The truth about welfare

[malice10985]

VaeVictus-

I usually stay clear of political threads, but I have to ask...

What the hell did that speech have to do with anything?

[MTMike]

I'd rather keep my money and cut off their welfare, which by your logic, leaves them 2 options: crime, or work.

If they choose crime, then when they come into my house, they'll get 10 rnds of .4" wide lead.

They choose work, they become productive members of society.

Problem solved.

[Christian]

Originally posted by Shirl:
How bout' making them work? Gee, there's a concept :rolleyes: I'm sick of seeing a 1/3 of my paycheck gone before I even get to cash it. Welfare is b*llsh*t. In this day and age people should be working for money not looking for free handouts. One of my family members is legitimately handicap and she doesn't get a g*dd*mn dime and I see these sc*mb*gs that are fully capable of working doing nothing except making babies.... The working class suffers as usual. If you are hard-working and have made yourself successful, you'll suffer more because the goverment wants a piece of EVERYTHING you have so they can "give it away".

How about an engineer who has four boys and pull in about 80k a year, then his business (the entire business) goes bankrupt becuse if "faulty accounting practices". Then this guy looses his job and the mom has to hold a house together on her 40k income all by herself????? Criminals you say? Not even close. Lazy? Got em' there. Scumbags? Wow now, you are really hot!!! There are too many scenarios that come into play when you are talking about an entire NATION of people. To stereotype them makes you both insensitive and "misinformed". A third of your check goes to welfare? Yea right ma-I see more reason to complain about where taxes are really going (IE dieficit reduction, BS gov "programs"). Trust and belive me when I say you have a larger amount of your money going to a whole different version of a welfare "recipient" ma.

[95fbirdkid]

My idea for a welfare reform:

step 1) get a 12 guage

step 2) paint "welfare" on the side

step 3) distribute "welfare" evenly to anyone who wants it.

[Christian]

Originally posted by 95fbirdkid:
My idea for a welfare reform:

step 1) get a 12 guage

step 2) paint "welfare" on the side

step 3) distribute "welfare" evenly to anyone who wants it.

Okay, I keep hearing all this "hero" talk and to be quite honest people.......I don't believe it,in fact I reject your deposit all together. Let's hope your employers all remain in tact and you stay nice and cozy, never needing help from a company who loans billions to other countries who then hit our goddamn buildings with OUR fuggin planes. Let's hope......I'll pray

[95fbirdkid]

or how about instead of going on welfare if the company we work for goes out of buisness, we save money while we have a job, and then if something bad happens, we can get by untill we can find a new job

[MTMike]

Okay, I keep hearing all this "hero" talk and to be quite honest people.......I don't believe it,in fact I reject your deposit all together. Let's hope your employers all remain in tact and you stay nice and cozy, never needing help from a company who loans billions to other countries who then hit our goddamn buildings with OUR fuggin planes. Let's hope......I'll pray

Thats why companies pay millions of dollars in Unemployment Insurance.

Originally posted by 95fbirdkid:
or how about instead of going on welfare if the company we work for goes out of buisness, we save money while we have a job, and then if something bad happens, we can get by untill we can find a new job

That would involve personal responsibility and accountability. What are you thinking???

[VaeVictus]

Originally posted by malice10985:
VaeVictus-

I usually stay clear of political threads, but I have to ask...

What the hell did that speech have to do with anything?

If you can't see it for yourself it's almost not worth explaining. [img]graemlins/stickpoke.gif[/img] What are we talking about? Welfare. [img]graemlins/twak.gif[/img] We were discussing continuance of giving welfare recipients money vs not doing so. It was said, the cost of paying this is cheaper than not doing so. Where my response was, we need to oversee it more, because people do need help. However, these same people need to be accountable. We have other problems in this country and simply labelling something as black and white will not work. My post covered alot of my frustrations with the arguments presented by specific people and current events in general. It's sort of like 2+2=4. Now, the question is, if you don't contribute one way or another to this argument, why are you posting?

[speedracer95v6]

I do think people should be helped if they are in need but I also think that rich people have the opportunity to increase our GDP here. Think about it, if they would hold off on a yacht and instead invest in creating more jobs(not give them money, let them do something productive and profitable for the rich person), not only would less be on welfare, but the rich person could afford their yacht.

I dunno...I'm not gonna be communist and tell people what to do with their money but a scenario like that would seem to be mutually beneficial. Rich person is richer, poor people arent on welfare, and tax payers aren't paying for the poor people anymore.

[Christian]

Originally posted by 95fbirdkid:
or how about instead of going on welfare if the company we work for goes out of buisness, we save money while we have a job, and then if something bad happens, we can get by untill we can find a new job

At first I thought you were misinformed, but I forgot about our previous "conversation". You sir are out of touch with reality and trying to hold an intelligent, intellectual conversation is a foreign language to you, seriously. You can save? Yea but if you lost your job RIGHT NOW, how long can you live off your "savings"? And since I think you are not the brightest star in the sky let me help you understand savings vs income. Savings continue to grow because there isn't a reduction (when you remove) and income is a gradual, steady stream of funds that you budget your lifestyle from (IE rent, credit cards, CAR PAYMENTS). If you have a 75k per year lifestyle and lose that, you could have been saving 30 percent of that income (22,500 Albert-which no person can afford to do) and IF AND WHEN that INCOME stops...........................you are SOL without some for of assistance. Unemployment is a program that runs from the same premis, the longer you WERE employed, the longer you recieve it, the MORE you MADE-then you MORE you GET. An Enron exec who lost his job, but was not FORMALLY charged will pull more money in a year than 15 "
welfare" families.............you guys can't be serious!

[95fbirdkid]

If you force yourself to not live past your means than ofcourse you can save. Lets say you make 40K a year after taxes, instead of seeing it as makeing 40 a year, put 1/4 in a savings which you wont touch unless absolutly needed, and live asif you make 30K a year after taxes. If you add to savings as part of your budget, it isnt a problem to save.

But since i disagree with you, and feel to many people get free money, i guess i'm out of touch with reality and am not smart :shrug:

[Christian]

Originally posted by 95fbirdkid:
If you force yourself to not live past your means than ofcourse you can save. Lets say you make 40K a year after taxes, instead of seeing it as makeing 40 a year, put 1/4 in a savings which you wont touch unless absolutly needed, and live asif you make 30K a year after taxes. If you add to savings as part of your budget, it isnt a problem to save.

But since i disagree with you, and feel to many people get free money, i guess i'm out of touch with reality and am not smart :shrug:

You save a fourth, okay man sure

[95fbirdkid]

as a matter of fact i save 60% right now, but i'm in college and dont have major bills except for insurance and rent (paid for cars in cash).

the problem is people see a check and thing of it as money in their pocket, but if you put a set ammount in savings and dont include that as part of your "budgetable income" there is no reason you cannot save.

plus as a rule of thumb you should have 6 months worth of pay in savings before any large purchases, so that would get you by for 6 months if you lost your job.

[maxcamaro]

as a conservative i might as well agree with welfare i mean its not going away any time soon

i think stephan raised a good point i never thought of welfare that way. I always thought about it they way shirl does how my paycheck is being robbed. And if u think about it its really hard for a homeless guy to get a job going to the interview wearing a few rags and a box no one is going to take that to seriously

[Christian]

Originally posted by 95fbirdkid:
as a matter of fact i save 60% right now, but i'm in college and dont have major bills except for insurance and rent (paid for cars in cash).

the problem is people see a check and thing of it as money in their pocket, but if you put a set ammount in savings and dont include that as part of your "budgetable income" there is no reason you cannot save.

plus as a rule of thumb you should have 6 months worth of pay in savings before any large purchases, so that would get you by for 6 months if you lost your job.

If you say so, when you start "life" and no one is footing your bills, maybe you will wake up. Holla at me then, as for now...........