Well then, why are you wasting our time crying about anything if you're not willing to do anything about it. Why do I get the feeling that you also loudly complain when "someone" pees in your pants?
Well then, why are you wasting our time crying about anything if you're not willing to do anything about it. Why do I get the feeling that you also loudly complain when "someone" pees in your pants?
You forgot to address the sencond part of my post...
You forgot to address the sencond part of my post...
Ok... do I need to post stats of the people who've been screwed by the system and the existing billionaires who use every loop hole and lack of regulation to get their own?
Or how about the extremely widening gap between the rich and the poor?
But yeah.. go ahead and tell me about the self-made millionaires. Then correlate that with the number of people who've gone bankrupt, lost their houses and lost their pension and health care when they get "down-sized" by companies who turn around and give $30-million bonuses to their CEOs.
Welfare isn't just there for a poor "race," it's there for all of us. If we ever need it.
When I was 21, I got my one and only Welfare check. I was about a year out of college and although I had worked steadily since I was 16 and paid into the system, after college I was unable to find any steady work.
I refused to ask for unemployment because I had managed to save plenty of money to support myself for months. Which, for a 21 year-old man just out of college is pretty damn impressive, especially since my parents had decided that if they gave me money for school, it was an endorsement of my being gay... so I did it all on my own.
Months later, unable to find any work, I finally had to eat shit and admit that I was out of resources... spent all my savings, ran up my debts and had no other options than to apply for UI.. which would take 6 weeks to kick in. I was sent to Welfare to ask for "an emergency check" which was THE most humiliating experience of my life.
A case worker came to my small apartment and saw that it was clean. I had a nicely furnished place because I went to the Salvation Army store, bought old furniture and then bought cheap textiles at Fabricland and recovered it all myself, painted with paint I'd got on sale at Canadian Tire and took good care of the things I'd accumulated for the years I worked to put myself through school. My walls were decorated with the same Picasso prints I'd bought in high school.
She asked me "if you're so broke, how can you afford a computer?" in a very rude tone. I explained that the computer was a gift from my parents three years before to help me with my school work. She exhaled loudly through her nose at that.
After a few more rather obnoxious things ("you sure have enough time to clean this place, when are you out looking for a job?") I was granted a $600 check. It would have been enough to last me maybe a month.
I found work not soon after that... but I'll never forget the way I got treated.
If you've never felt like that or been in that situation... well, I hope you never find out what it's like.
Thanks for posting this. Often the ones who speak against public assistance overgeneralize way too much, ignoring the fact that each person who has received assistance of any form have their own story and circumstances that led to the point where they seek services.
Cherry-picking from the overall statistics cited paints a picture of a comfortably secure family that is leaching off the government so that they can have it easy. That's not what I've seen of poverty.
This is a valid, albeit moot, point in this particular instance. People fake poverty and use it as a crutch in order to receive free handouts. Didn't you know? :roll:
WOW! No shit?! People lie to get what they want?! Amazing how little I've learned after spending most of my adult life working with poor folks! :lolno:
Yes, sometimes people lie and try to manipulate the system in order to receive benefits. Unfortunately for them, most aren't sophisticated enough to pull this off. Technology has improved reporting systems and record keeping so that it's not hard to find out who is trying to con you. It's become easier and easier to verify people's income or lack thereof, their utility balances, employment history, residency, and other services they are receiving. That doesn't mean people don't try and don't continue to try with other organizations after they've been caught. But unless they're genuine sociopaths, they probably won't be adept enough at lying to get away with it more than occasionally. And if they're that good at conning people, they'll probably be going after much bigger scams.
What makes you think all these "handouts" are free? You don't get TANF unless you have children. The amount of food stamps and subsidized housing are based on income and requires documentation. Food stamps also don't pay for everything and housing is often low cost, not no cost. Even people who lose their jobs don't always get unemployment. I don't know of any program that is something for nothing.
Abuse happens in all of them... I am mainly talking about TANF/Food Stamps, subsidized housing
Unemployment is your money that your employer takes out of your pay. http://jfs.ohio.gov/owf/tanf/OhioTANF2010.pdf This is TANF from Ohio (my state)
On top of all these benefits/grants/funding/cash assistance/additional pay for "good" school attendance.
Public schools are now providing 2-3 meals A DAY for students with additional weekend pre-made meals.
If these parents are not paying for School(education & supplies)/health care/day care/transportation/food/housing.
What exactly are they spending their money on?
I would guess that they they are spending their money on stuff like rent, utilities, gas or public transportation to get to work, clothing and shoes, cleaning products that aren't covered by food stamps--stuff that keeps their kids living in a stable household. As I said above, subsidized housing is often reduced rent, not NO rent. You are also assuming that because they receive TANF they automatically have all other types of assistance. That's not the case in my state. The kids may be eligible for Medicaid but not teens or adults. The family may qualify for housing but due to shortages the typical waiting list in my area is 2-3 years.
It's also news to me that unemployment is MY money that was withheld by my employer. So why did 2 of my former employers regularly fight tooth and nail not to pay it to former employees if it was their money?
Abuse happens in all of them... I am mainly talking about TANF/Food Stamps, subsidized housing
Unemployment is your money that your employer takes out of your pay. http://jfs.ohio.gov/owf/tanf/OhioTANF2010.pdf This is TANF from Ohio (my state)
On top of all these benefits/grants/funding/cash assistance/additional pay for "good" school attendance.
Public schools are now providing 2-3 meals A DAY for students with additional weekend pre-made meals.
If these parents are not paying for School(education & supplies)/health care/day care/transportation/food/housing.
What exactly are they spending their money on?
I would guess that they they are spending their money on stuff like rent, utilities, gas or public transportation to get to work, clothing and shoes, cleaning products that aren't covered by food stamps--stuff that keeps their kids living in a stable household. As I said above, subsidized housing is often reduced rent, not NO rent. You are also assuming that because they receive TANF they automatically have all other types of assistance. That's not the case in my state. The kids may be eligible for Medicaid but not teens or adults. The family may qualify for housing but due to shortages the typical waiting list in my area is 2-3 years.
It's also news to me that unemployment is MY money that was withheld by my employer. So why did 2 of my former employers regularly fight tooth and nail not to pay it to former employees if it was their money?
I've gone around and around with Blockhead on this topic, and he seems very set on the notion that most of the people on assistance are abusing the system and that "welfare" is creating more problems than people it helps. The underlying vibe from him is that welfare should only be for the most needy (not defined) and the rest should be cut off and the millions of unfilled jobs will be taken by them. He's taken some anecdotal stories from his wife's work experience and made conclusions from there that are set in cement. I've seen that the more facts you use, the more you challenge his assumptions, and the more you encourage him to define his terms, the less he responds.
You forgot to address the sencond part of my post...
Ok... do I need to post stats of the people who've been screwed by the system and the existing billionaires who use every loop hole and lack of regulation to get their own?
Or how about the extremely widening gap between the rich and the poor?
But yeah.. go ahead and tell me about the self-made millionaires. Then correlate that with the number of people who've gone bankrupt, lost their houses and lost their pension and health care when they get "down-sized" by companies who turn around and give $30-million bonuses to their CEOs.
Wanna keep going?
so your blaming the companies because people can't save for a rainy day???
Its not the companies job to make sure you save your money and live within your means. Just because someone got laid off and wen't bankrupt, lost house, etc is not the companies fault. I was once laid off so was my wife, we managed to keep our house, feed our two kids, and get other jobs, all without losing our house, going bankrupt, etc.
So yeah, selft made millionaires SHOWS that if people take some responsibily, work hard, they can achieve monitary success.
Again YOUR not entitled to a job or money.
So again, how are you SCREWED by the system.
Is it the systems fault that you chose gay porn as your line of work? Maybe people shouldn't go to school for liberal arts degrees and start geting into medical/engineering fields where there is actual work/needs.
I would guess that they they are spending their money on stuff like rent, utilities, gas or public transportation to get to work, clothing and shoes, cleaning products that aren't covered by food stamps--stuff that keeps their kids living in a stable household. As I said above, subsidized housing is often reduced rent, not NO rent. You are also assuming that because they receive TANF they automatically have all other types of assistance. That's not the case in my state. The kids may be eligible for Medicaid but not teens or adults. The family may qualify for housing but due to shortages the typical waiting list in my area is 2-3 years.
It's also news to me that unemployment is MY money that was withheld by my employer. So why did 2 of my former employers regularly fight tooth and nail not to pay it to former employees if it was their money?
Clothing and shoes they usually get from programs called "crayons to computers" which my wife takes 75% of her students to on Fridays.
Also subsidized housing is reduced rent you are correct, the complex around where I live is $8 a month.
I am suprised that you have held a job for this long not knowing that unemployment is taken out of your pay and put into a "company fund". They fight tooth and nail because the employers unemployment insurance rates increase extremely.
I've gone around and around with Blockhead on this topic, and he seems very set on the notion that most of the people on assistance are abusing the system and that "welfare" is creating more problems than people it helps. The underlying vibe from him is that welfare should only be for the most needy (not defined) and the rest should be cut off and the millions of unfilled jobs will be taken by them. He's taken some anecdotal stories from his wife's work experience and made conclusions from there that are set in cement. I've seen that the more facts you use, the more you challenge his assumptions, and the more you encourage him to define his terms, the less he responds.
Thanks for the heads up. :thumbup:
I wasn't expecting to convince anyone, since I've observed for years that people can be very single-minded on this topic. Occasionally that just strikes a nerve with me. I am hardly a kneejerk, bleeding heart and I believe in a strong sense of personal responsibility and work ethic. But unlike most of the people who rant about this sort of topic, I've met and worked with many, many impoverished people. Their circumstances were anything but enviable.
I've gone around and around with Blockhead on this topic, and he seems very set on the notion that most of the people on assistance are abusing the system and that "welfare" is creating more problems than people it helps. The underlying vibe from him is that welfare should only be for the most needy (not defined) and the rest should be cut off and the millions of unfilled jobs will be taken by them. He's taken some anecdotal stories from his wife's work experience and made conclusions from there that are set in cement. I've seen that the more facts you use, the more you challenge his assumptions, and the more you encourage him to define his terms, the less he responds.
And i have stated over and over in my experience yes, abuse is out of control. If welfare is such a magical program why is poverty in a continual increase?
You guys for some reason can't see to grasp the issue of dependancy/entitlements.
You have never posted a fact, if anything all my stats and facts get ignored, take a look at other threads on similar subjects. I have posted how many times that 20% are on welfare for 5 + years... You don't think that is abuse?
Continual preganacies while on welfare is ABUSE, IMO...
I am suprised that you have held a job for this long not knowing that unemployment is taken out of your pay and put into a "company fund". They fight tooth and nail because the employers unemployment insurance rates increase extremely.
I was being sarcastic. I'm quite aware why an employer wouldn't want to turn loose the money.
It is done differently in Texas. Employers can opt not to pay into the state's unemployment fund, then directly reimburse the state for a former employee's unemployment compensation. It's based on the size of the employer and other factors. That is why it's in the employer's best interest to see that former employees won't be eligible for unemployment. They won't be paying into it in advance and they won't be charged for it later.
Continual preganacies while on welfare is ABUSE, IMO...
So people on TANF/housing/food stamps should stop having sex? Birth control is not covered by Medicaid.
Of all the arguments about "welfare" that I find the craziest is the notion that people keep having more children so they can get more assistance. I've never seen it. Even the links you posted in the OP mention that a leading cause of poverty is lack of support by fathers. Talk me up a solution that encourages fathers to support their kids and keep them off public assistance and I might agree with you.
Gimmie I saw you posted this in that death penalty cost thread: "it is strictly my question as to whether or not you "fiscal conservatives" on here can justify spending that kind of money on something so ineffecient and so filled with flaws."
So my questions to you is the same, only with welfare.
My question is to whether or not your "liberals" on here can justify spending that kind of money on something so INEFFECIENT and so filled with flaws.
The poverty rate is continually rising, with welfare spending continually rising. Why do you support something that PROMOTES poverity?
http://www.cato.org/pub_display.php?pub_id=6698 http://www.cato.org/pubs/journal/cj16n1-1.html http://www.heritage.org/research/report ... in-america
"The typical American defined as "poor" by the government has a car, air conditioning, a refrigerator, a stove, a clothes washer and dryer, and a microwave. He has two color televisions, cable or satellite TV reception, a VCR or DVD player, and a stereo. He is able to obtain medical care. His home is in good repair and is not overcrowded. By his own report, his family is not hungry and he had sufficient funds in the past year to meet his family's essential needs".
Questions: Would Michele Bachman have taken in the foster children that she had if the State hadn't provided compensation? Should our society be judged by how we care for those least fortunate amongst us? I wonder how many folks in the flood, hurricane and tornado ravaged parts of our nation may have lost their jobs/houses/livlihoods because of something completely out of their control? What shall we do with/for them?
You can take away all the sources you want, It does not change the fact the more money is put in to these programs every year and the poverty rate rises accordingly.
two things will always be around...poverty and prostitution....
to think both will somehow go away completely is naive...but they can both be addressed...
so your blaming the companies because people can't save for a rainy day???
No, of course not. That's not what this is about.
This is about an unregulated banking system that was allowed to intentionally mislead people into thinking that they could afford houses that they couldn't so those same banks could then profit from the foreclosures.
Is it the systems fault that you chose gay porn as your line of work? Maybe people shouldn't go to school for liberal arts degrees and start geting into medical/engineering fields where there is actual work/needs.
Um... ok, that was a bit out of left field.
So... I'll just tell you. I know first-hand that self-made millionaires exist. You'd be amazed at what a porn director makes. But just because I got mine doesn't mean I think it's OK to screw over anyone else. I should pay, I think, my share of taxes. I'll employ the same number of staff whether I pay an extra 2% or not.
the death penalty is a punishment for people convicted of a crime. It gives humans the right to kill humans for a crime, which they may not be guilty of; there are tons of examples of innocent men being held on death row and being released because of faulty evidence. Welfare programs are around to help people who need it but can be abused by citizens if not regulated properly. I like the system of helping people out with food and shelter, it just seems like it needs more regulation, which is something that a lot of americans oppose for some reason (esp. right wing folks..just sayin.) I'd rather lose some of my tax money over a program that helps some and some abuse as opposed to paying into a system that costs an extreme amt of $$$ to possibly execute an innocent man. The answer to welfare TO ME, seems that it needs to not be chastised by society but regulated heavily and with an open mind
Quoting such diverse sources as The Cato Institute and The Heritage Foundation... Both of which are owned and operated by the same small group of right-wing billionaires who pay for "research" that tells them what they want to hear.
They then present "viewpoints from two sources" to back up whatever anti-American drivel they want to spew.
Nobody has ever suggested that Welfare is a perfect system and that it doesn't need constant checks and balances. If the unregulated banking cluster fuck of the 2000s taught us anything, it's that without constant watching, pretty much anyone will take whatever they can get and screw everyone else.
The difference is, to many of us, that the core idea of Welfare is to keep the people of our country from absolute poverty and starving to death in the streets. Not such a bad goal, if you ask me.
The point of the death penalty is to violate the first commandment, kill for revenge and it's not even applied in any "fair" way. You're much more likely to get it if (a) you're black (b) poor and (c) kill a white person.
A rich person never gets the death penalty. Poor black men often do and many of those men were later proven to be innocent.
Hypocrisy is using the bible to prove a point when you do not even believe in God or the Bible.
“We the people are the rightful masters of bothCongress and the courts, not to overthrow the Constitution but to overthrow the men who pervert the Constitution.” Abraham Lincoln
Hypocrisy is using the bible to prove a point when you do not even believe in God or the Bible.
Well no... Hypocrisy is hitting me over the head with the the bible, expecting me to follow the rules you pick and choose when you yourself don't follow the rules yourself.
If others are allowed to harp on about lines in Leviticus, I'm allowed to talk about the 10 Commandments.
Not today Sir, Probably not tomorrow.............................................. bayfront arena st. pete '94
you're finally here and I'm a mess................................................... nationwide arena columbus '10
memories like fingerprints are slowly raising.................................... first niagara center buffalo '13
another man ..... moved by sleight of hand...................................... joe louis arena detroit '14
I've gone around and around with Blockhead on this topic, and he seems very set on the notion that most of the people on assistance are abusing the system and that "welfare" is creating more problems than people it helps. The underlying vibe from him is that welfare should only be for the most needy (not defined) and the rest should be cut off and the millions of unfilled jobs will be taken by them. He's taken some anecdotal stories from his wife's work experience and made conclusions from there that are set in cement. I've seen that the more facts you use, the more you challenge his assumptions, and the more you encourage him to define his terms, the less he responds.
And i have stated over and over in my experience yes, abuse is out of control. If welfare is such a magical program why is poverty in a continual increase?
You guys for some reason can't see to grasp the issue of dependancy/entitlements.
You have never posted a fact, if anything all my stats and facts get ignored, take a look at other threads on similar subjects. I have posted how many times that 20% are on welfare for 5 + years... You don't think that is abuse?
Continual preganacies while on welfare is ABUSE, IMO...
P.S. do you know what cement is?
No one has said it's a "magical program", but you using the term lets us know where you're coming from. Depending on your time frame, the poverty rate hasn't been in "continual increase". It declined steadily during the 90's, but has increased annually for most of the last 10 years. That could also be connected to the actual amount of welfare benefit amounts decreasing for the last 30 years.
I guess since I disagree with you, that I'm not "grasping" the issue of dependency? If I only had your wisdom...
Assuming your 20% number is accurate, why are you concluding that means all 20% are abusing the system? You could also say that this group of people falls into the higher need category. Like the information in the link you posted about Ohio talked about, they need additional approval to receive benefits for longer than 5 years.
One of you links, I think the second one, referenced data from almost 20 years ago, which is too old to relevant to any discussion about what's going on currently.
Cherry-picking from the overall statistics cited paints a picture of a comfortably secure family that is leaching off the government so that they can have it easy. That's not what I've seen of poverty.
This is a valid, albeit moot, point in this particular instance. People fake poverty and use it as a crutch in order to receive free handouts. Didn't you know? :roll:
WOW! No shit?! People lie to get what they want?! Amazing how little I've learned after spending most of my adult life working with poor folks! :lolno:
What makes you think all these "handouts" are free?
I don't--sorry, that was sarcasm. I was saying that with the point being that it is what many people think. I actually agree with you.
This is a valid, albeit moot, point in this particular instance. People fake poverty and use it as a crutch in order to receive free handouts. Didn't you know? :roll:
WOW! No shit?! People lie to get what they want?! Amazing how little I've learned after spending most of my adult life working with poor folks! :lolno:
What makes you think all these "handouts" are free?
I don't--sorry, that was sarcasm. I was saying that with the point being that it is what many people think. I actually agree with you.
Sorry, man. I was a little worked up about this thread when I was posting yesterday. :oops:
Thanks.
And consider that over the past 30 years productivity has increased 80%, wages have remained relatively flat when inflation is considered and yet the top 1% of income earners have seen their incomes rise over 200%.
And we should take it out on/from/of the least fortunate amongst us?
Ah yes... the conservative delusion.... "one day if I work hard enough I'll be a billionaire too so for now I'll just vote to protect my interests then... and not my own interests now."
Do you NEVER feel like Charlie Brown running at that football?
Well.... I don't vote, so there goes your theory.
Do I need to post the stats of self made millionaires or can you look that up for your self?
This one statements makes your arguments meaningless. If you don't vote you are certainly just a part of the problem and not even looking for a solution.
Let's hope that more like minded people don't vote.
Is it the systems fault that you chose gay porn as your line of work? Maybe people shouldn't go to school for liberal arts degrees and start geting into medical/engineering fields where there is actual work/needs.
Sorry, I don't mean to gloat.
But I'm still kinda laughing at this one.
Not that he assumes that I'm poor but that someone posting on a forum dedicated to a band is saying that nobody needs artists and suggests that everyone should become a doctor or an engineer.
the points of discussion in this thread are side notes to the what is ultimately the issue with welfare (and most other issues) - the administration of the program itself ...
people can and should debate the pros and cons of welfare in general but in the context of the united states - the debate often focuses on the people who abuse the system or the mismanagement of funds ... the reality is that most gov't run and funded programs are indeed highly inefficient and poorly run ... some of it is attributable to bureaucracy and red tape and possibly lack of funds - but the vast majority of the problems related to these programs are indeed intentional ...
although, these programs are deemed social in nature ... they are yet another avenue by which tax dollars are funneled to private companies ... lockheed martin, our favourite manufacturer of death, runs welfare offices ... they don't really care about who gets what and how effective the program is ... it's all about profiting from the program ... much like every other program the gov't funds ... so, when the US goes to war to fight freedom and democracy - it's the same thing ... it's not about how efficient that money gets spent (no money for body armor but money for haliburton to charge $50 a day per labourer they hire dsepite paying them $5) - it's about profiteering ...
sure, there is a debate on the pros and cons in welfare ... but the bigger and more larger debate should be on the corporatization of the gov't because right now ... those who oppose welfare do in fact have a significant gripe in that it is extremely poorly managed ... however, the reasons for that are not because of the program itself but rather in its administration ...
Comments
Ah.
You're one of those.
Well then, why are you wasting our time crying about anything if you're not willing to do anything about it. Why do I get the feeling that you also loudly complain when "someone" pees in your pants?
Ok... do I need to post stats of the people who've been screwed by the system and the existing billionaires who use every loop hole and lack of regulation to get their own?
Or how about the extremely widening gap between the rich and the poor?
But yeah.. go ahead and tell me about the self-made millionaires. Then correlate that with the number of people who've gone bankrupt, lost their houses and lost their pension and health care when they get "down-sized" by companies who turn around and give $30-million bonuses to their CEOs.
Wanna keep going?
Thanks for posting this. Often the ones who speak against public assistance overgeneralize way too much, ignoring the fact that each person who has received assistance of any form have their own story and circumstances that led to the point where they seek services.
Yes, sometimes people lie and try to manipulate the system in order to receive benefits. Unfortunately for them, most aren't sophisticated enough to pull this off. Technology has improved reporting systems and record keeping so that it's not hard to find out who is trying to con you. It's become easier and easier to verify people's income or lack thereof, their utility balances, employment history, residency, and other services they are receiving. That doesn't mean people don't try and don't continue to try with other organizations after they've been caught. But unless they're genuine sociopaths, they probably won't be adept enough at lying to get away with it more than occasionally. And if they're that good at conning people, they'll probably be going after much bigger scams.
What makes you think all these "handouts" are free? You don't get TANF unless you have children. The amount of food stamps and subsidized housing are based on income and requires documentation. Food stamps also don't pay for everything and housing is often low cost, not no cost. Even people who lose their jobs don't always get unemployment. I don't know of any program that is something for nothing.
It's also news to me that unemployment is MY money that was withheld by my employer. So why did 2 of my former employers regularly fight tooth and nail not to pay it to former employees if it was their money?
I've gone around and around with Blockhead on this topic, and he seems very set on the notion that most of the people on assistance are abusing the system and that "welfare" is creating more problems than people it helps. The underlying vibe from him is that welfare should only be for the most needy (not defined) and the rest should be cut off and the millions of unfilled jobs will be taken by them. He's taken some anecdotal stories from his wife's work experience and made conclusions from there that are set in cement. I've seen that the more facts you use, the more you challenge his assumptions, and the more you encourage him to define his terms, the less he responds.
Its not the companies job to make sure you save your money and live within your means. Just because someone got laid off and wen't bankrupt, lost house, etc is not the companies fault. I was once laid off so was my wife, we managed to keep our house, feed our two kids, and get other jobs, all without losing our house, going bankrupt, etc.
So yeah, selft made millionaires SHOWS that if people take some responsibily, work hard, they can achieve monitary success.
Again YOUR not entitled to a job or money.
So again, how are you SCREWED by the system.
Is it the systems fault that you chose gay porn as your line of work? Maybe people shouldn't go to school for liberal arts degrees and start geting into medical/engineering fields where there is actual work/needs.
Also subsidized housing is reduced rent you are correct, the complex around where I live is $8 a month.
I am suprised that you have held a job for this long not knowing that unemployment is taken out of your pay and put into a "company fund". They fight tooth and nail because the employers unemployment insurance rates increase extremely.
I wasn't expecting to convince anyone, since I've observed for years that people can be very single-minded on this topic. Occasionally that just strikes a nerve with me. I am hardly a kneejerk, bleeding heart and I believe in a strong sense of personal responsibility and work ethic. But unlike most of the people who rant about this sort of topic, I've met and worked with many, many impoverished people. Their circumstances were anything but enviable.
You guys for some reason can't see to grasp the issue of dependancy/entitlements.
You have never posted a fact, if anything all my stats and facts get ignored, take a look at other threads on similar subjects. I have posted how many times that 20% are on welfare for 5 + years... You don't think that is abuse?
Continual preganacies while on welfare is ABUSE, IMO...
P.S. do you know what cement is?
It is done differently in Texas. Employers can opt not to pay into the state's unemployment fund, then directly reimburse the state for a former employee's unemployment compensation. It's based on the size of the employer and other factors. That is why it's in the employer's best interest to see that former employees won't be eligible for unemployment. They won't be paying into it in advance and they won't be charged for it later.
Of all the arguments about "welfare" that I find the craziest is the notion that people keep having more children so they can get more assistance. I've never seen it. Even the links you posted in the OP mention that a leading cause of poverty is lack of support by fathers. Talk me up a solution that encourages fathers to support their kids and keep them off public assistance and I might agree with you.
You forgot the Blackberry
As Ed has said, "the Haves have not a clue."
Peace.
Libtardaplorable©. And proud of it.
Brilliantati©
shazzam!!! are you a costumer or provider...?
No, of course not. That's not what this is about.
This is about an unregulated banking system that was allowed to intentionally mislead people into thinking that they could afford houses that they couldn't so those same banks could then profit from the foreclosures.
Um... ok, that was a bit out of left field.
So... I'll just tell you. I know first-hand that self-made millionaires exist. You'd be amazed at what a porn director makes. But just because I got mine doesn't mean I think it's OK to screw over anyone else. I should pay, I think, my share of taxes. I'll employ the same number of staff whether I pay an extra 2% or not.
Hypocrisy is using the bible to prove a point when you do not even believe in God or the Bible.
Well no... Hypocrisy is hitting me over the head with the the bible, expecting me to follow the rules you pick and choose when you yourself don't follow the rules yourself.
If others are allowed to harp on about lines in Leviticus, I'm allowed to talk about the 10 Commandments.
and now that we're done with your deflecting and nit-picking, let's talk about my other points, shall we?
Not today Sir, Probably not tomorrow.............................................. bayfront arena st. pete '94
you're finally here and I'm a mess................................................... nationwide arena columbus '10
memories like fingerprints are slowly raising.................................... first niagara center buffalo '13
another man ..... moved by sleight of hand...................................... joe louis arena detroit '14
No one has said it's a "magical program", but you using the term lets us know where you're coming from. Depending on your time frame, the poverty rate hasn't been in "continual increase". It declined steadily during the 90's, but has increased annually for most of the last 10 years. That could also be connected to the actual amount of welfare benefit amounts decreasing for the last 30 years.
I guess since I disagree with you, that I'm not "grasping" the issue of dependency? If I only had your wisdom...
Assuming your 20% number is accurate, why are you concluding that means all 20% are abusing the system? You could also say that this group of people falls into the higher need category. Like the information in the link you posted about Ohio talked about, they need additional approval to receive benefits for longer than 5 years.
One of you links, I think the second one, referenced data from almost 20 years ago, which is too old to relevant to any discussion about what's going on currently.
Key Arena - Nov 05, 2000
Gorge Amphitheater - Sep 01, 2005, Jul 22,23, 2006
Key Arena - Sept 21,22, 2009
Alpine Valley - Sept 3, 4 2011
Thanks.
http://www.nytimes.com/2011/06/25/opinion/25blow.html
And consider that over the past 30 years productivity has increased 80%, wages have remained relatively flat when inflation is considered and yet the top 1% of income earners have seen their incomes rise over 200%.
And we should take it out on/from/of the least fortunate amongst us?
The Haves have not a fuckin' clue.
Peace.
Libtardaplorable©. And proud of it.
Brilliantati©
Let's hope that more like minded people don't vote.
Sorry, I don't mean to gloat.
But I'm still kinda laughing at this one.
Not that he assumes that I'm poor but that someone posting on a forum dedicated to a band is saying that nobody needs artists and suggests that everyone should become a doctor or an engineer.
people can and should debate the pros and cons of welfare in general but in the context of the united states - the debate often focuses on the people who abuse the system or the mismanagement of funds ... the reality is that most gov't run and funded programs are indeed highly inefficient and poorly run ... some of it is attributable to bureaucracy and red tape and possibly lack of funds - but the vast majority of the problems related to these programs are indeed intentional ...
although, these programs are deemed social in nature ... they are yet another avenue by which tax dollars are funneled to private companies ... lockheed martin, our favourite manufacturer of death, runs welfare offices ... they don't really care about who gets what and how effective the program is ... it's all about profiting from the program ... much like every other program the gov't funds ... so, when the US goes to war to fight freedom and democracy - it's the same thing ... it's not about how efficient that money gets spent (no money for body armor but money for haliburton to charge $50 a day per labourer they hire dsepite paying them $5) - it's about profiteering ...
sure, there is a debate on the pros and cons in welfare ... but the bigger and more larger debate should be on the corporatization of the gov't because right now ... those who oppose welfare do in fact have a significant gripe in that it is extremely poorly managed ... however, the reasons for that are not because of the program itself but rather in its administration ...