The Lounge
Moderators: spoiled_candy, nomoreexcuses, peaches0405, Mollybygolly


The rich say they worked hard to get where they are at, they deserve all their money and we dont


Quote  |  Reply

And us lower middle class/poverty people don't. Really? We work 40 hour a week crappy jobs, most of the time OVER time, and we still are no where near making ends meet half the time. Where is our money?


Sorry, I just heard some 20 year old college student, supported by daddy ofc, say welfare and foodstamps and all that stuff should be rid of because "he" works hard for all of his money and shouldnt have to help anyone else out.

 

I mean..seriously?

193 Replies (last)
#21  
Quote  |  Reply
Original Post by nomoreexcuses:

OP,

You have no idea how easy you have it.

Did you know that a Congressional Representative has to make ends meet on just $174,000 a year?

I know!  It's incredible.

Just ask Sean Duffy

 

>;D

 I am starting a fund to help Sean Duffy.

Original Post by kelrantymus:

Original Post by luvs2eat:

Original Post by nomoreexcuses:

OP,

You have no idea how easy you have it.

Did you know that a Congressional Representative has to make ends meet on just $174,000 a year?

I know!  It's incredible.

Just ask Sean Duffy

 

>;D

 I am starting a fund to help Sean Duffy.

 That's very generous of you.

 It's not his fault he had six kids!! wait...wait a minute...

#23  
Quote  |  Reply

I try and give back.Wink

I will say the old teacher/fire person/police person debate is an old one.

What qualifications does it take to become a teacher?  How hard is it to become a teacher?  How many teachers are there in the USA?  Does a teacher have an immediate ROI in the surrounding community? (i.e. The teachers makes $30K per year, how much does the community stand to gain from that $30K?)

Pick Lebron James.  What qualifications does it take to become a basketball superstar?  How hard is it to become a basketball superstar?  How many basketball superstarare there in the USA?  Does a basketball superstar have an immediate ROI in the surrounding community? (i.e. Lebron makes $14.5M per year, how much does the community stand to gain from that $14.5M?)

I bet the tax revenue on products sold bearing the Lebron Jame name is more than enough to pay for a few teachers, fire people, and police people.  And then some.  Its hard to look in the mirror and see another regular joe working their way through life.  Fact is, thats all most of us are and ever will be. 

As for how the "rich" perceive and relate to the "working" class, hey, there are jerks who are unemployed and jerks that make $100M plus.  The character of a person is not always directly proportional to their income.   We move on.

Every question about why some people get paid some amounts while others get paid other amounts can be answered with three words:

Supply and demand.

I'm probably pretty low in the "middle class" if we're even considered that, but I agree that people who don't try to make life better for themselves don't deserve for the rest of us to pay for their section 8 housing/electric bills/cheap cell phones/food stamps/etc while they're walking around dressed better than I am, with cartons of cigarettes and daily trips out for fast food, then complain about all that they do get.  I know there's probably not a way to better regulate such things without spending more of our taxpayer dollars, but the part of me that yearns for life to be "fair" gets upset at seeing the abuse.  

But life's not fair.  Waaahhhhhh!!!

I agree grinanbearit!

I know that Kentucky has started drug testing people who receive assistance from the government. Apparently it is something that is supposed to pass in TN (my state) soon if it hasn't already. I'll give the Gov a little credit there. It's a positive step in the right direction.

I can understand both sides of view. When i complete my masters program and get my LCSW-C, I plan to open a private practice (hopefully) and I know its going to piss me off to have my money taxed to death.  I would hate it if i ever hit the lotto, and have to give the gov. almost half of my winnings and plus it gets taxed every year?  I can see the frustration of it all.  You work hard for your money and its taking because you have more then others.  People just look at your gross amount, not the amount after taxes.  But I can also see the other side of the spectrum. Its terrible how they are cutting WIC programs and closing Youth Centers in the city trying to raise college tution, but giving tax breaks to rich, wealthy ppl.  I dont think they need a tax break but they dont need the money that they make raped either.. Ya kno?

Original Post by baybeez04:

I agree grinanbearit!

I know that Kentucky has started drug testing people who receive assistance from the government. Apparently it is something that is supposed to pass in TN (my state) soon if it hasn't already. I'll give the Gov a little credit there. It's a positive step in the right direction.

What happens to a person if they test positively for any drugs while receiving government assistance? I hope the answer has the word "rehabilitation" in it. :(

Original Post by baybeez04:

I agree grinanbearit!

I know that Kentucky has started drug testing people who receive assistance from the government. Apparently it is something that is supposed to pass in TN (my state) soon if it hasn't already. I'll give the Gov a little credit there. It's a positive step in the right direction.

 That is a good idea..but I'm sure drug testing costs money, too so not all states would be wanting to do it. Welfare began to support war widows if my history lesson memory serves, and I think it's definitely necessary, but there is a lot of abuse, which is what costs the taxpayers so much more, I think.

If it was only given to people who honestly couldn't find a job, were physically or mentally unable to work, were suddenly widowed or divorced, etc..there would probably be a lot less people on the program.

I know someone personally who is perfectly smart, young, healthy etc and lives in a house with pretty high rent because she receives welfare and WIC, which means free diapers and formula for the baby she had with the boyfriend she won't marry..because she'd lose the benefits.

He works and makes decent money and could easily get health insurance for her and the baby, plus her child from a previous if they got married (and maybe if not, too) but, I mean..why would she pay for insurance when she could get it for free, or give up the extra money from welfare? Why buy diapers at twenty bucks a pack if the government will give them to you?

She didn't even have to buy the infant carseat..they gave her one. She could have easily afforded it, mind you..but why pay when you don't have to?

She didn't even put her boyfriend's name on the birth certificate so she could claim to not know who the father was, and get the monthly checks.

It's really not that hard to screw the system, and a lot of people seem to do it.

It's sad because obviously it strains the taxpayers and takes away from people who truly need these benefits, but until they find some way to fraud-proof the system, it's going to happen.

Here in California, we also have a lot of illegal immigrants, and they send their children to school, of course, which means you have people using the services without paying taxes to contribute to them or help provide them, so that creates issues, too. Obviously, they need to come up with a solution to the immigration issue and create a way for them to be here legally, and to work and pay taxes so things can be a bit more balanced, but..no one can seem to agree on how to do that, so our state is in its worst budget crisis yet with no end in sight.

I don't envy the politicians..there just isn't any easy answer to this stuff.

 

 

wow. did this ever go sideways.

 

{walk away, pg. just walk away.}

Original Post by pgeorgian:

wow. did this ever go sideways.

 

{walk away, pg. just walk away.}

 Come on PG, jump in, the water is warm, the piranhas await. They know you fight well.

Original Post by cajunrider:

Original Post by pgeorgian:

wow. did this ever go sideways.

 

{walk away, pg. just walk away.}

 Come on PG, jump in, the water is warm, the piranhas await. They know you fight well.

okay. i'll do it.

Original Post by grinanbearit:

I'm probably pretty low in the "middle class" if we're even considered that, but I agree that people who don't try to make life better for themselves don't deserve for the rest of us to pay for their section 8 housing/electric bills/cheap cell phones/food stamps/etc while they're walking around dressed better than I am, with cartons of cigarettes and daily trips out for fast food, then complain about all that they do get.  I know there's probably not a way to better regulate such things without spending more of our taxpayer dollars, but the part of me that yearns for life to be "fair" gets upset at seeing the abuse.  

But life's not fair.  Waaahhhhhh!!!

the next time you see someone on assistance, you should follow them home and see where they live. maybe those clothes that you admire are the only decent ones that they own, and they have to wear them three times a week. maybe those cigarettes are the only thing that gets them through the day. maybe they're dressed up because they just went to a job interview. maybe those clothes are borrowed, or maybe that person spends hours every week sifting through the racks at thrift stores finding the treasures that more privileged people throw away.

even poor people have the right to feel good, don't you think?

do you really think it's okay for you to judge how anyone spends their money? first, you should at least know the whole story, don't you think? 

you're right; life's not fair. living in poverty on assistance isn't fun. if you think it looks easy, by all means, try it.

Original Post by baybeez04:

I agree grinanbearit!

I know that Kentucky has started drug testing people who receive assistance from the government. Apparently it is something that is supposed to pass in TN (my state) soon if it hasn't already. I'll give the Gov a little credit there. It's a positive step in the right direction.

do you give a urine sample in exchange for the benefits you receive from your state? no? so what other civil rights would you deny people for the crime of being poor?

Original Post by raychelc:

 That is a good idea..but I'm sure drug testing costs money, too so not all states would be wanting to do it. Welfare began to support war widows if my history lesson memory serves, and I think it's definitely necessary, but there is a lot of abuse, which is what costs the taxpayers so much more, I think.

If it was only given to people who honestly couldn't find a job, were physically or mentally unable to work, were suddenly widowed or divorced, etc..there would probably be a lot less people on the program.

I know someone personally who is perfectly smart, young, healthy etc and lives in a house with pretty high rent because she receives welfare and WIC, which means free diapers and formula for the baby she had with the boyfriend she won't marry..because she'd lose the benefits.

He works and makes decent money and could easily get health insurance for her and the baby, plus her child from a previous if they got married (and maybe if not, too) but, I mean..why would she pay for insurance when she could get it for free, or give up the extra money from welfare? Why buy diapers at twenty bucks a pack if the government will give them to you?

She didn't even have to buy the infant carseat..they gave her one. She could have easily afforded it, mind you..but why pay when you don't have to?

She didn't even put her boyfriend's name on the birth certificate so she could claim to not know who the father was, and get the monthly checks.

It's really not that hard to screw the system, and a lot of people seem to do it.

It's sad because obviously it strains the taxpayers and takes away from people who truly need these benefits, but until they find some way to fraud-proof the system, it's going to happen.

Here in California, we also have a lot of illegal immigrants, and they send their children to school, of course, which means you have people using the services without paying taxes to contribute to them or help provide them, so that creates issues, too. Obviously, they need to come up with a solution to the immigration issue and create a way for them to be here legally, and to work and pay taxes so things can be a bit more balanced, but..no one can seem to agree on how to do that, so our state is in its worst budget crisis yet with no end in sight.

I don't envy the politicians..there just isn't any easy answer to this stuff.

 

 

i don't have time to address every point in this manifesto. the dog has to pee. i'll just say this: some people screw the system, it's true, but not many. very few people are willing to endure the humiliation, judgment, and scrutiny of being on assistance just to avoid getting a job. most people would happily take the job, if it were a viable option.

The most depressing feeling I had in my brief stint in section 8 housing was the "Life without tomorrow" feeling there.

Some felt like there is no hope and gave up.
Some didn't care and lived for today.
Some didn't think about it at all.
Some longed for better day and didn't know what to do.
Some kicked their own butts and got up every day early and worked to get out of there. Those didn't stay there long.

Last but not least, some were there to feast on the weak. I really really really didn't like those.

As for others..
Some tried no never go near there.
Some drove through the area because it is a short cut through town. They drove by fast and didn't care if they might hit someone.
Some thought the people there didn't deserve to live.
Some thought the people there didn't deserve to be there but did nothing.
Some brought help there but acted stupidly and got hurt.
......

You can tell I'm in "a little bit of this and a little bit of that" mood.

Would you like to know why you're feeling gypped?

 Because absolutely all wealth increase since 1969 has been captured by the top 10% income earners and the bottom 90% have declined. This is what trickle-down economics gets you, what trickles down may be golden but it's not exactly gold...

this subject--the desire to regulate and limit the spending of those on assistance--comes up pretty regularly. i'm beginning to think it's a very special kind of prejudice. those people want to be able to identify the poor by sight. if those on assistance can only buy certain clothes, foods, toys, etc., we'll all know who they are by looking in their shopping carts and at the labels on their jackets.

they want to be able to tell just by looking who's on assistance and who's not. that way, they know they'll never be mistaken as "one of them."

Original Post by nomoreexcuses:

OP,

You have no idea how easy you have it.

Did you know that a Congressional Representative has to make ends meet on just $174,000 a year?

I know!  It's incredible.

Just ask Sean Duffy

That was an enlightening article.  Especially when you read the entire thing.  It's funny how the author picked out two specific sentences, and completely ignored the rest.  For example:

1) He glossed over the fact that he'd only been drawing that salary for six weeks.

2) He glossed over the fact that he went without a paycheck AT ALL for seven months because he didn't want to run on the taxpayers money.

3) He glossed over the fact that he is still paying off student loans on a law degree.

4) He glossed over the fact that he is raising six kids.

5) He also voted for a reduction in his salary.

How much do you think it costs to feed, clothe and home a family of eight?  Would it be unreasonable of him to want a larger house than Mike Brady where six kids shared two bedrooms and one bathroom?

$90,000 does seem like a lot of money to me, but I don't have any kids and my student loans are all paid off.  I don't have sympathy for him.  After all, he chose to go to law school and rack up those loans, and he chose to have six kids.  But I can certainly understand how things might have been a little tight for him at $90,000.  Especially if you consider he was also probably contributing to a 401K, as well as saving for his kids' college expenses.

Now, if he continues to make statements like that after drawing the $174,000 salary for a significant amount of time, I'll say he's out of touch.  But right now, not so much.

193 Replies (last)
Advertisement
Advertisement