Honest discussion: Questions for the left

[G.T.]

you said "the states set ue" - - - as though it was dismissing my question of how long they continue to be,,,,, while the fed is the ones actually extending them. My "sooo..." means, "so where were you trying to carry your point, again, when you mentioned states setting their limits? (when you just advised that actually the Fed is making the extensions).

 

[Moonglow]

I would prefer that there were jobs for all, but that is not the case. Yes there are dead beats, allways have been, allways will be.
Like many people I have met that work for social services have a slogan, "get through te greed to meet the need". The are aware of moochers and dead beats but they try to focus on those in real need.
I really have a problem with illegals getting aid.

 

[G.T.]

I would prefer that there were jobs for all, but that is not the case. Yes there are dead beats, allways have been, allways will be.
Like many people I have met that work for social services have a slogan, "get through te greed to meet the need". The are aware of moochers and dead beats but they try to focus on those in real need.
I really have a problem with illegals getting aid.

I don't disagree with social safety nets at all, I disagree with the qualifications to become on one, their length, their amounts, etc.

 

[BDBoop]

Where's the balance between a country that's poor, and in massive debt nationally, and sayiing "well, some people are definitely going to lose their homes, but unfortunately we can't drag the entire country as a whole further down the debt hole to help beyond a certain point because the outcome of continuing that? EVERYone loses their home."

This is what I mean, is there no limitation, no balance to be struck between good will and the fact that it disincentivises the inner city (there's empirical proof that inner cities are deteriorating, btw).................to actually TRY their absolute hardest to create/work, etc?





Most innovation / invention comes out of necessity. Don't you think humans as a whole have a great survival instinct? Don't you think they'd prosper more if they had lesser of a fall-back, and more dire of a consequence as a result of NOT trying 100%?

I was only addressing unemployment. Welfare needs a complete and serious overhaul.

So does unemployment, imo.

It's a tough life when your sister is going to lose her home, but what's a home vs. an apartment but a status picture and a sign of your own financial stability? What's wrong with her life actually REFLECTING that she lost her job? Having to sell thing/ her home, and building herself back up?

Is she starving like an african child? Lacking an education for a future job? Built no real savings at age 54? Honest, not smug, questions.

Honest not smug? Okay. Are you fucking kidding me?? She worked her whole life. She's working again now. So the fact that nobody would hire her over the course of 14-15 months means she should fall through the cracks. Right? How old are you? Would you want that for your parents??

I'm living in someone else's home. I have a room with a family. Sometimes, their son asks me why I'm not in my own house, and when I will be. Well, I'm here because his parents are in the same shoes I am - but he doesn't need to know that. So we just tell him that I'm saving money to get my own house.

Life isn't supposed to suck like this, home skillet. We lived our lives as law-abiding citizens who paid our taxes and contributed to our communities. So now we should just go oh, well. I lost my job. That's not bad enough. I should lose my home as well. And my dog, of course, since they aren't generally welcome in apartments.

I'm really not following your alleged logic at all.

 

[Moonglow]

you said "the states set ue" - - - as though it was dismissing my question of how long they continue to be,,,,, while the fed is the ones actually extending them. My "sooo..." means, "so where were you trying to carry your point, again, when you mentioned states setting their limits? (when you just advised that actually the Fed is making the extensions).

The states only set aside so much monies per unemployed worker,the feds must pay for any extensions to that time limit, the feds also loan the monies to the states for UE if the states do not have enough in their UE insurance fund.

 

[Moonglow]

I would prefer that there were jobs for all, but that is not the case. Yes there are dead beats, allways have been, allways will be.
Like many people I have met that work for social services have a slogan, "get through te greed to meet the need". The are aware of moochers and dead beats but they try to focus on those in real need.
I really have a problem with illegals getting aid.

I don't disagree with social safety nets at all, I disagree with the qualifications to become on one, their length, their amounts, etc.

the how long should they be for? the amounts?

 

[G.T.]

I was only addressing unemployment. Welfare needs a complete and serious overhaul.

So does unemployment, imo.

It's a tough life when your sister is going to lose her home, but what's a home vs. an apartment but a status picture and a sign of your own financial stability? What's wrong with her life actually REFLECTING that she lost her job? Having to sell thing/ her home, and building herself back up?

Is she starving like an african child? Lacking an education for a future job? Built no real savings at age 54? Honest, not smug, questions.

Honest not smug? Okay. Are you fucking kidding me?? She worked her whole life. She's working again now. So the fact that nobody would hire her over the course of 14-15 months means she should fall through the cracks. Right? How old are you? Would you want that for your parents??

I'm living in someone else's home. I have a room with a family. Sometimes, their son asks me why I'm not in my own house, and when I will be. Well, I'm here because his parents are in the same shoes I am - but he doesn't need to know that. So we just tell him that I'm saving money to get my own house.

Life isn't supposed to suck like this, home skillet. We lived our lives as law-abiding citizens who paid our taxes and contributed to our communities. So now we should just go oh, well. I lost my job. That's not bad enough. I should lose my home as well. And my dog, of course, since they aren't generally welcome in apartments.

I'm really not following your alleged logic at all.

My logic, is that after a life long of work, as you say, you should have your own safety nets built into place at that point..............and maybe if you didn't know that the State was going to bail you out in the case of losing your job, maybe you would have thought about being more frugal all along.

When do you consider the things that happen in your own life, as being the state's vs. your own responsibility?

Every financial advisor I've ever met says that you should have at leasy 6 months of supplemental income saved in the event of job loss. It sounds like a reasonable "responsibility" to me, no?

 

[Dr.Drock]

As I've posted elsewhere, my 54 y/o sister just spent over a year on UE, for the first time in her life. She worked nonstop from the age of 16, maybe even younger. I just remember her waitressing her way through high school.

If not for the extensions, they likely would have lost their home.

I'm certain the taxes some people paid for that unemployment helped cause them to lose their homes.



Not blaming her specifically, but the system.

 

[Moonglow]

My mother in law (83 years old)lost all of her retirement when the stocks crashed in 2008. Those saftey nets can be lost on other circumstances other than ur own deeds.

 

[Wiseacre]

Used to be people would sacrifice for their children, now we sacrifice our children's futures for ourselves. How sad is that?

IMHO, the safety net we provide for the needy cannot exceed what we can afford to pay for today.

 

[G.T.]

I would prefer that there were jobs for all, but that is not the case. Yes there are dead beats, allways have been, allways will be.
Like many people I have met that work for social services have a slogan, "get through te greed to meet the need". The are aware of moochers and dead beats but they try to focus on those in real need.
I really have a problem with illegals getting aid.

I don't disagree with social safety nets at all, I disagree with the qualifications to become on one, their length, their amounts, etc.

the how long should they be for? the amounts?

The amounts for, say, food stamps?

First, I'd establish that they can only buy certain products. The products would be based on a minumum need, to SURVIVE, and that's IT. If you have 5 kids, you get MINIMUM food to survive, per week, for all five. Then, when your belly is growling, yet you're surviving, your natural survival instinct to "pick up and do" will automatically be forced to kick in. For those who aren't systemic abusers, they are already doing-so. Unfortunately, from what I see in my day to day, the shopping cart of someone who's supposed to be poor and barely getting by looks.............well, it looks as good as if not better than mine. That's not a problem? How about Debit cards? Beer and cigs with Food stamp money? it's Stupid.

 

[BDBoop]

So does unemployment, imo.

It's a tough life when your sister is going to lose her home, but what's a home vs. an apartment but a status picture and a sign of your own financial stability? What's wrong with her life actually REFLECTING that she lost her job? Having to sell thing/ her home, and building herself back up?

Is she starving like an african child? Lacking an education for a future job? Built no real savings at age 54? Honest, not smug, questions.

Honest not smug? Okay. Are you fucking kidding me?? She worked her whole life. She's working again now. So the fact that nobody would hire her over the course of 14-15 months means she should fall through the cracks. Right? How old are you? Would you want that for your parents??

I'm living in someone else's home. I have a room with a family. Sometimes, their son asks me why I'm not in my own house, and when I will be. Well, I'm here because his parents are in the same shoes I am - but he doesn't need to know that. So we just tell him that I'm saving money to get my own house.

Life isn't supposed to suck like this, home skillet. We lived our lives as law-abiding citizens who paid our taxes and contributed to our communities. So now we should just go oh, well. I lost my job. That's not bad enough. I should lose my home as well. And my dog, of course, since they aren't generally welcome in apartments.

I'm really not following your alleged logic at all.

My logic, is that after a life long of work, as you say, you should have your own safety nets built into place at that point..............and maybe if you didn't know that the State was going to bail you out in the case of losing your job, maybe you would have thought about being more frugal all along.

When do you consider the things that happen in your own life, as being the state's vs. your own responsibility?

Every financial advisor I've ever met says that you should have at leasy 6 months of supplemental income saved in the event of job loss. It sounds like a reasonable "responsibility" to me, no?

Okay. So, Over ten years from retirement, you thought she should start living on her retirement income. Is that what you're saying? So she'd have nothing left when she got there?

 

[G.T.]

My mother in law (83 years old)lost all of her retirement when the stocks crashed in 2008. Those saftey nets can be lost on other circumstances other than ur own deeds.

Why was she gambling with that necessity money, though? Cuz everyone else does it?

 

[G.T.]

Honest not smug? Okay. Are you fucking kidding me?? She worked her whole life. She's working again now. So the fact that nobody would hire her over the course of 14-15 months means she should fall through the cracks. Right? How old are you? Would you want that for your parents??

I'm living in someone else's home. I have a room with a family. Sometimes, their son asks me why I'm not in my own house, and when I will be. Well, I'm here because his parents are in the same shoes I am - but he doesn't need to know that. So we just tell him that I'm saving money to get my own house.

Life isn't supposed to suck like this, home skillet. We lived our lives as law-abiding citizens who paid our taxes and contributed to our communities. So now we should just go oh, well. I lost my job. That's not bad enough. I should lose my home as well. And my dog, of course, since they aren't generally welcome in apartments.

I'm really not following your alleged logic at all.

My logic, is that after a life long of work, as you say, you should have your own safety nets built into place at that point..............and maybe if you didn't know that the State was going to bail you out in the case of losing your job, maybe you would have thought about being more frugal all along.

When do you consider the things that happen in your own life, as being the state's vs. your own responsibility?

Every financial advisor I've ever met says that you should have at leasy 6 months of supplemental income saved in the event of job loss. It sounds like a reasonable "responsibility" to me, no?

Okay. So, Over ten years from retirement, you thought she should start living on her retirement income. Is that what you're saying? So she'd have nothing left when she got there?

No, I'm saying she should have an emergency fund, aside from her retirement money, in the event of unemployment. 6 months minimal, is what I hear. I don't know a reason why I should stop paying into my own emergency account, other than "someone will back me up." Ya know?

Don't be so defensive. I want to take this conversation to its ends.

 

[Dr.House]

My mother in law (83 years old)lost all of her retirement when the stocks crashed in 2008. Those saftey nets can be lost on other circumstances other than ur own deeds.

Your MIL, at her age, should have had her retirement in something much less risky than stocks... Stocks are not a "safety net"...

 

[BDBoop]

Oh! Okay. Now I get it. You want to pretend real people, real lives aren't involved and talk about it like you're playing Risk. Carry on. I'll bow out. You have fun.

 

[G.T.]

Oh! Okay. Now I get it. You want to pretend real people, real lives aren't involved and talk about it like you're playing Risk. Carry on. I'll bow out. You have fun.

That's weak, imo.

Just tell me why you don't find it reasonable to have an emergency fund established for yourself? It's just a question, no need to be afraid of it.

If your position was concluded through logic, than having this discussion and questioning each other's thought processes should be fun and as a matter of fact enlightening. I'm not here to ad-hom people or demean their intelligence, yet by simply asking some basic, imo logical questions, you're curling into a defensive ball.


When they say you should have an emergency fund for yourself, it's not fake - it's a very real piece of common-sense advice.

 

[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.

 

[G.T.]

To be quite honest, I expected conservatives to come in here with their smug, intelligence demeaning rhetoric as to what THEY think, a lefty thinks.

I didn't know that I was being offensive

 

[Moonglow]

As I've posted elsewhere, my 54 y/o sister just spent over a year on UE, for the first time in her life. She worked nonstop from the age of 16, maybe even younger. I just remember her waitressing her way through high school.

If not for the extensions, they likely would have lost their home.

I'm certain the taxes some people paid for that unemployment helped cause them to lose their homes.



Not blaming her specifically, but the system.

Taxes for unemployment are paid for by the employer.