'Generation Gimme': Can We or Should We Afford Them?

[Steelplate]

I think many are just living in denial. I guess that is much easier. 'Generation Gimme' is real and it is a huge problem. People better start facing that.

Perhaps it's you that is in denial.... just sayin'

 

[paulitician]

Looks like the People are voting No so far. Stay tuned.

 

[Vast LWC]

Looks like the People are voting No so far. Stay tuned.

That would be mainly due to the fact that people who are rational (and not senile, grumpy-old-men) aren't voting, due to the fact that they reject the premise the question assumes.

 

[Steelplate]

I voted yes.... just to piss people off(I was #2).

 

[Vast LWC]

i voted yes.... Just to piss people off(i was #2).

lol.

 

[paulitician]

I voted yes.... just to piss people off(I was #2).

lol! Voting Yes doesn't piss me off. I know you're wrong.

 

[Vast LWC]

I voted yes.... just to piss people off(I was #2).

lol! Voting Yes doesn't piss me off. I know you're wrong.

Wooooooooosh!!!!

Hey, what was that?

Yeah, that would be something flying right over your head.

 

[Steelplate]

I voted yes.... just to piss people off(I was #2).

lol! Voting Yes doesn't piss me off. I know you're wrong.

Did I say you? You are pretty rational... I disagree with your socioeconomic stances... but you aren't a prick. It's the Folk that spout Marxist/Commie every other post, tell me to get a job(when I've been working 23 years at the same place and am pretty well compensated for my efforts) and are little more than outraged parrots of AM radio(you know who you are) are who's skins I was looking to get under.

On a serious note...No... under the current system, we cannot afford them.... But we can do better than the "sink or swim" mentality of the Libertarian/Conservatives. I propose a "work for Benefits" Program that fundamentally changes the method of Welfare delivery. It will actually cost MORE than the current model in the short term, but in the long run, I think it would be a huge success.

Having people work for their benefits does some good things... Gives people a sense of purpose and empowerment, Gets rid of the stigma of being a "welfare bum" and perhaps will develop a sense of pride and dignity of having "earned" that compensation. Furthermore, it will give people who haven't worked in a long time(or never worked) a work history and an evaluation process that will help them get out of the system and into better paying jobs in the private and/or public sector.

The reason it will cost somewhat MORE is supervision and enforcement... the enforcement part is relatively easy... no work/no benefits(exceptions for Developmentally Disabled, Mentally Ill, and severe Physical handicaps will be allowed).

But we would need supervision to work with these people, and that supervision has to go beyond the role of a taskmaster. They will have to be Counselors too... Job Coaches so to speak.

 

[Vast LWC]

Did I say you? You are pretty rational... I disagree with your socioeconomic stances... but you aren't a prick. It's the Folk that spout Marxist/Commie every other post, tell me to get a job(when I've been working 23 years at the same place and am pretty well compensated for my efforts) and are little more than outraged parrots of AM radio(you know who you are) are who's skins I was looking to get under.

On a serious note...No... under the current system, we cannot afford them.... But we can do better than the "sink or swim" mentality of the Libertarian/Conservatives. I propose a "work for Benefits" Program that fundamentally changes the method of Welfare delivery. It will actually cost MORE than the current model in the short term, but in the long run, I think it would be a huge success.

Having people work for their benefits does some good things... Gives people a sense of purpose and empowerment, Gets rid of the stigma of being a "welfare bum" and perhaps will develop a sense of pride and dignity of having "earned" that compensation. Furthermore, it will give people who haven't worked in a long time(or never worked) a work history and an evaluation process that will help them get out of the system and into better paying jobs in the private and/or public sector.

The reason it will cost somewhat MORE is supervision and enforcement... the enforcement part is relatively easy... no work/no benefits(exceptions for Developmentally Disabled, Mentally Ill, and severe Physical handicaps will be allowed).

But we would need supervision to work with these people, and that supervision has to go beyond the role of a taskmaster. They will have to be Counselors too... Job Coaches so to speak.

Yes. This is a good idea, but isn't that was "Workfare" was supposed to be in the 90's?

Also, what would stop this from becoming, at some point, a whole load of extra government jobs? Isn't that something we'd be trying to avoid?

 

[francoHFW]

The dupes have 3 answers for everything. Those gd entitled is one. BREAKING NEWS: We're in the SECOND Pub Great Depression. No jobs. And Pubs want to keep it going to get elected. Too bad it's too obvious except to the brainwashed.

 

[Steelplate]

Did I say you? You are pretty rational... I disagree with your socioeconomic stances... but you aren't a prick. It's the Folk that spout Marxist/Commie every other post, tell me to get a job(when I've been working 23 years at the same place and am pretty well compensated for my efforts) and are little more than outraged parrots of AM radio(you know who you are) are who's skins I was looking to get under.

On a serious note...No... under the current system, we cannot afford them.... But we can do better than the "sink or swim" mentality of the Libertarian/Conservatives. I propose a "work for Benefits" Program that fundamentally changes the method of Welfare delivery. It will actually cost MORE than the current model in the short term, but in the long run, I think it would be a huge success.

Having people work for their benefits does some good things... Gives people a sense of purpose and empowerment, Gets rid of the stigma of being a "welfare bum" and perhaps will develop a sense of pride and dignity of having "earned" that compensation. Furthermore, it will give people who haven't worked in a long time(or never worked) a work history and an evaluation process that will help them get out of the system and into better paying jobs in the private and/or public sector.

The reason it will cost somewhat MORE is supervision and enforcement... the enforcement part is relatively easy... no work/no benefits(exceptions for Developmentally Disabled, Mentally Ill, and severe Physical handicaps will be allowed).

But we would need supervision to work with these people, and that supervision has to go beyond the role of a taskmaster. They will have to be Counselors too... Job Coaches so to speak.

Yes. This is a good idea, but isn't that was "Workfare" was supposed to be in the 90's?

Also, what would stop this from becoming, at some point, a whole load of extra government jobs? Isn't that something we'd be trying to avoid?

How about tax incentives to the private sector to hire people off of the "workfare" roles? How about the Job Coaches be skilled in recognizing and developing the talents of the people they are in charge of? Some of them may become part of the business community themselves.

Sure, some would get integrated in the Public Sector. Working for the Public Sector is not a bad thing in and of itself. The problem is what we have now... too many Bureaucracies that are redundant. Through attrition(Not Hiring when Public Employees retire), we can achieve the necessary downsizing of governmental employees. When it gets to the point where we NEED workers again...then we can hire from the Workfare Roles as well as the Civil Service list... let the most qualified win.

We need a scalpel approach on this... A meat cleaver will just put more middle class people out of work.

 

[likeabird03]

I think this video sums out Generation Gimme pretty accurately...

[ame=http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=cJD8pZiRIzs&fb]Adam Carolla explains the OWS Generation - YouTube[/ame]

 

[paulitician]

I think this video sums out Generation Gimme pretty accurately...

Adam Carolla explains the OWS Generation - YouTube

Spot on. Thanks.

 

[mskafka]

We all pay the above shit you try to deflect with and then 50% of us pay FEDERAL income tax.. the 50% of the ones who don't are the leecher gimmmie gimmmies.. you betcha.

Blah, blah, blah.

So, reform the fucking tax system that YOU broke.

The youngest generation had nothing to do with that shit, and now you want to blame them for it?

The people who don't pay taxes don't pay them, for the most part, because they have deductions for other things, like children, or property taxes and outrageous interest rates on houses that they can't afford.

They don't pay them, because they don't have any income to tax, once all the bills are paid.

Having 12 children this day in age is fiscally irresponsible. But many do it. It reminds me of the time that my douchbag ex-brother in law held his hands above my nieces heads when he was figuring up his taxes, and excitedly exclaimed-"Cha-ching, cha-ching...!"...he was dreaming of his deductions.

I consider two people having several children, just as guilty as of milking the system, as the "welfare moochers". 12 children....one parent working, grosing $50k per year...irresponsible planning. If you don't agree with that....too bad.

I have a difficult time understanding why so few see the hyposcrisy in this.

 

[AVG-JOE]

The simple but elusive answers remain: Fair and simple taxes, a budget balanced by law, transparency in politics and then build an economy your kids can drive to the stars.

Basically job one is ending the corruption, both on behalf of those with means and those with votes.

 

[AVG-JOE]

Did I say you? You are pretty rational... I disagree with your socioeconomic stances... but you aren't a prick. It's the Folk that spout Marxist/Commie every other post, tell me to get a job(when I've been working 23 years at the same place and am pretty well compensated for my efforts) and are little more than outraged parrots of AM radio(you know who you are) are who's skins I was looking to get under.

On a serious note...No... under the current system, we cannot afford them.... But we can do better than the "sink or swim" mentality of the Libertarian/Conservatives. I propose a "work for Benefits" Program that fundamentally changes the method of Welfare delivery. It will actually cost MORE than the current model in the short term, but in the long run, I think it would be a huge success.

Having people work for their benefits does some good things... Gives people a sense of purpose and empowerment, Gets rid of the stigma of being a "welfare bum" and perhaps will develop a sense of pride and dignity of having "earned" that compensation. Furthermore, it will give people who haven't worked in a long time(or never worked) a work history and an evaluation process that will help them get out of the system and into better paying jobs in the private and/or public sector.

The reason it will cost somewhat MORE is supervision and enforcement... the enforcement part is relatively easy... no work/no benefits(exceptions for Developmentally Disabled, Mentally Ill, and severe Physical handicaps will be allowed).

But we would need supervision to work with these people, and that supervision has to go beyond the role of a taskmaster. They will have to be Counselors too... Job Coaches so to speak.

Yes. This is a good idea, but isn't that was "Workfare" was supposed to be in the 90's?

Also, what would stop this from becoming, at some point, a whole load of extra government jobs? Isn't that something we'd be trying to avoid?

How about tax incentives to the private sector to hire people off of the "workfare" roles? How about the Job Coaches be skilled in recognizing and developing the talents of the people they are in charge of? Some of them may become part of the business community themselves.

Sure, some would get integrated in the Public Sector. Working for the Public Sector is not a bad thing in and of itself. The problem is what we have now... too many Bureaucracies that are redundant. Through attrition(Not Hiring when Public Employees retire), we can achieve the necessary downsizing of governmental employees. When it gets to the point where we NEED workers again...then we can hire from the Workfare Roles as well as the Civil Service list... let the most qualified win.

We need a scalpel approach on this... A meat cleaver will just put more middle class people out of work.

How about a simple and reasonable tax rate with payroll as the one and only deduction?

 

[AVG-JOE]

We all pay the above shit you try to deflect with and then 50% of us pay FEDERAL income tax.. the 50% of the ones who don't are the leecher gimmmie gimmmies.. you betcha.

Blah, blah, blah.

So, reform the fucking tax system that YOU broke.

The youngest generation had nothing to do with that shit, and now you want to blame them for it?

The people who don't pay taxes don't pay them, for the most part, because they have deductions for other things, like children, or property taxes and outrageous interest rates on houses that they can't afford.

They don't pay them, because they don't have any income to tax, once all the bills are paid.

Having 12 children this day in age is fiscally irresponsible. But many do it. It reminds me of the time that my douchbag ex-brother in law held his hands above my nieces heads when he was figuring up his taxes, and excitedly exclaimed-"Cha-ching, cha-ching...!"...he was dreaming of his deductions.

I consider two people having several children, just as guilty as of milking the system, as the "welfare moochers". 12 children....one parent working, grosing $50k per year...irresponsible planning. If you don't agree with that....too bad.

I have a difficult time understanding why so few see the hyposcrisy in this.

Hypocrisy runs layers deep. There is a LOT of fiscal irresponsibility going on these days, and not just among people taking on more than they can afford, there is also the irresponsibility of people with means taking financial risks that affect the community at large.

Distribution of wealth data should form a nice, symmetric bell curve in a healthy economy.

 

[AVG-JOE]

The real question is whether the younger generation can afford YOU.

You know that, right?

It turns out that from a societal point of view, the quality of the retirement of one generation is directly proportional to the quality of their education investment for the next generation.

 

[LoneLaugher]

The real question is whether the younger generation can afford YOU.

You know that, right?

It turns out that from a societal point of view, the quality of the retirement of one generation is directly proportional to the quality of their education investment for the next generation.

What? Are you trying to say that I would be insane to promote cuts in education spending because having a generatiion filled with poorly educated, unprepared people in charge of things when I become elderly is a bad thing?

 

[Steelplate]

We all pay the above shit you try to deflect with and then 50% of us pay FEDERAL income tax.. the 50% of the ones who don't are the leecher gimmmie gimmmies.. you betcha.

Blah, blah, blah.

So, reform the fucking tax system that YOU broke.

The youngest generation had nothing to do with that shit, and now you want to blame them for it?

The people who don't pay taxes don't pay them, for the most part, because they have deductions for other things, like children, or property taxes and outrageous interest rates on houses that they can't afford.

They don't pay them, because they don't have any income to tax, once all the bills are paid.

Having 12 children this day in age is fiscally irresponsible. But many do it. It reminds me of the time that my douchbag ex-brother in law held his hands above my nieces heads when he was figuring up his taxes, and excitedly exclaimed-"Cha-ching, cha-ching...!"...he was dreaming of his deductions.

I consider two people having several children, just as guilty as of milking the system, as the "welfare moochers". 12 children....one parent working, grosing $50k per year...irresponsible planning. If you don't agree with that....too bad.

I have a difficult time understanding why so few see the hyposcrisy in this.

Now now... having children produce the taxpayers of the future. How about we start Compensating labor appropriately instead of blaming people who are producing the next generation of Working Americans? Obviously your douchebag ex brother in law was working and contributing to society.