Hope for Youth?

[RoadTime]

It is a system set up for abuse. Although I agree with most of the letter, some of it was a little extreme even for me. Take away a person's right to vote after they have been laid off? The assumption being made is that everyone on assistance is abusing it. Some people are legitimately in need of assistance be it temporary job loss, medical reasons, etc. Reform does need to be made for people who try to make welfare a career. Just because some people look "able-bodied", we don't know their situation or should assume they are abusing the system. We pay into this system so it's there when we need it most.

Side note on assumptions and handicap parking. Another area with seemly a lot of abuse, but don't assume just because the person looks able-bodied, that they don't need it. I have been on both sides of this issue. Case in point, my wife at the time and I were shopping, upon returning to our vehicle which was parked in a handicap spot a note was left under the wiper blade that read, "what's your handicap?". The permit was for my wife, who was 32 and did look able-bodied. What could not be seen is that she was recovering from a recent heart transplant. This was very upsetting to say the least. Flash forward 10 years and just the other day I find myself on the other side. I was walking into a pilot, a pick up pulls in right next to the door in a handicap space with two able bodied looking people inside. A regular spot was open right next to it. I grumbled to myself, thinking, "really, you could not park one spot over and save it for someone who really needs it?".
On my way out they were just coming in, on a closer look, the lady was on oxygen and frankly looked like she would not see tomorrow. I was feeling extremely low and disgusted by my original assumption, and vowed I would never 2nd guess or assume someones situation. We know what happens when we assume.

I know I got off track, and there is abuse in the system, and some reform is definitely needed. But before we go pointing fingers at the supposedly able bodied people on welfare/assistance, in the end, we don't know squat about their given situation.

 

[layoutshooter]

" Take away a person's right to vote after they have been laid off?"


That may be harsh. It may be wrong. One thing IS clear, people on welfare voting for candidates that promise welfare is without a doubt a conflict of interest. Don't know the answer, but one is needed.

"When the people find that they can vote themselves money, that will herald the end of the republic."


Benjamin Franklin

 

[davekc]

I don't think anyone wants to deny benefits to the elderly, disabled or the sick. Same thing if someone is drawing unemployment. They pay in to that program they should be able to draw those benefits. Same with welfare. Bad things happen to good people, but I would say after three years of drawing benefits, that should be the end of the benefits unless they perform a government service. No need to take away their voting rights if welfare is capped. Their opinions will be more balanced if they realise they have to work for them or pay taxes to support others.

 

[Turtle]

" Take away a person's right to vote after they have been laid off?"


That may be harsh. It may be wrong. One thing IS clear, people on welfare voting for candidates that promise welfare is without a doubt a conflict of interest. Don't know the answer, but one is needed.

It's hardly a conflict of interest. It's the exact opposite of a conflict, where people vote literally in their own interest. Land owners, business owners and the wealthy vote for candidates who promise them more of the same prosperity. People always vote for the candidates who promise what they want. Anti-abortion voters vote for candidates who promise anti-abortion. Pro gun voters vote for candidates who promise no gun control. Welfare voters vote for candidates who promise more welfare.

"When the people find that they can vote themselves money, that will herald the end of the republic."


Benjamin Franklin

A common attribution, as well as it commonly being attributed to Alexander Tytler, and Alexis de Tocqueville. Many conservatives over the last two elections have been scrambling to attribute it to whomever best bolsters their agenda, attributing it to Alexander Hamilton, Alexander Tyler, Thomas Jefferson, even George Washington. They know that when people read something on the Internet, they believe it, and the actual truth is secondary. But none of those people said anything like that. Thus far, that quote (and many variants of it) has no citable source.

The first time that quote was attributed anywhere to Franklin was on the Internet in 1998, and people ever since have assumed it's valid. The first time it was attributed to Alexander Tytler was in a 1951 op-ed piece in the The Daily Oklahoman under the byline Elmer T. Peterson.

But 200 years ago when Franklin, or Tytler, or de Tocqueville is reported to have said that, there would have no reason for them to say it, since there is no historical precedent for such a thing happening and no nation, the US in particular, was not on the precipice of it happening. However, in the eyes of someone like Alexis de Tocqueville, it's certainly something that he might have said, albeit in a different context. He believed wholeheartedly in old-world aristocracy, where power was inherited and passed down through the generations by royalty and by the wealthy, and it should stay that way. He believed that ordinary Americans enjoyed too much power and claimed too great a voice in the public sphere to defer to intellectual superiors. As a result, the natural elites could not enjoy much share in political power. The American culture promoted a relatively pronounced equality, Tocqueville argued, but the same mores and opinions that ensured such equality also promoted mediocrity.

The only real source of that quote is something that Plato wrote more than 2000 years ago when he was discussing the problems with allowing slaves to go free and to allow former slaves and other non land owners to vote, which would unquestionably result in people voting the current members of the Senate and other leaders out of office, and thus ending the Republic as we know it.

 

[AMonger]

Absolutely I do. It's one thing is we're talking about unemployment, into which we all pay. But welfare and the like are different matters entirely. Not only is it immoral to steal from others to provide it, the recipients are better off, both materially and morally, if assistance comes from private charity.
I agree, though, that if benefits are capped, it may not be necessary to suspend their voting rights.

 

[layoutshooter]

"It's hardly a conflict of interest. It's the exact opposite of a conflict, where people vote literally in their own interest. Land owners, business owners and the wealthy vote for candidates who promise them more of the same prosperity. People always vote for the candidates who promise what they want. Anti-abortion voters vote for candidates who promise anti-abortion. Pro gun voters vote for candidates who promise no gun control. Welfare voters vote for candidates who promise more welfare."

One should vote based on the Constitution. Welfare, as we have it today, is not a Constitutional function of the federal government. It is pure Marxism, redistribution of wealth. I contend that when someone can vote to remove private property from it's rightful owner, which wages are, and then have that property given to themselves, it is a conflict of interest. Pro gun voters are voting to maintain a RIGHT that was considered SO important that it was enumerated in the Bill of Rights. Those who vote for more "welfare" are out only to encourage more Marxism, which is contrary to the ideals the country was founded on. The "welfare" model, as it stands today, is a model that leads to sloth and decline.

As to the quote, you may be right. I just read it on a page "dedicated" to "quotes" by Franklin. If it's wrong, it's wrong. The meaning is right.

 

[cheri1122]

I don't think anyone wants to deny benefits to the elderly, disabled or the sick. Same thing if someone is drawing unemployment. They pay in to that program they should be able to draw those benefits. Same with welfare. Bad things happen to good people, but I would say after three years of drawing benefits, that should be the end of the benefits unless they perform a government service. No need to take away their voting rights if welfare is capped. Their opinions will be more balanced if they realise they have to work for them or pay taxes to support others.

The flaw in that argument is that it's based on the premise that jobs which can support people are available, as was the case decades ago. [I used to be able to get jobs I wasn't really qualified for, because I learn quick - these days, I can't get jobs I am qualified for, because the competition is so great, there's always someone a little more qualified]
Telling the unemployed to "just get a job" is like FMCSA telling drivers to "just park the truck at a specific time" without regard to the parking shortage: it's not reasonable.
I will believe that people just don't want to work when there is work available that pays enough to live, and they don't take advantage of it. That's not the case today.
It's easy to blame people for needing help, but it isn't going to fix the problem.

 

[AMonger]

Telling the unemployed to "just get a job" is like FMCSA telling drivers to "just park the truck at a specific time" without regard to the parking shortage: it's not reasonable.
I will believe that people just don't want to work when there is work available that pays enough to live, and they don't take advantage of it. That's not the case today.

Your FMCSA analogy is a good one, however you surely can't believe that there aren't still tens of millions of people out there who won't work just because more people who still want to are having trouble finding a job. We have plenty of both groups. Because we have more of the one doesn't excuse the other.



Sent from my SM-N900V using Tapatalk

 

[paullud]

The flaw in that argument is that it's based on the premise that jobs which can support people are available, as was the case decades ago. [I used to be able to get jobs I wasn't really qualified for, because I learn quick - these days, I can't get jobs I am qualified for, because the competition is so great, there's always someone a little more qualified]
Telling the unemployed to "just get a job" is like FMCSA telling drivers to "just park the truck at a specific time" without regard to the parking shortage: it's not reasonable.
I will believe that people just don't want to work when there is work available that pays enough to live, and they don't take advantage of it. That's not the case today.
It's easy to blame people for needing help, but it isn't going to fix the problem.

The flaw in your argument is that there aren't jobs that support people. If you have an education or skill you can pretty much find a job to take care of yourself and family. If you don't have a job or education you might need 2 jobs but that is the situation you put yourself in.

Sent from my SCH-I535 using EO Forums mobile app

 

[davekc]

The flaw in that argument is that it's based on the premise that jobs which can support people are available, as was the case decades ago. [I used to be able to get jobs I wasn't really qualified for, because I learn quick - these days, I can't get jobs I am qualified for, because the competition is so great, there's always someone a little more qualified]
Telling the unemployed to "just get a job" is like FMCSA telling drivers to "just park the truck at a specific time" without regard to the parking shortage: it's not reasonable.
I will believe that people just don't want to work when there is work available that pays enough to live, and they don't take advantage of it. That's not the case today.
It's easy to blame people for needing help, but it isn't going to fix the problem.

I believe you have just made the argument for able body people to work for their benefits.

 

[cheri1122]

The flaw in your argument is that there aren't jobs that support people.

That's the problem that needs addressed, because there used to be, until most of those jobs were outsourced to create higher profits, to satisfy the investors' demands for ever increasing ROI, and the C suite's neverending need to 'one up' each other with bonuses, and strategies that promote short term gain [more bonuses!] at the expense of actual progress. [Investing used to be a risk, not anymore, 'shareholders' are calling the shots, because they're ENTITLED to a return on their investment, right?]

If you have an education or skill you can pretty much find a job to take care of yourself and family.

Tell that to the college grads with brand new MBAs working at McFast Food places.

If you don't have a job or education you might need 2 jobs but that is the situation you put yourself in.

I just LOVE the 'blame the victim' attitude: the people who have worked for decades without benefit of college, are suddenly out of a job through no fault of their own, and now they should work 2 jobs to make up for what they've lost? Working 2 jobs used to be a temporary solution to a temporary cash flow shortage [like going to school, or saving for something like a house]. It's not a temporary problem anymore - are they supposed to continue working 2 jobs until they're 70?
The people out of work rarely put themselves in that position - they worked for many years to provide for their families, until someone else decided their job can be done cheaper in Mexico [or wherever], and you think it's their own **** fault, for not expecting it to happen?
That's precisely the same logic used to blame rape victims.
I wonder what all the vets we're all busy 'thanking' today think about being unemployed - cause there's a LOT of them. As you say: the jobs aren't there. Here.
What kind of a society requires people to work 2 jobs [if they can find 2 employers who will allow them to choose their shifts - like that'll happen] just to pay the bills, when they have already worked long enough to have a house & family to care for?
And more important: what kind of a society will we have if it continues? If all those parents are working 2 jobs, who is raising the kids?

Sent from my SCH-I535 using EO Forums mobile app

 

[cheri1122]

I believe you have just made the argument for able body people to work for their benefits.

That has been a requirement for a very long time. In practice, it just doesn't work. First: there have to be jobs for them to do.
Second: the single mothers need child care - or should they just leave kids home alone?
Third: Many potential jobs are located in suburban 'industrial parks', but there's no public transportation between there & where the potential employees live - if they can't afford a reliable car, they can't take advantage of the jobs. And public transportation is always one of the first budgets to get cut.

These are just the most common issues - there are more. It's a tough problem, but the answers will never be found if we're not even looking, because it's easier to blame the people who aren't working.
That the problems aren't getting addressed is worrisome to me - people don't just need to work, they want to. When they keep trying, and keep getting disappointed, they get discouraged, depressed, and then desperate, and then what?

 

[layoutshooter]

" First: there have to be jobs for them to do.
Second: the single mothers need child care - or should they just leave kids home alone?
Third: Many potential jobs are located in suburban 'industrial parks', but there's no public transportation between there & where the potential employees live - if they can't afford a reliable car, they can't take advantage of the jobs. And public transportation is always one of the first budgets to get cut."

Tons of work for them to do. They can do as they do in Germany. Clean trash off the streets and roads. Some of the single mothers can provide day care for the trash pickers and they can swap off. They can cut out, dig out invasive plants. Kill invasive carp in the spring. In other words, provide SOME public value for the PUBLIC dollars that were taken from those who RIGHTFULLY EARNED that money and who's PRIVATE PROPERTY it RIGHTFULLY IS.

NO FREE RIDES! During the Depression they had the CCC's and the WPA. ALL able bodied people should EARN the use of other people's private property. NO FREE RIDES!

There is NO RIGHT to welfare, It is FORCED charity. As it stands now, those who's money was TAKEN from them have NO SAY over who get's it, how it is used, or seldom see any benefit.

Welfare is a pure Marxist, redistribution of wealth program. That is what TAKING private property from it's RIGHTFUL owner, wages are private property, and giving that property to someone who did NOT earn it IS the definition of redistribution of wealth.

Public transportation? NOT a valid government function. Government should not ever compete with the private sector.

 

[davekc]

That has been a requirement for a very long time. In practice, it just doesn't work. First: there have to be jobs for them to do.
Second: the single mothers need child care - or should they just leave kids home alone?
Third: Many potential jobs are located in suburban 'industrial parks', but there's no public transportation between there & where the potential employees live - if they can't afford a reliable car, they can't take advantage of the jobs. And public transportation is always one of the first budgets to get cut.

These are just the most common issues - there are more. It's a tough problem, but the answers will never be found if we're not even looking, because it's easier to blame the people who aren't working.
That the problems aren't getting addressed is worrisome to me - people don't just need to work, they want to. When they keep trying, and keep getting disappointed, they get discouraged, depressed, and then desperate, and then what?

And that is why you have to provide work for the people that are desperate. Look, we have thrown billions with a capital "B" at welfare and guess what, the number doesn't change. It goes up. So giving them everything under the sun is not the answer. That should only apply to vets and the disabled.
Plenty of people to work childcare. Find the ones that qualify with no record, and have them watch kids for their benefits. As people jump off, plenty of money for a .50 cent or dollar ride on the bus to a job. Easy peasy actually.
As for jobs, there is a ton of them. Maybe ones they don't want to do, but they are asking others to provide for them.
Bottom line, in a global economy you have to have a solution. Just throwing money at it and supporting them for life isn't the answer. Having them work is the answer. Have to remember, many years ago, there was no welfare just as many countries have no welfare.
You are correct though, many youths go and earn a degree, but what they earn isn't a marketable degree. One can go to law school, but there is too many of them to find gainful employment.
Whos fault is that? No different than a degree in basket weaving. If there field of study is not employable, they need to go back and find one that is.
Maybe they have to be a welder, plumber, electrician. There is a shortage in all those fields.
Just not sold on the concept of supporting one for life because they made bad decisions.
I do think people are entitled to a window of time to make something happen because of circumstances. After a couple years of welfare, it is time they get on with something or serve the people that are paying.

 

[cheri1122]

And that is why you have to provide work for the people that are desperate. Look, we have thrown billions with a capital "B" at welfare and guess what, the number doesn't change. It goes up.

Yes, it goes up - but only in the past couple decades has it gone up dramatically, instead of the usual fluctuations. The reason for that isn't the people looking for jobs, it's the people who used to provide them, but don't anymore.

So giving them everything under the sun is not the answer.

The answer is to give them a way to earn enough to be self sufficient. If they don't/won't take advantage of it, they don't deserve help.

That should only apply to vets and the disabled.

And the kids - they didn't do anything to get where they are. Of course, kids are half the population getting benefits, you know.


Plenty of people to work childcare. Find the ones that qualify with no record, and have them watch kids for their benefits.

Um, no. The parent who would let a total stranger care for their kids is not a good one. I sure wouldn't do it.

As people jump off, plenty of money for a .50 cent or dollar ride on the bus to a job. Easy peasy actually.
As for jobs, there is a ton of them. Maybe ones they don't want to do, but they are asking others to provide for them.

It's NOT 'don't want to', [I didn't want to work in a factory, either!], it's "can NOT afford to pay even the minimum standards on what the jobs pay". That's the problem, and people are beginning to expose the truth about "can't afford" to raise minimum wage BS. When the industries [like banks & healthcare & WalMart] can afford to pay those at the top billions, but pay those at the bottom so little they qualify for food stamps, the greed factor is just out of control.


Bottom line, in a global economy you have to have a solution. Just throwing money at it and supporting them for life isn't the answer. Having them work is the answer. Have to remember, many years ago, there was no welfare just as many countries have no welfare.

Many years ago, doctors thought bleeding a patient was a good idea.....


You are correct though, many youths go and earn a degree, but what they earn isn't a marketable degree. One can go to law school, but there is too many of them to find gainful employment.

Who would think a law degree isn't a marketable skill? We're not talking basket weaving - there's folks with MBAs who can't find work - that's just screwy.

Whos fault is that? No different than a degree in basket weaving. If there field of study is not employable, they need to go back and find one that is.

Oh, sure: law degree didn't cut it? NBD, just go back to school for 4 more years and try something else, lol.

Maybe they have to be a welder, plumber, electrician. There is a shortage in all those fields.

Someone has to have some degree of interest in the field to be any good at it - I doubt most people can just succeed at welding, because the jobs are available. And let's not forget that many fields are still difficult for women to get into, skilled trades being among them. The guys don't want women working with them. Even more than some of the old school truckers!


Just not sold on the concept of supporting one for life because they made bad decisions.

Me neither. But I don't see most of them as having made bad decisions.

I do think people are entitled to a window of time to make something happen because of circumstances. After a couple years of welfare, it is time they get on with something or serve the people that are paying.

I repeat: when the jobs can be had that pay enough to live on, that's a perfectly reasonable approach. Making that happen is the problem that smarter folks than me should be working on, because that's THEIR job.

 

[layoutshooter]

The solution is not coddling people. Most on welfare are able to work. A short helping hand, OK, it has to come with public service.

No job where you live? Do what mankind has done since mankind has been here. Get off you butt and go where the jobs are, or, make you own job.

Parents NEED to be teaching their children that welfare is not an option. They need to teach them self reliance and responsibility. That is one of the primary jobs of parents.

 

[WanderngFool]

The solution is not coddling people. Most on welfare are able to work. A short helping hand, OK, it has to come with public service.

No job where you live? Do what mankind has done since mankind has been here. Get off you butt and go where the jobs are, or, make you own job.

Parents NEED to be teaching their children that welfare is not an option. They need to teach them self reliance and responsibility. That is one of the primary jobs of parents.

Ok, let's take a look/see at how it's going with the kinds of jobs that are being offered today.

Ahhh, the gilded age is a wonderful thing isn't it?

 

[paullud]

Ok, let's take a look/see at how it's going with the kinds of jobs that are being offered today.

Ahhh, the gilded age is a wonderful thing isn't it?

Wow, the only jobs being offered today are at McDonald's? It used to be that these were jobs for high school students or people in college. When did the skill set of these jobs change that makes them jobs that should support a family?

Sent from my SCH-I535 using EO Forums mobile app

 

[davekc]

That is the problem. Some seem to think a low wage/low skill job should provide for a family. They aren't designed for that. As far as greed at the top, that certainly exists but it is really a small number and continues to shrink. If you took every penny they have, you are nowhere close to providing for the welfare folks. As far as work programs, you need to have them. If someone doesn't want someone to watch their kids, totally understand. They better get a job that supports that decision verses throwing it off on someone else to provide support. It is called being self sufficient.

As for the McDonalds mom, why is she there for ten years? No jobs available for ten years? Doubt it. But....she may not have the skill set to do anything else? Have to give her credit at least for holding a job down. Some can't even do that. Because...they "don't wanna".
And of course....why does she have kids? I don't think it is society's job to provide her a certain lifestyle because she made poor decisions.
As I have said before, people in the USA have no idea what poor really is. Wait until they pass immigration reform. Those people from Mexico will gladly work those two jobs including ones at McDonalds and be happy doing it.

 

[WanderngFool]

That is the problem. Some seem to think a low wage/low skill job should provide for a family. They aren't designed for that. As far as greed at the top, that certainly exists but it is really a small number and continues to shrink. If you took every penny they have, you are nowhere close to providing for the welfare folks. As far as work programs, you need to have them. If someone doesn't want someone to watch their kids, totally understand. They better get a job that supports that decision verses throwing it off on someone else to provide support. It is called being self sufficient.

As for the McDonalds mom, why is she there for ten years? No jobs available for ten years? Doubt it. But....she may not have the skill set to do anything else? Have to give her credit at least for holding a job down. Some can't even do that. Because...they "don't wanna".
And of course....why does she have kids? I don't think it is society's job to provide her a certain lifestyle because she made poor decisions.
As I have said before, people in the USA have no idea what poor really is. Wait until they pass immigration reform. Those people from Mexico will gladly work those two jobs including ones at McDonalds and be happy doing it.

Just so you know, I don't blame McDonalds for creating this situation. They're cashing in but they didn't create the situation. But this is the situation we're in. It's the gilded age all over again. I heard the other day that the average age of a fast food worker in this country is 29.

Maybe it's time to rethink the whole sucking up to rich people phenomenon we've seen in this country for the last 3 decades. If they want tax breaks they should earn them. If they want to be called "Job Creators" they need to create good paying jobs in America.

Wouldn't you like to see a robust manufacturing base right here in America? Imagine all that freight.