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.
What exactly is wrong with sacking groceries? I know the uber intelligent edumacated liberals would never subscribe to that type of work as they are better than that but others don't see a problem with it. Two jobs can't provide you with rent, food and utilities? Maybe not in a mcmansion. Perhaps folks should think about things like that before buying one. When I was single living on my own I was fine going to school living in a dump and working two jobs. I guess that is too much to ask of today's yutes who expect everything to be handed to them on a silver platter. Why do they expect that? Because people like you make up excuses every day so they fall into the victim mindset and give up. Congrats as you are the biggest part of the problem.
I think the common argument from lefties I continue to see in this thread are excuses. You folks have an excuse for everything. All those excuses can be solved with a little hard work. I didn't say to work at the grocery store for the rest of your life. Of course in today's world that is the choice many make and then sit around playing the victim that you folks create.
There's nothing wrong w/ sacking groceries if you accept that that person will invariably also rely on welfare of some sort. Expecting otherwise b/c you grew up in a time when you were paid enough doing menial work to fund a college education, shows that you're so out of touch w/ reality, that I'm wondering if you even live on your own. Best case scenario: a low income person earning $8/hr, 60hrs week nets ~ $375/wk, $1500/mth. Just taking out rent, utilities, and food($600+200+200), leaves $500 to pay for incidentals, housing supplies, travel, co pays, medicine.
Quote:
Originally Posted by AeroGuyDC
The working poor are not the subject of this discussion. I RESPECT working folks! How did you miss that? Reading comprehension problems? Or just more of the same liberal obtusity and deflection?
Further, I have said NOTHING in regards to deadbeats creating America's financial problems. That's a figment of your wild and fallacious imagination.
Par for the course. I expect nothing less from you.
Bull. Chit. The only group you could be talking about that's a large enough segment of welfare recipients to fit the profile in your OP are the working poor. 90% of welfare recipients are either children, on SS, or the working poor. The remainder is made up of people w/ disabilities, temporary help, and the deadbeats.
If you're not talking about the working poor, then you've just made an asinine show of complaining about a group that makes up ~5% of welfare recipients...
Bull. Chit. The only group you could be talking about that's a large enough segment of welfare recipients to fit the profile in your OP are the working poor. 90% of welfare recipients are either children, on SS, or the working poor. The remainder is made up of people w/ disabilities, temporary help, and the deadbeats.
If you're not talking about the working poor, then you've just made an asinine show of complaining about a group that makes up ~5% of welfare recipients...
From my link, above:
Quote:
Because of the “everyday low wages” that the retail giant pays its employees, our government has to step in and provide public assistance to Wal-Mart workers just so they can survive…which is why the Wal-Mart workforce represents the largest recipient of federal aid in the nation.
A Wal-Mart worker makes on average 31% less than a worker for any other large retailer, and requires 39% more in public assistance.
A recent study by UC Berkeley found that Wal-Mart’s low wages are costing the state of California alone $86 million a year to provide public assistance like food stamps and healthcare to the retailer’s 44,000 low-wage employees in the state. The state spends nearly $2,000 every single year on each Wal-Mart employee who can’t afford basic essentials like housing, food, and healthcare with their Wal-Mart paycheck.
So what you're saying is Walmart understands that they don't pay their employees enough to not rely on welfare to some degree, but Conservatives w/ tenuous grasps on reality don't. Odd.
Easy! Stop the revolving door of poverty and ignorance! This is easy to do as well.....all a person has to do is graduate high school....stay out of jail.....learn a skill/go to college.....work hard to climb the career ladder....get married when economics allow....have children when economics allow....continue to climb the career ladder (relative, but realistic).....and most importantly LIVE WITHIN YOUR MEANS!
The most successful people in America have followed some variation of this life narrative. It's easy to see that those who come from broken families...wedlock....deadbeat parents...etc. are those who are generally not able to make big achievements in life. And therein lies the problem. The familial structure is BROKEN. So what do we get? A bunch of deadbeat losers who take more than they give.
PROSPERITY STARTS AT HOME! So why is it so hard for so many people to stop the revolving door? My dad stopped it, and guess what? My siblings and I are successful people. It takes alot of hard work, determination, timing, and a bit of luck, but it can be done. Do you think differently?
For some graduating high school is not easy. If as a child, you are living on the street, are not properly clothed or fed, don't have access to good health care, then you are probably not going to do well in school. Some manage to overcome those odds, but many to do not.
Have you ever tried it? I have done it and was scheduled to work both jobs on the Fourth and had to choose which job I wanted to keep and which I was willing to give up. Nobody wants t work that day and you can't find a replacement or trade shifts.
To answer your question, people like this would rather portray behavior of theirs which other people also engage in as OK so they feel validated themselves for living the way they do. It's probably plain psychology.
There's nothing wrong w/ sacking groceries if you accept that that person will invariably also rely on welfare of some sort. Expecting otherwise b/c you grew up in a time when you were paid enough doing menial work to fund a college education, shows that you're so out of touch w/ reality, that I'm wondering if you even live on your own. Best case scenario: a low income person earning $8/hr, 60hrs week nets ~ $375/wk, $1500/mth. Just taking out rent, utilities, and food($600+200+200), leaves $500 to pay for incidentals, housing supplies, travel, co pays, medicine.
I didn't fund my education by working menial jobs. I took out student loans like anybody could today. I wish I had $500 a month to blow back in the day.
No, those are not the numbers. He's pulled those out of his ass. His assumption is that in optimal economic conditions, EVERY single person is employed. This is not true. "Full employment" is considered in the 4% unemployment range.
His simple mind and simple calculations won't allow him to consider these incovenient truths. That's why he keeps spouting them even after he's been told he's wrong.
LOL...FOMC falling out of my chair......My GluteusMaximunUmption is that The United States of America had at no time in It's History Obtained Full Employment , but that there is a slight chance 1% to 3% of it ever being able to do that " somehow magically put Everybody Looking For A JOB to work " (2) Moma told me to never say arse or to pull sometime out of it " unless I'm Constipated And Something Desperately Need To Be Pulled Out Of It " Full Employment Can Exist Along With Unemployment of 4% a moron would know all of that (3) I'm like POTUS Barack H. Obama that kept asking Mitt Romney to show him the Mitt Romney Math for his Economic Programs to no avail....SHOW ME YOUR MATH put up or shut up.......FOMC
The 20th century British economist William Beveridge stated that an unemployment rate of 3% was full employment. Other economists have provided estimates between 2% and 13%, depending on the country, time period, and the various economists' political biases.
So what you're saying is Walmart understands that they don't pay their employees enough to not rely on welfare to some degree, but Conservatives w/ tenuous grasps on reality don't. Odd.
Retail is retail. Fast food is fast food. Bowling alleys are bowling alleys. Etc. Who amongst you believes that working retail or fast food or at the bowling alley was EVER intended to provide a living wage????
Blah blah blah. You can rail against Wal-mart all you want, but it's ignorant. No one on this planet with a level head has ever thought that a menial job in retail or fast food would provide living wage. Except the Obtuse Left and their unrealistic expectations.
Retail is retail. Fast food is fast food. Bowling alleys are bowling alleys. Etc. Who amongst you believes that working retail or fast food or at the bowling alley was EVER intended to provide a living wage????
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.
