And they say socialists are idealists! ;) Besides, strong morals != abstinence before marriage.

Also, there are married people who are poor as well as single moms. And single moms who are divorced.

To say it was hypothetical would be an understatement. I don't think our conversation is really relevant to those that are just poor and barely making it (I've been there), it's more about those who are too lazy to work, and just milk the system.

To an extent you could apply the morals comment to the single mothers, as well as divorced ones, but I don't think judging people on their mistakes is right, it's how you deal with them that matters.

I think that it all boils down to the fact that there just really is no good solution.

Personally, if I was dictator (couldn't do it as President), I'd be all over genetic research, and try to make people not able to have kids *without* taking pills or being on the shot. Make them get licenses.

Basic violation of human right? Yeah, I guess so, but it's not like the current alternative is fair either. I don't think I could afford a kid right now, it'd be possible, but tight. Yet if I had 5% of my taxes back, hmm, that makes it easier.

I even know that my way wouldn't work. Even if it was a simple process to get a "baby license" and get the shot or whatever it ends up being, the system would get corrupted, people that deserved it wouldn't get it, people who didn't would make it work through the black market, etc.

As far as society as a whole, if there was a system like this, and two people came in and wanted to have a baby, but couldn't afford it, yet both worked hard and took responsibility, I'd have no problem shelling out some money to help them. The child of loving hardworking parents isn't likely to stay in the same cycle that we see now. Oddly enough, these are the people that receive very little help.

Right now I have several friends in their late-20s to early-30s. Many are married, a couple have a child. They are professionals with good jobs, high intelligence, live good lives, etc. Half or more of them don't ever want kids, about a third want one, and the rest two to four. Take that and balance it with the people on welfare that are commonly having 4+ kids, who unfortunately enough don't break the cycle, and where does the country end up in 200 years?

Well, done with the rant for now, I usually try to stay out of this stuff, makes me sound like Hitler, and that's completely not the intention. But it definately bugs me, and I like reading converstaions and opinions about it from time to time.

Now for my other tirade, the thing about morals.

I'd like to completely agree that if everyone had morals and waited until marriage, that things would be better.

On the other hand, that doesn't really make practical sense.

I come from an extremely strict religious background, and sex before marriage actually did occur very rarely. Nobody lived together before getting married obviously either.

The problem with this is that from 17 on, everyone was in a rush to get married. Courtships often lasted for 3-6 months before the wedding, and even in 6 months, there was usually only a handful of hours that the couple could spend together to get to know each other. (Outside of the phone or something)

This fosters a couple of things. 1.) Couples getting married too soon, and ending up miserable a couple years into it, and raising kids in a less than stellar environment. and 2.) Divorces, also messing up the kids. (Usually number 1 happened, because divorces were extremely frowned upon)

By the time most people made it to 25, either the good girls were gone because they were snatched up at 18, or they were single mothers or single with baggage heaped on from the divorce.

Better morals would sure help a lot, and I keep my potential for making a baby to committed relationships (but before the point of marriage), but waiting until after marriage at all isn't the end-all be-all.

Disclaimer: I don't have any kids, but I was married young and divorced, a lot of it to do with family situations and all of this stuff.

What exactly was the racist comment(s) in his article? You've got to be kidding me. He actually said racism still exists (if you had bothered to read the whole thing) but that legally we were all on equal footing now. That the equal right movemnet is OVER for the blacks as the HAVE equal rights. That's racist? WTF? Some days I am at a complete and total loss.

Anybody can have kids, but you have to take a test and get a license to drive. My sister and her fiance work at a school where, yesterday, a 13 year-old student attempted suicide. She failed. She clearly wanted attention (told the teacher about swallowing 20 xxxxxx pills, before they took effect). She loves school (the suicide girl does). The teachers are the adults in the world who are most interested in the girl. The parents are not.

ML- if you were take the reverse and go back 200 years into the family trees of all of your intelligent, hard working friends, you might find a few dummies and lay-abouts. I have known more than a few "rich kids" - whose parents had something going on but were absolute morons.. Darwinism plays all kinds of tricks.

That being said, not eveyone on welfare has 4 kids and a lot of yuppies who "dont want kids" change their minds as they get older.. You will see.. :eek:

Sure racism exists - however it's not in this article. You must've saw the word "Black" and the rest went downhill. I don't understand how you can get "racist" out of an article that attempts to outline a plan for self - reliance? Because it's aimed at Black readers and written by a Black man? I tend to see this as a positive thing. Cultural pride perhaps? An affinity to help those you identify with suceed? Probably. Either way, it's a good thing.

I guess it would've been perfectly allright if he instead wasted his ink bashing "the system" right?

rjp

Yeah, I know you're right, things always flip back and forth, and there is an exception to every rule, often the exception proves the rule.

Also, I've had friends that have had to use Welfare for a time to get back on their feet, but they pulled out. I was referring more to the chronic / lifetime "offenders", of which I've known several that were plenty capable of working.

How to put this?

My wife and have been married a year, we dated for 6 years prior to that. Both raised in very traditional households, still, shall we say, we took "the car" for a few test drives before marriage. While still in college, we used no less than three contraceptive methods. After college, we went to two. Now, being married, we're down to one.

My wife works at a contract call center (at least for another week and a half). They pay the people on the floor (the ones who take calls) minimum wage. It amazes me how many of these people have kids, and how few are married. One never-married woman has two kids with two different fathers, and is pregnant by a third man. Several of the males have multiple kids with different women.

Why does this happen? There is no stigma to having attached to their situations. If my wife and I had had a kid before marriage, there would have been talk about us in each of our families until our deaths. We took precautions because of the social stigma we would have endured.

People are quick to violate laws, they are very reluctant to violate social conventions.

Looks like this is going to be a wild night for weather here also. This popped up within the last hour totally by surprise.
http://forums.pelicanparts.com/uploa...1115846103.gif

Yesterday afternoon my girlfriend's dad watched a tornado cut through his soybean field, and the day before that he saw one forming a mile from their house.

I saw a HUGE one on the news in NE, looks like you guys, as well as Northern KS are going to get it today, here in Wichita we have to wait until tomorrow. They are predicting long lived and powerful tornados, yippie!

Man, look at this crazyness:
http://iwin.nws.noaa.gov/iwin/ne/allwarnings.html

I lost count of how many tornado warnings... right now three neighboring counties around me have warnings. I'm about to start moving my crap into the basement :D

So many things in this thread. so little time.

a) single mothers on welfare - its the cliche, isn't it? Does anyone actually have any idea what percentage of people on welfare are actually abusing the system? The stats I've seen for New Zealand (and we have a much more generous system) are that it is pretty minimal, and that is measuring it in the least accurate way (percentage of people remaining on welfare for long periods of time). I guess all I want to get across is that it is pretty easy to say "worthless people on welfare" but not everyone on welfare is worthless, and those that meet somebody else's definition of worthless (personally, I'm pretty uncomfortable with that term) are, I would guess, not material.

b) single parents with kids earning a low amount of money - once the kid is there, I'm guessing you're screwed. In between trying to raise a kid(s) alone AND work, I would expect that for the majority of single parents (and even many low income married couples) the concept of continued education and career advancement is somewhat of a dream. It is simple economics to state that the pay rate for minimum wage, unskilled jobs will increase by only around the rate the economy grows. Often, these jobs are hard work.

Having said that, I'm not sure what the solution is - the thing I'm most uncomfortable about with governments redistributing income is NOT that it takes away from me and gives to someone "worthless". My problem is that it compresses income levels at the bottom of the range and effectively subsidises certain products and services (those performed by low income workers). This is inefficient.

c) Racism measured by access or outcomes - highest level, minorities are relatively poor. Digging down, adjusting for other factors, minorities may be approximately as poor as non (poor people are equal?). These are the "outcomes". The "access" might be slanted the other way (more access to minorities) to outcomes. At the highest level, there is an outcome problem. So what is the proper measure - access or outcomes?

Not sure I made much of a point in most of that. But who cares :D

Am I confused or what? Since both work hard and are responsible and can not afford a pregnancy it seems to me the question is answered. Since when was it ever the responsibility of government to impose a tax burden on those that can pay so that those that are too stupid, lazy, or ignorant can breed indiscriminately. As for the imaginary couple? Under the current situation they can freely choose to have children and force me to pay for it so what difference does it really matter?

Cam Cam Cam. It's not about truth or compassion or effectiveness. Calling welfare recipients "deadbeats" achieves the desired effect. These are selfish people being fueled by opportunistic politicians and talk show performers. It is absolutely imperative that these people ignore you, and continue to characterize welfare recipents as freeloaders. To not do so would necessitate accepting responsibility and solving the actual problems. That's much more difficult and expensive than throwing stones.

How is living off of someone else's money not freeloading?

I'm sure I didn't explain it the way it is in my head. The difference between now and the imaginary situation is that you could only do it if you were holding down jobs and attempting to do the best you could, vs. getting knocked up because you were drunk, or 14 year olds having babies.

It's just a slight attempt to prevent it from becoming impossible to have a child unless you were middle-class or better, and make it not so bad in the human rights department.

Like I said though, that's what would happen anyway, since such a system would never really work in the really real world.

Edit: and by assistance to those people, I don't particularly mean just cutting a check, that inevitably leads to having more kids to get more money, which would be strictly disallowed (this imaginary world is a dictatorship on a purely inaccessible island of course), and assitance could be provided in the form of subsidized housing or utilities or something.

So if you take someone who is physically able to hold a job, yet unwilling to, someone who takes welfare not because of a need, but because of laziness. Someone who fakes an injury, or has multiple children to increase the amount of their monthly government check. Someone who makes no contribution to society, only lives off of the taxes of those that do work hard for their money, like a leach on it's host. I think worthless is possibly too generous a label.

I have seen it in person, I'm not repeating something I have seen on TV, and it royally pisses me off when I'm working manual labor, 40 hours a week, for $8 an hour, and I know that a portion of my paycheck is going to fund the guy with the "bad back" to go drag racing and boating. So how am I not accepting responsibility?

Do some people deserve welfare or disability? Yes, probably 1% of them from what I've seen.

True story....

I knew some people that were on welfare and had 6 kids. They lived in a smallish 3 bedroom apartment and wanted to move.

I honestly heard them talking about whether one more kid would be enough more money for them to get a bigger place so the kids wouldn't have to be quite so tight in the small place.

The husband was perfectly capable of finding a job, we lived in a pretty bad community for work, but he was too picky about what he wanted to do, and was unwilling to clean up his apperance (always very unkempt) to look good for an interview.

No, not everyone is the problem, but when this is the kind of people several of us have had experience with, it tends to push us a bit towards not being sympathetic.

Right on!

I don't care if the article was left or right, it makes sense.

Let me tell you a story...

A man and his wife come to America with 7 kids, the oldest not old enough to work and the youngers just a few years old. No one speaks English. The man takes a janatorial job that pays just above minimum wage. The women takes a minimum wage job that she has to be "bused" to because she has no car. The charge to be "bused" to her job takes a big chunk out of her daily earning.

With hard work, determination, help from welfare and help from family and friends, the family can just make it by. Eventually, the family is off welfare, can afford a car for the father, then a car for the mother, then kids get old enough to work and contribute. The family eventually can afford to buy a house. Kids go off to college, get married, etc...

25 yrs after coming to America, both the man and women still work. The man at the same job for almost 25 yrs. They still own a house, have 3 cars, happy children and grand children....in a few months the man will retire as a citizen of the US with a pension and will draw on Social Security. He's active in his community and with a national political party (I won't tell you which). The woman will continue to work until she hits retirement age.

If you don't think there was resistance or hurdles based on race or ethnicity for that family along the way ...you will never understand. Yet, I don't read anything in Williams article that indicates a racist message.

I suppose folks from different background will get a different message from the article, but I hope common sense is...well common in the readers. I suppose that's what my father would say. He'll deserve retirement in a few months....

Supe, do you honestly think that the present welfare system helps turn the MAJORITY of welfare recipients into responsible people? Do you think that the comments in the letter above are all wrong? I do not think the majority of conservatives are calling for doing away with all public assistance, but the current system just plain sucks, it rewards and promotes a lazy, irresponsible lifestyle. If you cannot see that then you have blinders on.

This has nothing to do with racism,but I feel that all resale mark-ups are another form of welfare. Given we all need retail points of purchace, but how many times have you seen that resale is the largest profit taker of manufactured goods including farming. I'm sure some economist/sales rep will chime in stating the necessity of retail sales and try to justify
their position
J/M .02c

Souk, your story is about personal responsibility, AND welfare, AND having good friends, AND having family which contributes. Those are important factors.

Now, back to this:

They could become contributing members to society and hence are not worthless. No-one is worthless.

Prove to me that more than 0.1% of the population is living off the system long term AND doing so because of laziness and I'll have some sympathy for your arguments.

And on that note -

A lot of mfg's use that form of distribution to the general public for several reasons

1- sharing of costs with marketing

2- sharing of product liability

3- another way to guarantee return on production through contracts

4- allows multiple points of distribution - saving on costs, all the way around.

Another way of viewing a retailer is not as a vendor for a chosen item but more as a sophisticated marketing service. A manufacturer puts it there, and the salespeople / marketers expend the time and the energy to make guys like us all understand.

Believe me, I'm coming from a sales and marketing background. If there was a way that the manufacturers could eliminate retail and still make it profitable - they would.

rjp

Many, if not most of us, were not/ are not middle class and choosing to have children in a responsible manner. Twenty-four years ago I worked 70-80 hours 7 days a week to pay for my son's birth and associated care. He's a college student today and like the Ever Ready bunny the bills continue. As far as the imaginary couple is concerned, maybe having children just isn't something they can afford but maybe at a later time.

best you can come up with Lendaddy? - someone else's personal insults - how about sticking to the subject matter? - rather than acting like a spoiled schoolboy.

Sure, I'll just start going door to door, across the nation. Of course, I couldn't just ask, because no one would admit to scamming the system, so I'd have to observe them for a week or so to see if their activities are consistent with their claimed disability. I'll get back to you in about two thousand years.:rolleyes:

I feel that I was being very generous with my 1% comment, because in my personal experience, 100% of the people that I have came into contact with that are on welfare or disability are taking advantage of the system. All were capable of working, and actually most of them had side jobs that paid in cash, in order for them to avoid having to report the income, and therefore forfit their government benefits. In the four years I worked in the mobile home park, I had probably the most contact with the welfare cases, we often ended up making repairs to their homes pro-bono to keep them within standards of decency. I admit that I am negative about welfare and disability as a whole, but of all the people that have responded to this thread that have personally been in contact with the system, how many had something positive to say?

One of my favorite stories was told by a guy I work with that had a civil case in state court in Topeka. His case was being heard on the same day as the disability appeals, and as he parked, the man parked in front of him got out of his car and RAN across the street and up the courthouse stairs. When he hit the door he developed a prononced limp, and lo and behold, he walked into the courtroom that was having the welfare hearings.:rolleyes:

Randy,
Not trying to eliminate the retailer, as noted, just trying to point out that the mark up on resale is not justified. Professional marketing , give me a break.. just another avenue for the MBA's to justify 4 years of college in the art of resale profit greed.
I'm saying that a growing proportion of the business grads are in profit taking and at a unjustified level compared to the labor force. Education does not give licence to take advantage of people although I must admit, capitalism is based on it. A good example is the 7% commission realtors take on home sales. On a $200,000. home that's 14k for what ... paradeing a couple of people through and closeing. It's highly unlikely the guy's who actually built the home, taking months, made that kind of profit. It's not uncommon to see 50-100% markup on industrial parts just to cover "overhead". We can debate what is really nessary but when all things considered, the bulk of profit should go to those that created/crafted the product.

Tim

Believe me, if price is what drove sales and volume, then top line (retail) wouldn't exist. That being said, is it price, or is it value that drives people to buy?

What determines fair? Whether or not the guy sititing on the other end of the table can survive for less? What about risk? The guy that's gotta put the money up front to build the house? If it doesn't sell, he doesnt eat. He hires a Realtor to sell it - just to be sure it sells. If you don't buy, the sales guy doesn't eat. If that happens, then the market corrects itself through attrition or re packaging.

What I mean is that selling an item to the general public is a lot harder than most think it is, that's why the business is what it is. If you don't see the value then you don't buy. Now, how do you find a way to make it a value? Well, there you go - sales force.

As I said before, if there was a way that they guy who made the product could handle the risk, and sell to the end consumer without the middleman (sales) they would. Historically, that never works out though.

Parting words - It ain't the price that's gonna close 'em, it's the value.

Just my $ .02.

rjp

\

Hey Cat, don't forget me... I was the one who thought of it first. Anytime I see your name I automatically think of that post....

rjp

Randy,
Agreed totally, but ...The argument is this, why is resale taking the lions share of the profit? There is not a lot of risk selling food/cars , or houses. How many times have I /you sat down celebrating in some high end resturant with a healthy bonus from some sale, and said ...maybe we should get the crew a pizza party for this?

I wouldn't be sure about who's making the most - I've always believed everything is priced according to what they can get away with - what we're told ain't always the truth unfortunately. A true, commission only salesperson comes to work, answers the phones, does the dirty work all for free - until they sell something - Hunger is a big risk and a great motivator.

Just like you I do believe in sharing the wealth wherever I go - when I land something good everyone gets a piece - whether it's lunch or booze, whatever -a little grease keeps me in the front of the line whenever I need something!

rjp:cool:

Matt

I tried to figure out the number, and gave up... hence I handed it over to you.

What I did find was something (reputable) which suggested that less than 2% of the population "depend" on welfare (more that 75% of family income from welfare) and that only around 20% of people on welfare are long term (>5 years).

It is pretty bad statistical practice to multiply those numbers to get the number of those dependent on welfare in the long term, but I'm gonna do it. That makes 0.4%. Given that includes people who may genuinely be unable to work, and a degree of solo parents for whom a job isn't necessarily the best choice (I believe that, because I believe in parenting), then maybe my 0.1% on welfare out of laziness isn't far off.

Seriously, being on welfare long term would suck. Sure, you don't have to work, but as you've noticed you do have to live in a trailer park and do cash work to make ends meet. For a certain bad apple percentage of the population, this is apparently acceptable. I'm happy to see a minor level of abuse and have a functioning welfare system for those who need it.

Why is it that I can accept that some soldiers do bad things in war, but few soldiers are bad people, yet many conservatives can't accept that most on welfare need it, and only a few are screwing the system?

I can't provide an educated argument to your numbers Cameron, I only know what I have seen in my little microcosm of life in the mobile home park. I'm sure they're out there, somewhere, but if I'm going to do research I could be studying for finals.

Fair enough - I couldn't be bothered either.

Its not really fair to judge all welfare recipients based on a sample from a trailer park.

The numberts are much greater. they are only low because of the way they "define" welfare.

I got data from your govt, but the site is non-functioning, so I had to use the wayback machine:

http://web.archive.org/web/20040722025943/http://aspe.hhs.gov/hsp/indicators03/

Specifically, chapter 2

If this misses out other classes of welfare, I apologise.

It is based on percentage of income received from TANF (or ADFC prior to that), food stamps and SSI. I decided over 75% was a suitable number (because everyone assumes those on welfare don''t work at all). (see the first table under "Indicator 1. Degree of Dependence" for the 2% total figure).

I got 20% as "long term" from "Indicator 10. Long-Term Receipt".

You all have convinced me. All those welfare recipients are worthless. Let's just round them up and euthanize them.

Not even remotely close to what we're saying. {damn I need some better emoticons} :)