They Should Just Make Being Poor and a CheapAss a Crime Already

dohdough said:
How about we cut your effective pay rate to $2 an hour and then you tell me how great it is to be paid in food stamps while capping you at 20 hours a week. You'll have plenty of time to surf and tell people to get fucked on CAG.


No, but basing it on spite and libertarian mental masturbation does. Obviously, you must have children and know how easy it is to raise them as well as knowing how cheap it is. Single parent with fulltime job, going to school fulltime, and raising one kid? Easy peasy, right?

Oh I know your answer: they shouldn't have had kids. Yeah...nothing simple about that gem!
Click to expand...
Hhehehehehe...go back to my post about supply and demand. How many people are willing to stay up 24 hours straight sometimes and run into burning houses for $2/hour? If that was the case, then I would have made a different life decision. Requiring work for welfare pays at least minimum wage. You are more content having people sit at home getting welfare rather than helping the community?!? If I am to "volunteer" my tax money to help people, then why can't I expect people to volunteer their time if they are not working? It will hopefully teach people a work ethic, to be on time, and maybe even instill a little civic pride. What expectations am I allowed to have for people on welfare in your world?

Since Msutt refuses to answer my immigration versus our current unemployment dilemma question, maybe you will. You at least stand up for what you believe usually, and I think you were the person who told me I can't expect people on welfare to work because there are not enough jobs. Should we allow more unskilled labor to illegally cross our border? Should we provide gov't programs to assist them?

Last but not least, thinking people on welfare should not have kids is not simple, it's common sense logic. Are you saying they don't have the intelligence or self restraint and discipline to prevent pregnancy? Do you believe that in some cases welfare does offer incentives for single moms to have kids?

 
egofed said:
go back to my post about supply and demand. How many people are willing to stay up 24 hours straight sometimes and run into burning houses for $2/hour?
Click to expand...
Lots of places rely on volunteer firefighters. 0 dollars (albeit they can earn a pension).

 
Last edited by a moderator:
Msut77 said:
Lots of places rely on volunteer firefighters. 0 dollars (albeit they can earn a pension).
Click to expand...
This is supply and demand in action. When a municipality gets enough residents to have a large enough tax base, they usually form a paid department. The residents demand fire and ems protection from full time employees in many cases.

 
Not much  demand.

 
http://iipdigital.usembassy.gov/st/english/publication/2010/11/20101124115752kcir0.3470532.html#axzz38g270L4H

Volunteer firefighters are a special group. When ordinary people are running out of burning buildings, they are going into them. And without pay.

• 86 percent of fire departments are all or mostly volunteer; they protect 39 percent of the population.

• Of the 1.15 million firefighters in the United States, 812,150 are volunteers.

• 94 percent of volunteer firefighters serve communities with fewer than 25,000 residents.

• There are 21,235 all volunteer and 4,830 mostly volunteer fire departments in the United States.

• Volunteer firefighters save local communities $37.2 billion per year in taxes.

• 72 U.S. firefighters died in the line of duty in 2010; 44 were volunteers.

Read more: http://iipdigital.usembassy.gov/st/english/publication/2010/11/20101124115752kcir0.3470532.html#ixzz38g3NcKBg

http://apps.usfa.fema.gov/census/summary.cfm

-----------------------------------

Department Type

The department type is based on the NFPA definition (Career: 100 percent of a department's firefighters are career; Mostly Career: 51-99 percent of a department's firefighters are career; Mostly Volunteer: 1-50 percent of a department's firefighters are career; Volunteer: 100 percent of a department's firefighters are volunteer). Of the fire departments registered with the census,

  • 8 percent are career
  • 5 percent are mostly career
  • 16 percent are mostly volunteer
  • 71 percent are volunteer
The numbers of fire department personnel are used to determine the department type. There were 123 fire departments that did not provide the number of personnel. These departments were excluded from this analysis

 
Last edited by a moderator:
I am also pretty sure that volunteers are not required to live at the station for 24 hours at a time, and conduct the same training and certification standards. The whole point is irrelevant though. If my job reduced my wage to $2/ hour, then I would seek new employment. Receiving welfare is a voluntary program. No one would be forced to do volunteer work if they do not want other people's money. You think people have a right to welfare and no requirement or accountability should be required? It would give an  incentive to people to get a real job versus staying on the gov't's teat for as long as possible. Now about your argument that there are not enough jobs for current citizens, anybody wanna talk about opening our borders for more unskilled laborers and welfare dependent people?

 
Msut77 said:
Ego,
What else do you think you are qualified for?
Click to expand...
??? This is relevant and pertinent to this awful debate in what way? What is your occupation, Msutt? I have been a successful retail employee and manager, dishwasher, ESL tutor, regular tutor, mailman, dishwasher, security monitor, long term substitute teacher, EMT-E, CPR instructor, construction laborer, cigarette promo team leader, and just made another $2150 trading AAPL stock today. What is your point?

 
egofed said:
??? This is relevant and pertinent to this awful debate in what way? What is your occupation, Msutt? I have been a successful retail employee and manager, dishwasher, ESL tutor, regular tutor, mailman, dishwasher, security monitor, long term substitute teacher, EMT-E, CPR instructor, construction laborer, cigarette promo team leader, and just made another $2150 trading AAPL stock today. What is your point?
Click to expand...
Lol Msut77 owned again
 
I'm in supply chain management. I washed dishes to put myself through college. I never sold cigarettes on the sidewalk however.
 
Thanks for answering. Sounds like a great capitalistic driven occupation. I never sold cigarettes, I lead a team who went to bars and ran promotions to advertise particular brands. Great times for a guy in his twenties looking to get laid. It also paid $21/hour. I hate cigarettes though, always have. Can't stand to even kiss a chick that smokes.

How about that immigration versus unemployment question? And what, if anything, should disqualify someone from receiving welfare? Should it be continuous from cradle to grave?

 
Ego,
I'll break it down to A and consider B a twofer.
A) I am not engaging you on an immigration "debate". It is a sorry attempt at changing the subject. You can start a thread and see if there are any takers.

B) Define welfare, use your words to describe the programs you are making oblique references to.

 
Last edited by a moderator:
Sorry, bud, just not feeling it today. I'll define welfare another day after I get back from vacation and some welfare mooches have whipped up my ire. :rofl:

 
Been several days and no numbers, nothing defining terms...

Also, If this is where ego gets news I think I know why he is this the way he is.

 
Last edited by a moderator:
Msut77 said:
http://youtu.be/2X2HghQ2A5A
Uninsured Rates Drop in Every Kentucky County Under ACA
Click to expand...
uh huh yeah, if the gov't forces you to buy insurance or face a penalty, and gives you other people's money to pay for it with, then the insured percentage of people SHOULD skyrocket. You think the gov't should have the power to force you to buy a product from a company, I do not. Should the gov't have the power to force people to eat healthy, exercise, and give up smoking and drinking? It would definitely decrease medical costs....;-) . How about letting people be accountable for their decisions instead of using tax payers money to constantly bail them out?
 
egofed said:
uh huh yeah, if the gov't forces you to buy insurance or face a penalty, and gives you other people's money to pay for it with, then the insured percentage of people SHOULD skyrocket. You think the gov't should have the power to force you to buy a product from a company, I do not. Should the gov't have the power to force people to eat healthy, exercise, and give up smoking and drinking? It would definitely decrease medical costs....;-) . How about letting people be accountable for their decisions instead of using tax payers money to constantly bail them out?
Click to expand...
I think we should pass a bill that requires all citizens to have a job or pay a fine. That should fix unemployment.
 
Sigh... Unfortunately I do. It basically makes doctors, nurses, and hospital staff slaves to everyone else. It doesn't really effect my pay, just the amount of idiocy that I must deal with. Just long enough to transport the mooches though, the poor nurses gotta deal with them for quite a bit longer. Would you like it if the gov't forced you to work for free?
 
So who signed EMTALA in to law?

You posted quite a bit on the government "forcing" people to buy insurance, would you support a straight government national health?

 
Msut77 said:
So who signed EMTALA in to law?

You posted quite a bit on the government "forcing" people to buy insurance, would you support a straight government national health?
Click to expand...
Ronald Reagan also allowed amnesty as well. So if you were waiting for a "gotcha" moment it backfired. It doesn't matter who the person is, if they did something I don't agree with I will call them out on it.

Unlike you who just defends Obama no matter what.
 
Msut77 said:
So who signed EMTALA in to law?

You posted quite a bit on the government "forcing" people to buy insurance, would you support a straight government national health?
Click to expand...
Reagan? It was in the 80's I think. Do you think I feel Reagan or other Repubs can do no wrong? They suck pretty hard as well, but at least their rhetoric speaks of those working hopefully keeping more of their money.

Nationalized health care is the one topic that this forum has made me sway a bit on. I'm not 100% for or against it until I do more research, but I do see some of the benefits of such a system. I still see possible problems with the implementation and sustainability. Social security and Medicare/Medicaid are not solvent and need huge reforms. The VA is run pretty crappily as well. I am 100% against the ACA as it forces people to purchase a product from a company.

 
Healthcare has been a hot topic for a while, when do you plan to complete your "research". Is this research going to consist entirely of reading right wing blogs? I asked you a while back why you think other systems spend less while covering everyone? what makes you say social security is insolvent?

 
Msut77 said:
Healthcare has been a hot topic for a while, when do you plan to complete your "research". Is this research going to consist entirely of reading right wing blogs? I asked you a while back why you think other systems spend less while covering everyone? what makes you say social security is insolvent?
Click to expand...
America is very, very bottom heavy.

 
Msut77 said:
Healthcare has been a hot topic for a while, when do you plan to complete your "research". Is this research going to consist entirely of reading right wing blogs? I asked you a while back why you think other systems spend less while covering everyone? what makes you say social security is insolvent?
Click to expand...
http://www.ssa.gov/oact/trsum/

The gubment.

Neither Medicare nor Social Security can sustain projected long-run program costs in full under currently scheduled financing, and legislative changes are necessary to avoid disruptive consequences for beneficiaries and taxpayers.

 
Last edited by a moderator:
It is saying if absolutely no steps are taken , the trust fund for social security will be depleted. More than a decade from now.

 
http://fivethirtyeight.com/datalab/kansas-welfare-bill-would-cut-into-benefits-with-atm-fees/

Kansas passed a new welfare bill that does a bit more to shaft the poor. The most glaring headline is that the poors can't use the money on non-essential items. This means the $100 the average poor citizen gets for food money can't be used at the strip joint because we know how far the $100 per month can go on supermarket shopping.

Of course, the part everyone will not give a crap about is the $25 limit per day on accessing those funds. And don't forget those ATM fees! This means to get the full $267, you will have to lose $34 of that in ATM fees according to current Kansas fee structure.

That'll show these poors. Any single working mother on welfare should learn to get a better job, creating them. Because in Kansas, job creators pay little to no taxes, regardless of whether they're hiring or not.

 
detectiveconan16 said:
Kansas passed a new welfare bill that does a bit more to shaft the poor. The most glaring headline is that the poors can't use the money on non-essential items. This means the $100 the average poor citizen gets for food money can't be used at the strip joint because we know how far the $100 per month can go on supermarket shopping.
Click to expand...
Other items aside, what's wrong with restricting the use of this money from inside a strip club?

*enforcing* that is a whole different story though.
 
While listening to NPR today, they discussed the Cadillac tax on policies from the ACA. Even the host seemed down on it and surprised that it was in the plan. They even referenced Gruber again saying that misdirection and "renaming" was required to pass the law.

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2013/05/08/obamacare-tax-cadillac-plans_n_3239488.html

Freakonomics the other day referenced a study that showed that expanding medicaid/care resulted in a 40% INCREASE in ER visits rather than the reduction that the ACA economists claimed would occur and save us money. Holy crap, we are sooooo screwed....

http://www.nytimes.com/2014/01/03/health/access-to-health-care-may-increase-er-visits-study-suggests.html?_r=0

The study, published in the journal Science, compared thousands of low-income people in the Portland area who were randomly selected in a 2008 lottery to get Medicaid coverage with people who entered the lottery but remained uninsured. Those who gained coverage made 40 percent more visits to the emergency room than their uninsured counterparts during their first 18 months with insurance.

The pattern was so strong that it held true across most demographic groups, times of day and types of visits, including those for conditions that were treatable in primary care settings.

 
The findings cast doubt on the hope that expanded insurance coverage will help rein in emergency room costs just as more than two million people are gaining coverage under the Affordable Care Act. And they go against one of the central arguments of the law’s supporters, that extending insurance to large numbers of Americans would reduce emergency room use, and eventually save money.

In remarks in New Mexico in 2009, Mr. Obama said: “I think that it’s very important that we provide coverage for all people because if everybody’s got coverage, then they’re not going to the emergency room for treatment.”

 
Insurance isn't the fix - comprehensive health care options that are designed to get people well and keep people well are what we need. Not a giant present for the health insurance industry.

But it's all good - at least the Dems did *something*, right?

As much as the 'pubs get accused of trying to make the government so inefficent that it collapses so they can rebuild it in their image, I can't help but wonder if the 'dems shared a similar vision for health care.
 
UncleBob said:
Insurance isn't the fix - comprehensive health care options that are designed to get people well and keep people well are what we need. Not a giant present for the health insurance industry.

But it's all good - at least the Dems did *something*, right?

As much as the 'pubs get accused of trying to make the government so inefficent that it collapses so they can rebuild it in their image, I can't help but wonder if the 'dems shared a similar vision for health care.
Click to expand...
I hear ya, but how are we supposed to get people to eat healthier and exercise? We have a lot of ignorant, lazy, or just plain stupid people who will happily splurge on twinkies while sucking up tax payer funded healthcare subsidies.

 
Ya got me. Expecting people to spend their tax money on healthy food instead of soda and chips is apparently degrading to them, so what can ya do?
 
One fix would be making large amounts of fruits and other healthy foods cheaper. One will see a box of (very small now) 8 pack nutri grain bars from $3.99 versus a 24 count container of store brand chocolate chip cookies for $2.50. What will a parent/parents who have kids to worry about end up buying?

The incompetent government and greedy corps don't want to pull the brakes on their rich gravy train so they'll never attempt this, continue to bitch about how people need to be taxed more for junk food, try to pass bills to reduce welfare then blame everyone else for the end results.

 
You must log in or register to reply here.
bread's done
Back
Top