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.
No, I expect that person to either better themselves through career-advancement (yes, that does happen without a college education), or get a college education, or move out of a high cost of living area. It's uttlerly foolish to work in retail/fast food in a high cost of living area and wonder why a person can't make ends meet. It doesn't pass the common sense test and, if anything, should compel the person to do even better with their life.
So, what do you think would happen if every minimum-wage worker left SF, LA, NYC, etc? Seriously, how would that affect the rest of us? I still need my "menial tasks" done here in the Bay Area, and somebody's gotta do them! Maybe a small percentage of student workers would keep us going, but we'd lose a huge percentage of our retail, food & maintenance industries without these folks. Perhaps a slight increase in lower-level pay would be more logical?
I'm still waiting for a conservative to offer proof as to how many worthless moochers exist in the USA. Does anyone have any facts to back them up or is this emotional hysteria?
America is absolutely chock -full of losers and deadbeats who'd rather not lift a finger to help themselves and instead rely on the American taxpayer to care for their every need, including food, housing, cell phones, medical care, etc.
Whenever these losers and otherwise useless people are mentioned by conservatives, the first to come to their defense is liberals with a myriad of excuses as to why we shoud all be caring, empathetic, and sympathetic citizens who willingly support the Social Safety Net Juggernaut™.
Hardly ever do we find a liberal who will forthrightly, and honestly, acknowledge that this country is full of deadbeat individuals who do not pay into the American system.
Why is this? Why is it that liberals won't for a moment acknowledge that YES there are millions upon millions of people in this country who are perpetual bad decision-makers and have no desire, will, or ability to change their worthless existence?
Who amongst you will stand up and defend America for once instead of defending the Lowest Common Denominator that's sucking your wallet dry without an ounce of remorse?
I agree with you -to a point. First of all, Social Security is not an entitlement. People have paid into SS their entire working lives. Just because the government has mishandled their funds does not mean they should suffer for it. The government should pay people what they have paid in plus reasonable interest, compounded annually on that amount. That is only fair, that is what people would do if they had had the privilege of making their own decisions about retirement funds rather than having to put up with the MANDATED, and required system for 40 or 50 years.
That having been said, I think that we should do away ENTIRELY with the entitlement programs with the exception of disability programs for people who are TRULY DISABLED and 100 percent unable to work. (This does not include "Panic attacks" and "depression" by the way). For people who cannot make a living *ever* (the profoundly retarded or physically disabled for example), it is our responsibility as human beings to care for them (since the churches won't do it).
I understand that, thanks to our current administration, there are many more people out there than jobs. To alleviate this burden, the government should require anyone receiving *any* type of government assistance, who is able, to work a minimum of 20 hours per week to receive their check. Eventually phasing out the entitlement program completely and requiring these people to find gainful employment within a reasonable period of time.
I really don't like labeling each other conservative and liberal. Its like your way of "they". Its this odd name calling that is the first step in just ignoring everything.
Then the second step is to take that name and just make grandiose claims. Every conservative this, every liberal this.
Couple things:
1) I am not accusing this system of wide spread fraud.
2) I am hopeful to have no-specific bias (race/group).
What I am accusing?
I am accusing human beings of doing what human beings will do. Any economic lecture will give you evidence of the impact of minimum wage, product value ceilings and floors, and unemployment insurance.
Yet can I say 100% for sure that unemployment insurance has significantly increased the unemployment level in the united states? no. Do I agree with the overall evidence that people with unemployment will wait longer/less likely to settle than others in finding a job. yes.
Fraud isn't the issue. encouraging A non social/economic beneficial outcome is the issue.
These programs look good in theory but in execution they don't really have the right impact. We should help people find new jobs and help with the transition.
We should not provide support that causes people to delay their transition to the next job.
You cannot govern like that. You cannot have public policy based on a vague understanding of human nature.
Is there widespread proof that unemployment benefits keeps people from working?
If conservatives believe this then prove it.
Instead of offering an objective study that really attempts to look at the best public policy what conservatives do is to either just assert that what they believe is self evidently true, or they hire academics to lie through their teeth about public policy.
Then conservatives want the government to enact fcked up public policy based on their made up unproven beliefs that are aimed at punishing the group they hate.
According the the OP, burger flippers either shouldn't exist or should only live in cheap areas... guess those of us in high-COL regions should give up the ideas of eating a burger/fast food, having our houses & public buildings cleaned, buying clothing in stores, filling our cars with gas, etc. Yeah, that's a logical solution to the welfare issue.
I'm interested...where are the people who are un- or underemployed going to work?
That's a good question, especially since even the conservatives admit we have more potential workers than jobs right now... so if working 20+ hours/week should be a requirement for receiving assistance, how do they suggest creating these jobs that (in many cases) don't exist? And if they push out other people for these jobs, doesn't that just shift the unemployed demographic to a new group? Final question, how do they think people who CAN'T immediately find work should survive in the meantime? These are the same people who whine about our homeless populations, while failing to realize their "grand plans" would only add to that problem.
Here's a new idea: Everyone who works in higher-paying jobs, and now has a good deal of money saved, should immediately quit their job and give it to a long-term unemployed American. Fair enough?
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.
