So this is 51% of our country, how sad

iVillage Member
Registered: 10-02-2008
So this is 51% of our country, how sad
674
Tue, 11-11-2008 - 10:16am

A video showing just what we've been saying.

KAREN

Pages

iVillage Member
Registered: 08-24-2008
Tue, 11-18-2008 - 12:48am

Thank you for clarifying.


So essentially many of those currently in receipt of welfare support previously paid into the program, but the poster did not pay into the unemployment benefits?


In other words, by her logic she's the one who wouldn't deserve the help?

 

iVillage Member
Registered: 08-24-2006
Tue, 11-18-2008 - 12:52am

"I live about 25 miles outside of Seattle, drugs, gangs etc.. are all over the west coast. I'm at least thinking of moving inland to a more rural state, away from the big cities and their liberal ideas."

I live IN Seattle and I haven't seen the things you've claimed.

iVillage Member
Registered: 12-18-2005
Tue, 11-18-2008 - 9:51am

this is not directed at you, Ageofaquarius, you were just the last post in the thread when i finally decided to add my 2C


I am just adding my 2C so that Karen isn't the only "conservative" posting in the last few days...


my feelings are....i can kind of feel what Karen is saying, and my interpretation is....


some people will try harder, and make more sacrafices in order to avoid pulling money from public funds (ie welfare)


i think we can all agree that there could be circumstance in all of our lives that put us into a situation to need help....


the difference lies within the individual's definition of "need" and also within the individual's feeling of responsibility, and how much they feel the need to be responsible for themselves.


and some people prepare better, some people saved, and scrimped, and pulled together a nest egg in case there is some tragedy, and they need it....that is one big difference, preparedness.....responsible planning and being prepared. (not that it will cover every accident, but it could, and it is better than nothing)



Some people think they “need” to have another child, even if they can’t afford it, so they go ahead (planned) and have another child, and put more of a strain on the public funds…in my (and probably Karen’s) view point, that child was not a NEED….


Another example would be a person on welfare who has cable tv, a cell phone, computer and internet….those things are nice to have, but almost always are not a NEED….or what about those who pimp out their cars….but collect aid…


Those are all examples where the money could have been better spent, and by using that money in other ways, maybe that person could become less dependant on public funding.


-Kristen

Photobucket
iVillage Member
Registered: 04-09-2006
Tue, 11-18-2008 - 9:58am

<

In other words, by her logic she's the one who wouldn't deserve the help?>>

Well, actually I think that an employer's contributions to unemployment benefits are a part of the cost of running the company, so I think a case could be made that all employees contribute to this tax indirectly, though lower salaries. That is, if no company had to pay the tax, more money might be available for salaries. The U.S. is not exactly enjoying premium salaries right now, because many high-skill professions have been outsourced to countries with cheaper labor pools, but I expect that if companies were under pressure to provide high salaries, that the taxes that are paid to fund various kinds of employee benefits would depress the salaries that companies could offer. This is, of course, just a guess, lol!

iVillage Member
Registered: 05-06-2007
Tue, 11-18-2008 - 10:25am

I completely understand what you're saying and I think we'd all agree that none of us like it when the system is abused. Welfare abuse is something that upsets conservatives and liberals alike.


Chrissy
mom to Aidan 8/21/03
Grayson Blaine 12/30/07

iVillage Member
Registered: 03-26-2003
Tue, 11-18-2008 - 10:30am

<>


 


 


I disagree with you, but I'm pretty sure

iVillage Member
Registered: 12-18-2005
Tue, 11-18-2008 - 10:48am

yes yes i agree, waste is not restricted to welfare...


but it is a place where i can see it firsthand, so it is on my mind.


and it is a place where real changes can be made by the individuals receiving the aid that would make things better.....and when those changes aren't made, or poor decisions are made, it is frustrating to others.


in terms of wasteful government (defense) spending.....I don't see it first hand, and i wouldn't know of how to fix it, or howindividuals can act to make the situation better.


in the case of welfare....if sally needs money for groceries, but she has a cell phone.....that is an extra ~ $30/month she is throwing at a luxury...if she needs food badly enough to need help, she shouldn't be tossing $360/year out the window on a luxury....if she spent it on food, that would be $30/month less that she required from public funds...increasing the aid for others, and decreasing the cost to taxpayers...


so in my mind, sally is benefitting from the luxury of a cell phone at the taxpayer's expense.... in my mind....if sally needs help, she should first cut out all the luxuiries she doesn't need, then she can get help for things she needs.....


it drives me nuts when people say...well sally doesnt' use her welfare check for her phone, she uses it for food....


because that doesn't make sense....she is throwing away $30/month, if she put those funds towards her needs (food) than she wouldn't need to take as much money from tax payers...


not everyone gets that, and it drives me mad! i am totally against giving welfare to people who spend thier money on luxuries....i think people need to first cut out the frivolous things, then if they still need help, that is the need, and that is what i am happy to help with.


i don't currently need help buying groceries.....because i make other decisions....i would love another child, but it wouldn't be a wise move for me financially, i also want a new TV (mine is 15 years old) i want netflcks i want a new car or 2....but i don't NEED any of those things....but if i went and got them...i may not be able to pay for groceries....then could i say...oh i need help.....i want public aid to buy my groceries....NO...that isn't fair....the public shouldn't pay for my poor choices! I make enough money to support myself, as long as i make smart decisions...and i don't think it is fair for the public to support me if i make poor decisions...


people make poor decisions and it is so sad....and annoying.

Photobucket

-Kristen

Photobucket
iVillage Member
Registered: 10-09-2008
Tue, 11-18-2008 - 10:57am
What if her cell phone is her only phone. Would her cell phone be a luxury then?
iVillage Member
Registered: 03-26-2003
Tue, 11-18-2008 - 11:36am
See, what drives me nuts is people that see one little thing about a person's life and jump to the conclusion that they are wasting taxpayer money.

 


 


I disagree with you, but I'm pretty sure

iVillage Member
Registered: 05-06-2007
Tue, 11-18-2008 - 11:52am

<>


I understand and I get frustrated about that too. I knew a woman who got assistance and financial aid for nearly everything - childcare, her YMCA membership, food, etc. and yet she spent her weekends spending money at a bar (I know b/c I was a cocktail waitress at the bar she hung out in) and even bought herself breast implants! DH and I were barely making ends meet and we had to sometimes buy groceries on our credit card just to get by and yet we didn't qualify for any assistance. But even though I understand and have experienced the frustrations, I still believe in the need for such programs and I don't think that we can judge the entire system based on the abusers that we see. I think that many of us aren't even aware of all the people around us who truly benefit from various forms of assistance and financial aid.


Chrissy
mom to Aidan 8/21/03
Grayson Blaine 12/30/07

Pages