We Don't Need Any Handouts

[JustOneWay]

The fact, ParsonJefferson, that you have refused to post where I have stated

YOU are the one claiming $10 is not a living wage,

is proof that it does not exist.

 

[JustOneWay]

Obviously I'd HAVE TO if I was YOUR employee.

I wouldn't hire somebody like you.

 

[ParsonJefferson]

.

 

[ParsonJefferson]

.

 

[Maxwell511]

What about this crazy idea: People rise and fall by their own actions.

This is simply not true.

It is true that people's actions or inactions may cause their fall, however a person's rise or fall is not just in their own hands.

If you want anything in this world you have to work for it, however work alone does not guarantee that you will get it. All that society can hopefully guarantee is that if you fall badly you will have enough support to get back on your feet.

 

[Mongoose]

I agree very much that people who don't earn their wealth shouldn't be receiving it.

But that's not limited to just welfare deadbeats who are perfectly capable of contributing to society but don't. It also includes excessively wealthy executives and shareholders who, for some reason, receive hundreds of times the wealth of a normal worker that works just as hard if not more, and in the end, could really give a rat's you-know-what about the good of humanity. Additionally, these people will lay off many workers, increasing our overall employment, to allow their stock to go up, thus creating the need for government hand-outs. It is these people who, out of their greed, will be the destruction of human civilization.

Nevertheless, I'd be perfectly okay with cutting half of our welfare spending (which is enormous) and using it to fund education, R&D, and the creation of jobs. It is a silly misguided system that, in the end, perpetuates poverty rather than healing it.

 

[Mongoose]

Hmm, upon closer inspection of the OP, my mind is riddled with many questions and comments.

I can't quite figure out what the point of the OP is. Who's asking to have their dreams handed to them on a platter? What does that even mean to have your dreams handed to you on a platter? Is that even possible?

What qualifies as a "handout" that we don't need? Is this inclusive of government-funded student loans and grants which allow people who couldn't afford it otherwise to pursue and education? How about assistance for workers who were just laid off by their greedy employers, but are in the process of finding a new job?

What is "government babysitting?" Even public education is, to some extent, babysitting: using government funds to ensure that people aren't completely ignorant when they begin to enter the world. Having a state-funded police force is government babysitting. Having a standing army is government babysitting.

And as far as the people rise and fall by their own actions part, sure, that sounds great. In a perfect world. Honestly, what kind of world do you think we live in? It would take nothing short of man completely and utterly conquering the laws of nature for that to be a possibility. Ahh, but supposedly there's a God that already does that. But he's obviously done nothing to ensure that people "rise and fall by their own actions." Oh, but maybe it's because we're not faithful enough? Spare me. There's no virtue in blind faith, and the only leader, be it a man or a god, that has use for blind faith is an evil dictator. Ah, but I digress.

This post is nothing but rhetoric. There's no point or substance. I can look the whole thing and say "yeah, I agree with that," but still be an all-together socialist, communist, or anarchist if I wanted. It's also riddled with subtle yet somehow raunchy partisanship.

Poor people in America have TVs and cars. Heck, middle class people in Korea sometimes do not even have cars -- we live like Kings and then complain. There are people who spend 6 days a week working 12 hour days so they can afford a modest apartment and $2 bottles of soju on Saturday night... But it is too much for some Americans to work for $10 an hour 12 hours a day, five days a week.

Now here's something I absolutely agree with, regardless of what your meaning is. Indeed, people in the US expect way too much.

The way I see it, if people are expecting to all earn six figures, they had better stop. Because in order for human civilization to be remotely sustainable, we can't have six (soon to be seven) billion people living six-figure lives, and those who think they're more entitled to it than the rest of us need to get over themselves.

But, it never fails: not too much later you spout some partisan bull----, turning your bright speech of humility into some poorly-veiled mindless rant about how republicans are so much better than democrats. What tripe.

One thing really separates a lot of Republicans from Democrats and that is Faith;;; both Faith in God, but more importantly: Faith in Man and in Themselves.

We go to Church and have jobs and we know that we do not need a lot more... So why should the government give it to us?

It is ironic that often times the working class and rural areas vote for Republicans but it really is quite simple... The guys who have jobs do not need your government handouts, so we do not vote for them

Sorry Obama, Sorry Ted Kennedy, sorry John Stewart -- we don't need you to have better lives... In fact, we'd be better off without you telling us we need you.

You are not heroes.

We are more heroes than you. We don't depend on convincing people they need us. We are not convincing people they are worthless without us.

Yeah! Those good ol' humble republicans always know what's best! Yeah, right. I'm sure if the bigger lot of 'em had the opportunity to gorge themselves with excessive amounts of wealth, they'd take it in a heartbeat, most likely as long as it doesn't involve getting an education. And I'm sure those hard-working republicans will talk once they're laid off due to job outsourcing or their employers having a bad fiscal year, both of which are motivated by corporate greed. You also make it sound as if democrats don't work. Good grief. Get over yourself.

And then you mention some of republican's favorite democrats to hate, as if they're the primary perpetrators of this whole mess. You know, the only thing I really like about Obama is how he has often emphasized in his speeches that a lot of the problems in our country can only be solved by use, the people, by playing our individual parts, such as getting exercise (as far as the health care crisis goes) and that the government won't be capable of taking care of everything on its own. Whatever the case, I hardly see Obama as someone advocating government babysitting.

As far as Ted Kennedy goes, well, there's a hypocrite that needs to get over himself. But I'm not even sure what the point of mentioning John Stewart was. He's just some comedy host that likes to call politicians and the media out on their stupidity, and does a damn good job at it (in a subtle, comical way, as opposed to the O'Reilly approach to yell at everyone).

And let's never mind the fact that a lot of those good ol' republicans are vouching for unconstitutional wiretapping, search without warrant, and figurative God knows what else is in the pipelines, for the sake of security. But wait! Isn't that the very definition of government babysitting? Yeah, but that's necessary! Preventing poverty? Pfft. Hardly important.

Hmm, it appears my post gradually got more and more heated as I typed. Oh well, I like it as it is. I wanted to greet this post warmly, but the more I thought about it, the more I disliked it. But I'd better stop now.

 

[Chajara]

I do agree that there are people who just expect too much... they're living well beyond their means. I have a co-worker who's on welfare and her kids are selling pot on the streets instead of getting jobs, but somehow they're buying expensive cell phones and diamond earrings and $200 pairs of shoes.

Then there's me and my boyfriend. We've got a little one bedroom apartment on the East Side of Milwaukee (admittedly, this is an expensive area to live in). Let's take a look at a rough estimate of our finances:

I make $7.75 working full time, he makes $9 working part time and going to school. I pull in between $700 and $800 each month, he pulls in around $600. Our rent/parking space is $690, then cable/internet/phone is $144. Electricity is between $30 and $50, and we have a credit card we're getting ready to pay off, but since November that's been $150 a month (the minimum is $10 but we want it paid for before interest kicks in in May.) Then there's my school loan payment that's $93.

Then there's variables, like groceries. I like to cook and my man likes to eat, and we easily spend $200 per month on food, if not more.

The only real reason we're okay financially right now is because we had a nice financial pillow built up (I never let my bank account dip below $1000 unless it's an absolute emergency. All it takes to wipe that out is my cat getting sick or the car dying on us or one of us getting really sick or hospitalized.) Trev also had reserves in his account, and then our tax money came in.

We're also doing okay because we're a couple, and share a bedroom. A two-bedroom in this part of town is quite expensive. If it were just me on my own, I'd never be able to live here. I don't know what I'd do because I have no driver's license (I'm blind in one eye and rather afraid to drive) and moving to a cheaper area means moving away from public transportation and having all the essentials within walking distance. Oh yeah, I forgot, that's another expense. $64 a month just to get to and from work. Having a car is even more money anyway.

This whole "Can you live on $10 an hour" argument is kind of stupid, because it depends on where you're living, whether there's public transportation, and how healthy/lucky you are. Personally, I don't think you should even move away from your parents until you've got money put back, unless you absolutely have to or unless you're getting a job that allows you to squirrel away a couple hundred bucks a month. If you can't save up and you're one disaster away from being on the streets or having a ruined credit rating, how is that living? That's stressful, is what it is.

While I'm typing this probably tl;dr post: Credit is WAY too easy to get. I am so sick of getting credit card offers in the mail because my credit is good. Are they trying to get me into debt so I mess up my credit score? And what's worse, is that everyone just eats it up and by the time they're 25 they've got a massive amount of debt and no way to pay it off. This all goes back to living beyond your means: I bought my $1200 computer on credit because we made a decision right there in the store to pay the $150 a month so we didn't end up with interest. If we could only have made the minimum payment of $10, then guess what? We'd have had no business shelling out $1200 on a luxury. And people just don't get this.

 

[flicka]

If you want to sit and cry your eyes out, complaining about how it can't be done, please stay out of the way of those of us who are doing exactly what you say cannot be done.

I'm not crying. Just pointing out that "YOU" aren't "EVERYONE" and have nothing in common with them besides not haivng any money apparently. Everyone has different issues ya know.

I didn't buy this house for $40,000 50 years ago. I'm buying it NOW, and closing on it in mid-May.

That's swell.

Now, as I already told Praying, if you're living in an area you can't afford to be in, MOVE. Get it? MOVE.

Some people do that with varying levels of success. But if everyone did that there would be no cheap places and no jobs in cheap places. You don't seem to understand simple things do you? Besides, moving won't help if you have a job in one place but not the other will it? And frankly, if you don't have a job or car or support system in this new place you aren't going to make it. No matter where you move there is only so much to go around.

If you're working a $10 per hour job in a place with a sky-high cost of living, you need to MOVE.

See above.

But most of all, stop complaining about all the things that can't be done.

I haven't complained. I've stated some facts and even offerd ways to live on $10 per hour. You must be thinking of someone else. But I won't hold it against you.

 

[praying]

You are not making 10/hr and going out to dinner and the movies.
You're right.

I'm not making $10 per hour. But it wasn't very many years ago that I wasn't making that much!

And no, I'm not going out to dinner and the movies. The last time my wife & I went to a movie was last summer. We prefer to watch movies at home.


I see you skipped this post so I will just repost it.
No, I didn't SKIP it. I didn't SEE it. And I didn't see it, because I have ReverendB on IGNORE - and his snide, passive-aggressive post that you quoted is a perfect example of WHY I have him on IGNORE.


I am not condemning it. I know I don't, and I am sure many others do not want to live in a fraternity or sorority situation. What your saying is if you are willing (which is what everyone else is saying) to settle for anything in terms of living situation and conditions then yes you can survive off of 10 bucks and hour.
My sons are NOT living in a fraternity situation. Where, pray tell, did you come up with that asinine idea? My sons are 2 of 6 responsible, adult guys - all of whom are good friends - living in a big 4-bedroom house.

Now... why don't you STOP TELLING ME WHAT I'M SAYING! I am NOT saying that you "have to settle for anything in terms of living situation." If a single person buys a house, why would it be objectionable to you for him to have some roommates who would help pay expenses?


We know that also the US has a large poor population.
By whose standards? I've done numerous overseas missions trips, and have seen how people in REAL poverty live - and I can tell you this: It is VASTLY different than "the poor" in America live! Only having Basic Cable is NOT poverty.


Exactly, that is survival, not living. and please don't go off on your tangent about luxury cars and houses as an example of living that everyone expects.
NOBODY who works full-time for $10 per hour has to go without food or shelter - unless, of course, they spend their money foolishly.


I was not asking sarcastically. Really a chill pill is in order.
Then why don't you stop telling me that people cannot do what I have just done? Why don't you stop trying to tell me that people cannot "live" on $10 per hour, when all around you there are people living on $10 per hour?


There are none trust me, I live in a suburb of NYC.
Is somebody holding a gun to your head and forcing you to live there?

If you're working for only $10 per hour - the kind of job that can be had ANYWHERE in the country - there is absolutely no reason for you to be living in one of the most expensive cities in the world.

If you're NOT working for $10 per hour, then all your complaining about it is irrelevant. Why? Because the cost of living - from place to place - tends to reflect what the people living in that area can afford to pay.

........

 

[ParsonJefferson]

.

 

[praying]

Nice non-working emoticons.

Alas, in the time it took you to post those, I swept, scrubbed & primed two of the three bedrooms in the rental house we're buying. By next weekend, we will have all three bedrooms & the upstairs bathroom painted - as well as all the hardwood floors sanded & refinished.

I can send you some before & after pictures if you'd like.


No wait... It's IMPOSSIBLE that I could have bought a house for the price I mentioned. I guess I couldn't have been doing that! It must have been my imagination.

That's nice I am glad for you.

 

[ParsonJefferson]

.

 

[Fantine]

This is simply not true.

It is true that people's actions or inactions may cause their fall, however a person's rise or fall is not just in their own hands.

If you want anything in this world you have to work for it, however work alone does not guarantee that you will get it. All that society can hopefully guarantee is that if you fall badly you will have enough support to get back on your feet.

There seems to be a misconception around here that rich people just can't catch any breaks.

There seems to be a misconception around here that affirmative action hurts rich people.

Rich people have had their own "affirmative action" going for generations. Sometimes it's nepotism. Sometimes it's called networking.

The rich man's affirmative action is what propelled George W. Bush to prominence on the world stage--getting in to Exeter and Yale and Harvard as a "legacy." Starting businesses that needed large infusions of cash to get going and stay going and, luckily, having a father who was VP whose favor wealthy oilmen wanted to court. Getting bailed out of failing businesses by same.

And it goes on today. I am sure it is nepotism that landed Colin Powell's son the chairmanship of the FCC, and nepotism that made Justice Scalia's son the Asst. Secretary of Labor (because even if they are capable, there are many capable candidates who didn't catch President Bush's attention...)

And the rich are being courted by business all the time with incentives and discounts and premiums. (While the poor, who pay sub-prime mortgage rates, higher credit card interest rates, etc. can't catch a break.)

There is a reason why so many tax-deductible business conferences take place in Hawaii or on Alaskan cruise ships. There is a reason why companies are giving away Ipods and computers to the attendees.

People who live in poor (red-lined) neighborhoods can't even catch a break from discount stores.....Banks don't locate nearby (check cashing stores do.) Buying goods and services is almost always more expensive in a poor neighborhood, and the people don't have the transportation to shop elsewhere.

Yes, the poor do catch some breaks, too.

It's the middle class who are left out of the equation most of the time.

But it's hard to squeeze out a tear of pity for the rich.

 

[ParsonJefferson]

Folks really it is not impossible to have a discussion without flaming and baiting.

I guarantee it's a lot easier than living on $10/hr



Please let's be civil to each other, we can disagree without disparaging.

Your wish has been granted. I hope you're happy.

 

[eldermike]

There seems to be a misconception around here that rich people just can't catch any breaks.

There seems to be a misconception around here that affirmative action hurts rich people.

Rich people have had their own "affirmative action" going for generations. Sometimes it's nepotism. Sometimes it's called networking.

The rich man's affirmative action is what propelled George W. Bush to prominence on the world stage--getting in to Exeter and Yale and Harvard as a "legacy." Starting businesses that needed large infusions of cash to get going and stay going and, luckily, having a father who was VP whose favor wealthy oilmen wanted to court. Getting bailed out of failing businesses by same.

And it goes on today. I am sure it is nepotism that landed Colin Powell's son the chairmanship of the FCC, and nepotism that made Justice Scalia's son the Asst. Secretary of Labor (because even if they are capable, there are many capable candidates who didn't catch President Bush's attention...)

And the rich are being courted by business all the time with incentives and discounts and premiums. (While the poor, who pay sub-prime mortgage rates, higher credit card interest rates, etc. can't catch a break.)

There is a reason why so many tax-deductible business conferences take place in Hawaii or on Alaskan cruise ships. There is a reason why companies are giving away Ipods and computers to the attendees.

People who live in poor (red-lined) neighborhoods can't even catch a break from discount stores.....Banks don't locate nearby (check cashing stores do.) Buying goods and services is almost always more expensive in a poor neighborhood, and the people don't have the transportation to shop elsewhere.

Yes, the poor do catch some breaks, too.

It's the middle class who are left out of the equation most of the time.

But it's hard to squeeze out a tear of pity for the rich.

That's a well written post on the state of class in our society. I can't fault it.
However, many people find ways to overcome and rise through the system. We need to make sure there is a ladder to climb even though it's not perfect.

 

[Gremlins]

That's a well written post on the state of class in our society. I can't fault it.
However, many people find ways to overcome and rise through the system. We need to make sure there is a ladder to climb even though it's not perfect.

Whilst I agree that it is possible to rise through the system (I am), it is really quite difficult. I'm probably only where I am due to a series of very fortunate and not at all likely events happening in the right order.

 

[eldermike]

Whilst I agree that it is possible to rise through the system (I am), it is really quite difficult. I'm probably only where I am due to a series of very fortunate and not at all likely events happening in the right order.

Then don't chop down the ladder.

 

[Maxwell511]

Disclaimer: I don't live in America and I understand some of your points are related to American society. All I can over in this post is my opinions that are derived from own experience and my limited understanding of American society.

There seems to be a misconception around here that rich people just can't catch any breaks.

There seems to be a misconception around here that affirmative action hurts rich people.

Rich people have had their own "affirmative action" going for generations. Sometimes it's nepotism. Sometimes it's called networking.

To become at least upper-middle class you must network. I can never see this changing. I do understand that some may think that "affirmative action" is something that should be done. I disagree. I think the need for affirmative action should be eliminated. Equality cannot be forced, it must be recognized as a self evident truth. I think "affirmative action" may prolong this recognition.

The rich man's affirmative action is what propelled George W. Bush to prominence on the world stage--getting in to Exeter and Yale and Harvard as a "legacy." Starting businesses that needed large infusions of cash to get going and stay going and, luckily, having a father who was VP whose favor wealthy oilmen wanted to court. Getting bailed out of failing businesses by same.

And it goes on today. I am sure it is nepotism that landed Colin Powell's son the chairmanship of the FCC, and nepotism that made Justice Scalia's son the Asst. Secretary of Labor (because even if they are capable, there are many capable candidates who didn't catch President Bush's attention...)

And the rich are being courted by business all the time with incentives and discounts and premiums. (While the poor, who pay sub-prime mortgage rates, higher credit card interest rates, etc. can't catch a break.)

There is a reason why so many tax-deductible business conferences take place in Hawaii or on Alaskan cruise ships. There is a reason why companies are giving away Ipods and computers to the attendees.

I know it is not pretty but I am not sure we can change this while maintaining our current economic system.

People who live in poor (red-lined) neighborhoods can't even catch a break from discount stores.....Banks don't locate nearby (check cashing stores do.) Buying goods and services is almost always more expensive in a poor neighborhood, and the people don't have the transportation to shop elsewhere.

Yes, the poor do catch some breaks, too.

It's the middle class who are left out of the equation most of the time.

But it's hard to squeeze out a tear of pity for the rich.

I truly think that the great equalizer is education. My country decided a decade ago that college placement would be done solely on academic achievement. The rich and the poor basically must submit to their intelligence in order to go to the "good" colleges. Most expenses are paid for no matter who you are.

While the rich still have an advantage with social networks they no longer have the middle and lower classes needing jobs due to college debt or the most educated being from the rich stock. The employers are increasing becoming subservant to the middle and lower class employees.

 

[Jetgirl]

What I haven't yet seen anyone do in this thread is define "rich."

Is it someone who makes more than a million dollars a year, someone who makes less but has over a million in assets, someone who makes more than a hundred thousand a year, someone who makes more than 70K?

This is an important distinction, since many times when the politicians talk about the "rich" and "paying their fair share," we all assume the ultra-wealthy are being discussed when for all intents and purposes great swaths of the middle class are also included.

For instance: In most parts of the country my husband and I would be considered "rich." However, in the area (area being the county, not the neighborhood) we live we can't afford to own a home, we barely afford rent, and we're delaying having children indefinitely because of financial constraints.

On the other hand, we are taxed in the highest bracket, along with those making multi-millions. When anyone starts talking about the "rich," effectively you're talking about us too, even though to see our bank accounts and lifestyle you most likely would never lump us in with "rich."

Everyone needs to keep in mind that these things need to be defined and agreed upon before a rational conversation about exactly what the "rich" should do can even be started.