It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.

 

Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.

 

Before There Was Welfare There Was Charity

page: 25
53
<< 22  23  24    26  27  28 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on May, 29 2012 @ 06:11 PM
link   
I just read interesting facts in a text book at the doctors office.

The majority of single mothers on welfare use the system for an average of two years

throughout their lifetime.

While the a small minority rarely goes beyond a total of eight years.

As far as single mothers are concerned, nearly 50% go back to school or learn a trade/vocation.

AND 80% who receive welfare will put more than the money they received back into the tax pool

by the time the reach retirement age.

12% of those who do not, are disabled, handicapped or mentally retarded

So there is some perspective right there


edit on 29-5-2012 by Beanskinner because: (no reason given)

edit on 29-5-2012 by Beanskinner because: (no reason given)




posted on May, 29 2012 @ 06:13 PM
link   
reply to post by EarthCitizen07
 




Well if the mwl is so low and jobs so few between, then yes many people will opt for unemployment and then welfare. Afterall if you can save on transportation costs, especially gas money, why not?


Cause it is the antithesis of freedom and independence.




What we need is a better government. Smaller/bigger is almost irrellavant.


Nope a better government is a smaller government simply because it has less power to abuse.




the people in government make the policies. government itself is not a human being.


They make policy to what gives them the most power and control and to keep it.




america can never compete with china's third world standards on quality of life but with her first world military.


More defeatism meh

The more people competing to bring goods and services to market will yield cheaper products. enhance quality and will increase pay and benefits to keep those employees right where they are.

Free market at work foreign concept these days.




government does not have to sacrifice the american workers to get business back. they can impose their will on business though by making it non-affordable for imports. what i am saying is the hell with free trade and for americans to become patriatic. I realise it goes against your business is always right theory.


Government does sacrifice the people for their own greed they will not do anything about them because they use them as poltical wedge issues such as welfare and entitlements to bribe the masses to vote and keep them in power, and will always dangle them over their heads.



posted on May, 29 2012 @ 06:16 PM
link   

Originally posted by neo96
reply to post by daskakik
 

The point is before there was welfare there was charity.

Sure that is the main point. The others are sub-points, some of which you brought up, so don't try to play the "stick to the point" card.


The welfare state is the big government state that others claim to be fighting agianst.

Again you brought up fighting against big government. I only stated that you are loosing and have been since day one.


The decision was made for us charity has never failed those people chose tyranny over an act of kindness just like that act if kindness where Warren Buffet gave half his fortune away in an act of charity and he did not give it too government.

Charity wasn't chosen by the people either. Didn't you read the OP?

The history of welfare in the U.S. started long before the government welfare programs we know were created. In the early days of the United States, the colonies imported the British Poor Laws.

It wasn't voluntary charity but charity imposed by law.


the tangent is sticking to the topic being discussed which is before there was welfare there was charity and if you don't believe in that you denigrate others for having a different view.

Denigrate? I'm just pointing out the facts how is this criticizing you unfairly when your the one voluntarily coming into ATS and posting contradictions and unsubstantiated claims?
edit on 29-5-2012 by daskakik because: (no reason given)



posted on May, 29 2012 @ 06:18 PM
link   
Alright I'm done with the crap about how some people are using an unfair and dishonorable approach to this debate and will now bring statistics into play. I'll be using lower end normal bill prices with the assumption that we have both a mother and father each with a bit of luck on their side starting out in the real job market with no education or training beyond that of a high school education. This is a hypothetical scenario of a poor working class family from the sate of Tennessee ( one of the cheapest states to live in ) and I will underestimate costs of basic needs for a family of four.

Let us assume that each parent is extremely lucky in two ways, first by finding a job that pays $8 an hour and second each worker is clocking 40 hours per week. The minimum wage pay here is $7.25 and without nothing more than a high school diploma one is often considered "lucky" by most people around here if he/she is able to land a job paying anything above minimum wage, even many of the factories have resorted to such low pay.

$8 an hour multiplied by 40 hours a week multiplied by 52 weeks in a year equals $16640 before anything has been taken out of the pay, granted most people will not be seeing exactly 52 weeks of 40 hours a week at $8 an hour lets try our best to accommodate the opposing side while giving our side as many handicaps as possible just to attempt to prove a point that they will continue to deny even after provided with such evidence.

So we have two adults earning $16640 which comes to $33280. You will say these people get a tax refund and you would be correct in doing so. So assuming this family of four are not illegal immigrants trying to screw the system we can claim that it is safe to assume this family might get back almost everything that was taken from their paychecks. I'll even give you guys one and say this family has a total of $34000 of spendable money in a year, they probably don't but I'm trying to help you out here.

Bob and Jill have a two year old little girl named Leah and and four year old boy named John. In order for both parents to work full time childcare is a necessity. If this family lived somewhere near me the average lower end costs of a less than desirable daycare is around $550 per child monthly, some offer discounts for multiple children but good luck paying less than $1000 a month in childcare services for two children.

IF this family has two children and both parents work than there will more than likely be significant need for each parent to have a vehicle, it doesn't have to be fancy but it does have to be reliable. Most banks do not want to finance vehicles older than 6 years unless you will be paying it off in under two years. So we'll pretend that these people are trying to live within their means and use cars they "should" be able to afford.

So lets assume that in one year this family pays $7600 for their vehicles, this is less than the average a family of four will often pay. Now lets assume they are capable of being extremely cheap with fuel and pay no more than $2500 a year total for gas. Now lets assume that this family is once more very lucky and somehow find an insurance plan that costs no more than a total of $1500 for the two of them total.


less than desirable childcare: $13200 on the lower end for two children ($12000 if very lucky)

total price of owning two average vehicles with an awesome insurance deal and pretending fuel prices ar emuch cheaper than they actually are while leaving out normal maintenance fees: $11600

Now for food. How much does an average family of four spend on food in one month? Google doesn't seem very helpful in finding a fair estimate. Fine I'll assume that these people do not eat out and that they aren't eating very healthy because the healthier the food, the more expensive it usually is. A moderately spending family of four without a lot of income probably spend what might average out to about $400 a month for food in a year. So we'll say $4800. es, I am very aware of the fact that most probably spend more than this but I am trying really hard to be as accommodating as possible.

The average lower end and fairly crappy apartment or trailer home in a bad neighborhood usually costs between 500 - 700 a month to rent in the area where I live so I'll go with $550 a month for rent because I don't know anybody living on a $10 an hour and a $9 an hour job that is buying a house or paying a mortgage, they all claim it would cost more than their rent, I don't know because I've never paid a mortgage. So its safe to safe that a family who is working hard to live in crappy situations would be paying somewhere around $6600 a year but probably more to rent a a place to live. Add in an average of $200 a month in utilities, most people I know pay more than this, and you have $9000 a year.

If each adult is using a cheap cell phone, lets say $50 a month, that would be an extra $1320 a year after taxes in my state.

TBC



posted on May, 29 2012 @ 06:25 PM
link   
reply to post by sweetliberty
 


That was very well put!!! Thank you!




posted on May, 29 2012 @ 06:26 PM
link   
reply to post by daskakik
 




Sure that is the main point. The others are sub-points, some of which you brought up, so don't try to play the "stick to the point" card


ATS rules sticking to the topic which is welfare and charity one the act of force the other an act of kindness.




Again you brought up fighting against big government. I only stated that you are loosing and have been since day one.


The only ones who are losing are those people on welfare with their today's not better and will never be any better than any of their yesterday's or tomorrows,slaves to a government check that will never have it any better.




Charity wasn't chosen by the people either.


Sure it was because people still give to who and when they can but as it should be a choice of the heart.




It wasn't voluntary charity but charity imposed by law.


I seem to remember people being thrown in to prison for not paying their bills there's some more history.



posted on May, 29 2012 @ 06:28 PM
link   

Originally posted by neo96



america can never compete with china's third world standards on quality of life but with her first world military.


More defeatism meh

The more people competing to bring goods and services to market will yield cheaper products. enhance quality and will increase pay and benefits to keep those employees right where they are.

Free market at work foreign concept these days.


What good are cheap asian products imported to the states if american workers are forced to work 2-3 mw jobs and can barely afford to shop at walmart? To spend more you have to make more. The less you make then the less you spend.

If you cannot understand these basic principles then I am afraid our discussion is meaningless! I respect everyone has a right to their opinion but what shocks me is the lack of common sense.



posted on May, 29 2012 @ 06:33 PM
link   
reply to post by EarthCitizen07
 


Let's be honest when laying blame for outsourcing here....government is responsible for overregulation.....making it impossible to compete with other countries.

But the BIGGEST problem is UNIONS.....unionized companies cannot compete with non unionized companies.....the unions are killing the companies they are controlling. Should an auto worker "helping" a machine build a car really be making $30 an hour....then the government uses taxpayer money to bail them out, when the company should have gone belly up?



posted on May, 29 2012 @ 06:36 PM
link   
Alright so we are to assume that a family with both parents working for $8 an hour full time brings in close to 33300. Yet with only bare minimum needs in order to get the children to and from where they need to be and both parents to get to work and whatnot, not even including clothing and other household needs, the bill comes in at around $37000 - actual number was higher but I figured maybe we can somehow kick a little off.

Are any of you seeing a problem here? Maybe I'm just insane...

This hypothetical situation included A LOT of luck for the family and they are still unable to meet life's financial requirements when living with the bare minimums that society demands, actually less than those bare minimums but we'll not get into that...

Now please explain to me how exactly it is that people can live a happy life that would make them less likely to commit crimes without an education beyond that of a simple high school diploma. Okay fine, just tell me how they are to somehow come up with the money to send themselves to school while living like this? They can't, its that simple. An education is very important to succeed in this world, a very sad but also very true fact. Hell I'm one of those poor people and while I can't find a job that will even pay me over $7.25 an hour right now, the average pay for entry level positions in the particular field of engineering that I am studying pays an average of slightly over $61,000 a year. A very big difference. Yes I know, don't expect that average, but it is safe to expect around $50,000 as an entry level in the field, still much more than $7.25 an hour even while paying off my entire student loan debt in under 5 years...



posted on May, 29 2012 @ 06:40 PM
link   

Originally posted by neo96
reply to post by daskakik
 


ATS rules sticking to the topic which is welfare and charity one the act of force the other an act of kindness.

ATS rules allows for subtopics which are part of the main topic and also off topic, if the topic is also addressed in the post.


The only ones who are losing are those people on welfare with their today's not better and will never be any better than any of their yesterday's or tomorrows,slaves to a government check that will never have it any better.

Whatever, in the end you are as much a slave or maybe even more than some of them.


Sure it was because people still give to who and when they can but as it should be a choice of the heart.

The funds for the government's part in helping the elderly and sick and the pay given to the able bodied was obtained how?


I seem to remember people being thrown in to prison for not paying their bills there's some more history.

That doesn't change the fact that charity was enforced by law and therefore not much different then today's welfare at least in principal, if not in amounts.


edit on 29-5-2012 by daskakik because: (no reason given)



posted on May, 29 2012 @ 07:05 PM
link   

Originally posted by timetothink
reply to post by EarthCitizen07
 


Let's be honest when laying blame for outsourcing here....government is responsible for overregulation.....making it impossible to compete with other countries.

But the BIGGEST problem is UNIONS.....unionized companies cannot compete with non unionized companies.....the unions are killing the companies they are controlling. Should an auto worker "helping" a machine build a car really be making $30 an hour....then the government uses taxpayer money to bail them out, when the company should have gone belly up?


I think its quant that you did not ask "should a day trader, who produces nothing of tangible meaning
really be making millions of dollars in one day?"

And I see you still did tell us where the 40 million Welfare folks are going to go once they get

evicted and lose benefits, I have asked for an answer to that four or five times, a good faith answer

would be nice. Wouldn't want to have someone accuse you of putting your fingers in your ears...



posted on May, 29 2012 @ 07:11 PM
link   

Originally posted by timetothink
reply to post by EarthCitizen07
 


Let's be honest when laying blame for outsourcing here....government is responsible for overregulation.....making it impossible to compete with other countries.

But the BIGGEST problem is UNIONS.....unionized companies cannot compete with non unionized companies.....the unions are killing the companies they are controlling. Should an auto worker "helping" a machine build a car really be making $30 an hour....then the government uses taxpayer money to bail them out, when the company should have gone belly up?


So you are saying the best economic model for America to follow is to lower it's entire job market

to third world standards? Because, you do realize that is the only way America can directly compete

with those markets in an unfettered market place. Then I will ask you, are you Globalist?

Because that is the path to globalization, downward economic normalization across all borders

starting with the wealthiest nations first. I do not like the idea myself


edit on 29-5-2012 by Beanskinner because: (no reason given)



posted on May, 29 2012 @ 08:04 PM
link   

Originally posted by neo96


thought processes closely resemble that of my six year old son.


Even a six year old knows that is is wrong to take something that doesn't belong to them. and while were at it:

This country is a home,government is mommy and daddy who have ran up their credit cards to pay for their bills, and now the children are throwing a temper tantrum acting like a two year,because they are not getting their way. and just sitting there saying, "gimme,gimme more".

Yep over 300,000,000 Americans who live in this country and half of those people have to be fed by mommy and daddy who steals,who borrows to placate their children,

And of course all that stress that is put on mommy and daddy make them fight constantly,both want to get a divorce, but they stay together "for the good of the children" which has created the welfare state,which has ended up much like all those films and tv show's when parents can't afford to feed their children they sell them into slavery, debt slavery to be more specific to China.
edit on 29-5-2012 by neo96 because: (no reason given)


Man I am going to give you a meaningless star for that answer because while it might not be the kind of debate many of us are seeking, I agree with most of it. I don't know how many offers I have gotten, I burn each one of them in my mother-in-laws back yard. While being a part of this nation's very poor, I have never and will never accepted a credit card and I always advise others around me not to do so. While I'm sure that you hate me just as much as people who use credit cards, I still feel like I am proof that not all poor are trying to rely on handouts. I do not have any form of family contributions to support my education and I have two children, most "average" U.S, college students do have credit card debt as well as help from their parents, I do it with neither. I do have to use student loans though because my scholarships alone would not allow for me to go to college, I am an in state student by the way, I see no point in wasting more money as an out of state student. I also agree with your opinion on marriages and divorce, sadly I am in the minority as someone who does not live like that, I got married at an early age and after 7 years of marriage, over 8 years of being together and over 9 years of knowing each other, and after going through hell together in this world, our marriage stronger than ever. I say sadly because it is a sad truth that many do not work out and are only "for the children," something I very strongly disagree with and I'm not even a part of any particular religion. See, we can agree on some things after all brother.



posted on May, 29 2012 @ 08:32 PM
link   

Originally posted by seabag
reply to post by timetothink
 



So funny...watching Judge Judy...telling a girl (who has a kid) get a job!!! don't ask people for money or expect people to support you! Get a job!! Gotta love her.


Imagine that!


I bet the girl has no idea what she meant either. Getting a job is a foreign concept and responsibility is a four letter word to far too many these days.







Judge Judy... Just wow. Funny thing is while I don't particularly care for that woman, or any other fake @$$ celeb judge for that matter, I find that I often agree with her. Have you seen the kind of people on those shows? Truly sad excuses for human beings more often than not. But do you know who usually watches those shows? Old people and trashy people ( probably that girl on it ), that's the common audience.

I kind of feel like you are attempting to make some snark comment that people like myself are basically the exact same or damn near close to that girl. If so, you are proving your intellect very well by judging those you do not know because of an opinion they have stated on the internet. If one was to ask you, I probably don't know this "responsibility" you speak of either, even though I am currently a full time college student in an engineering program (arguably more difficult than business and some of the other things ) with a minor in business management, while working part time while attending school and full time in the Summer, unless of course my wife finds a better Summer job in that case such as now I take care of the children because the only childcare options would cost slightly more money than I would earn full time at minimum wage (leading to no point in us both working when it would cost us more to do so and an actual parent parenting their child is in our opinion better than daycare if there is no profit to be made the other way). Though I do still find ways to earn money; like mowing lawns, small painting jobs, minor car repairs, and repairing, upgrading, or building computers for people as well as occasionally "modding" video game consoles. If this is an attack on "my kind" you must be a very special person.
edit on 29-5-2012 by doomedtoday because: (no reason given)

edit on 29-5-2012 by doomedtoday because: (no reason given)



posted on May, 29 2012 @ 09:25 PM
link   
reply to post by Beanskinner
 


Many of us have already answered your questions over and over and over and over again in 23 pages of this thread but YOU are not listening......not gonna do it again because you demand it of me....read the entire thread again.

And comparing apples and oranges in jobs doesn't work for your argument.....day traders use their own money to gamble on the market...the win or loss is theirs.....stop throwing out useless comparisons, it just sounds immature.



posted on May, 29 2012 @ 09:30 PM
link   
reply to post by doomedtoday
 


How in any stretch of the imagination was that an attack on you? This was a girl who thought because she was 19 with a 2 year old she should be able to sit home and her family and the government should support her....I think you have a chip on your shoulder and that is not my problem. Maybe somewhere deep inside you feel that maybe you should put your time into a better paying fulltime job and save college for when you don't have a child to support? How does it feel to be summed up like that by someone who doesn't know you?



posted on May, 29 2012 @ 09:55 PM
link   

Originally posted by timetothink
reply to post by Beanskinner
 


Many of us have already answered your questions over and over and over and over again in 23 pages of this thread but YOU are not listening......not gonna do it again because you demand it of me....read the entire thread again.



No they have not, the closest attempt was Neo96, but he did not answer the question in the

end. You certainly did not tell me where all the people currently on welfare will go when they

eventually evicted. You have ignored the question as has all the other players. You are using the

fact that this thread is 23 pages long to hide the fact that you haven't a clue what America would

do with 40 million more homeless people. The fact that you haven't a foggy clue just indicates that

you are not willing to think logically before making such a massive decision.

So how would your zip code would deal with 1,000 homeless people? Because this is what ending

Welfare would unleash, 1,000 homeless people in each of the 40,000 zip codes in America.

So I ask you again, how is you neighborhood going to feed, cloth and house 1,000 people?

Can they use your yard for a toilet?

TIME TO THINK








edit on 29-5-2012 by Beanskinner because: (no reason given)



posted on May, 29 2012 @ 10:07 PM
link   
Again we are back to the topic of the thread....charity.....voluntary poor houses set up by churches and organizations, the YMCA and YWCA used to house people before the became gyms, just because you are not aware of what used to exist or what people are capable of if their money isn't going to the government....don't pretend it can't be done and there are no other solutions....it is not black and white there are many other avenues....and I did say earlier that it is also time for people to band together with family, friends and community (not government, but people) to live together, ,share expenses...thats what people do when time get tough.

But as long as government is taking every last dime, people can't help others and do what they want with their money and come up with ideas.



posted on May, 29 2012 @ 10:08 PM
link   
reply to post by Beanskinner
 


Don't worry I THINK all the time...but you are not on the top of my list to share it with.

I will save it for people who want to make a difference in a manner similiar to me...not someone who would fight me on the whole thing...that's the definition of insanity.
edit on 29-5-2012 by timetothink because: (no reason given)



posted on May, 29 2012 @ 10:12 PM
link   

Originally posted by timetothink
reply to post by EarthCitizen07
 


Let's be honest when laying blame for outsourcing here....government is responsible for overregulation.....making it impossible to compete with other countries.

But the BIGGEST problem is UNIONS.....unionized companies cannot compete with non unionized companies.....the unions are killing the companies they are controlling. Should an auto worker "helping" a machine build a car really be making $30 an hour....then the government uses taxpayer money to bail them out, when the company should have gone belly up?


Over-regulation in regard to small and medium business. With big business they get away with murder(figuratively speaking). It is the government's responsibility to govern, a corporations job to produce products and services for maximum profit, a unions job to represent the workers.

When one or more construct is crippled it causes complications of the entire socio-political system. In plain english I am telling you that capitalism rellies on business to create jobs and run the economy thus workers and the government are their lackeys. Since I value social democracy I despise capitalism, just as much as I despise communism.

Why should non-investors and non-management care about profits anymore than investors, management and government inside traders care about our salaries? There is an inherent conflict of interest at all levels which causes friction.

Conservatives encourage greed, liberals pretend to be ballanced, progressives seek redistribution of wealth and maximum oversight of all business ventures, communists ban capitalism by nationalising everything, anarchists ban all authority!

In other words I fundamentally disagree with your views and approach.

edit on 5/29/2012 by EarthCitizen07 because: general edit



new topics

top topics



 
53
<< 22  23  24    26  27  28 >>

log in

join