Womman looses job for refusing to sell cigarretes to welfare recipient.

[quietmike]

It takes ideological view of the situation instead of an objective view to deny what history, experience, and common sense shows is true.

So it is your experience and common sense that people will work for less than they can get for staying at home and waiting on the mailman?
History shows at least four generations of people choosing the latter.

[Triton]

I completely agree with you. Experience shows us your statement is correct. It takes ideological view of the situation instead of an objective view to deny what history, experience, and common sense shows is true.

I would suggest that this itself is an ideological view not borne out by experience.

[Triton]

That is true, but that is not the issue. If finding work in this economy was easy, we wouldn't have the hight unemployment / underemployment rates we have. We can't lay the blame of the high unemployment/underemployment rate at Obama's feet and then turn and claim the unemployment rate is to be blamed on the unemployed themselves. One of those two claims is incorrect. Which one is it?

Why? It's entirely possible for the moochers and their enablers to be working together and for it to be their fault equally. That's what's happening.

[Preacher Man]

So it is your experience and common sense that people will work for less than they can get for staying at home and waiting on the mailman?
History shows at least four generations of people choosing the latter.

Original;ly posted by Triton
I would suggest that this itself is an ideological view not borne out by experience.

I'm sorry, but I don't understand what these statements has to do with Trent's post? I agree with Trent that the poor have a higher perchance to spend than the wealthy. What does that mean? That the poor, by their condition, spend most or all of all their income, and if the get extra money, they are more likely to spend it. That's not necessarily because they waste money, but because all of the income goes into paying bills and covering bare necessities, so when they get extra money they tend to try to purchase things that are normal and common in contemporary society. On the other side of the spectrum, you have the well-to-do who already have most of their needs and luxuries covered. Extra money goes to savings, not expenses. Give $1,000 to a poor man and $1,000 to a rich man, who of them is more likely to spend most or all of that money? Multiply that by the whole number of the poor and the well-to-do in the US. Which of these two groups spent more? Which of these two groups added more to the whole economy purchase cycle? This is common sense and in my experience that is what happens. Yes, the well-to-do make more individually, but their numbers are less than the poor and the low middle-class, or what is left of it. So the potential spending of the poor and the low middle class is higher than the well-to-do as a result of their numbers and how much of the income they actually spend. If that was not the case, Walmart wouldn't be the third largest public corporation in the world and the worlds largest private employer.

I agree with Trent that Pilwar's statement: "The vast majority of people WILL find a way to make a living if there is no sugar daddy with free handouts," is a false statement. The problem is not social help or the welfare programs, but the changes in our society brought by the shift from an agrarian economy to an industrial economy and the move of most of the population to the cities. Don't get me wrong, there are problems intrinsic with generational dependence on the welfare system, but these individuals do not make the majority of the unemployed/underemployed, because they are not actively looking for work. Stating that most citizens will do well financially regardless of the situation without any kind of help means that everyone of the unemployed/underemployed has the skills and potential to be entrepreneurs. That is not only false, it is a logical fallacy. As conservatives we criticize how the current educational system treats potential and talent in our children; treating them as if every individual has the same potential and talents. We don't want the ones with talents and potential to be "held back" or "punished" because the system doesn't want the less talented and with less potential to "feel bad." But when we get to economic issues, then magically everyone is supposed to have the same talents and the same level of potential for entrepreneurship? That is a logical fallacy.

I also agree with Trent that "cutting spending right now will balance the economy" is a false statement. I agree with him that cutting spending will be beneficial after the unemployment/underemployment numbers go back to normal levels and we see economic growth. Why? Because cutting spending now will limit the poor's spending potential. Because they spend more, they actually help to move the financial cycle of our economy. By cutting now the one part of the spending that we know is actually going back into the economy and helping to move it, we are shooting ourselves in the foot. The spending needs to come down, and a lot, but after things settle down and the economy starts growing again.

[Preacher Man]

Why? It's entirely possible for the moochers and their enablers to be working together and for it to be their fault equally. That's what's happening.

Your statement is predicated in a false generalization. Are you saying that anyone who supports the existence of welfare programs is an "enabler, and therefore in the wrong side, not a conservative, and "maybe even worthy of contempt? Your statement calls those on welfare "moochers," which suggest they are worthy of contempt. The tittle alone is insulting, because it assumes that anyone who receives welfare for any reason and any situation is a leech and a parasite.

Moocher= Someone who always asks for things and favors constantly and will never leave you alone. They will ask for money, rides to places, for you to do simple tasks they could do easily but they think the whole world should cater to them, basically just a leech to everyone around them, a parasite to the community.

Moocher = A person having a tendency to repeatedly ask help of others, especially if they are making little effort to help themselves. Usually used as a pejorative.

If those who receive welfare benefits are moochers, then anyone who supports welfare in any form is an enabler, and is as bad as the moochers themselves.

Enabling = In a negative sense, enabling is also used in the context of problematic behavior, to signify dysfunctional approaches that are intended to help but in fact may perpetuate a problem.[1][2] A common theme of enabling in this latter sense is that third parties take responsibility, blame, or make accommodations for a person's harmful conduct (often with the best of intentions, or from fear or insecurity which inhibits action). The practical effect is that the person himself or herself does not have to do so, and is shielded from awareness of the harm it may do, and the need or pressure to change. It is a major environmental cause of addiction.[3]

So according to your post, the inability of people to find employment and therefore the hight unemployment/underemployment rates, and the state of the economy that causes/reflects this rate and the world's financial troubles (because the financial crisis that resulted in the high unemployment/underemployment rates and economic problems around the world has the same common cause), are the result of a conspiracy between social parasites, read the unemployed/underemployed specially those who are welfare recipients, and their enablers, read anyone who supports welfare in any way shape or form. I don't think so. Either, the main cause of the current financial crisis and its resulting high unemployment/underemployment rate can be blamed on the mismanagement of Obama administration, or it must be blamed on the unemployed/underemployed themselves. Trying to call for a conspiracy between the unemployed and those who don't want them to go hungry is ridiculous. But the truth is that the causes are complex and trying to blame just one group or individual is a fallacy. The banking industry, and those who called for and got the repeal of Glass-Steagal, carry a lot of the blame for the current state of affairs, but it seems those should be ignored and we should just blame Obama and those on welfare.

Now, if you were to say that the politicization of the welfare system is one of the factors to consider in the growth of spending, and that this spending is one of the factors in our current financial problems, then I would agree with you, but that is a very far cry from what you said. And that still doesn't explain (1) the reasons for the high unemployment/underemployment rate and (2) why it is not a major logical mistake to think that anyone should be able to find a job in this economy or that anyone should be able to start a small business in this economy.

[Noctis3880]

I'm sorry, but I don't understand what these statements has to do with Trent's post? I agree with Trent that the poor have a higher perchance to spend than the wealthy. What does that mean? That the poor, by their condition, spend most or all of all their income, and if the get extra money, they are more likely to spend it. That's not necessarily because they waste money, but because all of the income goes into paying bills and covering bare necessities, so when they get extra money they tend to try to purchase things that are normal and common in contemporary society. On the other side of the spectrum, you have the well-to-do who already have most of their needs and luxuries covered. Extra money goes to savings, not expenses. Give $1,000 to a poor man and $1,000 to a rich man, who of them is more likely to spend most or all of that money? Multiply that by the whole number of the poor and the well-to-do in the US. Which of these two groups spent more? Which of these two groups added more to the whole economy purchase cycle? This is common sense and in my experience that is what happens. Yes, the well-to-do make more individually, but their numbers are less than the poor and the low middle-class, or what is left of it. So the potential spending of the poor and the low middle class is higher than the well-to-do as a result of their numbers and how much of the income they actually spend. If that was not the case, Walmart wouldn't be the third largest public corporation in the world and the worlds largest private employer.

Indeed, the poor, by their condition, spend most or all of their income. Whether on things like flat screen TVs, steak, junkfood, liquor, tobacco, or drugs, it all helps the economy right? Well, maybe not that last item, the Mexican drug cartels will profit from that. But as I said to Trent, if any of you feel like buying me a brand new Rolex Submariner, I'll happily accept that offer.

Not necessary spending is it? Looking back on your own OP, neither were those cigarettes. But if we're going that way, I'll be happy to accept a car with decent mileage over the Submariner. Transportation is my main limiting factor in getting a job above retail, and I'm more likely to make actual use of it.

I agree with Trent that Pilwar's statement: "The vast majority of people WILL find a way to make a living if there is no sugar daddy with free handouts," is a false statement. The problem is not social help or the welfare programs, but the changes in our society brought by the shift from an agrarian economy to an industrial economy and the move of most of the population to the cities. Don't get me wrong, there are problems intrinsic with generational dependence on the welfare system, but these individuals do not make the majority of the unemployed/underemployed, because they are not actively looking for work. Stating that most citizens will do well financially regardless of the situation without any kind of help means that everyone of the unemployed/underemployed has the skills and potential to be entrepreneurs. That is not only false, it is a logical fallacy. As conservatives we criticize how the current educational system treats potential and talent in our children; treating them as if every individual has the same potential and talents. We don't want the ones with talents and potential to be "held back" or "punished" because the system doesn't want the less talented and with less potential to "feel bad." But when we get to economic issues, then magically everyone is supposed to have the same talents and the same level of potential for entrepreneurship? That is a logical fallacy.

Is it? I went into Chinatown quite a few times and found that of all the homeless occupying the streets, not one of them are Chinese. Funny how the immigrants are doing better than the natives. It's also funny how these people make minimum wage or less, and still manage to send money back home and not starve to death.

I also agree with Trent that "cutting spending right now will balance the economy" is a false statement. I agree with him that cutting spending will be beneficial after the unemployment/underemployment numbers go back to normal levels and we see economic growth. Why? Because cutting spending now will limit the poor's spending potential. Because they spend more, they actually help to move the financial cycle of our economy. By cutting now the one part of the spending that we know is actually going back into the economy and helping to move it, we are shooting ourselves in the foot. The spending needs to come down, and a lot, but after things settle down and the economy starts growing again.

When will unemployment/underemployment go back to "normal"? How will it happen? We as a country seem to be waiting for it to happen, while not actually doing anything to make it happen.

There are over 40 million people on foodstamps today, which is approaching 1/8 of the population, that number is still growing at a tremendous rate. When 1/4 of the population is on the program and finds that it "pays" better than a minimum wage job(and a few dollars above that), you think the transition out of that will be easy? That it will be willing?

This is like taking a loan out. You'll get the money now, but later down the road, you are going to PAY, with interest. Sort of like trading a broken bone in favor of cancer.

[Nordic Viking]

There are over 40 million people on foodstamps today, which is approaching 1/8 of the population, that number is still growing at a tremendous rate. When 1/4 of the population is on the program and finds that it "pays" better than a minimum wage job(and a few dollars above that), you think the transition out of that will be easy? That it will be willing?

What an ignorant statement.

Are you implying that there are 40 million empty minimum wage jobs just waiting for people to fill them? The average person who receives foodstamps gets about $140 worth, which is equavalent to 20 hours of minimum wage work. How do you know that they are not working the other 160+ hours just to make ends meet.

[Preacher Man]

What an ignorant statement.

Are you implying that there are 40 million empty minimum wage jobs just waiting for people to fill them? The average person who receives foodstamps gets about $140 worth, which is equavalent to 20 hours of minimum wage work. How do you know that they are not working the other 160+ hours just to make ends meet.

I agree with you on the numbers, but the characterization in bold is unnecessary and uncalled for.

[quietmike]

I'm sorry, but I don't understand what these statements has to do with Trent's post? I agree with Trent that the poor have a higher perchance to spend than the wealthy. What does that mean? That the poor, by their condition, spend most or all of all their income, and if the get extra money, they are more likely to spend it. That's not necessarily because they waste money, but because all of the income goes into paying bills and covering bare necessities, so when they get extra money they tend to try to purchase things that are normal and common in contemporary society. On the other side of the spectrum, you have the well-to-do who already have most of their needs and luxuries covered. Extra money goes to savings, not expenses. Give $1,000 to a poor man and $1,000 to a rich man, who of them is more likely to spend most or all of that money? Multiply that by the whole number of the poor and the well-to-do in the US. Which of these two groups spent more? Which of these two groups added more to the whole economy purchase cycle? This is common sense and in my experience that is what happens. Yes, the well-to-do make more individually, but their numbers are less than the poor and the low middle-class, or what is left of it. So the potential spending of the poor and the low middle class is higher than the well-to-do as a result of their numbers and how much of the income they actually spend. If that was not the case, Walmart wouldn't be the third largest public corporation in the world and the worlds largest private employer.

The above suggests that the wealthy bury their money in the backyard, instead of investing it. This of course is not the case. The wealthy invest their money so that it can continue working while they are doing something else. Yes, the rich may not spend as much a Wal-Mart, but their money returns to the economy just the same.

I agree with Trent that Pilwar's statement: "The vast majority of people WILL find a way to make a living if there is no sugar daddy with free handouts," is a false statement.

So you honestly believe that without welfare, those currently on assistance will just lay down and die?

I also agree with Trent that "cutting spending right now will balance the economy" is a false statement. I agree with him that cutting spending will be beneficial after the unemployment/underemployment numbers go back to normal levels and we see economic growth. Why? Because cutting spending now will limit the poor's spending potential. Because they spend more, they actually help to move the financial cycle of our economy. By cutting now the one part of the spending that we know is actually going back into the economy and helping to move it, we are shooting ourselves in the foot. The spending needs to come down, and a lot, but after things settle down and the economy starts growing again.

See above.

[Preacher Man]

Indeed, the poor, by their condition, spend most or all of their income. Whether on things like flat screen TVs, steak, junkfood, liquor, tobacco, or drugs, it all helps the economy right? Well, maybe not that last item, the Mexican drug cartels will profit from that. But as I said to Trent, if any of you feel like buying me a brand new Rolex Submariner, I'll happily accept that offer.

Not necessary spending is it? Looking back on your own OP, neither were those cigarettes. But if we're going that way, I'll be happy to accept a car with decent mileage over the Submariner. Transportation is my main limiting factor in getting a job above retail, and I'm more likely to make actual use of it.

Ask away. I can't afford either, though. If you get it, good for you. That been said, at issue is if the welfare program in any way helps the economy by promoting spending. Some members argue it doesn't because the poor do not spend more. IMHO that opinion is not based common sense or experience, but on ideology. It makes perfect sense the poor spend more, and as a result all of the welfare benefits money go back into the economy in the form of spending. Is that spending helpful when the economy is healthy and growing? I don't know. I do know it helps when the economy is in bad shape and people tend to limit their spending, and in that way help get the economy moving.

Is it? I went into Chinatown quite a few times and found that of all the homeless occupying the streets, not one of them are Chinese. Funny how the immigrants are doing better than the natives. It's also funny how these people make minimum wage or less, and still manage to send money back home and not starve to death.

An interesting thing is that immigrant communities have their own "welfare system." They help new comers and offer jobs to those who need it. Once upon a time we used to do the same thing through the churches, but the current need is more than what the churches and private charities can cover. It is my contention that one of the factors the outsourcing of jobs.

When will unemployment/underemployment go back to "normal"? How will it happen? We as a country seem to be waiting for it to happen, while not actually doing anything to make it happen.

I agree that we are not taking the necessary steps. We need to bring jobs back here. But some of the industries that outsourced jobs want to bring them back when American workers accept the same wages as they pay in china and other third world countries. How paying those wages will get people out of welfare? It won't. It will only help the industry's bottom line, but not the citizens nor the economy.

There are over 40 million people on foodstamps today, which is approaching 1/8 of the population, that number is still growing at a tremendous rate. When 1/4 of the population is on the program and finds that it "pays" better than a minimum wage job(and a few dollars above that), you think the transition out of that will be easy? That it will be willing?

This is like taking a loan out. You'll get the money now, but later down the road, you are going to PAY, with interest. Sort of like trading a broken bone in favor of cancer.

We need to set incentives for people to leave welfare and join the workforce. Of course, if there are not enough jobs that is kind of difficult. That is why we also may want to consider setting incentives for industries to bring back jobs while setting discouragements for jobs outsourcing. Something else to consider is that slightly better wages will go along way to get people out of food stamps. I find it ridiculous that some of the individuals who criticize those on welfare also want wages to go down to "compete" with the third world. That is a recipe for great profits for a few and great economic and social problems for everyone else, just like the great idea of mortgage backed securities that caused the current world-wide economic crisis.

[Preacher Man]

The above suggests that the wealthy bury their money in the backyard, instead of investing it. This of course is not the case. The wealthy invest their money so that it can continue working while they are doing something else. Yes, the rich may not spend as much a Wal-Mart, but their money returns to the economy just the same.

The wealthy invest some of their money, but the kind of investments they make has changed. Also, some of that money is invested in markets that do not benefit our economy, just as part of that money is banked out of our country. The fact that jobs are been lost is an indication that the wealthy are investing less, are shifting their investments to areas that benefit them personally but no longer result in job creation, or are investing in other markets other than ours.

So you honestly believe that without welfare, those currently on assistance will just lay down and die?

I don't think everyone will go down in flames. Some will be able to start small business, simply because they have the skill, talents, and temperament for entrepreneurship. Others will take employment they don't like, but pays the bills, Still, others will have to live out of small, odd jobs, but will still not be able to cover their expenses, while others will not find employment. So yes, I think some (specially kids) will die of malnutrition and lack of medical help (Medicaid and CHIPS are part of the welfare program and with kids preventive medicine in essential) as jobs won't magically appear and not everyone has the talent, skill, or temperament for entrepreneurship, and those with the most means to help are also the ones less likely to do so. I believe a a larger sector will become homeless and some will resort to crime, as they find legal means to gain employment out of their reach. The reason this is a General Welfare issue is that the potential social problems is real and considerable.

[quietmike]

The wealthy invest some of their money, but the kind of investments they make has changed. Also, some of that money is invested in markets that do not benefit our economy, just as part of that money is banked out of our country. The fact that jobs are been lost is an indication that the wealthy are investing less, are shifting their investments to areas that benefit them personally but no longer result in job creation, or are investing in other markets other than ours.

By that same metric, the majority of money spent at Wal-Mart also goes out of the country and doesn't help our economy, as Wal-Mart's profit on an item is a fraction of the cost, the majority gets kicked back to China.

I would argue the lost jobs are the result of a getting the lesson of the carrot and the stick exactly backwards.

I don't think everyone will go down in flames. Some will be able to start small business, simply because they have the skill, talents, and temperament for entrepreneurship. Others will take employment they don't like, but pays the bills, Still, others will have to live out of small, odd jobs, but will still not be able to cover their expenses, while others will not find employment. So yes, I think some (specially kids) will die of malnutrition and lack of medical help (Medicaid and CHIPS are part of the welfare program and with kids preventive medicine in essential) as jobs won't magically appear and not everyone has the talent, skill, or temperament for entrepreneurship, and those with the most means to help are also the ones less likely to do so. I believe a a larger sector will become homeless and some will resort to crime, as they find legal means to gain employment out of their reach. The reason this is a General Welfare issue is that the potential social problems is real and considerable.

So , even you admit the majority on assistance will be able to support themselves.

A "study" from Huffpo????

Every study I have seen shows conservatives (who are more likely to oppose welfare) are far more charitable than liberals.

[Preacher Man]

By that same metric, the majority of money spent at Wal-Mart also goes out of the country and doesn't help our economy, as Wal-Mart's profit on an item is a fraction of the cost, the majority gets kicked back to China.

It is not the same. Walmart actually creates jobs here and is the largest private employer in the world. It is investing here and expanding here. How creating all of those jobs and operating all of those stores doesn't benefit the economy? Regardless of how much other countries benefit from their investment, we can see without a doubt they are investing heavily here. My argument is that we cannot say the same of the rich in general any more as the evidence of job loss and the lack of job creation points to a shift in investment practices. .

I would argue the lost jobs are the result of a getting the lesson of the carrot and the stick exactly backwards.

I'm sorry, I missed this. Could you please explain?

So , even you admit the majority on assistance will be able to support themselves.

Where do I say I think the majority will do fine? I did say that I don't think every one will go down in flames, that is not the same the majority will do well. I do not think the majority will do well. I think the the larger portion of those who find jobs will be under employed and that the number of those who do not find jobs will be significant.

A "study" from Huffpo????

Actually the study is from Berkley which is confirmed by the study done on the relation between wealth and morality published in Proceedings Of The National Academy of Science and a study on social connections and dehumanization published in the Journal Of Experimental Social Psychology. Just because the Huffington Post has liberal leanings doesn't mean everything they publish has a political agenda, specially academic studies with results confirmed through several other studies. Sometimes the news is just the news.

Every study I have seen shows conservatives (who are more likely to oppose welfare) are far more charitable than liberals.

Conservatives are not necessarily wealthy and liberals are not necessarily poor. These studies are not about conservatives vs liberals but the effect of wealth in empathy and morality. There have been a considerable number of studies on the subject from different institutions and universities and all the results support the same conclusions. The wealthy are more likely to dehumanize people, lack empathy, and act unethically than those who are not wealthy.

[quietmike]

It is not the same. Walmart actually creates jobs here and is the largest private employer in the world. It is investing here and expanding here. How creating all of those jobs and operating all of those stores doesn't benefit the economy? Regardless of how much other countries benefit from their investment, we can see without a doubt they are investing heavily here. My argument is that we cannot say the same of the rich in general any more as the evidence of job loss and the lack of job creation points to a shift in investment practices. .

Wal-Mart also pays so little it is a near expectation that its employees will be on some type of government assistance. The lack of job creating is caused by the heavy burden of taxes and regulations. Every survey of investors bears this out.

I'm sorry, I missed this. Could you please explain?

Punishing success and rewarding failure, the opposite of natural laws.

Where do I say I think the majority will do fine? I did say that I don't think every one will go down in flames, that is not the same the majority will do well. I do not think the majority will do well. I think the the larger portion of those who find jobs will be under employed and that the number of those who do not find jobs will be significant.

If they can find jobs, even if they are underemployed, why aren't they doing so now? Because its easier to sit on the sofa and wait on the mailman to bring a check.

[Preacher Man]

Wal-Mart also pays so little it is a near expectation that its employees will be on some type of government assistance. The lack of job creating is caused by the heavy burden of taxes and regulations. Every survey of investors bears this out.

I don't think taxes and regulations is the reason. It may be a factor, but if taxes and regulation was the reason, then a change in taxes and regulation should bring back all outsourced jobs and avoid future outsourcing. That is not going to happen, because the issue is not taxes and regulation but the bottom line. At the end, the lowest priced properties, utilities, and workforce will get the job

Punishing success and rewarding failure, the opposite of natural laws.

How do you see we are doing that in a way that is affecting the unemployment/underemployment rate?

If they can find jobs, even if they are underemployed, why aren't they doing so now? Because its easier to sit on the sofa and wait on the mailman to bring a check.

The definition of the unemployment rate is someone who is looking for a job and don't find one. There are individuals who collect welfare who can work and can find employment but refuse to do so, or who work and don't report it. Those are the ones who abuse the system and shouldn't be in the welfare system. When push comes to shove, these will start working or keep working on the jobs they are not reporting. But those who are really unemployed because there are not enough jobs, those will suffer, and those are the ones I'm concerned with. Those are the ones who actually care for their children and try to keep their families together. And those are the ones who are willing to improve their situation. I have worked with homeless and the poor. There are individuals who refuse to work, but there are a lot of individuals who want to work but don't find work, or all they find is not enough to pay the bills. The poorest are the ones with the least education and with the most limited skill set. Outsourcing and the slow construction market severely limits their options. Some argue they should get educated and train in some technical field, but that is not free, and if you can't pay your bills, you don't have enough to go to school with all the expenses that entails.

[quietmike]

I don't think taxes and regulations is the reason. It may be a factor, but if taxes and regulation was the reason, then a change in taxes and regulation should bring back all outsourced jobs and avoid future outsourcing. That is not going to happen, because the issue is not taxes and regulation but the bottom line. At the end, the lowest priced properties, utilities, and workforce will get the job

So, you believe the investors are lying when they give their reasons for not investing?

How do you see we are doing that in a way that is affecting the unemployment/underemployment rate?

A progressive tax system punishes success. JFK, Reagan, and Bush all lowered taxes to spur the economy, it worked all three times. Rewarding people who are not working through entitlements is the other side of the coin.

Do you know many coaches who make their players run laps when they get a touchdown, and celebrate when they fumble?

The definition of the unemployment rate is someone who is looking for a job and don't find one.

Depends on which rate you are referring to. There are several rates, and numbers are juggled depending on what the politicians want people to believe.

There are individuals who collect welfare who can work and can find employment but refuse to do so, or who work and don't report it. Those are the ones who abuse the system and shouldn't be in the welfare system. When push comes to shove, these will start working or keep working on the jobs they are not reporting. But those who are really unemployed because there are not enough jobs, those will suffer, and those are the ones I'm concerned with. Those are the ones who actually care for their children and try to keep their families together. And those are the ones who are willing to improve their situation. I have worked with homeless and the poor. There are individuals who refuse to work, but there are a lot of individuals who want to work but don't find work, or all they find is not enough to pay the bills. The poorest are the ones with the least education and with the most limited skill set. Outsourcing and the slow construction market severely limits their options. Some argue they should get educated and train in some technical field, but that is not free, and if you can't pay your bills, you don't have enough to go to school with all the expenses that entails.

Back to my first reply, if this money wasn't spent on welfare programs, it would be reinvested by the people who made it, producing more jobs. It's not coincidence that every time the minimum wage is raised there is a corresponding layoff of workers.

If the person has a limited education, who's fault is that? We already have free education that gives someone a H.S. diploma. Past that they can volunteer their time as an apprentice to learn a different trade.

[Noctis3880]

What an ignorant statement.

Are you implying that there are 40 million empty minimum wage jobs just waiting for people to fill them? The average person who receives foodstamps gets about $140 worth, which is equavalent to 20 hours of minimum wage work. How do you know that they are not working the other 160+ hours just to make ends meet.

I'm not sure why you think there needs to be 40 million job positions available as Preacher has said that underemployment(not enough hours) is just as much of a problem as unemployment. Minimum wage and above? Probably not. Below that? Absolutely. That might be a hint of why America's workforce isn't as competitive. Not with China, nobody can compete with them. Yet seeing the labels of 20 some other countries other than China on the clothing I buy does not inspire confidence in me.

Also, if I don't make a habit of buying large amounts of alcohol and tobacco when I'm NOT struggling to make ends meet, I sure as hell won't start when I AM struggling to make ends meet. Just sayin'. I also might find chicken pasta and beans on the menu 6 days a week, and 2 of 3 meals of that daily. It's a common joke around the workplace that these people seem to eat better than us(and not in the healthy sense) despite us supposedly making more money than them.

Ask away. I can't afford either, though. If you get it, good for you. That been said, at issue is if the welfare program in any way helps the economy by promoting spending. Some members argue it doesn't because the poor do not spend more. IMHO that opinion is not based common sense or experience, but on ideology. It makes perfect sense the poor spend more, and as a result all of the welfare benefits money go back into the economy in the form of spending. Is that spending helpful when the economy is healthy and growing? I don't know. I do know it helps when the economy is in bad shape and people tend to limit their spending, and in that way help get the economy moving.

Huh, and here I thought a major factor that separates the "poor"(or poverty) and middle-class was their spending habits. I mean, I know some family members who probably could have lived a better lifestyle had they not gambled it all away.

This is just another example of punishing good behavior and rewarding bad habits. People save their money because they feel they'll need it if they suddenly get laid off. Yet those who spend recklessly without regard for the consequences never have to deal with them.

An interesting thing is that immigrant communities have their own "welfare system." They help new comers and offer jobs to those who need it. Once upon a time we used to do the same thing through the churches, but the current need is more than what the churches and private charities can cover. It is my contention that one of the factors the outsourcing of jobs.

Indeed the Chinese community seems to have a stronger group support. Yet my point is, none of them seem to be unemployed at all. Some might be struggling to make ends meet and may even be on foodstamps themselves, but none are seemingly unemployed or homeless. This one racial group also seems to be one where I never see them make any unnecessary purchases of certain "luxury" items. No liquor, no tobacco, no TV dinners. If they bought steak or shrimp at all, it was because it was on a weekly special that you only see once or twice a year.

I agree that we are not taking the necessary steps. We need to bring jobs back here. But some of the industries that outsourced jobs want to bring them back when American workers accept the same wages as they pay in china and other third world countries. How paying those wages will get people out of welfare? It won't. It will only help the industry's bottom line, but not the citizens nor the economy.

We need to set incentives for people to leave welfare and join the workforce. Of course, if there are not enough jobs that is kind of difficult. That is why we also may want to consider setting incentives for industries to bring back jobs while setting discouragements for jobs outsourcing. Something else to consider is that slightly better wages will go along way to get people out of food stamps. I find it ridiculous that some of the individuals who criticize those on welfare also want wages to go down to "compete" with the third world. That is a recipe for great profits for a few and great economic and social problems for everyone else, just like the great idea of mortgage backed securities that caused the current world-wide economic crisis.

Aren't you getting a bit sucked into the numbers alone? I'm only 24, but my grey-haired coworker constantly tells me of the old days when, working the exact same job I am now, he could afford to pay off his first apartment and own a car too with a lower wage per hour. My own mother tells me that $20 would get you a shopping cart full of groceries. I spent $16 today on 2 1/2 lbs of cherries and ant bait.

Isn't this just a bait and switch? The government has raised minimum wage to cover up the fact that prices are going up everywhere. Frankly, I wouldn't mind going back to $4.00/hr(well before my time) if it means I can buy 4 loaves of bread with that 4 dollars. I'm not saying that lowering wages will magically solve all our problems. I'm suggesting that not every task is worth minimum wage. And demanding minimum wage for labor that is worth less than minimum wage is a large part of the reason why work is going overseas. The progressive tax rate would be the other part. If that's not it, then please enlighten me as to why so many movies were filmed outside of the US, including those supposedly set in the US.

[Preacher Man]

That's on them. For hundreds of years people came (heck are still coming) to this country with nothing but the shirt on their back, and yet somehow not only did they survive, but they created economic opportunity for themselves. Not only did they not get more than minimum wage they weren't guaranteed ANY wage and they didn't get food given to them either. If they could do it so can our current populace.

I keep hearing that fallacious argument. Why fallacious? Because it assumes the economic model, the population level, social mobility, and population concentration in the cities has remain constant and unchanging during the last hundred plus years. The statement makes for a good bumper-sticker, but it wouldn't make it pass a grader in a college paper. Why? Because it judgment is based on too many assumptions while ignoring all the factors that come to play regarding the availability and creation of jobs, then and now.

Anything that is provided above and beyond an actual necessity is maintaining a lifestyle.

Really? Says who? Lifestyle doesn't mean what you think it means; it is a sociological term. Instead of reinventing the wheel, let me quote a good definition.

Lifestyle = A lifestyle typically reflects an individual's attitudes, values or world view. Therefore, a lifestyle is a means of forging a sense of self and to create cultural symbols that resonate with personal identity. Not all aspects of a lifestyle are voluntary. Surrounding social and technical systems can constrain the lifestyle choices available to the individual and the symbols she/he is able to project to others and the self.[2]

The lines between personal identity and the everyday doings that signal a particular lifestyle become blurred in modern society.[3] For example, "green lifestyle" means holding beliefs and engaging in activities that consume fewer resources and produce less harmful waste (i.e. a smaller carbon footprint), and deriving a sense of self from holding these beliefs and engaging in these activities. Some commentators[who?] argue that, in modernity, the cornerstone of lifestyle construction is consumption behavior, which offers the possibility to create and further individualize the self with different products or services that signal different ways of life.[4]

Lifestyle may include views on politics, religion, health, intimacy, and more. All of these aspects play a role in shaping someone's lifestyle.

Just having a car, a TV, or a cell phone doesn't constitute a lifestyle. If such car, TV, or cellphone is chosen as a way to express and communicate the individual's values and sense of self, then and only then that car, TV, or cellphone can be a part of the individual's lifestyle. Living in society within the characteristics of that society is not a lifestyle, is just living within society.

[quietmike]

I keep hearing that fallacious argument. Why fallacious? Because it assumes the economic model, the population level, social mobility, and population concentration in the cities has remain constant and unchanging during the last hundred plus years. The statement makes for a good bumper-sticker, but it wouldn't make it pass a grader in a college paper. Why? Because it judgment is based on too many assumptions while ignoring all the factors that come to play regarding the availability and creation of jobs, then and now.

It has remained constant enough Mexicans are still doing it today.

[Preacher Man]

It has remained constant enough Mexicans are still doing it today.

The fact that we pay better wages per hour and with a better currency than a worker can get in Mexico doesn't say anything about the consistency or inconsistency of the factors I mention.