Slashdot Mirror
Obama To Get Secure BlackBerry 8830
CWmike writes "President Barack Obama is set to receive a high-security BlackBerry 8830 soon, The Washington Times reported today. The device is said to be in the final stages of development at the National Security Agency, which will check that its encryption software meets federal standards. It might not be ready for months. It was reported that Obama will be able to send text and e-mail messages and make phone calls on the device, but only to those with the secure software loaded on their own devices. The list includes First Lady Michelle Obama and top aides. The security software is made by Genesis Key, whose CEO, Steven Garrett, is quoted as saying: 'We're going to put his BlackBerry back in his hand.' The Sectera Edge was pegged in January by analysts as the top device choice because of its reputation for secure data communications when used by other federal workers. And there are many reasons why Obama might have been told 'no' on his BlackBerry. But Obama may wish he had chosen a Sectera if BlackBerry has more outage problems like its latest last week, which meant no mobile e-mail for hours across the US."
I am in line waiting for similar software to drive any portable device for communication I want to use.
So in other words, how long before laws are drafted keeping the good stuff out of our hands under the guise of it only aids criminals? I can see it all now, a new email bill of rights that somehow strips me of the ones I need or have.
I like the idea of the President having access to good, safe, and reliable, technology like this. I just hope that trickle down occurs.
* Winners compare their achievements to their goals, losers compare theirs to that of others.
I've been successfully resisting efforts by my boss to give me a Blackberry for the last two years. I've seen what it does to co-workers and friends who have them and have no desire to spend half of my next vacation (or weekend or day off) responding to e-mails that could wait. If it's really important they'll call me. If it's not then I guess they can figure it out on their own. I know that some people find them useful but I don't count myself as being one of them.
As an aside, TFA says that the NSA is reviewing the security software. I wonder if they got access to the rest of the source-code and reviewed all of the other software? What does full time encryption do to the battery life and response time of the blackberry? I also wonder if the same restrictions that apply to other Federal workers regarding electronic devices will apply to his Blackberry? Will it be clipped to his waist when he's in the situation room dealing with the next international crisis? Or will he have to keep it out of secured areas?
I want peace on earth and goodwill toward man.
We are the United States Government! We don't do that sort of thing.
Hey, I got an idea. Lets give one to every member of Congress!
From the title I thought it would take 6821 years to develop a secure BlackBerry.
Hey, its part of what endeared him to me, not just for the tech side of it, but the fact that he likes to stay connected and on top of things.
The musings of just another geek and his junk.
but only to those with the secure software loaded on their own devices
How useful is the phone then really, if you can not even call the dry cleaners down the street? Or maybe Obama only communicates with 5 or so people?
A picture is worth exactly 1024 words.
Both actually, the single fat coloured mammy sitting at home and so forth is spending part of her welfare check to be one of your clients/customers, and that thanks to her money she's spending at your business that you can thrive and pay your 14 employees.
Now of course you probably stimulate more than she does, because if you're as successful as you make yourself sound, you have more money to spend, and therefore stimulate more. But the welfare check is stimulus money in that that's what allow people on welfare to keep on stimulating. It's the basics of economy really, it astounds me that the boss of such a flourish business such as you are would ignore that.
You just got troll'd!
The BlackBerry network does have outages from time to time. But the linked article is from April 18, 2007!
From the sounds of this, he could use any device that supports public key crypto for messages.
But does it stimulate the economy more than it would have done if it had been left in the original taxpayer pocket?
It's the broken window fallacy.
I will have a sig when the market demands it.
Outage last week? Wow, what happened to ever checking the dates, yes, April 17th, of 2007!!! REALLY old news... I've got a crackberry, had one for forever, now have a non-presidential edition 8830. I would never give it up, in fact, I probably would give up a firstborn for it.
I know reading the article is hard, but not even the summary?
When I hear that the President of my country, the commander in chief of its armed forces, is getting a "high security" blackberry which is being developed by our National Security Agency, all I can think of to say is 2 words..........
Uh oh.
Ray Beckerman +5 Insightful
He's at the top... everybody else is below him and reports to him. What are they going to do if he says no, fire him?
The whole point of three way checks and balances in US politics is that *no one* is at the top. The other two branches explicitly do not report to the president, and ideally, he reports to the people and the Constitution. How well this works in practice has been the subject of occasional debate.
So yes, please fire him if you find he's not living up to expectations in a few years. Call your congresscritter about firing him sooner if it becomes dire. I suggest coming up with a better issue than this one, though.
"...if BlackBerry has more outage problems like its latest last week, which meant no mobile e-mail for hours across the US."
Boy, anyone remember back in the day when Presidents used to get their information from Generals and top aides holding very flat pieces of compressed wood called paper?
Point here is if ANYONE could get away with a Blackberry outage for "hours across the US", it SHOULD be that man.
she might spend that same money more fully and more quickly, thus stimulating faster.
It's not the spending that stimulates, but making money by creating something of value. The money exchange is just an arbitrary measure of that value.
Hah, such naivete. Giving welfare mom more money does not necessarily mean a better life for her bastard offspring. It means she can get a new TV, dvd player or drugs...
Just look at how the welfare system is abused in NY State. The more offspring you have, the more money you make. Then the state pays for your children to have healthcare and you get WIC and you get a free house...
It sure pays to be a unemployed mooch around here.
Do you have evidence, or just a caricature of a welfare queen that was painted for you by Rush Limbaugh?
I mean, its really cool that the president will get back his Blackberry back and seems to embrace technology to some degree, but the DoD and the US Army have been issuing secure Blackberry's "encrypted to federal standards" for quite some time now.
No no, his post was from last year, referring to the year before that.
Tic-Tac-Toe, Global Thermonuclear War, and relationships all have the same winning move.
I'm not sure it's the broken window fallacy at all. The broken window fallacy requires that value be destroyed from the system in order to 'generate' value (which tends to lead to a total loss of value).
However, in the case of this taxation, what value is being destroyed?
"It is possible to commit no errors and still lose. That is not a weakness. That is life." -Peak Performance
but in the case of a welfare mom with 4 kids, the main difference is that by giving her more money she'll give better food, a better health but more importantly a better education to her 4 children, the difference being ultimately that these children will grow up to be more qualified and thus produce more value/wealth, but also move up in social classes.
What the heck are you basing this on? It's been my experience that welfare moms beget welfare children. And no, I'm not just parroting Rush Limbuagh. I've spent the last five years working for an agency in the human services field and my SO is a social worker with 13 years of experience. I've yet to see welfare moms produce anything other than welfare children. The welfare system in my experience creates a cycle of dependency that few people are able (or willing) to break out of.
I want peace on earth and goodwill toward man.
We are the United States Government! We don't do that sort of thing.
Summary? I don't even read the titles.
Tic-Tac-Toe, Global Thermonuclear War, and relationships all have the same winning move.
But the welfare check is stimulus money in that that's what allow people on welfare to keep on stimulating. It's the basics of economy really, it astounds me that the boss of such a flourish business such as you are would ignore that.
For there to be welfare money the government must either collect it in taxes, loan money or print money and all three weaken the economy. There might be other good reasons for doing it but taking the money from one that wants to buy a 100$ champagne bottle and redistribute it as welfare to buy 100$ of bread and milk isn't stimulating the economy. In fact, due to the overhead of the system it's probably less than 100$ coming out the other side with no tangible value produced. The reason for welfare is much more that poor and desperate people tend to become a problem all by themselves and cutting them a check keeps those that want to be honest on the honest side. The rest would wouldn't be any less of a problem without welfare, quite the opposite.
Live today, because you never know what tomorrow brings
I'm not trolling, just asking an honest question because I'm genuinely curious.
If Obama were to choose an iPhone, could it be made as secure as the solution implemented for his Blackberry?
As far as I know, the iPhone doesn't yet match the Blackberry in security and enterprise users, even though some Fortune 500 companies have started using it.
This space left intentionally blank.
Every communication will be something like this:
Advisor: Mr. President, there's a prob with X, WTF shuld we do?
President Obama: LOL! Throw money at it.
Advisor: Good call, Mr. President. Culd u b more specific?
President Obama: *sighs* Create a new "Czar of X" over the new "Bureau of X", silly.
Advisor: OMFG, BHO ROCKS!
Some defense contractors already offer special encrypted Blackberry phones for their employees. How is this device so different? Just a different set of proprietary encryption software?
"What's the use of a good quotation if you can't change it?" - Doctor Who
The value being destroyed is the cost overhead involved in the system. Do you honestly believe that 100% of the amount deducted from your paycheck, ostensibly for social security, is doled out to those collecting social security at a 1:1 ratio? No, there are other fees and costs associated with these systems as well.
And where does that money go? Pays people's salary.
You just got troll'd!
I'm not sure it's the broken window fallacy at all. The broken window fallacy requires that value be destroyed from the system in order to 'generate' value (which tends to lead to a total loss of value).
However, in the case of this taxation, what value is being destroyed?
The value of the worker's time and effort. Each day individuals trade heartbeats (in the form of work) for rewards (in the form of currency). By seizing and redistributing those rewards, the government devalues the individual's effort.
Actually it really became popular with Ronald Reagan and his Cadillac-driving welfare queens
You just got troll'd!
It was starting to look like the USA may have to send their army up to Waterloo to secure their strategic Blackberry reserves.
That's the one that says that the utility of a network is proportional to the square of the number of things (devices, people, services) connected to it.
I suspect that President Obama (isn't it interesting how many people seem to be avoiding using that 2 word phrase in writing about him?) is about to discover that the useful thing about a BlackBerry isn't the *device*, it's the *people at the other end*.
Whom he won't have.
Spending doesn't stimulate, really? So what if everybody stops spending? The whole economy dies. Money is economy's blood, and spending is the heart that pumps it. The only way you can say that "spending doesn't stimulate" is if you take spending entirely as granted.
You just got troll'd!
"The device is said to be in the final stages of development at the National Security Agency, which will check that its encryption software meets federal standards. It might not be ready for months"
Really, I would have thought it would be less secure after the spooks got their hands on it. As such I have corrected the title.
What does she destroy it? By the way iirc that's not Keynes' idea but Napoleon Bonaparte's, and Keynesian economics are making a huge comeback since deregulation has proven to be madness.
You just got troll'd!
*How does she destroy it
You just got troll'd!
I'm anxious to see when Apple will implement both data and transmission mandatory encryption on the iPhone for government and medical use. I attended an "iPhone and Government" meeting at one of Apples facilities in Reston, Va. the other day, with corporate representatives on hand to listen to the feedback of various agency IT/CIO folks and the concensus was Apple is working the DHS, OMB and other agencies to determine how Apple will pursue this. Being the iPhone was introduced only 20 some months ago, and version 3.0 of their OS is due later this year, their growth has been phenomenal, and finally they are devoting resources to the very vocal government sector who has hounded Apple to fully encrypt with sensible remote management and rollout.
For those not aware, the iPhone accounts for 60% of all combined wireless web traffic, offers Wi-Fi support in addition to 3G, and there are over 30,000 apps developed by 50,000 registered app developers. All apps reside in a sandbox, i.e. each has its own keychain of data and content and each requires a signed Apple security certificate authority to even run on the iPhone.
Many enterprise level apps already use proprietary encryption of data and transmission, password authentication and offer remote wipe, but we in the government await complete standardization of those (i.e. FDCC) as well as a vetted C&A process to ensure data integrity and performance.
It's just a matter of time, according to Apple, that Obama and the White House IT Dept. might consider trading in his Crackberry for the much more powerful and user friendly iPhone.
Mr Obama used a BlackBerry during the campaign---I assume thus that he chose to use a BlackBerry.
Also, you know there is a berry called a blackberry right? And blueberries (Celts)?
Hah, such naivete. Giving welfare mom more money does not necessarily mean a better life for her bastard offspring. It means she can get a new TV, dvd player or drugs...
Your cynicism blinds you to the greater issue here - that giving welfare mom more money for sitting on her ass doing nothing is teaching her kids to do the same.
Rampant carbon sequestration destroyed the Dinosaurs' tropical paradise. I'm here to help repair the damage.
You insensitive clods!
I will not be pushed, filed, stamped, indexed, briefed, debriefed or numbered. My life is my own.
The short answer is "yes".
When a dollar is spent, there is a multiplier effect. Money that gets into the hands of the lower income levels actually has the highest multiplier effect.
Did you know that the government spending that has the highest multiplier effect is an extension on unemployment benefits, at 1.83?
Government spending on subsidies to oil companies: less than 1
The multiplier effect only applies to our domestic economy. That's why corporate welfare has such a low multiplier, because so much of it leaves the country.
You are welcome on my lawn.
Give this man a point.
Moreover - blame politicians for ENGINEERING a political class totally dependent on his hand. It's brilliant - voters who depend on government assistance have practically no choice but to vote for the guy. And yes - I'm looking at republicans AND democrats.
Can anyone explain how congress can get a measly 13% approval rating and still re-elect over 90% of it's members in the same month?
I said no... but I missed and it came out yes.
And where does that money go? Pays people's salary.
If you're using the money on nonproductive stuff, then yes, you're "destroying" value.
You might quibble about whether the welfare mom's children will go on to create value - the (admittedly heartless) question is whether the future value will be a better investment that whatever value the taxpayer would have created (or would have been motivated to create, or a motivation to create or whatever).
There are three kinds of lies: lies, damned lies, and statistics.
Oh wait... who gives a flying rat's ass!!!
How about focusing on the economy and the country
Some carriers in the US use GSM, and some use CDMA.
The phones physically can't operate on all networks, except in a few rare and expensive cases.
I think all US carriers are crooks (with the slight exception of T-Mobile), but I'm more concerned with pricing and features than whether a network carrier to which I don't subscribe lets me connect to their network for free.
09 F9 11 02 9D 74 E3 5B D8 41 56 C5 63 56 88 C0
What do you mean coloured, like, purple? Dude and you didn't call an ambulance?
Your head a splode
Blackberry 8830 = 4.73 oz.
Sectera Edge = 12 oz.
And that's before you add on a CAC sled.
Of course Obama would go with the one that has a third the weight of the other one.
Just holding that Sectera Edge brick, I start getting carpal tunnel syndrome.
In general, that dollar is more likely to be spent and more immediately by the welfare mother, as the lower income levels tend to spend a higher percentage of their income. The counter argument is that the rich person who paid that dollar in taxes would have been more likely to invest and generate wealth with that dollar rather than spend it immediately. That dollar will still make it to another rich person who will likely invest spend his portion of the dollar and the cycle continues. The question is where that dollar is better spent, in the hands of the higher income people, or cycling through via the federal tax system to the lower income person.
The plural of anecdote is not data.
"Evidence" isn't a synonym for "data", either.
Can anyone explain how congress can get a measly 13% approval rating and still re-elect over 90% of it's members in the same month?
Gerrymandering?
I want peace on earth and goodwill toward man.
We are the United States Government! We don't do that sort of thing.
If it is relatively cheap, then ok, cool. The President wants a Blackberry and it won't be too expensive. No problem.
But that isn't what it sounds like. Take months? How many man hours at what price per hour will be required so he can read his fan mail now instead of 30 minutes later? If the price is going to be exorbitant and this is little more than a vanity item, then no. Just no.
Rubbish. The government relies on the value of the individual's effort; that's the whole point of taxation. Taxation does not destroy the value created by the worker.
"It is possible to commit no errors and still lose. That is not a weakness. That is life." -Peak Performance
Clearly people disapprove of other district's congress-people.
Due to the way the banking system works, the invested dollar will be spent several times (and counted as a whole dollar each time). It will be deposited, loaned out, re-deposited, re-loaned, invested in something or other, re-deposited, (repeat numerous times), and ultimately spent (probably as somebody's salary).
As aid to a lower-income person, it will be spent once, probably on goods made in another country.
It's all moot anyway. We make decisions based on a plurality of votes, and we have a plurality of people who are on the receiving end of progressive taxation.
Did you know that the government spending that has the highest multiplier effect is an extension on unemployment benefits, at 1.83?
You're limiting yourself to "government spending". I'm not sure where you got your factors (a google search returned only your comment). I don't doubt that unemployment benefits have the highest factor for government spending, but it doesn't follow that private investment wouldn't be higher still.
It may be a joke, but it funny because it strikes a deep truth. We would be better off with Congress doing as little as possible.
Except for ending slavery, the Nazis, communism, & securing American independence, war has never solved anything.
I wonder if any Republicans will make hay out of the fact that Blackberries are made by a Canadian company, and the President is unpatriotic for using one.
The great fear of the carriers is that they become dumb pipes. The lockdown of wireless bandwidth is simply shameful, but I can't imagine it changing without legislation.
Unlike the rest of us, if the president can't make a call on his BB, there are a handful of high-security folks around that can make the call for him on some other device.
stuff |
guess what, social workers tend to deal with the problem cases, the ones that don't manage, who can't cope, and occasionally people smart enough to know that a social worker going to bat for them will improve their situation. Your not seeing the people who struggle day to day maybe get a little help from family when it gets really bad but your just lumping them all in together because you have a job.
What are people supposed to do when there is no work, the industry drops away and theres 500, 1000 people chasing every job, and your already down on them because they haven't got a job. when GM shuts a factory and the workers are made redundant its not the workers that are defective, the managers thought they can make a bit more by out sourcing, so they did so. Now those workers are just welfare scroungers in your eyes.
it's difficult to get out of a situation like that, and if you work in human services as you say, then your getting your welfare check from the government too. It could even be seen as profiting off the misery of others. sure it might make you feel better to debase them, but they are just as human as you are and your one wage check away from being one of them.
Blarney Quality Restaurant, Plants
I'm from a Indian Reservation, lived there for 21 years, still have family and friends back there.
The welfare system from my experience is a terrible system that is more addictive and destructive than any drug.
The system the Federal Government through the BIA created is the worst thing that has happened to the American Indians.
TFA makes a big deal about the hackability and record-keeping issues surrounding e-mail. But that's really a non-issue, as RIM supports numerous corporate customers who have similar requirements. Its possible to configure a Blackberry to operate through a private enterprise e-mail system rather than the Canadian NOC. This answers many of the issues with record retention, encryption, and authentication (closely related to encryption).
The one valid issue is the ability to track the device's location. Even without cracking message or voice encryption, any device using a cellular network can be located rather easily. I'm not certain whether the Sectera Edge uses a government (military?) network different than the commercial ones. If not, it will be as easy to follow as any cheap phone.
Have gnu, will travel.
Now those workers are just welfare scroungers in your eyes.
sure it might make you feel better to debase them
Umm, where the hell did I say that? All I did was question the GP's assumption that welfare lifts the children of those on it out of poverty. You don't have to assume that I look down upon the people who use it just because I question the wisdom of the way the system works.
but they are just as human as you are and your one wage check away from being one of them.
Umm, no, I have savings and could manage to survive for upwards of a year if I lost my job, even without unemployment benefits. I opted to save my extra money during the economic boom instead of blowing it away on material possessions as many did.
I want peace on earth and goodwill toward man.
We are the United States Government! We don't do that sort of thing.
Rubbish. The government relies on the value of the individual's effort; that's the whole point of taxation. Taxation does not destroy the value created by the worker.
I didn't say it destroys the value created by the worker. The more money the gov takes from an individual at the end of the day, the less value that day's work for that individual. That individual's time is devalued.
Sorry, turns out you're right, anyone on welfare is a lazy stupid fried chicken and watermelon eating crack head. Oops, did I just speak your mind?
You just got troll'd!
And if she didn't get the welfare money, what other sources of money are available?
She could get a job.
She could also become a prostitute. She could become a thief. She could deal drugs. She could also have her kids steal, whore, and deal (It's happened.)
What would that teach her children?
A welfare check won't solve her problems, but I'm not so sure that cutting her off would be any better for her, her children, or society in general. Better solutions are needed.
If anyone against the Obama administration policies worked on the software / hardware security. I would certainly not want a 'special' made piece of equipment that is supposedly secure.
TOP DSLR Cameras Reviews of the top DSLRs
As a user of a Sectera GSM phone, I'd have to say I was a bit disappointed when I got it that it seemed straight out of 2001: one color display, complicated interface, poor form factor. Other than being able to go secure, it's not that great a phone IMHO. I've never used the Sectera handheld, but I would guess if RIM could pull off a secure BB solution they'd have a leg up on the Sectera just from a form-fits-function standpoint.
bueller...bueller...bueller
What the heck are you basing this on? It's been my experience that welfare moms beget welfare children. And no, I'm not just parroting Rush Limbuagh. I've spent the last five years working for an agency in the human services field and my SO is a social worker with 13 years of experience. I've yet to see welfare moms produce anything other than welfare children. The welfare system in my experience creates a cycle of dependency that few people are able (or willing) to break out of.
you state its your experience that welfare moms beget welfare children ,
I've yet to see welfare moms produce anything other than welfare children,
The welfare system in my experience creates a cycle of dependency that few people are able (or willing) to break out of.
Those are your own words, they don't sound positive do they? They don't suggest that this is any fault but their own, even in your reply you state, to paraphrase "I'd be ok i've got savings behind me" implying your not like they are. Do you think your words are coming across as anything else other than looking down on them?
Don't worry though its a normal human reaction to disassociate from groups that are suffering? We'd all go crazy if we considered ourselves to be part of that group or one step away. It's hard enough dealing with the issues we have to face as it is.
The whole general tone of this thread has been extremely negative making people on welfare sound like candidates for the jerry springer show.
I wanted to put some humanity in to the situation and present a different view point, theres far too much stereotyping going on. You can be a decent person and be on welfare. And really isn't it true you and your partner are going to come into contact with the worst cases.
If the Economy was good, perhaps it would be possible for subsidized childcare and education programs to break these mothers out of the poverty welfare trap. Politically I can't see America being ready for that ever. your more likely to fix your health system first.
note the grandparent was talking about raising the level of welfare payments which could make the difference between survival and being to do something positive to improve the quality of life.
Think about this, I remember talking with a guy who i went to school with his cousin was in my class at school but she wasn't in school much, not because her parents didn't want her in school but primarily because she didn't have shoes! I never realized people could be that poor. That was the cost of her education. I'll tell you another, boy i used to take to school from time to time (as part of my job) was often late up and didn't go. Why? he didn't have an alarm clock. I gave him my old one (which was probably against the rules) and his attendance improved dramatically. It's hard to imagine poverty like that but when there is so little money in a household things get sacrificed.
Your savings don't really matter too much, they will help you survive longer, but they will not give you a job, or clean you of that taint of being unemployed.
That sucks but you must know that being employed is key to getting a new job, certainly anything paying over minimum wage.
The crystal meth comments floating round this thread really annoyed me, do people really think welfare pays enough to support a family and pay for a drug habit?
as the thread title says racism is rampant, I can only hope that the united in United States will eventually mean united and stop Americans being prejudiced against their
fellow Americans.
I hope you get it now the difference between an employed American and an unemployed American is a pay check, and in the current circumstances the chances of going from the former to the latter are improving all the time.
Consider this suppose tomorrow your partner tells you she is pregnant (i'm assuming your a heterosexual man) and suppose you argued and split up. what would stop her from becoming a welfare mom?
I hope the answer
Blarney Quality Restaurant, Plants
Your congresscritter has no ability to fire the president.
The president only gets fired if he commits a high crime or misdemeanor and is found guilty of the criminal act during an impeachment proceeding.
Not meeting the people's expectations doesn't result in forced removal from office (unless the president opts to voluntarily resign on the basis of failure to meet people's expectations or approval)
If the rumors about China sneaking back-doors into their chips is true, the Chinese government could soon have direct access to Obama's telecommunications.
Well... More direct than it's been so far, at least...
http://www.dataoutagenews.com/ reported on the outage as soon as it hit. As many .gov and .mil people that are subscribed to their mail lists, I'm sure they knew about it and had other ways to work around them.
The ramifications/implications of those things are pretty deep, even deeper than in the broken window fallacy, but in the case of a welfare mom with 4 kids, the main difference is that by giving her more money she'll give better food, a better health but more importantly a better education to her 4 children, the difference being ultimately that these children will grow up to be more qualified and thus produce more value/wealth, but also move up in social classes.
Wishful thinking at its finest. Yes, it does happen, but that's easily the exception to the rule. If that actually worked in practice, then social classes would more or less dissolve in a generation or two; or, at least, you wouldn't see nearly the level of similarity we currently do between generations of a single family.
From what I've seen, most lower-class people tend to be in that situation because they can't manage their money to save their life, not because of their lower-paying jobs. I'm doing (very limited) freelancing between having left a desk job and prepping a startup right now, and going for a month or more making nothing but a dollar in interest on my bank account isn't breaking my back because I knew how to save effectively while I was working a day job and know how to keep my expenses low right now. I've seen houses that have a satellite dish mounted next to their broken windows through which you can see an obscenely large TV - they're making enough to pay the bill for the dish (or somehow managed to get enough credit to postpone that for a while too), but their priorities are so out of whack that they're doing that instead of fixing the damn window. In Vermont. Where winters are pretty damn cold, on a warm year. These people could win the lottery and end up broke again in six months and still have a broken window.
I think I have every right to be annoyed when my taxes go towards their welfare checks. Luckily, they probably go uncashed since I doubt they ever bothered to repair their mailbox since they're too busy trying to defrost their TV in January. I'm all for helping people get back on their feet, but I shouldn't have to explain the absurdity of cutting welfare checks to people that have put themselves in the above scenario.
How are sites slashdotted when nobody reads TFAs?
I think it's safe to say that people who spend their lives on welfare and thereby teach their children that you can get free money by doing nothing are pretty damn lazy, yes. People that use the welfare system as it's intended (making sure you don't starve or freeze to death while you're between jobs) tend not be what most people would consider lazy, and I think most taxpayers can sympathize to at least some degree.
There's absolutely no need to bring racial stereotypes into the picture - it just makes you look like an asshole. I would wager that there's significantly higher usage of hard drugs among those who live their lives on welfare, though.
How are sites slashdotted when nobody reads TFAs?
My bet is that the woman with 4 children who is surviving on a welfare check doesn't have much money to spend at this 14 employee company after she buys food, diapers, clothes, pays for the bills, makes the house or apartment payment, etc. She puts some money back in, but not much. The welfare system needs to be there. There are people that need help. Unfortunately, in the United States, the system is very flawed and our dollars aren't being spent as wisely as they could be.
I agree, Welfare is a breeding spawn for social pariahs. It's not really their fault, they're only lazy, greedy, or taking advantage of the system. They system isn't doing it's job (and with database and technology these days, there's no excuse not to be more efficient) and all because of the children. If a family on welfare gets another child? Take the children away. That's gross negligence. Don't give them more money. Bleeding heart liberals assume parents aren't selfish bastards and would spend the money on food for the children and not other stuff. And that children are ALWAYS better off with their parents.
One example, I had a mother call into the social service office to get money for CABLE television, because she barely had enough for food and god forbid her child goes without cable. And before people ask, I'm not altruistic or a bleeding heart liberal, I only work there to maintain the IT and make sure they run smoothly and do the most with the equipment they have because it suits my current lifestyle.