Honest discussion: Questions for the left

[BDBoop]

Orly? You slammed his 80+ y/o MIL, assuming she was "playing the market" in 2008, and that's where the money went? And you don't think that's offensive.

Me? After the better part of a decade as a housewife, due to agoraphobia and anxiety, my thirteen-year marriage summarily blew up. But absolutely!! I should have been selling plasma all along, in the event of ... seriously. Just keep tossing those easy answers, and ignore the reality of what happens to people.

Save for six months, my ass. How much of America is living paycheck-to-paycheck? But they're all - what. Bums. Lazy bums. Idiots.

Nothing bad EVER happens that could wipe out decades of hard work. Right?

Right.

Look how mad you get when someone suggests a hint of picking yourself up......geebus.

Living paycheck to paycheck is not the recipe to go out and buy a home. Seriously.

yes according to your logic , you should live inna tent until you have the funds.

Yeah, exactly. PS @ OP: I was never a homeowner. My sister is, and has been for going on 20 years. But she shouldn't be. Not in your world.

I'm glad I don't live in your world.

 

[Moonglow]

Look how mad you get when someone suggests a hint of picking yourself up......geebus.

Living paycheck to paycheck is not the recipe to go out and buy a home. Seriously.

yes according to your logic , you should live inna tent until you have the funds.

Yes, the extreme opposite is what I suggest versus home ownership

all ur suggesting is an emergengy fund, I bought my first house without one and did fine.

 

[Moonglow]

Having an honest discussion should not include dissing or patronization.

 

[G.T.]

And children need fires lit under their asses.

You have no idea, do you? It's never been you, it's never been anybody you loved. You're nothing but an ignorant, clueless, talking head.

You dont know where I come from or what I've seen. Fact.

From what I've seen you know nothing about unemplyment benefits or welfare benefits.

google "welfare debit card"

 

[G.T.]

Having an honest discussion should not include dissing or patronization.

I believe if you read back, we can find out who began being less than cordial.

Which is fine, don't get me wrong, but it's not what I was looking for anyhow.

 

[G.T.]

yes according to your logic , you should live inna tent until you have the funds.

Yes, the extreme opposite is what I suggest versus home ownership

all ur suggesting is an emergengy fund, I bought my first house without one and did fine.

And if you became unemployed "did fine" would be changed pretty dramatically.

 

[G.T.]

Look how mad you get when someone suggests a hint of picking yourself up......geebus.

Living paycheck to paycheck is not the recipe to go out and buy a home. Seriously.

yes according to your logic , you should live inna tent until you have the funds.

Yeah, exactly. PS @ OP: I was never a homeowner. My sister is, and has been for going on 20 years. But she shouldn't be. Not in your world.

I'm glad I don't live in your world.

That's fine, I don't take it personal.

But yea, I don't think if she's 54 and hasn't any emergency money saved up or back-up plan for paying her mortgage (borrowed money to pay back in good faith), then I don't think she belonged owning the home just yet.

I think of it like taking life seriously versus gambling with the odds, it's not meant to be offensive.

 

[Dr.Drock]

not if they live in rented apartments

Lol you know what I mean.

Just saying I'm sure there's employers in the US who have lost their homes who could've used the money they were taxed in order to put towards their mortgages.

that is the rules of the game. there are ways around that rule if you so care to play it that way.

BD's point was to feel bad for her family member because she would've lost her house without unemp benefits, however the taxes to pay for those are the reason for others to have lost their homes (the employers).

So why shouldn't we feel bad for the families who lost their homes partially because they were taxed to pay for unemp benefits?

 

[Moonglow]

debit cards are not the same as a food stamp EBT card.
if you qualify you can get afdc aid to families with dependant children.
to qualify you must be 300% below poverty level.

 

[Moonglow]

Yes, the extreme opposite is what I suggest versus home ownership

all ur suggesting is an emergengy fund, I bought my first house without one and did fine.

And if you became unemployed "did fine" would be changed pretty dramatically.

I am self employed, everytime I finish a job I have to find another.

 

[G.T.]

debit cards are not the same as a food stamp EBT card.
if you qualify you can get afdc aid to families with dependant children.
to qualify you must be 300% below poverty level.

That side-steps my point of bringing them up. Why did I bring them up? Because they're able to be used at ATM's, as witnessed by GT, aka, God (joke), and thusly used for things other than necessity, such as beer and ciggies. That's just a fact, and saying that I don't know anything doesn't change that it's wholly wrong.

 

[Moonglow]

Lol you know what I mean.

Just saying I'm sure there's employers in the US who have lost their homes who could've used the money they were taxed in order to put towards their mortgages.

that is the rules of the game. there are ways around that rule if you so care to play it that way.

BD's point was to feel bad for her family member because she would've lost her house without unemp benefits, however the taxes to pay for those are the reason for others to have lost their homes (the employers).

So why shouldn't we feel bad for the families who lost their homes partially because they were taxed to pay for unemp benefits?

horse shit, nobody has lost their homes from paying UE insurance. anymore strawmen?

 

[bobcollum]

A person who doesn't have the reasonability to have emergency money saved for themselves and/or their family, is not financially in a position where they should have thought to buy a home. That's JUST AN OPINION, of course, but it seems "of sound mind," to me.

If I may say, this argument while valid on it's face, doesn't factor in the high number of variables involved with everyday life with regards to a person barely accruing enough money to keep themselves and their family sheltered and fed.

Do you think it's justified for a person that lost their job that did in fact have money saved for six months of living to go on welfare and/or UI when the money runs out and employment is still elusive? They did what you deemed to be reasonable....or would you suggest that they saved even more at that point(honest question)? What about the executives that receive performance bonuses from taxpayers by way of the Federal Government(corporate welfare)? They weren't reasonable(and they knew it) with their risk-taking but it's put less wealthy people(lower to middle class) on the road to ruin, the same that are now being deemed by several here as taking too many risks and not being reasonable.

There are so many factors to weigh with such a complex system. If it were really that simple the solutions would be much more apparent, but there should be no debate or doubt that the system is out of whack from top to bottom. Like someone said earlier, there will always be moochers of the system, rich and poor, but those people will be moochers as the unemployed or not, the welfare recipients or not.

Good thread though...

 

[G.T.]

all ur suggesting is an emergengy fund, I bought my first house without one and did fine.

And if you became unemployed "did fine" would be changed pretty dramatically.

I am self employed, everytime I finish a job I have to find another.

That's good, I'm happy for ya.

 

[Moonglow]

debit cards are not the same as a food stamp EBT card.
if you qualify you can get afdc aid to families with dependant children.
to qualify you must be 300% below poverty level.

That side-steps my point of bringing them up. Why did I bring them up? Because they're able to be used at ATM's, as witnessed by GT, aka, God (joke), and thusly used for things other than necessity, such as beer and ciggies. That's just a fact, and saying that I don't know anything doesn't change that it's wholly wrong.

it depends on what you qualify for. afdc is not the same as food stamps, and section 8 housing vouchers are not the same as food stamps and afdc.

 

[Dr.Drock]

that is the rules of the game. there are ways around that rule if you so care to play it that way.

BD's point was to feel bad for her family member because she would've lost her house without unemp benefits, however the taxes to pay for those are the reason for others to have lost their homes (the employers).

So why shouldn't we feel bad for the families who lost their homes partially because they were taxed to pay for unemp benefits?

horse shit, nobody has lost their homes from paying UE insurance. anymore strawmen?

So a tax cut to an employer wouldn't help them financially?

Okie dokie

 

[G.T.]

A person who doesn't have the reasonability to have emergency money saved for themselves and/or their family, is not financially in a position where they should have thought to buy a home. That's JUST AN OPINION, of course, but it seems "of sound mind," to me.

If I may say, this argument while valid on it's face, doesn't factor in the high number of variables involved with everyday life with regards to a person barely accruing enough money to keep themselves and their family sheltered and fed.

Do you think it's justified for a person that lost their job that did in fact have money saved for six months of living to go on welfare and/or UI when the money runs out and employment is still elusive? They did what you deemed to be reasonable....or would you suggest that they saved even more at that point(honest question)? What about the executives that receive performance bonuses from taxpayers by way of the Federal Government(corporate welfare)? They weren't reasonable(and they knew it) with their risk-taking but it's put less wealthy people(lower to middle class) on the road to ruin, the same that are now being deemed by several here as taking too many risks and not being reasonable.

There are so many factors to weigh with such a complex system. If it were really that simple the solutions would be much more apparent, but there should be no debate or doubt that the system is out of whack from top to bottom. Like someone said earlier, there will always be moochers of the system, rich and poor, but those people will be moochers as the unemployed or not, the welfare recipients or not.

Good thread though...

The corporate welfare issue is another entirely. I'm likely with you, on that.

Yea, though, based on averages being unemployed for more that 6mos would be a special case (this recession isn't normal by any means), but the special case shouldn't be the rule.

In my opinion, the 6 months you do have, plus the 20 or-so weeks ue, to be used after or before your savings (I'm not sure), would in the great majority of cases be enough time to get yourself back to planted on your feet.

 

[bobcollum]

A person who doesn't have the reasonability to have emergency money saved for themselves and/or their family, is not financially in a position where they should have thought to buy a home. That's JUST AN OPINION, of course, but it seems "of sound mind," to me.

If I may say, this argument while valid on it's face, doesn't factor in the high number of variables involved with everyday life with regards to a person barely accruing enough money to keep themselves and their family sheltered and fed.

Do you think it's justified for a person that lost their job that did in fact have money saved for six months of living to go on welfare and/or UI when the money runs out and employment is still elusive? They did what you deemed to be reasonable....or would you suggest that they saved even more at that point(honest question)? What about the executives that receive performance bonuses from taxpayers by way of the Federal Government(corporate welfare)? They weren't reasonable(and they knew it) with their risk-taking but it's put less wealthy people(lower to middle class) on the road to ruin, the same that are now being deemed by several here as taking too many risks and not being reasonable.

There are so many factors to weigh with such a complex system. If it were really that simple the solutions would be much more apparent, but there should be no debate or doubt that the system is out of whack from top to bottom. Like someone said earlier, there will always be moochers of the system, rich and poor, but those people will be moochers as the unemployed or not, the welfare recipients or not.

Good thread though...

The corporate welfare issue is another entirely. I'm likely with you, on that.

It's really more intertwined with it than many realize.

Yea, though, based on averages being unemployed for more that 6mos would be a special case (this recession isn't normal by any means), but the special case shouldn't be the rule.

In my opinion, the 6 months you do have, plus the 20 or-so weeks ue, to be used after or before your savings (I'm not sure), would in the great majority of cases be enough time to get yourself back to planted on your feet.

True in some instances but that assumes no other emergencies follow the original, even for the special cases...and we know 'shit happens' almost everyday. To me it keeps coming back to what's enough to generally equate someone with being financially reasonable/responsible? To which I think there is no real answer, only opinions. Everyone can't be wealthy, and I don't think it's reasonable to think someone that lives check to check should be able to save up that much money in every instance, and it's not that they aren't trying, they're just apparently not trying enough. The whole discussion gets blurry at this point.

 

[Soggy in NOLA]

Maybe tomorrow I'll do the right.

I'm asking from an honest place and am asking ahead of time, don't bother responding to be smug, etc. and especially if this question isn't even addressed at you, to begin with.


So, I have a few questions:

I'll just fire them off.

1.) At what point, in your belief, would you cut off State aid to a poor family showing no reasonable signs of effort towards improvement? Or, conversely, do you feel there is no point it should be cut?

2.) As it pertains to question number one, do you feel that the overabundance of safety nets, such us an ever-extending unemployment benefit, effects ambition AT ALL? If not, how can that be?? If so, at what point do you look for an alternative route to just saying "here you go."

3.) Do you feel that social safety nets AT ALL are playing a part in how poorly our inner city families are turning out? If no, explain how that can be. If yes, then what's the big idea?

I'm just wondering, if you take it to the very end (the ideaology), where do you see that getting us? Let me know what standards you have for having social safety nets, and let me know how you feel it's ok (if you do agree) that they DO contribute to a "gimme gimme" class, at least in some part, and how you'd personally feel it's ok to mitigate that.

Just some questions - - what's the ideal balance, in your eyes, basically? I don't see things working out so well imho.

1. Six months
2. Yes
3. Yes

 

[Montrovant]

If I may say, this argument while valid on it's face, doesn't factor in the high number of variables involved with everyday life with regards to a person barely accruing enough money to keep themselves and their family sheltered and fed.

Do you think it's justified for a person that lost their job that did in fact have money saved for six months of living to go on welfare and/or UI when the money runs out and employment is still elusive? They did what you deemed to be reasonable....or would you suggest that they saved even more at that point(honest question)? What about the executives that receive performance bonuses from taxpayers by way of the Federal Government(corporate welfare)? They weren't reasonable(and they knew it) with their risk-taking but it's put less wealthy people(lower to middle class) on the road to ruin, the same that are now being deemed by several here as taking too many risks and not being reasonable.

There are so many factors to weigh with such a complex system. If it were really that simple the solutions would be much more apparent, but there should be no debate or doubt that the system is out of whack from top to bottom. Like someone said earlier, there will always be moochers of the system, rich and poor, but those people will be moochers as the unemployed or not, the welfare recipients or not.

Good thread though...

The corporate welfare issue is another entirely. I'm likely with you, on that.

It's really more intertwined with it than many realize.

Yea, though, based on averages being unemployed for more that 6mos would be a special case (this recession isn't normal by any means), but the special case shouldn't be the rule.

In my opinion, the 6 months you do have, plus the 20 or-so weeks ue, to be used after or before your savings (I'm not sure), would in the great majority of cases be enough time to get yourself back to planted on your feet.

True in some instances but that assumes no other emergencies follow the original, even for the special cases...and we know 'shit happens' almost everyday. To me it keeps coming back to what's enough to generally equate someone with being financially reasonable/responsible? To which I think there is no real answer, only opinions. Everyone can't be wealthy, and I don't think it's reasonable to think someone that lives check to check should be able to save up that much money in every instance, and it's not that they aren't trying, they're just apparently not trying enough. The whole discussion gets blurry at this point.

You are right that this is obviously all opinion, and also that the individual situations can vary greatly. I would like to ask this, though : do you think that the person(s) who live paycheck to paycheck, who try to save money but cannot do so, are in a good position to purchase a house?

I think that people in this country do not, in many cases, plan for the future with their money. There are many reasons for this, and in a lot of ways out society seems to be based on it (so much is based on payments over time, loans, and debt), but it is still playing with fire to an extent.

Does this mean we should not have any governmental safety nets? Of course not. I think the bigger issue may be fraud and corruption, rather than the rules as they stand being bad. As with so many political issues, we don't necessarily need to make new rules or rewrite the current ones, just enforce the ones that exist and prevent cheating as much as possible.