Chef Jim Posted February 19, 2016 Share Posted February 19, 2016 Unemployment is a lot different than welfare. Anyone I've known that's been on unemployment has only been on it for a relatively short time while in between jobs. Here's a look at the BLS numbers: http://www.bls.gov/news.release/empsit.t12.htm I agree. Unemployment is mainly a safety net that I have no problem with. Well those 99 is probably 90 weeks more than most need but I digress. Welfare on the other hand is typically a way of life. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Tiberius Posted February 19, 2016 Author Share Posted February 19, 2016 That's the problem. If you can live a decent (by their standards) lifestyle without working what's the motivation to seek work? Cut the subsidy and force them to figure it out. Work two, three jobs. People can be inherently lazy but they can also be very creative when survival mode kicks in. Not that simple, many people that don't work are a mess, depression, anti-social disorders, they have children, etc. And cutting welfare or food stamps only hurts people that actually need it. The nature of our system is that the worthy get the good jobs on merit, but the unworthy slid to the bottom. There is a reason for that. 20% of the population can't even finish high school, are you surprised a job is too much for them? Give them welfare and forget about it... Sorry you feel victimized by that. You are a victim, correct? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Chef Jim Posted February 19, 2016 Share Posted February 19, 2016 Not that simple, many people that don't work are a mess, depression, anti-social disorders, they have children, etc. And cutting welfare or food stamps only hurts people that actually need it. The nature of our system is that the worthy get the good jobs on merit, but the unworthy slid to the bottom. There is a reason for that. 20% of the population can't even finish high school, are you surprised a job is too much for them? Give them welfare and forget about it... Sorry you feel victimized by that. You are a victim, correct? Where did I say that people with disabilities are not to be helped. As a matter of fact I've said just the opposite. And as harsh as this may sound I have zero sympathy for those that cannot survive because they've made the decision to have children. You can't afford to take care of a child I suggest you don't have any. I don't play the victim card that's your side's game. What makes someone unworthy for employment? Why does 20% not finish high school? Can you answer those questions for me? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
keepthefaith Posted February 19, 2016 Share Posted February 19, 2016 (edited) Not that simple, many people that don't work are a mess, depression, anti-social disorders, they have children, etc. And cutting welfare or food stamps only hurts people that actually need it. The nature of our system is that the worthy get the good jobs on merit, but the unworthy slid to the bottom. There is a reason for that. 20% of the population can't even finish high school, are you surprised a job is too much for them? Give them welfare and forget about it... Sorry you feel victimized by that. You are a victim, correct? In some areas the percentage that quit high school is much greater than 20% especially among males. To me that begs the question: Why do we allow people to quit high school? It's not like 100 years ago when so many quit to work on the family farm. To me we should not allow kids to quit except for special and rare circumstances. As for the unworthy (but otherwise able-bodied and minded), many have put themselves there through a many year pattern of bad decisions. We have to find a way to reduce these folks and most of the solution IMO has to come from the individuals themselves and with limited help from taxpayers. Part of the answer to me has to be a social worker looking them in the eye and saying the government is not going to support you long term so you better figure it out. Edited February 19, 2016 by keepthefaith Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
TakeYouToTasker Posted February 19, 2016 Share Posted February 19, 2016 In some areas the percentage that quit high school is much greater than 20% especially among males. To me that begs the question: Why do we allow people to quit high school? It's not like 100 years ago when so many quit to work on the family farm. To me we should not allow kids to quit except for special and rare circumstances. As for the unworthy (but otherwise able-bodied and minded), many have put themselves there through a many year pattern of bad decisions. We have to find a way to reduce these folks and most of the solution IMO has to come from the individuals themselves and with limited help from taxpayers. Part of the answer to me has to be a social worker looking them in the eye and saying the government is not going to support you long term so you better figure it out. I oppose a nanny state that forces individuals to go to school as strongly as I oppose a welfare state which forces me to take care of able bodied adults. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
keepthefaith Posted February 19, 2016 Share Posted February 19, 2016 I oppose a nanny state that forces individuals to go to school as strongly as I oppose a welfare state which forces me to take care of able bodied adults. and I oppose paying for someone to attend school for 10 years and then quit without finishing only to continue paying for them to do nothing for the next 60 years. Home schooling is fine by me. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
IDBillzFan Posted February 19, 2016 Share Posted February 19, 2016 Where did I say that people with disabilities are not to be helped. You didn't. He did. Because he simply is not smart enough to think for himself. Typical SoProg behavior. It's always all or nothing with the non-thinking class that is the Democratic party. You want to repeal Obamacare means you want to take health care away from people. You want to reduce welfare means you want children to starve. You want to reform Social Security means you want to push grandma off a cliff. There is no middle ground with a party that lives off a base that is too stupid to think for itself. Or what lately has been referred to as "the superdelegate effect." Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
keepthefaith Posted February 19, 2016 Share Posted February 19, 2016 There is no middle ground with a party that lives off a base that is too stupid to think for itself. Or what lately has been referred to as "the superdelegate effect." It's going to be a lot of fun watching the Dem primary season if Bernie continues to pick up the majority of votes in some states yet Hillary gets more delegates. A lot of fun. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
TakeYouToTasker Posted February 19, 2016 Share Posted February 19, 2016 and I oppose paying for someone to attend school for 10 years and then quit without finishing only to continue paying for them to do nothing for the next 60 years. Home schooling is fine by me. Then advocate for not paying for their social programs. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
IDBillzFan Posted February 19, 2016 Share Posted February 19, 2016 It's going to be a lot of fun watching the Dem primary season if Bernie continues to pick up the majority of votes in some states yet Hillary gets more delegates. A lot of fun. I don't think you'll have to look any further than Nevada. If Bernie wins Nevada, the DNC will have to go into hiding. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Observer Posted February 21, 2016 Share Posted February 21, 2016 I don't think you'll have to look any further than Nevada. If Bernie wins Nevada, the DNC will have to go into hiding. Clinton is winning 500-70 in delegate count. Bernie is a footnote in this election but he's a media darling so he gets press. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
3rdnlng Posted February 21, 2016 Share Posted February 21, 2016 The inherent unfairness of the super delegates that Hillary has wrapped up is going to turn off many Bernie supporters and cause them to stay away from the booth in the general election. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
keepthefaith Posted February 21, 2016 Share Posted February 21, 2016 The inherent unfairness of the super delegates that Hillary has wrapped up is going to turn off many Bernie supporters and cause them to stay away from the booth in the general election. Maybe and I'll hope you're right. Voter intensity does seem to be lining up on the Republican side just as it did for the Dems in 2008. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Chef Jim Posted February 21, 2016 Share Posted February 21, 2016 The inherent unfairness of the super delegates that Hillary has wrapped up is going to turn off many Bernie supporters and cause them to stay away from the booth in the general election. Many of the Sanders supporters I know hate Hillary as much as they hate Trump. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Tiberius Posted February 22, 2016 Author Share Posted February 22, 2016 Where did I say that people with disabilities are not to be helped. As a matter of fact I've said just the opposite. And as harsh as this may sound I have zero sympathy for those that cannot survive because they've made the decision to have children. You can't afford to take care of a child I suggest you don't have any. I don't play the victim card that's your side's game. 1) What makes someone unworthy for employment? 2) Why does 20% not finish high school? 3) Can you answer those questions for me? But what about the children of the people that can't afford them? It's not the kids fault. Punishing the parent ruins the child who won't accumulate as much human capital if forced to live in extreme poverty 1) If they can do the job well. Many can't 2) Bad family life probably. 3) Of course In some areas the percentage that quit high school is much greater than 20% especially among males. To me that begs the question: Why do we allow people to quit high school? It's not like 100 years ago when so many quit to work on the family farm. To me we should not allow kids to quit except for special and rare circumstances. As for the unworthy (but otherwise able-bodied and minded), many have put themselves there through a many year pattern of bad decisions. We have to find a way to reduce these folks and most of the solution IMO has to come from the individuals themselves and with limited help from taxpayers. Part of the answer to me has to be a social worker looking them in the eye and saying the government is not going to support you long term so you better figure it out. Easier said than done. Behavioral economists have observed that most people only react to short term gratification and school is a long term thing so if they don't have a strong family behind them to push, they won't be stimulated by long term goals. If that makes sense Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
3rdnlng Posted February 22, 2016 Share Posted February 22, 2016 But what about the children of the people that can't afford them? It's not the kids fault. Punishing the parent ruins the child who won't accumulate as much human capital if forced to live in extreme poverty 1) If they can do the job well. Many can't 2) Bad family life probably. 3) Of course Easier said than done. Behavioral economists have observed that most people only react to short term gratification and school is a long term thing so if they don't have a strong family behind them to push, they won't be stimulated by long term goals. If that makes sense So, we agree. If one doesn't want to put the effort into bettering oneself they might just as well be !@#$ed. You're evolving pilgrim. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
unbillievable Posted February 22, 2016 Share Posted February 22, 2016 WHy should punishing the parents be a problem for the left? I thought the children belonged to the state. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Tiberius Posted February 22, 2016 Author Share Posted February 22, 2016 WHy should punishing the parents be a problem for the left? I thought the children belonged to the state. Is that what Hillary believes? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
DC Tom Posted February 22, 2016 Share Posted February 22, 2016 Is that what Hillary believes? Actually, yes she does. She's advocated multiple times that parental discipline and parent-child disputes should be a matter for the courts, and said that the traditional family structure is equivalent to slavery. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Chef Jim Posted February 22, 2016 Share Posted February 22, 2016 But what about the children of the people that can't afford them? It's not the kids fault. Punishing the parent ruins the child who won't accumulate as much human capital if forced to live in extreme poverty 1) If they can do the job well. Many can't 2) Bad family life probably. 3) Of course Well not everyone wins the uterine lottery now do they. Life sucks sometimes. Wouldn't this fall under child endangerment? Take the kids away if they can't properly provide for them. There are plenty of well to do couples (gays, lesbians perhaps) that cannot have kids that would love to raise them properly. 1. They can't do what job well? What job are you talking about. There are plenty of jobs that take no or little skill or a skill that can be taught and learned. 2 So there is no repercussions for ruining your child's opportunity for a quality life? As you said, it's not the child's fault right 3. See it's not that hard is it. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts