Your statement assumes that there are always oppurtunities available for those willing to help themselves. Further, it fails to take into account the fact that some people get a better start in life than others, and the variable hardships. In short: personal responsibility is only half the picture.
There seems to a pervasive myth that government assistance in the US is unlimited and/or distributed with no strings attached. This is untrue.
The TANF (Temporary Assistance for Needy Families) guidelines adopted by the government in 1997 places a lifetime limit of aid at no more than 60 months (with a limit of continuous aid at 24 months) and delivers block grants to states who then institute policies as their respective governments see fit. It also requires TANF recipients to either work or be actively searching for work. Since aid is contingent on certain obligations it really ceases to be an entitlement program.
HHS facts
Text from Library of Congress
The TANF (Temporary Assistance for Needy Families) guidelines adopted by the government in 1997 places a lifetime limit of aid at no more than 60 months (with a limit of continuous aid at 24 months) and delivers block grants to states who then institute policies as their respective governments see fit. It also requires TANF recipients to either work or be actively searching for work. Since aid is contingent on certain obligations it really ceases to be an entitlement program.
HHS facts
Text from Library of Congress
Last edited by fadedsteve (2007-02-01 18:19:41)
First rule, life isn't always fair, yes some have to work harder to make it than others, does this mean you don't have to?Bubbalo wrote:
Your statement assumes that there are always oppurtunities available for those willing to help themselves. Further, it fails to take into account the fact that some people get a better start in life than others, and the variable hardships. In short: personal responsibility is only half the picture.
There are ALWAYS oprotunities for all who try, always. Even from private sectors. Taking responsibility is 100% of the picture. It is your life. Do something with it.
Yeah......................and???? You mena people SHOULDN'T be looking for work?Masques wrote:
There seems to a pervasive myth that government assistance in the US is unlimited and/or distributed with no strings attached. This is untrue.
The TANF (Temporary Assistance for Needy Families) guidelines adopted by the government in 1997 places a lifetime limit of aid at no more than 60 months (with a limit of continuous aid at 24 months) and delivers block grants to states who then institute policies as their respective governments see fit. It also requires TANF recipients to either work or be actively searching for work. Since aid is contingent on certain obligations it really ceases to be an entitlement program.
HHS facts
Text from Library of Congress
Iowing, stop double posting, you can reply to two people in one post.
Iowing, certain things have to be done - most of the time they are jobs that no-one wants to do. There is shitty pay, but as mentioned someone must do it.
The people who do these jobs aren't always bums with no ambition. You think just because there are jobs higher up in society that anyone can cruise on over and get them? Regardless, if someone who works at the bottom rung at minimum wage slowly climbs the socio-economic ladder as you seem to think everyone should do, (fair enough,) and their job becomes vacant, someone else has to take over. You have to start somewhere, even you are more-or-less arguing that.
Why the Hell can't the richest government in the world make some allowances for these people to have it a bit easier? I say 'a bit' sparingly because the minimum wage hasn't been raised for so long in America, so due to inflation, the minimum wage has actually been going down for the last few years. A raise to just over seven dollars would equalise the buying power the minimum wage had a few years ago. Corporations are required to adjust what they pay their workers to target inflation, unions protesting pay rises generally do so because they want to have the same buying power, not because they want a new car.
Your ignorance is astounding if you cannot see how a slight rise in the minimum wage is needed. To simplify and conclude:
- The minimum wage has been increasing much slower than inflation. People no longer have th same buying power that they did and are therefore suffering.
- America can afford it.
- There NEEDS to be those who work on the minimum wage. If you don't have these people then people who are overeducated for the minimum wage earning jobs will have to do them, and that is a waste of human resources.
- As a poor student living on the minimum wage AND a loan, I can safely say that the minimum wage alone is not enough to sustain a person - and our minimum wage is higher than yours! The richest and most powerful country in the world should be able to insure that it's people can live. It's disgusting that instead multi-national corporations get the benefit from America's policies.
- Low paying jobs always need to be done, so there will always be people working on them. AS having low income earners is a necessity, you can hardly argue that all people must climb the ladder and make something of themselves for the betterment of the economy, in fact if everyone did that then the economy would suffer greatly.
I feel as though I'm hitting my head against a brick wall and that you'll rebut my arguments with one of your one paragraph expressions of utter ignorance, but hey, that's the price you pay for arguing on the Internet.
Iowing, certain things have to be done - most of the time they are jobs that no-one wants to do. There is shitty pay, but as mentioned someone must do it.
The people who do these jobs aren't always bums with no ambition. You think just because there are jobs higher up in society that anyone can cruise on over and get them? Regardless, if someone who works at the bottom rung at minimum wage slowly climbs the socio-economic ladder as you seem to think everyone should do, (fair enough,) and their job becomes vacant, someone else has to take over. You have to start somewhere, even you are more-or-less arguing that.
Why the Hell can't the richest government in the world make some allowances for these people to have it a bit easier? I say 'a bit' sparingly because the minimum wage hasn't been raised for so long in America, so due to inflation, the minimum wage has actually been going down for the last few years. A raise to just over seven dollars would equalise the buying power the minimum wage had a few years ago. Corporations are required to adjust what they pay their workers to target inflation, unions protesting pay rises generally do so because they want to have the same buying power, not because they want a new car.
Your ignorance is astounding if you cannot see how a slight rise in the minimum wage is needed. To simplify and conclude:
- The minimum wage has been increasing much slower than inflation. People no longer have th same buying power that they did and are therefore suffering.
- America can afford it.
- There NEEDS to be those who work on the minimum wage. If you don't have these people then people who are overeducated for the minimum wage earning jobs will have to do them, and that is a waste of human resources.
- As a poor student living on the minimum wage AND a loan, I can safely say that the minimum wage alone is not enough to sustain a person - and our minimum wage is higher than yours! The richest and most powerful country in the world should be able to insure that it's people can live. It's disgusting that instead multi-national corporations get the benefit from America's policies.
- Low paying jobs always need to be done, so there will always be people working on them. AS having low income earners is a necessity, you can hardly argue that all people must climb the ladder and make something of themselves for the betterment of the economy, in fact if everyone did that then the economy would suffer greatly.
I feel as though I'm hitting my head against a brick wall and that you'll rebut my arguments with one of your one paragraph expressions of utter ignorance, but hey, that's the price you pay for arguing on the Internet.
[Blinking eyes thing]
Steam: http://steamcommunity.com/id/tzyon
Steam: http://steamcommunity.com/id/tzyon
Great postTy wrote:
Iowing, stop double posting, you can reply to two people in one post.
Iowing, certain things have to be done - most of the time they are jobs that no-one wants to do. There is shitty pay, but as mentioned someone must do it.
The people who do these jobs aren't always bums with no ambition. You think just because there are jobs higher up in society that anyone can cruise on over and get them? Regardless, if someone who works at the bottom rung at minimum wage slowly climbs the socio-economic ladder as you seem to think everyone should do, (fair enough,) and their job becomes vacant, someone else has to take over. You have to start somewhere, even you are more-or-less arguing that.
Why the Hell can't the richest government in the world make some allowances for these people to have it a bit easier? I say 'a bit' sparingly because the minimum wage hasn't been raised for so long in America, so due to inflation, the minimum wage has actually been going down for the last few years. A raise to just over seven dollars would equalise the buying power the minimum wage had a few years ago. Corporations are required to adjust what they pay their workers to target inflation, unions protesting pay rises generally do so because they want to have the same buying power, not because they want a new car.
Your ignorance is astounding if you cannot see how a slight rise in the minimum wage is needed. To simplify and conclude:
- The minimum wage has been increasing much slower than inflation. People no longer have th same buying power that they did and are therefore suffering.
- America can afford it.
- There NEEDS to be those who work on the minimum wage. If you don't have these people then people who are overeducated for the minimum wage earning jobs will have to do them, and that is a waste of human resources.
- As a poor student living on the minimum wage AND a loan, I can safely say that the minimum wage alone is not enough to sustain a person - and our minimum wage is higher than yours! The richest and most powerful country in the world should be able to insure that it's people can live. It's disgusting that instead multi-national corporations get the benefit from America's policies.
- Low paying jobs always need to be done, so there will always be people working on them. AS having low income earners is a necessity, you can hardly argue that all people must climb the ladder and make something of themselves for the betterment of the economy, in fact if everyone did that then the economy would suffer greatly.
I feel as though I'm hitting my head against a brick wall and that you'll rebut my arguments with one of your one paragraph expressions of utter ignorance, but hey, that's the price you pay for arguing on the Internet.
The one thing none of you are acknowledging is this. Minimum wage is for HS and college students, to get beer books and gas money. It is not meant as a living wage. For a 30 year old to be pissed off because he can't make 7.25 an hour, because he really needs it to live has a much bigger problem than minimum wage.
The most powerful country in the world has ensured the OPPORTUNITY and FREEDOM to earn as much or as little as it's citizens choose. It is not in place to hand hold everyone through life. That responsibility falls on the individual.
QFT/QFElowing wrote:
The one thing none of you are acknowledging is this. Minimum wage is for HS and college students, to get beer books and gas money. It is not meant as a living wage. For a 30 year old to be pissed off because he can't make 7.25 an hour, because he really needs it to live has a much bigger problem than minimum wage.
The most powerful country in the world has ensured the OPPORTUNITY and FREEDOM to earn as much or as little as it's citizens choose. It is not in place to hand hold everyone through life. That responsibility falls on the individual.
Thanks, but it will most defiantly result in me being called a neo-con, nazi, racist, idiot, ignorant, or 1000 other things I have been called on here for making such a radical, out of this world, holy shit, I can't believe he said that, what nerve, to expect everyone to be responsible for themselves, blasphemous to the liberal agenda, post .Canin wrote:
QFT/QFElowing wrote:
The one thing none of you are acknowledging is this. Minimum wage is for HS and college students, to get beer books and gas money. It is not meant as a living wage. For a 30 year old to be pissed off because he can't make 7.25 an hour, because he really needs it to live has a much bigger problem than minimum wage.
The most powerful country in the world has ensured the OPPORTUNITY and FREEDOM to earn as much or as little as it's citizens choose. It is not in place to hand hold everyone through life. That responsibility falls on the individual.
Or just ignored because it can't be countered with reason or rationality or realism
Last edited by lowing (2007-02-02 16:36:17)
Just pointing out that a lot of people here (you included) are working under the wrong impressions. Before you get all persnickety about gov't assistance you would be well advised to see what the actual law is.lowing wrote:
Yeah......................and???? You mena people SHOULDN'T be looking for work?Masques wrote:
There seems to a pervasive myth that government assistance in the US is unlimited and/or distributed with no strings attached. This is untrue.
The TANF (Temporary Assistance for Needy Families) guidelines adopted by the government in 1997 places a lifetime limit of aid at no more than 60 months (with a limit of continuous aid at 24 months) and delivers block grants to states who then institute policies as their respective governments see fit. It also requires TANF recipients to either work or be actively searching for work. Since aid is contingent on certain obligations it really ceases to be an entitlement program.
HHS facts
Text from Library of Congress
It just makes you seem uninformed and...well...ignorant.
I'm generally interested in what others say/think when confronted with information such as this. It really shows if they really have any concern with poverty.
Guess what, I am 40, in my airline career I have been through 3 lay-offs, 2 of which resulted in having to move to find another job and starting over with a new airline. Never not once did I accept a single cent of unemployment or govt. assistance. I am marketable. I am a commodity in my career field. I will not apologize, or feel bad for being successful in life. I chose to. I did not grow up with a silver spoon in my mouth. I earned everything I have and frankly, I have not earned everything I DON'T have. It is completely up to me.Masques wrote:
Just pointing out that a lot of people here (you included) are working under the wrong impressions. Before you get all persnickety about gov't assistance you would be well advised to see what the actual law is.lowing wrote:
Yeah......................and???? You mean people SHOULDN'T be looking for work?Masques wrote:
There seems to a pervasive myth that government assistance in the US is unlimited and/or distributed with no strings attached. This is untrue.
The TANF (Temporary Assistance for Needy Families) guidelines adopted by the government in 1997 places a lifetime limit of aid at no more than 60 months (with a limit of continuous aid at 24 months) and delivers block grants to states who then institute policies as their respective governments see fit. It also requires TANF recipients to either work or be actively searching for work. Since aid is contingent on certain obligations it really ceases to be an entitlement program.
HHS facts
Text from Library of Congress
It just makes you seem uninformed and...well...ignorant.
I'm generally interested in what others say/think when confronted with information such as this. It really shows if they really have any concern with poverty.
I also will not buy into your notion that govt. assistance should be free with no limits or strings attached. It is not the govt's job to carry you through life. Where in the world does this notion come from???
P.S. I do here by swear, that I have absolutely no concern for SELF INDUCED poverty.
Last edited by lowing (2007-02-02 18:28:09)
I was saying the same thing when Cougar first started this thread. I am glad that I am not the only one who thinks this way.lowing wrote:
Canin wrote:
lowing wrote:
The one thing none of you are acknowledging is this. Minimum wage is for HS and college students, to get beer books and gas money. It is not meant as a living wage. For a 30 year old to be pissed off because he can't make 7.25 an hour, because he really needs it to live has a much bigger problem than minimum wage.
The most powerful country in the world has ensured the OPPORTUNITY and FREEDOM to earn as much or as little as it's citizens choose. It is not in place to hand hold everyone through life. That responsibility falls on the individual.
QFT/QFE
Thanks, but it will most defiantly result in me being called a neo-con, nazi, racist, idiot, ignorant, or 1000 other things I have been called on here for making such a radical, out of this world, holy shit, I can't believe he said that, what nerve, to expect everyone to be responsible for themselves, blasphemous to the liberal agenda, post .
Or just ignored because it can't be countered with reason or rationality or realism
Nope, yer not. I guess I am famous or( infamous )for this position.Canin wrote:
I was saying the same thing when Cougar first started this thread. I am glad that I am not the only one who thinks this way.lowing wrote:
Canin wrote:
lowing wrote:
The one thing none of you are acknowledging is this. Minimum wage is for HS and college students, to get beer books and gas money. It is not meant as a living wage. For a 30 year old to be pissed off because he can't make 7.25 an hour, because he really needs it to live has a much bigger problem than minimum wage.
The most powerful country in the world has ensured the OPPORTUNITY and FREEDOM to earn as much or as little as it's citizens choose. It is not in place to hand hold everyone through life. That responsibility falls on the individual.
QFT/QFE
Thanks, but it will most defiantly result in me being called a neo-con, nazi, racist, idiot, ignorant, or 1000 other things I have been called on here for making such a radical, out of this world, holy shit, I can't believe he said that, what nerve, to expect everyone to be responsible for themselves, blasphemous to the liberal agenda, post .
Or just ignored because it can't be countered with reason or rationality or realism
Point me to where I intimated that gov't assistance should be administered without conditions.lowing wrote:
I also will not buy into your notion that govt. assistance should be free with no limits or strings attached. It is not the govt's job to carry you through life. Where in the world does this notion come from???
You seem to be arguing against and dispise stipulations right here. Do I have it wrong?Masques wrote:
Point me to where I intimated that gov't assistance should be administered without conditions.lowing wrote:
I also will not buy into your notion that govt. assistance should be free with no limits or strings attached. It is not the govt's job to carry you through life. Where in the world does this notion come from???
"There seems to a pervasive myth that government assistance in the US is unlimited and/or distributed with no strings attached. This is untrue.
The TANF (Temporary Assistance for Needy Families) guidelines adopted by the government in 1997 places a lifetime limit of aid at no more than 60 months (with a limit of continuous aid at 24 months) and delivers block grants to states who then institute policies as their respective governments see fit. It also requires TANF recipients to either work or be actively searching for work. Since aid is contingent on certain obligations it really ceases to be an entitlement program."
Yes.lowing wrote:
Do I have it wrong?
My apologies, would you please clarify your position on this then?Masques wrote:
Yes.lowing wrote:
Do I have it wrong?
beuller, buellerlowing wrote:
My apologies, would you please clarify your position on this then?Masques wrote:
Yes.lowing wrote:
Do I have it wrong?
Basically, workfare. Jobs training. Educational opportunities. Etc.lowing wrote:
beuller, buellerlowing wrote:
My apologies, would you please clarify your position on this then?Masques wrote:
Yes.
Only I think it should be federally administered and not given as a block grant to states as it is now.
All of those exist already, would you not agree? Now all that is left is for someone to get off their dead ass and do something with it.Masques wrote:
Basically, workfare. Jobs training. Educational opportunities. Etc.lowing wrote:
beuller, buellerlowing wrote:
My apologies, would you please clarify your position on this then?
Only I think it should be federally administered and not given as a block grant to states as it is now.
.......................................................are you fucking serious?lowing wrote:
The one thing none of you are acknowledging is this. Minimum wage is for HS and college students, to get beer books and gas money. It is not meant as a living wage. For a 30 year old to be pissed off because he can't make 7.25 an hour, because he really needs it to live has a much bigger problem than minimum wage.
The most powerful country in the world has ensured the OPPORTUNITY and FREEDOM to earn as much or as little as it's citizens choose. It is not in place to hand hold everyone through life. That responsibility falls on the individual.
Example of why you are wrong:
My mother (yes my biological mother), worked at a plant in Ada, Oklahoma making suiters(sp?), like what are used in surgery's. She made nearly 15 bucks an hour doing this job and was very skilled at it. So skilled that she actually became a trainer for the company and became a low-end manager for her department. Then her company decided they wanted to outsource to Mexico because Mexicans would do the same job for $3 an hour.
So, now that my mother has no job because hers got outsourced to Mexico and is now turning 55, her health isn't doing so well. Her hands are so eaten up with that carpel tunnel stuff and arthritis she can barely move her hands and actually qualifies for workmans comp. Only problem is, workmans comp only pays about $200 a month, which isn't enough for anyone to live on really. The real problem, is the fact that even if she could work, the only place that will hire her will be a minimum wage job, since she is nearly 60 and has no formal training in anything other than what she did for 18 years, making suiters. So she has a choice between workmans comp or minimum wage, neither of which are enough to survive on. But according to you, she is just a deadbeat and worthless dumbass with no strive in life to better herself. Even though she had a good paying job that she was able to excel in for nearly two decades, she's just a worthless bum and we shouldn't help her out at all.
Of course, there are deadbeats out there, but there are also people that need help and need some extra money to survive. Some of these people are victims of circumstance and shouldn't be shunned. Just because you crawled out of a gutter doesn't mean every single person in America can, besides, even if they did, someone has to do the work that they leave behind.
I really do not see how in the hell anyone can disagree with a 2 fucking dollar minimum wage increase, of which, is the first in nearly 10 years. Madness.
I feel bad for her. But, in lowings defense, she had the opportunity to go to school or get trained in another field over those 18 years right? I know I have, since I refuse to learn just one job, for all the reasons you stated above.
Jesus fucking Christ. It's always something. Yeah, she should have learned how to fly a plane while she was working in Ada, as well as learn how to be a gourmet chef and a professional stunt woman.usmarine2007 wrote:
I feel bad for her. But, in lowings defense, she had the opportunity to go to school or get trained in another field over those 18 years right? I know I have, since I refuse to learn just one job, for all the reasons you stated above.
So let me get this straight:
In order for someone not to be a deadbeat lazy ass loser, they must:
1: Go to college.
2. Go to college again.
3. Never be poor......ever.
4. Never make a mistake......ever.
5. Have at least 2 backup professions, just in case one gets outsourced to Mexico.
6. Never get disabled......ever.
7. Start from the bottom and work to the top, because starting at the top just makes you spoiled.
8. Do all of this before the age of 20.
9. Never have children.
10. Never have a life.
11. Never work for minimum wage, and if you do, enjoy the fuck out of it.
12. Be fluent in 4 different foreign languages.
13. Go to war. Twice.
14. Be a Republican.
15. Be a conservative.
16. Have an online persona that tells people how worthless they are because they aren't millionares.
17. Have an online persona that tells people how, if they work minimum wage jobs, they are worthless to society and should kill themselves.
Go eat a dick.
You took that WAY out of context.
I'm replying to both of you.usmarine2007 wrote:
You took that WAY out of context.
I honest to God, without a shadow of doubt and beyond any reasoning, cannot understand why anyone would want to deny a $2 dollar minimum wage increase, which BTW is the first in 10 years.
What the fuck!?