Its clearly the right time to slash the social safety net

[kentonio]

Are there a lot of 65 year-olds with dependent children where you live?

What a useless ****ing poster you are.

If you weren't a rich little ***** living in your little ivory tower, you might know that huge numbers of single mothers are supported by their aging parents and rely on them for little things like a roof over their heads. Homelessness = not always for the obvious reasons you might imagine.

[kentonio]

Yeah, so, I've pointed this out over and over again to you, kentonio, but the cuts that Republicans propose are basically only to wealthy people. Ending upper-class welfare

Who's the clueless ****?

You are. You are talking absolute bollocks, and I'm starting to think you must just be a lying idiot, because otherwise you have to be extremely ignorant of the real world if you think the poorest will somehow not be hurt by the kind of cuts the GOP keep pushing for.

[rah]

I believe there is very little truth to your claim that safety nets perpetuate poverty. You are making the assumption that because of these programs people don't look for jobs.

If you go back to the early 1990-1996 when the welfare reform act was debated and finally passed, the thinking of people that won the day was exactly the two concepts you disagreed with above.

[KrazyHorse]

If you weren't a rich little ***** living in your little ivory tower, you might know that huge numbers of single mothers are supported by their aging parents and rely on them for little things like a roof over their heads. Homelessness = not always for the obvious reasons you might imagine.

Instead of making yourself look like a fool with retarded posts like this you should just come out and admit that you didn't know what medicare in a us context was.

The test of you should take a good, long look at kentonio and thank your lucky stars that you developed on a site like poly where bull**** like this gets mercilessly mocked rather than on the retarded site kentonio is from, where it's treated with "respect".

[rah]

"The rest of you". Normally I don't point out this trivial type of thing, but I read it as test and it confused the heck out of me.

[kentonio]

Instead of making yourself look like a fool with retarded posts like this you should just come out and admit that you didn't know what medicare in a us context was.

The test of you should take a good, long look at kentonio and thank your lucky stars that you developed on a site like poly where bull**** like this gets mercilessly mocked rather than on the retarded site kentonio is from, where it's treated with "respect".

Ah so I supply the answer you clearly missed, but I'm the ignorant one? Nice try psycho, now how about you actually respond to the point I made, rather than pulling your sad little 'I tire of talking to this stupid person' card. You may know a lot about economics or finance or whatever, but when it comes to things like humanity you really are a ****ing idiot.

[Imran Siddiqui]

Sad yes, the problem of the government, I still say no. I'm surprised he can't find a 30K job. That's only around 15 an hour. My daughter is making that while also working on her masters.

In addition to what PLATO said, a lot of businesses are wary of those who had a good job with a good degree because of the fears that those people are just "filling time" and will jump without barely a moment's notice once something opens up. At least your daughter has a certain amount of time before she finishes her masters and that's knowable.

I do have a slightly different moral point of view. And I'm sure you won't agree since it deals with the organization you like railing on most, but:

The obligation to provide unemployment benefits, that is to say, the duty to make suitable grants indispensable for the subsistence of unemployed workers and their families, is a duty springing from the fundamental principle of . . . the right to life and subsistence.

- Pope John Paul II, Laborem Exercens

I do agree with the Pope, mostly because of my faith, that there is a moral duty to provide for those who can't get work. Especially when age is a barrier to being rehired.

[MRT144]

If you go back to the early 1990-1996 when the welfare reform act was debated and finally passed, the thinking of people that won the day was exactly the two concepts you disagreed with above.

Which is a tragedy given that we can clearly see that periods of great unemployment are not caused by laziness.

[kentonio]

I think the other thing that gets overlooked is that unemployment benefits usually suck. If you've been working and receiving a decent wage, why would you want to get paid a pittance to sit around the house? It's not like the state is paying you Porsche and caviar money to be unemployed.

[Hauldren Collider]

Because a lot of people think work sucks more than not being able to afford beef tenderloin?

[rah]

Which is a tragedy given that we can clearly see that periods of great unemployment are not caused by laziness.

But what was learned was that offering unlimited money did encourage some to not seek employment.
So there was value.

And to answer Kentonio. Full unemployment benefits offer something like 1600 a month. So it's worth more than if all you can find is a minimum type wage job. Or if the difference is only a few dollars an hour, why work 40 hours when you can lay around the house. Back before welfare reform the benefits were less than 1600 a month, and it discouraged those on it to find employment.

[kentonio]

Do you have any form of child support payments over there seperate to things like unemployment?

[Hauldren Collider]

Yes...kentonio, you do NOT know what the **** you are talking about. Admit it.

Note: A lot of these benefits vary by state/jurisdiction/whatever. Though most of them are just federally mandated.

[Ogie Oglethorpe]

@ 72 Thank goodness, I was wondering how long this thread would take until it became Helen Lovejoy'd.

[MRT144]

But what was learned was that offering unlimited money did encourage some to not seek employment.
So there was value.

And to answer Kentonio. Full unemployment benefits offer something like 1600 a month. So it's worth more than if all you can find is a minimum type wage job. Or if the difference is only a few dollars an hour, why work 40 hours when you can lay around the house. Back before welfare reform the benefits were less than 1600 a month, and it discouraged those on it to find employment.

To me, it is fighting a problem that in the big picture was not that important. The entire concept of the welfare queen being common and nefarious was straight up hype.

Do you remember when the law passed so that student debt was no longer able to be discharged, and the entire run up to the bill cited nefarious doctors who declared bankruptcy to avoid their student loans? Well, when statistical research was applied the findings were that doctors did not declare bankruptcy at a higher rate than other professions and in fact declared in much lower numbers.

It's the same hype. Huge policy shifts for small problems.