Basically, the less privileged people in America, require assistance from our Government. We live in a Capitalist society, and we will always reckon with a class struggle. Since that is reality, we must create programs for the lower classes. If we want our Government to succeed our people need to be educated, and or out of poverty. The only way to do this is if we give special help to the less fortunate. Otherwise the gap between the classes will widen.

I don’t want them to be dependent on the Government for their lives. I want to give them a head start to improve their lifestyles, and it will in all, make a better, safer and more educated America. If I have to pay higher taxes to make more American’s escape poverty, and gain education, I’ll gladly foot the bill. It will only do our country a service in the end.

Some people (liberals) can go too far with this idea. Giving them help for their lives…which is wrong. If they receive help, and abuse the system, they automatically get banned from it. But just because a few, abuse the system, does not mean we should get rid of the entire system as a whole.

It’s not our choice who our parents are, or what kind of area we grow up in. If the number one priority of your night is to find dinner, because your parents have to work 4 jobs, and never have enough money to buy food, do you think they are going to spend time studying for their SAT’s or the test they have the next day? I highly doubt it. And since our Government has this glitch, it’s their reasonability to help out the less privileged and give them a head start in our society. Otherwise our government will slowly decay.

Originally posted by Overdose
Basically, the less privileged people in America, require assistance from our Government. We live in a Capitalist society, and we will always reckon with a class struggle. Since that is reality, we must create programs for the lower classes. If we want our Government to succeed our people need to be educated, and or out of poverty. The only way to do this is if we give special help to the less fortunate. Otherwise the gap between the classes will widen.

I don’t want them to be dependent on the Government for their lives. I want to give them a head start to improve their lifestyles, and it will in all, make a better, safer and more educated America. If I have to pay higher taxes to make more American’s escape poverty, and gain education, I’ll gladly foot the bill. It will only do our country a service in the end.

Some people (liberals) can go too far with this idea. Giving them help for their lives…which is wrong. If they receive help, and abuse the system, they automatically get banned from it. But just because a few, abuse the system, does not mean we should get rid of the entire system as a whole.

It’s not our choice who our parents are, or what kind of area we grow up in. If the number one priority of your night is to find dinner, because your parents have to work 4 jobs, and never have enough money to buy food, do you think they are going to spend time studying for their SAT’s or the test they have the next day? I highly doubt it. And since our Government has this glitch, it’s their reasonability to help out the less privileged and give them a head start in our society. Otherwise our government will slowly decay.

i think we should help, but to an extent. many of the lower class people dont have ambitions and therefore i feel they somewhat put it on themselves. some o fthem come from tough backgrounds and deserve help from the government

Originally posted by no moore please
i think we should help, but to an extent. many of the lower class people dont have ambitions and therefore i feel they somewhat put it on themselves. some o fthem come from tough backgrounds and deserve help from the government


I almost agreed with that.

I think that everyone deserves help. There are probably more middle to upper class people with absolutely NO ambition whatsoever. I believe that there needs to be a certain limit of help given to any class of people.

I've seen many people immigrate to our country, have full time jobs that pay them plenty for everything they need and yet they still receive benefits. We're talking W.I.C., medicaid, food stamps AND social security on top of everything else. Don't get me wrong, I'm not even slightly racist but I don't think that is right in ANY way.

So yes, it definately needs to have boundaries.

It’s not our choice who our parents are, or what kind of area we grow up in. If the number one priority of your night is to find dinner, because your parents have to work 4 jobs, and never have enough money to buy food, do you think they are going to spend time studying for their SAT’s or the test they have the next day? I highly doubt it. And since our Government has this glitch, it’s their reasonability to help out the less privileged and give them a head start in our society.

If you really mean this crap, why don't you talk about helping the whole world? Or does seeing poor people in your neck of the woods bother you, and you want to tax everyone so that you don't have to look at them?

Originally posted by Karankawa
If you really mean this crap
I do mean this crap. In our society we force parents to work 3 full time jobs, and still not have enough money for food. When that is the reality of our system, we must make programs to help out the less fortunate. Otherwise the gap between the classes will widen, and we will be full of uneducated people living in poverty.

It’s not as bad as your making it out to be. I’m not saying we should give them money for their lives, or help their whole life, but giving them a jump-start in our society is needed. If they abuse the programs, they immediately get taken off of them. It’s not a “free ride”.

Originally posted by Karankawa
Why don't you talk about helping the whole world?
We should put our civilians ahead of the world civilians. So that comment was not needed.

Originally posted by Karankawa
Or does seeing poor people in your neck of the woods bother you, and you want to tax everyone so that you don't have to look at them?
Don’t you agree that getting people off the streets and educating them will only better America as a society? It will only do our country the greater good in the end.

Don’t you agree that getting people off the streets and educating them will only better America as a society? It will only do our country the greater good in the end.
Don't give that to American Capitalists. They have hearts of black diamonds, IQ's of a very very stupid rock, egos bigger than the universe, arrogance that spans space-time itself. They are the super-dumb. Almost as bad as Superman.

If you really mean this crap, why don't you talk about helping the whole world? Or does seeing poor people in your neck of the woods bother you, and you want to tax everyone so that you don't have to look at them?
Heard of think global, act local?

"I believe that the proper function of government is to do for the people those things that have to be done but cannot be done, or cannot be done as well by individuals"

Nope. Thats not some liberal propaganda or an excert from the communist manifesto. It's the first line of the Republican Party Oath.

If we have people without healthcare, the government should help provide it. If people are poor, the government should help them up to the middle class while at the same time teaching them to be self relient.

If the government isn't supposed help it's citizens then what is the point of having a government? To tell us not to have gay sex?

I agree with Tab...you need to draw the line somewhere. There are oodles of immigrants in our local hospital that can't even speak english, but yet, they collect the big check and I'm sure that they had government money to start with.

There are immigrants and poor people everywhere (in our area too) that live off welfare (or God knows what). Have 16 kids (because for each kid, they get more in their monthly check). They buy more groceries than I can afford - TV dinners, garbage food, etc. and then I can follow right behind them into the distributor and watch them buy beer, etc. with cash. WTF is up with that? We give them money to eat, give them rent money (some "former" drug head teenagers in my area live in subsidized NICE apartments and pay $12 per month rent and their babies are in custody of their parents!!) The system has a breakdown somewhere.

There are days when I really think that I'd be better of quitting my job, selling my house and going on assistance. No health insurance woes, no medical bills, no grocery bills, no mortgage, no sudden expenses that the county or state can't fix...it certainly doesn't give anyone any incentive to break the cycle.

Welfare breeds welfare in my area.

Originally posted by Idioteque
If we have people without healthcare, the government should help provide it. If people are poor, the government should help them up to the middle class while at the same time teaching them to be self relient.

The government should provide the tools (i.e. schools) that will allow them to pull themselves up to the middle class. But the government shouldn't put them in the middle class. If you're not going to do anything, why should you get a free ride to the middle class?

If you're not going to do anything, why should you get a free ride to the middle class?

GOOD ONE LIONEL! So TRUE!

Originally posted by LionelHutz
The government should provide the tools (i.e. schools) that will allow them to pull themselves up to the middle class.

Yes, the Government does provide schools to all of its citizens. But that is indeed not enough to get themselves up to middle class. It would be nice to believe that Public schools are “equal” in terms of education, but that just isn’t the case. But that debate is just a difference of opinion and or observation.

The thing that requires the Government to do more then just give education to their citizens, is the fact that family life is different in regards to the classes. If you live in a wealthy, upper class area, with educated parents, they are more prone to doing well in school. While if you go to the inner city, “projects”, and the parents there either unemployed, never got an education and or have to work many full time jobs. Which would incline these children to not doing as well in school. Which would lead them to not doing as well in society.

Do you think that these kids are going to worry about their education, when their parent’s don’t? Do you think they are going to worry about their tests or homework, when most of them don’t even have food on the table? Or when their parents are working full time jobs, all night, and never see them? It’s un-realistic to assume they are going to do as well, as the kids who live in an upper class area.

And since this is the way our society is functioning, we are forced to help the citizens who are less privileged.

The system could work, but it won't until the abusers stop being lazy. Welfare does breed welfare in many places, and for some reason the government doesn't give two sh**s. Why shouldn't the rest of us get pissed when we see some 20 year old guy hanging at the street corner smoking, drinking, and collecting welfare. If they put as much effort into working as they do into screwing the system they would all probably be rich???

a lot of times private charitys, churchs and familys take care of thier own. the government should have a limited role.

Mad Dog -- yee haw! Right on! :woohoo:

In our society we force parents to work 3 full time jobs, and still not have enough money for food.

God, you are so full of it. No one that is willing to work in this country goes without food. And your bullshit theory that people who work starve is just that. Total bullshit.

Originally posted by mad dog
The system could work, but it won't until the abusers stop being lazy. Welfare does breed welfare in many places, and for some reason the government doesn't give two sh**s. Why shouldn't the rest of us get pissed when we see some 20 year old guy hanging at the street corner smoking, drinking, and collecting welfare. If they put as much effort into working as they do into screwing the system they would all probably be rich???

If I’m not correct, the Welfare system is now set up so that you only have a certain amount of time to be on it. Which would imply that the people who abuse the system wouldn’t be able to do so, for long. And it would give the people who actually do use the system enough time to make it to middle class and or improve their lifestyle.

Originally posted by Karankawa
God, you are so full of it. No one that is willing to work in this country goes without food. And your bullshit theory that people who work starve is just that. Total bullshit.

I guess I’ll be using an example from my state of Oregon. Oregon State University did a study and it found that working homes are still going hungry.
http://extension.oregonstate.edu/news/story.php?S_No=91&storyType=news

And a nation-wide link:
Ten Million People, Many Of Them Employed Or have Children, Say They Don't Have Enough To Eat http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/1998/03/980325075451.htm

Which thus concludes, that you can have a job, and work, and still go hungry and or not have enough to eat. And that does promote the use of the Welfare system.

I resent the implication that it’s my job to feed the starving here. I pay my taxes and do my job. If I can’t feed myself, then I’ll address it as a problem, but you better bet I’ll never have my hand out in the process. Is that pride? Probably, but since when was that a bad thing. If more people under the aid of government subsidy felt it, then maybe I wouldn’t be bothered by the likes of bleeding hearts looking for me to pay for things I SHOULDN’T HAVE TO.

Let’s let Darwin be the great scientist he was. If they die, well, then I guess it was just natural selection.

Helping people out is not everyone's obligation. It's a personal choice, and should be handled by private charities. It definitely is not something the government should be handling.

To answer topic, I believe it is right to help people that may not have it so well, but do I think you are obliged to? Do I think everyone should be forced to? No.

EDIT: I would like to take a shot at the goofy links that Overdose supplied as evidence that workers aren't making enough money to eat. Going "hungry" for one day does not support your case. One of your article states that the workers are in the middle of the poverty scale. For crying out loud, there are days when I happen to not have cash on me, and therefore I go hungry. Does that mean that I should have answered yes on that survey, if I had taken it? That I am a fulltime worker that is not making enough money to eat? Come on. Face it man, no one is Oregon is starving, not even the people who won't do a damn thing to help themselves. And by the way, it's usually very evident when someone is not getting enough to eat. Why are they surveying? Why not just take a picture of them instead? Isn't that what they do in the starving nations? You don't need a survey for starvation!

Helping people out is not everyone's obligation. It's a personal choice, and should be handled by private charities. It definitely is not something the government should be handling.

Excellent observation. I fully agree, and this ties in beautifully to how I feel about donating money to charities.

I would like to take a shot at the goofy links that Overdose supplied as evidence that workers aren't making enough money to eat. Going "hungry" for one day does not support your case.

Too funny, I thought the exact same thing. Did you happen to notice that out of the 50,000 people polled, only 750 of them were from Oregon? If 50,000 people are supposed to be a good indicator of what the hunger conditions are for 280,000,000 people in this country, then I guess the same could be said for the 750 people polled in Oregon in regards to their total population. Last I checked...3 out of 4 people polled doesn't accurately represent 75% of the total population. Let’s be honest, it doesn’t even come close…

280,000,000 people is devisable by 50,000 ONLY 5,600 times. With regards to that survey, 1 person is responsible for representing the situation of 5,600 others. Yeah, good piece of evidence for me to base my facts on.

Originally posted by The Praetorian
Excellent observation. I fully agree, and this ties in beautifully to how I feel about donating money to charities.



Too funny, I thought the exact same thing. Did you happen to notice that out of the 50,000 people polled, only 750 of them were from Oregon? If 50,000 people are supposed to be a good indicator of what the hunger conditions are for 280,000,000 people in this country, then I guess the same could be said for the 750 people polled in Oregon in regards to their total population. Last I checked...3 out of 4 people polled doesn't accurately represent 75% of the total population. Let’s be honest, it doesn’t even come close…

280,000,000 people is devisable by 50,000 ONLY 5,600 times. With regards to that survey, 1 person is responsible for representing the situation of 5,600 others. Yeah, good piece of evidence for me to base my facts on.

wow. saaying the government shouldnt help people out sounds really evil. the government's duty is to make sure that evreyone in their country is doing well and are ok. so you dont want to want to help people who have disabilities or are sick? that is kind of messed up

I agree with no moore. It is important to have limits and cuttoffs and to make sure that money is not wasted but to say that the government shouldn't help people is unbelievible. Charities and religious institutions are optional. Paying taxes is not. If you live in the United States, you WILL pay your taxes and your hard earned money WILL go towards helping people that aren't as privliged as you are. I'm sure liberals don't want their money going to the bloated pentagon budget as much as conservatives don't want their money going to welfare but ya know? Thats life.

Originally posted by Idioteque
I agree with no moore. It is important to have limits and cuttoffs and to make sure that money is not wasted but to say that the government shouldn't help people is unbelievible. Charities and religious institutions are optional. Paying taxes is not. If you live in the United States, you WILL pay your taxes and your hard earned money WILL go towards helping people that aren't as privliged as you are. I'm sure liberals don't want their money going to the bloated pentagon budget as much as conservatives don't want their money going to welfare but ya know? Thats life.

back on tsc?

Everyone needs help now and again, but the problem I see is that the people that deserve the most help can't get enough, because people who really DON'T need it leech off the system because it's easier to get a cheque from the government every month than it is to bust their ass.

I quote this from a journal of a perfectly physically capable 20-something American, who answers a comment directed to him:

Comment: "You're not even actually saying without any remorse that you won't work to earn your life, but you're saying so with a sense of pride that's really a shame to hear. I don't care for paying the outrageous kind of money I pay to the government so people who really need it benefit from it, and as you make it sound it's your case (well, I guess, I have never suffered from nervosity (sp?) like yours, but I hope you are not doing it just to ''sucks tax dollars''.

Response:

If I could get a job that I could do well, and enjoyed - I'd be all for it. Unfortunately, there aren't exactly a lot of "sit-down" jobs around here. Just factories. The few jobs that I -could- do...won't hire me because I've never done that type of job before. Now, I could go to college and ensure that I could get a decent job - but I'd have to have a job already, and I'd incur debt.

As my family is in the > $17,000 bracket, we're a few bucks above the poverty level, but not enough so that we have any extra money. Add to this the fact that ALL of my fucking tax refund went to paying the ticket that's the cause of my license being suspended - and I don't really feel like I need to "earn" anything in this country.

Seriously. I get (not free) shitty education from K-12. Then I'm expected to get a job that can support me, pay for my car insurance, and also allow me to get through college? $6.50/hour just doesn't quite cut it. I could always just get Mom and Dad to pay for college, but--oh, wait. No. I can't. And even if I want to get my license reinstated...I have to pay $65 that I don't have, and provide insurance that I no longer have. Surprisingly, I had insurance at the time of the ticket. I just hadn't received my new card, and mine had expired.

So here are my choices:

1. Since I can't drive any more, I can walk to Burger King and make $5.35/hour, but that would be too little to live on, and too much to still get free health insurance (translation: even less money than with no job). Also; I can enjoy the throwing up and the nervous twitching. Insurance goes away; no meds.

2. Try to find some way to enter college, incur debt, watch my family incur debt, and enjoy yet more sub-par education care of the TN Department of Education.

3. Keep my free healthcare, and get my prescriptions and doctor's visits taken care of for free. Get around $1,000 a month from the government, and actually live on it. Save money. Move to a place where I can get an actual education without a debt that will take me the next ten years of my life to pay off. HOPEFULLY be healthier since I'll actually have my medication.

...or I could just sit here until I get kicked out. Proud of it? Absolutely.

So I'm in a hole. Do you see any other ways out? There probably are a few, but I can't see any of them. I don't feel that I can get a job and support myself, and so it [government assistance] seems like a good option.

That, and I'm a fucking parasite.
So this person refuses to do any job but a 'sit down' job, has had their driver's liscence revoked, chronically abuses drugs (weed, etc), and is quite content to live off the government's 'assistance', so he can have free health care, free meds, and spend (not save like he alludes to) the remainder of his cash on booze and drugs.

There's a serious flaw in the system when you can get away with the above, but other people who are legitimately trying to support themselves and their families (many whom are disabled in one form or another) are just unable to make ends meet.

Contrary to your belief Kara, there ARE people who work their asses off in your country who are unable to make ends meet. But a part of the problem is that the money hard working people rightly deserve is sapped by government-fund sapping leeches like the person above.

Its a double edged blade... help legitimately 'needy' people, and you'll end up helping people who find a way to qualify as 'needy', but aren't. Don't help them, and a lot of good, hardworking people who are victims of circumstance fall through the cracks.

Originally posted by no moore please
back on tsc?

Yeah. Mason has been hanging out there lately too. They have been having a problem with DoS attacks and stuff so I felt I should help out a bit.

Originally posted by Idioteque
Yeah. Mason has been hanging out there lately too. They have been having a problem with DoS attacks and stuff so I felt I should help out a bit.

isnt that the sigur ros symbol?

Karankawa,

It is the Government’s job to help out it’s citizens. That is why we have Schools, Jails, Police, and Hospitals. It shouldn’t be any different in terms of Welfare, or helping people with hunger. But it’s worthless to debate that, because it is a fundamental difference in regards to how citizens preserve what the Government should do for it’s citizens. It is was divides liberals and conservatives.

I’ve shown you links that show a clear understanding that you can have a job and go hungry. It shows children are indeed going hungry.
Here is another link, you can laugh at: http://www.ocpp.org/1999/rpt991130.pdf which shows that
400,000 people in Oregon are going hungry.

Originally posted by no moore please
isnt that the sigur ros symbol?

Is what the Sigur Ros symbol?

Originally posted by Idioteque
Is what the Sigur Ros symbol?

what is the avatar from?

It's the crying minotaur, the Amnesiac mascot.

It is the Government’s job to help out it’s citizens.

YAY, let's vote in legislators that will give us all free hand outs. We can raise taxes on the rich until our lives our completely equal, except the poor and middle class won't be doing shit while we all live off corporations.

Whatever.

If you can't make it in America, you can't make it anywhere.

Originally posted by Karankawa
YAY, let's vote in legislators that will give us all free hand outs.

Okay, you only get help, or Welfare for a certain amount of time. So it’s not as if the Government would be giving people help for their entire lives. It will get them a job (most likely), and or enough money to not go hungry.

And if you abuse the system, you get taken off of it. I don’t see what the exact problem is.

Originally posted by Karankawa
We can raise taxes on the rich until our lives our completely equal

They would never get equal. But it will make the gap between the social classes shrink. It will only do our society a favor, if we get everyone to have a job that allows him or her to have food and or adequate living conditions.

Originally posted by Karankawa
except the poor and middle class won't be doing shit while we all live off corporations.

No they will be working in the Job programs, to get a better job and or get money to give them a head start in life. So they will be doing jobs, and or improving their lifestyles.

And the people who do have low income jobs, and or are middle class all pay taxes as well. And they deserve to have help, in return.

Originally posted by Karankawa
If you can't make it in America, you can't make it anywhere.

Actually most civilized countries have universal health care, and better benefits for the people who work. So in some cases, not all, it’s easier to live elsewhere.

Originally posted by Overdose
If I’m not correct, the Welfare system is now set up so that you only have a certain amount of time to be on it. Which would imply that the people who abuse the system wouldn’t be able to do so, for long.

This is not correct I new someone who just kept reapplying and would get help. Nothing wrong with the guy except being a lazy a-hole.

And it would give the people who actually do use the system enough time to make it to middle class and or improve their lifestyle.

Their are those out there that do and will use the system to better themselfs {great}. Their are just as many out there that just keep on abusing, day after day, week after week, year after year{sucks}

Originally posted by mad dog
This is not correct I new someone who just kept reapplying and would get help. Nothing wrong with the guy except being a lazy a-hole.
Then the Government is going too far. But I have examples of people I know, who didn’t get help after they were unemployed once. It happened recently actually.

So, it was either fixed and or the Government needs to do a better job at closing the loopholes.

Originally posted by mad dog
Their are just as many out there that just keep on abusing, day after day, week after week, year after year{sucks}

That’s a valid concern. Which is why the Government, instead of trying to defeat the programs because people abuse them, should close the loopholes.

We should not eliminate the whole idea, just because a few and or many abuse it.

These healthy people that need welfare, why can't we atleast make them clean the side of the road, wash public rest rooms etc...? Why should they get money and sit on their arse? Many folks have children, go to work, and still go to school. Why should a healthy person be allowed to just sit on there arse and collect money?

Originally posted by mad dog
These healthy people that need welfare, why can't we atleast make them clean the side of the road, wash public rest rooms etc...?
Most people, who are healthy, don’t get welfare, but unemployment. Or else they are lying to get Welfare checks. Which thus concludes we need to make it harder to get into Welfare. We need to focus on getting the people who don’t need it off, and the people who do need it on.

People are focusing too much on getting rid of it all together, and that is impossible, unachievable and not right. Focus on stopping the loopholes, and get these assholes off the welfare system.

Originally posted by Overdose
Most people, who are healthy, don’t get welfare, but unemployment.

Unemployment is another thing, I know of alot of healthy people abusing the system. They claim they can't find work, no one will higher them etc... The funny thing is they don't try.

Or else they are lying to get Welfare checks.

True, there are also those who are breed into the system never ending cycle.

Which thus concludes we need to make it harder to get into Welfare. We need to focus on getting the people who don’t need it off, and the people who do need it on.

Who sets the rules, which people shouldn't or should be on it, and how long should they have?

People are focusing too much on getting rid of it all together, and that is impossible, unachievable and not right.

I do agree there is a small % that would benefit, but there are way to many that abuse the system.

Focus on stopping the loopholes, and get these assholes off the welfare system.

Which one is the a** hole and who makes the judgement?


I have known some folks that used and abused the system. out of lets say 20 folks only 2 tried to improve their life. The rest just keep the cycle going ma & pa where on so junior is on.

Now let me ask, when we are talking about welfare are we talking about able body people? Folks with disablities are another issue.

While it is true that our current welfare system is abused by some, there are also people who need help and can't get it. The system does need reform, and the system should encourage more people to move off welfare.

One problem I see is that there is often a line drawn as far as eligibility for benefits, where if you make more than a certain amount you get nothing, but if your under the amount you are eligible for benefits. Perhaps a graduated scale would be better.

I do think that no matter what system we use there will be a certain amount of abuse, but certainly more could be done to weed out the abusers.

There is certainly no reason that we can't provide health care to everyone in this country who needs it, and this would help by providing more able-bodied people for the workforce.

One point that I haven't seen addressed yet in this thread, is the fact that all of us benefit from welfare programs whether we are receiving the benefits directly or not.

Free health care for the poor decreases the likelihood of the spread of communicable diseases throughout our communities and again, would prevent some people from needing other welfare services by making it possible for them to seek employment when they would otherwise be unable to work.

Income assistance and food stamp programs increase the general health of our population, again helping to curb disease and making poor children healthier, thus lessening the burden on our health care system. These programs also prevent some of these people from resorting to criminal activities to survive, making all of us safer, and reducing the burden on our courts, and law enforcement infrastructure.

Another reason, and perhaps the best reason to help the poor is...because we can. We are the richest nation in the world and have perhaps the worst health care system of any developed nation, and we should be ashamed.
For those of a Christian bent:

Deuteronomy 15:11
For the poor shall never cease out of the land: therefore I command thee, saying, Thou shalt open thine hand wide unto thy brother, to thy poor, and to thy needy, in thy land.

Pagan -- good post. A gradual scale seems the most responsible thing to do...and it should include the elderly or retired.

Funny thing about unemployment and the current percentage that is listed as "unemployed" now. Did you know that when your unemployment runs out, you are no longer counted as being unemployed? Bush & Co. says the unemployment rate has dropped. I wonder how "dropped" it really is?

Originally posted by mad dog
Who sets the rules, which people shouldn't or should be on it, and how long should they have?

I would think the Government can do studies to find a reasonable amount of time.

Originally posted by mad dog
I do agree there is a small % that would benefit, but there are way to many that abuse the system.

Work on closing the loopholes.


Originally posted by mad dog
Which one is the a** hole and who makes the judgement?

I would think the Government should decided that one. It wouldn’t be that hard.

Originally posted by Overdose
I would think the Government can do studies to find a reasonable amount of time.

You'd think so. But you'd be wrong.


Originally posted by Overdose
Work on closing the loopholes.

Just like we've done with the tax system? One man's loophole is another man's legitimate helping hand from the government.

Originally posted by Overdose
I would think the Government should decided that one. It wouldn’t be that hard.

Everything is politicized these days. Again, like everything the government gets into, there's no way to take something away from someone, no matter how big of an a**hole he is, without some politician crying foul.

Originally posted by LionelHutz
You'd think so. But you'd be wrong.
I would? Has the Government tried? Most likely not. So I guess we both can’t say anything, since we have nothing to go off of.

Originally posted by LionelHutz
Just like we've done with the tax system? One man's loophole is another man's legitimate helping hand from the government.
I’m not saying this will ever be perfect. We will always have people abuse the system. But to get rid of it, is just wrong. There are people who actually do need this. And do use it the right way.

What we can do, is make it somewhat harder to abuse the system.

Originally posted by Overdose
It is the Government’s job to help out it’s citizens. That is why we have Schools, Jails, Police, and Hospitals. It shouldn’t be any different in terms of Welfare, or helping people with hunger. .

The government's job is to ensure the welfare of society as a whole, not individual citizens. For example, if you have a flat tire and can't pay for it, the government has no duty to bail your ass out. If Americans in general are having an unusually high number of flat tires, then our government should look into it. Do you see the difference? I think this is where liberals just can't seem to find the line.

If government offers a service, then it should offer it to all of it's citizens. Schools, all citizens have reasonable access. Police, all citizens have reasonable access. Hospitals, all citizens have reasonable access. Welfare, only certain poor people have access. Do you understand the difference yet?

A more acceptable argument to me would be to provide everyone, rich or poor, equal access to basic nutritional needs. Of course, I don't think hunger is a serious problem in this country, where the poor complain because they are too fat.

Originally posted by Leper
The government's job is to ensure the welfare of society as a whole, not individual citizens.
But what if this citizen is struggling because of the way society is set up? People today, deal with working and having jobs…yet, they still go hungry. Since we have this as our reality, we must as a Government help out the people who are getting the “shitty” end of the deal.

Originally posted by Leper
For example, if you have a flat tire and can't pay for it, the government has no duty to bail your ass out.

Correct. Because it’s not the Government’s fault you had your flat tire. But it is, not in all cases, but in many, the Governments fault of where you end up in life. Because we force people to work numerous jobs, and still barely make ends meet, we must help them out.

Originally posted by Leper
If Americans in general are having an unusually high number of flat tires, then our government should look into it.

400,000 people in just Oregon, going hungry, which have jobs seems like an issue to me.

Originally posted by Leper
If government offers a service, then it should offer it to all of it's citizens.

The Government offers assistance to all of its citizens when they are in a crisis. The rich are usually not going hungry, or having difficulties. So, they don’t receive the assistance. The citizens, who are poor, do receive help because they need help. But if for some reason the rich citizen needs help, because he or she loses a large sum of money or their job, the Government will assist them. So it is offering it to all of its citizens, just as long as you meet the requirements.

Originally posted by Leper
Welfare, only certain poor people have access.

Do rich people need Welfare? No.

Originally posted by Overdose
But what if this citizen is struggling because of the way society is set up? People today, deal with working and having jobs…yet, they still go hungry. Since we have this as our reality, we must as a Government help out the people who are getting the “shitty” end of the deal.

I got news for you - until every job pays equally and everyone is forced to work, someone is always going to be struggling because of the way society is set up. Either that or we brainwash people to remove all ambition so that everyone is equally unmotivated.

Originally posted by Overdose
Because it’s not the Government’s fault you had your flat tire. But it is, not in all cases, but in many, the Governments fault of where you end up in life. Because we force people to work numerous jobs, and still barely make ends meet, we must help them out.

It is not the government's fault. Sometimes it's the parents' fault for not teaching their children values and the importance of getting an education. Sometimes it's the individual's fault for being a lazy ass bum, and sometimes it's no one's fault, because the individual was born with some sort of physical or mental deficiency. But in no case is it the government's fault.

Originally posted by Overdose
400,000 people in just Oregon, going hungry, which have jobs seems like an issue to me.

So more than 10% of the population of Oregon is going hungry? Sorry, I don't buy it. I'm sorry, but people just are not starving to death in this country, or even becoming malnurished like those in the Congo (criminal starvation notwithstanding). The problem with these sorts of stats is that the people doing the study are trying to make a point, so they define "going hungry" as "missed a meal due to lack of funds at least once in the last year."

Originally posted by LionelHutz
I got news for you - until every job pays equally and everyone is forced to work, someone is always going to be struggling because of the way society is set up. Either that or we brainwash people to remove all ambition so that everyone is equally unmotivated.

Which is why we have programs, which are called food rolls. If people are working, and they are working to the best of their ability, and they are still going hungry, then the Government, needs to step in and help them.

Originally posted by LionelHutz
It is not the government's fault. Sometimes it's the parents' fault for not teaching their children values and the importance of getting an education

I never once said it was the Government’s entire fault. Sometimes it’s the parent’s fault. But sometimes the Government makes parents work so much, to make ends meet, they never see their children. Which makes their children not value education and or get help for education. And since in our Government this occurs, it is party because of the way our society is set up.

Originally posted by LionelHutz
So more than 10% of the population of Oregon is going hungry? Sorry, I don't buy it.

http://www.ocpp.org/1999/rpt991130.pdf which shows that
400,000 people in Oregon are or were going hungry. And I don't have the reports for this year, because I can't find them, but I'm betting it isn't much better.

But sometimes the Government makes parents work so much
How does the government do that? I think that would be the fault of corporations, not the government.

And since in our Government this occurs, it is party because of the way our society is set up.
We call that capitalism. It's not the government, it the economic system which is completely independent of the governmental system.

Originally posted by Blibblob
How does the government do that? I think that would be the fault of corporations, not the government.

If I’m not correct, can’t the Government regulate corporations? Can’t the Government higher minimum wage?

If I’m not correct, can’t the Government regulate corporations?
Not really, the government has little to no power over corporations. As long as the corporations aren't directly harming people, then they can't do anything without added authoritarian controls.

Think for a second. Raise the minimum wage, okay, then what'll happen? The cost of living will go up. We could stop that by outsourcing jobs. That creates more of a problem, does it not?

Originally posted by Blibblob
Not really, the government has little to no power over corporations. As long as the corporations aren't directly harming people, then they can't do anything without added authoritarian controls.

Well, you said yourself a lot of the hunger issues are due to the corporations. That in itself is hurting the people…

Originally posted by Blibblob
Raise the minimum wage, okay, then what'll happen? The cost of living will go up. We could stop that by outsourcing jobs. That creates more of a problem, does it not?

Yes. All I’m saying is that the Government needs to help people out in our society Our society is set up a certain way, and some people work, and don’t get enough food and or enough money to live on. Since that is reality, and since the Government, according to you can’t do anything to the corporations, needs to do what it can to get our people fed and or have health care.

Originally posted by Overdose
Which is why we have programs, which are called food rolls. If people are working, and they are working to the best of their ability, and they are still going hungry, then the Government, needs to step in and help them.

I don't disagree with the idea that no one should be allowed to go hungry.

Originally posted by Overdose
I never once said it was the Government’s entire fault. Sometimes it’s the parent’s fault. But sometimes the Government makes parents work so much, to make ends meet, they never see their children. Which makes their children not value education and or get help for education. And since in our Government this occurs, it is party because of the way our society is set up.

But at what point do people have to take responsibility for their actions. If you work 3 jobs and can't make ends meet then 1) you need to take advantage of the many job training programs that are available and get your ass a better job and/or 2) you're making very poor economic choices. I'm not saying life will be a bowl of cherries for you, but you should be able to live and eat without working yourself to death.

Originally posted by Overdose
http://www.ocpp.org/1999/rpt991130.pdf which shows that
400,000 people in Oregon are or were going hungry. And I don't have the reports for this year, because I can't find them, but I'm betting it isn't much better.

I refer you to page 10, wherein it states that the 400,000 estimate is people living either on the verge of hunger or in hunger. And hunger is defined in this study as having been hungry due to lack of resources for one day in the last year. On page 9 the estimate is that 2.5-3.5% of the people in the state go hungry.

Originally posted by Blibblob
If I’m not correct, can’t the Government regulate corporations?
Not really, the government has little to no power over corporations.

Sure they do. The idea of a corporation is a creation of the government and they exist or don't exist at the whim of the government.

Originally posted by LionelHutz
1) you need to take advantage of the many job training programs that are available and get your ass a better job

Yes, but there are always going to be jobs, that need to be filled. If everyone were to get a better job, then no one would be doing the “bad jobs”. Then our society would not function. Which is why, people, who work the crappy jobs, deserve the same right to eat and or have health care. We need these people in those positions.

It’s a necessity to our Government. And since we need them in those areas, we need to in return help them make ends meet.

Originally posted by LionelHutz
On page 9 the estimate is that 2.5-3.5% of the people in the state go hungry.

Seems like a large enough issue to me.

Sure they do. The idea of a corporation is a creation of the government and they exist or don't exist at the whim of the government.
Until the government becomes the corporation. Lobyists have power, lot's, they have money.

Originally posted by Overdose
Yes, but there are always going to be jobs, that need to be filled. If everyone were to get a better job, then no one would be doing the “bad jobs”. Then our society would not function. Which is why, people, who work the crappy jobs, deserve the same right to eat and or have health care. We need these people in those positions.

So society shouldn't encourage people to better themselves? The move up to better jobs has been going on for years. Which is one of the main reasons you see so many Mexican immigrants working these crappy jobs and why so many crappy jobs end up going offshore where people want the jobs and can do them for a lower cost. And yet our society carries on.

I believe that is called "Exploitation".

It has occurred to me, that if in fact a full time job is not enough to buy food with....which I strongly contest....instead of this talk of increasing government aid, or oppressing the taxpayer with glutonous welfare programs, why are the liberals not talking about increasing the minimum wage instead?

I reiterate that people can live off of $910 a month, because I did it myself, but at this point, I'm just trying to beat down the Dept of Health and Human Services.

Quoting self:
"Think for a second. Raise the minimum wage, okay, then what'll happen? The cost of living will go up. We could stop that by outsourcing jobs. That creates more of a problem, does it not?"

I reiterate that people can live off of $910 a month, because I did it myself
Did you have a family to support?

Raise the minimum wage, okay, then what'll happen? The cost of living will go up.

Oh? How did you determine this?

Did you have a family to support?

No. I only supported my junior college education. But funny, I still managed to keep 1k or so saved up in case of emergencies. Oh yes, I also used absolutely no government aid at all. And I sure as hell didn't come onto a political forum to whine about how hard I had it. This guy that came onto this forum whining about having only 18,000 a year to live on wanted to make me puke.

People are much, much more capable than socialists give them credit for.

Oh? How did you determine this?
Raise the minimum wage, the lower jobs that are used to support the lives of those who make more money, the cost of it goes up. Such as, at McDonalds, they have to pay more, they have to charge more or they wont have as much of a profit. Same as those who get paid minimum wage to pick crops, the cost of harvesting goes up, the price to purchase those go up. Factories, the cost of paying employees goes up, the price of the products goes up. The cost of living rises, minimum wage is once again no longer living wage. I figured such a proud supporter of capitalism would have understood the basics of supply and demand.

No. I only supported my junior college education.
Then it doesn't apply. Supporting a family is still more than paying for a higher education.

Omg, that cost of living "increase" does not even come close to offsetting the benefit of a wage increase!

Supporting a family is still more than paying for a higher education.

You're right if you can't figure out how to be fiscally responsible. And this, my friend, is the root cause of why people are poor and can't make ends meet.

Omg, that cost of living "increase" does not even come close to offsetting the benefit of a wage increase!
The value of the dollar already decreases almost every year. Thus Smith's corn crop vs money arguement. Change the cost of purchasing things needed to live, the cost of living goes up. Those two add into each other. To keep up with the raise of cost of living and the general decrease in the value of the dollar you'd have to raise the minimum wage every year or so. Which just speeds up the process of the depression of the dollar.


You're right if you can't figure out how to be fiscally responsible.
That wouldn't matter. The fact is that you can't raise a family of four(average) on the same amount it takes to get yourself through college. Well, you could eat your youngest, then the number drops to three and you've got food for a week or so. People can't make ends meet because it's impossible. Minimum wage is still not living wage. Unless your definition of living is your house being a cardboard box on the side of the road and your food being McDonalds.

The fact is that you can't raise a family of four(average) on the same amount it takes to get yourself through college.

The real fact is that you have absolutely no clue on how what the cost of college tuition is. And you have no clue on how little you can live on because you've never had to do it. You just might want to consider defering to someone with experience for once.

Originally posted by Karankawa
The real fact is that you have absolutely no clue on how what the cost of college tuition is.

That may be true Karankawa, but do you have a clue how much it costs to support a family of four?

Originally posted by Overdose
Which is why we have programs, which are called food rolls. If people are working, and they are working to the best of their ability, and they are still going hungry, then the Government, needs to step in and help them.



I never once said it was the Government’s entire fault. Sometimes it’s the parent’s fault. But sometimes the Government makes parents work so much, to make ends meet, they never see their children. Which makes their children not value education and or get help for education. And since in our Government this occurs, it is party because of the way our society is set up.



http://www.ocpp.org/1999/rpt991130.pdf which shows that
400,000 people in Oregon are or were going hungry. And I don't have the reports for this year, because I can't find them, but I'm betting it isn't much better.


Puuuuhlease stop relying on this ridiculous study!!!!!!!!

Use your common sense! Do YOU personally see a lot of people going hungry!? Even the guys standing on street corners aren't going hungry and we KNOW that 5.8% of the population isn't homeless.

This study measures "hunger" with questions like "Do you have a balanced diet"? Or "Is your diet nutritionally adequate?" That just means that if you're only getting 50% of your calcium intake, the you're "going hungry" according to this study.

Grow up. Use your common sense. And please stop acting like the country is starving on the streets and learn how to distinguish between legit studies and manipulative/deceptive studies.

Originally posted by Leper
Grow up. Use your common sense. And please stop acting like the country is starving on the streets and learn how to distinguish between legit studies and manipulative/disceptive studies.

I liked that the study included people who didn't get to eat what they wanted as hungry.

Originally posted by Leper
Puuuuhlease stop relying on this ridiculous study!!!!!!!!

Leper, first of all the amount of people going hungry is not the issue I’m discussing. I’m discussing whether the Government should help out people (even if it is a few) that indeed do go hungry.

Originally posted by Leper
Use your common sense! Do YOU personally see a lot of people going hungry!?

If you want me to answer this, no. At school sometimes my friend’s only meal in the day would be the free lunch the school gave them. So since the Government (schools) are helping out children who indeed do need help, they are not going hungry. They have personally told me that they hardly get dinner and that they never get breakfast.

Originally posted by Leper
Even the guys standing on street corners aren't going hungry

Really? Yes, people may give him some food every now and then. People may give him a dollar every now and then. But what gives him food is the programs our Government has set up to help get them off the streets. At least in Portland, I understand that if you get food from the local shelters, you are forced to join a job program. Which seems fair and reasonable to me.

Originally posted by Leper
Grow up. Use your common sense. And please stop acting like the country is starving on the streets and learn how to distinguish between legit studies and manipulative/deceptive studies.

The reason people are not starving on the streets is because our Government has created programs to help them. Or else we would have people that were starving.

This all comes back to the same problem. Liberals think they can solve hunger or poverty by taking resources from the non-hungry/non-povertous (A word?) people under threat of prison sentence (If you don't pay your taxes, you may be imprisoned) and giving those resources to the hungry/non-povertous people. Well, here are the three beliefs I have that convince me that this approach is turning our country into the genetic cesspool of the planet.

One: I believe that poor adults in the United States are poor because they were irresponsible in their youth, with very few exceptions (e.g. people suffering from an unexpected health crisis). Either they didn't try to get an education, they didn't work hard enough, or they reproduced beyond their financial capacity. So essentially, most poor adults have indirectly chosen to be poor (although perhaps they are too stupid to realize it on their own).

Two: I also believe that adults like this TEND to produce children with the same characteristics.

Three: I believe fiscally responsible adults TEND to reproduce less due to the hardship placed on them by taxes, personal responsibility, and obeying the law.

Each of these "beliefs" are true in my opinion and I feel so confident in these beliefs that I don't even consider them debatable.

So what sort of society is this liberal attitude creating? Basically, a weak one. Populations of helpless people are expanding while populations of responsible people are shrinking. YOU CANNOT CREATE A SUCCESSFUL SOCIETY LIKE THIS!!!!!!

[QUOTE]Originally posted by Overdose
Leper, first of all the amount of people going hungry is not the issue I’m discussing. I’m discussing whether the Government should help out people (even if it is a few) that indeed do go hungry.

The only way the government should help out is if the personal is a victim of circumstances beyond their control. And if the government does help out, it needs to take measures to discourage people from sinking to such a state....and I mean, taking kids away from irresponsible parents if that's what it comes down to.


If you want me to answer this, no. At school sometimes my friend’s only meal in the day would be the free lunch the school gave them. So since the Government (schools) are helping out children who indeed do need help, they are not going hungry. They have personally told me that they hardly get dinner and that they never get breakfast.

How often do you invite this guy over for dinner? I bet you don't very often. You'd rather let government's "bottomless pockets" take care of it. The solution should be the opposite. Help on a personal level is sooooo much more effective than help on a public level.


Really? Yes, people may give him some food every now and then. People may give him a dollar every now and then. But what gives him food is the programs our Government has set up to help get them off the streets. At least in Portland, I understand that if you get food from the local shelters, you are forced to join a job program. Which seems fair and reasonable to me.

I think that's sounds fair and reasonable to me too. But then the question is: Do those people actually get jobs and keep the jobs, and if they don't, are they eventually denied their food privileges?

The reason people are not starving on the streets is because our Government has created programs to help them. Or else we would have people that were starving.

People were not starving in the streets prior to the existance of such programs either.

Originally posted by Leper
The only way the government should help out is if the personal is a victim of circumstances beyond their control.

Yes, like when children get born into families that can’t make ends meet?

Originally posted by Leper
And if the government does help out, it needs to take measures to discourage people from sinking to such a state....

They Government does help out. And the way our system works, is that you can have jobs and still go hungry. Our minimum wage is not living wage (as someone else pointed out). So, it’s the way our system is set up, that leads people to sink to this state.

Originally posted by Leper
You'd rather let government's "bottomless pockets" take care of it. The solution should be the opposite. Help on a personal level is sooooo much more effective than help on a public level.

Helping on a personal level is effective. It can work. But you know what? It’s not our fault that they are in this state. The Government and the way it’s set up and regulated in return makes them struggle. Which concludes that the Government should help them out.

And what if it was just on the personal level? Do you expect us to take all of the homeless and children who don’t get enough to eat, into our homes? That would just further Americans becoming poor. Not to mention, I highly doubt a lot of people would personally help out the poor. Which is why if we all get taxed, proportionally we can help them out effectively.

Originally posted by Leper
Do those people actually get jobs and keep the jobs, and if they don't, are they eventually denied their food privileges?

Yes, both of their parents have minimum wage jobs. They can’t make ends meet.

Awesome, awesome post Leper!!!!! All 3 of your rules are RIGHT ON THE MARK.

The Government and the way it’s set up and regulated in return makes them struggle. Which concludes that the Government should help them out.

*shakes head* I guess all that financial aid, free public school, free housing medical aid, and welfare is causing them to struggle. Therefore we should send more of it their way. Right??

Originally posted by Karankawa
I guess all that financial aid, free public school, free housing medical aid, and welfare is causing them to struggle. Therefore we should send more of it their way. Right??

Nope, I’m just justifying why it’s there…and also saying how minimum wage is not living wage, and we need to find a way to correct that.

Originally posted by Overdose
Nope, I’m just justifying why it’s there…and also saying how minimum wage is not living wage, and we need to find a way to correct that.

It doesn't freakin' matter because no one actually makes minimum wage anyway. I can't remember the last time I saw Wendy's advertising starting pay at anything below $6.50/hr.

Keep in mind also that some of the biggest beneficiaries of a raise in minimum wage (assuming for the sake of argument that it mattered) would be high school and college kids, not parents.

Originally posted by LionelHutz
It doesn't freakin' matter because no one actually makes minimum wage anyway. I can't remember the last time I saw Wendy's advertising starting pay at anything below $6.50/hr.

Keep in mind also that some of the biggest beneficiaries of a raise in minimum wage (assuming for the sake of argument that it mattered) would be high school and college kids, not parents.

i know a kid named mike who works at wendy's and makes $6. even if it is mostly kids, there are still some people who arent educated enough to get ahead of the low paying jobs. but i have to say that by highering the minimum wage, everything else goes up so it is stupid

Originally posted by LionelHutz
It doesn't freakin' matter because no one actually makes minimum wage anyway.

Really…that’s why today I saw a women, in her 30’s working at a McDonald’s. Of course people (adults) have jobs that are minimum wage.

Originally posted by LionelHutz
I can't remember the last time I saw Wendy's advertising starting pay at anything below $6.50/hr.

If both parents were to make 6.50 and hour, how many hours would they have to work, keep in mind the average amount of kids is 4, to be able to stay afloat? I’m assuming a lot. I’ve never worked, and my parents do not work at a 6.50 an hour job, but I’m guessing they would have to work many hours to make ends meet in terms of financial obligations. And if they were to work a ton, they wouldn’t be able to see their kids. Which would lead to doing not as well in school (most likely), and having not as good of a home life. And that is what needs to change. We need to make it easier for parents to make a living that can make ends meet, while not making them have to work so much that they are unable to give their children a good home life.

Heh, 2 people making $6.50 make $27,000 a year. I hate to bring this up again, but that's more than some teachers make. And some police officers too.

As soon as you can PROVE that $20,000 isn't enough to live on, I'll listen. The only problem is that I've already proven that it is simple to live on less than that.

And if they (the poor) were to work a ton, they wouldn’t be able to see their kids.

Hard working people, myself included, already have to do this. All you are doing is making the rest of us work harder by pushing for more programs, more benefits, more, more, more. This is EXACTLY why I am resentful to your type. Instead of spending time with my family, I'm stuck at work a lot longer to support the Department of Health and Human Services. Abolish it, please!

Originally posted by Karankawa
Heh, 2 people making $6.50 make $27,000 a year. I hate to bring this up again, but that's more than some teachers make. And some police officers too.

But what you don’t understand is that they automatically get huge benefits for working for the state, unlike someone working at Burger King.

And most teachers I’ve had, don’t have kids, because it’s very hard to run a class room, and also maintain children. My mother use to be a teacher, and stopped when she had children.

they automatically get huge benefits for working for the state

Is this a joke?

most teachers I’ve had, don’t have kids, because it’s very hard to run a class room, and also maintain children.

Stop. Just stop, man. Your entire last post needs to simply be deleted.

Originally posted by Karankawa
Is this a joke?

They get heath care, which is something most Burger Kind employees do not receive.

Originally posted by Karankawa
Stop. Just stop, man. Your entire last post needs to simply be deleted.

No, it doesn’t. I’m sure you know what it’s like to be a teacher and have children? Because my mother, grandmother and great grandmother were all teachers. They all stopped teaching when they had children, and the reason being, it's to difficult to maintain a house hold and be a teacher.

It is true, teachers do have kids and still teach. But the majority of the time, quiet teaching. When I was in 6th grade my teachers had a child, and she taught for half of the year, had the baby and took the rest off (which is reasonable) And then she came back, and after 1 year, she quiet teaching, because she understood it was too difficult to teach and have a child.

And to make a generalization, based on my family, since teachers have to go to college, they usually end up marrying someone who also went to college. And thus they have another person in the family (who is most likely making more then the teachers salary, because teaching is one of the lowest paying jobs you can get from going to college) and that is what allows them to quiet.

Again, teachers do teach and have children. It does occur. But a lot of the time, it doesn’t occur.

They get heath care, which is something most Burger Kind employees do not receive.

I believe most employees that work full time "get" health care. But let's go ahead and make sure you are understanding something.

Teachers "get" health care. I "get" health care. But something I am starting to wonder if you realize is that we....teachers, me, Burger King employees....we all "get" health care, but money is taken from our paycheck to pay for it. It is very much NOT free. Do you copy this? We "get" it, but we pay for it.

It doesn't work like medicare, Overdose. Most employees have to pay for their health insurance. It sounds to me like you are using "get" wrong, since you are making it sound like some sort of benefit that teachers get, but BK employees don't.

Okay. I really do not feel like discussing this anymore. We are fundamentally different, in terms of what we believe the Government should do for its people. I believe in these programs, such as food stamps, job programs, health insurance for everyone, welfare and unemployment are all okay.

The reasons I believe this is because our society is set up, to where you cannot make it on minimum wage. You can argue this, but I have friends whose parents work on minimum wages, and sometimes their children only get the free school lunches.

And or, they are sometimes allowed to get food stamps. And since this is the way our Government works, I am in full support of those programs.

You disagree with these ideals. Thinking it is their fault if they don’t have a good enough job etc.

It’s a fundamental difference that we will never agree on.

Do you mind if I ask you one question? Do you agree or disagree with the following?

poor adults in the United States are poor because they were irresponsible in their youth, with very few exceptions (e.g. people suffering from an unexpected health crisis). Either they didn't try to get an education, they didn't work hard enough, or they reproduced beyond their financial capacity. So essentially, most poor adults have indirectly chosen to be poor (although perhaps they are too stupid to realize it on their own).

If you do agree, why should every single person in the country be forced to pay for faults that they bought upon themselves?

Why on earth would I agree with that statement?

First, in our society we have to have people fill the jobs that are not paid well. No matter if they do go to college, or try hard at schools, we are always going to need janitors, burger flippers, etc. So regardless of their “choices”, our society will not function without these people being employed to these specific jobs. And since our Government has to function with those jobs, the people who have them, should be allowed to have a live-able pay check.

Another thing to take into consideration, is that how can you blame it just on them? It could have been the parents fault, for not encouraging them. Or maybe the parents had to work tons of jobs, for hours, like I’ve been saying, and they never got help. What if they lived in the inner cities, where people don’t care about education? Or what if they didn’t get dinner or food?

How can you just blame it on them? It’s the way our society functions, that these people are the way they are.

I’m willing to admit, they COULD do better. They COULD have tried hard in school. And they COULD have made it. But the likely hood, is not there. The probability is not with us.

And sometimes people make bad choices, and or mistakes. So why can’t our Government help them out, and improve their lifestyles? It will only do us the greater good to have everyone employed.

Kara, I think I saw your life story on tv once. Around Christmas time.....yeah, I remember. You were the guy that WAS warm and compassionate with a zest for life until something happened that caused you to become cold, uncaring and miserly. Oh it was a great movie. I love how the 3 ghosts visited you and you learned in the end that money isn't what it's all about. That not all people are out to get your money and that the poor people count and have feelings too. I was so glad to see the change you made in the end when you decided to buy food for that poor family and treat them with respect and love. It felt good didn't it? And that poor crippled child was so happy to see that you cared. It gave him hope and built up his spirits. What a great movie.

poor adults in the United States are poor because they were irresponsible in their youth, with very few exceptions (e.g. people suffering from an unexpected health crisis). Either they didn't try to get an education, they didn't work hard enough, or they reproduced beyond their financial capacity. So essentially, most poor adults have indirectly chosen to be poor (although perhaps they are too stupid to realize it on their own).

This is the stuff of fantasy. It sounds good and it makes it easy to blame poor people for being poor, but I'd sure like to know where these "facts" were dredged up.

Is it not possible that poor people are poor largely because they didn't have as many opportunities in their youth?

To suggest that poor children who did poorly in school did so because " they didn't try to get an education" is laughable. Remember now, they come from a poor family. This means that their parents, if they have two, which is increasingly unlikely as you get poorer, have to work more hours to feed their families. The children themselves may be working to supplement their families income. These poor children also likely face more health issues, and have access to lesser health care than wealthier children. Poor children are more likely to be undernourished due to poverty, which also affects their ability to learn. Then they get to go to a school that is underfunded, has teachers that probably would prefer to be teaching elsewhere, and has few up-to-date pieces of equipment.

Every once in awhile, we hear an amazing story about a poor child who overcomes all of these obstacles, and through good luck, hard work, and probably a superior intellect, manages to rise out of their poverty-stricken background and excel. This is the exception to the rule, and to expect all children of poverty to be able to do this is unrealistic in the extreme. Of course it's easier and more gratifying to blame poor people for their poverty, but it has little or nothing to do with reality.

Karankawa, Leper, let me ask you a question or two...Do you think poor people WANT to be poor? Do you really think it's just a matter of them not trying hard enough?

Originally posted by no moore please
i know a kid named mike who works at wendy's and makes $6. even if it is mostly kids,

That's still more than the minimum wage.

but i have to say that by highering the minimum wage,

highering? Don't you go to some special high school or something?

Originally posted by Overdose
Really…that’s why today I saw a women, in her 30’s working at a McDonald’s. Of course people (adults) have jobs that are minimum wage.

Oh? She told you how much she's making per hour did she? Or are you just assuming?

Originally posted by LionelHutz
Oh? She told you how much she's making per hour did she? Or are you just assuming?

Ummm, well considering I know friends who also work at Mc Donald’s, I think I’d know how much it is…

Originally posted by Overdose
Ummm, well considering I know friends who also work at Mc Donald’s, I think I’d know how much it is…

No one at McDonald's ever gets raises?

You seem to have a friend that can back up every argument you make . . .

Originally posted by LionelHutz
No one at McDonald's ever gets raises?

You seem to have a friend that can back up every argument you make . . .

1. Most kids have jobs at fast food restaurants in high school (Hence, I’m in high school)

2. Yes they get raises, but what 6.50 to 7.00, wow, huge jump there.

3. The other friends I’ve had are my family having 3 teachers in it, which is true

4. And I’ve had friends who have returned home from Iraq (which is common)

I’m sorry I have a lot of friends, to support my arguments. Frankly, I don’t care if you believe I have them or not, it’s your lose.

Do you think poor people WANT to be poor? Do you really think it's just a matter of them not trying hard enough?

The government provides so many opportunities for ANYONE to excel, that people from other countries are able to excel here in the US. And this is with absolutely nothing to start with. Some of those don't even know English when they get here. America truly is the land of opportunity. Anyone that wants to succeed can do it. It's simply a matter of working.

Originally posted by Overdose
2. Yes they get raises, but what 6.50 to 7.00, wow, huge jump there.

Then why do you assume she's making minimum wage? But that's besides the point. My point is that raising the minimum wage is pointless when no one is making minimum wage anyway. It's a feel-good measure that doesn't help. Unless you raise it by lots and lots. That doesn't help either, but at least it some people would make more money until they were laid off.

Originally posted by LionelHutz
My point is that raising the minimum wage is pointless when no one is making minimum wage anyway.

People are making just minimum wage. And, we need to make it easier for people to live on minimum wage. That's what I’m arguing.

Originally posted by Swede
Kara, I think I saw your life story on tv once. Around Christmas time.....yeah, I remember. You were the guy that WAS warm and compassionate with a zest for life until something happened that caused you to become cold, uncaring and miserly. Oh it was a great movie. I love how the 3 ghosts visited you and you learned in the end that money isn't what it's all about. That not all people are out to get your money and that the poor people count and have feelings too. I was so glad to see the change you made in the end when you decided to buy food for that poor family and treat them with respect and love. It felt good didn't it? And that poor crippled child was so happy to see that you cared. It gave him hope and built up his spirits. What a great movie.

You forgot about the part where the federal agents burst into the "cold, uncaring, and miserly" man's home, took his money (backtaxes), imprisoned him, and then gave it to the poor crippled child under the guise of "charitable causes." After that the man's business went under while he was imprisoned, he didn't bother rebuilding it since taxation kept it from being profitable, the crippled child's father lost his job, and then everybody starved because there was no one left for the federal agents to tax. Then the bleeding heart liberals went around patting each other on the back for making the world a better place. Yes, it's a very heartwarming tale.

Originally posted by LionelHutz
No one at McDonald's ever gets raises?

You seem to have a friend that can back up every argument you make . . .

No kidding. I worked your typical minimum wage job in high school and was promoted after 6 months for doing nothing but showing up to work and doing my job. Nevertheless, Vilepagan and his teen entourage insist on thinking that it's impossible for a poor person to ever get ahead. Yes, if you're rich, you have a head start (OMG, there's an advantage to being rich!!!! God forbid we have that in a capitalistic society!!!?), but if you're poor, all you have to do is work, and not make really stupid mistakes like having a kid in high school.

Btw, I didn't come from a rich background and found it pretty easy to make my way to graduate level education. And I promise you, it's not an amazing story full of fantastic feats. According to Vile, I must be one of those exceptionally smart exceptions, in which case, he shouldn't be disagreeing with me anyways.

Originally posted by Karankawa
The government provides so many opportunities for ANYONE to excel, that people from other countries are able to excel here in the US.

Was it you, or someone else, that was complaining recently about all the free government loans to people from foreign countries that allowed them to come over here and start their own businesses? It may have been Praetorian. At any rate, I would think it's often easier in some respects for a new immigrant to succeed where a person from this country might not. The new immigrant frequently has family here or a church organization helping him. He has a support structure in place to help him find a job, that doesn't care what language he speaks, or how much experience he has.

And this is with absolutely nothing to start with. Some of those don't even know English when they get here. America truly is the land of opportunity.

I will agree that our country provides an amazing amount of opportunity for the poor and new immigrants, and I will even agree that some poor people have become complacent, and expect more from their government than they should. I do not agree that every poor person is poor because they aren't trying hard enough, or even that most poor people are victims of their own lack of ambition.

Anyone that wants to succeed can do it. It's simply a matter of working.

A simple answer to a complex question.

Originally posted by Leper
You forgot about the part where the federal agents burst into the "cold, uncaring, and miserly" man's home, took his money (backtaxes), imprisoned him, and then gave it to the poor crippled child under the guise of "charitable causes." After that the man's business went under while he was imprisoned, he didn't bother rebuilding it since taxation kept it from being profitable, the crippled child's father lost his job, and then everybody starved because there was no one left for the federal agents to tax. Then the bleeding heart liberals went around patting each other on the back for making the world a better place. Yes, it's a very heartwarming tale.

*sniff*...what a touching tale of woe...*sniff*...until now I didn't realize how tough the rich people had it in this country...I never knew how many rich people were taxed into the poorhouse by our evil IRS....whatever can we do about it?...I think I will start a fund drive for all those rich people who've been taxed so much they can't afford that second Humvee, or that new vacation home in the Hamptons...poor bastards...how can they live like that? :rolleyes:

Originally posted by Leper
Nevertheless, Vilepagan and his teen entourage insist on thinking that it's impossible for a poor person to ever get ahead.

Try reading what I post Leper, and you might avoid having to post insults and falsehoods.

What I said was, that it was much more difficult for a poor person to get ahead, not impossible, and what I suggest is that our government help the poor, and make it easier for them to succeed, not hand them success on a silver platter. You complain about how poor people are taking money out of your pocket, and you refuse to acknowledge that all of us would benefit by reducing or eliminating poverty in this country.

Btw, I didn't come from a rich background and found it pretty easy to make my way to graduate level education.

I have no doubt that you didn't come from a rich background, since your statements about the plight of the rich, and how horribly they are taxed, sound like the work of an overwrought imagination. I also recognize that you didn't come from a poor background because your idea that these people are poor due to their own incompetence is equally fantastic.

According to Vile, I must be one of those exceptionally smart exceptions, in which case, he shouldn't be disagreeing with me anyways.

No, I would guess that you probably worked hard and had a public school education that was better than one you might have received if you lived in poverty. Or maybe you were just lucky. The point is Leper, that your personal experience may be average, or it may be exceptional. With only one example to go by you can't make a blanket determination that your experience is either, yet you do this constantly when you compare your experience to that of the poor.

BTW, you've stated that you didn't come from a rich family, and thus you know what it's like to have to work your way through school. Ok...I'll accept that.

What experience do you have that gives you such amazing insight into what it's like to be poverty-stricken?

Why would he bother to answer that when you simply make statements like this:

I have no doubt that you didn't come from a rich background, since your statements about the plight of the rich, and how horribly they are taxed, sound like the work of an overwrought imagination.

Sounds to me that whatever he answers, you will discount as a lie. Apparently, anytime anyone suggests that real life may be different from how you perceive it, you bail yourself out by calling people liars, and discount their testimonies.

You're nothing but a griefer, man.

Has it occurred to you, that if you don't like when people disagree with you, this might not be the forum for you.

Oh, and by the way, it's very, very, VERY obvious to me that you and your "teen entourage" have absolutely no clue what it's like to be poor. Your assumptions about them, and how far you can get on minimum wage, make this very obvious that you have never experienced this matter.

Perhaps you need to give a little more credit to people on this board that HAVE lived on minimum wage and HAVE succeeded in this, oh, so horrible capitalistic society that we have.

And here is an idea you may want to consider:

Maybe it IS good that we have poor people that don't have it so good. Since being poor is not as desirable as being "rich", they have an incentive to try to get better. If you make it easy for poor people to have a "rich" life, you JUST MAY FIND that people will stop working hard.

OMG....can this already be happening in our society today? Can it be that people refuse to work at McDonald's and pick crops and collect the trash because the work is too hard?

What do you think will happen when you continue to hand more and more money/benefits to the poor? Do you think they will be encourage to work hard?

Think....about...incentives....for people to work and get ahead. Because in the socialist system, there is none.

Originally posted by Karankawa
Why would he bother to answer that when you simply make statements like this:

The statement was made about his response to Swede's post. Sorry I didn't label it "sarcasm" for you.

Sounds to me that whatever he answers, you will discount as a lie. Apparently, anytime anyone suggests that real life may be different from how you perceive it, you bail yourself out by calling people liars, and discount their testimonies.

Really? It looks to me like you're pulling that argument out of your ass. I did mention that Leper should stop posting insults, and falsehoods like his contention that I said it was "impossible" for poor people to get ahead, but other than that Karankawa, I didn't call him, or you, a liar. You've read enough of my posts to know that such behavior is usually not my style.

Can you find another instance where I called someone a liar? I doubt it. But of course you knew that when you made your false accusation. So, what does that make you?

You're nothing but a griefer, man.

Hmm...I'm not familiar with that term, but since you uttered it I suspect it's something impolite, so I'll just ignore it.

Has it occurred to you, that if you don't like when people disagree with you, this might not be the forum for you.

Has it occured to you that you don't have the first damn clue what I like and don't like?

This may help. Contrary to what you just posted, I do like it when people disagree with me. It makes for an interesting discussion.

What I don't like is when people falsely say I posted something that I did not, or due to there own inadequacies, they feel compelled to make insulting remarks like:

Vilepagan and his teen entourage

you bail yourself out by calling people liars

You're nothing but a griefer, man.

Apparently when someone disagrees with you, your response is to act like a child.