Hurricane Katrina

[laeshanin]

Yes. Healthy paranoia I reckon. 

Cheers. Nice to know that I'm still on the right track. 

[Danni]

Hear hear laeshanin Remember, Lords are just as likely to commit arson as those on benefits

[Judecat]

Hear hear laeshanin Remember, Lords are just as likely to commit arson as those on benefits

More likely probably -- they are hopeing to collect on the insurance

[Danni]

That's true

*goes into stereotyping mode* it's only some of the Chavs/Charvas/Scallies on benefits that cause problems... and not all of them, by any means.

[Zeljka]

I have returned! We just got our phone lines and internet access back today. Things at my house were very good compared to what most people endured. We've been doing clean-up and trying to get our lives as back to normal as possible.

On another note (It's a long story), I have had to start anew with my game, so all challenges, etc, are gone. I got Nightlife even though UPS wouldn't deliver here. I drove to a nearby town about 40 miles away and bought it. I'm in the process of re-introducing hacks and custom content. I want to extend heartfelt thanks to all who kept me in their thoughts and offered support and encouragement.

Yay! It's so nice to see you and hear that everything is getting back to normal (assuming that the fact you can get back at your Sims means everything's good)

We missed you,
I've been holding off on my last E-mail challenge waiting for you...

[SimsHost]

My Internet access is feeble these days, so I can only catch up once a week, which leads me to bring back an old note:

...Sounds to me like the last years of the Soviet Union to me...

Nah, I didn't propose anything that extreme.  Your arguments would make sense had I proposed a totalitarian Marxist state, but I was just talking about adjustments to the existing welfare system: "...pay a minimum living stipend to everybody whether they need it or not, and raise taxes to balance it out..."

We have to acknowledge that we already have a welfare system and it's not going to go away.  For better or for worse, our society in the USA today has rejected "work or starve" as an option; and the more authoritarian European Union is even more adamant about that point.  I don't see any reasonable path that would get us to a totally laissez-faire "work or starve" system anywhere in the world.  We might postulate a world-wide dictatorship, but would-be dictators haven't faired too well in human history and the few who've become notorious in their quest of totalitarian dictatorship have all advocated socialism as an economic policy.  So, welfare is here and it's here to stay.

We already try to pay a minimum living to people who we perceive as being needy, so I don't see how that scheme would discourage people from work any more than the existing system.  Quite the opposite.  It would encourage people to work by removing the penalty for not working.  If you want more than a minimum standard of living, then you'll do something to earn some money so you can buy luxuries.

The existing welfare system consumes more than half our tax money.  By eliminating the investigation of potential welfare cheating, we would eliminate the majority of the cost for delivering money to the people.  Consolidating all the complex systems (food stamps, public housing, demeaning make-work programs, medicthis, and medicthat) into one cash-based system would also fantastically reduce the cost of administering the system.  I would expect the amount we have to pay for welfare to be rather dramatically reduced without any reduction in the benefits that people receive.

I agree that it sounds incongruous to pay money to someone just to take it back in taxes; but hey, if it accomplishes our goal of caring for our people while removing all disincentives to working and cuts our welfare taxes by more than half, I'd be willing to cope with that incongruity. 

[SimsHost]

...I have returned!

Hooray!  Welcome back, reg! 

At the moment I'm sitting here in my house up in Wylie (northeast Texas) wondering how to find out if my house down in El Lago (southeast of Houston) survived Rita's winds.  I'm most concerned about the fact that the house was surrounded by huge tallow trees.

They're saying that the Johnson Space Center will be open again on Tuesday morning, but the last I heard they won't even let us back into El Lago until at least Wednesday, if then.  No hotel rooms available near JSC, either.  Darn. 

Oh well, at least the "liberal leave" policy will be in effect until they get the mess cleaned up.

[Judecat]

         I don't trust the government,  any government to make a fair distribution of the money.   I know that all the money they are taking now for Social Security tax isn't going to social security payments,  and I don't see how giving them more taxes to distribute to more people is gonna make them any more honest.
And after seeing the way the elderly,  and even the not so elderly feel about Social Security,  I really don't think Socialized everything is a good Idea.    SS was supposed to be a supliment to your pension and savings,  so that you wouldn't have to be old and poor.    But a lot of the people of the generation now retired,  decided that since they were getting Social Security,  they didn't have to save.    We saw the,  I'm gonna retire next year,  lets remodle the house and buy a new car syndrom.  These are now the people who are fussing that the government isn't giving them enough money or enough medicaid.   (those statements were made based on the behaivor and attitude of my older step siblings).  Between SS having to be the sole support of some elderly,  and the government fiscal irresponsibility,  my generation is in the position of having no SS,  and not having enough money after taxes to save for retirement,  much less buy a new car or re model a house.

I know my views are unpopular,  but I truely beleive you are your families responsibility,  not the govenment's.    I also beleive the more "help" you get from the government,  the more freedom you give up.

Which kind of leads to another unpopular oppinion,  if more people in NOLA had had jobs,  historically over the past 50 years or so,  they would have had a tax base,  and could have fixed their own levee's,   rather than have to beg government aide (the city begging,  not the citizens)

[Judecat]

Sim host -- is that liberal leave like the state of Md -- if you have vacation time you can use it,  if not then you'd better show up.

[SimsHost]

        I don't trust the government,  any government to make a fair distribution of the money.   I know that all the money they are taking now for Social Security tax isn't going to social security payments,  and I don't see how giving them more taxes to distribute to more people is gonna make them any more honest.
And after seeing the way the elderly,  and even the not so elderly feel about Social Security,  I really don't think Socialized everything is a good Idea...

I can't argue with the first part of that.  Given an opportunity for mischief with money, people will commit mischief.  Now, here's the neat part: the program I suggested would reduce the opportunities for mischief by eliminating the complexity of our existing welfare system.  Opportunities for mischief would be limited to creating false identities, which is less costly to investigate and report than the bazillions of things people can do under the existing system.

Still, I doubt that a significant portion of the budget for the Dept of Health and Human Services is lost to graft or corruption.  You can clearly see where they are legitimately spending the money on the facilties, investigators, and folks who staff the help desks in all the welfare offices across the country.  This grand scheme (which has zero chance of ever getting passed by Congress) would make most of those jobs and offices obsolete, so it's not something we'd want to rush into with our eyes shut.

When you venture into the discussion of socialized everything, you're moving away at right angles from what I suggested.  I'm talking about reducing the level of socialism in the welfare industry tremendously.  The government would not tell people how to spend their money or create industries to support them.  (Another flaw in the plan: some small percentage of the human population are not able to make purchasing decisions for themselves.  That's another baby we'd want to keep when we toss out the bathwater, but at a tiny scale compared to what we do now.)  Instead of establishing free clinics, pay the money directly to the people and let them make their own decisions about where to go for health care.  Instead of soup kitchens, let them decide where to buy their food.  Instead of of public housing projects, let the people decide how to spend their housing dollars.

The key point here is that I have more faith in the average individual's ability to make these decisions than in the government's ability to decide these things for them.  I also have much more faith in private industry to provide safe, comfortable housing, quality medical care, and good food and clothes at the best price. 

Take housing as an example.  If we make builders compete for those housing dollars, they'll build the best-quality housing they can for low-income families.  With government housing projects, we have all sort of mischief and even worse added cost because of the burden of writing and enforcing extremely detailed government regulations.  The trouble is that if the government does it, we need those picky regulations to determine a standard of performance for contractors.  But if private enterprise builds the housing, then the people who will be living there will be the judges of whether it's the nicest place they can afford.

[dizzy]

I'm talking about reducing the level of socialism in the welfare industry tremendously.

"Welfare industry"? My goodness. Now I have heard everything.

[SimsHost]

Sim host -- is that liberal leave like the state of Md -- if you have vacation time you can use it,  if not then you'd better show up.

I think it means that you can take leave if you're a liberal.  That's only half good news for me because I'm only a liberal on odd-numbered days.  On even-numbered days I wonder why the USA needs a socialized space program!  

Hmm... today is an odd-numbered day.  Perhaps that's why I'm having such difficulty presenting a cogent conservative argument for my idea about a no-fault welfare program.  Ask me about it tomorrow.  For today, let's just blame the whole thing on global warming.

BTW, my name is Greg.  (Note the four-letter Anglo-Saxon monosyllable in my sig.)  SimsHost is just a hobby, one of my many crimes against normalcy.

[SimsHost]

I'm talking about reducing the level of socialism in the welfare industry tremendously.

"Welfare industry"? My goodness. Now I have heard everything.

Hey, welfare is big business, especially in the areas of health care and housing!  Never doubt the ability of people to think of ways to make a profit off of anything that the government spends money on; and the Department of Health and Human Services gets the lion's share of the federal budget.

[witch]

By eliminating the investigation of potential welfare cheating, we would eliminate the majority of the cost for delivering money to the people. 

I haven't seen any recent studies on welfare fraud, but having spent 15 years in the welfare system here as a beneficiary, I saw many in the same position as myself of course. Some people were yes, just bone idle and content to pop out another child or two to stay on the benefit, but these were amongst a small minority. The vast majority of people I encountered were concerned parents and decent people, many were only on a benefit for a few months, most worked a parttime job in addition to caring for young children, even though the costs associated with working could be high.

I suspect that for the amount of actual welfare fraud, the costs of checking and investigating would far outweigh any monetary gains. And when a prosecution is successful, how do you get blood out of a stone?

The prime way of defrauding here would be a man with a job, living with a woman receiving a benefit for being home with children. Considering that in the 80's and 90's the capitalists drove our economy into a low wage one, it is not viable for many families in the lower socio-economic bracket to subsist on one income. Having to cheat all adds to the stigma and shame of being a beneficiary of course.

[Judecat]

But after been on the other side of the desk for 18 years,  I am of the opinion that people like you are more rare than you might like to think.     I've even seem it in my ex's family.    Ex hubby grew up poor,  mom's on welfare,  got 6 kids from 4 different men,  but Ex manages to get himself a well paying job as a longshoreman.  So does he get a house or condo for his mom and little sister to live in (the other kids were away from home by then).  Heck no,  he moves into the projects with her,  and gives her half his pay under the table.  One of the reasons he is my ex is that I turned them in.  Too many people grow up on welfare think they or their family are "entitled" to it.    If my older sis had not seen fit, or been able to take care of mom when we got grown,  then I would surely not have run off to be a bum like I did.   That's basically what I ment that you should take care of your own family.

And again -- I don't trust the government with money.   For instance -- do you know what State Governments are doing,  and being allowed to do with the tobacco settlement money-- that they sued to force the tobacco companies to pay for medical care for smokers -- The Feds handed out the money with no stipulations of what it was to be used for,  so instead of earmarking it for the stated purpose -- to keep the state from having to subsidize my emphesema -- the treated it like a windfall,  lotto win.   We got new roads,  farms got bought so we could build new state offices in the western part of the state.  The governer built a new fence around the state house to keep his dog from getting loose,  oh yes,  and tax breaks for people to build ugly oversized hotels.  The Department of Health and Mental Hygene got no one penny of the money -- not for Medical care,  research or even anti smoking ads.     All this in a state that was so far in the red that they had cancelled all cost of living , seniority or merit raises for state employees,  and he have had a 20 year hireing freeze. 
If I didn't have elderly family members to care for,  I think I'd live in a bunker like JM.    I'm a layed off State employee who truely beleives that we need less government,  and not more.

[witch]

...he moves into the projects with her,  and gives her half his pay under the table...

Are 'projects' housing areas where only people on benefits are supposed to live?

And again -- I don't trust the government with money.

No, because as you go on to say, so many people have their snouts in the trough. So why would you penalise beneficiaries for copying the greedy behaviour of those more well off?

For instance -- do you know what State Governments are doing,  and being allowed to do with the tobacco settlement money-- that they sued to force the tobacco companies to pay for medical care for smokers -- The Feds handed out the money with no stipulations of what it was to be used for,  so instead of earmarking it for the stated purpose -- to keep the state from having to subsidize my emphesema -- the treated it like a windfall,  lotto win.   We got new roads,  farms got bought so we could build new state offices in the western part of the state.  The governer built a new fence around the state house to keep his dog from getting loose,  oh yes,  and tax breaks for people to build ugly oversized hotels.  The Department of Health and Mental Hygene got no one penny of the money -- not for Medical care,  research or even anti smoking ads.     All this in a state that was so far in the red that they had cancelled all cost of living , seniority or merit raises for state employees,  and he have had a 20 year hireing freeze. 

If that's true, it really sucks.

I'm a layed off State employee who truely beleives that we need less government,  and not more.

I thought that's what Greg was saying, less bureaucracy, not more, then there's more chance of the money getting where it was originally intended.

[Judecat]

I don't know enough about forums to separates the quotes from my reply -- so I'm gonna copy and paiste.

Are 'projects' housing areas where only people on benefits are supposed to live? -- The projects are where no one wants to live unliess they have too.  The worse one in this city was buildings  a city block square -- 28 stories high -- I think 10 units per floor-- and the way to get to each front door was open air "sidewalks"  on each floor -- enclosed in chain link fence.  4 buildings -- with no play areas except the walkways and sidewalks and no green spaces at all.   There's more room an privacy in a habbitrail (plastic hampster habitat).

  No, because as you go on to say, so many people have their snouts in the trough. So why would you penalise beneficiaries for copying the greedy behaviour of those more well off?
  I'm not trying to say penalise the beneficiaries -- I just beleive the beneficiaries will be getting anything by the time the government gets done with it.  And in other posts I've stated that under the rules of giving everyone a living wage,  the way the real poor would loose out,  is that some folks who are working might decide not to -- so they will be taking instead of contributing -- reducing everyone's share of the pie.     I would really be more willing to hand my money over to the Catholics to distribue,  than to let the government get their hands on it,  and I'm not even Catholic.

If that's true, it really sucks.   Tell me about it.  Spent the tobacco money,  and then had to lay off 230 social service and health department employees to ballance the budget.

I thought that's what Greg was saying, less bureaucracy, not more, then there's more chance of the money getting where it was originally intended.

I'm not talking about less bureaucracy -- I'm talking about less government period.
If I lived in a bunker somewhere and had to kill and skin my own dinner,  then I would not actually be beholden to the government.  The more  Uncle Sam gives the more he takes away.   That's one of the reasons that I think that this country didn't free the slaves,  we just changed the terms of servitude.   If you depend on others for the bare essentials,  then you have to follow their rules.  (but then this just gets into another one of my pet rants about the American Civil war)

[Judecat]

Looks like I scared everone away -- I'm sorry!!

[laeshanin]

Nah, Judecat, we just ain't certain how to respond.

I think that government can be corrupt too, but it does it, in the developed nations, in underhanded ways and manages to convince you that it has your best interests at heart.

When you venture into the discussion of socialized everything, you're moving away at right angles from what I suggested. I'm talking about reducing the level of socialism in the welfare industry tremendously. The government would not tell people how to spend their money or create industries to support them. (Another flaw in the plan: some small percentage of the human population are not able to make purchasing decisions for themselves. That's another baby we'd want to keep when we toss out the bathwater, but at a tiny scale compared to what we do now.) Instead of establishing free clinics, pay the money directly to the people and let them make their own decisions about where to go for health care. Instead of soup kitchens, let them decide where to buy their food. Instead of of public housing projects, let the people decide how to spend their housing dollars.

The key point here is that I have more faith in the average individual's ability to make these decisions than in the government's ability to decide these things for them. I also have much more faith in private industry to provide safe, comfortable housing, quality medical care, and good food and clothes at the best price.

Take housing as an example. If we make builders compete for those housing dollars, they'll build the best-quality housing they can for low-income families. With government housing projects, we have all sort of mischief and even worse added cost because of the burden of writing and enforcing extremely detailed government regulations. The trouble is that if the government does it, we need those picky regulations to determine a standard of performance for contractors. But if private enterprise builds the housing, then the people who will be living there will be the judges of whether it's the nicest place they can afford.

A Brit speaking here, so have been brought up with a Health Service which, despite having people moan about it, is second to none. The NHS saved my life, not once but twice, and has saved the life of many people. It has its faults - waiting lists, staff shortages, to name a few - but without it many people in this country would not be able to afford health care. For those of us who can afford it, we have the choice to place money into insurance and/or buy our health care wherever we want. The NHS is a safety gap that works damn well.

As for housing, well, you may have a point, but the price of property in the UK has risen so steeply that it is beyond the reach of most people to even consider buying a house. I live in a small, two bed-roomed mid-terrace built in 1905 and when I bought it 4 years ago the value was £60,000. It is now valued at £120,000. That's a pretty steep rise! I couldn't afford to buy a house in today's market; they're too damn expensive! God knows how first time buyers manage, and as for those on the lower end of the societal scale earning £12,000 pa, they haven't got a snowflake's hope in hell. Not unless old Nick goes to work on skis that is... And renting property is a dead end, plus you have the "added bonus" of the private landlord who likes to see the tenant living in squalor most of the time, but also likes rent in regularly and takes a massive deposit.

Builders aren't interested in anything except a profit, so I cannot imagine them building "best". It isn't true here, so why would they be more likely to in the States which is a far more machiavellian society than Britain? Mostly, all the bastards try to do is pass you off with shoddy goods.

[Judecat]

It also seems to be that the state government at least doesn't care about houseing either -- since the projects are subsidized -- the tennet pays 50 dollars --the state pays the other $550.   For that amount of money they could put the welfare beneficiaries in regular garden appartments.  (Garden Apartments here are the ones that are two stories with 4 appartments and a central stairway,  with grass and trees out front.  Usually have about 20 to 40 units per complex -- although I used to live in one very large complex with 150 units).

The main problems I have with socialized medicine are 1) we keep hearing about people in Canada who have to spend their own money to come to the US for surgeries,  because the waiting list is so long.  2) I've heard that countries like Canada and England are not doing medical research because there is no money to be made in research,  and 3)  my own beleif that medical insurance itself is what has driven up the price of medical care.     My mother in law charges $50 dollars an hour if are paying for it yourself,  $100 if insurance is paying (because they are only gonna give her 50 of it anyway),   and $175 if it's a prisoner or someone else the goverment is paying for (they end up paying her 75 or 100 dollars -- but they are usually really sick) (Mother in law is a pychiatrist.)  Most doctors charge everybody the same -  so if you don't have insurance you can't afford care.

[reggikko]

]
I've been holding off on my last E-mail challenge waiting for you...

Well, I've started it up. Started with a female Sim this time, Aneeda Commode. ;-) There is the Perfect Spouse (hint) for Email with the NL expansion but unfortunately Aneeda couldn't stand him.

I've also restarted my Aphrodite Addicts Legacy. New twist this time. In the Addicts' legacy, the heir must marry a specific type of NPC in each generation. My heirs will be marrying the first NPC of each type that the family meets, despite looks, personality, gender, or chemistry/compatibility.

[Zeljka]

Well, I've started it up. Started with a female Sim this time, Aneeda Commode. ;-) There is the Perfect Spouse (hint) for Email with the NL expansion but unfortunately Aneeda couldn't stand him.

I've also restarted my Aphrodite Addicts Legacy. New twist this time. In the Addicts' legacy, the heir must marry a specific type of NPC in each generation. My heirs will be marrying the first NPC of each type that the family meets, despite looks, personality, gender, or chemistry/compatibility.

Aneeda Commode... you are hilarious! I can't wait to see your new stories

Wonder how a Vampire would do with no walls?
Can you build a garage with no walls? Oh wait, I guess you would call it a driveway -Duh Me, I have to stop reading the retardo land threads, they're starting to get to me.
Now that I actually have University and Nightlife (still tidying up neighbourhoods before installation) I can see how much easier this Challenge is with PermaPlat, the Skillinator and the Encouragy thing, hopefully I'll get a Smart-milk sticky for toddlers.

[reggikko]

Wonder how a Vampire would do with no walls?

I just tested it. Half-walls (which are not true walls)...smoking and plummeting needs. She didn't die, though, even after about 3 1/2 Sim hours. Fenced area, same result. In the coffin she was fine.

[J. M. Pescado]

Side note: The Email Rules currently don't incorporate any Nightlife features, so all that is a gray area: Expect the Nightlife rules, once added, to include penalties for any form of non-successfulness. Oh, and as before, all community lots must be E-Mail legal. You want a real challenge, have a dream date in a prison with no walls....and no toilet!

Vampires, obviously, warp the timing rules. I have not yet decided how to handle the possibility of a sim becoming a vampire (and thus becoming immortal forever, invalidating the termination conditions).

[reggikko]

Side note: The Email Rules currently don't incorporate any Nightlife features, so all that is a gray area: Expect the Nightlife rules, once added, to include penalties for any form of non-successfulness. Oh, and as before, all community lots must be E-Mail legal. You want a real challenge, have a dream date in a prison with no walls....and no toilet!

Been there, done that. ;-) Maybe I should put this one on hold until you update the rules. No use playing it only to find I've been disqualified later. I can focus on my Legacies for now.