The Sadness of Welfare

Off Topic Politics & World Issues
101

[quote]Rockscar wrote:

[quote]CappedAndPlanIt wrote:

[quote]Rockscar wrote:

[quote]CappedAndPlanIt wrote:

[quote]Rockscar wrote:

[quote]CappedAndPlanIt wrote:

[quote]dnlcdstn wrote:

Absolutely true. Don’t give a man a dollar. Give him an opportunity.[/quote]

I’ll pay you three dollars a day to clean my entire house, take care of my dogs, and do my grocery shopping.

What? You dont do it because its a lot of work for shit pay? BUT I’M GIVING YOU AN OPPORTUNITY, I’M CREATING A JOB!

Ungrateful prick. The nerve. :P[/quote]

WHACKO ALERT…BEWARE!

Does everyone deserve what one driven individual has worked hard to achieve?

The real world is not subject to Kindergarten rules or even the concept of “fair”.

[/quote]

Does one individual deserve what many others have worked hard to produce?

If you were unemployed and the only job opportunity you had was the one being my servant for 3 bucks a day, would you take it? Would you praise me for “giving you an opportunity” and “creating a job” for you?

Thought not.[/quote]

I guess in your world this is the only job available to me. Nope, I create MY opportunities.

No, I would FIND A BETTER JOB! Wow what a concept huh?

-I did get laid off…in July 2010
-I did look for work…
-I did accept a job making 30% of what I did before…
-I did accept that job because I have bills to pay. Even though my expenses exceed that income, you HAVE to start somewhere.

AND FINALLY

I will keep on the path to job and income improvement.

That’s the difference between us, I push forward without bitching, doing what needs to be done… and you would rather focus on what’s bad, and complain and cry about how unfair the world is. It’s like you think someone needs to come TO YOU with a job offer, and then that’s not enough either. Pathetic. You are a true example of the problem.
[/quote]

And how did you manage, during that time of unemployment, and of underemployment, not to end up in copious amounts of debt? [/quote]

Another shocking concept for you …

It’s call being responsible. It’s called putting a few dollars away each month. I drained my savings severely to make the ends meet. I also accepted unemployment for 2 months which I had paid into for over 20 years.

You seem to have the whole well…what if…what if no job, what if no savings, what if fired and no unemployment???

I conduct my life as to NOT be that guy.

Responsibility is the final answer.

Our grandparents used to work 2-3 jobs and 90 hours a week and never complained like martyrs or bitches. You did what needed to be done, and your life is nobody elses fault but YOUR FUCKING OWN.[/quote]

Right, right, except that none of that is true. But saying it IN A REALLY AGRESSIVE MANNER sure does make you feel better, huh cupcake?

See, if we looked at your life story, we’d find plenty of examples of you getting completely unearned benefits (from your family, society, psychological benefits, etc). But of course, oh no not you, you came from nothing and pulled yourself up by your own bootstraps.

And, of course, the reason you were responsible, while others take a free ride, is that you’re just better than them.

102

[quote]CappedAndPlanIt wrote:

[quote]Rockscar wrote:

[quote]CappedAndPlanIt wrote:

[quote]Rockscar wrote:

[quote]CappedAndPlanIt wrote:

[quote]Rockscar wrote:

[quote]CappedAndPlanIt wrote:

[quote]dnlcdstn wrote:

Absolutely true. Don’t give a man a dollar. Give him an opportunity.[/quote]

I’ll pay you three dollars a day to clean my entire house, take care of my dogs, and do my grocery shopping.

What? You dont do it because its a lot of work for shit pay? BUT I’M GIVING YOU AN OPPORTUNITY, I’M CREATING A JOB!

Ungrateful prick. The nerve. :P[/quote]

WHACKO ALERT…BEWARE!

Does everyone deserve what one driven individual has worked hard to achieve?

The real world is not subject to Kindergarten rules or even the concept of “fair”.

[/quote]

Does one individual deserve what many others have worked hard to produce?

If you were unemployed and the only job opportunity you had was the one being my servant for 3 bucks a day, would you take it? Would you praise me for “giving you an opportunity” and “creating a job” for you?

Thought not.[/quote]

I guess in your world this is the only job available to me. Nope, I create MY opportunities.

No, I would FIND A BETTER JOB! Wow what a concept huh?

-I did get laid off…in July 2010
-I did look for work…
-I did accept a job making 30% of what I did before…
-I did accept that job because I have bills to pay. Even though my expenses exceed that income, you HAVE to start somewhere.

AND FINALLY

I will keep on the path to job and income improvement.

That’s the difference between us, I push forward without bitching, doing what needs to be done… and you would rather focus on what’s bad, and complain and cry about how unfair the world is. It’s like you think someone needs to come TO YOU with a job offer, and then that’s not enough either. Pathetic. You are a true example of the problem.
[/quote]

And how did you manage, during that time of unemployment, and of underemployment, not to end up in copious amounts of debt? [/quote]

Another shocking concept for you …

It’s call being responsible. It’s called putting a few dollars away each month. I drained my savings severely to make the ends meet. I also accepted unemployment for 2 months which I had paid into for over 20 years.

You seem to have the whole well…what if…what if no job, what if no savings, what if fired and no unemployment???

I conduct my life as to NOT be that guy.

Responsibility is the final answer.

Our grandparents used to work 2-3 jobs and 90 hours a week and never complained like martyrs or bitches. You did what needed to be done, and your life is nobody elses fault but YOUR FUCKING OWN.[/quote]

Right, right, except that none of that is true. But saying it IN A REALLY AGRESSIVE MANNER sure does make you feel better, huh cupcake?

See, if we looked at your life story, we’d find plenty of examples of you getting completely unearned benefits (from your family, society, psychological benefits, etc). But of course, oh no not you, you came from nothing and pulled yourself up by your own bootstraps.

And, of course, the reason you were responsible, while others take a free ride, is that you’re just better than them. [/quote]

And those are unfair statements on many levels. Firstly, you have no idea about his background. He may very well have come from nothing and made a good life for himself. People do that, it happens. Secondly, you assume that those who are born poor never have a break, never have a teacher who cares, or a mother who loves them, or a multitude of programs to get them out of poverty. But like all liberals you assume that it is governments responsibility to pay people for doing nothing. This CAUSES those very people to continue to do nothing. It DOES NOT Give them the work ethic that Rock obviously has.

Why is it that the left cannot see this?

103

[quote]ZEB wrote:

[quote]Fletch1986 wrote:

[quote]Brother Chris wrote:

[quote]Fletch1986 wrote:
Another issue is that a full time working person (40hours) at minumum wage can’t bring a family out of poverty. Like what was said above to some extent, someone working 60hours a week isn’t going to be able to get out of that rut through education financially and the time it takes.

Remember that someone has to watch children through certain ages and also many min. wage jobs don’t give regular hours making it even more difficult to support a family (child care and financially). Daycares are very expensive. I think a lot of the welfare issue could be fixed through raising the min. wage.[/quote]

You study much economics?[/quote]

If the government didn’t tax people as much, but instead raised the min. wage, I think it could work out and make both parties happier (employer and employee).[/quote]

Raising the minimum wage is not the answer. According to government statistics over 85% of those making the minimum wage are teens, or those in starter jobs. If someone wants to make more than the minimum wage they must work their way out of it. Also, raising the minimum wage will cause business to hike prices thus causing inflation.

[/quote]

That’s why I mentioned tax cuts. Especially for businesses that would be hiring. And it’s not uncommon to see people who have worked there ass off for years at Walmart only to be making $2 over min. wage. I think one of the reasons people used to have more pride and were more willing to work doing ‘menial’ jobs in the 50s and 60s is because the min. wage to poverty level was closer together.

104

CappedAndPlanIt I probably have the most experience with the loving embrace of the government then anyone on this board. Let me tell you, when the government gets its “loving” arms around you, you either break free and lift yourself up or get dragged down and beaten.

105

[quote]Rockscar wrote:

[quote]CappedAndPlanIt wrote:
Also, rockscar, all your personal attacks are completely off base. But you are, after all, an idiot who thinks saying angry things and posting some douchebag picture as your avatar gives you any merit.[/quote]

Gotcha. You have no argument to logic and responsibility as evident here. If you think I wrote a personal attack then you have some very soft skin.

I’m sorry for thinking you are a lazy “the world is not fair” doucher, but your posts led me to believe that.

I can see now that is not the case. [/quote]

Yup, I’m just lazy. In 2009 I spent about 6 or 7 months working about 60 hours a week, then 40 hours when I quit the second job. Then, I was let go from my full time job in march of 2010 and, that day, went back to reapply for my old part time job. From there I took another job, which, after about a month of full time, ended up being part time as well, so I was back to working about 50 hours a week. Also, I took a couple of classes in the spring of 2010 and one in the fall of 2010, and now two more for the spring of 2011. I was lucky enough to be able to go to school for massage therapy a few years back, so I’ve kept up with a few clients with weekly/bimonthly sessions for a little extra money on the side and have been trying to get into different organizations doing on site chair massage (though the field is a bit difficult for male therapists). Toss in girlfriends, friends, and going to the gym at least a few times a week, and, yeah, I’m real fucking lazy and I sit back and wait for people to hand me jobs.

106

[quote]CappedAndPlanIt wrote:

[quote]Brother Chris wrote:

[quote]CappedAndPlanIt wrote:

[quote]Brother Chris wrote:

[quote]CappedAndPlanIt wrote:
That bitch. She should be working 60 hours a week for minimum wage to make some already rich people even richer while she struggles to pay her rent.

Let the flaming begin, but don’t miss my point: when the system is designed to fuck people, don’t be surprised when people decide to start fucking the system.[/quote]

Well, she could always start up her own business doing hair, or doing nails. Then she could really “stick it” to the man by charging his wife $150 to do her hair and nails.[/quote]

Yup. She can just magically poof into existence the money for the licenses/certifications, the equipment, the schooling, the insurance, etc, etc.

Actually I’m a big fan of people doing work for others and getting paid directly without the government getting a cut, I do it all the time. But the government hates that, so they put everything in a persons way to stop them.[/quote]

You do realise that a don’t actually need a license or a certificate to do that stuff right? I cut hair for side cash two mornings a week and the only thing is that I am required to inform my clients that I don’t have papers from the state.[/quote]

Actually nope, didn’t know that (please dont try attacking the fact that I didn’t research that particular trade).

My point, however, still stands, that starting a business is not a possibility for most people.[/quote]

No, I was just pointing out that you don’t need a license. Yeah, I’m not telling all the poor people to start up a landscaping company, I’m just saying there are possibilities.

As well, I have no problem with people that are poor and those that need help to get help, but when they have no incentive to try…I disagree with that.

Because really, I spend a good 20+ hours a week working with the less fortunate and that includes prisoners. And, it would be hypocritical of my knowledge to say that if you just tried harder you could “make it.” Some people aren’t going to be able to take that first step no matter what or at all (handicap or whatever reason) and they need society. Some of the people need help over that first step, many of the poor children have no idea where to start to get a job, no idea what it takes. They need help where help can be given, but giving them incentive to not try is not the answer.

107

[quote]CappedAndPlanIt wrote:

[quote]ZEB wrote:

[quote]CappedAndPlanIt wrote:

I’ll pay you three dollars a day to clean my entire house, take care of my dogs, and do my grocery shopping.

What? You dont do it because its a lot of work for shit pay? BUT I’M GIVING YOU AN OPPORTUNITY, I’M CREATING A JOB!

Ungrateful prick. The nerve. :P[/quote]

I wish that were the problem. In reality the problem is that most on welfare, and now the Obama extended unemployment insurance debacle, are turning down jobs that are close to what they’re making on these programs. They would rather make a little less and do nothing than show up and try each day for a little more. Human nature my friend…human nature.

By the way that’s one reason that you will never see unemployment below 9% or 10%. As long as you pay people something close to what they were making to not work most will continue to take that money and not work.

Simple logic that liberals cannot grasp for some reason.
[/quote]

I disagree about the “human nature” part. If it really were just a matter of humnan nature, a lot more people would do it.

But you’re right when you say “As long as you pay people something close to what they were making to not work most will continue to take that money and not work.” Maybe if jobs paid more, people would be on welfare less?

Again, there goes my horrible vision of the majority of the country living comforably instead of the countries wealth being concentrated on a small group. That’d be awful.

[/quote]

No that would be great, we are in agreement on that one. BUT, you want government to help them do it and I want them to do it themselves (with the proper amount of government help which is minimal and revolves around training and incentives). Also, it is not businesses responsibility to pay people more. They will pay what the market bears. That’s why Derek Jeter of the NY Yankees pulls in over 20 mil per year. Is he worth it? According to the NY Yankees organization he is, therefore he is! Basic economics. It’s not up to government to dictate what business pays its workforce. It’s up to government to let the market place be the market place. When they interfere as they do by handing welfare recipients and those on extended unemployment a continuous flow of checks that upsets the market place and doesn’t help business, or the people who are getting the free checks.

We both want people to do better but the current system enables them to remain stuck in the doldrums that they’re in.

108

Correction, I lost the full time job in January and got the part time job back at the beginnig of March. Sorry.

109

[quote]CappedAndPlanIt wrote:

Right, right, except that none of that is true. But saying it IN A REALLY AGRESSIVE MANNER sure does make you feel better, huh cupcake?[/quote]

Thanks sweetie. I will refrain from using any sort of caps, or swearing so as not to hurt your fragile sensibilities. I only did it to help make you understand my friend.

[quote]
And, of course, the reason you were responsible, while others take a free ride, is that you’re just better than them. [/quote]

I never said such a thing. I said I conduct my life and plan so as NOT (oops) to be “That guy”. It’s only because of me protecting my situation that I’m not out on my ass.

“That Guy” should be the exception, not the rule. There used to shame in being “That Guy”, and “That Guy” used to bust his hump to pay the bills, but 'That Guy" is now accepting of the fact he cannot create the will to succeed and he settles for a taxpayer funded lifestyle.

Success is not being rich my friend. Is that what you think?

110

[quote]CappedAndPlanIt wrote:

[quote]ZEB wrote:

[quote]CappedAndPlanIt wrote:

How many GENERATIONS of families have been poor all their lives?
[/quote]

That coincides almost exactly with how many generations have been on welfare. Are you seeing a cause and effect yet?

Why work when you get things for free?

[/quote]

I think you’re confusing cause and effect. You seem to be saying that welfare is the problem. I’m saying the conditions that lead to people being on welfare are the problem. [/quote]

There are problems beyond welfare I agree with you. But welfare exacerbates the problem. You would not have generation after generation on the government dole if the government did not create the current entitlement mentality.

111

[quote]CappedAndPlanIt wrote:

[quote]Rockscar wrote:

[quote]CappedAndPlanIt wrote:
Also, rockscar, all your personal attacks are completely off base. But you are, after all, an idiot who thinks saying angry things and posting some douchebag picture as your avatar gives you any merit.[/quote]

Gotcha. You have no argument to logic and responsibility as evident here. If you think I wrote a personal attack then you have some very soft skin.

I’m sorry for thinking you are a lazy “the world is not fair” doucher, but your posts led me to believe that.

I can see now that is not the case. [/quote]

Yup, I’m just lazy. In 2009 I spent about 6 or 7 months working about 60 hours a week, then 40 hours when I quit the second job. Then, I was let go from my full time job in march of 2010 and, that day, went back to reapply for my old part time job. From there I took another job, which, after about a month of full time, ended up being part time as well, so I was back to working about 50 hours a week. Also, I took a couple of classes in the spring of 2010 and one in the fall of 2010, and now two more for the spring of 2011. I was lucky enough to be able to go to school for massage therapy a few years back, so I’ve kept up with a few clients with weekly/bimonthly sessions for a little extra money on the side and have been trying to get into different organizations doing on site chair massage (though the field is a bit difficult for male therapists). Toss in girlfriends, friends, and going to the gym at least a few times a week, and, yeah, I’m real fucking lazy and I sit back and wait for people to hand me jobs. [/quote]

Very admirable. Do you not expect the same drive from others, or do you accept that they will not try to do as you are?

That’s what I don’t get. You argue for that you do not practice.

112

[quote]Fletch1986 wrote:

[quote]Brother Chris wrote:

[quote]Fletch1986 wrote:
Another issue is that a full time working person (40hours) at minumum wage can’t bring a family out of poverty. Like what was said above to some extent, someone working 60hours a week isn’t going to be able to get out of that rut through education financially and the time it takes.

Remember that someone has to watch children through certain ages and also many min. wage jobs don’t give regular hours making it even more difficult to support a family (child care and financially). Daycares are very expensive. I think a lot of the welfare issue could be fixed through raising the min. wage.[/quote]

You study much economics?[/quote]

If the government didn’t tax people as much, but instead raised the min. wage, I think it could work out and make both parties happier (employer and employee).[/quote]

Raising min. wage works for about six months or less. Wages have increased over 1200% in hundred years, standard of living has only increased 800%. Until they established min. wage inflation was a little bit above zero percent for fifty years, the next fifty years averaged 10%.

113

[quote]Fletch1986 wrote:

[quote]ZEB wrote:

[quote]Fletch1986 wrote:

[quote]Brother Chris wrote:

[quote]Fletch1986 wrote:
Another issue is that a full time working person (40hours) at minumum wage can’t bring a family out of poverty. Like what was said above to some extent, someone working 60hours a week isn’t going to be able to get out of that rut through education financially and the time it takes.

Remember that someone has to watch children through certain ages and also many min. wage jobs don’t give regular hours making it even more difficult to support a family (child care and financially). Daycares are very expensive. I think a lot of the welfare issue could be fixed through raising the min. wage.[/quote]

You study much economics?[/quote]

If the government didn’t tax people as much, but instead raised the min. wage, I think it could work out and make both parties happier (employer and employee).[/quote]

Raising the minimum wage is not the answer. According to government statistics over 85% of those making the minimum wage are teens, or those in starter jobs. If someone wants to make more than the minimum wage they must work their way out of it. Also, raising the minimum wage will cause business to hike prices thus causing inflation.

[/quote]

That’s why I mentioned tax cuts. Especially for businesses that would be hiring. And it’s not uncommon to see people who have worked there ass off for years at Walmart only to be making $2 over min. wage. I think one of the reasons people used to have more pride and were more willing to work doing ‘menial’ jobs in the 50s and 60s is because the min. wage to poverty level was closer together.[/quote]

I doubt your last statement. If you are going to comment on the 50’s you first have to look at the culture back then. They actually felt shame in those days. It was very humiliating to accept a hand-out from anyone especially the government back then.

Also, regarding the fellow at Walmart. No one is twisting his arm to work for $2 over the minimum wage. He can always take that experience and try to squeeze his next employer for more money. That IS the way our system works.

When government gets involved everyone loses in the long term.

114

[quote]CappedAndPlanIt wrote:

[quote]Rockscar wrote:

[quote]CappedAndPlanIt wrote:
Also, rockscar, all your personal attacks are completely off base. But you are, after all, an idiot who thinks saying angry things and posting some douchebag picture as your avatar gives you any merit.[/quote]

Gotcha. You have no argument to logic and responsibility as evident here. If you think I wrote a personal attack then you have some very soft skin.

I’m sorry for thinking you are a lazy “the world is not fair” doucher, but your posts led me to believe that.

I can see now that is not the case. [/quote]

Yup, I’m just lazy. In 2009 I spent about 6 or 7 months working about 60 hours a week, then 40 hours when I quit the second job. Then, I was let go from my full time job in march of 2010 and, that day, went back to reapply for my old part time job. From there I took another job, which, after about a month of full time, ended up being part time as well, so I was back to working about 50 hours a week. Also, I took a couple of classes in the spring of 2010 and one in the fall of 2010, and now two more for the spring of 2011. I was lucky enough to be able to go to school for massage therapy a few years back, so I’ve kept up with a few clients with weekly/bimonthly sessions for a little extra money on the side and have been trying to get into different organizations doing on site chair massage (though the field is a bit difficult for male therapists). Toss in girlfriends, friends, and going to the gym at least a few times a week, and, yeah, I’m real fucking lazy and I sit back and wait for people to hand me jobs. [/quote]

That’s a great story and one you can be proud of. So why don’t you want others to do what you’ve done (or something close) in order to better themselves? Why do you want government to intervene? You would not be the person you are today had you relied on government.

115

[quote]Rockscar wrote:
Another shocking concept for you …

It’s call being responsible. It’s called putting a few dollars away each month. I drained my savings severely to make the ends meet. I also accepted unemployment for 2 months which I had paid into for over 20 years.[/quote]

This is something that has stopped being taught or is ignored altogether by people lacking/ignoring this knowledge.

[quote]You seem to have the whole well…what if…what if no job, what if no savings, what if fired and no unemployment???

I conduct my life as to NOT be that guy.[/quote]
That’s good, but at the same time there are so many breaks that can happen, ie, not everyone has the good job interview, or has connections or…
IMO, it all starts in childhood when these habits should be taught.
I’m a perfect example of an early fuck-up and late bloomer.

Yes it is, but when that responsibility hasn’t been taught or enforced(might be a good idea? maybe not), you can’t just blame people entirely for where they are in life.
It’s not an excuse, it’s reality.

I think the argument nowadays, is that to have a fairly comfortable living (ie IMO being able to own your own house, car, help with kids tuition, not worrying that you won’t have money for food on the table(I think these are reasonable for what is comfortable)), you shouldn’t have to work 90 hour weeks, and I agree with that.

When a 40 or 60 hour week at minimum wage can’t cover your cost of living, (nowadays) it’s either welfare or crime. Which one of these costs more and which would you prefer?

116

[quote]ZEB wrote:

[quote]CappedAndPlanIt wrote:

[quote]ZEB wrote:

[quote]CappedAndPlanIt wrote:

I’ll pay you three dollars a day to clean my entire house, take care of my dogs, and do my grocery shopping.

What? You dont do it because its a lot of work for shit pay? BUT I’M GIVING YOU AN OPPORTUNITY, I’M CREATING A JOB!

Ungrateful prick. The nerve. :P[/quote]

I wish that were the problem. In reality the problem is that most on welfare, and now the Obama extended unemployment insurance debacle, are turning down jobs that are close to what they’re making on these programs. They would rather make a little less and do nothing than show up and try each day for a little more. Human nature my friend…human nature.

By the way that’s one reason that you will never see unemployment below 9% or 10%. As long as you pay people something close to what they were making to not work most will continue to take that money and not work.

Simple logic that liberals cannot grasp for some reason.
[/quote]

I disagree about the “human nature” part. If it really were just a matter of humnan nature, a lot more people would do it.

But you’re right when you say “As long as you pay people something close to what they were making to not work most will continue to take that money and not work.” Maybe if jobs paid more, people would be on welfare less?

Again, there goes my horrible vision of the majority of the country living comforably instead of the countries wealth being concentrated on a small group. That’d be awful.

[/quote]

No that would be great, we are in agreement on that one. BUT, you want government to help them do it and I want them to do it themselves (with the proper amount of government help which is minimal and revolves around training and incentives). Also, it is not businesses responsibility to pay people more. They will pay what the market bears. That’s why Derek Jeter of the NY Yankees pulls in over 20 mil per year. Is he worth it? According to the NY Yankees organization he is, therefore he is! Basic economics. It’s not up to government to dictate what business pays its workforce. It’s up to government to let the market place be the market place. When they interfere as they do by handing welfare recipients and those on extended unemployment a continuous flow of checks that upsets the market place and doesn’t help business, or the people who are getting the free checks.

We both want people to do better but the current system enables them to remain stuck in the doldrums that they’re in.
[/quote]

I’m not saying the governmetn should dictate what a business pays its workers. But how can you say “it is not businesses responsibility to pay people more”? Who else will pay the workers? Who profits from the work those workers do?

Also, I don’t think its right, or good, that people get money for nothing. But, again, welfare isnt the problem. The conditons that lead people to being on welfare are the problem, and we should focus on those.

117

[quote]ZEB wrote:

[quote]Fletch1986 wrote:

[quote]ZEB wrote:

[quote]Fletch1986 wrote:

[quote]Brother Chris wrote:

[quote]Fletch1986 wrote:
Another issue is that a full time working person (40hours) at minumum wage can’t bring a family out of poverty. Like what was said above to some extent, someone working 60hours a week isn’t going to be able to get out of that rut through education financially and the time it takes.

Remember that someone has to watch children through certain ages and also many min. wage jobs don’t give regular hours making it even more difficult to support a family (child care and financially). Daycares are very expensive. I think a lot of the welfare issue could be fixed through raising the min. wage.[/quote]

You study much economics?[/quote]

If the government didn’t tax people as much, but instead raised the min. wage, I think it could work out and make both parties happier (employer and employee).[/quote]

Raising the minimum wage is not the answer. According to government statistics over 85% of those making the minimum wage are teens, or those in starter jobs. If someone wants to make more than the minimum wage they must work their way out of it. Also, raising the minimum wage will cause business to hike prices thus causing inflation.

[/quote]

That’s why I mentioned tax cuts. Especially for businesses that would be hiring. And it’s not uncommon to see people who have worked there ass off for years at Walmart only to be making $2 over min. wage. I think one of the reasons people used to have more pride and were more willing to work doing ‘menial’ jobs in the 50s and 60s is because the min. wage to poverty level was closer together.[/quote]

Also, regarding the fellow at Walmart. No one is twisting his arm to work for $2 over the minimum wage. He can always take that experience and try to squeeze his next employer for more money. That IS the way our system works.

When government gets involved everyone loses in the long term.
[/quote]

As the guy who is working at walmart for $2 over minimum wage, I agree with everything you are saying.(Just passed my 3 year mark).

118

Here’s a thought.
Instead of having people get welfare checks, why not teach them(the school would be mandatory) some skills so they can get a decent job that is the first step to a better life, and if they’re doing this, let them have housing and food stamps while they’re buliding themselves up.
(sorry if this is being done, but to my knowledge it isn’t)

119

[quote]Rockscar wrote:

[quote]CappedAndPlanIt wrote:

[quote]Rockscar wrote:

[quote]CappedAndPlanIt wrote:
Also, rockscar, all your personal attacks are completely off base. But you are, after all, an idiot who thinks saying angry things and posting some douchebag picture as your avatar gives you any merit.[/quote]

Gotcha. You have no argument to logic and responsibility as evident here. If you think I wrote a personal attack then you have some very soft skin.

I’m sorry for thinking you are a lazy “the world is not fair” doucher, but your posts led me to believe that.

I can see now that is not the case. [/quote]

Yup, I’m just lazy. In 2009 I spent about 6 or 7 months working about 60 hours a week, then 40 hours when I quit the second job. Then, I was let go from my full time job in march of 2010 and, that day, went back to reapply for my old part time job. From there I took another job, which, after about a month of full time, ended up being part time as well, so I was back to working about 50 hours a week. Also, I took a couple of classes in the spring of 2010 and one in the fall of 2010, and now two more for the spring of 2011. I was lucky enough to be able to go to school for massage therapy a few years back, so I’ve kept up with a few clients with weekly/bimonthly sessions for a little extra money on the side and have been trying to get into different organizations doing on site chair massage (though the field is a bit difficult for male therapists). Toss in girlfriends, friends, and going to the gym at least a few times a week, and, yeah, I’m real fucking lazy and I sit back and wait for people to hand me jobs. [/quote]

Very admirable. Do you not expect the same drive from others, or do you accept that they will not try to do as you are?

That’s what I don’t get. You argue for that you do not practice.
[/quote]

I understand where my drive comes from. I accept that I’ve had many tangible and psychological benefits that others do not. My mother raised my brother, sister, and I, usually on very low paying jobs. She has always worked hard, so I have a good work ethic. She, however, got a lot of support from my grandparents (it was actually inheritance money from them that put me through school for massage therapy - another unearned benefit I received). My mother also inherited a car, and so was able to give me hers (the other few junkers I’ve had, I’ve paid for with my own cash). Furthermore, I’m white. That gives me a range of benefits, such as an edge in the job market, as well as the psychological advantage that being successful is “normal” for me.

So, yes, I’m fairly hard working and responsible - but those things come from advantages I’ve had.

120

Damn, I just read through the thread and I felt I actually needed to log in and reply for the first time in probably 2 years.

I can understand why people feel compelled to defend the welfare system that we have, and I do understand why people have a tendency to align every government assistance program with welfare and lump them together. What I can’t understand is how people can actually buy in to their own slippery slope arguments.

Apparently cutting the welfare budget to a smaller size, or at the very least restricting eligibility will lead to some Post Apocalyptic Captain Tripps ravaged country with the bodies of the poor lining the streets. It’s simply not true and is 100% rhetoric designed to make people feel, on some level, guilty for not wanting to help out someone in need.

I’ve been unemployed now for 53 weeks. Fifty Three weeks. A year and change. It’s been a disaster for me financially and socially. Had there been no Unemployment INSURANCE, I would be completely screwed. The key word here, insurance, is important to remember. To qualify for unemployment benefits of any kind in the state of New Jersey you have to have worked for a certain amount of time, and earned a certain amount of money. It’s also temporary. Right now benefits are extended, but generally people are allowed 6 months of UE and then it’s over until they’ve worked again to meet another required minimum. Obviously a different animal from Welfare.

I was also hit with some bad luck about 6 weeks after losing my job. I ended up in the emergency room and needed surgery. No health insurance, no cash. The total bill for my 2 night stay and surgery was just under $30,000. Thirty thousand dollars. I’d like to point out at this point, for those reading and thinking it must have been something kind of complicated, that I was in the hospital because I had Mono, Strep Throat AND the Flu all at the same time, and needed my tonsils removed so I could, you know, breathe. The extent of my care in the hospital was tylenol for fever and pain reduction, 3 meals (was not allowed to eat the day of surgery) some steroids and antibiotics, and a bed for two nights. 30,000.

I applied for charity care. Charity care is funded by the state for situations like this. And my hospital bill, minus doctors and lab fees, was paid for. Those fees still saddled me with around 6,000 in bills.

While this might seem like a wonderful bit of praise for the system, it is assuredly not. The only reason the bill for my stay was so high in the first place is because the cost of caring for people who can’t afford care is built into the price of everyones care.

This obviously means much higher costs to insurance companies and to people who are paying out of pocket. This in turn means the cost of health insurance has to rise to meet those higher costs. Now your health insurance costs more. It also probably costs your employer more, meaning they can’t give you quite as large of a cash raise this year. You can see how giving a service away to someone at the expense of others can create a cascade that costs far more than the initial grant. This same concept applies to primary welfare programs.

For every dollar given to someone on welfare, whether through food stamps or housing assistance, the cost to society is much larger. Starting at the very top, that dollar is no longer being taxed. That means, conservatively, .30 of every dollar granted never finds its way back into public funds. To continue to fund the program, then, costs $1.30 for every dollar given. Thats without the administrative costs. Lets ignore those and assume its all so efficient that it costs nothing. So now to pay for these programs, working people are taxed. They pay at least 30% more than they are getting back (assuming that we just lump everyone together and consider the overall wealth/health of society as a whole). Inefficiency defined. this is, I believe, the major source of the issue with Welfare programs as they are today.

To help person A, we’re going to tax B C and D more heavily. Great, no problem. But oops, person B needs aid and now we have to tax C D even more heavily. Not just double, but even more because now B isn’t helping either. Ok, fine. Oops, C can no longer afford to buy a house for the first time because they’ve had to cut back savings. D decided to keep saving the same amount, but doesn’t spend as much on discretionary items like toys for his kids or going out to eat. There goes the sales tax.

The fact is that people taking advantage of welfare programs (this includes the politicians who love them so much) are not just taking a few dollars out of your check every week and mailing them to the ghetto. They’re also totally eliminating any incentive for these people to actively seek work, meaning we lose not only the money we’ve spent, but the possible taxes on that money, and the money that could have been taxed off these people had they been productive.

Sorry for the wall o text.