Argus Posted October 31, 2009 Report Share Posted October 31, 2009 You know, I have a friend (yes, really) who has an important job. She works long hours, and as she's considered management, she gets no overtime pay. Now her boss has been transferred, and it looks like they want to promote her. But she's got two kids at home, and her husband is working long hours with a new store he's opened. It's a big struggle to look after the kids and get things done at home with the long hours they work. And I was thinking (yes really) that a hundred years ago, middle class folks like this didn't have to worry so much about things like this because they had servants. There was no welfare then, and poor people lived in crummy little houses and were desperate for anything they could get. So if you were middle class you could hire yourself a housekeeper or two for peanuts, and they'd take care of all the chores and help raise the kids if necessary. But nowadays poor people just sit around the comfortable homes we pay for, eating the food we pay for, doing NO work, playing video games, getting drunk and fornicating. They're useless, a drain on resources. But if we stopped paying for their houses and stopped paying welfare, they'd be available to do work again at wages the middle class could afford. Plus, our taxes would go down considerably, allowing us to be more generous. It would make life a lot easier on hard working, middle-class folks, and would increase productivity across the board. I could even hire one. Winter is coming up and I hate shovelling my lane. Well, not that I do. I hire some guy for that. But I wouldn't have to pay as much if I had my own servant guy. He could cut the lawn in the summer and do the weeding, too. The welfare types would get experience in working, and would gain more self respect. I think getting rid of welfare would be an all-around winner for everyone. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest TrueMetis Posted October 31, 2009 Report Share Posted October 31, 2009 (edited) If you knew anything about welfare you would know that welfare pays next to nothing and that people on welfare can't afford even the worst places. You want to bitch, bitch about the people who are on welfare but shouldn't be. DO NOT bitch about people who get much less than you anyway getting what amounts to usually less than a grand a month. Edited October 31, 2009 by TrueMetis Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
JerrySeinfeld Posted October 31, 2009 Report Share Posted October 31, 2009 If you knew anything about welfare you would know that welfare pays next to nothing and that people on welfare can't afford even the worst places. You want to bitch, bitch about the people who are on welfare but shouldn't be. DO NOT bitch about people who get much less than you anyway getting what amounts to usually less than a grand a month. To be clear, that's a grand a month for doing abosultely nothing, TM. I agree with Argus. Since when did people who never learned how to grow up and take care of their own adult resposibilities have entitlement to my money? Want money? Work for it, like the rest of us. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
charter.rights Posted October 31, 2009 Report Share Posted October 31, 2009 You know, I have a friend (yes, really) who has an important job. She works long hours, and as she's considered management, she gets no overtime pay. Now her boss has been transferred, and it looks like they want to promote her. But she's got two kids at home, and her husband is working long hours with a new store he's opened. It's a big struggle to look after the kids and get things done at home with the long hours they work.And I was thinking (yes really) that a hundred years ago, middle class folks like this didn't have to worry so much about things like this because they had servants. There was no welfare then, and poor people lived in crummy little houses and were desperate for anything they could get. So if you were middle class you could hire yourself a housekeeper or two for peanuts, and they'd take care of all the chores and help raise the kids if necessary. But nowadays poor people just sit around the comfortable homes we pay for, eating the food we pay for, doing NO work, playing video games, getting drunk and fornicating. They're useless, a drain on resources. But if we stopped paying for their houses and stopped paying welfare, they'd be available to do work again at wages the middle class could afford. Plus, our taxes would go down considerably, allowing us to be more generous. It would make life a lot easier on hard working, middle-class folks, and would increase productivity across the board. I could even hire one. Winter is coming up and I hate shovelling my lane. Well, not that I do. I hire some guy for that. But I wouldn't have to pay as much if I had my own servant guy. He could cut the lawn in the summer and do the weeding, too. The welfare types would get experience in working, and would gain more self respect. I think getting rid of welfare would be an all-around winner for everyone. Sure. Let's really get rid of welfare. $5 billion to GM, Subsidies and grants to farmers, tax breaks to the rich etc Once that is done, then we can look at those who live at or below the poverty level.... Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
JerrySeinfeld Posted October 31, 2009 Report Share Posted October 31, 2009 (edited) Sure. Let's really get rid of welfare.$5 billion to GM, Subsidies and grants to farmers, tax breaks to the rich etc Once that is done, then we can look at those who live at or below the poverty level.... I agree. GM should have been allowed to fail. But instead President Obama subverted statute bankruptcy law, screwed the bondholders and gave the company to his buddies in the UAW as payback for election support. Farmers shouldn't get jack shit. Tax "breaks" for the rich? baaaaaahahahahahahaha. ahem...sorry. So if someone pays more than $1 million in taxes, but they get $100k back for allowable deductions, then that's a tax "break"? Edited October 31, 2009 by JerrySeinfeld Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
daniel Posted October 31, 2009 Report Share Posted October 31, 2009 The right wing seems to think that the poor have too much money and the rich don't have enough. John Kenneth Galbraith The topic starter seems to share this crazy sentiment. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest American Woman Posted October 31, 2009 Report Share Posted October 31, 2009 .... if you were middle class you could hire yourself a housekeeper or two for peanuts, and they'd take care of all the chores and help raise the kids if necessary. Yes, it's such a shame that you can't hire people and pay them "peanuts" to make your life easier. One of the most important things, I would think, would be raising the kids, yet you think it's worth "peanuts," and expect that someone who is qualified for such a position should be willing to do it for "peanuts." But evidently "helping raise the kids" is nothing compared to an "important" job. My heart does bleed for you, though, that you can't hire "desperate people" and pay them next to nothing to serve your needs. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Shwa Posted October 31, 2009 Report Share Posted October 31, 2009 (edited) "Once that is done, then we can look at those who live at or below the poverty level...." While we are thinking about corporate bailouts and agriculture incentives, let's not forget Old Age Security and the Canada Pension Pan for seniors. I mean, if those seniors weren't smart enough to get a nice lucrative pension from the corporation they were working hard for, nor wise enough to invest all the sure things over the years, why should I have to pay any of my hard working middle class tax dollars to send them all to Florida or sit around doing nothing all day in one of those fancy residences we pay for. No need to subsidize seniors. Let them live at home with their kids and THEY can take care of the babysitting, changing diapers, cutting the grass and shovelling snow. And if weren't smart enough to have kids then they can do it for all the other hard working middle class people out here. If they'd rather die, then they had better do it and decrease the surplus population. Because winter is coming and you know, are there no prisons? Are there no workhouses? :angry: Of course this reply is completely in jest as I am sure the original poster's was... Edited October 31, 2009 by Shwa Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest TrueMetis Posted October 31, 2009 Report Share Posted October 31, 2009 (edited) To be clear, that's a grand a month for doing abosultely nothing, TM.I agree with Argus. Since when did people who never learned how to grow up and take care of their own adult resposibilities have entitlement to my money? Want money? Work for it, like the rest of us. Want to show me your source that says they aren't doing anything? You do realize that many of the people on welfare aren't on it by choice right? welfare is an absolute last resort. when your on welfare you can afford shit all. Argus thinks they can afford comfortable homes. A cheap place can run $800 a month. Food for one person will likely run them about 100-125 dollars a week. So doesn't seem like they can afford cable, electicity, or pretty much anything. Edited October 31, 2009 by TrueMetis Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
lictor616 Posted October 31, 2009 Report Share Posted October 31, 2009 You know, I have a friend (yes, really) who has an important job. She works long hours, and as she's considered management, she gets no overtime pay. Now her boss has been transferred, and it looks like they want to promote her. But she's got two kids at home, and her husband is working long hours with a new store he's opened. It's a big struggle to look after the kids and get things done at home with the long hours they work.And I was thinking (yes really) that a hundred years ago, middle class folks like this didn't have to worry so much about things like this because they had servants. There was no welfare then, and poor people lived in crummy little houses and were desperate for anything they could get. So if you were middle class you could hire yourself a housekeeper or two for peanuts, and they'd take care of all the chores and help raise the kids if necessary. But nowadays poor people just sit around the comfortable homes we pay for, eating the food we pay for, doing NO work, playing video games, getting drunk and fornicating. They're useless, a drain on resources. But if we stopped paying for their houses and stopped paying welfare, they'd be available to do work again at wages the middle class could afford. Plus, our taxes would go down considerably, allowing us to be more generous. It would make life a lot easier on hard working, middle-class folks, and would increase productivity across the board. I could even hire one. Winter is coming up and I hate shovelling my lane. Well, not that I do. I hire some guy for that. But I wouldn't have to pay as much if I had my own servant guy. He could cut the lawn in the summer and do the weeding, too. The welfare types would get experience in working, and would gain more self respect. I think getting rid of welfare would be an all-around winner for everyone. I recall reading in a local newspaper about this single mother who had been on welfare since the birth of her 2 sons, 3 years ago... she explained with irrefragable logic that he previous employer (McDonalds "restaurants") used to pay her 9$ an hour... she could scarcely scrape up 900 a month after taxes... when she compared her current welfare "salary", she showed us that she was given 1450$ a month for her two kids, AND given free dental coverage for them, free eye wear prescriptions, free medication (her sons both had asthma) as well as a host of benefits not available to mere workingfolk. she also didn't have to hire any babysitters, or people to drive around her kids... she could also make them meals, and do all the essentials herself for free. In other words, she was making way more money and had a lot less things to pay for... little wonder she opted for welfare... obviously this state of affairs is an effrontery to the concept of civilized society and a grotesque injustice to all taxpayers. the only welfare should be job insurance in case of injury or disease... that's it... Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Sir Bandelot Posted October 31, 2009 Report Share Posted October 31, 2009 I truly feel for those people who have both partners working long hours, just to make ends meet. We are in the same situation here too. Lucky for me I have more flexible hours than my wife, otherwise we would both have to work until 6pm, get home at 6:30 and rush to make a dinner for the kids. That is the way the system has changed from that of our parents, where generally only one had to work. So instead of welfare for the poor, lets save our money for the banks and the big auto companies, to balance their phony/ bad investments. That way they can still give themselves a nice bonus at the end of the year too. Yeah that makes me feel real good. Maybe I can get a second job, cleaning their toilets, that should help me to pay them even more. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Mr.Canada Posted October 31, 2009 Report Share Posted October 31, 2009 If poor people cannot afford to raise their own kids then perhaps their children should be taken away at the hospital where they'll be put up for adoption to a family who can. Everybody is afforded the same opportunities in life. Anyone can get student loans and go to college or university. There is no excuse besides laziness. Even people with zero experience can get work doing landscaping labour or construction labour and work their way up. Happens all the time, sadly many people choose to sit on their backsides and collect free money. Free to them but certainly not free to the taxpayer. The average taxpayer only gets to keep about $0.46 per dollar they earn. We are over taxed yet the left wants to raise taxes even more so we can only keep around $0.39 per dollar earned. The left needs to learn to keep their hands off of our money. Work with what they have and stop expanding government and programs. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Molly Posted October 31, 2009 Report Share Posted October 31, 2009 I was just sitting here wondering to myself whether I had ever known anyone on welfare who I'd want to hire, at the time they were on it. Can't think of even one. Pretty well every last one had mental, physical or social/personal issues that made them literally unemployable at any price. None of them were in a good place in their lives, and none of them were living high. Dang, Yes, I have known one. She was working full-time, and doing odd jobs on the side. Welfare was topping up/ guaranteeing her income to what they'd pay to keep her and her family if she didnt have a job. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest TrueMetis Posted October 31, 2009 Report Share Posted October 31, 2009 I recall reading in a local newspaper about this single mother who had been on welfare since the birth of her 2 sons, 3 years ago... she explained with irrefragable logic that he previous employer (McDonalds "restaurants") used to pay her 9$ an hour... she could scarcely scrape up 900 a month after taxes... when she compared her current welfare "salary", she showed us that she was given 1450$ a month for her two kids, AND given free dental coverage for them, free eye wear prescriptions, free medication (her sons both had asthma) as well as a host of benefits not available to mere workingfolk. $1450 a month with kids is shit all. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
lictor616 Posted October 31, 2009 Report Share Posted October 31, 2009 $1450 a month with kids is shit all. 1450 for doing NOTHING AT ALL... is A LOT OF FREAKING DO... sorry... but you <re wrong. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest TrueMetis Posted October 31, 2009 Report Share Posted October 31, 2009 1450 for doing NOTHING AT ALL... is A LOT OF FREAKING DO... sorry... but you <re wrong. It's shit all actually, me and my brother spend way more than that a month and there's only two of us. Lictor how much money do you spend a month? Bet it's more than her. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
lictor616 Posted October 31, 2009 Report Share Posted October 31, 2009 If poor people cannot afford to raise their own kids then perhaps their children should be taken away at the hospital where they'll be put up for adoption to a family who can.Everybody is afforded the same opportunities in life. Anyone can get student loans and go to college or university. There is no excuse besides laziness. Even people with zero experience can get work doing landscaping labour or construction labour and work their way up. Happens all the time, sadly many people choose to sit on their backsides and collect free money. Free to them but certainly not free to the taxpayer. The average taxpayer only gets to keep about $0.46 per dollar they earn. We are over taxed yet the left wants to raise taxes even more so we can only keep around $0.39 per dollar earned. The left needs to learn to keep their hands off of our money. Work with what they have and stop expanding government and programs. the left won<t do that because they want to eliminate the middle class... precisely in the same way the Ukraine was stripped of its Kulak class... make no mistake this is all out communism we<re plunging into... the end goal is 100% income tax... that<s what the left is after... everyone should pay attention to this clip, it puts things into perspective: Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest TrueMetis Posted October 31, 2009 Report Share Posted October 31, 2009 If poor people cannot afford to raise their own kids then perhaps their children should be taken away at the hospital where they'll be put up for adoption to a family who can.Everybody is afforded the same opportunities in life. Anyone can get student loans and go to college or university. There is no excuse besides laziness. Even people with zero experience can get work doing landscaping labour or construction labour and work their way up. Happens all the time, sadly many people choose to sit on their backsides and collect free money. Free to them but certainly not free to the taxpayer. The average taxpayer only gets to keep about $0.46 per dollar they earn. We are over taxed yet the left wants to raise taxes even more so we can only keep around $0.39 per dollar earned. The left needs to learn to keep their hands off of our money. Work with what they have and stop expanding government and programs. Want to back that up with a source? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
lictor616 Posted October 31, 2009 Report Share Posted October 31, 2009 Want to back that up with a source? the onus should be on you TureMetis... you,re the one who needs to defend the opposing view... why so lazy? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
lictor616 Posted October 31, 2009 Report Share Posted October 31, 2009 It's shit all actually, me and my brother spend way more than that a month and there's only two of us. Lictor how much money do you spend a month? Bet it's more than her. are you serious? how could have failed to notice the main inescapable point: SHE DOES NOTHING TO EARN THAT 1450 a month... NOTHING: she sits on her ass all day and watches TV... USELESS! she should be getting: 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest TrueMetis Posted October 31, 2009 Report Share Posted October 31, 2009 are you serious? how could have failed to notice the main inescapable point: SHE DOES NOTHING TO EARN THAT 1450 a month... NOTHING: she sits on her ass all day and watches TV... USELESS! she should be getting: 0 You have zero evidence she does nothing all day. the onus should be on you TureMetis... you,re the one who needs to defend the opposing view... why so lazy? When you make a claim the onus is one you to prove it. So it's up to him to prove people only get to keep 0.46 cents of every dollar they earn. Just like your claim that she does nothing all day you have to prove it. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
lictor616 Posted October 31, 2009 Report Share Posted October 31, 2009 You have zero evidence she does nothing all day. being on welfare, she isn<t ALLOWED to work... or else that would be fraud... so no... she doesn<t do anything. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Shwa Posted October 31, 2009 Report Share Posted October 31, 2009 "Everybody is afforded the same opportunities in life." And interestingly enough, we have welfare to try and provide a measure of guarantee for that ideal otherwise it is simply not true. You have made a profoundly ironic statement there. "There is no excuse besides laziness." Nope. Maybe "irony" isn't the word I was looking for. Simpletonery. Is that even a word? It is now... Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
lictor616 Posted October 31, 2009 Report Share Posted October 31, 2009 When you make a claim the onus is one you to prove it. So it's up to him to prove people only get to keep 0.46 cents of every dollar they earn. Just like your claim that she does nothing all day you have to prove it. that<s a well known fact.. i<m amazed that you<re actually disputing that... http://lsminsurance.ca/calculators/canada/income-tax Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest American Woman Posted October 31, 2009 Report Share Posted October 31, 2009 are you serious? how could have failed to notice the main inescapable point: SHE DOES NOTHING TO EARN THAT 1450 a month... NOTHING: she sits on her ass all day and watches TV... USELESS! So even though she has kids to raise and a home to keep up, she does "nothing" all day;" NOTHING: she sits on her ass all day and watches TV. So if there's nothing to do at home, nothing to do with raising kids, what is Argus complaining about? How can it be "a big struggle to look after the kids and get things done at home with the long hours [he]/they work" when there's obviously NOTHING to do at home. They should be able to come home and just sit on their ass and watch TV, right? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Join the conversation
You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.
Note: Your post will require moderator approval before it will be visible.