Fire Power

[Water Dragon]

Sorry dnc, that boat won't float. I was on the welfare rolls from 1995 - 1998 (when I got me B.S. in Finance from Indiana University.

At one point, I was working 40 hours a week (for minimum wage)and taking 10 credit hours. Our caseworker told me that I should quit school and get another part time job.

In 1997 my wife almost died dur to aburst appendix. Welfare would not give us any health benefits because we earned too much. Apparently, $ 13,000.00 a year is too much for a family of three.

Our case worker also told my wife that she should divorce me so that they could get more money.

Right before I went to Bloomington to finish school. We had no electricity for 3 weeks. We had to decide whether to have our water cut off or our electricity or our water. We chose electricity. I'm not proud of how I got the money to get my electricity put back on but desperate situations call for desperate measures. That's all I'll say on that subject.

The welfare system in the U.S is designed to hold people back, even after the 1996 "reforms" I'm part of the maybe 3 % that gets out and becomes productive. Not because the other people in the system want to be in the system. It's that the system holds them back.

And by the way, how do you figure that providing food, shelter, and health care for society gives them no incentive to better themselves? Most people naturally want luxuries like a TV. telephone, car, etc. That gives an incentive to work right there. As it stands, many have to steal or kill just to get those "luxury items."

[dnc101]

Wd, you said my boat won't float, then launched it in grand style! Your post, and experiences, prove my point.

WD: "The welfare system in the U.S is designed to hold people back, even after the 1996 "reforms" I'm part of the maybe 3 % that gets out and becomes productive. "

dnc: "WD, it is the socialistic aproach that keeps these people in that base tier. "

I never said it wasn't by design. In fact, I agree whole heartedly that the system is designed to work to maintain a dependant class.

As to their wanting better, I'm sure they do. Most people do. The question is, are they willing to work for it? You were, and I sincerely aplaud you. But 97% are not, by your count. They are apparently satisfied with having their basic needs met by someone else, and choosing (Idisagree with 'having') "to steal or kill just to get those 'luxury items'."

Don't get me wrong, I have no problem with helping those who need it. But, as your own experiences bear out, need is not the actual criteria. It is whether or not you are willing to become a permanent member of a dependant class, living in squalor. This is compassion as defined by the liberals. Contrast that to the conservative view- a hand up, not a hand out!

[Black Jack]

Water,

"Untill people can enjoy a certain standard of living where survival needs are met, people will continue to take what they need in order to survive."

Sounds like a cop out to me for a persons responsibilites and a nonjudgemental attitude toward crime. Aspects that the liberal welfare state encourages. Not that this is your viewpoint-just pointing out the paragraph.

I can not agree with you any less, so called "wealth distribution" IMHO is a major problem in our country, many-many people use welfare as there only means of living, without any attempt to better themselves and in turn there society, its a foundation supported poverty not for the deserving poor, those 3%, but for a class of addicts and welfare mothers, people who do not wish to take on a mantle of responsibilty in their lifes.

Why should they work when the goverment gives them a free ride, I know of one lady, and I use that term in jest, that has been on welfare for the last 15 years, no "serious" attempt to get a job, unless you consider her job to be shatting out new kid after new kid by different father after different father, to increase the perks that the government now gives her.

Things such as **** near free rent, though in a ****ty apartment complex, alocated spending money every month, a free used car, extra money for food for all the kiddies, free utilities, the works. But she still finds the cash to buy that extra dime bag of weed, to get cable, to buy beer.

Do not get me wrong, I understand people need a helping hand, there is nothing un-noble about asking for assistance, and sometimes you may have to do what you have to do, but when a certain class of thinking develops behind such alignments as "its bad to be rich-they have so much money-why do they need so much", forced wealth distribution off of someone elses hard work, blood sweat and tears, and the liberal growing sense of hey its not my fault, its the other guys, then I think we are getting into a thicket of problems.

Just my thoughts.

Jack Handy

[Water Dragon]

OK, Then answer me this. Currently in the U.S., the minimum wage id $ 5.15/hour. Let's assume that the average non-skilled worker can earn $ 1.50/hour above that or $ 6.65/hour.

At 40 hours a week, that puts you above the estimates to receive full welfare benefits with a yearly salary of $ 13,832.00. At this point you will receive about $ 150/month in food stamps, no rent assistance, no health coverage, and no gov't check.

Let's look at the reality that the National poverty rate for single mothers is 24 %, in my City it is 47 %. And let's also assume that Child care will be $ 100/week , which is about fair.

Now, when you take away the $ 100/week, you don't get $ 13832 any more, you get $ 8632. Remember that once you crossed the $ 13K threshold, you also lost benefits so you need to get thos with your job. I pay about 10 % a year for my benefits. at $ 13,832.00, that's $ 1383.20 a year taken out for benefits.

That leaves you with a whopping $ 7248.80/year. Since you've lost your rent assistance, you need to pay rent. You can rent a basement apartment, all utilities paid for about $ 400.00/month in E.C. That's $ 4800.00/year.

So now you're real earnings are $ 2448.80/year or $ 204.00/month.

We haven't even covered transportation, clothing, telephone, and money for emergencies. And hopefully you can feed a family of 3 off $ 150/month or you have to figure that back in.

That's the welfare system after the 1996 reforms. The reforms have also NOT initiated any type job skill training, or education programs. Like I said before, they even tried to get me to quit school.

Next post will be the welfare figures

[Water Dragon]

Now, if you don't work at all you get: Section 8 or full paid rent w/utilities.(projects) about $ 300/month in food stamps, health care, and a check for about $ 450.00/month. That comes out to $ 5400.00/year compared to the $ 2448.00/year if you chose to work for $ 1.50/hour above the minimum wage.

What decision would you make if that was your position?

If you want to see something really interesting, go check out how proud the U.S. is of the number of people they got off the welfare rolls since 1996. Then go look at the estimates of the increase in homeless persons from 1996-2000.

[dnc101]

So, WD, it doesn't pay to get off welfare. They keep you as a dependant class. I think we're all agreed on that.

The bigger question is, why create a dependant class in the first place?

[Black Jack]

I see your figures but there are also other aspects not in consideration. These aspects may be vague as all people have different situations but their still aspects nontheless.

1. People can get second and third jobs, its called working to the bone backed by a responsibility of having a family to feed, many people do this and have done it, there is a track record of it in the great depression and with immigrents of our past, work is work.

2. What about kids, why three kids, I know this will sound hard but its often very bad judgement, people have kids that they can not afford, when they are not ready on a financial level, call it what you will but those factors add up, even more so when the kids keep on coming, when does it become an absurd number. I believe this one has to do with a serious lack of education.

3. When does a helping hand to the deserved poor or needy become enough. Why should the horse need to be brought to the water when the water is brought to him. It's this third one that makes one consdier why is the figure not higher than 3%.

Is it just because all those 3%' ers are hard working people looking to increase there lot in life, I would take that bet, but I would hedge my bets by knowing that the welfare state keeps it down, by supporting it through its very own foundation, a circle that never ends.

Again I am all for helping, thats what being a good neighbor is all about, but not to the point of abuse.

[Water Dragon]

Originally posted by dnc101

The bigger question is, why create a dependant class in the first place?

Now that I can't really answer. Economicallt it makes no sense. By providing incentives to work, you get a "trickle up" effect as people will start spending more, this increases small businees which leads to more jobs etc.

Even if you want to go Illuminati and say they do it so the rich can have more, it doesn't make sense with 6 % unemployment rates.

I think it's more of a matter of those in power not really understanding the problem. You only have to a couple of things to fix the situation.
1. You provide healthcare assitance up to around $ 25K a year. Doesn't everyone deserve the right to see a doctor when they are sick?
2. You set up a voucher system for Daycare so that it makes economic sense to work low paying jobs. This in turn directly creates jobs through the increased need for childcare workers.
3. You provide skill training and education programs so that the people on the bottom have an opportunity to compete.

Unfortunately, the Republicans, who claim to be capitalist oriented, don't see the benefit in helping the people to compete in a capitalist society.

[Water Dragon]

1. People can get second and third jobs, its called working to the bone backed by a responsibility of having a family to feed, many people do this and have done it, there is a track record of it in the great depression and with immigrents of our past, work is work.

But if you still have the childcare problem, this won't help.

2. What about kids, why three kids, I know this will sound hard but its often very bad judgement, people have kids that they can not afford, when they are not ready on a financial level, call it what you will but those factors add up, even more so when the kids keep on coming, when does it become an absurd number.

Lack of education and self esteem, pure and simple. It's not hard to get a piece of uneducated @ss with no self worth. When Espy was pregnant with our first, she was usually the oldest woman in the doctor's office. And she was 19.

3. When does a helping hand to the deserved poor or needy become enough. Why should the horse need to be brought to the water when the water is brought to him. It's this third one that makes one consdier why is the figure not higher than 3%.

See my above post for my thinking on this one.

[dnc101]

WD,

I could go along with limmited, basic health care assistance. But make no mistake, they have no right to it. That is part of the problem here. These people have been told they have a right to things like this just becaue they live here. They are educated to the viewpoint that it is someone elses responsibility to provide for them. There is no incentive to improve themselves, just to demand more.

We have child care vouchers and skills training for various classifications of people. There are programs in place that welfare recipients could avail themselves of in many states. And, I think Bush just proposed a massive program of this type nationally.

Concerning the practical, working rich- unemployment doesn't help them. They are investors, so they make money by putting people to work. Some might argue that unemployment keeps wages down, but I disagree. The free market ballances prices and wages when left alone.

Your Illuminate, or whatever we could call that group of ultra-ultra rich and powerful, are a different issue. At their level, it is no longer about money and proffits. It is power and influence, plain and simple.

[Black Jack]

WD,

I can only really answer your 1st question/remark as the others I would need to look at deeper, as for your first I would say a heavy no, health care is a privelage, not a right by any means.

dnc answered it well IMHO.

[Water Dragon]

I could go along with limited, basic health care assistance. But make no mistake, they have no right to it. That is part of the problem here. These people have been told they have a right to things like this just becaue they live here. They are educated to the viewpoint that it is someone elses responsibility to provide for them. There is no incentive to improve themselves, just to demand more.

This one I will never agree with. I believe Society involves Social Contracts, and the social contract states that society takes care of it's own. Also remember that when you talk about "These people", you're speaking about me and my wife. How can you justify that it was OK for my wife to die because we couldn't afford health care. I think society does have a responsibility to that end.

The Bush plan sucks, pure and simple. It's tied up through the HUD Empowerment Zone prgram and to a lesser extent, The EDA's revolving loan fund program. Both are designed to help business and HOPEFULLY help the people through VooDoo Economics. A small amount of the funds can be set aside for daycare and job training, but that's purely at the discretion of the City Gov't where the zone is set.

[Water Dragon]

Hey guys, I think we just hijacked this thread and flew it to Beirut.

[dnc101]

Originally posted by Water Dragon
Hey guys, I think we just hijacked this thread and flew it to Beirut.

I was sorta wondring how we got to this myself.

I didn't say it was ok to let any one die for lack of health care. I said I'd support a limmited health care plan. My point was the focus on the imperative of such a plan. It comes from the goodness of our hearts, not from some nebulous right. And the Bush plan probably does, or will, suck. Government programs allways do. Just another good reason not to depend on the government for everything.

I'd like to expound on the term 'limmited health care plan'. When you focus on healthcare as a right, the question comes up as to where that 'right' ends. If it is a right, that implies unlimmited access to any medical services. We had a case in Washinfton state a few years back where one welfare recipient, a veritable baby factory, got to where she could have no more children. This would have seemed to have been a good thing, since she couldn't take care of the ones she had. She produced them regularly, and just as reegularly turned them over to the state to care for. This drudge went to DSHS and demanded a very expensive operation so she could once again reproduce. They gave it to her. This is a liberal state, after all, and she had a 'right' to it. If it is acknowleged that someone has to work to pay for your health care, and it is a privilage generously granted, this kind of abuse would be unthinkable. Abuses would still occur, no doubt. But not the ridiculous extremes you get when we find 'rights' around every corner.

[Water Dragon]

Well I guess what you're calling "limited" is what I'm calling healthcare for everyone. I simply think that if you're sick, you should be able to see a doctor and get a prescription to fix it. Nobody should be walking around with pneumonia and no doctor to see, but it happens. No one should walk around with a condition that will kill them because they can't afford an operation but it happens. In fact, I even think that if you're coughing so hard you can't sleep at night you have a right to an antibiotic to make the cough go away. The reality is that right now in the US, it doesn't work that way.

What you're talking about is an extreme example. That's not health care. That's idiocy. But if you lump them all together, it's good people who suffer.