Honest discussion: Questions for the left

[Moonglow]

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.

Beer and cigs are not allowed with food stamps, neither is prepared hot food items.

 

[Moonglow]

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.

mine was wiped out in the last recession.

 

[BDBoop]

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

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.

 

[G.T.]

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.

Beer and cigs are not allowed with food stamps, neither is prepared hot food items.

But there's debit cards that are usable at ATM machines.

And even so, if they really got down on that sort of abuse, I'd still want to see even LESS food available for purchase for the poor. Not to hurt them, but to help them. I'd want them nourished but left slightly hungry. Just enough to survive on. Why? Because I know what that would light, up under my ass.

 

[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.

mine was wiped out in the last recession.

Your emergency fund was sitting in the stock market?

 

[BDBoop]

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.

 

[Wry Catcher]

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.

Should state aid be cut off from a poor family?
In my career we knew "Million Dollar Families"; these were families with multi-generational problems each receiving county/state/federal aid. There is no simple answer to your question, do we allow children of such families to suffer, grow up and produce new Million Dollar Family members or do we cut them off?

If we cut them off they will find a means to survive, and that way is not usually to become law abiding citizens. What is the cost to the community of an increase in crime, greater than providing services? On a purley cost-benefit basis it might make sense to cut them off and pass the problem on to other generations. Of course if you're the vicitm, or you spouse or child of crime, you might feel differently.

There are no simple solutions.

In re #2

Unemployment is paid to those who formerly held jobs and lost them through no fault of their own. CETA, the Comprehensive Employment and Training Act, passed during the Nixon-Ford era was a method to assist workers who were unemployed for long periods to recieve training on the job in the public and private sectors subsidized by the Federal Government. They worked and got paid, much more productive than simply receiving a Gov't check

#3

The big idea has yet to be discovered. Smaller ideas work for some but not all, there will always be a chronic, unemployed and unemplyable class not receptive to any effort which requires them to participate.

 

[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.

Taxes for unemployment are paid for by the employer.

and Employers are home owners............................

 

[Moonglow]

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.

and Employers are home owners............................

not if they live in rented apartments

 

[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.

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

it was a state retirement system.

 

[Dr.Drock]

Taxes for unemployment are paid for by the employer.

and Employers are home owners............................

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.

 

[CrusaderFrank]

Looking forward to similar, fair and tough questions for the right.

Thread of the Day -- at least!

 

[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

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.

 

[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.

 

[Moonglow]

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

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.

 

[G.T.]

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.

Should state aid be cut off from a poor family?
In my career we knew "Million Dollar Families"; these were families with multi-generational problems each receiving county/state/federal aid. There is no simple answer to your question, do we allow children of such families to suffer, grow up and produce new Million Dollar Family members or do we cut them off?

If we cut them off they will find a means to survive, and that way is not usually to become law abiding citizens. What is the cost to the community of an increase in crime, greater than providing services? On a purley cost-benefit basis it might make sense to cut them off and pass the problem on to other generations. Of course if you're the vicitm, or you spouse or child of crime, you might feel differently.

There are no simple solutions.

In re #2

Unemployment is paid to those who formerly held jobs and lost them through no fault of their own. CETA, the Comprehensive Employment and Training Act, passed during the Nixon-Ford era was a method to assist workers who were unemployed for long periods to recieve training on the job in the public and private sectors subsidized by the Federal Government. They worked and got paid, much more productive than simply receiving a Gov't check

#3

The big idea has yet to be discovered. Smaller ideas work for some but not all, there will always be a chronic, unemployed and unemplyable class not receptive to any effort which requires them to participate.

Good post, as always

 

[Moonglow]

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.

 

[Moonglow]

and Employers are home owners............................

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.

 

[G.T.]

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.

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

 

[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.

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

again u assume what u don't know.