Work for a living or collect welfare? Hmmmm....

Moderator: Super Moderators

User avatar
voguy
Pirate
Posts: 4175
Joined: 06-01-2011 05:47 PM
Location: Moving Target (soon SA)

Post by voguy » 08-22-2013 05:30 PM

Their rent and utilities are paid for. On paper, these people are as broke as a church mouse. As for the SUV, you tell me where they get this money from. They don't work, there are no "deals" going on in the house.

I will tell you this, in our community there is a lot of marketing of food stamps, and many stores allow them for items I wouldn't think would be covered, such as dog food, and non-nutritional items.

These are professional deadbeats, RA. And there are plenty of them.
"I predict future happiness for Americans if they can prevent the government from wasting the labors of the people under the pretense of taking care of them." - Thomas Jefferson

User avatar
kbot
Pirate
Posts: 7302
Joined: 03-12-2008 05:44 AM

Post by kbot » 08-22-2013 07:31 PM

Cherry Kelly wrote: kbot - ya - "entitlement" connected to SS monies. An individual who paid taxes on that money already. Some entitlement - their monies, but now the gov't calls it entitlement?


Yup. It's the new doublespeak......

You paid into it, but it's their most and they don't want you to have it because it's breaking the system. Forget about the rest of the fiscal mismanagement that's been going on.....

User avatar
kbot
Pirate
Posts: 7302
Joined: 03-12-2008 05:44 AM

Post by kbot » 08-22-2013 07:34 PM

Riddick wrote: Anyone remember Maynard G. Krebs' reaction to work? A dirty word in his mind, he's not the only one to think that way - and such as may be, relative to the issue of providing government assistance, proactive attempts to change that attitude may be both relevant and desirable -
I don't think they had welfare back then...... I miss that show.

User avatar
voguy
Pirate
Posts: 4175
Joined: 06-01-2011 05:47 PM
Location: Moving Target (soon SA)

Post by voguy » 08-22-2013 08:01 PM

Y'know, the folks like my neighbors who have not worked in years, and have new cars, etc, are not unicorns. It's not like they are some mythical part of our society. They live, breath, and sorry to say propagate in our community.

I know there are deserving people in need, and they could really use help.

But instead of denying the deadbeats exist and are siphoning off thousands, could we at least agree that a reform of the system to rid the rolls of public assistance from these "lice" would not only cut funds, but also help more deserving people?
"I predict future happiness for Americans if they can prevent the government from wasting the labors of the people under the pretense of taking care of them." - Thomas Jefferson

User avatar
Diogenes
Pirate
Posts: 5784
Joined: 07-14-2011 03:01 PM

Post by Diogenes » 08-22-2013 08:41 PM

voguy wrote: Their rent and utilities are paid for. On paper, these people are as broke as a church mouse. As for the SUV, you tell me where they get this money from. They don't work, there are no "deals" going on in the house.

I will tell you this, in our community there is a lot of marketing of food stamps, and many stores allow them for items I wouldn't think would be covered, such as dog food, and non-nutritional items.

These are professional deadbeats, RA. And there are plenty of them.


Any money they may work for is "off" the books and under the table.

It doesn't take a huge amount of money to lease an SUV.
A man's character is his fate

User avatar
Raggedyann
Pirate
Posts: 5250
Joined: 08-22-2006 04:50 PM

Post by Raggedyann » 08-22-2013 09:27 PM

Diogenes wrote: Any money they may work for is "off" the books and under the table.

It doesn't take a huge amount of money to lease an SUV.

How do you get paid under the table when you are employed? It may be true for a few but for those who work at McDonald's and Walmart and many other low income places, they would never be paid under the table.

If somebody is only bringing in $1,000 per month, there is no way they could afford a leased SUV. I do not believe this yarn.
“For evil to flourish, it only requires good men to do nothing.” Simon Wiesenthal

User avatar
Kaztronic
Moderator
Posts: 7148
Joined: 07-07-2007 04:52 PM

Post by Kaztronic » 08-22-2013 09:34 PM

I'm with you RA. The lease may be cheap, but I would bet insurance on a leased vehicle (which usually means minimum coverage is not permitted) would not be so inexpensive. The poor are more likely to park on the street, more likely to live in a bad neighborhood, etc.... All factors that further increase premiums.

We haven't even touched on gas for a guzzling SUV yet.

No way that's an inexpensive toy.
Image "You'll get used to my babbling, all the others have." - Anna Madrigal from "Tales Of The City" by Armistead Maupin

User avatar
Kaztronic
Moderator
Posts: 7148
Joined: 07-07-2007 04:52 PM

Post by Kaztronic » 08-22-2013 09:37 PM

voguy wrote: Y'know, the folks like my neighbors who have not worked in years, and have new cars, etc, are not unicorns. It's not like they are some mythical part of our society. They live, breath, and sorry to say propagate in our community.

I know there are deserving people in need, and they could really use help.

But instead of denying the deadbeats exist and are siphoning off thousands, could we at least agree that a reform of the system to rid the rolls of public assistance from these "lice" would not only cut funds, but also help more deserving people?


And I agree with all said here as well. So many deadbeats, like the people in the building next to time. And yet, I know people who honestly do need the help, and never ask for it - even though I think they probably should.
Image "You'll get used to my babbling, all the others have." - Anna Madrigal from "Tales Of The City" by Armistead Maupin

User avatar
Riddick
Pirate
Posts: 15705
Joined: 11-01-2002 03:00 AM
Location: Heartland USA
Contact:

Post by Riddick » 08-22-2013 09:38 PM

voguy wrote: The definition is flawed, Riddick. It's already been established by several groups, and documented in news stories where supporters of the group say, "you can't ask someone to work for a check. That's slavery."
Interesting take. Seems to me by that reasoning, it could be said employers who ask employees to perform tasks as prescribed in job descriptions on a regular basis in return for a paycheck are the worst kind of slave drivers.

Still, isn't involuntary servitude i.e. forcing someone to work against their will at.the heart of slavery? If you're perfectly capable of working but don't want to, you're free to do so. 'Course, employers could have a problem with that, preferring people provide something instead of nothing in return for their pay. Now by extension clearly THERE'S a notion that needs getting over.

Indeed, so it would appear with business on one side and labor on the other, America would benefit from adopting an all-around on-the-job 'anti-slavery' ethic - To that end? Establishing an all-around leisurely attitude towards the entire idea of employment begins with the lowering of expectations -

For instance, actual "work" in the workplace should be optional. People should receive recompense and raises regardless of whether they meet any given standards relative to the (non) duties of their position, and employees should not be terminated for any reason related to performance including but not limited to coming in late, leaving early or not showing up at all.

With implementation overseen by the new federal Department of Personnel Emancipation, the agency will be responsible for seeing to the proper and ongoing non-development of America's human resources - and as instilling a severely allergic reaction to work in our culture is of vital importance, the most qualified person possible should be in charge there -

Where's Maynard when we need him?
kbot wrote: I don't think they had welfare back then...... I miss that show.
'Dobie Gillis' ended just a couple years short of the start of 'The Great Society' and the accompanying expansion of the entitlement state. Not to say Maynard would've been first in line to sign up for all he could get, I'd say his fear and confusion so far as a certain four-letter word is concerned IS certainly memorable!

Cherry Kelly
Pirate
Posts: 12852
Joined: 07-29-2000 02:00 AM
Contact:

Post by Cherry Kelly » 08-23-2013 10:14 AM

Many of the unemployed refuse to take jobs that pay less than their former jobs. There are people who are working, but can no longer keep up with the higher costs of living. They can't find part time secondary jobs either, but get turned down for any helps.

Take seniors who technically are getting SS that is below poverty level, but gee they cannot get help because oh ya many own their own homes and are told - well sell your place or take out one of those scam reversal mortgage things.

User avatar
kbot
Pirate
Posts: 7302
Joined: 03-12-2008 05:44 AM

Post by kbot » 08-23-2013 03:16 PM

voguy wrote: Y'know, the folks like my neighbors who have not worked in years, and have new cars, etc, are not unicorns. It's not like they are some mythical part of our society. They live, breath, and sorry to say propagate in our community.

I know there are deserving people in need, and they could really use help.

But instead of denying the deadbeats exist and are siphoning off thousands, could we at least agree that a reform of the system to rid the rolls of public assistance from these "lice" would not only cut funds, but also help more deserving people?


Hey....... lay off the unicorns. :)

User avatar
kbot
Pirate
Posts: 7302
Joined: 03-12-2008 05:44 AM

Post by kbot » 08-23-2013 03:28 PM

Still say that this was a brilliant solution and should be revisited. As it is, we (taxpayers) are already paying for a broad rage of social programs. Might as well get something productive out of what's being paid, rather than just having people stay at home doing nothing....

My father benefited from this program as did many his age, and my father spoke of this as not only a lifesaver for him, but also a program that benefited him by teaching him valuable skills.

Why the government, and those who collect are adverse to this is beyond me...... They're a complete embarrassment IMHO.

Take a quick look at the work these people did. This country is saying that our infrastructure is falling apart. and we also have a young workforce that is idle. Put the two together - put people to work and fix things. Please like Detroit (for example) could be cleaned-up as could many other rust belt cities. Rather than continue to pay out "benefits", demand something in exchange....

Civilian Conservation Corps

The Civilian Conservation Corps (CCC) was a public work relief program that operated from 1933 to 1942 in the United States for unemployed, unmarried men from relief families, ages 18–25. Robert Fechner was the head of the agency. A part of the New Deal of President Franklin D. Roosevelt, who provided unskilled manual labor jobs related to the conservation and development of natural resources in rural lands owned by federal, state and local governments. The CCC was designed to provide jobs for young men, to relieve families who had difficulty finding jobs during the Great Depression in the United States while at the same time implementing a general natural resource conservation program in every state and territory. Maximum enrollment at any one time was 300,000; in nine years 3 million young men participated in the CCC, which provided them with shelter, clothing, and food, together with a small wage of $30 a month ($25 of which had to be sent home to their families).[1]

The American public made the CCC the most popular of all the New Deal programs.[2] Principal benefits of an individual's enrollment in the CCC included improved physical condition, heightened morale, and increased employability. Of their pay of $30 a month, $25 went to their parents.[3] Implicitly, the CCC also led to a greater public awareness and appreciation of the outdoors and the nation's natural resources; and the continued need for a carefully planned, comprehensive national program for the protection and development of natural resources.[4]

During the time of the CCC, volunteers planted nearly 3 billion trees to help reforest America, constructed more than 800 parks nationwide and upgraded most state parks, updated forest fire fighting methods, and built a network of service buildings and public roadways in remote areas.[5]

Despite its popular support, the CCC was never a permanent agency. It depended on emergency and temporary Congressional legislation for its existence. By 1942, with World War II and the draft in operation, need for work relief declined and Congress voted to close the program.[7]

As governor of New York, Roosevelt had run a similar program on a small scale. Long interested in conservation,[8] now, as president, he proposed to Congress a much larger national program on 21 March 1933:[9]

I propose to create [the CCC] to be used in simple work, not interfering with normal employment, and confining itself to forestry, the prevention of soil erosion, flood control and similar projects. I call your attention to the fact that this type of work is of definite, practical value, not only through the prevention of great present financial loss, but also as a means of creating future national wealth.

He promised this law would provide 250,000 young men with meals, housing, uniforms, and medical care for working in the national forests and other government properties. The Emergency Conservation Work (ECW) Act was introduced to Congress the same day and enacted by voice vote on 31 March. Roosevelt issued Executive Order 6101 on 5 April 1933 which established the CCC organization and appointed a director, Robert Fechner, a former labor union official who served until 1939. The organization and administration of the CCC was a new experiment in operations for a federal government agency. The order indicated that the program was to be supervised jointly by four government departments: Labor, which recruited the young men, War, which operated the camps, Agriculture and Interior, which organized and supervised the work projects. A CCC Advisory Council was composed of a representative from each of the supervising departments. In addition, the Office of Education and Veterans Administration participated in the program. To end the opposition from labor unions (which wanted no training programs started when so many of their men were unemployed)[10] Roosevelt chose Robert Fechner, vice president of the American Machinists Union, as director of the corps. William Green, head of the American Federation of Labor, was taken to the first camp to demonstrate that there would be no job training involved beyond simple manual labor.[11]

[URL]http://The Civilian Conservation Corps (CCC) was a public work relief program that operated from 1933 to 1942 in the United States for unemployed, unmarried men from relief families, ages 18–25. Robert Fechner was the head of the agency. A part of the New Deal of President Franklin D. Roosevelt, who provided unskilled manual labor jobs related to the conservation and development of natural resources in rural lands owned by federal, state and local governments. The CCC was designed to provide jobs for young men, to relieve families who had difficulty finding jobs during the Great Depression in the United States while at the same time implementing a general natural resource conservation program in every state and territory. Maximum enrollment at any one time was 300,000; in nine years 3 million young men participated in the CCC, which provided them with shelter, clothing, and food, together with a small wage of $30 a month ($25 of which had to be sent home to their families).[1] The American public made the CCC the most popular of all the New Deal programs.[2] Principal benefits of an individual's enrollment in the CCC included improved physical condition, heightened morale, and increased employability. Of their pay of $30 a month, $25 went to their parents.[3] Implicitly, the CCC also led to a greater public awareness and appreciation of the outdoors and the nation's natural resources; and the continued need for a carefully planned, comprehensive national program for the protection and development of natural resources.[4] During the time of the CCC, volunteers planted nearly 3 billion trees to help reforest America, constructed more than 800 parks nationwide and upgraded most state parks, updated forest fire fighting methods, and built a network of service buildings and public roadways in remote areas.[5]

The CCC operated separate programs for veterans and Native Americans. Despite its popular support, the CCC was never a permanent agency. It depended on emergency and temporary Congressional legislation for its existence. By 1942, with World War II and the draft in operation, need for work

As governor of New York, Roosevelt had run a similar program on a small scale. Long interested in conservation,[8] now, as president, he proposed to Congress a much larger national program on 21 March 1933:[9] I propose to create [the CCC] to be used in simple work, not interfering with normal employment, and confining itself to forestry, the prevention of soil erosion, flood control and similar projects. I call your attention to the fact that this type of work is of definite, practical value, not only through the prevention of great present financial loss, but also as a means of creating future national wealth. He promised this law would provide 250,000 young men with meals, housing, uniforms, and medical care for working in the national forests and other government properties. The Emergency Conservation Work (ECW) Act was introduced to Congress the same day and enacted by voice vote on 31 March. Roosevelt issued Executive Order 6101 on 5 April 1933 which established the CCC organization and appointed a director, Robert Fechner, a former labor union official who served until 1939. The organization and administration of the CCC was a new experiment in operations for a federal government agency. The order indicated that the program was to be supervised jointly by four government departments: Labor, which recruited the young men, War, which operated the camps, Agriculture and Interior, which organized and supervised the work projects. A CCC Advisory Council was composed of a representative from each of the supervising departments. In addition, the Office of Education and Veterans Administration participated in the program. To end the opposition from labor unions (which wanted no training programs started when so many of their men were unemployed)[10] Roosevelt chose Robert Fechner, vice president of the American Machinists Union, as director of the corps. William Green, head of the American Federation of Labor, was taken to the first camp to demonstrate that there would be no job training involved beyond simple manual labor.[11]

http://http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Civ ... tion_Corps

User avatar
voguy
Pirate
Posts: 4175
Joined: 06-01-2011 05:47 PM
Location: Moving Target (soon SA)

Post by voguy » 08-23-2013 03:46 PM

Raggedyann wrote: If somebody is only bringing in
Originally posted by Raggedyann
If somebody is only bringing in $1,000 per month, there is no way they could afford a leased SUV. I do not believe this yarn.
,000 per month, there is no way they could afford a leased SUV. I do not believe this yarn.


We'll have to disagree R.A. You're desire to believe something trumps the reality of the situation.
"I predict future happiness for Americans if they can prevent the government from wasting the labors of the people under the pretense of taking care of them." - Thomas Jefferson

User avatar
kbot
Pirate
Posts: 7302
Joined: 03-12-2008 05:44 AM

Post by kbot » 08-23-2013 03:48 PM

Just leave the unicorns outta this.......

User avatar
voguy
Pirate
Posts: 4175
Joined: 06-01-2011 05:47 PM
Location: Moving Target (soon SA)

Post by voguy » 08-23-2013 03:53 PM

Kaztronic wrote: And I agree with all said here as well. So many deadbeats, like the people in the building next to time. And yet, I know people who honestly do need the help, and never ask for it - even though I think they probably should.


And I'm not disputing that. I know there are many needy people as I sit on the board for the Salvation Army, and several service clubs.

But their poverty does not mean my neighbors, as well as many others in my community and other communities, are not playing the system. The fact is, those playing the system are smart enough so as to take a larger share of what your average impoverished citizen would take.

I have no doubt they are receiving some type of income somewhere, which opens up a whole can of worms. Last time I checked, you can't be on public assistance, food stamps, ADC, and other programs while making money. And it's a sure bet they are not paying taxes on what they make under the table.

If someone sees this as OK, I would like to know why.
"I predict future happiness for Americans if they can prevent the government from wasting the labors of the people under the pretense of taking care of them." - Thomas Jefferson

Post Reply

Return to “Politics and Government 2010-2013”