Democrats vs. Republicans

2LEYS · 09-18-2003, 08:46 PM

A young teenage girl was about to finish her first year of college. She considered herself to be a very liberal Democrat but her father was a rather staunch Republican.

One day she was challenging her father on his beliefs and his opposition to taxes and welfare programs. He stopped her and asked her how she was doing in school.

She answered that she had a 4.0 GPA but it was really tough. She had to study all the time, never had time to go out and party. She didn't have time for a boyfriend and didn't really have many college friends because of spending all her time studying.

He asked, "How is your friend Mary." She replied that Mary was barely getting by. She had a 2.0 GPA, never studied, but was very popular on campus, went to all the parties all the time. Why she often didn't show up for classes because she was hung over.

Dad then asked his daughter why she didn't go to the Dean's office and ask why she couldn't take 1.0 off her 4.0 and give it to her friend who only had a 2.0. That way they would both have a 3.0 GPA.

The daughter angrily fired back, "That wouldn't be fair, I worked really hard for mine and Mary has done nothing".

The father slowly smiled and said, "Welcome to the Republican Party".

Ifishsum · 09-19-2003, 09:16 AM

Fish mojo · 09-19-2003, 09:24 AM

[img]graemlins/berry.gif[/img] Under our Republican leadership, the daughter can now graduate and get a job for $7 an hour with no health benefits and Mary can live on the street.

Cool Texan · 09-19-2003, 10:21 AM

Under the old Democrat leadership they both could have found a "job" as an intern instead.

Steelhead Hound · 09-19-2003, 10:35 AM

That is a little bit different. When people are born into a poor family, not to sound like a jerk but, it is hard for those people to get ahead. So why can't the rest of us pay a little bit more and help those people out. People are a little too greety with there money.
Like the state income tax that fell through to provide more money for the schools. People in this state just couldnt give up an extra $100 for 3 years so that YOUR children could have a full school year and all the school programs that were needed.

The King

Ifishsum · 09-19-2003, 12:02 PM

Quote:

Jeez, we work dang hard for it....why would we want to give it away?

The main difference I see is whether you WANT to give it away or you HAVE to give it away through legislation and taxation. I want the choice....

Salmon Stryker · 09-19-2003, 12:05 PM

I'm a firm believer that you pave your own way. Sure it is a little harder if you come from a poor background but there are many people that come from poor and become rich. Like Monica Lewinski :grin: Seriously though, that is the beauty of America and free enterprise. Look at how many hardworking immigrants come to this country and work in the fields for a few years and then start a business and start making money and do real well for themselves. Americans are just too lazy and want everything handed to them.

2LEYS · 09-19-2003, 12:13 PM

I like the concept of welfare. But not in its current form. It doesn't help or make you get off of it.

I would like to see it this way.

If you are on welfare then you have a caseworker that you meet with regularly. Monthly or so.
You hand over your paycheck if you have one. Every cent you make is turned into the government. They pay your bills and give you a small per person ($15 each?) allowance every month for entertainment. You are not allowed to smoke or drink. You can not have cable or internet. You are expected to get off in a set amount of time. And they pay for schooling for one person. You are required to have random drug tests for every adult in your household.

foxer · 09-19-2003, 12:19 PM

I have no problem with my tax $$ going to help out US CITIZENS. I do have a problem with free schooling, free healthcare, and welfare benefits for those that are here illegally. Enforce the rules and stop spending so darn much money on social programs until the economy gets better.

Rip'N'Lips · 09-19-2003, 12:34 PM

Along these same lines I went to my daughter's back to school night last night and had a big chuckle...

The principal starts off with the achievement scores and states that as part of Bush's, no child left behind they are not only testing in 3rd and 5th grade, but also in 4th. The school is rated the highest in 9/10 categories in the Beaverton district.

The chuckle was that in the very next breath she said that the funding doesn't look good for the district currently and they are preparing for cuts...

Nice job Bush... maybe he should go back to public school and figure out basis math. Without $$$ all children will be left behind...

Rip'N'Lips

[ 09-19-2003, 11:29 PM: Message edited by: crabbait ]

Straydog · 09-19-2003, 01:17 PM

Quote:

Originally posted by 2LEYS:
I like the concept of welfare. But not in its current form. It doesn't help or make you get off of it.

I would like to see it this way.

If you are on welfare then you have a caseworker that you meet with regularly. Monthly or so.
You hand over your paycheck if you have one. Every cent you make is turned into the government. They pay your bills and give you a small per person ($15 each?) allowance every month for entertainment. You are not allowed to smoke or drink. You can not have cable or internet. You are expected to get off in a set amount of time. And they pay for schooling for one person. You are required to have random drug tests for every adult in your household.

Wow. And this from one that calls themselves a conservative and conservatives preach less Gov. interference in our lives?? :whazzup:

And how loud will the "conservatives" yell when they see the government entity that would be required to administer such a program, not to mention the costs of it? :shocked: :shocked:

[ 09-19-2003, 02:31 PM: Message edited by: Straydog ]

2LEYS · 09-19-2003, 01:59 PM

Quote:

Wow. And this from one that calls themselves a conservative and conservatives preach less Gov. interference in our lives??

And how loud will the "conservatives" yell when they see the government entity that would be required to administer such a program, not to mention the costs of it?

I saw this coming before I even hit reply.

The government wont be interfering in my life. I can take care of myself. They will be interferring in peoples lives that can't. I am not saying everyone on welfare is worthless and works the system, but I would say that 75% are and do.

If you want Government assistance then you will get it.

And if you trimmed 50% of the people off of welfare then you would be spending a whole heck of a lot less on the program then we are now.

It just makes me mad to see someone sitting there holding their newborn baby on the back porch puffing away on a cigarette with a beer in her hand. Living in a $175,000 house with a pool that the are buying. they have 5 kids and crappy run down barely running cars. No one ever seems to leave so I don't know where they are getting their money. And they just bought the house a few months ago. I am jumping to conclusions, but I would wager a guess that they are on welfare.

When I was in college, I worked at a texaco with a guy who was on welfare with a wife and 4 or 5 kids. One day he said he was quitting. I asked why and he said that he could make more on welfare alone than he could on welfare + working.

freespool · 09-19-2003, 02:18 PM

2Lays,your 100% correct on stopping welfare,fat lazy people not carrying their share of the load. It's a cancer in our society. It's just sickening to see our hard earned tax dollars just going down a rat hole. Were talking about Enron,right? They sucked millions of dollars out of our state for taxes,then payed us $250.00 bucks. Number one problem in the US today,corporate welfare. Number two biggest problem in US is George Bush being president.

Cool Texan · 09-19-2003, 02:35 PM

Quote:

Originally posted by freespool:
Number one problem in the US today,corporate welfare. Number two biggest problem in US is George Bush being president.

I am dumber for having read that.

freespool · 09-19-2003, 02:40 PM

CoolTexan,maybe you should broaden you reading horizons.

DanS · 09-19-2003, 02:42 PM

Quote:

I am dumber for having read that.

You sure it wasn't voting for GW that made you feel that way?

Cool Texan · 09-19-2003, 02:46 PM

Dan, yeah, pretty sure. I think it is a thing called "reality" which helps me to realize that GW is not the 2nd biggest problem in our country...nor is corporate welfare the biggest problem.

DanS · 09-19-2003, 02:54 PM

Well, you could gimme your top two.......and then I'll know if your "reality" and my "reality" are the same.

2LEYS · 09-19-2003, 03:05 PM

#1. Liberalism

#2. Liberalism

DanS · 09-19-2003, 03:08 PM

OK, then, 2LEYS says he's completely out of it, too.

Straydog · 09-19-2003, 03:46 PM

2Ley's,

I too detest welfare fruad and strongly believe we need to work harder at curbing it.

I also believe that those on welfare should be required to work, be in school or both.

In my opinion, and unfortunately though, there will always be those that won't or can't do either. I think the cost to society is greater throwing these people out in the street, as if they will simply go away if we stop assisting them.

To say we need or can cut welfare recipients by 50% sounds great but the fact is, most will be lucky if they get a job above minimum wage, if they get a job at all. On the other hand, when ever the notion of living wages or raising minimum wage is brought up, as would be expected, businesses and ultimately the consumer, revolt.

So, what is the answer?

I also think Freespool has a valid point when it comes to corporate welfare, regardless of where one ranks it. Not to mention tax dollars being spent on the current military industrial complex project in Iraq.

[ 09-19-2003, 04:47 PM: Message edited by: Straydog ]

happybrew · 09-19-2003, 03:54 PM

Quote:

Originally posted by The Oversized King:
That is a little bit different. When people are born into a poor family, not to sound like a jerk but, it is hard for those people to get ahead. So why can't the rest of us pay a little bit more and help those people out. People are a little too greety with there money.
Like the state income tax that fell through to provide more money for the schools. People in this state just couldnt give up an extra $100 for 3 years so that YOUR children could have a full school year and all the school programs that were needed.

The King

I come from a family with ten kids. My parents obviously couldn't afford to help me out with college, but my dad made too much money for me to qualify for financial aid. So I rolled up my sleeves and got a job. Many times I was working two jobs. With work and scholarships, I got through just fine. My brothers and sisters either did the same thing, or else they took out loans. It is a myth that college is not accessible to the children of lower income parents. There is work, there are scholarships, loans, and the GI Bill. Anybody who really wants to go to college can do it. It takes perseverence. Those who don't have perseverence either aren't college material, or don't want to work hard. My wife has a friend whose parents paid for her entire college education, including living expenses, and when she got out, she wasted the whole thing. She went to work as a clerk at some organic food store, then worked as a babysitter, then went to some hippy commune. While she was in school, she'd complain about how unfair the world is, and how oppressed women were, etc. She's a democrat.

happybrew

Thumper · 09-19-2003, 04:23 PM

My grandaughter just left for college today. She has full-cost (tuition and housing) loans available at 3% for all four years, and no payments are due until after she graduates four years from now. Anybody can go to college today. Anybody. Cost is no longer an issue.

Stratocaster · 09-19-2003, 04:46 PM

Quote:

CoolTexan,maybe you should broaden you reading horizons.

Ever notice that when you disagree with a certain idealism in a belief that ends in ism your labeled as closed minded? Talk about close-mindedness.

2LEYS · 09-19-2003, 05:09 PM

Quote:

To say we need or can cut welfare recipients by 50% sounds great but the fact is, most will be lucky if they get a job above minimum wage, if they get a job at all.

It is not my problem nor my fault that someone is only qualified for a minimum wage job. And that brings up another post. Instead of raising the minimum wage would you be willing to lower your pay? Or hows about just giving a flat wage of say $12-$15 bucks an hour. Then everyone would be happy and have money right? Accept a hamburger would cost $8.00 at a Mcdonalds. Thow in fries and a drink and you are looking at $13.50 for a fast food meal. Go to the grocery store and pay $9 for a gallon of milk. Is that what you really want? Because that is the exagerated goal of what raising minimum wage does.

Read this case against a higher minimum wage.. Fact is there will always be bottom feeders unless you want to make everyone equal. Then doctors would make the same as a fry cook.

STGRule · 09-19-2003, 07:02 PM

Bottom feeders???? I'll just have to guess you never had a minimum wage job while you had a family. If not, congratulations. I erased the rest of this post as it was not any of your business nor is it now any of my business how people have to make ends meet in hard times. Suffice it to say that my taxes willingly go to help others in a tight spot.
If there are some that take advantage of it, tough. There are many more that need and deserve it. THAT is the Liberal in me, live with it.

[ 09-19-2003, 08:08 PM: Message edited by: STGRule ]

Straydog · 09-19-2003, 07:08 PM

So again, what's your answer? What do we do with what you call "bottom feeders?". Do we want them wandering aimlessly about our streets? Do we want them robbing the gas station down the street because they are hungry? Do we want them turning drugs to make a living? Or, how about mom turning tricks?

Those unable or unwilling to provide for themselves within the mainstream and their families are not going to suddenly disappear due to welfare law reform. What do we do about them?

Trust me, I am not supportive of that life style and again, don't like it any more than anyone, but am a realist and honestly don't know what people think the alternative is going to be. Do we go back to "poor farms"?

2LEYS · 09-19-2003, 07:12 PM

I didn't mean "bottomfeeders" to be derogatory. I meant that there are tiers to society. And most of the lower tier are losers who do nothing to move up.

2LEYS · 09-19-2003, 07:14 PM

Quote:

What do we do about them?

So your answer is to throw money at them and enable them to continue?

Straydog · 09-19-2003, 07:22 PM

I didn't say that.
I asked what your answer is.

2LEYS · 09-19-2003, 07:28 PM

My answer is to not throw money at them. If they have to work to eat and buy drugs they will. What do you suggest we do with them?

Straydog · 09-19-2003, 07:35 PM

No, your still avoiding my question and missing my point.

Ok, we stop throwing money at them. You say they will get jobs. We have very motivated and educated people unable to find employment that will sustain their families. Why would we believe the "bottom feeders" will go out and find employment that will provide for their family?

What then? How do we deal with them and what will it cost us?

happybrew · 09-19-2003, 07:38 PM

Quote:

Originally posted by 2LEYS:
I didn't mean "bottomfeeders" to be derogatory. I meant that there are tiers to society. And most of the lower tier are losers who do nothing to move up.

Not true. Most of them are people just starting out, and on their way up, or people who got knocked off the ladder and have to get back on it, or people who lack skills and have a significant barrier to getting those skills. From my experience managing those at the bottom tier, very few of them are "losers".

A few examples of people who make minimum wage:

1. A mom whose husband ran out on her, and now has to support the little ones when she hasn't worked in several years.

2. A recent immigrant who has not yet learned the language, but is working hard at it, and wants to move ahead.

3. A high school student.

4. A father supporting his family with a regular job, but who suddenly has extra bills such as medical or car repair, etc. who wants to make a few extra bucks on the weekend to get caught up.

5. A retiree who wants something to do, and enjoys working.

6. A mentally handicapped person, who wants to work hard and support himself.

There is no stereotypical minimum wage earner. They are a diverse group froma lot of different backgrounds, and few of them stay there.

by the way, I oppose a minimum wage increase because I know for a fact that it will result in the loss of jobs for those at the bottom rung. It happened with the last minimum wage increase. I got to look at all their applications when they applied at my place. And I know that my business cannot afford further squeezes on our cash flow.

happybrew

2LEYS · 09-19-2003, 07:45 PM

Then go to school if you need more money to take care of your family. And I am all for government paying for community college for people to better themselves. It is better then paying them to stay the way they are. Look at the want ads. There are plenty of decent paying jobs out there. A $10 an hour job is enough to raise a family if you put down the cigarettes and beer. And supplement that with a part time minimum wage job then you are even better off.

I know many people who busted their butts for a few years working two jobs and going to school while supporting 2 kids to better themselves.

But to continue to give money away to people who sit on their butts and take and take and take is just aiding and enabling.

Question. If your son or daughter was 25 years old and never went to college or maybe even dropped out of high school, shows no sign of changing and won't hold down a job, would you let him or her live at home rent free?

Jetsledder · 09-19-2003, 07:57 PM

2leys good reply.

[img]graemlins/applause.gif[/img]

2LEYS · 09-19-2003, 08:02 PM

Quote:

1. A mom whose husband ran out on her, and now has to support the little ones when she hasn't worked in several years.

And welfare she shall receive and I have not one problem with that.

Quote:

2. A recent immigrant who has not yet learned the language, but is working hard at it, and wants to move ahead.

Hard worker. Wants to move up. Great. But as long as he has children to support and he is legal than give some assistance for a while.

Quote:

few of them stay there.

There are more of them that stay there than you realize. And as long as we give them money they will stay there. They think nothing of throwing around food stamps and abusing the system that is set up for abuse. And those are the ones that we need to kick off of thge system.

STGRule · 09-19-2003, 08:06 PM

Show me the money. Show me how we are paying for more "bottom feeders" than people who need it. Please show me the numbers. I'll even settle for where to find the numbers. If you make those kind of absolute ststements you have to back them up with more than opinion because for every one of yours, I may or may not have another. Just show me the numbers.

2LEYS · 09-19-2003, 08:29 PM

I grew up in a small town with a couple of low life brothers and I know all the losers in the surrounding communities. There are a lot of them and each one works the system. From unemployment to welfare to insurance they work it. All I have is opinion, There wont be any real data about welfare fraud or there wouldn't be any welfare fraud.

2LEYS · 09-19-2003, 08:47 PM

Not my words or my source, not even sure it is true but I wouldn't doubt it.

www.restoringamerica.org/archive/boarder_destruction.html

"In my humble opinion... the destruction of this country is being carried out most effectively, by the use of immigrant-bombs.
Editors note: I lived in San Diego, California, during the '80s, and took the opportunity to 'investigate'a story I had been told, about the Mexican citizen's who flow across our southern board on the 1st and the 15th to collect government checks (aka taxpayer sponsored welfare), it all sounded just to bizarre to be true.

On the first of a month, I stationed myself in the US boarder-town of San Yesidro, near Mail Boxes Are Us, and waited.

I sat there, outside this cornor-durg-store-type post office for six hours; the Mexican's came in droves the entire time. They would stand in long lines to enter the small building. During the time I spent inside the establishment, I witnessed Mexican after Mexican opening postal drawers (not boxes), each filled to their tops with taxpayer-sponsored checks - for friends and family members I suppose.

With bag stuffed with YOUR dollars, these Mexican citizens turned south and went home to Mexico; bag, checks and sombrero.

I did attempt to provide the results of my 'investigation'to the 'authorities'at various levels of government - a waste of time on my part, I was told. The whole process 'is perfectly legal'!! - ed"

Associated Press:

WASHINGTON - More than $1 billion of 1995 welfare payments and Food Stamps went to illegal immigrant families because some of their children are U.S. citizens, according to a new government report.
Although a child born in the United States to an illegal immigrant automatically becomes a citizen, "when such a child receives assistance, the aid also helps support the child's family, raising concerns about the use of public assistance by those illegally in the United States," said congressional auditors in the Nov. 19 U.S. General Accounting Office report.
The Republican-controlled Congress requested the study as part of last year's welfare overhaul, which restricted direct access to public benefits by illegal immigrants but did not deny benefits to their citizen children.
"It's obvious that there's a huge loophole in immigration law," said Rep. Lamar Smith, R-Texas, among supporters of legislation that would require children to have at least one citizen or legal resident parent to be born citizens.
While the Clinton administration "clearly supports all Federal efforts to deter illegal immigration," said Health and Human Services Department Inspector General June Gibbs Brown in a letter commenting on the report, "our mission also requires us to improve the health and economic self-sufficiency of all citizens ... including the citizen children of immigrant parents."
"It is important to note that citizen children are legally eligible for benefits on the same basis as other citizens, even if they have an illegal parent," said Brown.
Payments to citizen children of illegal immigrants accounted for about 3 percent, or $700 million, of all benefits paid in fiscal 1995 under the welfare program known as Aid to Families with Dependent Children, said the GAO report.
A previous GAO study had found about 2 percent of lower total AFDC payments - or $479 million - going to the citizen children of illegal aliens in 1992.
Almost all AFDC recipients also receive Medicaid, which on average provides more than $1,000 a child each year for health care expenses, the auditors said.
For Food Stamps, the GAO found about 2 percent, or $430 million worth, went to the citizen children of illegal immigrants in fiscal 1995.
Nationally, 224,000 households headed by an illegal immigrant received the Food Stamps and 153,000 households, many overlapping, got AFDC.
The households averaged two citizen children each. More than 20 percent also supported non-citizen children not eligible for assistance.
The immigrant families getting help were largely concentrated in California, New York, Texas and Arizona. California alone accounted for $720 million of the benefits paid. Ten percent of that state's AFDC and Food Stamp caseload is comprised of families headed by illegal immigrants.
The GAO report said households headed by illegal immigrants also get Social Security payments for low income children with disabilities - commonly known as Supplemental Security Income or SSI - and rent subsidies through the Department of Housing and Urban Development.
Although comprehensive data was not available from Social Security, GAO auditors estimated that as of December 1996, at least 3,450 citizen children of illegal immigrants were getting SSI at an annual cost to the government of about $17.6 million.
Until recently, citizenship status was not considered when HUD determined eligibility for rental assistance programs, and the agency did not keep such information about participants.
The GAO auditors noted, based on a California study, that the incidence of fraud in obtaining public assistance - by under reporting family income, for example - appears to be no higher for households headed by illegal immigrants than for the general welfare population.

http://www.freerepublic.com/forum/a3b75e6bd0995.htm

Welfare is so hard to get, sneak across the boarder, have a kid and presto get a check. Come to America where all you have to do is have a kid and you and your family can live off of welfare and have free medical attention.

STGRule · 09-19-2003, 09:00 PM

And what is the percentage of the total that is going to these families? The number you are giving are in the low thousands compared to the millions that are receiving aid. I again say that I will gladly pay my taxes to help the most. No matter what you do or how you do it some will take advantage. Most will only use it for what they need. I will not deny the needy just because a few take advantage. Even the illegal adults that benefit from the children are welcome to me. Immigrants to this country are the hardest working people you ever saw. It's the lazy, born in Americas that tick me off. Even still, I will gladly pay to help those that need it and be thankful that I have it to give.

[ 09-19-2003, 10:01 PM: Message edited by: STGRule ]

2LEYS · 09-19-2003, 09:02 PM

Quote:

If you are on welfare then you have a caseworker that you meet with regularly. Monthly or so.
You hand over your paycheck if you have one. Every cent you make is turned into the government. They pay your bills and give you a small per person ($15 each?) allowance every month for entertainment. You are not allowed to smoke or drink. You can not have cable or internet. You are expected to get off in a set amount of time. And they pay for schooling for one person. You are required to have random drug tests for every adult in your household.

Here you go again.

freespool · 09-19-2003, 09:03 PM

2Lays,what do you suppose our yearly expenditure is for foreign aid? And do you feel these people in another country are somehow more worthy of aid than people in our country? You seem very upset that someone maybe using the system,but spending money we don't have,on a war fewer and fewer people support is somehow ok.

2LEYS · 09-19-2003, 09:06 PM

I am sorry I thought we were talking about welfare.

STGRule · 09-19-2003, 09:13 PM

If you have a job that is payed by others profits then you have a caseworker that you meet with regularly. Monthly or so.
You hand over your paycheck if you have one. Every cent you make is turned into the company that pays your salary . They pay your bills and give you a small per person ($15 each?) allowance every month for entertainment. You are not allowed to smoke or drink. You can not have cable or internet. You are expected to get off in a set amount of time. At which time you start your own company and have a say over the payout to your employees And your company pays for schooling for one person. You are required to have random drug tests for every adult in your household until you own your own company

2LEYS · 09-19-2003, 09:17 PM

????????

STGRule · 09-19-2003, 09:19 PM

If I'm the business owner and I pay your salary shouldn't I have a say over how you spend your money? I don't think you ought to waste it on anything other than what I say you can spend it on. Since I am forced to give you money I can tell you how to spend it. (Simplicity NEVER works)

[ 09-19-2003, 10:21 PM: Message edited by: STGRule ]

2LEYS · 09-19-2003, 09:20 PM

I still don't get where you are coming from.

Steelhead Hound · 09-19-2003, 11:04 PM

Hey, I have an idea...... All the poor people in this country can just stay poor. Why should we help them out. After all, every poor person is a leech*, all they do is sit back and drink beer on the couch and watch tv. None of them are single parents with 3 kids because the father walked out on them. Why the hell should I give away any of my hard earned money for a family of immigrants that came here to provide a better life for them and there children. Why should I........MAYBE BECAUSE IT IS THE RIGHT THING TO DO???......But I'm sure none of you see it that way. But none of you would open your wallets just a little bit for someone else to have a better chance at life. Thats why I am a Democrat*

The King

[img]graemlins/applause.gif[/img] [img]graemlins/applause.gif[/img] [img]graemlins/applause.gif[/img] [img]graemlins/applause.gif[/img]

2LEYS · 09-19-2003, 11:12 PM

Quote:

1. A mom whose husband ran out on her, and now has to support the little ones when she hasn't worked in several years.

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
And welfare she shall receive and I have not one problem with that.

skrimmy · 09-19-2003, 11:52 PM

2LEY [img]graemlins/applause.gif[/img]

Nice one! And I'm betting that unlike some, you know that greedy is spelled "greedy" and not "greety"! Welcome to the Republican Party!

Jeez, we work dang hard for it....why would we want to give it away? Gimme a break!

Straydog · 09-20-2003, 08:17 AM

I believe we as a society have an obligation to help those in need.

It is also our obligation to not enable those that are simply in want.

Drawing the line, removing the chaff from the wheat is the tough part. And then there is still the issue of what to do with the chaff. I still don't hold nor have I heard the answer to what we do with those that refuse, for whatever reason, to expend any personal effort to better themselves.

It is my belief that one thing we can and should do is to prevent the begetting of non producers by other non producers. I feel that equal and accessable education is the primary tool for stopping the cycle of welfare leeches that are there more by choice than by need.

Unfortunately, as we make public education less a societal priority, we are at the same time encouraging or enabling more and more to end up as welfare leeches. It is a sad, vicious circle.

We hear compassionate sounding buzz phrases such as "No Child Left Behind" yet witness the reduction of education funding at the same time.
Make no mistake, there is a concious agenda by the far right to do away with public education. Make no mistake, if that occurs, it will greatly increase the need for social assistance and more welfare dollars being spent in this country.

The "haves" will do quite well, the "have nots" will only spiral deeper into dispair while producing more and more have nots..... :depressed:

happybrew · 09-20-2003, 03:25 PM

Quote:

Originally posted by 2LEYS:
<blockquote>quote:<hr /> 1. A mom whose husband ran out on her, and now has to support the little ones when she hasn't worked in several years.

And welfare she shall receive and I have not one problem with that.

Quote:

2. A recent immigrant who has not yet learned the language, but is working hard at it, and wants to move ahead.

Hard worker. Wants to move up. Great. But as long as he has children to support and he is legal than give some assistance for a while.

Quote:

few of them stay there.

There are more of them that stay there than you realize. And as long as we give them money they will stay there. They think nothing of throwing around food stamps and abusing the system that is set up for abuse. And those are the ones that we need to kick off of thge system. <hr /></blockquote>I wasn't talking about welfare. I'm against it except when people absolutely cannot work. I was talking about minimum wage earners. It hasn't been my experience that most of them want to stay there. That's why they ask for a raise, or a better position. The ones who do stay there usually do so because they don't speak English and don't want to learn, or have a job that meets their needs, such as working around child care. The losers inevitably get fired. I've worked with minimum wage earners for nearly 20 years, and I wouldn't typify them as "losers".

happybrew

happybrew · 09-20-2003, 03:37 PM

Quote:

Originally posted by STGRule:
If you have a job that is payed by others profits then you have a caseworker that you meet with regularly. Monthly or so.
You hand over your paycheck if you have one. Every cent you make is turned into the company that pays your salary . They pay your bills and give you a small per person ($15 each?) allowance every month for entertainment. You are not allowed to smoke or drink. You can not have cable or internet. You are expected to get off in a set amount of time. At which time you start your own company and have a say over the payout to your employees And your company pays for schooling for one person. You are required to have random drug tests for every adult in your household until you own your own company

It's not my intent to defend intrusive government practices, but there is a huge difference between a wage earner and a welfare recipient. The wage earner exchanges labor for money. It is the wage earner's by right of this exchange. Thus, it's theirs without anyone having a say in how it is spent. The welfare recipient, on the other hand, exchanges nothing for the money they receive. It is theirs based on the benevolence of those who gave it. I think that everybody has an absolute right to the necessities of life. However, with this right comes the obligation to use the resources they have to obtain those necessities for themselves. Welfare is one of those resources for those who receive it. Thus, welfare recipients have an obligation to utilize those resources as they were intended. They owe this obligation both to themselves and their families, and also to those who gave those resources to them. Therefore, I think it's well within the government's authority to ensure that welfare recipients are living up to their obligations, as long as it's reasonable and not unnecessarily intrusive. What practices would be reasonable and non-intrusive are certainly questionable, and rightly so.

happybrew

Oregon-Jet · 09-20-2003, 08:08 PM

I'm not sure how i fit into this, but here it goes:
I grew up in poor family, Parents didnt have extra money for me to go too school on,Or to buy many school clothes which i worked summers for instead of taking help from the Gov I went and joined the Army, got out went to College, Got a job, Met my wife had two kids, Son's 18 the 24th, My Daughter is 10.
Ive been putting my wife through Med school on my own money .....no help, yeah i work 14 hrs a day sometimes 7 days a week. For those of you who dont know thats 10 years of school.
Now my wife is going to Graduate with a DMD
My point is I worked hard really hard with lot's of up's and down's and Ton's of sacrifice's along the way.
It would have been just as easy to take Help from what ever source there is, But i chose to "WORK" for it.
Now my wife is a really hard worker too, working all along the way when she can.
My son is joining the Marines Because he wants to, i didnt help at all in his decision to go only that i will support him in what ever he does.
I'm working hard to show my kids that hard work goes a long ways.
If you want it , you can get it by working for what you want, not by sitting on your rear and taking a hand out.
Dont get me wrong, I think there are a few people out there that needs a boost not a life time of help, If you are drawing welfare get up and go too work, go too school , better your self, and get your kids to do even better and the whole place will be better in the long run.
Welfare is a viscous cycle, and easy to stay on too long.

True · 09-20-2003, 10:54 PM

As long as there are hard-as-hell low-paying jobs there will be migrants and immigrants (legal or not). Do you think that you can get the average joe to get out there and work his butt off for minimum or even less than minimum wage?

Today's companies thrive off of cheap labor and there's no way that you're going to get anglo welfare recipients to do it when they can just sit back and let the money come in for free sans the sweat.

I have to agree that welfare (both individual and corporate) has to be only a temporary solution to finding a way to make a living. There are definite abuses of the system but then what do you do?

Does anyone have the numbers that we shucked out (or was shucked out of us) for corporate and family welfare?

By the way, it is always the job of the strong to protect the weak. Sometimes that means teaching them how to be strong...

True

Hoosier Daddy · 09-22-2003, 08:07 AM

Since I always put this up when a liberal-slanted post comes up, I will do so now as well. In the interest of fairness....

Straydog · 09-22-2003, 08:22 AM

Hoosier,

Some substanitive conservative views on how to deal with problem might be more useful.

Of course, your post does reflect the response we seem to keep getting from the conservatives, both here and in the Legislature.

If only head shakes and eye rolling were a viable solution!?!?!?

I will try one more time, what is the solution? How do we deal with the segment of society that will not or can not take care of themselves?

Cutting them off of assistance, shaking our heads or rolling our eyes does not make them disappear. What do we do??????????? :whazzup:

[ 09-22-2003, 09:24 AM: Message edited by: Straydog ]

Straydog · 09-22-2003, 08:59 AM

Here is a timely article on this topic.

Kind of sounds like the "No Child Left Behind" rhetoric concerning education............ more Federal mandates while decreasing funds to accomplish them.

Welfare to work program to change???

happybrew · 09-22-2003, 09:00 AM

2Leys: I was just filling out paperwork yesterday regarding the unemployment claim of a guy I fired for poor work performance and attitude, and I started looking at all of the employees who didn't work out. I'll stand by my assertion that most minimum wage earners are not losers, but the tier just above that, I have to admit that there is a substantial number of losers in that group. They refuse to work for minimum wage, but they don't have the personal attributes to hold down a job, and they think they're worth a billion dollars a week. I think the losers generally don't go for minimum wage jobs because they think they're worth more. We generally have low turnover in my restaurant, but when we have a cook's position to fill, which pays decent, we generally have to hire 6 guys to find one who will work out. Five are losers and one will be okay. So I'll concede your point to a degree. There are a lot of losers out there. A few examples:

I hired a guy who had been out of work for four months. In the town I work in, which had 25 percent unemployment last year, and lost several restaurants, that would be understandable that he'd be out of work that long. But then he showed up late. Then he stopped showing up for some of his shifts, so we let him go. You'd think a guy who was out of work for four months would care about keeping his job. We told him what would happen. He did it again. He begged for one last chance. We told him he already had his last chance.

Another guy we hired quit after a week when the police came in looking for him on his day off. :shocked:

Another guy called out repeatedly because he wanted to practice with his rock band, then got mad when we reminded him that he put on his application that he was available for any shift, and quit showing up. He had also been out of work for several months and had a wife and kids to support.

Then there was the guy who kept slamming things around in the kitchen, cussing loud enough for customers to hear, and complaining about anything and everything about his job. Surprise! We let him go. Once again, this was a guy who had been out of work for a while also.

Same thing with managers. We'll hire four to get one who works out. We've let one go for sexual harassment, two for coming in drunk, and had three quit because they thought the job was too hard for them, all because I wouldn't let them sit in the office their entire shift.

Mind you, we only call about one out of ten applications for an interview, and only about one in three or four of those get hired, so we don't just bring in warm bodies. In an interview, I probe for job knowledge. These people know how to do the job, and they know what it takes to be successful. They just won't actually do it. They think it's too hard to actually do, I guess.

Our minimum wage employees, on the other hand, we rarely have problems with, and when we promote one of those employees to a higher paying position, we don't have any problems with them. But when we hire someone directly into a higher paying position, we have problems. Our best managers and cooks started out at a minimum wage position, and worked their way up.

I certainly have sympathy for those who can't work. I have no sympathy for those who won't work. A lot of losers who won't work, won't work in a minimum wage position.

happybrew

Cool Texan · 09-22-2003, 09:09 AM

I actually like the notion of making the folks work a 40 hour week to receive benefits. That said, there must remain some sort of coverage for child care where applicable. But working a 20 hour week to receive the same benefits just seems crazy to me.

I also couldn't help but laugh at the description of the Oregon process..."even urging some clients to hold out for better jobs". I'm sorry...what?!? You get a job offer, and now you are going to wait for something better to come along? Ummm....no. Go work and look for something better during that time.