RadioFreeLiberal.com

Smart Voices, Be Heard
It is currently Tue Jul 17, 2018 11:43 am

All times are UTC - 5 hours [ DST ]


Forum rules


Please click here to view the forum rules



Post new topic Reply to topic  [ 14 posts ] 
Author Message
PostPosted: Fri Jun 28, 2013 1:23 pm 
Offline
Board Emeritus
User avatar

Joined: Tue Jun 07, 2011 5:46 pm
Posts: 5099
Location: Treasure Coast, Florida & Fairfield County, Connecticut
:arrow: Yep, you heard right!~! I really don't know what to say here, but elections do have consequences. Remember that in 2014!!! Republicans live in a bubble and don't seem to realize this is about people and people's lives. Democrats just didn't realize the consequences of whatever disappointments or anger that they were feeling, that caused them not to go an vote.


RALEIGH, N.C. (AP) — With changes to its unemployment law taking effect this weekend, North Carolina not only is cutting benefits for those who file new claims, it will become the first state disqualified from a federal compensation program for the long-term jobless. State officials adopted the package of benefit cuts and increased taxes for businesses in February, a plan designed to accelerate repayment of a $2.5 billion federal debt. Like many states, North Carolina had racked up the debt by borrowing from Washington after its unemployment fund was drained by jobless benefits during the Great Recession.

The changes go into effect Sunday for North Carolina, which has the country’s fifth-worst jobless rate. The cuts on those who make unemployment claims on or after that day will disqualify the state from receiving federally funded Emergency Unemployment Compensation. That money kicks in after the state’s period of unemployment compensation — now shortened from up to six months to no more than five — runs out. The EUC program is available to long-term jobless in all states. But keeping the money flowing includes a requirement that states can’t cut average weekly benefits.

Because North Carolina leaders cut average weekly benefits for new claims, about 170,000 workers whose state benefits expire this year will lose more than $700 million in EUC payments, the U.S. Labor Department said. <snip> With the changes to North Carolina law, state benefits will last three to five months — at the longer end when unemployment rates are higher. Qualifying for benefits becomes more difficult. Weekly payments for those collecting the current maximum benefit of $535 drop to $350, falling from the highest in the Southeast to comparable with neighboring states.

Republican leaders who control the General Assembly sought an exception to the federal law two months before voting to change unemployment benefits. Congress last year allowed Pennsylvania, Indiana, Arkansas and Rhode Island to proceed with cuts to weekly benefits that their legislatures had approved for after the expected expiration of federal benefits, which later were extended. North Carolina’s request was never acted on. Other states this year cut unemployment benefits and restricted eligibility, but none included drops in weekly benefits, said George Wentworth of the National Employment Law Project, a worker-advocacy group. All states are aware of the no-reduction provision, said Doug Holmes, who heads the National Foundation for Unemployment Compensation & Workers’ Compensation, which represents businesses on unemployment insurance issues.

“Many of them considered doing something that would reduce the weekly benefit amount, but for whatever reason chose not to take the step of enacting legislation,” he said. “But North Carolina also had one of the biggest problems.” Twenty states carry such federal debt. The Labor Department declined to comment on North Carolina’s looming situation but said no other state is considering changing benefits in a way that would imperil U.S. help. Supporters of the new North Carolina law say the reduced benefits and increased business taxes are necessary to repay the federal debt — the third-largest in the country. Labor groups, Democratic congressmen and the state NAACP want to delay the cuts until the federal program expires in January, but lawmakers and GOP Gov. Pat McCrory have refused.


Talking Points Memo

_________________
It is an unfortunate human failing that a full pocketbook often groans more loudly than an empty stomach.
~Franklin D. Roosevelt~


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Fri Jun 28, 2013 1:59 pm 
Offline
Policy Wonk
User avatar

Joined: Mon Jul 04, 2011 2:31 pm
Posts: 3808
Democracy at work. Representatives are doing their job, taking care of NC and its citizens. That's why America is so special.

_________________
Image
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=w3_8wdvTjq8


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Fri Jun 28, 2013 9:19 pm 
Offline
Policy Wonk
User avatar

Joined: Wed Jun 15, 2011 10:23 pm
Posts: 3860
I'm not sure I understand.

While it's quite possible I may have misread, I didn't see anything about eliminating unemployment benefits, just cuts to them. While certainly those cuts will hurt the unemployed, they'll still be getting something.

_________________
The radical of one century is the conservative of the next. The radical invents the views. When he has worn them out, the conservative adopts them.
- Mark Twain


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Fri Jun 28, 2013 9:25 pm 
Offline
Policy Wonk

Joined: Sat Jun 18, 2011 5:38 pm
Posts: 3073
It sounds like loss of US fed support means they cannot continue to offer long term benefits.

Either way, if you drastically cut the amount people get on unemployment, they will not be able to make rent/house payments/bills on the amount they are getting, so expect to see a lot more people moving to Texas, where the jobs are. Even if they are minimum wage jobs, it's better than what unemployment is now willing to offer.

Wonder how that effects the NC economy.


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Sat Jul 06, 2013 2:29 pm 
Offline
Member

Joined: Fri Jun 15, 2012 1:09 am
Posts: 133
[quote="Congress last year allowed Pennsylvania, Indiana, Arkansas and Rhode Island to proceed with cuts to weekly benefits that their legislatures had approved for after the expected expiration of federal benefits, which later were extended. North Carolina’s request was never acted on[/quote]

Sounds like they were following what other states had already done but it was congress that led to the resulting cuts.

It appears the cuts were designed to align benefits with what neighboring states are offering.
From the same article-
"falling from the highest in the Southeast to comparable with neighboring states."


Last edited by independent thinker on Sun Jul 07, 2013 2:12 pm, edited 1 time in total.

Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Sat Jul 06, 2013 6:29 pm 
Offline
Policy Wonk

Joined: Mon Mar 04, 2013 11:55 pm
Posts: 2736
It sounds like loss of US fed support means they cannot continue to offer long term benefits.

Either way, if you drastically cut the amount people get on unemployment, they will not be able to make rent/house payments/bills on the amount they are getting, so expect to see a lot more people moving to Texas, where the jobs are. Even if they are minimum wage jobs, it's better than what unemployment is now willing to offer.

Wonder how that effects the NC economy.


When the incentive to stay on unemployment is reduced people will likely take the $9-$14 an hour jobs they've passed on because, well, why work when you can collect a $500+ unemployment check. It's amazing how quickly people find work when those unemployment checks stop or are drastically reduced. Being able to collect for long periods is an incentive not to work for some.


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Sun Jul 07, 2013 6:12 pm 
Offline
Board Emeritus

Joined: Wed May 04, 2011 11:26 pm
Posts: 36022

When the incentive to stay on unemployment is reduced people will likely take the $9-$14 an hour jobs they've passed on because, well, why work when you can collect a $500+ unemployment check. It's amazing how quickly people find work when those unemployment checks stop or are drastically reduced. Being able to collect for long periods is an incentive not to work for some.

I disagree, and this is from someone who has been on unemployment, back in the eighties. For one thing, someone who is making enough money at a job to qualify for $500 a week unemployment is making a lot of money to start with, and if they have to take a minimum wage job, they are going to lose their house anyway.

If one is a professional - and I was, I was a tool-and-die maker, working two minimum-wage jobs keeps you from being able to go to interviews for a job in your profession. When I was laid off, Reagan years, there were NO jobs, thousands of workers had been laid off.

The first time I was laid off, was for about seven months - I didn't have the five years of experience employers wanted when hiring toolmakers. I tried for other jobs, and got a couple short-term jobs. They paid less than unemployment, but the unemployment office paid me the difference between the take-home and my full unemployment check, so I made the same either way. What it DID do, was to extend the money in my bank, so my unemployment didn't run out in six months. But every job I took, I told the office about. I would NOT work "under the table". I actually got to know the folks there.

After the first time, I was able to get other jobs. I always had feelers out, and would know who was hiring. Once when I got laid off, I called a shop that was looking for work, and they hired me, but told me I couldn't start for three weeks. So, I went to the unemployment office and told them I only needed unemployment for three weeks.

Now, think for a moment. I had another well-paying job waiting on me in three weeks. The job was in hand. But, no income for three weeks. If I didn't have unemployment, I would be in a squeeze. No place would usually hire a new employee that would quit in three weeks. So, if I had a house payment to make, do I turn down the good job so I can take a job to eat today?

Then, three months later, there was a layoff where I had went, but I got the callback notice to my original job, and was due to restart that in two weeks.

Again, unemployment to the rescue. And, since I already had jobs lined up, I didn't need to do the "looking for work" thing.

But this shows how the right sees workers. They are lazy and shiftless, and must be forced to work. Sorry, but I was brought up with a strong work ethic in my family. I started working for my parent's in their business quite young. I started working at 14 in a real job, and at 16 I was working a 40-hour week and going to school.

So, you are wrong about the working class. The vast majority WANT to work. They just want to be paid like a human being, not a slave.

You've obviously never been laid off when thousands of others are laid off in a community. You don't know what it's like.

_________________
glenfs, July 4, 2018:

"You would think that after 8 years of hearing allegations against Bill C and another 8 against President Obama you people would have learned that 90% of those types of allegations just aren't true."


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Sun Jul 07, 2013 11:17 pm 
Offline
Policy Wonk

Joined: Mon Mar 04, 2013 11:55 pm
Posts: 2736
I disagree, and this is from someone who has been on unemployment, back in the eighties. For one thing, someone who is making enough money at a job to qualify for $500 a week unemployment is making a lot of money to start with, and if they have to take a minimum wage job, they are going to lose their house anyway.

If one is a professional - and I was, I was a tool-and-die maker, working two minimum-wage jobs keeps you from being able to go to interviews for a job in your profession. When I was laid off, Reagan years, there were NO jobs, thousands of workers had been laid off.

The first time I was laid off, was for about seven months - I didn't have the five years of experience employers wanted when hiring toolmakers. I tried for other jobs, and got a couple short-term jobs. They paid less than unemployment, but the unemployment office paid me the difference between the take-home and my full unemployment check, so I made the same either way. What it DID do, was to extend the money in my bank, so my unemployment didn't run out in six months. But every job I took, I told the office about. I would NOT work "under the table". I actually got to know the folks there.

After the first time, I was able to get other jobs. I always had feelers out, and would know who was hiring. Once when I got laid off, I called a shop that was looking for work, and they hired me, but told me I couldn't start for three weeks. So, I went to the unemployment office and told them I only needed unemployment for three weeks.

Now, think for a moment. I had another well-paying job waiting on me in three weeks. The job was in hand. But, no income for three weeks. If I didn't have unemployment, I would be in a squeeze. No place would usually hire a new employee that would quit in three weeks. So, if I had a house payment to make, do I turn down the good job so I can take a job to eat today?

Then, three months later, there was a layoff where I had went, but I got the callback notice to my original job, and was due to restart that in two weeks.

Again, unemployment to the rescue. And, since I already had jobs lined up, I didn't need to do the "looking for work" thing.

But this shows how the right sees workers. They are lazy and shiftless, and must be forced to work. Sorry, but I was brought up with a strong work ethic in my family. I started working for my parent's in their business quite young. I started working at 14 in a real job, and at 16 I was working a 40-hour week and going to school.

So, you are wrong about the working class. The vast majority WANT to work. They just want to be paid like a human being, not a slave.

You've obviously never been laid off when thousands of others are laid off in a community. You don't know what it's like.


I was laid off a couple of times from the steel mill. I took odd jobs and didn't collect unemployment. I also listened to my dad and had a rainy day fund to draw from.

But what you described for yourself is more how unemployment should work, to fill in for shorter periods. I have no problem with unemployment insurance, its essential. But the current systems can be too generous and can create a disincentive to get back into the pool.Two guys in the neighborhood ran it out for the full term, well in excess of a year, and when the benefits expired they found jobs. Your better off taking any job - its always easier to find a job when you have a job. At a couple of the companies I worked for I was part of the hiring/recruiting process and if you lost your previous job due to cutbacks or layoffs you had a much better chance to get an interview if you took "any" job while you were looking for a job in your field - the general consensus was that after 3 to 4 months unemployment we weren't interested if you hadn't taken any available work. When the steel mill cut me loose for good I was tending bar within a week. When I started interviewing that was cited as big plus. I knew a lot of guys that would collect unemployment until the benefits ran out all the while their wives worked and they were happily tossing back brews at the local Moose Hall. It can be a big disincentive for a lot of people. And I interviewed a number of people that took any job just to get back in until a better opportunity came their way.

Now I'd say NC is looking to put the incentive back in working.


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Wed Jul 10, 2013 8:37 pm 
Offline
Board Emeritus

Joined: Wed May 04, 2011 11:26 pm
Posts: 36022

I was laid off a couple of times from the steel mill. I took odd jobs and didn't collect unemployment. I also listened to my dad and had a rainy day fund to draw from.

Ah yes, you were so superior to those other lazy bums you worked with.
Quote:
But what you described for yourself is more how unemployment should work, to fill in for shorter periods. I have no problem with unemployment insurance, its essential. But the current systems can be too generous and can create a disincentive to get back into the pool.Two guys in the neighborhood ran it out for the full term, well in excess of a year, and when the benefits expired they found jobs. Your better off taking any job - its always easier to find a job when you have a job. At a couple of the companies I worked for I was part of the hiring/recruiting process and if you lost your previous job due to cutbacks or layoffs you had a much better chance to get an interview if you took "any" job while you were looking for a job in your field - the general consensus was that after 3 to 4 months unemployment we weren't interested if you hadn't taken any available work. When the steel mill cut me loose for good I was tending bar within a week. When I started interviewing that was cited as big plus. I knew a lot of guys that would collect unemployment until the benefits ran out all the while their wives worked and they were happily tossing back brews at the local Moose Hall. It can be a big disincentive for a lot of people. And I interviewed a number of people that took any job just to get back in until a better opportunity came their way.

Now I'd say NC is looking to put the incentive back in working.

No, if NC were looking to put incentive back into working, they would be creating jobs and increasing the minimum wage.

You know, this is the conservative disease of looking down on workers, even if they themselves are workers. They see the other workers as lazy and shiftless, and see themselves as the only hard-working person there. Trouble is, they don't have a realistic view of themselves. For one thing, they see themselves ABOVE manual labor, and they all think they should be management, where they would crack the whip on the lazy bums.

And the conservatives I've dealt with who think they are so superior are not superior at all, they are no more on the ball than their co-workers. They DO tend to spend more time sucking up to the bosses, to get promotions.

But again, often taking a job at McDonalds keeps you from going on that interview for a REAL job. Why? Because McDonalds doesn't see you as someone who is making a few bucks while looking for a decent job. They don't want to hear that you have a job interview, they want you working NOW. And, if you quit to go to that job interview, but don't get the job, now you can't draw unemployment because you quit.

That's life in the real world. And women have it worse - often day care costs far more than the minimum-wage job pays.

You know, when I was young, if a woman was divorced and had kids, they would put her and the kids on welfare, because they felt there needed to be someone at home with the kids. Think it through - first off, a woman who is married and a housewife and mother, cooking and cleaning, that was here full-time job, and no one called her lazy for it. A parent NEEDED to be home all the time for the kids. Heck, that's the same today.

So, they felt it was better for her to be home, cooking and cleaning, and raising her kids.

Enter conservatives.

They say, she's now a lazy b*tch who is a drain on decent society, and she needs to go out and get a damned job. Put those kids in daycare!

Then, if the kids start to run wild because mom's always at work, then you can attack her for being a terrible parent who doesn't love her kids.

One of the times I was laid off, sixteen thousand other workers in my town got laid off within two months. Yeah, there might be a bartending job, but there sure as hell weren't sixteen thousand bartender jobs. Exactly what should every one of those people do then, greengrass? Think it through, and give us an answer. In those cases, it's musical chairs, and lots of people and only a few chairs. You want to blame those who can't get chairs.

And what about those workers who own homes based on their high-paying salary, and unemployment, though lower than their current pay, allows them to make those house payments. Say, Iowa, where top unemployment is $459 a week. At a minimum wage job, you'd only make $290 a week before taxes, IF you worked 40 hours a week, which they usually don't let you do.

Oh, you'd have them not get unemployment, and lose their house. You'd say they deserved it, because they didn't plan ahead like you did.

What rubbish.

_________________
glenfs, July 4, 2018:

"You would think that after 8 years of hearing allegations against Bill C and another 8 against President Obama you people would have learned that 90% of those types of allegations just aren't true."


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Wed Jul 10, 2013 11:02 pm 
Offline
Policy Wonk

Joined: Mon Mar 04, 2013 11:55 pm
Posts: 2736
Ah yes, you were so superior to those other lazy bums you worked with.

No, if NC were looking to put incentive back into working, they would be creating jobs and increasing the minimum wage.

You know, this is the conservative disease of looking down on workers, even if they themselves are workers. They see the other workers as lazy and shiftless, and see themselves as the only hard-working person there. Trouble is, they don't have a realistic view of themselves. For one thing, they see themselves ABOVE manual labor, and they all think they should be management, where they would crack the whip on the lazy bums.

And the conservatives I've dealt with who think they are so superior are not superior at all, they are no more on the ball than their co-workers. They DO tend to spend more time sucking up to the bosses, to get promotions.

But again, often taking a job at McDonalds keeps you from going on that interview for a REAL job. Why? Because McDonalds doesn't see you as someone who is making a few bucks while looking for a decent job. They don't want to hear that you have a job interview, they want you working NOW. And, if you quit to go to that job interview, but don't get the job, now you can't draw unemployment because you quit.

That's life in the real world. And women have it worse - often day care costs far more than the minimum-wage job pays.

You know, when I was young, if a woman was divorced and had kids, they would put her and the kids on welfare, because they felt there needed to be someone at home with the kids. Think it through - first off, a woman who is married and a housewife and mother, cooking and cleaning, that was here full-time job, and no one called her lazy for it. A parent NEEDED to be home all the time for the kids. Heck, that's the same today.

So, they felt it was better for her to be home, cooking and cleaning, and raising her kids.

Enter conservatives.

They say, she's now a lazy b*tch who is a drain on decent society, and she needs to go out and get a damned job. Put those kids in daycare!

Then, if the kids start to run wild because mom's always at work, then you can attack her for being a terrible parent who doesn't love her kids.

One of the times I was laid off, sixteen thousand other workers in my town got laid off within two months. Yeah, there might be a bartending job, but there sure as hell weren't sixteen thousand bartender jobs. Exactly what should every one of those people do then, greengrass? Think it through, and give us an answer. In those cases, it's musical chairs, and lots of people and only a few chairs. You want to blame those who can't get chairs.

And what about those workers who own homes based on their high-paying salary, and unemployment, though lower than their current pay, allows them to make those house payments. Say, Iowa, where top unemployment is $459 a week. At a minimum wage job, you'd only make $290 a week before taxes, IF you worked 40 hours a week, which they usually don't let you do.

Oh, you'd have them not get unemployment, and lose their house. You'd say they deserved it, because they didn't plan ahead like you did.

What rubbish.


Yours is the rubbish. You are a really twisted and damaged individual.

I don't claim superiority. I simply preferred to work odd jobs and the like than deal with unemployment. And I had savings put aside if I needed it.
Do I consider myself better for working as opposed to the guy sitting at the Moose Lodge waiting for his benefits to run out - hell yes I do.
Was I better than the guy with a family who was out looking for work everyday while on unemployment - obviously no.

No where did I say we shouldn't have unemployment insurance. I simply said what we have can be too generous and a disincentive to work.

Oddly I was working odd jobs or as a bartender several times when I had interviews and the employers were very accommodating. In fact I just texted a friend who owns a number franchise restaurants and asked him what he would do if an employee wanted to go on a job interview. He said it happens regularly and they accommodate them. And he is an evil hardcore fundamental Christian conservative (who donates a great deal of time and money to those less fortunate).

And you obviously are not familiar with the vast array of services and support available to the low income worker. I spent many years on the board of a non profit day care center and also have worked most of my life with youngsters in sports and youth activities(quite often funded by evil conservatives). As a result I have worked with many families in low income circumstances. I have friends in social service positions who help them. Your comment about minimum wage and day care costs shows your ignorance. That minimum wage gets substantial state subsidies to pay for day care. Low income gets CHIPS health care coverage for the kids, WIC food subsidies, Supplemental Nutrition Assistance Program, Housing Assistance(I've seen as much as $1,400 a month in Section 8 vouchers), Earned Income Credit(cash from the treasury), and there's more for special circumstances. A very good friend at social services told me that depending on the City and State a low income family can qualify for $20,000 to $40,000 in tax free support. We actually do pretty good for low income.

Your better off working low income because you have an opportunity to grow and advance in your personal life and you have better social service support.


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Thu Jul 11, 2013 7:46 am 
Offline
Board Emeritus

Joined: Wed May 04, 2011 11:26 pm
Posts: 36022

Yours is the rubbish. You are a really twisted and damaged individual.

Ah, yes, as always, you have to tell us liberals how evil we are.
Quote:
I don't claim superiority. I simply preferred to work odd jobs and the like than deal with unemployment. And I had savings put aside if I needed it.

Once again, there aren't always odd jobs available for thousands of people.
Quote:
Do I consider myself better for working as opposed to the guy sitting at the Moose Lodge waiting for his benefits to run out - hell yes I do.

Nice job of trying to show working people as being lazy. But then - and I'm not sure, I'm not interested in joining things like the Masons or such - but don't people join lodges to network? Maybe that guy at the Moose Lodge will get a job from a Lodge brother.
Quote:
Was I better than the guy with a family who was out looking for work everyday while on unemployment - obviously no.

No where did I say we shouldn't have unemployment insurance. I simply said what we have can be too generous and a disincentive to work.

So, you are saying you'd rather cut unemployment insurance so that people would lose their house.
Quote:
Oddly I was working odd jobs or as a bartender several times when I had interviews and the employers were very accommodating. In fact I just texted a friend who owns a number franchise restaurants and asked him what he would do if an employee wanted to go on a job interview. He said it happens regularly and they accommodate them. And he is an evil hardcore fundamental Christian conservative (who donates a great deal of time and money to those less fortunate).

I'd have to see that to believe it. Most employers - especially at the low end - are concerned about their business, and demand that employees be there when they want them there. He can say it happens, but his managers are the ones that decide - and I doubt they say yes very often.

And probably most of his employees are low paid, so they qualify for government assistance. If your friend paid a living wage, he wouldn't have the taxpayer subsidizing his workforce. But then, he makes scads of money, so he can give a tiny pittance to the "less fortunate" and feel soooo good about himself, eh?

Such is right-wing logic. I'm sure he gives even MORE money to conservative politicians that are trying to do away with all support of the poor.
Quote:
And you obviously are not familiar with the vast array of services and support available to the low income worker. I spent many years on the board of a non profit day care center and also have worked most of my life with youngsters in sports and youth activities(quite often funded by evil conservatives). As a result I have worked with many families in low income circumstances. I have friends in social service positions who help them. Your comment about minimum wage and day care costs shows your ignorance. That minimum wage gets substantial state subsidies to pay for day care. Low income gets CHIPS health care coverage for the kids, WIC food subsidies, Supplemental Nutrition Assistance Program, Housing Assistance(I've seen as much as $1,400 a month in Section 8 vouchers), Earned Income Credit(cash from the treasury), and there's more for special circumstances. A very good friend at social services told me that depending on the City and State a low income family can qualify for $20,000 to $40,000 in tax free support. We actually do pretty good for low income.

Depending on your state. I'm in a state where they are doing everything they can to dismantle all of that. AND the politicians you are voting for in Washington are trying to figure out how to shut down food stamps. I think it's disingenuous to brag about how well our government takes care of the poor when you vote for the folks that are trying to end that.
Quote:
Your better off working low income because you have an opportunity to grow and advance in your personal life and you have better social service support.

I note you did not address my point about single working mothers. When it was just my mother and me, my mother worked three jobs - but that was because she had a family support system. I stayed with family, not in day care. But that is not the situation with everyone.

As I said, the right looks down on "welfare mothers" who they push into the workforce into low-wage work, and then smears her because she's never home to care for her children.

My family has a VERY strong work ethic. We like to work. I believe we should have an FDR-style Works Progress Administration-style system, where you work for your assistance, if at all possible. You might explain why conservatives hate that idea so much. Especially when the private sector is unable to provide enough jobs, because they are too busy providing them in China.

But I believe in GOOD jobs. There is nothing like a good job to give people self-respect. You work at McDonalds, you are treated like garbage. But most of our good jobs are going away.

_________________
glenfs, July 4, 2018:

"You would think that after 8 years of hearing allegations against Bill C and another 8 against President Obama you people would have learned that 90% of those types of allegations just aren't true."


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Thu Jul 11, 2013 1:14 pm 
Offline
Policy Wonk

Joined: Mon Mar 04, 2013 11:55 pm
Posts: 2736
I know and have worked with a great many fine liberals. I'm not attacking liberals but simply pointing out your twisted perspective of - I was going to say conservatives - but it occurs to me that its simply anyone that disagrees with you. Anyone that doesn't think like you - which, fortunately for humanity is the vast, vast majority - is automatically a conservative and subject to your stupid, ignorant, monotonous, gross overgeneralizations.

I knew the boys at the Moose lodge and the last thing they were there for was a job. They were lazy.

I did address the single mother. Look at the social support system available for low income. Working is better than welfare. Living on welfare in projects was very destructive to families and personal growth. Working is healthy for personal growth. Showing your children a work ethic is healthy.

Temporary Assistance for Needy Families -TANF is also very important and necessary but should be a stepping stone to work and not a lifetime existence.

What most fail to understand is that being low income is not life long. Most people work their way out of low income and improve their jobs and income.

There's no impediment to people changing jobs, they do it all the time, so it can't be too difficult to arrange the interviews. There's a lot of time in the day. That's just more of your flawed and distorted logic.

Done with this one.


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Thu Jul 11, 2013 9:05 pm 
Offline
Board Emeritus

Joined: Wed May 04, 2011 11:26 pm
Posts: 36022
I know and have worked with a great many fine liberals. I'm not attacking liberals but simply pointing out your twisted perspective of - I was going to say conservatives - but it occurs to me that its simply anyone that disagrees with you. Anyone that doesn't think like you - which, fortunately for humanity is the vast, vast majority - is automatically a conservative and subject to your stupid, ignorant, monotonous, gross overgeneralizations.

...and you follow that up with...
Quote:
I knew the boys at the Moose lodge and the last thing they were there for was a job. They were lazy.

Which, of course, is a stupid, ignorant, monotonous, gross overgeneralization. You say all Moose Lodge members are lazy.
Quote:
I did address the single mother. Look at the social support system available for low income. Working is better than welfare. Living on welfare in projects was very destructive to families and personal growth.

Some states have it, many don't. Especially Republican-controlled states. But you'll never admit that, of course.
Quote:
Working is healthy for personal growth. Showing your children a work ethic is healthy.

So, are you saying that mothers that just stay home and is a homemaker while dad works is not showing kids a work ethic?
Quote:
Temporary Assistance for Needy Families -TANF is also very important and necessary but should be a stepping stone to work and not a lifetime existence.

But there need to be jobs for the women on welfare, don't there? There are no jobs, because our corporations have shipped them overseas.

You keep fantasizing that we have full employment, and there are tons of great jobs out there for the taking.
Quote:
What most fail to understand is that being low income is not life long. Most people work their way out of low income and improve their jobs and income.

Oh? You know, there should be room for everyone, and we should have a living wage, so that anyone that puts in 40 hours a week of hard work, should be able to make enough to raise a family, and to have health care and a pension.

My aunt was a janitor, years back. She was one of the hardest-working women I ever knew, just like my mother. Her husband left her with two boys and no skills. But she was the hardest-working cleaner ever. So, she was able to get a job as a janitor at a unionized facility. She really couldn't do anything else, was low-skilled and had little education. But her unionized job gave her benefits and even a pension. Her pay, while no outrageous by any means, meant she could own her own small home, and raise her two sons, clothe them and make sure they had a good education. And, she was able to pay her home off, and retire when it was time.

That's a fair and just world. In today's world, she would be screwed, poverty-ridden even though she would work hard.

You see, I think if we made hard work pay off, in pay and benefits, more people would do it. After Ronald Reagan, Americans no longer respected work. Look at how the right smears teachers and firefighters, and calls them greedy and tries to steal their pensions from them.

When I started working in industry in the late seventies, working with your hands at a plant was respected. After Reagan, who famously said "They say a little hard work never hurt anyone, but I figure, why take the chance?" it was all about the art of the deal. You got rich in the market. Working for a living was a sucker bet, only for losers. Now the right sees workers as losers - and you wonder why no one wants to do it any more. The Kochs and Trump and all their buddies get all kinds of government welfare, so why shouldn't poor people?
Quote:
There's no impediment to people changing jobs, they do it all the time, so it can't be too difficult to arrange the interviews. There's a lot of time in the day. That's just more of your flawed and distorted logic.

You just have no clue how the world really works. Maybe you should, instead of talking to the guy who owns a bunch of fast-food franchises, maybe you should talk to his employees. You might hear a different story.
Quote:
Done with this one.

I doubt it. If so, you're running away.

_________________
glenfs, July 4, 2018:

"You would think that after 8 years of hearing allegations against Bill C and another 8 against President Obama you people would have learned that 90% of those types of allegations just aren't true."


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Fri Jul 19, 2013 9:12 pm 
Offline
Board Emeritus

Joined: Wed May 04, 2011 11:26 pm
Posts: 36022
What most fail to understand is that being low income is not life long. Most people work their way out of low income and improve their jobs and income.

You know, I was re-reading this thread, and this statement made me laugh. "Most people work their way out of low income and improve their jobs and income".

Really?

I guess it's kinda like Lake Woebegon. "Well, that's the news from Lake Wobegon, where all the women are strong, all the men are good looking, and all the children are above average."

Trouble is, not everyone IS above average. There are some people who can't rise about the menial jobs. But they come to work every day, and work very hard. I believe they should be given the respect of work, and make a living wage, have health care and a pension.

_________________
glenfs, July 4, 2018:

"You would think that after 8 years of hearing allegations against Bill C and another 8 against President Obama you people would have learned that 90% of those types of allegations just aren't true."


Top
 Profile  
 
Display posts from previous:  Sort by  
Post new topic Reply to topic  [ 14 posts ] 

All times are UTC - 5 hours [ DST ]


Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 2 guests


You cannot post new topics in this forum
You cannot reply to topics in this forum
You cannot edit your posts in this forum
You cannot delete your posts in this forum
You cannot post attachments in this forum

Search for:
Jump to:  
cron
Powered by phpBB® Forum Software © phpBB Group