Why is it?

[apple0154]

Please pull the government cock out of your mouth and wipe your chin.

Thanks for sharing personal details and the "heads up" (pun intended) but I don't swing that way.

 

[apple0154]

I don't think they are 'lazy,' but I think many are unrealistic and perhaps envisioning their recuperative times differently than they'll eventually be. They turn down jobs that are less than they were making previously. They refuse to consider schedules they consider burdensome. That's feasible I suppose while collecting unemployment. With the number of weeks though, it's becoming years. With years on unemployment, one starts to look less desirable, to put that mildly. Even those jobs they refused earlier will become unavailable to them with their new resume.

What does UI pay? 50%? 60%? I doubt anyone with a mortgage would refuse a job and settle for UI income.

 

[PostmodernProphet]

An economics professor at a local college made a statement that he had never failed a single student before, but had recently failed an entire class.
—

that may well be the only class where they will learn something worth learning.....

 

[apple0154]

An economics professor at a local college made a statement that he had never failed a single student before, but had recently failed an entire class. That class had insisted that Obama's socialism worked and that no one would be poor and no one would be rich, a great equalizer.

The professor then said, "OK, we will have an experiment in this class on Obama's plan". All grades will be averaged and everyone will receive the same grade so no one will fail and no one will receive an A.... (substituting grades for dollars - something closer to home and more readily understood by all).

After the first test, the grades were averaged and everyone got a B. The students who studied hard were upset and the students who studied little were happy. As the second test rolled around, the students who studied little had studied even less and the ones who studied hard decided they wanted a free ride too so they studied little..

The second test average was a D! No one was happy. When the 3rd test rolled around, the average was an F. As the tests proceeded, the scores never increased as bickering, blame and name-calling all resulted in hard feelings and no one would study for the benefit of anyone else. To their great surprise, ALL FAILED and the professor told them that socialism would also ultimately fail because when the reward is great, the effort to succeed is great, but when government takes all the reward away, no one will try or want to succeed. It could not be any simpler than that.

Remember, there IS a test coming up. The 2012 elections.

These are possibly the 5 best sentences you'll ever read and all applicable to this experiment:
1. You cannot legislate the poor into prosperity by legislating the wealthy out of prosperity.
2. What one person receives without working for, another person must work for without receiving.
3. The government cannot give to anybody anything that the government does not first take from somebody else.
4. You cannot multiply wealth by dividing it!
5. When half of the people get the idea that they do not have to work because the other half is going to take care of them, and when the other half gets the idea that it does no good to work because somebody else is going to get what they work for, that is the beginning of the end of any nation.

And another interesting commentary on the idea of collectivism~

—

I watched the video and it's wise to take special note of his ideas of a "group" and talking about taking collectivism to it's root. Well, let's take his idea to it's root. If individualism is paramount then only fools fight for their country. They sacrifice life and limb for what? What does the returning veteran receive? The person who has taken an education exemption or family exemption has started and grown their own business and have been enjoying spending time with their young children while the "losers", the individual veretans, have sacrificed for the group....oops, as he mentions in the video there is no such thing as a "group". They're just individual people. So the individual soldier has sacrificed for the individual citizen without reward. According to the narrator that doesn't make a lot of sense.

If we want to go further back to the roots many of the Founding Fathers ended their life in less than ideal circumstances. According to the narrator's way of thinking the Founding Fathers weren't too bright.

Regarding the economics professor, as to what you wrote in the beginning, "That class had insisted that Obama's socialism worked and that no one would be poor and no one would be rich, a great equalizer", no one, and especially Obama, has ever said anything about "no one would be poor and no one would be rich." It is not about equalizing. It has nothing to do with equalizing and that is where the misconception, deliberate or otherwise, enters the discussion. It is about helping people.

As I mentioned previously if one has sufficient food they usually don't care what the other person is eating. If one has sufficient clothes they don't care what someone else is wearing. If one has a decent home they don't go around all day feeling cheated they don't own a mansion. Ensuring people have enough to eat does not mean sharing ones caviar and champagne.

Now let's take a look at that list.

1. You cannot legislate the poor into prosperity by legislating the wealthy out of prosperity.

No one is attempting or suggesting any such thing. If a person's net income is 10 million and legislation dictates they pay an extra one million in taxes being left with 9 million is not being legislated out of prosperity.

2. What one person receives without working for, another person must work for without receiving.

Not necessarily. In fact, in cases involving large amounts of money it's seldom the case. That's where the expression "Let your money work for you" comes from. The money is doing the work along with an investor/advisor. The individual is not doing the work. On a personal note when my properties substantially increased in value, due to investors moving into the neighborhood buying up old properties and building condos, the increase had no relationship to any work I may I have done, which was nothing. To say I worked for that money, I earned it, would be to completely alter the definition of "work" and "earn". The same applies to other investments. Risk? Yes. Work or earn? No.

3. The government cannot give to anybody anything that the government does not first take from somebody else.

Like the way families operate.

4. You cannot multiply wealth by dividing it!

True. But what is also true is by helping wealth is increased for everyone. Taking, say, a total of 10 thousand dollars from a number of individuals and giving it to someone for eduation will result in a return on that money many fold. In other words taxing people so education is affordable for everyone will resut in a wealthier society.

5. When half of the people get the idea that they do not have to work because the other half is going to take care of them, and when the other half gets the idea that it does no good to work because somebody else is going to get what they work for, that is the beginning of the end of any nation.

Again, no one is suggesting taking care of people to the extent they want for nothing. Ensuring people have sufficient food is not the same as saying they can have any food and as much as they desire. Ensuring people have shelter is not the same as saying we'll give everyone a free house.

Social programs have as much to do with collectivism as capitalism has to do with an individual's freedom to destroy and pollute.

 

[Annie]

What does UI pay? 50%? 60%? I doubt anyone with a mortgage would refuse a job and settle for UI income.

Here's the thing. Many have mortgages they were struggling to meet on their salaries, then laid off. Unemployment pays 1/3 of salary, as you said, not enough to keep home. That's true if one was making $400k or $40k, the only difference is the amount, not the principle.

Where the 'denial' comes in, jobs are being offered to both, but perhaps only 2/3 of previous income. The people know they can't pay their bills on that, so figure they should 'wait' until a better offer comes along. Problem is, the offers become fewer and lower; then over time, they stop coming at all.

As I said from the first, lazy? No. Unrealistic? Yes.

Sometimes one just has to do what they can to get the basics, including giving up the house. Then one can start rebuilding.

 

[USFREEDOM911]

Thanks for sharing personal details and the "heads up" (pun intended) but I don't swing that way.

It is hard to swing, when all you do is spin.

 

[apple0154]

It is hard to swing, when all you do is spin.

There's no spin to what I wrote. "The problem is people with plenty donate to pet causes and not a general pool requiring government to oversee the big picture."

People can not depend on charity. If it worked there never would have been social programs implemented.

It's somewhat amusing how people react as if social programs have been around for ever and suggest the same old, tired, worn out ways of the past as if they've discovered something new. Obama called that one shortly after taking office.

Instead of worrying about voter ID they should administer a quick history quiz.

 

[icedancer2theend]

 

[Dixie - In Memoriam]

There's no spin to what I wrote. "The problem is people with plenty donate to pet causes and not a general pool requiring government to oversee the big picture."

People can not depend on charity. If it worked there never would have been social programs implemented.

It's somewhat amusing how people react as if social programs have been around for ever and suggest the same old, tired, worn out ways of the past as if they've discovered something new. Obama called that one shortly after taking office.

Instead of worrying about voter ID they should administer a quick history quiz.

I can take your same argument and say that it's proof government assistance programs don't work. If they did, the $70 trillion we've spent over the past 60 years, would have reduced the number of people in poverty, but the poverty statistics are the same or worse. It's somewhat amusing how some people react as if social programs, which have been around for years, are the answer to the problem.

I guarantee you, the money dispersed by private charities is much more accurate and effective in helping those in need, compared to the government system. You see, when it's a private charity, they are a little more attentive and diligent about who they give what, and how much... the government employee doesn't really care if the government gets screwed, so we have people cheating the system, abusing the benefits, etc. Plus there is the cost of administration... $100 donated to a private charity, there is no state union salaries and pensions to have to pay, the work is voluntary... there is no cushy government building which has to be maintained by state union janitors, just whatever space can be afforded by the charity, which is often donated as well. When help is initiated, the charity group will target specific needs, and help in only the areas and only to the degree the individual requires, but with government it is mandated by charts and tables, no consideration is made for the individual, it's a cookie-cutter approach. For every $100 tax dollars spent by government agencies, maybe 10% of it actually makes its way to the individual in the form of actual help... it's more like 90% for charity organizations.

 

[cancel2 2022]

I have never been able to understand why so many right wingers care so much about the sanctity of human life, regarding abortion, yet when they are born consider the babies to be a drain on public finances.

 

[Dixie - In Memoriam]

I have never been able to understand why so many right wingers care so much about the sanctity of human life, regarding abortion, yet when they are born consider the babies to be a drain on public finances.

It's really easy... Even though your political philosophy is dangerous and destroying the fabric of America, we still believe you have the right to live and express your viewpoint. If the right had no regard for life, you'd be dead by now, because you are a drain on American freedom. So just like the unwanted babies who we have to take care of, it's a burden we must endure for principle and the sanctity of life.

Reversing your logic.. does it make sense that you care more about the drain on public finances than human life?

 

[USFREEDOM911]

There's no spin to what I wrote. "The problem is people with plenty donate to pet causes and not a general pool requiring government to oversee the big picture."

People can not depend on charity. If it worked there never would have been social programs implemented.

It's somewhat amusing how people react as if social programs have been around for ever and suggest the same old, tired, worn out ways of the past as if they've discovered something new. Obama called that one shortly after taking office.

Instead of worrying about voter ID they should administer a quick history quiz.

Nice that you thought the comment was directed at a single post of yours; but then, you always have been a little slow to recognize your problems.

 

[apple0154]

Nice that you thought the comment was directed at a single post of yours; but then, you always have been a little slow to recognize your problems.

Take note of the post chronology.

Post # 61:

Thanks for sharing personal details and the "heads up" (pun intended) but I don't swing that way.

Post # 66:

It is hard to swing, when all you do is spin.

Post # 67:

There's no spin to what I wrote. "The problem is people with plenty donate to pet causes and not a general pool requiring government to oversee the big picture."

People can not depend on charity. If it worked there never would have been social programs implemented.

It's somewhat amusing how people react as if social programs have been around for ever and suggest the same old, tired, worn out ways of the past as if they've discovered something new. Obama called that one shortly after taking office.

Instead of worrying about voter ID they should administer a quick history quiz.

Post # 72:

Nice that you thought the comment was directed at a single post of yours; but then, you always have been a little slow to recognize your problems.

Both the chronology and the replies, each referencing the previous post, leaves no other logical conclusion to be drawn and that's the problem you have; lack of logic which is common among the Repubs.

 

[apple0154]

I can take your same argument and say that it's proof government assistance programs don't work. If they did, the $70 trillion we've spent over the past 60 years, would have reduced the number of people in poverty, but the poverty statistics are the same or worse. It's somewhat amusing how some people react as if social programs, which have been around for years, are the answer to the problem.

Programs have drastically reduced the number of people in poverty. If not for Social Securiy there would be thousands of elderly homeless and hungry just as there were before the program existed. Also, unemployment and welfare have drastically reduced the degree of poverty.

I guarantee you, the money dispersed by private charities is much more accurate and effective in helping those in need, compared to the government system. You see, when it's a private charity, they are a little more attentive and diligent about who they give what, and how much... the government employee doesn't really care if the government gets screwed, so we have people cheating the system, abusing the benefits, etc. Plus there is the cost of administration... $100 donated to a private charity, there is no state union salaries and pensions to have to pay, the work is voluntary... there is no cushy government building which has to be maintained by state union janitors, just whatever space can be afforded by the charity, which is often donated as well. When help is initiated, the charity group will target specific needs, and help in only the areas and only to the degree the individual requires, but with government it is mandated by charts and tables, no consideration is made for the individual, it's a cookie-cutter approach. For every $100 tax dollars spent by government agencies, maybe 10% of it actually makes its way to the individual in the form of actual help... it's more like 90% for charity organizations.

As I previously noted who do you think a church charity is more likely to help; the widow in the choir or the single mother with three kids who sporadically attends church? The aid offered by local charities is "influenced" by large contributors. The plus side to the cookie-cutter approach is people are helped based on need and need only, not on who they know or their lifestyle or some other subjective determination.

As far as government programs not working as efficiently as they should I have explained the reason. They do not go far enough. For example, sending money to an uneducated/unskilled individual will not accomplish anything as far as getting that person out of poverty. They require retraining. The monthly checks will never end until they are retrained so it's logoical to conclude government help has to include retraining. Surely that does not require a big leap in understanding.

 

[PostmodernProphet]

Take note of the post chronology.

wait, is touchieliberal your sockpuppet?.....

 

[apple0154]

wait, is touchieliberal your sockpuppet?.....

I just finished reading a thread where your confusion was obvious. http://www.justplainpolitics.com/sh...an-have-an-intelligent-discussion-of-politics

Do try to improve for your sake as well as ours.

 

[PostmodernProphet]

but the chronology of the thread shows you neocons don't get it.....

 

[Dixie - In Memoriam]

Programs have drastically reduced the number of people in poverty. If not for Social Securiy there would be thousands of elderly homeless and hungry just as there were before the program existed. Also, unemployment and welfare have drastically reduced the degree of poverty.

That's where you are just fundamentally wrong, unemployment and welfare have not drastically reduced the degree of poverty, according to this:

http://theeconomiccollapseblog.com/archives/poverty-in-america-a-special-report

America is getting poorer. The U.S. government has just released a bunch of new statistics about poverty in America, and once again this year the news is not good. According to a special report from the U.S. Census Bureau, 46.2 million Americans are now living in poverty. The number of those living in poverty in America has grown by 2.6 million in just the last 12 months, and that is the largest increase that we have ever seen since the U.S. government began calculating poverty figures back in 1959.

So the reality is simply not as you claim, and government programs have not reduced the degree of poverty... they haven't even stopped the increase. This is where you explain to us how we're eating shit sandwiches, but if it weren't for democrats it would be much worse! The massive and expansive programs implemented in the 60s, and even the 40s in some cases, were never intended or designed to simply keep people from becoming any more impoverished. Even if that were the modest goal, the programs have still failed... but we didn't spend $70 trillion for the promise that things wouldn't get much worse. The bottom line is, government assistance programs do not HELP bring people out of poverty. In fact, in many cases, they are a ball and chain, shackling the recipient to a life of poverty, which has been passed down through the generations in many families.

As I previously noted who do you think a church charity is more likely to help; the widow in the choir or the single mother with three kids who sporadically attends church? The aid offered by local charities is "influenced" by large contributors. The plus side to the cookie-cutter approach is people are helped based on need and need only, not on who they know or their lifestyle or some other subjective determination.

Why must you always break things down into bizarre situations with a bunch of stereotyped people who are faced with some peril or hardship, and pretend this is a representative portrait of the overall? The aid offered by most local church charities is not "influenced" by anyone except those in need, and the capacity of the charity to help. They don't consult with wealthy church members to pick people to help... just isn't how that works in the real world, apple. The "cookie cutter approach" doesn't help people based on need and need only, it helps everyone the same amount, regardless of needs. That's what "cookie cutter approach" means, dumbshit!

The government handed out over $3 billion to people for buying a new car... A study published after the program by researchers at the University of Delaware concluded that for each vehicle trade, the program had a net cost of approximately $2,000, with total costs outweighing all benefits by $1.4 billion. Another study by researchers at the University of Michigan found that the program improved the average fuel economy of all vehicles purchased by 0.6 mpg in July 2009 and by 0.7 mpg in August 2009.

Now... think about, if we had given checks totaling $3 billion, to all the non-profit charity organizations out there, how many people could have been helped in a time of need? How many single moms could have gotten food for the week? How many homeless could we have fed for how long with $3 billion? Was our money better spent on a program to "help" people purchase a new car? And while we're on the subject, those people who took advantage of this program, they were all in dire need of a new car, right?

As far as government programs not working as efficiently as they should I have explained the reason. They do not go far enough. For example, sending money to an uneducated/unskilled individual will not accomplish anything as far as getting that person out of poverty. They require retraining. The monthly checks will never end until they are retrained so it's logoical to conclude government help has to include retraining. Surely that does not require a big leap in understanding.

Have you ever noticed how liberals are never satisfied, nothing ever goes far enough? If a program fails, it's because we didn't pour enough money into it... we should have just given away new cars to people, to hell with a $4k rebate... right? I bet we would have seen a dramatic increase in car sales then, and everyone would own a brand new shiny new car, that would be great! Dumbfuck!

Now here you come with this "retraining" idea... Again, we have already identified the problem, it is that some people lack motivation. It's not because the government isn't providing them with something! Even IF the government retrained them, they would STILL lack motivation! You have not addressed that problem, and you are only enabling it further with more hand outs. As I said before, if that is what you want to fix, the solution is easy, we just start having all the productive people of society fork over their earnings to the unmotivated slackers of society, and that's that! Problem solved! It's the only solution to the problem of fixing the unmotivated, other than tough love.

 

[USFREEDOM911]

Take note of the post chronology.

Post # 61:

Post # 66:

Post # 67:

Post # 72:

Both the chronology and the replies, each referencing the previous post, leaves no other logical conclusion to be drawn and that's the problem you have; lack of logic which is common among the Repubs.

How nice that you're attempting to spin this into a single thread; when anyone who's ever read your posts, know that you should have been named "merry-go-round".

 

[Annie]

Apple responds to nearly all posts that quote him/her, but not to this one. Just found this, perhaps someone would like to add something?

http://www.thefiscaltimes.com/Artic...e-Care-of-Me-Society-is-Wrecking-the-USA.aspx

The 'Take Care of Me' Society is Wrecking the USA

By MAUREEN MACKEY, The Fiscal Times
January 28, 2012

You’ve played by the rules. Worked hard to put yourself through school. You’ve gotten a decent job and you pay your taxes. You’re faithfully paying down your mortgage and saving money in a 401(k) – all to secure your finances and your future. But now there are a lot more “takers” than “makers” in this country – and the impact is systemic and long-lasting.

A prevalent new “moocher culture” is changing the character of this nation – that’s the core message of A Nation of Moochers: America’s Addiction to Getting Something for Nothing, a new book by Charles J. Sykes, senior fellow at the Wisconsin Policy Research Institute and the author of six previous books.

“This has been the flash point in American politics for the last several years,” Sykes told The Fiscal Times in an interview this week. “In the wake of the Great Recession, we’ve shifted from a culture of celebrating and encouraging those who are productive and hardworking, to a culture where handouts, bailouts, freebies and entitlements dominate. You start to wonder, Why am I paying the freight for those who have been reckless and irresponsible, whether it’s on Wall Street or in Washington or anywhere else in the community? I think we’re becoming a very different nation.”

Excerpts from our conversation with the author follow:

The Fiscal Times (TFT): With so many people out of work and so many suffering – through no fault of their own – how do you draw the line between real need and a so-called “culture of mooching”?
Charles Sykes (CS): That’s obviously the most difficult part, the gray area in the middle. There’s a distinction between needing temporary aid versus using a vast network of dependency as a way of life. Unemployment compensation, for example, is necessary for an amount of time. But when you start getting into 90-plus weeks of unemployment, hasn’t a temporary stopgap now become an excuse for people to avoid taking jobs? A number of economic studies have shown that the longer these benefits are extended, the higher the unemployment rate is. People make a rational calculation that it’s easier to stay on the couch than to get a job that maybe isn’t as great as what they had before.

TFT: Isn’t it a big leap to go from someone on unemployment to a wholesale expansion of dependency?
CS: If we have hungry children, of course we as a compassionate society have an obligation to take care of them. But I think we’re going through a massive concerted effort to expand the number of people who are dependent, who are looking to the government to buy them free breakfast, lunch and dinner, far beyond any reasonable definition of genuine need.

TFT: Is this new learned helplessness, as you describe it, a replacement for the employed-for-life, taken-care-of-for-life notion that many in earlier generations have known?...

Here's the thing. Many have mortgages they were struggling to meet on their salaries, then laid off. Unemployment pays 1/3 of salary, as you said, not enough to keep home. That's true if one was making $400k or $40k, the only difference is the amount, not the principle.

Where the 'denial' comes in, jobs are being offered to both, but perhaps only 2/3 of previous income. The people know they can't pay their bills on that, so figure they should 'wait' until a better offer comes along. Problem is, the offers become fewer and lower; then over time, they stop coming at all.

As I said from the first, lazy? No. Unrealistic? Yes.

Sometimes one just has to do what they can to get the basics, including giving up the house. Then one can start rebuilding.