Hahaha, this mope thinks education means a life free from low-wage jobs.

What a joke.

7/15/2013 9:38:14 PM

Quote :

"I'm not going to say Joe Construction Worker should get paid as much as Bob the Architect just because Joe is out in the sun all day. "

When did anyone ever say they should be paid the same? I'm saying the construction worker should AT LEAST make enough to live on with reasonable comfort (aka not having to worry about food, medical expenses, etc).

Quote :

" Joe Construction Worker can go to school and he can become Bob the Architect. There's a distinct difference in worth between an electrical engineer and an electrician. That's the beauty of hard work."

Just as easy as that, huh...well let's go ahead and ignore the fact that some people can't afford the time and/or money to go to school for various reasons. Or the people who are disabled. Or the single moms who had a kid accidentally. A solid 15% of the population has an IQ below 85. There's no fucking way they're going to become an engineer, banker, teacher, etc. Is it right for them to struggle their entire lives because of the situation they were born into?

Quote :

"False. Our country depends on everyone to function. I don't depend on the homeless to do my job."

No, but you depend on your garbage men, the people who built your house, the people who work on your car, the people who package and assemble the products you buy, the people who work cash registers, etc. etc.

Quote :

"Who is telling them to have kids? Believe it or not, kids cost money. Sure, you can have kids and not make any money, but guess what? You'll have to deal with the consequences of your choice to have kids. You don't have to stop having sex...cost of birth control < cost of kids."

You are, in effect, advocating eugenics here. As long as you're cool with that, I'm cool with just leaving this point and calling you an asshole for it. Btw, you can use birth control and still get pregnant.

Quote :

"Also, "living comfortably" could mean anything. I could live comfortably on $12,000 a year if I was single and didn't plan on having children. "

Bullshit.

http://livingwage.mit.edu/places/3718355000

[Edited on July 15, 2013 at 11:13 PM. Reason : .]

7/15/2013 11:09:29 PM

Eugenics ARE cool.

This planet can't really handle 7+ billion people anyway, so we might as well save a buck in the meantime.

Get ready for the pre-22nd century meltdown of all world democracies thanks to these pathetic worms and the new batch of dictators we will get as a result.

They will combat global warming with the blanket of ash they envelop us in when they torch these dumb fuckers.

7/15/2013 11:34:33 PM

Quote :

"hard work is a constant though. you work hard, you get rewarded. you don't work hard, why should you get rewarded? - afripino"

Quote :

"If wealth was the inevitable result of hard work and enterprise, every woman in Africa would be a millionaire. - George Monbiot"

It'll pay off in the next life?

7/16/2013 7:20:52 AM

^different country, different opportunity available. Also, there are woman millionaires in Africa. Not everyone there is poor. Your point makes no sense in America. Are you saying nobody gets ahead with hard work?

Quote :

"You are, in effect, advocating eugenics here. As long as you're cool with that, I'm cool with just leaving this point and calling you an asshole for it. Btw, you can use birth control and still get pregnant."

I am not an advocate for eugenics. Just because I say people should think before they have sex doesn't mean I'm pro-eugenics. Are you saying people shouldn't have to think before having sex? Should we all just reproduce without any second thought? Also, there is a thing called minimized risk and birth control handles that. That's why they don't guarantee 100% results, but the risk of pregnancy is lowered. Can't believe I have to explain that to you.

7/16/2013 8:00:22 AM

Quote :

"Just because I say people should think before they have sex doesn't mean I'm pro-eugenics. Are you saying people shouldn't have to think before having sex? Should we all just reproduce without any second thought?"

If that was your position, you would be advocating for better sex education. What do you think of abstinence-only sex ed?

The position you ARE advocating for is less support for parents who find themselves struggling financially. You weren't born yesterday, so I assume that you're aware that people who share that view are highly correlated with advocacy of abstinence-only sex ed.

7/16/2013 8:16:08 AM

Quote :

"I am not an advocate for eugenics. Just because I say people should think before they have sex doesn't mean I'm pro-eugenics. Are you saying people shouldn't have to think before having sex? Should we all just reproduce without any second thought? "

You're saying that people shouldn't have kids if they can't afford it. Without welfare, a good percentage of the population could not afford it. Not enough pay, and no government support. That is, in effect, eugenics.

Quote :

"Also, there is a thing called minimized risk and birth control handles that. That's why they don't guarantee 100% results, but the risk of pregnancy is lowered. Can't believe I have to explain that to you."

In response to this:

Quote :

"SNAP is one of the best administered welfare programs we have, with a fraud rate of about 4% (http://www.gao.gov/products/GAO-10-956T), and 5% for (Federal) administrative overhead. Both of these have improved dramatically over the past decade, the fraud rate in particular fell by almost half, despite what Newt Gingrich might try to intimate.""

You said this:

Quote :

"I read that. and 5% is still 5%. back to my page 1 saying that a small horror is still a horror."

Pregnancy rate over the course of a year with perfect condom use is ~3%. So why do you not also apply your minimized risk argument to food stamps?

7/16/2013 9:01:35 AM

Quote :

"Sure, you can have kids and not make any money, but guess what? You'll have to deal with the consequences of your choice to have kids."

Quote :

"You are, in effect, advocating eugenics here. As long as you're cool with that, I'm cool with just leaving this point and calling you an asshole for it."

Quote :

"Eugenics ARE cool. This planet can't really handle 7+ billion people anyway, so we might as well save a buck in the meantime."

There are some strange ideas about the definition of eugenics here. Birth restrictions is not eugenics. China's 1 child policy isn't eugenics by most definitions. But then again, China's policy was applied non-uniformly between rural and urban areas, so maybe you could call it eugenics.

Killing people by the free market also isn't eugenics. Problem is, this isn't actually possible. You can live on beans for:

http://www.mymoneyblog.com/what-does-200-calories-cost-the-economics-of-obesity.html

365 x 2000 = 730,000 calories
x 0.50 / 200 = $ 1,825 per year

Minimum wage should be able to keep you alive, but it can't. Consider, I could get a minimum wage job at some place doing manual labor, next to a store with beans and basic food. I don't need transportation. I'll rent a closest to sleep in for low cost, because after all, all my waking time will be spent working. I'll work as much as many hours is comfortable and continue this lifestyle until I have savings to go try something better.

Oh wait, none of this is possible. Death by the free market is possible in principle with higher food prices, but not in the current environment. People only become homeless and malnourished because our market is non-free.

The standing proposal of afripino is not to make the market free again. No, they advocate keeping regulations that maintains the decorum of society like they want, while at the same time denying the social programs that strive for the same ideals of humanity. It's sick and diluted.

7/16/2013 9:02:26 AM

Quote :

"You're saying that people shouldn't have kids if they can't afford it. Without welfare, a good percentage of the population could not afford it. Not enough pay, and no government support. That is, in effect, eugenics."

Yes, I'm saying that. Why doesn't every fertile person just have 12 kids? Because it just isn't feasible or sound. At some point you just have to stop. You take on additional responsibility when you can and should. I'm not saying poor people shouldn't have kids, just that they should think about it before taking on the responsibility. I'm not for "NO" government support as you have mis-read my stance, I'm simply asking for ID checks, parental accountability for student progress, and drug testing as a requirement in receiving this government support. Not sure how that is eugenics.

If a person is poor, do you think having kids will help them escape poverty?

7/16/2013 9:17:33 AM

Eugenics is terrible, and good parents can't possibly out-breed the legions of stupid people that can't be bothered to use contraception.

How about "market" eugenics? Start paying poor people to have abortions. Problem should be resolved within a generation or so. It's an investment in our future.

7/16/2013 9:30:40 AM

Quote :

"I'm simply asking for ID checks, parental accountability for student progress, and drug testing as a requirement in receiving this government support."

And you are asking for this because you have a disdain for poor people, because you believe that the reason they are poor is because they haven't worked and sacrificed as hard as you. And we are all telling you that it's a faulty assumption.

If your motivation is reducing government waste, there are tons of programs that cost the government way more money and are way more abused than SNAP. You made this thread and wanted to have this discussion for a reason. Lets be honest here.

7/16/2013 9:32:45 AM

http://www.ncpa.org/pub/ba680

Quote :

"Obstacles to Affordable Housing. According to a 1991 HUD report, local government policies that increase building costs and/or restrict the supply of housing are one of the primary reasons for the lack of affordable housing. Regulations. These range from minimum lot sizes that encourage larger and more expensive homes to the prohibition of multifamily dwellings. In some communities, regulations have raised the cost of new development and construction by 35 percent. A 2005 follow-up HUD report found that in more heavily regulated localities rents were 17 percent higher; home prices, 51 percent higher; and homeownership rates, 10 percent lower compared to less-regulated areas. Impact fees and inclusionary zoning are particularly costly. If these costs were reduced, more affordable housing would be available."

You should advocate for the elimination of these practices along with any crackdown on welfare.

Not doing so means that you're advocating to use the threat of force through law to increase the cost of living, while not subsidizing the living of people who aren't selling their labor at a decent premium.

The combination that we're currently talking about of high government-enforced cost of living, and scarce, highly conditional assistance, is a path to serfdom. It is slavery. The poor will be completely justified when the beheadings begin.

7/16/2013 9:46:33 AM

Middle class people shouldn't have kids either. You never know when you might lose your job or get cancer, and that could plunge you into bankruptcy and force you onto government assistance.

Basically, only the 1% should have children.

7/16/2013 10:28:35 AM

^I don't make decisions based on the "what-if", I do so based on the "what is". If I know I can't currently afford to have a child, I don't. If you make the decision to do so you shouldn't bank on the government with its infinite money to pay for your decision.

7/16/2013 10:39:42 AM

So we should sterilize people who continue to have children while on welfare, right?

7/16/2013 10:44:33 AM

^no.

7/16/2013 10:49:00 AM

So what's the penalty?

7/16/2013 10:49:36 AM

Starvation, duh

Sterilization would be cruel.

7/16/2013 10:52:33 AM

^^limits on welfare support. more kids = more money (as little as it is) isn't much of a deterrent to staying on the gov't dime. limits set personal accountability as the individual is required to make up the difference.

^we also have a twisted definition of "starvation" as well. missing a meal or two isn't starvation.

[Edited on July 16, 2013 at 10:53 AM. Reason : ]

7/16/2013 10:52:52 AM

Quote :

"missing a meal or two isn't starvation. "

exactly. it's motivation.

7/16/2013 10:57:14 AM

Food Stamps need to be limited like Unemployment Wages. To what extend, there needs to be an in depth study on the statistics of it all and what it takes for people to get out of their situations (I'm sure there already is).

I grew up on Food Stamps. As soon as my parents stepped foot off the airplane from a Thailand refugee camp, they were on Food Stamps. Wisely, my dad took advantage of some of the free education programs offered under the government programs in California. It took him several years to get acquainted to Murica, several more years just to learn English, and several more years to finish Community College. Our last day on Welfare was when I was 11 years old.

So, it took us about a decade to get off of Welfare. And that's for parents who came here with only the clothes on their backs, 100% culture shock, and 0% English. Muricans should be able to do better.

Of course, I can't say the same about some of my relatives. I have aunts and uncles who are still feeding off the Welfare system after 30 YEARS in the United States! Let's just say I look at them with some disdain and disgust. I really don't even want to be associated with them at family gatherings.

Personally, any healthy person who's been on food stamps for more than 1-2 decades is a LOSER. Yep, I ain't afraid to say it. If you're healthy and have a functioning brain and body and are still on Welfare, then you are a LOSER. You're the scum of the earth. This is exactly what I would say to my relatives who are still on Welfare after 3 decades (that's if I had the guts to tell them in person of course ).

You know how people buy drugs, iPads, or LCD TV's with Food Stamps (or EBT, the electronic debit version of Food Stamps)? They employ the concepts of trading and bartering. That's how my parents did it. Back then, Food Stamps came as a booklet of paper money. It was just a straight trade. $1 in Food Stamps, for $1 greenbacks. Though, they didn't buy drugs, they would use the money to buy other things for around the house. Relatives on food stamps still do a similar trade today, though it's a little harder now with the electronic version of Food Stamps.

The life on Welfare isn't all it seems. We never got presents for Christmas. One year my mom gave me a bag of oranges in a brown paper bag for Christmas. We drove around in clunkers and beaters. We wore hand-me-downs and Salvation Army stuff. My BEST meal was at the school cafeteria. We only had one meal at home, and that was dinner. I never got the latest toys and gadgets, just whatever we found at the flea market or yard sales.

So, part of me sympathizes with folks on Welfare because I've been there. I think Welfare is a good thing. But, it's deeply flawed as it currently is. Like the wise saying goes, "Give a man a fish and feed him for a day, teach a man to fish and feed him for life." No one told my dad to go to school, lucky for him he's not a loser and wanted to work for his keep. Welfare needs to be a proactive program. Not a reactive one. People who are on Welfare for decades need someone to step in and poke, prod, and push them and get them into education and work programs. It's almost like we need Welfare probation officers. Same with the health industry, a proactive medical program is better than a reactive one.

You can't fix everyone. Some folks are just natural losers and scumbags. But, for those that can be helped, I think they just need to be forced to get out of that situation. Otherwise, people get comfortable. That's when Welfare becomes THE WAY of life and not THE PATH to a better life. And I think by limiting the amount of time you can be on Welfare is a good first step in forcing people to move on. The next steps are proactive education and work programs.



SIDE NOTE: I just remembered that in the 2000's California passed stricter Welfare laws. It forced a lot of my relatives to move to other states with looser Welfare laws, like Minnesota. You see, some people are just scum.

[Edited on July 16, 2013 at 11:06 AM. Reason : just remembered something]

7/16/2013 11:01:05 AM

Those kids in poverty should just lift themselves up by their bootstraps. So what if they miss a few meals on the way to school? They should be getting good grades at their terrible school in the middle of the ghetto or else their family will lose benefits while they're starving. It shouldn't matter if they come from a broken home where their mother has to work two shit minimum wage jobs to make ends meet to help pay for the grandmother's diabetes treatments and doesn't have any time to help the kid with his homework.

7/16/2013 11:03:18 AM

Also if being poor is so awesome, why don't you all quit your jobs and live on foodstamps? It seems like it's fucking awesome. You don't have to do any work and you get free cellphones and XBoxes and shit!

7/16/2013 11:04:43 AM

^^their parents should lift themselves up by their bootstraps. not everyone on food stamps lives in the ghetto.

^free cellphones are available.

[Edited on July 16, 2013 at 11:31 AM. Reason : ]

7/16/2013 11:29:50 AM

Exactly. So why don't you quit your job and live on foodstamps? I mean, it seems idiotic to actually work a job when the government will give you a great life for free.

7/16/2013 11:37:28 AM

^because I feel I should take responsibility for my own success and not rely on the government and other people's money to provide it for me.

7/16/2013 11:49:03 AM

*goes to publicly funded college*

*receives student loans and grants*

*complains about other people relying on government*

7/16/2013 11:50:20 AM

first one, yes. second one, no. worked to pay tuition and room and board completely on my own. third one, my complaint is on relying on the government, not government assistance itself. two different things. Government isn't some infinite money maker that can pay for everything.

[Edited on July 16, 2013 at 11:59 AM. Reason : ]

7/16/2013 11:56:25 AM

So you're okay when the right people rely on the government.

Here's afripino's argument in a nutshell: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=yTwpBLzxe4U

[Edited on July 16, 2013 at 12:03 PM. Reason : ]

7/16/2013 12:02:53 PM

Quote :

"second one, no. worked to pay tuition and room and board completely on my own."

Out of state tuition?

7/16/2013 12:11:28 PM

^in state tuition, but no loans or grants.

7/16/2013 12:17:12 PM

How did you get your job?

7/16/2013 12:39:17 PM

^found an entry level position posted online (monster.com), applied for it, interviewed twice, took a drug test (hair test), and accepted the position when it was offered. worked my way up to a higher position once it became available.

or were you asking about my jobs during school?

[Edited on July 16, 2013 at 12:44 PM. Reason : ]

7/16/2013 12:42:27 PM

Quote :

"^because I feel I should take responsibility for my own success and not rely on the government and other people's money to provide it for me."

oh, so you wouldn't be comfortable living on welfare? but you think people on welfare are comfortable being on welfare. cool.

7/16/2013 12:57:37 PM

It's because Black people are lazy, get it.

7/16/2013 12:58:57 PM

^^I know some people that are comfortable with living on welfare, yes. just because I am not comfortable, doesn't mean that everyone else feels the same as I do.

^that's racist!

7/16/2013 1:05:47 PM

Responsibility for one's own career isn't something that applies to children.

If you strive for a developed state of living, then you have a part in the responsibility of assuring that the amount of resources for the development of children exceeds the need. That includes assuring that they have something to eat.

Yes, you have a responsibility to other stranger's children. Why? Because they didn't chose to be born to those parents, and they will continue to live in the world that (I hope) you strive to make better. That includes all stranger's children, epically including the impoverished and irresponsible. If you think restricting births is the best way to do this, I don't disagree with you. Most conservatives, however, are terribly schizophrenic on this, both encouraging more unplanned births and fewer resources used for those children.

I would hope that this kind of compassion also extends to the elderly, but at least in their case, neglect won't trigger knock-off effects that tear down societies. At worst, it's a painful and lonely death.

7/16/2013 1:10:54 PM

Quote :

"I know some people that are comfortable with living on welfare, yes."

Are you suggesting that most people would be? Because otherwise what are you arguing exactly? People want to be poor? Being poor is an easy, non-humiliating way of life?

Quote :

"I would hope that this kind of compassion also extends to the elderly, but at least in their case, neglect won't trigger knock-off effects that tear down societies. At worst, it's a painful and lonely death."

Given the prevalence of firearms in our society I disagree with the potential negative effects.

[Edited on July 16, 2013 at 1:12 PM. Reason : .]

7/16/2013 1:11:27 PM

Quote :

"just because I am not comfortable, doesn't mean that everyone else feels the same as I do."

just because you are capable of earning a high income doesn't mean that everyone is

7/16/2013 1:12:14 PM

Wait, people hold other opinions than me about things?

7/16/2013 1:13:01 PM

Orphanages ftw.

At least as long as this page continues the downward spiral.

Everything God touches turns to doo-doo.

[Edited on July 16, 2013 at 1:30 PM. Reason : and by doo-doo i mean black people]

7/16/2013 1:29:55 PM

Quote :

"Are you suggesting that most people would be? Because otherwise what are you arguing exactly? People want to be poor? Being poor is an easy, non-humiliating way of life?"

I'm saying that the potential to become comfortable with being poor exists.

^^^I didn't say that I thought everyone could or that everyone should earn high incomes. I also didn't say that I earned a high income. I do, however, earn the money I make.

^^I know...I'm as surprised as you are!

^white people....eh eh eh eh eh eh eh eh, black people....doo doo doo doo doo

7/16/2013 1:51:29 PM

^

Quote :

"I didn't say that I thought everyone could or that everyone should earn high incomes"

Quote :

"Joe Construction Worker can go to school and he can become Bob the Architect."

Quote :

"hard work is a constant though. you work hard, you get rewarded."

Quote :

"My thought process was to encourage the "the harder you work the better your lifestyle" mentality."

Quote :

"people work jobs that pay low wages. people choose to stay in those jobs by not changing job fields"

7/16/2013 2:41:50 PM

http://www.deathandtaxesmag.com/202172/mcdonalds-suggested-budget-for-employees-shows-just-how-impossible-it-is-to-get-by-on-minimum-wage/

7/16/2013 3:17:10 PM

this isn't a "let's raise minimum wage" thread. one topic at a time people.

^^I don't follow. am I supposed to reply with quotes from you?

[Edited on July 16, 2013 at 3:19 PM. Reason : ]

7/16/2013 3:18:09 PM

this where you start trolling because you've been thoroughly trounced by multiple people

7/16/2013 3:35:55 PM

^this isn't chit chat. perhaps you'd like to make a valid point?

7/16/2013 3:40:38 PM

Quote :

"Orphanages ftw."

I thought orphanages made sense. But I was highly swayed by this talk.



Basically, they had always stunted development of the children raised there. Anyone who grew up in an orphanage basically had mental disorders.

I hear fairly bad stories about foster families too. Basically, if you can't get adopted your environment will be so unloving that you'll be a half-human. Even in modern society this remains true.

We are not anywhere near as enlightened as we would like to think.

7/16/2013 3:49:50 PM

I dont think a minimum wage discussion is off topic since we are discussing the value / devaluing of work.

More to the point that article shows the disconnect between a minimum wage employer and their employees (as evident by the somewhat ridiculous budget).

7/16/2013 4:03:37 PM

No one is stuck making minimum wage. You get a job at McDonald's, work your ass off and show up to work on time every day, you'll get a raise and eventually a management position.

But maybe that's not the point. Maybe some people are actually lazy, they had a tough childhood, they never had anyone that encouraged them, they got a really poor education, or they were never taught how to handle finances. There are plenty of reasons why people are poor and stay poor, and it's not simply that CEOs are relentlessly shitting on them at every turn.

Sending these people a check isn't going to help them succeed. They need family and a supportive community. They need two parents, not a single mother on welfare and 4 brothers and sisters. That would require that we end the policies that destroy families. That would require that we actually address and talk about the patterns of child abuse and child neglect in low-income communities. We'd have to talk about how corporal punishment rates in poor (especially black) families are FAR higher compared to the total population, and then we'd have to talk about how those practices impact brain development, crime rates, income, and virtually every other success metric in life.

Politicians don't want to have those discussions, though. They want to send someone a check, because checks guarantee votes. Tackling long-term problems that are resolved over several generations doesn't get you re-elected.

7/16/2013 4:04:31 PM