to hire a returning vet because of all the bad press regarding post distress disorder.
Returning vets with combat injuries need to be watched over by outside groups to ensure proper medical treatment are offered. Especially those with missing limbs.

Posted with my Droid EO Forum App

In your original post you made it sound like these minorities could possibly be a drain on society with your negative connotations. I am only going by what wrote,

"Is it when that minority becomes a threat to the majority or perceives to be a threat?

and this,

"It seams though the majority spends a lot of time, monies and effort to appease a minority group."

I would find it hard to believe anyone in the Soapbox has any issues with taking care of our Veterans. An odd question to post here or anywhere else for that matter. I hope you find the answers to your question.

 

[witness23]

Well think about this a bit.

Until the need for social justice, everyone had a chance to be someone regardless what they were - black/white, Male/Female. Many of which didn't feel they were poor and many knew that hard work would provide them with their needs,

When the guys and gals who saw such inequity demanded that the nation help all of these people out, they had to classify them in order to control them. They made another dependent group of people who have been told that they need help regardless because they were poor, black, female or what ever and in doing so they created a new class of slaves.

TO put this into historical perspective, the slave of the 18/19th century became dependent on their owner for food, clothing and shelter. They in return gave the owner their labor.

Fast forward this to today, the person who depends on welfare, student loans/grants, food stamps, welfare phones in return give their vote to the political party that give them more stuff.

So it comes down to a non-scientific but very political thing, the threshold is when the majority in political office wants to create a class of slaves.

Hey Greg.......when you posted this, did you have these minorities and these entitlements in mind?

Originally Posted by golfournut

The minority group is US Veterans.
The entitlements are medical, housing and jobs or lack of.

 

[chefdennis]

I never questioned at anytime what "minority" golf was questioning..there are sooo mnay of them that are covered by entitlements that it ain't funny...I question egg on the face causes one to question one he doesn't know to begin with after the explanation is given....

 

[golfournut]

In your original post you made it sound like these minorities could possibly be a drain on society with your negative connotations. I am only going by what wrote, and this,

I would find it hard to believe anyone in the Soapbox has any issues with taking care of our Veterans. An odd question to post here or anywhere else for that matter. I hope you find the answers to your question.

In the original post the question was when is a minority classified as a minority. I was trying to stimulate some thought and perception. We all have our stereotypical views of what a minority is or are. Some are narrow in scope and some are broad. When I posed the question, what minority came to you mind? Why?

Most people don't think of veterans as minorities and the problem is veterans as a group have not been classified as a minority group. Therefore entitlements haven't been extended to them as a group. It is all based on individual through the VA which has very little programs outside of medical care.
Any individual not associated or assimilated with any minority group has a snow ball chance of getting anything other than what they provide themselves. Enlistment contracts have been broken by the feds. Within the last 3 years they have slowly started to recoup some of the benefits owed.

In the past minorities have been classified by using race, gender, ethnic origin and class. When the Americans with Disabilities Act was passed, it finally recognized a group outside of normal criteria used for classifying a group as a minority. This particular minorities group entitlements is based on access. Once all the criteria was met in the private and public sectors, maintaining access is the only part left. Hardly any money is used in this maintenance.

Some minority groups cost little to maintain and have little fraud associated with it. Some minority groups is legislative like women in the work force. This biggest drain is class. The lower or non existent income. The poor. These tend to be the school drop outs, illegals and folks with substance abuse issues and inheritancey. Generations of families have lived on welfare. This is the group with the "you owe me" attitude, yet this group as a group has done nothing for society but be a drain. Yet we continue to throw money at it and not address it to minimize it. It will never be non existent, but generations able to work. Come on, time to stop that type of status quo.

Your best bet, hire a vet! Please.

 

[golfournut]

I never questioned at anytime what "minority" golf was questioning..there are sooo mnay of them that are covered by entitlements that it ain't funny...I question egg on the face causes one to question one he doesn't know to begin with after the explanation is given....

Sometimes things are done in a way to get people to think outside the box.



Your best bet, hire a vet! Please.

 

[golfournut]

Perhaps I should have had a preface saying this is a test, but didn't want to let the cat out of the bag. I wanted to stimulate conversation and thought to create awareness. Sorry if any felt mislead.

Your best bet, hire a vet! Please.

 

[greg334]

Well now I get what you are saying but I would say no.

A vet is a volunteer. Not to be harsh or slam any vet but no one forced them to sign up.

This also can apply to gays too, no one forced them to be gay and try to force their lifestyle on to anyone else.

With that said, there is a distinct difference between someone who volunteered and one who was born that way or had been hurt by something out of their control.

This difference matters a lot.

Instead of demanding that minority status is applied to vets, it is rather prudent to take the present system that many fall under and change it. Allow external treatment, allow proper follow up care without the BS and change some of the requirements to get health care. Cut back some of the bureaucracy within the system by getting external management to take at least 60% of the routine cases.

The ADA is a cluster*** of a bill. It didn't do much other than cost the country a lot of money while at the same time being so ambiguous that it open a wide door for trial lawyers who have sued over the most trivial thing. Cities and counties have struggled to fix public areas up to conform to some BS federal regulation for a very small part of the population while people have instead of hiring and expanding have had to make investments to conform to the law.

 

[golfournut]

All very good points Greg.
The problem is enforcement of the laws that already exist on the books. On an individual bases, trying to make sure those laws are enforced is next to impossible. So being a volunteer has nothing to do with enforcement of existing laws.

If one really wanted to stretch the word "volunteer", couldn't it be said that generational exploitation of the welfare system is a form of volunteering by the participant.

For example, Federal prohibits a foreclose process can not be BEGIN until 6 months after a vet returns from deployment. Forecloses are occurring while on deployment. Most of those deployed are from the National Guard Reserves. When their group gets called up, the vet leaves their job and pay behind. As we are all aware, military pay in no way mimics private sector pay. Because of that disparity in pay, some mortgages cannot be maintained. A recent high profile case involved a Lt Colonel. While she was on deployment, her husband was laid off making it more difficult to maintain the mortgage. You guessed it, their home was foreclosed on while she was deployed. Once again, the PROCESS is not even suppose to start until 6 months after returning.

There are multitudes of these types of stories coming to the forefront. But we will never know of all of them.
When a group is classified as a minority group, the voice is louder and in most cases other laws pertaining to minority groups are available.

Your best bet, hire a vet! Please.

 

[layoutshooter]

Not all vets are "volunteers". There are MILLIONS of us running around who were given a VERY narrow choice, serve, run to Canada like a coward or go to jail. Those my age were subject to an ACTIVE DRAFT. We were REQUIRED, BY LAW, to serve. You could do that by getting drafted or "volunteering" to beat the draft.

It really matters not, IF you put your life on the line for this country, and every vet did whether they were in combat or not, you should NOT be mistreated as MANY vets are. It is just wrong.

 

[greg334]

Layout, I understand that but that's not the target demographic I am refering to.

Golf,
I understand the issue and as I have seen a lot of the crap first hand, I believe that the only solution is to fight for the enforcement of those laws. I as a citizen would rather put the money we use for social programs into supporting the combat vets but I, like you are only single people who voice their opinions. My senator is head of the Arm Forces committee and has done a very poor job with VA issues, he seems to be able to fix Washington taxi issues and try to arbitrate the Detroit Symphony strike but doesn't seem to give a crap about what happens at the VA in Ann Arbor of Detroit and fails to address issues from his constituents about Vet healthcare etc.

With that said I have yet to see an organization that is there for an exclusive purpose of garnering support by voters to force the federal government to get the laws enforce, and sadly I don't see a lot of vets themselves too concern about it until it happens to them.

 

[layoutshooter]

"Layout, I understand that but that's not the target demographic I am refering to."

Maybe not but vets who faced the draft are still the largest group of vets out there for the time being. Viet Nam era vets got it stuck in deep when we got out. I am SO happy to see that today's vets are being looked after by older vets in a way that did NOT happen in the '60's and '70's.

 

[greg334]

Well my intended comments were focused on what I have seen, younger people who are in the system for the first time. I haven't been to the VA in a couple months but the last time I was there, it seems that most of the people were young.

Now with that said, I don't really see the concern as you mentioned. I know the older vets can do amazing things, like really complain to their representatives but I just don't see it. This I think would be a very important issue to put time and effort into with their direct support. There are things not being said (like the issues Golf mentioned) and I looked for an advocate group that is trying to get these laws enforced but can't find one.

 

[layoutshooter]

Well my intended comments were focused on what I have seen, younger people who are in the system for the first time. I haven't been to the VA in a couple months but the last time I was there, it seems that most of the people were young.

Now with that said, I don't really see the concern as you mentioned. I know the older vets can do amazing things, like really complain to their representatives but I just don't see it. This I think would be a very important issue to put time and effort into with their direct support. There are things not being said (like the issues Golf mentioned) and I looked for an advocate group that is trying to get these laws enforced but can't find one.

I don't think you understood what I meant. When my age group came home the WWII vets looked on us as second class vets. They often flat out ignored us at Legions and VFW's etc. They offered little help to those who needed help with "issues" from their service.

It is FAR different these days. Viet Nam era vets have been going out of their way to help today's vets. One of the first places a young vet with problems is set is to a group like the Viet Nam Disabled Vets. That is why so many hunt with me, my nephew "encouraged" them to come up so we could talk.

I would, and will, do FAR more if I ever change careers.

I go to the VA 3-4 times a year. The one in Ann Arbor. There are all ages there but most are older. Lot's of Korean and Viet Nam vets. Fewer and fewer, sadly, WWII vets and , again sadly, more and more younger ones. I wish we had no need for a military. So many ruined lives.