|
Post by Sgt K USMC on Mar 6, 2012 7:22:16 GMT -5
I am by no means affluent.
I make less per year than a person on welfare.
The majority, and I say this from personal and professional experience, of the poor I have known in my life fall exactly into the category that Fredo has described.
The exception to the rule is the working poor, active duty and retired military, the truly disabled…
The overwhelming majority are people that could move out of their present circumstances if they had a change of attitude, the most prevalent of which generally is 'the man's fault I am here.' (or some derivation of it)
My dad was a good example of this (biological) Got out of the Air Force after Vietnam, came home and could only get a job working at a gas station, mom was a nurse (LPN) at the local hospital.
Dad didn't like his circumstances, we all lived in the projects, he eventually worked his way up to the VP of sales for the oil company that owned the gas station he started off in.
Mom went the opposite direction. She decided that she could never be anything more than what she was (which I should point out for reference. She was a damn good nurse and I have the utmost respect for anyone in that field.) So she never continued to improve on her skills, never went back for re-certification, eventually she was a nurse in name only…
She would blame this on dad mostly… I was there any number of times when she could chose between taking a by mail re-certification or continue to live the status quo. She always took the status quo.
Two people, same general circumstances… one had a desire to climb the ladder, the other didn't. The only difference was attitude. That's why dad was rich… mom was poor.
|
|
|
Post by Fredo on Mar 6, 2012 9:56:36 GMT -5
I seen the same thing Sarge. Almost everyone detests hogs. I just don't like to see every person that is affluent viewing an address as the end all discussion point for reasons a person is living at that address. Just because some abuse the system is not reason to kill a concept. What concept is it that anyone is trying to kill?
|
|
|
Post by duke on Mar 6, 2012 19:43:06 GMT -5
The concept of helping the poor, who are poor simply because they refuse to work, are lazy, refuse to take advantage of learning opportunities.
When ever taking the rich is mentioned, the diatribes start about forced redistribution of wealth from those that have not just more than they need , but have incomes that rival cities and counties.
How does the 1/2 of one percent make their money? By exploiting the poor. By refusing to pay more when they could. By delivering shoddy goods. By refusing to pay for time spent for the good of the employers sometimes at both ends of a shift. A cashier demanded to count th register drawer both before his/her shift and again after clock out. Demands to make deposits for the business at the bank after clock-out.
|
|
|
Post by Fredo on Mar 6, 2012 23:31:41 GMT -5
When was it ever policy to help people who refuse to be helped? That's just an obvious waste of resources.
Who are you to determine how much a person needs? Additionally, I see an awful lot of people with abundant means giving large portions of that to private charity. That doesn't look much like resistance to helping the poor, but instead like preferring to employ ones means toward that end in a more effective manner.
That's just stupid, communistic gasbagging nonsense. A few retailers might squeeze their employees in such a way but there are two offsetting factors.
1. Most of those entry level employes steal at least as much time by stopping to smoke constantly and spending 20 minutes at every bathroom break reading People magazine.
2. Every buck a large retailer saves in that manner goes toward lowering prices and is, thus, redistributed to the populace at large.
This kind of silly, obama style class warfare is beneath you dude.
|
|
|
Post by elgusano on Mar 7, 2012 0:51:32 GMT -5
Not to mention, making a shoddy product will drive away customers. That's why Toyota outsells the Big Three. (Except for the accounting game that Government Motors plays with it's rental fleet, which technically means they outsold Toyota by 100 cars worldwide.)
Not paying more than you have to is simply sound economics.
And any cashier who doesn't count his drawer before he starts using it is liable for it, so it's to his benefit to count it before his shift.
|
|
|
Post by wheels on Mar 7, 2012 13:44:37 GMT -5
this isn't a black or white issue. there is a lot of gray area. there are certainly many among the poor who truly want out of their situation and lack the knowledge or ability to achieve such a goal. those people need financial and educational assistance. there is another subset that is affected by a culture of entitlement. they see nothing wrong with taking advantage of a system that they could get out of with some hard work. see the link below for an example. people used to be ashamed of taking government assistance. now, many see it as a birthright. i'm not saying being poor is shameful, but remaining poor b/c it's easier is shameful. taking advantage of government assistance when you don't need it is shameful. the system is broken. there are way too many people taking advantage of assistance who really could make it on their own. the system isn't equipped to weed these people out and that needs to change. it's been a problem for decades. even the attitudes of those issuing the payments are often part of the problem. for example, my in-laws used welfare after starting their family. they fell on hard times and needed assistance. they were ashamed to take it, but they needed to put their children above their pride. they stayed on welfare just long enough to get jobs. my mother-in-law worked three jobs. they were so proud when they walked into the welfare office to get off the program. however, when they asked to be taken off the assistance, the welfare worker told them that they were still entitled to payments. my in-laws, astonished, told her that they didn't want to take more money from the government. they had jobs. they weren't freeloaders. i would imagine that many people today, in the same situation, would have opted to continue receiving the payments. this is the type of person who makes the rest look bad. unfortunately, i'm afraid this type is growing rather than shrinking. news.yahoo.com/lottery-winner-food-stamps-thought-maybe-okay-because-161650898.html
|
|
|
Post by vimeiro on Mar 7, 2012 13:59:11 GMT -5
the system is broken. there are way too many people taking advantage of assistance who really could make it on their own. We reformed welfare in the Clinton administration. What does this cost us, and what specifically do you think needs to be done in terms of additional reform?
|
|
|
Post by wheels on Mar 7, 2012 17:08:01 GMT -5
the system is broken. there are way too many people taking advantage of assistance who really could make it on their own. We reformed welfare in the Clinton administration. What does this cost us, and what specifically do you think needs to be done in terms of additional reform? i don't know that anyone knows the actual cost and i don't claim to have all of the answers. i'm sure there are many safeguards and checks that could be made to limit fraud and abuse, as well as financial planning assistance and education for those who just can't seem to pull themselves out of the situation. those things cost money, but i'm inclined to believe that they would cost less in the long-run than continuing to financially support these people from cradle to grave.
|
|
|
Post by vimeiro on Mar 7, 2012 17:24:21 GMT -5
i'm inclined to believe that they would cost less in the long-run than continuing to financially support these people from cradle to grave. "Cradle to grave" assistance was phased out in the Clinton social welfare reform legislation known as the Personal Responsibility and Work Opportunity Act (1996). That law ended welfare as an entitlement program, required recipients to begin working after two years of receiving benefit and placed a lifetime limit of five years on benefits paid by federal funds. So what's the problem again?
|
|
|
Post by duke on Mar 7, 2012 18:30:24 GMT -5
vimeiro: Try again. H.R. 4: Work Opportunity Act of 1995 104th Congress: 1995-1996 "An Act to enhance support and work opportunities for families with children, reduce welfare dependence, and control welfare spending". Sponsor: Rep. Clay Shaw [R-FL22] This bill never became law. This bill was proposed in a previous session of Congress. Sessions of Congress last two years, and at the end of each session all proposed bills and resolutions that haven't passed are cleared from the books. Members often reintroduce bills that did not come up for debate under a new number in the next session. www.govtrack.us/congress/bill.xpd?bill=h104-4On May 24, Congress passed H.R. 2206, U.S. Troops Readiness, Veterans’ Health, and Iraq Accountability Act of 2007. On May 25, President Bush signed the legislation into law. Final supplemental spending legislation includes a long-overdue minimum wage hike for America’s workers, and a number of small business tax incentives. www.taxalmanac.org/index.php/Small_Business_and_Work_Opportunity_Tax_Act_of_2007
|
|
|
Post by vimeiro on Mar 7, 2012 21:58:09 GMT -5
vimeiro: Try again. H.R. 4: Work Opportunity Act of 1995 104th Congress: 1995-1996 "An Act to enhance support and work opportunities for families with children, reduce welfare dependence, and control welfare spending". Sponsor: Rep. Clay Shaw [R-FL22] This bill never became law. This bill was proposed in a previous session of Congress. Sessions of Congress last two years, and at the end of each session all proposed bills and resolutions that haven't passed are cleared from the books. Members often reintroduce bills that did not come up for debate under a new number in the next session. www.govtrack.us/congress/bill.xpd?bill=h104-4On May 24, Congress passed H.R. 2206, U.S. Troops Readiness, Veterans' Health, and Iraq Accountability Act of 2007. On May 25, President Bush signed the legislation into law. Final supplemental spending legislation includes a long-overdue minimum wage hike for America's workers, and a number of small business tax incentives. www.taxalmanac.org/index.php/Small_Business_and_Work_Opportunity_Tax_Act_of_2007None of this negates the fact that President Clinton signed the Personal Responsibility and Work Opportunity Act into law in 1996 as I have noted above.
|
|
|
Post by elgusano on Mar 7, 2012 23:08:29 GMT -5
this isn't a black or white issue. there is a lot of gray area. there are certainly many among the poor who truly want out of their situation and lack the knowledge or ability to achieve such a goal. those people need financial and educational assistance. Many of them feel as if they only need to work 40 hours per week to get out of the hole, also. I bet you can't find one wealthy person who works only 40 hours per week.
|
|
|
Post by vimeiro on Mar 7, 2012 23:27:40 GMT -5
this isn't a black or white issue. there is a lot of gray area. there are certainly many among the poor who truly want out of their situation and lack the knowledge or ability to achieve such a goal. those people need financial and educational assistance. Many of them feel as if they only need to work 40 hours per week to get out of the hole, also. I bet you can't find one wealthy person who works only 40 hours per week. You would lose that bet very, very quickly.
|
|
|
Post by duke on Mar 8, 2012 9:33:28 GMT -5
vimeiro: Try again. H.R. 4: Work Opportunity Act of 1995 [added Vetoed by Clinton] 104th Congress: 1995-1996 None of this negates the fact that President Clinton signed the Personal Responsibility and Work Opportunity Act into law in 1996 as I have noted above. This one did not come up in my original search. This is one bill that the Republicans would like to forget the source and date. aspe.hhs.gov/hsp/abbrev/prwora96.htmSources help.
|
|
|
Post by vimeiro on Mar 8, 2012 10:34:46 GMT -5
None of this negates the fact that President Clinton signed the Personal Responsibility and Work Opportunity Act into law in 1996 as I have noted above. This one did not come up in my original search. This is one bill that the Republicans would like to forget the source and date. aspe.hhs.gov/hsp/abbrev/prwora96.htmSources help. Yep, it puts the lie to tired, overwrought claims about "cradle to grave" welfare. The only "cradle to grave" welfare I know of goes to oil companies, big ag, defense contractors and Wall Street bankers. But the GOP desire to blame all our fiscal woes on the poor is just too deeply embedded within their DNA to resist.
|
|