Modern Poverty Includes A.C. and an Xbox

reply to post by DZAG Wright


And perhaps you missed the thread a few pages back where I explained how it works in reality. The work requirement only applies to folks whom are deemed "ready and able to work" and that designation is the sole discretion of the social worker. There are no federal guidlines. Once the person is designated ready for work they need to do some things to continue to get their assistance. They need to go to a job bank, go back to school or be assigned some part time employment. At any time, the person can manufacture a reason and be taken off the "ready to work" list and the clock stops and they can collect while doing nothing. At some point they will need to go on, but can then go off again. The Clinton welfare reform act was effective in that about 2/3 of the folks came off assistance, but 1/3 of them are still on it, most of them legitimately able bodied.

reply to post by dolphinfan


That has happened anyway -- in a time of unprecedented deregulation (the last 30 years), thanks -- in part -- to the policy of "free-trade," which is lopsided in favor of stateless corporations, against the workers of the United States.

In fact -- the last 3 years is proof that the mechanism you describe no longer works: The "rich" (those with capital to invest) have opted out of investing in new business here in the first world, and have in fact already abandoned their roles as financiers in a time of significant profit and dividends on Wall Street.

Consolidation of existing resources has become the new investment strategy. That's why we have seen only "jobless recoveries' over the last decade.

reply to post by 0zzymand0s


You are correct, partially. It all falls on the shoulders of the elected officials who passed things like NAFTA. If you open up an opportunity for a business to increase it's profits, they will take advantage of it, as they should. If you are going to blame, then blame the right ones. Don't villainize the ones who simply used what was given to them.

Now I don't agree with them doing it. I think it's a shame to exploit people in another country for monetary gain. And to that extent it is also the fault of the hosting country for allowing it to happen to their citizens. Government officials on both sides are complicit in this whole debacle. It's amazing how we survived, rich or poor, prior to the great socialist experiment created by the Democratic Party during the 60's. And actually, it all really started with FDR and the WPA. Our society has gone downhill ever since.

Give a man a fish and he will eat a good meal. Teach him how to fish and he will never go hungry.

reply to post by haarvik


It is here that you and I reach our true divide. I blame government, of course, but realize that their votes are bought and paid for by the economic elites who have profited from most from the collapse of financial regulation. In my mind, you interpret the effect as the cause, and I of course see it the other way.

reply to post by 0zzymand0s


You are correct in that as well. I would further submit that in all actuality it is the people's fault for not removing the career politicians from office and electing fresh, younger officials. You keep removing the ones who do harm and eventually you WILL get the right ones in office. We are as complicit in this whole damn mess as anyone else. If you failed to vote, you are more to blame. So in essence we have shot ourselves in the foot. The masses have eaten up what they know we want to hear, they play on our fears and we cheer them on. All the while we are undermining ourselves. We then have the audacity to criticize and blame THEM for the mess when in fact we gave them the power to do it. Stop listening to what they say, and start reading about what they have done. It will show you who they truly are.

reply to post by 0zzymand0s


I don't agree with you. The VC industry is as busy as ever and there are 100s of firms that are getting angel, second and third round financing all across the country. If anything, since the advent of Facebook where more money was made quicker than at anytime in history, they are overly aggressive seeking out firms. The amount of money a private equity firm can make with a relatively small investment is huge and there are folks out there looking to make that money. Of course I'm talking primarily about internet, new media, bio and medical device businesses because thats where the VC cash is going.

As it relates to other businesses, you are right, massive consolidation is underway. It had to happen and had nothing to do with bankers. Folks want to buy on-line so retailers are taking a hit. Poorly run retailers are going out of business. Much of this retail was absolute nonsense. In my community in one small open air mall there is a PetCo and a PetSmart and there is a PetCare a block away. Do we really need three big box pet shops within a 1/4 mile of each other? That whole business was absolutely stupid.

The regulatory burden in the US is another significant factor keeping folks from starting businesess here. The London Stock Exchange is the largest listing exchange in the world. That would have been unthinkable just 20 years ago. Why? Because you would be an absolute fool to take your firm public in the US. For a small firm, especially a firm that is knowledge based you would be an absolute idiot to incorporate in the US

Originally posted by dolphinfan
reply to post by DZAG Wright

 

And perhaps you missed the thread a few pages back where I explained how it works in reality. The work requirement only applies to folks whom are deemed "ready and able to work" and that designation is the sole discretion of the social worker. There are no federal guidlines. Once the person is designated ready for work they need to do some things to continue to get their assistance. They need to go to a job bank, go back to school or be assigned some part time employment. At any time, the person can manufacture a reason and be taken off the "ready to work" list and the clock stops and they can collect while doing nothing. At some point they will need to go on, but can then go off again. The Clinton welfare reform act was effective in that about 2/3 of the folks came off assistance, but 1/3 of them are still on it, most of them legitimately able bodied.

Ummm no, you're wrong, and remember this is my 9 to 5. EVERYONE who receives cash assistance is ready and able to work, even if they aren't. There are individuals of course who have temporary conditions for which we will place them in a medical deferred status, for which they must provide medical documentation every 3-6 months. Even when a person is in medical deferral status, their clock is still ticking. There is a 48 month limit to receiving TCA, after it's up, then it's up. Gone are the days of the welfare queen sitting on welfare raising 7 kids.

"No federal guidelines"...are you kidding me? It's because of federal guidelines that the system has been cleaned up! Every State must submit to the Feds, I believe every 3 years, the plan of how they will police welfare recepients. It isn't a easy process, my organization had to submit 3 plans before one was accepted. The Fed even cleaned up the "job search" loophole many States were using by putting a cap on the number of weeks we can have a customer in job search activity for 6 weeks maximum per year.

If anything, I feel sorry for individuals on TCA. I've only met 1 or 2 that didn't want more. There's so little money given, that in this materialistic world, they can't make it. What can a welfare queen with 2 children do with $200 per month? Even if they are living rent free (though once HUD or Section 8 learn they are receiving assistance will charge them some rent) they still have to pay electric, gas, buy school supplies, pay for field trips, transportation, etc. They are far from living it up.

I can go to my lobby and look at our customers and ALL of them will break their necks if I tell them I have a job for them. The math is really quite simple....why would someone settle for $200 per month when even a minimum wage job, part-time will give them at least $600 per month?

It simply isn't feasible for someone to only aspire to be on welfare forever anymore. Kids want and require too many things now. And the customers despise having to do 30 hours per week of community service for $200 per month.

***Though on a side note, our numbers would be cut in half if childcare assistance was easier. Most of our customers don't want the cash, they can hustle $200 per month up themselves, they want the childcare assistance which is attached to our program***

reply to post by dolphinfan


Looks like *I* have some reading to do. Thanks!

Originally posted by apacheman
reply to post by macman

 

My hatred for the military?

roflmfao...

I served seven years, mostly in the Far East, to the point where I consider any day no one's shooting at me a good one, no matter what else is involved.

I respect and honor the military in a way you obviously don't.

I understood that I was fighting to defend every American, rich or poor, lazy or hard-working, whether I liked them or not, because they were (and are) my fellow citizens.

Your kind of military is exemplified by an incident in an NCO club when my hippie brother came to visit me once.

A set of senior NCOs started making rude comments about his hair and such loud enough to make their disapproval of him known to all in earshot. After a few minutes of enduring escalating verbal abuse, I got up and addressed the senior NCO, asking him to verify for me that the point of why we were fighting was so Americans had the freedom to choose their own way of life. After a moment's silence he acknowledged the wrongness of the behavior and apologized. Had I not called him on it, they would have felt smugly justified in it though.

Are you an actual combat veteran?

If not, don't presume on rights, privileges and honors you haven't earned: you disgrace yourself and dishonor betters.

As a recipient of tax dollars taken from folks who really don't want to support the military, you have zero room to talk about your hard-earned money going for welfare. Your hard-earned money was hard-earned by others before you got it.

When I served, I understood and appreciated that fact.

You are too funny. Nice story by the way. Very high brow.

Again, you fail to show me where being in the Military some home means that I need to just skip and be happy with the fact that my tax money goes to people who are on welfare. You can't correlate the 2, because it does not add up.
The 'brotherhood' of the Military does not transfer to my being financially obligated or responsible for others. In fact, if you learned in the Military to suckle the tit of others for money, you lost what was taught or twisted it into something it is not.

My combat status is mine to carry and frankly none of your business.
Again, I worked for my paycheck while serving. Not sitting on my butt crying woes me, Daddy Govt gotta help me.

Originally posted by apacheman
reply to post by neo96

 

You're blind then, for it is only the poor and middle class who create wealth by making stuff, buying stuff, and using stuff.

The rich only create poverty.

Mostly they just take what they haven't earned from those too weak to prevent it.

The rich are the ones who run the government and decide governmental policies. It is their government, not ours.

edit on 21-7-2011 by apacheman because: (no reason given)

How are they supposed to make and buy if the rich don't have a business to operate, so they can make and buy.

Your lost.

Originally posted by onebullet

Originally posted by macman

Originally posted by Janky Red

Originally posted by macman

Again, blah blah blah.

Take care of yourself, I will take care of me, and then there is no need for you to take care of me. Easy.

The 'cost' is not to be shared, but owned by the individual.

Again, more worried about your neighbors yard, while yours goes to hell.

So why are you here???

You didn't even read my post or you would not have come back with this response.

Maybe you should find a pirate and sit upon his shoulder.

I am not talking about you or me, got it???

If all the yards in your neighborhood go to hell, your entire property will be worth less, considerably,
you will pay for it. Throw in some hobos, hookers tents, human poop, trash, drugs, crime and incarceration...
you get taxed on top of your taxes.

You know how much one prisioner costs? Did you know they get food and shelter too, for doing bad?

Who pays for that?

You make everything very intricate and detailed, so others may not be able to respond. It is a way of controlling the argument.
If the neighborhood goes to hell, I can move.
Now you throw in prison costs.
Can you stay on one topic, or is engrained to try to overwhelm those that you argue with?

If the neighorhood goes to hell, have fun selling your house. Hopefully your new community will have a job... of course they probably just laid off a couple hundred public employees diluting the labor pool and starving the economy of capital. To some of us "very intricate and detailed" is a way to communicate real world problems that translate into "your problem". To some intricate and detailed is too much to deal with, which is why those people tend to listen to Fox, repeat bumper sticker slogans, and come up with gems like keep your government hands off my Medicare. Society IS detailed and intricate. We've been working on it for thousands of years and haven't even come close. Your "screw you" ideology is the foundation for a system that keeps two thirds or more of the world in poverty, why a taxpayer funded military industrial machine wages war all over the world, dropping bombs on innocent people and installing dictators to secure oil for private corporations, to launder your money into the pockets of defense contractors and force your government to borrow do to it while wall street gives themselves record salaries and bonuses and you foot the bill. These are the people who have perfected the "screw you" ideology. Sorry if that's too intricate and detailed, but that's the real world. You can ignore facts and pretend it's all rainbows and lolipops. You can consume yourself with every second poor person having an Xbox, but trillions are being syphoned into the pockets of people who take "screw you" to sociopathic levels.

Ah, and the Rep/Conservative/Fox News bashing. What a surprise. Seems to be that most chant "Yes we can" more so then anything else.
If the neighborhood goes to hell, it is my responsibility to read the writing on the wall and get out, sell my house at a loss if i choose to move, stay and help clean it help or any other decision I make. Not yours.
I do not depend on Daddy Govt to come in and buy my house, cover my loss or anything else. I choose to live there. I choose to purchase or rent. MY CHOICE, not yours.

When an argument is proceeding, the best way to throw off your opponent is to either complicate matters so they can't retort or control the definitions. Sol Alinsky taught this.

It has nothing to do with "screw you". That is where you , and most liberals take to this because you don't understand the stance or just don't like it.
Very basic. I don't care what you do, so long as it does not affect me negatively.
I don't bother my neighbor, and my neighbor does not bother me.

Originally posted by silent thunder
The true measure of wealth or poverty isn't in whether you happen to have this trinket or that, and it certainly has nothing to do with items like TVs.

True wealth is a form of freedom and where it really manifests itself is in terms of time rather than things. How much time could you go on your savings/liquid assets if you lost your income? It doesn't matter how big your house or how many plasma screens you have if its all highly levereged debt you can't afford and you end up foreclosed a month after losing your job. That's one, very real and immediate way of understanding why true wealth needs to be looked at in terms of time. If you are living paycheck to paycheck you are much more manipulatable than a man who is able to draw on a year's worth of savings. The former man has little leeway to change things around him and is basically at the mercy of his employer. The latter man can walk away more easily, and thus there is less of a hold over him.

Time is the one asset that cannot be replaced. When today is gone, its gone and you can't get it back. When your muscles are slack and your hair is grey you will enjoy that sports-car a lot less than you thought you would at age 20. Mortality and time's arrow of entropy invest our limited time on this planet with much more value than is apparent. TPTB want you to forget this. They want you to chase things instead of learning how to manage your time.

Yep.
When I have my paycheck siphoned to pay for my neighbor, we both loose freedom.
I loose freedom in choice of who and how to help people.
My neighbor looses freedom because now they are at the whim of the Govt and rely on it to live.

Originally posted by nosacrificenofreedom
reply to post by macman

 

You Obviously never heard of the quote "No man is an Island" it means that none of us is truely independent! If you were really a military man you would know that every soldier depends on each other for his life. So my question to you is why do you think civilian life to be any different?

After all the definition for Civilian is ; A person following the pursuits of civil life, especially one who is not an active member of the military or the police.

Civil life meaning more so then the members of the military. Oh and buy they way if you were or are active military
then I don't support murdering woman and children in nations that have nothing to do with the people of the US.
The costs to the tax payers is far greater then any entitelment programs so it is people like you that are the greatest drain on the tax payers. Oh and I realize you will never respond to this argument because every word of it is right on the money!

The same BS over and over.
The brotherhood idea and mentality in the Military does not transfer to being financially obligated or responsible to others.
There is no regulation in the service that says I must help and pick up my military brother/sister. We do it because we choose to. Very easy to understand.

I choose to help people my way. That is what I want. Allowing the corrupt, inept and every growing Govt to do so is what I do not want.

All these attacks towards me is based on the assumed and incorrect premise that I don't help my fellow man.
That is the basic flaw again by most liberals.
I am for the individual helping. But not the Govt taking and giving.

For those of you who like to blame people for the mess we are in, how about looking at your industrious leader. Him and ACORN started the mess, and here is the proof:

Obama Sued Citibank

So, you leftist elected a man, known to have promoted bad and risky mortgages and are now upset at the rich who had absolutely nothing to do with it. People in glass houses shouldn't throw stones!

It looks like my "street level view" is again, largely correct:

Looking ahead, Barnes sees cause for concern. Companies have curbed growth in capital investment, and their gains from "aggressive labor shedding" can't be repeated. With continued limited pricing power, non-financial Ebitd margins are likely to be under pressure, but a severe squeeze won't happen until the next recession, which he says a couple of years away.

Yes -- there is some capital investment, but the ratio of financial sector profits versus capital (job creating) investment is more skewed then ever before.

Source: online.barrons.com...

Originally posted by haarvik
reply to post by 0zzymand0s

 

You are correct, partially. It all falls on the shoulders of the elected officials who passed things like NAFTA. If you open up an opportunity for a business to increase it's profits, they will take advantage of it, as they should. If you are going to blame, then blame the right ones. Don't villainize the ones who simply used what was given to them.

Now I don't agree with them doing it. I think it's a shame to exploit people in another country for monetary gain. And to that extent it is also the fault of the hosting country for allowing it to happen to their citizens. Government officials on both sides are complicit in this whole debacle. It's amazing how we survived, rich or poor, prior to the great socialist experiment created by the Democratic Party during the 60's. And actually, it all really started with FDR and the WPA. Our society has gone downhill ever since.

Give a man a fish and he will eat a good meal. Teach him how to fish and he will never go hungry.

I agree with the second paragraph but " It all falls on the shoulders of the elected officials who passed things like NAFTA" ! it actually falls on the shoulders of the masses to change things, to show disapproval and to rebel if it's not done cause if we keep going down the road of oversized Government, Lobbying by businesses, cuts to SSi, schooling, infastructure and pulling the rug out from the majority to please the minority of aristocracy we will have a revolution!

Are you so nieve to think that this legislation was just passed for the hell of it or cause the american people wanted to lose their jobs. NAFTA and GATT were passed because of lobbying pressures from big businesses
who wanted to increase their profit margins. If you think that anything gets done in DC because of the will of the elected then you have no real clue as to how our debaclecy works! Politicians are mere puppets for the top .1%
of America! anything to the contrary is merely staged rhetoric to pacify the ignorant masses!

Originally posted by macman
My neighbor looses freedom because now they are at the whim of the Govt and rely on it to live.

Here is where your argument becomes an exaggeration

You make it sound as if everyone will be assisted for perpetuity, that people like being dependent.

I don't think that is the common case, abusers of the system exist, but you are distorting the
entire concept and intent of welfare.

I mea,n when the government fed you, housed you, gave medical care and potential grant for college
you were 'at the whim of the Govt and rely on it to live', are still at their whim? Did you survive?

Were you free to break free? did you?


My point is, you are bad mouthing something that you benefited from and ascribing attributes that probably
didn't apply to you or the majority of people.

reply to post by macman


So no combat experience.

Fine.

Pencil pushers still serve. Paperwork does help protect the country.

But you still get paid by the taxpayers.

The military doesn't create wealth, it uses it.

You say you served. My bet is you were a sunshine soldier who was in it strictly for the bennies, and stayed just long enough to qualify for the freebies. Chances are you use the military on your resume. Were you an officer perhaps? Your attitudes mirror the ones I knew who passed through combat zones just long enough to get their ticket punched for political purposes, but avoided combat like the plague, and didn't know what "service" actually meant, even though they were surrounded by it.

You served all right, but only yourself, not your country.

Guys with attitudes like yours seldom survived much combat because they were recognized as liabilities to the team, and the quicker they got themselves killed the safer the team was.

The money military people get is purely tax money, a lot of it taken from people who detest the military and would do without it if they could. So you are in the same camp with those folks I suppose...they don't want their hard-earned money wasted on people who use it to buy booze, cigarettes, and fancy electronics at steep taxpayer-supported discounts in the PX.

Me, I don't begrudge the military their privileges and perks. But then neither do I begrudge welfare for those who need it, they earned it while working most of their lives, while paying the taxes that provided your pay and bennies.

reply to post by haarvik


No, Reagan and his criminal cronies (go look up how many members of his cabinet were indicted and convicted of various crimes) started this mess with the voodoo economics of the Laffer Curve and trickle down nonsense.

Even Bush Sr. knew it was BS, he was the one who correctly id'd it as voodoo economics before he was bought off.

Originally posted by haarvik
For those of you who like to blame people for the mess we are in, how about looking at your industrious leader. Him and ACORN started the mess, and here is the proof:

Obama Sued Citibank

So, you leftist elected a man, known to have promoted bad and risky mortgages and are now upset at the rich who had absolutely nothing to do with it. People in glass houses shouldn't throw stones!

Strawman!!!

This mess was initiated by deregulatory legislation penned by free market conservatives which decimated
Regulatory framework which prevented institutional fraud.

You love the banks and bankers?