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.
I just wanna add . . . poverty is horrible, regardless of how a person got there. No one wants to see anyone, young or old, suffering in poverty.
My problem with placing blame is that some of the poverty in this country has been directly created by entitlements that have encouraged people to sit on their arses, having babies that up the check every month, and contributing nothing to society other than consumerism. I feel this country has made it possible for this behavior. Meanwhile, those in real need - the working poor, those w/ physical disability, the elderly - are limited as to what benefits they even qualify for, despite working all (or most) of their lives.
We talk about cutting entitlements but here is the rub: even tho I think most responsible folks would agree that we would like to kick the moochers off the welfare rolls - what happens to them once we do that? We have encouraged their lifestyle and they have scraped by under the radar w/ no education, a passle of kids, and the only thing they understand is gaming the system. What happens when there is no more "system?" We need to address the REASONS for poverty and correct those situations - but that ain't gonna happen. In this country, we only throw money at situations, until we have drained the coffers and now everyone is lining up to grab what part of the pie is left - and there seems to be a deliberate attempt to create animosity - class warfare, if you will - between those scraping by and those who have made a lot of $$$.
Social Security should be distinguished from other entitlements by referring to it as something like a "vested entitlement" since people paid into that system. We need to get real as to who really deserves what and based on something other than Roosevelt's New Deal policies and Johnson's Great Society guidelines, as it were.
I find this nonsensical. I am sure there are those who find Jon Stewart amusing and there are times I do, as well, but this is not a subject to be scoffed at or satirized. It should concern all taxpayers that part of our society gets the most in subsidized benefits but pay no taxes. However, there are many times that people legitimately need assistance (out of work, sick, elderly) and they should not be EXPECTED to pay taxes. The idea is that people receiving some sort of subsidy are receiving it only on a temporary basis, i.e., "until they get back on their feet." I don't think anyone resents helping people who have hit on hard financial times.
The people in this country who have made a lifestyle out of gaming the welfare (including disability) system are the people who need to be called into accountability.
Suggesting that people who are already at poverty level should ante up more taxes is simply not amusing to me (regardless of Stewart's intent) and it certainly does nothing to further a conversation about how $$ in the federal budget are actually being spent.
When Social Security benefits are being called into question, I don't find any of these types of silly conversations appropriate. Citizens invested in social security. It is not the same as receiving rent subsidies, food stamps, WIC or medicaid, wh/ a person (who qualifies) can receive whether they have paid any taxes into the federal coffers or not.
True - and I agree with you. However, generational poverty, when underwritten by welfare checks, has in many cases simply produced more folks who feel comfortable limiting the horizon of their lives to yet more subsidies and marginalized poverty.
I think we are of similar minds on this point. You have presented the mirror image of my experience. People used to always ask me, "How did you get out while most of your friends didn't?" While this is an answer too lengthy for this forum, the core lies in your post. Any unearned financial subsidy, i.e. welfare check" might have blunted my motivation. In my personal experience in the projects, the last thing you want to do is to make people feel "comfortable" in their poverty.
I don't mean to offend anyone here but its a general question.
Other countries do not even have a SS system.
I do have sympathy for the unfortunate.
I believe that Preventive Health care should be FREE. It means I am willing to pay higher taxes on the health system.
We now have Obamacare. Our only President that truly cares for our health.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Escort Rider
While the question in the OP was posed in an insensitive and judgemental way, I think it goes to the heart of our attitudes towards those people who are barely scraping by on Social Security alone. That question is, in a nutshell, "Is it their fault for poor planning and lack of financial self-control over time, or is it the result of unfortunate and tragic circumstances beyond their control?" My personal answer is that there are many people of each type. Therefore, there is no valid general answer. To think that no one is "guilty" is naive in the extreme, and to think that everyone is "guilty" is unrealistic and cruel. Some people spent every dollar that came across their palm with no thought for tomorrow, and other people have suffered terrible reversals that make us just want to sit down and cry.
We will be talking past each other if we adopt only one or the other point of view.
Years ago when many of us married, pre-nups hadn't come into the picture.
Military pensions cannot be changed by pre-nup (on average, spouse gets half after 10 years of marriage), company pension Qdro and Erisa overides prenups, to name a few exceptions. More importantly none of us thought we would end in divorce.
I think we are of similar minds on this point. You have presented the mirror image of my experience. People used to always ask me, "How did you get out while most of your friends didn't?" While this is an answer too lengthy for this forum, the core lies in your post. Any unearned financial subsidy, i.e. welfare check" might have blunted my motivation. In my personal experience in the projects, the last thing you want to do is to make people feel "comfortable" in their poverty.
Sadly, when one says this, tho . . . it sounds cruel and insensitive, and people who are living in the projects find it arrogant, as if we are saying they are living a grand life surrounded by crime and poverty. What motivates a person to claw his way out of poverty? Two people can want the same thing: to live a different lifestyle. One will choose a life of crime; the other will choose education. I have heard it said by many people who have managed to work themselves out of a bad situation that their peers were often NOT supportive. The cultural aspects can be overwhelming when being a gangsta is revered and being a student is "selling out." That is why generational poverty really is cyclic and, for the most part, predictable.
It is easier for us all to decorate the rut we are in rather than claw our way out of the hole. If we live w/ something long enough, familiarity can breed a comfort zone rather than contempt.
<snip> The latest "gubment scam" involves a HUD program that this administration has pushed to fund to the max and it is so shocking no one believes me when I tell them about it. me, etc etc etc. <snip>
Finally, we want to make sure the Section 8 homeownership program is fully implemented. This is a program that provides vouchers for first-time home buyers which they can use for down payments and/or mortgage payments. - George W Bush.
Totally agree with that. And many things can put us into a financially difficult situation later in life even if we did do "all the right things" for 40 years.
Catastrophic medical bills, divorce (wh/ includes splitting one's pension, if a person is so fortunate as to even HAVE a pension these days) - as well as halving the other assets . . . unexpected financial loss due to stock market . . . death of spouse who has been primary breadwinner . . . disability . . .lawsuits . . .
Speaking of lawsuits, let me tell ya . . . I have a friend whose mid-80 y/o parents were sued and the cost was staggering. Strange situation - their indoor dog dashed out an open door as they were carrying in groceries and ran right into the wheels of a cyclist (who was training for a marathon of some sort) . . . and the cyclist sued the owners for not only medical bills but for earnings lost and chronic pain due to back and arm injuries, nerve damage, etc etc. Their homeowner's insurance only covered part of the expenses, b/c the settlement was literally hundreds of thousands of dollars plus attorney expenses.
Stuff happens.
That's why we carry an umbrella policy----and ****, don't tell anyone about it, or people will be lined up to fall down on your lawn!
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.
There's one in every crowd!
