Understanding Welfare

 Pages PREV 1 2 3 4 5 6 NEXT
 

Bentusi16:

Agema:

Super Not Cosmo:

While I admit all three of these things make it easier to find employment they certainly aren't required by any stretch. Even if they were most people have access to a number where messages can be left for them and most public libraries have free internet access. If need be you may end up having to walk to put in applications and check back in person. The lack of internet, a phone and a car hardly makes it impossible to find a job.

One of the key things about unemployment is that you want to make it easier for the unemployed to find jobs, not harder. Similarly, for the employed-but-poor as well, you want to make it easier for the unskilled and untrained (those who have the will and capability) to get skills and training. Not dump them on their arses with the bare minimum to scrape by and tell them they're lucky to have that. It is absurd in the highest way possible to have a bunch of people who need jobs most and have the least access to resources to acquire jobs, and to block those capable of self-improvement from doing so by impoverishment.

Alright, a hard-wire computers that puts you immediately upon bootup into a program designed to aid you in finding a job with a resume maker, submission thing, and a link to temporary employment agencies, maybe some sort of link to various want ad sites (newspapers, online classifieds).

As someone who is both poor and was previously unemployed I understand exactly how hard it is to find a job, even with qualifications. This system seems good.

Seems like an incredible waste of hardware for a stupidly petty reason.

Nikolaz72:

Bentusi16:

Agema:

One of the key things about unemployment is that you want to make it easier for the unemployed to find jobs, not harder. Similarly, for the employed-but-poor as well, you want to make it easier for the unskilled and untrained (those who have the will and capability) to get skills and training. Not dump them on their arses with the bare minimum to scrape by and tell them they're lucky to have that. It is absurd in the highest way possible to have a bunch of people who need jobs most and have the least access to resources to acquire jobs, and to block those capable of self-improvement from doing so by impoverishment.

Alright, a hard-wire computers that puts you immediately upon bootup into a program designed to aid you in finding a job with a resume maker, submission thing, and a link to temporary employment agencies, maybe some sort of link to various want ad sites (newspapers, online classifieds).

As someone who is both poor and was previously unemployed I understand exactly how hard it is to find a job, even with qualifications. This system seems good.

Seems like an incredible waste of hardware for a stupidly petty reason.

It's not. Distractions are actually very harmful.

Especially if you've worked hard to find a job and you're starting to get depressed. Most people when they start down that road start doing other things OTHER then job searching because the constant rejection really starts to wear on the soul eventually.

But hey, I mean I was just daily submitting 10-12 resumes for FOUR YEARS, what the FUCK do I know about being poor and unemployed right?

Bentusi16:

Alright, a hard-wire computers that puts you immediately upon bootup into a program designed to aid you in finding a job with a resume maker, submission thing, and a link to temporary employment agencies, maybe some sort of link to various want ad sites (newspapers, online classifieds).

As someone who is both poor and was previously unemployed I understand exactly how hard it is to find a job, even with qualifications. This system seems good.

In the UK, you turn up at the "Jobcentre" to sign on every fortnight and tell them what you've applied for in return for your dole money. My local Jobcentre - which I had the displeasure of frequenting earlier this year - has a large number of dedicated terminals with local jobs loaded on, terminals to search the internet (including the government's own jobs website which has a vast number of public and private jobs listed) and phones free to use to make enquiries and interviews. It also provides courses for making CVs and otherwise selling yourself, and will print CVs, etc. for you.

This infrastructure all costs the government, but it's the sort of thing I think they should provide.

Agema:

Bentusi16:

Alright, a hard-wire computers that puts you immediately upon bootup into a program designed to aid you in finding a job with a resume maker, submission thing, and a link to temporary employment agencies, maybe some sort of link to various want ad sites (newspapers, online classifieds).

As someone who is both poor and was previously unemployed I understand exactly how hard it is to find a job, even with qualifications. This system seems good.

In the UK, you turn up at the "Jobcentre" to sign on every fortnight and tell them what you've applied for in return for your dole money. My local Jobcentre - which I had the displeasure of frequenting earlier this year - has a large number of dedicated terminals with local jobs loaded on, terminals to search the internet (including the government's own jobs website which has a vast number of public and private jobs listed) and phones free to use to make enquiries and interviews. It also provides courses for making CVs and otherwise selling yourself, and will print CVs, etc. for you.

This infrastructure all costs the government, but it's the sort of thing I think they should provide.

That's not bad, and I actually like that idea. In my local town in the U.S. the department of labor (who is probably the equivalent department) is a useless piece of crap. The thing you listed is what it shuold be.

A simple little laptop book thing (like one of those super cheap deals) with the same functions on them seem ilke they'd be far more useful then a general internet connection, to me. But again, this is from personal experience of being in the job market for years.

Bentusi16:
Snip

You probably don't know a whole lot other than personal experiences as your idea is delusional. Forced jobsearch is one thing, waste of resources with the exact purpose of deliberately devoiding the unemployed of the basic luxury of say, the internet. Is so stupid it would have had to be something done under the Romans.

I live in a place where, like the U.K. You have to keep looking up jobs, you also have to perform community service/charity the like to keep the between-jobs benefit. If you don't you go down to just having unemployment benefits, which is generally lower. (Although still much higher than the shit they have in the U.S)

What the hell?

Well she might as well have said "let them eat cake", for the amount of ignorance it shows of her

Frission:
What the hell?

Well she might as well have said "let them eat cake", for the amount of ignorance it shows of her

Cake?! Ain't no poor people deserving to be eating cake!

Bentusi16:

Obviously I don't follow it in a strict literal interpretation, it's a philosophy from a hundred thirty years ago.

But either way, calling objectivist libertarians is like someone calling you a communist becausey our left of center.

Thankfully they seem to have improved on liberal thought in a hundred and thirty years. I was using it as a guideline because you specifically gave me the link and told me that this philosophy "most closely aligns" with your own. I see a lot of objectivism in that so I'm really curious to have you spell out for me how your brand of Libertarianism differs from Objectivism, in a point-by-point way. As I have said before, most Libertarians I know are quite happy to also be called Objectivists.

Perhaps if you could explain in your own words where you disagree with Objectivist thought but agree with Libertarian thought and where those differences are, I could better understand. Because the link you sent me outlines a philosophy that I think many objectivists would be happy to claim as a foundation for their own, and very similar to their own.

Bentusi16:

But hey, I mean I was just daily submitting 10-12 resumes for FOUR YEARS, what the FUCK do I know about being poor and unemployed right?

Out of curiosity, who provided for you during this time? Friends? Family? A significant other? Vast personal wealth and savings that allowed you to just not have a job for 4 years and do alright?

Or was it government benefits and services that allowed you to do this? Again, just curious.

Super Not Cosmo:

Beyond that it seems to me that six years to get a degree is a bit much as well. Ok, if you want to better yourself get a two year degree on the tax payers' dime then, I can assure you that with the right two year degree you can make a tidy living for one's self that would be more than enough to support a single mother with three children. Then, if you still want that six year degree, do it on your own dime.

Just out of curiosity, what decent-paying jobs where a mother of three are out there in major US cities looking for people with a 2 year degree? I know that even out-of-school nursing students here (which takes a lot more than 2 years) earns something like 45K a year in Denver, CO out of school when they start nursing, sometimes less than that, and they have to pay back loans.

Just how old are you and have you ever supported a family or been offered a fantastic job with a 2 year associates degree? Cause... um, I used to hire people for a Fortune 500 company for a living and we didn't really think much of applicants with 2 year associates degrees. The common thought on them was, "Wow, this person couldn't finish a 4 year degree and obtain their bachelor's. We probably don't want them here."

The Gnome King:

Bentusi16:

Obviously I don't follow it in a strict literal interpretation, it's a philosophy from a hundred thirty years ago.

But either way, calling objectivist libertarians is like someone calling you a communist becausey our left of center.

Thankfully they seem to have improved on liberal thought in a hundred and thirty years. I was using it as a guideline because you specifically gave me the link and told me that this philosophy "most closely aligns" with your own. I see a lot of objectivism in that so I'm really curious to have you spell out for me how your brand of Libertarianism differs from Objectivism, in a point-by-point way. As I have said before, most Libertarians I know are quite happy to also be called Objectivists.

Perhaps if you could explain in your own words where you disagree with Objectivist thought but agree with Libertarian thought and where those differences are, I could better understand. Because the link you sent me outlines a philosophy that I think many objectivists would be happy to claim as a foundation for their own, and very similar to their own.

Well to start with I disagree with moral objectivism. I believe in a hard coded morality, if not by some sort of divine being then by nature itself. Certain crimes seem to tarnish the very nature of humanity on an individual level. It's jsut a thing.

So right out the door, I disagree with the entire ethics branch of the objectivist philosophy.

Why do I describe my self as a libertarian? Several reasons. For one, since 'conservative' has been hijacked by both 'economical' and 'social' conservatives, I can no longer be described as that. I am economically conservative but socially liberal. I believe that governments are prone to corruption and naturally slip towards power mongering and shouldn't be handed everything on a silver platter. I like capitalism, but I also understand that certain regulations are needed to actually help it work better. And I definitely believe in a social safety net, my argument with others is often 'to what extent' that social safety net should extend.

And central to my philosophy is that human beings have free will, and are therefore accountable for their actions.

Also to answer your second post: Family helped but mostly I was scraping up money any way I could, usually 'under the table' not illegal but not reported income stuff. I was not on welfare, nor will I be in the future. And as I stated above, I actually believe in social security and welfare, I just heavily disagree with how we're going about it.

Bentusi16:

Also to answer your second post: Family helped but mostly I was scraping up money any way I could, usually 'under the table' not illegal but not reported income stuff. I was not on welfare, nor will I be in the future. And as I stated above, I actually believe in social security and welfare, I just heavily disagree with how we're going about it.

So, you had familial help, which not everyone has. You do not have any major health issues (like type 1 diabetes, which affects millions of people - mostly children - it's a lifelong disease and treating it can cost hundreds of dollars a month) - so that's good, because if you did you would need even more help.

So you had family, you had your health and you were able to "scrape by" - if you didn't have any family and your health lacked, what would prevent you from taking welfare? Pride? Your belief in this "moral code" that is somehow "natural law" even if not handed down by a divine being?

I'm pleased that you agree in some kind of social safety net, at least. As for being accountable for our actions, indeed, we are. Though there is free will and then there is circumstance...

I had an uncle a lot like you, actually. He remained firmly believing that he would never take any "government handouts" until he became very ill in his mid-50's to the point where he racked up hundreds of thousands of dollars in medical debt. He's a die-hard liberal now who supports Obamacare, and it brings me to one of my favorite sayings:

"A conservative is a liberal who hasn't desperately needed help... yet."

In every case where I've met a hard nosed "I won't accept medicare/welfare/whatever" this pride and hard-nosed stance quickly falls away if they're ever in any real trouble - ie., they have no food to fill their belly or they have a festering infection that needs medical care. Then everyone suddenly remembers how interdependent we all are on one another, it seems.

The Gnome King:

Bentusi16:

Also to answer your second post: Family helped but mostly I was scraping up money any way I could, usually 'under the table' not illegal but not reported income stuff. I was not on welfare, nor will I be in the future. And as I stated above, I actually believe in social security and welfare, I just heavily disagree with how we're going about it.

So, you had familial help, which not everyone has. You do not have any major health issues (like type 1 diabetes, which affects millions of people - mostly children - it's a lifelong disease and treating it can cost hundreds of dollars a month) - so that's good, because if you did you would need even more help.

So you had family, you had your health and you were able to "scrape by" - if you didn't have any family and your health lacked, what would prevent you from taking welfare? Pride? Your belief in this "moral code" that is somehow "natural law" even if not handed down by a divine being?

I'm pleased that you agree in some kind of social safety net, at least. As for being accountable for our actions, indeed, we are. Though there is free will and then there is circumstance...

I had an uncle a lot like you, actually. He remained firmly believing that he would never take any "government handouts" until he became very ill in his mid-50's to the point where he racked up hundreds of thousands of dollars in medical debt. He's a die-hard liberal now who supports Obamacare, and it brings me to one of my favorite sayings:

"A conservative is a liberal who hasn't desperately needed help... yet."

In every case where I've met a hard nosed "I won't accept medicare/welfare/whatever" this pride and hard-nosed stance quickly falls away if they're ever in any real trouble - ie., they have no food to fill their belly or they have a festering infection that needs medical care. Then everyone suddenly remembers how interdependent we all are on one another, it seems.

No, you don't get to fucking do that.

You don't get to turn me into some hardnose "Sink or swim" mother fucker when I have clearly stated that I am not.

I will die before i become so reliant on the government that I either support them no matter WHAT THEY DO or I die. I'm sorry. But I live in a state where I have seen the middle class completely and utterly decimated by quote unquote social liberals who are holding entire swathes of population at gunpoint.

The Gnome King:

Super Not Cosmo:

Beyond that it seems to me that six years to get a degree is a bit much as well. Ok, if you want to better yourself get a two year degree on the tax payers' dime then, I can assure you that with the right two year degree you can make a tidy living for one's self that would be more than enough to support a single mother with three children. Then, if you still want that six year degree, do it on your own dime.

Just out of curiosity, what decent-paying jobs where a mother of three are out there in major US cities looking for people with a 2 year degree? I know that even out-of-school nursing students here (which takes a lot more than 2 years) earns something like 45K a year in Denver, CO out of school when they start nursing, sometimes less than that, and they have to pay back loans.

Just how old are you and have you ever supported a family or been offered a fantastic job with a 2 year associates degree? Cause... um, I used to hire people for a Fortune 500 company for a living and we didn't really think much of applicants with 2 year associates degrees. The common thought on them was, "Wow, this person couldn't finish a 4 year degree and obtain their bachelor's. We probably don't want them here."

Well your first problem is you live in The People's Republic of Denver. So there's that.

As for nursing, in most states you can take the test to become a RN after getting a 2 year Associates Degree in nursing. Sure there is some additional training if you wish to specialize in something like drawing blood or doing x-rays but you can certainly get a foot in the door with just a two year degree. With that being said the average salary of nurses is right around 50k, which happens to be the median HOUSEHOLD income in the US. As for debt anyone that is willing to put in a bit of work and game the system to the best of their abilities can get a pretty sweet deal getting their college paid for if they are willing to go to a community college or some such thing.

The fact of the matter is though that for a good many people four year degrees simply are a waste of time and money. Many people would be much better served looking into a trade or a 2 year degree. There are many two year degrees I would take in a second over most four year degrees. Most notably are those of a paralegal and nursing. Both careers have average salaries in the 50k range with opportunities to go much higher. Both require certification that can be gained after completion of a 2 year degree and both have a good bit of demand. So while I won't argue four year degrees don't have their uses a person can certainly do well for themselves with a simple two year degree from the local community college.

Now if you think a single mother of 3 can't support herself and 3 kids on a 45k salary then you really need to reevaluate how much you think it costs to get by. Shortly after my wife and I got married and got our first place I supported myself and my wife with a job where I averaged about 35k a year. This included a 800 a month for our apartment plus utilities, TWO car payments and full coverage on both which came in just under 700, and then using what little was left over for various things like eating food and anything that my wife needed for school that had to come out of pocket and if we were lucky putting a little back in savings.

I personally had no use for college beyond the parties. Suffice to say I paid one hell of a cover charge to party in Ann Arbor Michigan for two years. My wife and I like to tell people somehow I ended up with all the debt and no degree to show for it and she ended up with her Master's and no debt. Thankfully that debt is long behind me though. I got a job as a dealer here at a local casino so my wife and I could get our own place and my wife could quit her job and I used that job, which happened to pay between 15-20/hr depending on how tips went on a given week to support both my wife and myself while she went and earned her degree in urban planning and development. I was a dealer for about three years before I got my first promotion and I currently I work as a pit supervisor/poker room manager and am training in an off the floor management position.

As things currently sit my wife is working in her chosen field and I am doing what I do. We are far from "well off" but we live comfortably and have money in savings. We are lucky enough that money isn't something that we stress out about often anymore. However, that is more because of how we have managed our finances than having an excess of money. as we live within our means, we rarely splurge on our spending and we avoid needless debt at all costs. We don't drive brand new cars. My car is 8 years old and hers is 5 but both are paid for. When we bought our house we got a small two bedroom house in a quiet middle class neighborhood rather than getting the most expensive house we could get approved for. There's not a lot of space but there is enough for the two of us.

My point is that when we got married I was an unemployed college drop out. My wife was working in a video store and we lived with my parents. With hard work and careful planning and being thrifty with our money we went from that to being what I would consider a successful middle class couple and we made it there living most of that time off the salary of a college dropout.

I have struggled to support myself ever since I was 16 since I was thrown to the curb by children's aid and by foster parent's who could of cared less without any sort of family to support me. I slept in gutters and the bush and was robbed off alot of the best years of my life. It's a unique feeling to realize at the age of 16 that you could die the same day and no one would even care. It's very, very hard to get a job when you stink of homelessness and have no vehicle or even a mailing address or references. I would never of survived without welfare.

She's a complete bitch devoid of compassion who is probably a daddy's boy who had a car bought for her and college paid for. Not everyone has an easy life, you bitch. Yes I am resorting to name calling, as she is a special case and is truely a cold hearted, spoiled bitch who does not even know the meaning of the word "Struggle and thinks she can look down at people like me. Life is not ALWAYS about bad choices, sometimes life just wants to kick your ass. She can never realize it being the spoiled bitch she is. Fuck her. Fuck her x10, I hate her SO fucking much!!

Super Not Cosmo:
While the intentions of the given scenario are certainly noble I would still argue six years is too long for an able bodied person to willingly stay on government assistance. I mean if the government was willing to put myself and my wife up for six years I'd come out on the other side of it with my masters and in my wife's case her doctorate (as she already has her masters) and she'd have two years left over.

Again, don't get me wrong, I think it's great people on public assistance are looking to get some education and better themselves. That being said there are ways to better yourself and provide a comfortable living for your family that take a LOT less than six years. In the US you can become a registered nurse in two years and those jobs start out at incredibly generous salaries and are usually in fairly high demand to boot. If you are more technically minded you could spend a third of that time foregoing traditional college completely and focus on getting various certifications instead. Depending on what you get certified in those jobs have high demand and a high rate of pay as well. Or barring either of those thing you can also get a plain old Associate's Degree in many other wide ranging fields of study.

Now maybe the field of study she wanted to take absolutely required six years I don't know. What I do know is that we simply don't get what we want all the time. Sometimes we have to make compromises. An unemployed worker with no post high school education can better themselves in far less than six years. Would it be nice to have six years to sit around and study? Absolutely, but the government shouldn't be in the business of putting people up and supporting them while they go off for six years to study.

The fact that you refer to how I would handle public assistance as punishment says a lot. Public assistance is supposed to be something that keeps people from being homeless and starving. I don't care how meager the existence may be I wouldn't consider it a punishment when someone or some organization steps in and keeps me from living on the streets and starving. Being given free food when you would otherwise have none isn't a punishment. Being given a free place to live when you would otherwise be homeless isn't a punishment. If the people who are on these programs feel so strongly that they are being punished they are free to give them up at any time. I'm sure there are people in various third world hell holes who would line up and fight to the death for what you refer to as a punishment.

The cold hard reality is that the tax paying public typically are not the people responsible for the bad places people end up in their lives. With that in mind the tax paying public owes these people nothing. Whatever they get does nothing but help them. To think that the tax paying public owes any single able bodied person six years of support free and clear, regardless of the reason, seems absurd to me.

Wrapping this up I will just say that for every single mother with three kids who is willing to take public assistance for six years so they can better their lot in life and provide a better life for their family there is another single mother with three kids who is busting her ass working multiple jobs for god knows how many hours a week because her pride won't let her take public assistance. And guess what? That mother doesn't get to sit at home for six years and get her degree. No, she gets to work like a slave to not only support herself and her three children but also support in part the single mother who is studying on the government's dime for six years and her three children as well.

It was a 4 year course extended because, you know, 3 young children. You talk about you and your wife so I assume you aren't looking after 3 kids on your own and trying to get a degree. You sure do go on about it, but you never really answered the question. You also completely missed the point, which was the kids. You complain about the course and totally overlooked the small children.

Basically what you're saying is single parents should stay in poverty and the kids shouldn't be given anything but a meager amount of food. Not books, not games, no form of entertainment whatsoever (poor with nothing to do? It's like you want criminality) simply because they were born? And hey there's kids in Africa so they can't complain, also known as the "You better eat your dinner" argument.

You say one mother would rather slave away, barely seeing her kids, because society might look down on her because the father doesn't care about them? You say the tax payer owe people nothing, most definately not six years of support, so I assume each kid would be given 2 years to live because the tax payer doesn't owe them life? Or do they owe them life, but just one that breeds criminality as they don't deserve anything because (they were born into a horrible society that rewards people for leaving their kids to die?).

Don't you see? The father gets away with everything and the mother would be better off leaving the kids to die. Society wouldn't care because, as you say, they owe them nothing. How can you think that punishing someone for being born isn't a punishment?

ShadowKatt:
Y'all do realise that this is a chain letter/email/post thing that's been going around for at least five years that I know of, possibly longer than that. It's not like it's anything new.

It also probably wasn't written by a 21 year old or a woman; unless they were an intern at some Republican think tank or political campaign.

Pluvia:
It was a 4 year course extended because, you know, 3 young children. You talk about you and your wife so I assume you aren't looking after 3 kids on your own and trying to get a degree. You sure do go on about it, but you never really answered the question. You also completely missed the point, which was the kids. You complain about the course and totally overlooked the small children.

Basically what you're saying is single parents should stay in poverty and the kids shouldn't be given anything but a meager amount of food. Not books, not games, no form of entertainment whatsoever (poor with nothing to do? It's like you want criminality) simply because they were born? And hey there's kids in Africa so they can't complain, also known as the "You better eat your dinner" argument.

You say one mother would rather slave away, barely seeing her kids, because society might look down on her because the father doesn't care about them? You say the tax payer owe people nothing, most definately not six years of support, so I assume each kid would be given 2 years to live because the tax payer doesn't owe them life? Or do they owe them life, but just one that breeds criminality as they don't deserve anything because (they were born into a horrible society that rewards people for leaving their kids to die?).

Don't you see? The father gets away with everything and the mother would be better off leaving the kids to die. Society wouldn't care because, as you say, they owe them nothing. How can you think that punishing someone for being born isn't a punishment?

I didn't overlook the children but I fail to see how they change anything beyond the obvious. My only point is that the government shouldn't be in the business of putting people up for six years to better themselves when the same thing can be accomplished with 2 year degrees or training in a trade skill in a third of that time, or even a half if you want to extend it.

If you are worried about children staying in poverty then you should be all for restricting welfare benefits and adding greater incentive for single mothers to NOT sit and collect welfare but instead get out there and better themselves somehow. Because, speaking on the welfare state as a whole here, if you give people the option to live off the state ad nauseum they tend to do just that. It's no different than friends I've seen who refused to get their shit together until they were unceremoniously kicked out of their parents' home. There are no small number of people who are happy to live in relative comfort off of others for as long as it is allowed.

If we were to start telling these people after X amount of time you will lose Y benefits and the reduction of benefits will continue a little bit at a time then many would have no choice but to go out there and get to working. They would have to. If we make it less and less comfortable to live off of the state as time goes on it will become less and less desirable and at some point it will be more desirable to support yourself than it is to let the state support you.

As for punishing kids, I think your anger is misplaced. You seem to want to keep blaming government or tax payers for refusing them something they aren't entitled to. If you want to be mad at someone for why all these kids are in poverty be mad at the parents. It's not the government's fault these kids don't have books or whatever. It's the fault of the parents who don't do anything to provide them with books. It's not the government's fault these kids end up where they do. 99 times out of 100 it is the fault of the parents either one or both who's poor choices have landed them where they are.

Super Not Cosmo:

Pluvia:
It was a 4 year course extended because, you know, 3 young children. You talk about you and your wife so I assume you aren't looking after 3 kids on your own and trying to get a degree. You sure do go on about it, but you never really answered the question. You also completely missed the point, which was the kids. You complain about the course and totally overlooked the small children.

Basically what you're saying is single parents should stay in poverty and the kids shouldn't be given anything but a meager amount of food. Not books, not games, no form of entertainment whatsoever (poor with nothing to do? It's like you want criminality) simply because they were born? And hey there's kids in Africa so they can't complain, also known as the "You better eat your dinner" argument.

You say one mother would rather slave away, barely seeing her kids, because society might look down on her because the father doesn't care about them? You say the tax payer owe people nothing, most definately not six years of support, so I assume each kid would be given 2 years to live because the tax payer doesn't owe them life? Or do they owe them life, but just one that breeds criminality as they don't deserve anything because (they were born into a horrible society that rewards people for leaving their kids to die?).

Don't you see? The father gets away with everything and the mother would be better off leaving the kids to die. Society wouldn't care because, as you say, they owe them nothing. How can you think that punishing someone for being born isn't a punishment?

I didn't overlook the children but I fail to see how they change anything beyond the obvious. My only point is that the government shouldn't be in the business of putting people up for six years to better themselves when the same thing can be accomplished with 2 year degrees or training in a trade skill in a third of that time, or even a half if you want to extend it.

If you are worried about children staying in poverty then you should be all for restricting welfare benefits and adding greater incentive for single mothers to NOT sit and collect welfare but instead get out there and better themselves somehow. Because, speaking on the welfare state as a whole here, if you give people the option to live off the state ad nauseum they tend to do just that

Citation needed

I live in what can be call the Welfariest State of all the Welfare States and this is not true here, why would it be true in a place where the poor as forced to live like turd?

inb4: Can't compare Scandinavia to U.S
inb4: American Single Mothers lazier than Scandinavian.

ShipofFools:
Hey, I've been looking for a job for a couple of years now, that little twat wants to take my ciggies away from me?

Does she even know how much it sucks to be unemployed? Yeah probably not, she sounds like the kind of person who always got everything handed to her.

Libertarians often are like that, at least in my own experience.
Let's take all the contacts and safety nets away from libertarians, see how well they swim in the deep end.

Compassion, generosity, ethics, tolerance, patience, wisdom... No Libertarian has any of these qualities, they only pretend.

THERE. ARE. NO. JOBS!

Those help wanted signs I see must be figments of my imagination.

If there aren't any jobs in your area come to Wichita and take you pick.
http://regionalhelpwanted.com/home/35.htm

Charles_Martel:

ShipofFools:
Hey, I've been looking for a job for a couple of years now, that little twat wants to take my ciggies away from me?

Does she even know how much it sucks to be unemployed? Yeah probably not, she sounds like the kind of person who always got everything handed to her.

Libertarians often are like that, at least in my own experience.
Let's take all the contacts and safety nets away from libertarians, see how well they swim in the deep end.

Compassion, generosity, ethics, tolerance, patience, wisdom... No Libertarian has any of these qualities, they only pretend.

THERE. ARE. NO. JOBS!

Those help wanted signs I see must be figments of my imagination.

If there aren't any jobs in your area come to Wichita and take you pick.
http://regionalhelpwanted.com/home/35.htm

Or better yet, go to North Dakota around the Bakken Oil Fields. McDonalds, Walmart, and other places that are typically low paying are starting people out at 15 dollars an hour because there is such a high demand for workers. Or if you don't mind some hard work get a job in the actual oil fields where you can make obsolutely obscene amounts of money. If I were unemployed or working a dead end job I wouldn't be able to break for the Bakken Oil Fields fast enough.

image

Super Not Cosmo:

Or better yet, go to North Dakota around the Bakken Oil Fields. McDonalds, Walmart, and other places that are typically low paying---

Oh, you mean the jobs at the places expecting you to run two of them to survive? Nice to know..

http://gawker.com/mcdonalds-to-employees-get-a-second-job-or-drop-dead-803511522

Anyway, it's good to see people still use anecdotal evidence to disperse facts. I'll say what has been said before, the constant unemployment is the results of Capitalism, some people score, some people get jack shit. To make Capitalism less fucking stinky donkey-baf bull turd than it already is, the ones who score has to give a bit to the ones with bad luck. Its the way the world works. Youknow, if you're a decent human being whom doesn't eat babies for breakfast.

Still glad I don't have a stake in this and still live in a country with decent human beings making up the majority of the voters. Sure they might hate on minorities a little, but at least we have welfare. The Conservatives/Libertarians of america isn't even a tradeoff, its the worst of both worlds xD

Nikolaz72:
Oh, you mean the jobs at the places expecting you to run two of them to survive? Nice to know..

http://gawker.com/mcdonalds-to-employees-get-a-second-job-or-drop-dead-803511522

Anyway, it's good to see people still use anecdotal evidence to disperse facts. I'll say what has been said before, the constant unemployment is the results of Capitalism, some people score, some people get jack shit. To make Capitalism less fucking stinky donkey-baf bull turd than it already is, the ones who score has to give a bit to the ones with bad luck. Its the way the world works. Youknow, if you're a decent human being whom doesn't eat babies for breakfast.

Still glad I don't have a stake in this and still live in a country with decent human beings making up the majority of the voters. Sure they might hate on minorities a little, but at least we have welfare. The Conservatives/Libertarians of america isn't even a tradeoff, its the worst of both worlds xD

Actually, in the Bakkens and other North Dakota oil fields I'm fairly certain places like Walmart and McDonalds will give you as many hours as you want. You see there is such a high demand for employees to fill those companies have no choice but to pay 15 an hour or more just to get people to apply. They don't have a choice but to offer high wages and full time hours due to the the high demand for employees and the relatively short supply.

The Bakkens are the way they are because of Capitalism. You see all those oil fields are on private land and those companies are mostly free to dig as much as they like with little government meddling. The result has been one of the biggest economic boons this country has seen in a long long time. They literally can't build houses fast enough to accommodate all the workers that are moving to that area for the jobs. North Dakota has some of the lowest unemployment in the country at 3.2%. If the US government would open up the natural resources that are readily available all over this country like has been done in North Dakota you would quickly see that kind of prosperity in many more places than just North Dakota.

As for giving people a helping hand. Well there's giving people who have fallen on hard times help and then there's allowing people to become lazy and complacent because they know that the government will always be there to provide for them. I have no problem with the first one. The second one I have a rather large problem with. I get that people fall on hard times but still, hard times or no, those people eventually have to pull themselves back up and provide for themselves. Relying on the government from the womb to the tomb is no way to live.

People have lost the sight of the pride that comes along with providing for yourself. Back some decades ago there used to be a large stigma attached to being on government assistance. Back then shame alone was enough of a motivator to keep people from suckling at the government nipple for too long. Today though that shame is largely diminished and make no mistake about it, it has diminished to our detriment.

Super Not Cosmo:
Snip

You're preaching to a brick wall mate. We live in two different worlds, and the way you speak, ye might aswell be from a different Planet.

I live in a society where since the early 20th century Unions have had many a victory (Bar a small hump when we were occupied by Nazi-Germany) and the Social Democrats pulled through (Except under occupation) with a greatly successful campaign up through the 50's, ending with a complete welfare state by the 90's. It has worked incredibly well and still does to this day.

I see none of what you speak of. And in our society you can live like the American Middleclass on welfare, not like an... animal just surviving on bare essentials. By your logic nobody would want to work, yet our unemployment only really rose during the Financial Crisis. For reasons beyond my understanding but with probably more to do with giant banks across the ocean than the hospitals and public schools.

This country is basically just grasslands, with few natural resources. North America is rich in minerals, and have become self sufficient in gas and oil. Yet ours is the one where people feel no need?

Why is this?

Why is the nation which has, the most rich earth and land in the west the one with the most people that struggle?

Gotta say, Inequality through Capitalism. The fact that big businesses aided by government effectively declawed the unions by shooting them down. And the fact that even now, Banks as they ruin the economy gets giant ass stimulus so that the guys on the top can clap themselves on the back with their millions a year salary and jump out from the diamond skyscrapers with a golden parachute.

You speak of disliking the 'lazy poor' well you know what. I dislike the 'Rich corrupt apathetic' bastards making up a sizable chunk of the top 0.001% of your country. Pocketchange out of what they earned on exploiting the poor would be enough to give some comfort to them. A SMALL CUT IN THE MASSIVE MILITARY WOULD BE ENOUGH TO PROVIDE FOR THE NEEDY. The Common hard working American middleclass wouldn't even need to pay more taxes, tax the rich. Cut military spending.

Yet, no. That's not how things work over there is it?

Nikolaz72:

Super Not Cosmo:
Snip

You're preaching to a brick wall mate. We live in two different worlds, and the way you speak, ye might aswell be from a different Planet.

I live in a society where since the early 20th century Unions have had many a victory (Bar a small hump when we were occupied by Nazi-Germany) and the Social Democrats pulled through (Except under occupation) with a greatly successful campaign up through the 50's, ending with a complete welfare state by the 90's. It has worked incredibly well and still does to this day.

I see none of what you speak of. And in our society you can live like the American Middleclass on welfare, not like an... animal just surviving on bare essentials. By your logic nobody would want to work, yet our unemployment only really rose during the Financial Crisis. For reasons beyond my understanding but with probably more to do with giant banks across the ocean than the hospitals and public schools.

This country is basically just grasslands, with few natural resources. North America is rich in minerals, and have become self sufficient in gas and oil. Yet ours is the one where people feel no need?

Why is this?

Why is the nation which has rich and fertile land the one with the most people that struggle?

Yeah, but you also have one of the highest rates of taxation in the world. If Wikipedia is to be believed the average earner in Denmark can expect to give just under half of their earnings right back between payroll and income taxes. If I'm understanding things correctly this doesn't account for any local taxes either. Then there's another 25% value added tax, or sales tax on goods and a 180% tax on new cars. The people of Denmark are typically giving the state 75% or more of what they earn. After what I've read I wouldn't be surprised to learn that the government comes around and pries out any gold fillings you may have out of your mouth after you die.

Super Not Cosmo:

Nikolaz72:

Super Not Cosmo:
Snip

You're preaching to a brick wall mate. We live in two different worlds, and the way you speak, ye might aswell be from a different Planet.

I live in a society where since the early 20th century Unions have had many a victory (Bar a small hump when we were occupied by Nazi-Germany) and the Social Democrats pulled through (Except under occupation) with a greatly successful campaign up through the 50's, ending with a complete welfare state by the 90's. It has worked incredibly well and still does to this day.

I see none of what you speak of. And in our society you can live like the American Middleclass on welfare, not like an... animal just surviving on bare essentials. By your logic nobody would want to work, yet our unemployment only really rose during the Financial Crisis. For reasons beyond my understanding but with probably more to do with giant banks across the ocean than the hospitals and public schools.

This country is basically just grasslands, with few natural resources. North America is rich in minerals, and have become self sufficient in gas and oil. Yet ours is the one where people feel no need?

Why is this?

Why is the nation which has rich and fertile land the one with the most people that struggle?

Yeah, but you also have one of the highest rates of taxation in the world. If Wikipedia is to be believed the average earner in Denmark can expect to give just under half of their earnings right back between payroll and income taxes. If I'm understanding things correctly this doesn't account for any local taxes either. Then there's another 25% value added tax, or sales tax on goods and a 180% tax on new cars. The people of Denmark are typically giving the state 75% or more of what they earn. After what I've read I wouldn't be surprised to learn that the government comes around and pries out any gold fillings you may have out of your mouth after you die.

50% is probably right, no it's not 75%. The Sales tax not higher than surrounding countries.

Death tax is only there if you want anyone else than significant other/children to inherit your money. And even then its about the same as you'd see in America for the same thing.

And again, even if taxes were 90%. Whom gives a flying fuck, at the end of the day what matters is what you are able to purchase and how you are able to live. And I have more disposable income than my American counterparts. When I finish my free education I'll have even more.

50% Tax with everyone living comfortably and a great chance to rise above your station regardless of circumstance.

Or a 30% Tax, without any quality insurance for your well being, with a sizable amount living in dirty poverty, many others in great debt. And the chances of rising above your station if your family cannot afford a bachelors is very low.

I know which one I prefer. I speak to Americans every day, and its the same story. No work available, college debts impossible to pay back. Its disgusting.

Nikolaz72:
50% is probably right, no it's not 75%. The Sales tax not higher than surrounding countries.

Death tax is only there if you want anyone else than significant other/children to inherit your money. And even then its about the same as you'd see in America for the same thing.

I was adding in the sales tax to get to 75%. Afterall if pretty much everything you buy has a 25% sales tax attached to it that's just as good as a 25% increase in overall taxes. I suppose there could be exceptions to the sales tax but it seemed to me like it was across the board.

Super Not Cosmo:

Nikolaz72:
50% is probably right, no it's not 75%. The Sales tax not higher than surrounding countries.

Death tax is only there if you want anyone else than significant other/children to inherit your money. And even then its about the same as you'd see in America for the same thing.

I was adding in the sales tax to get to 75%. Afterall if pretty much everything you buy has a 25% sales tax attached to it that's just as good as a 25% increase in overall taxes. I suppose there could be exceptions to the sales tax but it seemed to me like it was across the board.

very low income (DKK 150,000) - approx. DKK 44,500 in income tax (including gross tax), i.e. approx. 29.7% of the full amount.
very low income (DKK 150,000), and you pay DKK 20,000 annually in interest - approx. DKK 38,000 in income tax (including gross tax), i.e. approx. 25.3% of the full amount.

average income (DKK 375,000) - approx. DKK 134,800 in income tax, i.e. approx. 35.9% of the full amount.
average income (DKK 375,000), and you pay DKK 30,000 annually in interest - approx. DKK 125,100 in income tax, i.e. approx. 33.04% of the full amount.

high income (DKK 780,000) - approx. DKK 351,200 in income tax, i.e. approx. 45.0% of the full amount.
high income (DKK 780,000), and you pay at least DKK 50,000 annually in interest - approx. DKK 334,900 in income tax, i.e. approx. 42.9% of the full amount.

Very Low Income: 30.000Dollars ends with 25.000 (Around Minimumwage. What you'd expect to earn at a place like Wal-Mart)
Average Income 60.000Dollars ends with 40.000 (Still not the fanciest Job, I think Nurses fall between this and High)
High Income 100.000Dollars ends with 60.000

These are guesstimates btw, to make it easier for you

Here are the taxes.

On top of those, the Sales Tax is 25%, however unlike America. Shops are forced to include it in the actual shown price, and as such the food ends up not being that much more expensive, about 12% more so, +/- 5.

Then we have the church tax which depending on income is 0.4% to 1.5%

Overall, unless you are filthy rich its unlikely that you are gonna pay more than 50% taxes.

Now, considering the unemployed don't pay taxes. They end up with around the same disposable income as the minimumwage guys. But to get this they have to keep searching for a job, and in some cases do community service.

Nikolaz72:
And again, even if taxes were 90%. Whom gives a flying fuck, at the end of the day what matters is what you are able to purchase and how you are able to live. And I have more disposable income than my American counterparts. When I finish my free education I'll have even more.

50% Tax with everyone living comfortably and a great chance to rise above your station regardless of circumstance.

Or a 30% Tax, without any quality insurance for your well being, with a sizable amount living in dirty poverty, many others in great debt. And the chances of rising above your station if your family cannot afford a bachelors is very low.

The people of Greece probably thought they had it pretty good until they didn't and now look at them. Socialist states always fail given time. Eventually the money runs out. Just as soon as there are more people in the wagon than there are pulling it then everything comes to a crashing halt and you are left with a country full of people used to having everything given to them by the government being told the government no longer has money for all those nice things they used to provide and when that happens things get ugly quick.

Super Not Cosmo:

Nikolaz72:
And again, even if taxes were 90%. Whom gives a flying fuck, at the end of the day what matters is what you are able to purchase and how you are able to live. And I have more disposable income than my American counterparts. When I finish my free education I'll have even more.

50% Tax with everyone living comfortably and a great chance to rise above your station regardless of circumstance.

Or a 30% Tax, without any quality insurance for your well being, with a sizable amount living in dirty poverty, many others in great debt. And the chances of rising above your station if your family cannot afford a bachelors is very low.

The people of Greece...

Here we goooo.

Greeces problems went above and beyond that of being a welfare state.. I don't think even you're ignorant enough to blindly believe Conservative Propaganda.

Anyway, I'm sure the Tzar of Russia thought he had it pretty good, what with all the Gilded Age thinking and Westernization that he had going on, that was until his head was cut off and his entire family killed in a socialist revolution.

Treat people like dirt for too long and they become criminals, get enough criminals and you'll be forced to crack down violently. As that obviously fails a revolution starts, and if its the poor revolting against the rich things get very bloody. Good thing you've given the poor of the U.S access to Firearms. I bet a lot of thought went into that.

Over here we find it easier to just 'not' treat the poor like cattle. And might I remind you that this was one of the few countries without a bloody revolution to bring it democracy, nor a bloody civil war to free the minorities, nor a bloody fight against the unions to bring forth stop change.

America had all those covered for us. After us ofcourse, but I'm sure they took our share of the bloodbaths.

It was pure chance that the workers revolution started in Russia. Had things been slightly different it could have started in Britain, or in North America. And don't think that just because we've had one already that the entire world is safe from them appearing again in the future. Once the inequality gets out of hand.

We already see the upper-class act more and more like nobility. And treating the poor more and more like indentured servants.

Don't get me wrong, I love capitalism. Capitalism is what allows the West to be so rich at the cost of everyone else in the entire god damn world. Thing is, we gotta tread carefully. Otherwise things could go incredibly awry.

Edit: Heading off to bed, don't think we have much more to discuss.

Bentusi16:
But I live in a state where I have seen the middle class completely and utterly decimated by quote unquote social liberals who are holding entire swathes of population at gunpoint.

Really? What state is it where social liberals are holding entire swaths of the population at gunpoint? I'd like to explore this more, as it's obviously concerning. I live in a state where I've seen the middle class completely and utterly destroyed by lack of market regulations and runaway banks. (I live in the US, obviously.)

(Edit: I forgot to add, the systematic destruction of unions and labor. That has also caused the middle class to suffer horribly in the US. With labor representation comes fair wages.)

Super Not Cosmo:

As for nursing, in most states you can take the test to become a RN after getting a 2 year Associates Degree in nursing. Sure there is some additional training if you wish to specialize in something like drawing blood or doing x-rays but you can certainly get a foot in the door with just a two year degree. With that being said the average salary of nurses is right around 50k, which happens to be the median HOUSEHOLD income in the US. As for debt anyone that is willing to put in a bit of work and game the system to the best of their abilities can get a pretty sweet deal getting their college paid for if they are willing to go to a community college or some such thing.

It was really difficult to not stop reading here, and I'll tell you why.

First of all, Denver is a fairly decent representation of a large city in the US. Calling it a People's Republic is a bit laughable. I'm not sure how expensive exactly you think Denver is, but OK. Obviously in your mind it's up there with London or New York in cost of living.

Second of all, the quote right up there proves you know nothing of what you speak. If you think that somebody can get a 2 year degree, become a nurse and make 50K a year - I'd love to live in your happy land, it sounds cozy. Go talk to a nurse that is making 50K a year and ask them what it took education, training and job-time wise to get up to that salary and we can revisit this topic. Starting your argument with absolute falsehoods and showing your lack of knowledge about what a person with a 2 year degree can earn out of college as a "nurse" is... well, it's telling.

Shortly after my wife and I got married and got our first place I supported myself and my wife with a job where I averaged about 35k a year. This included a 800 a month for our apartment plus utilities, TWO car payments and full coverage on both which came in just under 700, and then using what little was left over for various things like eating food and anything that my wife needed for school that had to come out of pocket and if we were lucky putting a little back in savings.

No emergency fund? What if you got sick, what did your wife and kids do? What if one of your kids developed diabetes? Leukemia? What if things didn't work out perfectly as you planned?

My point is that when we got married I was an unemployed college drop out. My wife was working in a video store and we lived with my parents. With hard work and careful planning and being thrifty with our money we went from that to being what I would consider a successful middle class couple and we made it there living most of that time off the salary of a college dropout.

How fortunate of you to have parents to live with, your health that allows you to work, a wife that also worked and apparently had her health as well, and being generally blessed it seems.

Yes, truly, you have been lucky in life. You should always remember that. Anyone as fortunate as you sound or as I have been should take care to remember that. It sounds like you've never known the pangs of hunger or the lack of medical care when you're very ill, that is truly a blessing.

The Gnome King:
Second of all, the quote right up there proves you know nothing of what you speak. If you think that somebody can get a 2 year degree, become a nurse and make 50K a year - I'd love to live in your happy land, it sounds cozy. Go talk to a nurse that is making 50K a year and ask them what it took education, training and job-time wise to get up to that salary and we can revisit this topic. Starting your argument with absolute falsehoods and showing your lack of knowledge about what a person with a 2 year degree can earn out of college as a "nurse" is... well, it's telling.

I'm just going to quote a study on nurse salaries and education and what not done by Drexel University here. I'm sure they don't know what they are talking about either though. . .

The fresh entrants into the nursing field can have an associate degree in Nursing (ADN) or can get a Bachelor of Science in Nursing (BSN). The ADNs usually take up to three years for completion and, on the other hand, the BSN requires four years to finish. There is a disparity in the earning so far as the AND and BSN graduates are concerned. Drexel University states that the registered nurses who have a bachelor's degree in nursing earn up to $6,000 more per year as opposed to the ADN graduate nurses.

The registered nurses who are more experienced can have higher salaries as compared to the fresh RNs. Drexel University states that those RNs who have less than one years of work experience earn an average of about $49,863. The University also states that the average salary for the nurses having 20 years of experience is somewhat around $70,087. The nurses having associated degrees can earn more than the registered nurses who are just bachelors degree holders but only when they have more years of experience.

So what can we learn from this quote? Well we can learn that the average starting nursing salary is a hair under 50k. What else can we learn? Well we can learn that you can become a nurse with an associate's degree. Now if you can become a RN with an associates degree and the average salary for a nurse with less than a year's experience is approximately 50k well that tells me that even if we adjust for the difference between ADNs and BSNs that a nurse with a two year degree can indeed expect to earn around 45k out of college. Good thing I don't know what I'm talking about though. Not like you. No sir, I don't have a clue compared to your glowing sage-like wisdom.

Super Not Cosmo:

I'm just going to quote a study on nurse salaries and education and what not done by Drexel University here. I'm sure they don't know what they are talking about either though. . .

Your own quote shows 3 and 4 year school, not a 2 year associates. Not every student will succeed at becoming a nurse, either, no matter how hard they try. They'll end up with one of these jobs with a 2 year associates degree:

http://www.ehow.com/about_5378611_lowest-paying-jobs-medical-field.html

I understand you're upset that you didn't finish school, think it was a waste or otherwise not everyone needs it. I'll agree with you that a college education isn't for everyone. (I know very, very successful people without one.)

For most of us, however, a bachelor's degree means about at least a million dollars more income over the course of a lifetime, a pretty good investment.

http://www.usnews.com/education/best-colleges/articles/2011/08/05/how-higher-education-affects-lifetime-salary

 Pages PREV 1 2 3 4 5 6 NEXT

Reply to Thread

This thread is locked