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.
To the poster who protests the store clerk's employment forcing them to pay higher prices for food, there's a simple solution - grow your own food. Oh, that would take too much time and work? Well, that's what you are paying for - someone else to do the work that you choose not to do.
The fact that you do doesn't mean that everyone can live on a farm, so 49 out of 50 people don't. And of course, most who do live on a farm get their food from the grocery store, just like everybody else.
And everyone knows that grocery stores are cesspools of waste, fraud, and abuse. Sanctuaries for union-thugs and liberal low-lifes expecting to make a living off of MY grocery money! And I bet they go on vacations too! I don't want MY grocery money paying for the extravagant lifestyles of even more checkers and baggers, stock clerks who spend all their time clogging up the aisles while they gab away in some foreign language, or THREE deli clerks when one would obviously be enough to slice up all the meat and cheese the whole town might want. It's an outrage and I'm tired of seeing MY hard-earned grocery dollars stolen and wasted like this. I complain to store management, but all they are interested in is getting themselves re-promoted and lining their already bulging corporate pockets with even more of MY grocery money. It's more than a body can stand, and something needs to be done about it!
[Uh, the paragraph above was a parody. Just so you know. There was a point to it, of course. Hopefully at least some people got it.]
What I find appalling is that several posters on this board seem to think that claiming poverty and an inability to pay bills, thereby stealing money out of the pockets of working people, and using it for entertainment that those working people cannot afford, is fair, reasonable, and even helpful to the economy.
With 51% of people filing a 1040 reporting positive AGI not owing any net income tax (as of 2009), it's a good bet that all those who do pay such taxes could afford to take a vacation or indulge in other forms of entertainment. Did you pay taxes last year? Did you take a vacation?
Stealing is taking something you are not entitled to. All recipients of income support and assistance benefits are ELIGIBLE for them. That's a big difference that you don't seem to take into account. Able bodied adults without dependents who receive such assistance are typically required to be working, looking for work, or training for work in order to continue receiving benefits. That's something else that ought to be taken into consideration. And of course, except in the case of infants and children covered by WIC, recipients must be US citizens or a member of very narrowly defined groups of legal non-citizen residents.
It's already been noted here that the present model of unemployment insurance is not supposed to be a punitive measure but an attempt to backfill the coffers of business with fed dollars that normally would have been in circulation had the recipients been fully employed.
Correct. These dollars are like a cast or a knee-brace. They are a backstop to strained or fractured consumer, and secondarily, business demand such that a bridge of support past the period of a particular injury can be provided. The recent injury of course was quite severe, meaning that rehab can be expected to take a while.
Quote:
Originally Posted by jertheber
I have seen this same thread in different forms here on C/D, proof that some of our countrymen want a kind of punishing poverty to visit those who are on unemployment.
According to some, pain and suffering have redemptive and enobling powers and the more pain and suffering that is inflicted the better. The banks shouild fail, the auto companies should fail, governments should fail, we should all lose our jobs and homes and be forced to fend for ourselves for even the most basic of human wants and needs. Only after all of the sinful society of our past has been torn down to the ground can the process of building a new and more virtuous world be begun.
If all of this sounds a little biblical, a little messianic, a little, are-you-ready-for-the-rapture-ish, well you might be onto something. It's all the silly sin-and-punishment mythology of Sodom and Gomorrah all over again, and that's about as deep as it goes. It's turning in fear and confusion to a cocoon of fable and superstition instead of dealing with the problems of today as they actually are. Not a very good plan, but many have implemented it anyway.
According to some, pain and suffering have redemptive and enobling powers and the more pain and suffering that is inflicted the better. The (POORLY RUN) banks shouild fail, the (POORLY RUN) auto companies should fail, (POORLY RUN) governments should fail, we should all(ALL?) lose our jobs and homes and be forced to fend for ourselves for even the most basic of human wants and needs. Only after all of the sinful society of our past has been torn down to the ground can the process of building a new and more virtuous world be begun.
It's not a case of pain or punishment. It's getting out of the way of excellence so that it can find it's ultimate level above all the rest. Mediocrity stands in direct opposition to excellence. If you prop up the worst managed businesses by giving them resources supplied by the best or even just better managed businesses, then you are actually punishing the successful. You need to make a distinction between individual businesses and areas of business in general.
If ALL the auto companies were failing I would have gladly supported Obama's bailout of them. But that's not what happened, is it? Except for the PR of not taking the money, Ford got hurt in the process. How much of the government's revenue directly or indirectly attributed to Ford's business got sent to GM?
When it comes to government, we have all benefitted in some way by the contributions of past empires, in language, mathmatics, etc. Some may question whether or not some effects are benefical, but you have to agree that we have been influenced and, if the empire had not succeeded for any period of time, a lot of what we are today, would not be here. If, in the past, all governments were forced into mediocrity by playing fair so all governments maintained equality, where would we be now?
If you worked and earned unemployment benefits and you are unemployed then you are entitled to collect those benefits whether you need them or not and regardless of your financial status.
On the other hand, I believe that in order to qualify for food stamps you would have to meet certain financial hardship requirements. If they can afford an expensive vacation, it would seem that they may have lied in order to get those benefits. At least that would be my first assumption. Still, sometimes there are other circumstances. Even people who are out of a job need a vacation from their everyday lives which could still be stressful. I see nothing wrong with a vacation that does not cost a lot of money. Visiting friends or relatives some distance away for instance would keep costs down. A camping trip could be relatively inexpensive depending on your definition of camping. While going to Disney sounds expensive, I don't know all the details. Perhaps it is because they own their home and have no mortgage or rent to pay and own their car[s] and have no other financial obligations so that they are able to afford these things while on unemployment and food stamps. [Do they have their own garden and raise their own food as well?] It certainly seems that it is in bad taste for them to spend money on a vacation while accepting food stamps whether or not they qualify for them. If I was in that situation I would be keeping a tight fist on my money in case I didn't find a job and they did not continue to grant an extension to my benefits.
Disclaimer: I know very little about everything but I know an awful lot about nothing.
Last edited by NevadaSmith; 02-01-2012 at 08:16 AM..
I think it depends. A week at Disney is what I consider a very expensive vacation. If it were a day trip, or a much less expensive type of vacation, I don't think I'd have a big problem with it.
Are these people who lost their jobs through no fault of their own? Are they trying to find new jobs but can't? Did they have money saved up before they lost their jobs? If so, then it might not be the smartest financial decision, but it might not be unethical.
I didn't go on holiday when I was unemployed. I got fired in April 2011 and put my concentration into finding another job. Still, now even though I'm employed I still can't afford to go on holiday.
So going on holiday when unemployed seems a frivolous thing to do. Any money that can be saved is very good to keep hold of when unemployed worst comes to worst.
Considering that invisible hand rewards the most the ones who doesn't work (think rentier leisure class, bankers pulling fresh money from their sleeves, financial capital in general), there is nothing wrong with smaller leaches trying to get a smaller bite. All things considered, smaller leaches are dwarfed by the ones occupying higher ladders of the pyramid. I refuse to accept old social control trick designed to redirect the anger of wage slaving masses towards some poor choosing to cheat a penny in order to avoid soul & body killing wage work. The ones who "erected" the pyramid to become alpha parasites are. "They live".
Moderator cut: Completely off topic, Moderator action can be discussed via DM First one in response to saying wealth redistribution helps the economy. Not so.
People making money is what helps the economy, not people taking money from someone else to spend it. The more takers there are the bigger financial hole we all end up in.
It doesn't help the economy at all unless you actually make the money you are spending. Taking it from someone else to give to these people doesn't help the economy. It doesn't help the economy to put the screws to the people actually pulling their own weight. It is discouraging to make money only to have it redistributed to entitlement minded people that didn't do anything to earn it. That way it is just spent by and enjoyed by the wrong people.
To clarify, it doesn't help, because the money is already made and out there. How does letting the takers spend it help more than letting the earner spend it? It doesn't.
Moderator cut: Off Topic/Orphaned
Last edited by TheViking85; 02-02-2012 at 03:40 PM..
I did the same thing back in my single days, found myself out of work, had extremely low overhead, so I flew to Florida with my girlfriend. I didn't feel that bad about it since I had paid into the system over the years. But a word of advice to your relatives: Stay out of the sun and keep your mouth shut.
A friend of mine worked for the unemployment office and I asked if I should report down there as if I was looking for a job. She basically said, "Don't come back with a tan and tell all your buddies you went there on the govt's dime." More than a few have been turned in because of bragging loudly at a party.
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.
