Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
This welfare queen narrative was bunk in the 1980's, and it's not getting better with age.
Your naive liberal stupidity is also bunk. I personally know of a mother living in a nice split level ranch with three kids from three different fathers, almost entirely funded by tax payers. Lie all you want, but the welfare leaches are really and they're bleeding this country dry.
None of you have any idea of what it is really like to be poor or on public assistance, especially trying to raise a family. Sometimes it is generational, but it is not something people aspire too. Virtually all of the "Welfare Queen" stories you hear are hyperbole or flat out false. And in this age of blended families, having more than one child by more than one man doesn't make a woman an animal or whatever label you want to give her.
And Berdee, you're pretty full of yourself. Must be nice up there, looking down on all the low lifes.
None of you have any idea of what it is really like to be poor or on public assistance, especially trying to raise a family. Sometimes it is generational, but it is not something people aspire too. Virtually all of the "Welfare Queen" stories you hear are hyperbole or flat out false. And in this age of blended families, having more than one child by more than one man doesn't make a woman an animal or whatever label you want to give her.
And Berdee, you're pretty full of yourself. Must be nice up there, looking down on all the low lifes.
Oh, and the original post was clearly a troll.
That pretty much summarizes it. People who think they would be more successful if only they could keep more of "their tax dollars". If one's plan to flourish/succeed is to pay less taxes, then it is a failed plan. If you are already wildly successful, you aren't bemoaning feeding the poor.
Location: 23.7 million to 162 million miles North of Venus
23,607 posts, read 12,543,921 times
Reputation: 10479
Clearly I struck a nerve in you Annie, so to you I apologize for using the term "brood mare".
I know that there are women, and also men for that matter, who are trying to raise their children the best they can on limited resources, and doing it either singly or with a spouse. Do I look down on them and consider them low lifes simply because they have to have public assistance to make ends meet and to ensure their kids have a roof over their heads, a full belly, medical care, etc.? Absolutely Not!!
In my post I was NOT talking about the women who get married, they have kid(s) and they are expecting to remain married to that one man for the rest of their lives. And then life rears it's head and the women lose their spouse either through death or divorce. So they eventually marry again with the same expectation of remaining married for the rest of their lives, have kids and then again lose their spouse to either death or divorce.
I AM talking about the women who , as I said in the earlier post .. "chooses the lifestyle of having multiple children by multiple men for the sole purpose of receiving multiple child support checks so they can live off of those checks instead of having a real job." I don't know if you just don't realize that there actually are women like that out there, or if you simply don't want to realize it.
As for your comment - "None of you have any idea of what it is really like to be poor or on public assistance, especially trying to raise a family." How can you even dare to begin to assume that no one has any idea? You don't know what it's like for the person on the other end of the computer. You say that and then you turn around and tell 'me' that 'I'm' "full of myself", that 'I'm' "up there" (where ever up there is) and that 'I'm' "looking down on the low lifes"?
I may be (very) outspoken, online and in real life, but I don't for one moment think that I'm better than anyone else, and, I strongly hope that I'm no worse than anyone else. As for the "low lifes", I never consider someone who needs public assistance as a low life. Those that do make my "low life" list are murderers, terrorists, those who abuse women, children, the elderly and animals, those that sell drugs to children, those that make 'hard' drugs, those that sell 'hard' drugs to anyone, debt collectors that use illegal and abusive tactics .. well, the list can go on but you can plainly see the types of people that I consider to be low lifes.
You blast me for placing a label on someone, and then at the very end of your post you, yourself label the OP as a troll. Yeah perhaps the OP is, but, to blast someone for labeling others and then, in that one single post, you do the very same thing yourself ... maybe I'm not the only one in this thread that owes an apology to someone who had been "labeled".
Quote:
Originally Posted by Annie3
None of you have any idea of what it is really like to be poor or on public assistance, especially trying to raise a family. Sometimes it is generational, but it is not something people aspire too. Virtually all of the "Welfare Queen" stories you hear are hyperbole or flat out false. And in this age of blended families, having more than one child by more than one man doesn't make a woman an animal or whatever label you want to give her.
And Berdee, you're pretty full of yourself. Must be nice up there, looking down on all the low lifes.
That pretty much summarizes it. People who think they would be more successful if only they could keep more of "their tax dollars". If one's plan to flourish/succeed is to pay less taxes, then it is a failed plan. If you are already wildly successful, you aren't bemoaning feeding the poor.
people would be better off if they kept a lot more of their own money
Yes it does. All your posts (in this topic) say nothing else other than "all labour is exploitation" and "all the rich exploit all the poor" and "all of the employers are exploiters". There is no middle ground with you. You have found a group, the employers and the rich, and they are all bad. That socialism, or communism.
Nope, I try to rationalize my points. Yes, labor is pure exploitation at the bottom of the pyramid (nobody in his right mind would do those soul & body killing jobs for "fun" and personal enrichment, people are forced into those jobs, frequently under barrel of a gun, as a citizen of a former colonial Empire you should know that). As person moves up the food chain (especially management chain) it's not that straightforward since they do get something out of those jobs, income, some sort of stimulation&challenge and most importantly "social status" (humans are status animals), people would sacrifice their everything to get into higher status positions. Thus it's pure survival anxiety at the bottom of the labor pyramid that gradually transforms itself into pure status anxiety at the top. Most of us fall in between, but we all stand on the back of pure exploitation of the bottom.
Quote:
Page 27, post #66. I share your concerns about the direction the world seems to be taking.
Where world is heading in your opinion? I believe world is heading in the direction envisioned by Aldoux Haxley Aldous Huxley interviewed by Mike Wallace (2 of 3) - YouTube and Prozac enhanced wage slavery and status race is a key element of that future.
Quote:
Which is why I object and call it socialism and communism.
Nobody knows what communism is, that word is frequently used as an emotional label to avoid any meaningful discussion. Socialism and capitalism are two sides of the same coin - an idea that elites (private or public) must manage natural & human resources using cutting edge scientific methods for the human race to "progress" in the future of abundance and total control of environment. There are so many striking similarities between Soviet socialism and American capitalism, it's because they are twins of the same idea - science based, "visionary" led, human progress. As world becomes more crowded and complex even capitalist elites embrace more and more elements of the central planning. USA is a centrally planned and managed society, we just do central planning little bit differently than soviet comrades did.
If you use the world socialism in the sense of welfare state, yes USA is a welfare state - for the rich only. You could call American economy welfare socialism for the rich. Why welfare is so deleterious for the "work ethics" of the lower classes and it does apparently nothing to decrease appetites of those at the top? Apparently it's because humans (who have a shot at reaching the top) never can have enough of power and wealth. #1 threat to the modern civilization is the fact that we promote the biggest psychopaths among us to the very top.
Quote:
What you miss, or seem to miss, is the drawbacks of our supposedly wonderful worker protection and social environment. Whereas the US is too harsh on some, Holland is too soft. People often lack a motivation to work hard, to study hard. We protect people so much, there is not much incentive anymore.
So you basically agree with me, wage slavery is rooted in coercion. Make a whip of coercion smaller and lower level labor rats don't run the treadmill as hard, at the same time the appetites of the top rats supervising the treadmill don't get any smaller, they want lower lever rats to run harder (for less) for the top rats to have more and more and more. In short class conflict is brewing. As I said before, lower level wage work is 100% unrewarding, it takes sizable coercion for the lower lever rats to run the treadmill in earnest. USA uses both coercion and brainwashing into rags-to-riches from cradle to grave (very important element) to encourage lower classes to work for the heck of it, despite the fact that American social mobility lags that in the Western Europe.
Quote:
We have tremendous age discrimination because it is too hard to fire a bad employee. In some labor agreements people get an automatic raise based on age. Employers are extremely cautious in hiring people.
In USA it's 180 degrees opposite, you aging butt will be thrown to the curb (with little hope of getting a similarly compensated job or any job) to be replaced by a younger grunt working more hours for less, less and less. Wanna trade?
Quote:
Yopu say that you know a lot about the US visa system. Then why advise/tell me to move to Texas? If it were that easy, I would have done so already.
Simple moving to Texas is very easy for you. Roughly 2-3 millions of the illegal immigrants in USA are Canadian and Europeans who overstayed their visas. Getting an American visa is very easy for a dutch, I don't believe you even need a visa for a short term stay. Congress is working on an amnesty bill, so hurry up. An illegal immigrant experiences Laissez Faire as nobody else.
Legal status for a Western European is a tougher business.
Here are realistic options:
1. Get in sci&eng grad school (in 95% of the cases, it wouldn't cost you anything if you are accepted, you'll get tuition reimbursements + modest salary to cover living expenses) , get a Ph.D., get a job, get an employer to sponsor your for a green card as a "talent". Government employers are more willing to sponsor.
2. Same as above, except that find an American woman/man to marry while in grad school and/or working. For many women a Ph.D. exhumes an upwardly mobile potential (luckily, they have no clue) so you stand a decent chance.
3. Same as above, but you can make a claim yourself that you are uniquely talented and thus deserve a permanent resident status
4. Invest $500,000 in an American business and a green card is yours (it's not that much in the great scheme of things)
5. Get a job with an American corporation, they will sponsor you for a work visa (H1B), stand up from the crowd, get them to sponsor you for a green card. Don't forget about marriage while you do all the above.
6. Intracorporate transfers are the least regulated, there is no cap (there is a cap on H1B visas and long waiting list). Get hired with an European company having physical presence in USA, get transferred to USA.
Most former Western Europeans I know married an American citizen while on a visa of some sort. Some even found their transatlantic partner on internet. Canada is another option, and I believe it's easier to emigrate to Canada (legally).
Last edited by RememberMee; 08-09-2013 at 11:45 AM..
Last time I was In usa and I met a family,mother with 4 children, all girls, one pregnant already.
All they do is texting, chatting in room. No one want go work
The have everything, tablet, cell phone, TV, play station,... Rent a house(1500$) and have cars. I calculated she need over 4000$/month.
These people are clueless, they know nothing, they voted for Obama...
She has no skill, how she can pay for all that?
I find it disconcerting that people will list luxuries like a "cell phone" or "Playstation" as if they represent the standard of luxurious consumption in the U.S. It's no longer 1989. Even homeless people on the street have cell phones, and the other things you listed - TV, play station, tablet - are one-off purchases, easily attainable for a combined $1000 new at Walmart.
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
