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.
Do you know how hard it is to get a job these days?
I graduated Summa *** Laude with a B.A. I can't even get hired as a bank teller.
In addition, if I would have to buy my own food, I would find it impossible to afford what I already find very hard to pay for pertaining to my job search - gas, repairing the failing transmission on my car, decent clothes for interviews, electricity so I can run my shower, heat so I don't freeze, internet so I can research jobs, phone so I can answer job-related calls, etc., etc. There are so many things that go into a successful job search. The days of handing in an application and being interviewed and hired on the spot are over. Many people, though, think that's how it is.
In addition, the thread title is named "Should we make it harder for the working poor to get FOOD STAMPS?" If somebody is "working poor", they already have a job.
Plain and simple, if you aren't buying your own food you should go hungry. Why should a tax payer have to feed you? One reason, Why? A B.A. degree isn't much compared to the higher degrees available. No body said it was easy, but someone should have told you it wasn't free. You probably think a $10 an hour job is below you, two jobs paying $10 an hour should pay your bills, what are you waiting for a miracle?
Should we make it harder for the working poor to get FOOD STAMPS?
Quote:
Originally Posted by MTAtech
This is the mindset rational people must deal with -- people who believe it's all due to lazy and stupid people.
Newsflash: The poor aren't poor because they chose to be poor or thought it would be a good idea or fun to be poor. The poor are poor because they have no other options. The very fact that there are many poor who work very hard at minimum wage jobs -- with wages that have not risen in years, disproves this obvious meme.
If these people can't make it on a minimum wage job because they have no education, who's fault it that? Why are they not willing to work at two minimum wage jobs if they can't live on what they make? Why didn't they further their education so they could get a good job with higher pay? People do that all the time. But of course if they know the government will give them welfare, it's an easy decision to make, to just stay home. Yes, the poor have an option, why don't they choose to use it?
Plain and simple, if you aren't buying your own food you should go hungry. Why should a tax payer have to feed you? One reason, Why? A B.A. degree isn't much compared to the higher degrees available. No body said it was easy, but someone should have told you it wasn't free. You probably think a $10 an hour job is below you, two jobs paying $10 an hour should pay your bills, what are you waiting for a miracle?
If these people can't make it on a minimum wage job because they have no education, who's fault it that?
20 years ago, a diploma was all you needed to work a decent job. People have lost that. Even now, we have hundreds of thousands of people graduating with degrees in higher education--and getting no jobs. Hundreds of thousands. The elders in this country struck it easy. The baby-boomers and their children grew up and began working in a time when prosperity was easy, the middle-class was developing and strong, and the U.S. was basically the only game in town.
Now, our laborers have to compete on a global market, and what do conservatives want to do? Destroy every protection the laborer has.
Quote:
Why are they not willing to work at two minimum wage jobs if they can't live on what they make?
The minimum wage was devised to provide a minimum standard of living. It has completely and utterly failed to do so as a result of not being indexed to the CPI or rate of inflation.
Not to mention, many people are working multiple jobs, either because their employer will not give them full time (which means paid benefits), or because the 40+ hours they already work cannot afford the food, shelter, and care for themselves and families they have to support. It's only the ignoramuses who believe everyone on welfare is a heifer at home with twenty kids and a Bentley.
Quote:
Why didn't they further their education so they could get a good job with higher pay?
Great idea. Where would they fit that in during their 80hr work week they need to keep their house and feed their kids? Oh, and pay for the education where tuition has jumped 400%.
Quote:
People do that all the time.
Do they, or that just your conjecture?
Quote:
But of course if they know the government will give them welfare, it's an easy decision to make, to just stay home. Yes, the poor have an option, why don't they choose to use it?
And it's this ignorance that drives the working poor to the arms of the communist scum liberals.
Plain and simple, if you aren't buying your own food you should go hungry. Why should a tax payer have to feed you? One reason, Why? A B.A. degree isn't much compared to the higher degrees available. No body said it was easy, but someone should have told you it wasn't free. You probably think a $10 an hour job is below you, two jobs paying $10 an hour should pay your bills, what are you waiting for a miracle?
I actually did have a $9 a hour job stocking shelves, but was laid off as it was a seasonal position. Did I think that it was a poor match for my abilities? Yes. Did I think I was lucky to have a job at the time? Yes. I've applied at all kinds of places, from car washes to property management to administrative assistant positions, and am obviously still searching. I would be elated if I could work even one $10 an hour job. Landing a job, especially an "entry-level" or menial one in a good economy is relatively easy. But even the most menial jobs have a lot of competition in today's economy.
And I was in the process of applying for graduate school when I happened to have a seizure before class, which led to the diagnosis and subsequent partial removal of a malignant brain tumor, physical therapy, speech therapy, occupational therapy, MRIs, and chemotherapy. Don't tell me about your suffering and slaving away, because I assure you, it probably pales in comparison to my experiences.
In a just society, those best able to bear it bear the burden for those who (justly) are not able to. If I live long enough to make $100,000 or $200,000 a year, I will have no problem paying a relatively small part of my income to support those who, like me, need it. It is a Christian teaching, and one grounded in common sense, that the wealthy have a grave obligation to use their superfluous wealth in a way that benefits the needy.
You're nuts. If you want this country to be a third-world hell hole, you'll have it soon enough by constantly cutting everything workers the past 200 years have been righting for: the 40 hour work week, minimum wages, child labor, unionization, time off, benefits.
Keep believing what you're rich owners tell you to believe. You're a disgrace to the working man. If you want work 70 hours, good for you, I hope you do well. But if the standard to survive in this country is working 70 hours, I hope you lose your house.
Tried repping you for this, but I need to "spread it around" (No Newt jokes, please). It's 100% spot on.
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.
Should we make it harder for the working poor to get FOOD STAMPS?
