Originally posted by nyk537
You guys are missing the point on such a major level.

No one (I should say most rational people) don't want people to starve or be thrown out on the street. When people talk about this we are talking about cutting back the size and scope of these programs by eliminating the need for them. Not by simply doing away with them.

Unfortunately, because of the way we've taught people lately, there are those who would rather live off the government tit than make their own way. No one is advocating (again most) throwing these people to the wolves, we are suggesting we work to fix the problem rather than prolong it.

Personally I'd much rather someone help me find a way to provide for myself and my family then have them do it for me.

Well I haven't missed the point, buddy. Because I am addressing the above article and comment on it in context. There is no mention or hint there that the author does not "want people to starve or be thrown out on the street". The commentary is silent on that point. But if you are suggesting I infer from the piece: "No one (I should say most rational people) don't want people to starve or be thrown out on the street", then pass me a crystal ball. If writers of such commentary really want their readers to see alternative points of view, so as not to be criticised as being judgmental and inflammatory, then be clear about it! Simple, man. Can't expect readers or listeners to see through the obscurity of intentions in the absence of it being said.

As for not caring what people think of being labeled^, such labels go beyond mere name calling and become discriminatory in society, to the point where often such labeled groups in society are denied opportunities that others would have, or even they themselves, had the labels and underlying judgments that result from depicting unemployed in that stereotypical manner. Being labeled a 'mooch' for example, because you're unemployed, doesn't fill employers with a lot of confidence to offer employment to these people, even if they have the capacity and ability to do the job, and perhaps more willing to work harder than those who are employed.

a question here....
are those gov't guarenteed student loans and small business loans peddled and gambled with on wall street like the mortgages were???

that would explain why there are some who trying to push us into that direction, wouldn't it???
for every dollar that we put ourselves into debt (gov't guarenteed debt at that), some can make four or five times that peddling and repeddling it on the open market!!!

ya, keep the people poor!!! we are making a fortune off their debt!!!!!

I'm over fifty, have a job, but well, like one of the other ops, really need a much less physical job....
should I really draw from the gov't trough and get a grant or loan for more education (the education I already got didn't seem to do me much good!!) for what, a little over 10 years more of employment if I am lucky enough to live that long??? and most small businesses go under the first year or so, so well, ya, a loan for one is really such a grand idea!!!
there is no reason on this earth why a broken ankle should cost two to three times the yearly income of any full time worker in this country....rent shouldn't cost half of their income, food prices shouldn't be doubling every 5 or so years!!! college should put you so far into debt!!!
in plain simple words....the cost of living, the cost of doing business (unless of course you are a big corp befriended by the gov't) is far surpassing the incomes we have, if we have any at all!!! and those who are managing to scrap by now, well, they are expected to pay more and more in taxes and fees, to keep the mess chugging along and support those who can no longer make ends meet (either because they have no job, or their job just isn't paying enough). the end of the story, it seems to plain to see to me!!!
sooner or later, there is gonna be too few people scrapping by and far too many needing support!! the rich have made it obvious as all heck, the do not intend to pay any more....
so, well, who is gonna pay for all this overpriced food that the world expects to be bought in america, who is gonna be paying these outrageous rents, who is gonna be going to the doctors, hospitals, ect......
it's not gonna be the majority of the american public, cause we ain't got the money to and the gov't ain't gonna have the revenues to!!!!

and the dems and the republicans are walking hand in hand, leading us all down the path to a world where we work our 40 or 50 hours a week and then turn to the gov't who then can decide just how much food we deserve, and what kind of food that should be, what kind of apartment we live in, what k ind of w ork we should be doing, ect.....
just like in communist china, only here in america they didn't need guns and revoulution to get us here, they just needed reaganomics and welfare.

So it seems that there arn't enough jobs, because most manufacturing
has been shifted over seas to 'more cost effective' locations. how can
the any country replace ist's manufacturing capacity when clealy they
are at a competitive disadvantage on price.
1) massive by local/nationalist agenda ( Australian made ect.)
2) go the chines model
3) crash the system and start again.
the third option has the advantage that everyone is equally screwed and must begin again

There's a push and a pull side to the story.

Some people or companies ask for assistance, others the government shoves assistance onto. Like government wisdom of 'saving' deer in Yellowstone by getting rid of wolves, and creating large weak sick herds, then having to reintroduce wolves to let nature regulate itself.

Tinker with natural economics with social agendas and you'll end up with weak and sick masses of people.

Of course in my opinion, the quickest way to grow poverty is through childbirth by the irresponsible, so take that into consideration.