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.
Have said this before and now am doing so again; this "hate" of taxes and or welfare the so called rich are supposed to have here in the USA stems from the Protestant Work Ethic.
PWE teaches a person's lot in life is largely a result of their own efforts. If you are lazy, a spend thrift, poor planner, etc.. then your lot of being "poor" is God's plan in life or whatever. In no circumstance however should "their" money be used to fund (or reward) such a life hence the aversion to taxes and welfare. Both are viewed as wealth redistribution something early Protestants abhorred.
Yes, Protestants like Catholics built and or ran charitable institutions for the "poor". But the former believes suffering on earth will bring rewards in the afterlife. That and hoarding and or going after worldly riches will keep you out of heaven. Protestants have no such quibbles. The believe God's blessings are bestowed here on earth and are shown in rewards of hard work, proper planning, etc... They help the poor but it is more along the lines of "help yourself but don't take too much" and "this sort of thing mustn't happen too often".
An excellent job of historicizing the whole mess.
None of this is currently relevant in fact yet people cling to the belief system.
The 18th and 19th centuries differed RADICALLY from our own time.
Suffice to say here.
One need not be sick and weak to be in that condition. A friend of mine worked as a legal secretary for the same firm for 28 years. By her upper 50's she was making $85,000/year. She was let go and her replacement, much younger was being paid slightly over half of my friend's salary.
She won't work full time again because as soon as she reports her honest last salary she will be judged "overqualified." Has there ever been a stupider term? Imagine how lucky we would be to get a president who was "overqualified."
So for her, it's part-time, or short term temping to pay the rent and buy food until she hits 62 and can get SS. When between short term gigs it is withdrawals from her 401K that keeps her afloat.
Fortunately she has a VERY nice rent-stabilized apartment
Trust me, I know. My uncles never found "real" employment again after being let go of their jobs in their fifties. One of my uncles is still alive and he works as a cashier part-time because that's all he could get.
But really I was talking about it in terms of going on disability vs. not.
Just remember, you'll be 60 some day soon and I don't think an oven is a pleasant way to go but good luck!
Quote:
Originally Posted by jkub101
So let me get this straight. Not only have the baby boomers ruined the current economy but now you want the millennials and more recent generations to help them out? Oh, so it's my fault that the most spoiled generation in the history of the world failed to prepare adequately for retirement? Haha. If it were up to me I'd go full Hitler of those old c*nts. Everybody 60+ in the oven. Save some money on funeral costs for the younger generations, that's what I'd do.
I get so tired of the malice on CD that it's quite refreshing to read an example of simple, common decency.
Quote:
Originally Posted by NyWriterdude
He needs to apply. Or since he can't use a computer and you clearly can, get his social security information, his doctors telephone number and contact information and convince your dad to let you apply online for him. Go to The United States Social Security Administration
Your dad could have a heart attack or stroke he is too sick to do manual labor and clearly doesn't have the education or training to do anything else. Help him.
None of this is currently relevant in fact yet people cling to the belief system.
The 18th and 19th centuries differed RADICALLY from our own time.
Suffice to say here.
Oh I don't know about "relevant". A good number of persons feel quite strongly that the poor are "lazy" and or otherwise responsible for their lot in life.
Read various comments to Internet stories about anything from rent control to affordable housing and you see the same sorts of comments over and over; "mooch", "lazy", "I'm tired of supporting these....." and so forth.
Oh I don't know about "relevant". A good number of persons feel quite strongly that the poor are "lazy" and or otherwise responsible for their lot in life.
Read various comments to Internet stories about anything from rent control to affordable housing and you see the same sorts of comments over and over; "mooch", "lazy", "I'm tired of supporting these....." and so forth.
People say these things with no actual idea of the real problem.
Hint: It isn't really even the worst welfare family ...
And by default I am basically a member of the "bad" group. If I can get it, why can't everyone.
Oh I don't know about "relevant". A good number of persons feel quite strongly that the poor are "lazy" and or otherwise responsible for their lot in life.
Read various comments to Internet stories about anything from rent control to affordable housing and you see the same sorts of comments over and over; "mooch", "lazy", "I'm tired of supporting these....." and so forth.
Presumably the upper classes, especially if their wealth was inherited, like to spend time on the internet assuaging their guilt at getting wealthy with no effort by trying to show superiority over the poor by calling them lazy moochers.
I like "I got my money the old fashioned way: I INHERITED it."
All you really need to almost guarantee being poor is to be born to a poor family. Everything else is window dressing.
One need not be sick and weak to be in that condition. A friend of mine worked as a legal secretary for the same firm for 28 years. By her upper 50's she was making $85,000/year. She was let go and her replacement, much younger was being paid slightly over half of my friend's salary.
She won't work full time again because as soon as she reports her honest last salary she will be judged "overqualified." Has there ever been a stupider term? Imagine how lucky we would be to get a president who was "overqualified."
So for her, it's part-time, or short term temping to pay the rent and buy food until she hits 62 and can get SS. When between short term gigs it is withdrawals from her 401K that keeps her afloat.
Fortunately she has a VERY nice rent-stabilized apartment
That is when people go into civil service, if they can score high on the test. The pay is still half of what they made in the private sector. But they will get good health benefits. Only thing is they have to put in 10 years to get a minimum pension payment. But if they have some savings or 401K that they don't have to dip into that maybe a good thing.
With the official announcement that the SS COLA increase will be zero for 2016 some elderly and the disabled New Yorkers will need those "government subsides" sooner than many think.
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.
