Anyone but Obama

As you wish:

DAVID AGREES HE CARES LITTLE FOR ANYONE AND WANTS THEM TO DIE. HE WENT FURTHER AND SAID THAT POOR PEOPLE DON'T EXIST AND THAT IF ONE SOMEHOW MANAGED TO SURVIVE HE'D SHOOT THEM HIMSELF.

Is that really what you want? I'm fine with it if that's what you want. You really want to keep BS'ing? Ok, let's DO this t'ing!

 

Now you are making yourself look foolish.
Follow me here....you quoted (which is typically the item your response pertains to) a statement I made regarding personal responsibility & self-reliance then you proceeded to claim we have different "ideals". Seeing how the only ideal of mine you quoted was the one regarding personal responsibility & self-reliance, what else should I think?

 

I have tried several times to return to a reasonable discussion, but you refuse. As. You. Wish. I will reply in an equal fashion:

DAVID AGREES THAT HE HAS BECOME A FOLLISH OLD MAN WITH NO INTEREST IN HAVING A REASONABLE DISCUSSION. I HAVE ALSO LEARNED HE BELIEVES BABIES ARE ALL UGLY AND SHOULD NOT BE SEEN IN PUBLIC. HE DIDN'T SAY SO DIRECTLY, BUT IT WAS IMPLIED.

This is what YOU want. I will oblige.

 

You can avoid the question all you want & make your little attempts to re-direct the discussion but I'm simply asking you what you meant when you quoted me then claimed we had different ideals...keeping in mind the only ideal of mine you quoted pertained to personal responsibility & self-reliance.

 

I have attempted to return this thread to a reasonable discussion concerning 'entitlements' several times, asking direct questions. Those questions, that would return the discussion to a more reasonable dialogue have been ignored in favor of the puerile arguments. Until my reasonable, current issue-related question is answered I will continue to treat David as he treats others.

Therefore:

DAVID HAS ADMITTED HE HAS NO COMPASSION FOR THE ELDERLY PEOPLE LIVING ON SOCIAL SECURITY. HE BELIEVES THEY SHOULD NOT BE ENCOURAGED TO CONTINUE RECEIVING ASSISTANCE WHEN THEY COULD BE WORKING AT WALMART OR AT SOME CONSTRUCTION SITE SOMEWHERE, "THE LAZY BUMS NEED TO GET A JOB AND QUIT WHINING" IS ESSENTIALLY WHAT DAVID BELIEVES.

I'm sure we will be at this a while, unless you are able to return to a reasonable discussion of current issues. I'm seriously doubting you are capable of that, so you might want to grab something to eat 'cause I can do this for years.

 

IQless1, you keep saying that you want to discuss calmly now, so lets go back to the topic you brought up. I posted;

And your reply was (remember, the topic is welfare);

Not finding them is the onliest proof I can offer you, but since you say "They are 'under the radar'", not finding them may imply I am correct, but does not prove anything. If they did not occur, I would find nothing, but if they were truly 'under the radar', I would get the same result Would you now care to try to back up your statement?

 

Wan't the last real question related to unemployment insurance? And weren't several suggestions offered?

 

Interesting path. It went from welfare abuse, to my denial, to SS and medicare, to Hitler was for the creation of a Jewish soccer team, back to SS and medicare safety net, how unreasonable we have been, to unemployment, and I am sure I have missed several, but I got the Hitler comparison when I simply asked for proof that the Welfare Reform Act had killed people.

 

Explaining this to someone who hasn't lived the life is not easy, but I'll give it a shot. (not saying YOU haven't, just in general)

Would you agree or disagree that the poor in America are in a sense, invisible, to the upper and middle classes? By that, I mean do you think that people on comfortable incomes have any knowledge on how a poor person lives, what they do, how they survive day to day? My argument is that they do not have any idea, and that ...that can be expected. So when a poor person dies, does anyone even know? How could they? I'm saying the death is under the radar because few in the upper or middle classes would even have the interest in knowing of the person's death.

Now, this isn't rocket science here... this should be common sense. Then again 'common sense' is somewhat of a misnomer. In your case, I'm assuming you are taking issue with the idea that entitlement reform will lead to some poor people dying, and want proof of my assertion that would be true. I have no proof but it's common sense that if you have a million people relying on a certain type of entitlement as their only means of support, and that entitlement is discontinued, that SOME of those people will die. Not ALL of course, but SOME.

I have to add that I'm not against reforms, but I am against anything that hurts the poor. That includes Obama's Cash for Clunkers program, since it limited the amount of vehicles the poor will have available to them in the future. As for unemployment benefits, I'm even more stringent than you or David.

 

ENOUGH. If you feel you have been treated unfairly then ignore me or report me to Davis or Orc. But you asked your question and I answered, so DON'T RETURN TO THE PUERILE. (it's my word of the day)

 

I disagree because it paints people with way too broad of a brush. One's current condition is not always indicative of what they have been through- I live very comfortably now but it hasn't always been that way and I am very familiar with the struggles people have when money isn't plentiful.

 

Fair enough, though the amount of time one spends in poverty is relevant ...in that opportunities decrease over time and health declines leading to a shorter, more miserable life. That's why I went further and gave a hypothetical scenario where a million people rely on a particular entitlement as the entirety of their income and it is discontinued. I stated it was reasonable to assume that some of them would die.

Although the scenario is hypothetical, the reality is comparable. My assertion that SOME poor people will die as a result of the discontinuation of their benefits is plausible, but admittedly I am unable to prove it with statistics (though it's reasonable to assume there are studies that may be related).

 

Lets start out dissuading one of your premises - by a lot of definitions, I would qualify as one of your poor. I am also probably the only one here who has lived amongst the truly poor and needy. Granted, it was 40 years ago, but they had no house, no TV, no phone, no car, or anything on that order. On today's American standards, you are poor if you only have one i-phone and just one big-screen TV. (BTW, I have neither.)

As for the poor people dying, I am sure they do. I am also sure that their deaths are not well publicized. That is exactly what I have said now 4 times that I cannot prove the did not die due to welfare reform. However, saying they died. Therefore, it was welfare reform does not connect to me. They still have access to free medical. They still have access to free food. They still have access to free shelter. (At least, they have the latter 2 until Obama removes the deduction for charity donations.) If you want to say they died because of ignorance, sure. Died because of stupidity, probably. Died because the government hand out stopped, I don't follow.

You say you are "against anything that hurts the poor". Do you remember Pavlov's dogs? Ring that bell and they came for food. They had no need to go elsewhere for food, so they did not. Why are the "poor" any different. They sit on their butts for 30 days while they watch their big screen TV and they get paid for it. Just where is their impetus to do elsewise? Remember what has been shown about the relation between ending unemployment and the unemployed getting a job? Why would you expect this to be any different?

BTW, before you go off, this is not to involve those incapable of working. However, those incapable of work probably has a bit of a different definition for me than you. Remember what Good Will employs.

 

I'm not sure what 'going off' means to you, or if the following applies, but I'll respond anyway.

I'm hoping to break $4,000 this year, but that is unlikely. The most I ever made in a year was about $13,000... working 5am to 1pm shifts with a 9pm to 5am shift once a week... and I was a straw boss (Head of Maintenance) at the time with about 5 years of experience at that position before downsizing began. The entire maintenace staff has since been discontinued and outsourced. The most expensive car I bought was for $700... and I sold it for the same amount shortly afterwards. My current hand-me-down car is stuck at my bosses, it's broken down and I can't afford to get it repaired, can't afford to have it hauled anywhere. My clothes I buy at goodwill, otherwise I'd go naked.

Not in all cases, and before you argue against it remember that nothing has a simple 'black and white' answer to it. There are always shades of gray. In this case, hospitals will not provide free service unless certain requirements are met, which is basically saying they wanna get payed. If a poor person lacks the proper documents (which is uncommon but does occur) then the hospital will avoid taking care of the person any way they can. I've had free food as a kid. What I remember is that there was not enough there... that the amount given away for free is inadequate. I think it's meant more as a buffer to prevent starvation, and not a complete diet.

You also have to take location into consideration. A larger city is going to be better equipped to feed, cloth, and house the poor, as well as have better access to free health care... compared to a smaller city or town.

The reasons the poor remain poor is not as simple as that. There are many factors that promote poverty. Politics is a huge factor. Remember, the poverty line is currently less than $11,000 for a single person, and if you have been poor at one time you know how hard it is to live on less than that. But also remember, everyone is different... if you dug yourself out of a hole, then congrats.... but not all the poor can do that. Your situation was unique to you.

As long as the conversation doesn't break down into something insane... I'll refrain from dropping the hammer on you.

The working-poor would LOVE to be able to work... but employers HATE the working poor. They don't have money to 'dress-to-impress', their vehicles are unreliable, they have bad teeth and are generally sickly.

IMO, part of the problem is lack of funding for cities and townships for general improvements. If funding was there to hire part-time workers at minimum wage to pick-up garbage off the streets, clean and otherwise maintain public areas, the problem would be lessened. I'm talking inexpensive projects here, not the large contract-jobs or the permanent city-worker jobs. But that would mean taxes, and we know how everyone feels about THAT.

 

I am very sorry for you "luck" on your job. However, less than $4,000 per year and you buy your clothes at Goodwill - but you can afford a computer, I-pod, I-pad, or what ever and to pay to get on line? Something I am missing here.

As for the working poor loving to work, I think you would be surprised how many of them are more in love with not working. I could not begin to tell you how many stories I have heard about these people who will "work for food", but somehow when you have something for them to do, they are only interested in the money if they don't have to work for it.

 

Eleven dollars per day ($333 per month) isn't much to live on. I'm going to assume that you don't own a computer or pay for internet access. Or if you actually own a computer, you use free internet access such as at a local library, coffee shop, etc. Or you live with someone who pays for internet access.

Is the reason you might only make $4000 this year due to a disability? Is it due to an inability to find work? I'm going to assume that you want to work, but something is keeping you from actually working. You mentioned that you worked "5am to 1pm shifts with a 9pm to 5am shift once a week". I'm not sure if your comment was a complaint or a source of pride. I worked varied shifts and night shifts for more than 20 years of my life. Though it kept me from spending some time with my family during holidays, I didn't mind working the hours since it was my source of income. Do you feel the same way?

I'm glad to hear that someone gave you a car, but I'm sorry to hear it's not running. Is your job within walking distance or does your city have public transportation? Even a bicycle might be a good idea if you're physically able to ride one and it would be feasible for you. If you're unable to walk or ride a bicycle due to disability (or because of the lack of bike routes or due to inclement weather), many cities offer transportation services free-of-charge for the mobility-impaired. Check online for services in your area.

I'm happy to see that you're being thrifty and buying stuff at Goodwill. I buy things there, too. I find good clothes at Goodwill such as Ralph Lauren POLO and Tommy Hilfiger. People would be surprised at what they can find for just pennies!

 

Hey, you might be wearing my old stuff. Would you please check the pockets? I can't seem to find my silver spoon. Please brush all the white powder off of it before you send it back. They got dogs that sniff for that kind of thing.

OK bad joke!

 

??????? Where did that come from? Have you had your morning coffee, yet?

 

As "Head of Maintenance", I would assume that you were a full time employee? Also, I believe that you said you lived in Michigan? If those are correct, you need to sue your employer. They were violating the state minimum wage law!

"Full time minimum wage workers in Michigan earn a total of $296.00 per week and approximately $15,392.00 per year (based on a 8 hour days and a 260-day work year) before taxes."

 

Yeah, maybe a little too much coffee. I think I'm giddy.