Some Days I Hate My Job

[JCF]

Originally Posted by Nathans_Dad

Sorry, that's not an excuse. Stupidity is not an excuse, nor is ignorance.

If you are signing your name to a piece of paper that makes you responsible for hundreds of thousands of dollars of debt, it is YOUR job to make sure what you are signing. If you don't understand it, find or hire someone who does.

So why didn't you quote the next line ?????
I agree.

Do you not agree that predatory lending practices are also bad for those who do not sign on to the games they were playing ?

[Nathans_Dad]

I didn't quote the next line because I disagree with the statement.

Yes, the lenders should be held accountable and they are...their banks are failing. I'm not a fan of the bailout either.

Again, I come back to the bottom line being it is your ultimate responsibility to make your own choices. Agreed, some people are less able to make those choices, either through ignorance or lack of intelligence. That doesn't excuse them though. To me the ultimate responsibility rests with the person who signed their name on the dotted line.

[JCF]

Originally Posted by Nathans_Dad

I didn't quote the next line because I disagree with the statement.

Yes, the lenders should be held accountable and they are...their banks are failing. I'm not a fan of the bailout either.

Again, I come back to the bottom line being it is your ultimate responsibility to make your own choices. Agreed, some people are less able to make those choices, either through ignorance or lack of intelligence. That doesn't excuse them though. To me the ultimate responsibility rests with the person who signed their name on the dotted line.

This is getting a little off topic but it is a lot more interesting than restating what a big fat hypocrite Byron is.

But don't you see it is part of the whole statement ?
I'm not sure what kind of place you live in but stupid, irresponsible people seem to be everywhere.
Now that does not give them absolution from the stupid , irresponsible things they do - you don't need to keep repeating that . I agree with it - no matter how you cut it.
But it doesn't end there.
Stupid, irresponsible people are going to do stupid irresponsible things (that is what makes them stupid and irresponsible).

So if there are those who know that and use that knowledge to make money at the risk of hurting those of us who are not stupid and irresponsible but who have 401k's and other investments (realizing and accepting of course that there are no guarantees) and the economy tanks you can not just blame the little stupid irresponsible people. I would even go so far as to say they are the lesser of the two evils.
Those are OUR banks as well.
If the bankers and brokers said "no, you are too stupid and irresponsible so I will not give you this loan" - then there would be no place for them to sign.
If you give a stupid and irresponsible teenager that asks for them the keys to a 930 turbo then yes, it is the kids fault that the turbo lag sends him into a ditch - but it is AT LEAST AS MUCH the fault of the stupid irresponsible adult that can not forsee the consequences of HIS actions (of giving the kid the keys).
And since he is the one with the power to give or take , in my opinion he is MORE stupid and irresponsible.

Do you see my point ?

[Jeff Higgins]

Maybe it is time to reframe all of this for you "critical thinkers". While your discussion has been all over the map, veering off into all kinds of wild tangents, at the core this at least started out quite simply.

1) Byron announces one of his entertainers is in tax trouble and that the gubmint is screwing him.

2) Several of you jump all over him, trying to demonstrate he is guilty of applying a double standard. You suggest (demand?) that he treat this "tax cheat" in the same manner, with the same lack of compassion he has displayed for the rest of the "welfare class" many of us deride.

3) I suggest you may not have the whole story, and are unfairly jumping to conclusions. Some of you simply because you do not like Byron, but all of you because you insist there is no difference between Byron's friend and any other welfare recipient; regardless of circumstances, they are all the same.

4) I try to explain the difference between a one-time user of our programs designed to help folks when they fall on hard times, and other users who spend their lives - or at least very lengthy periods of time taking advantage of these programs.

5) Rick demands that I prove the latter even exist.

Seriously? And because I refuse to waste my time on such a pursuit, I "got nuthin'", and I'm "buggin' out"? Really? You guys honestly feel that way? Is there any one of you that can honestly say you have never heard of such people, and do not believe they exist? Wow. Just wow.

We are simply discussing points of view, are we not? I'm simply explaining to you lot why I would cut this guy a little more slack than I would for a life-long welfare rat. I believe you are trying to explain to me why you would not. Beyond that, I'm not sure where else this conversation is going, or where you all think it is going. So now I have to "prove" my feelings on a matter to you guys?

I have to say that the twists and turns of this discussion have made this one of the more bizarre threads in which I have participated. It really has been all over the map. Some of you clearly think it is some kind of a contest, that must have a "winner" and a "loser". You have headed off on all kinds of wild tangents, driven by some insatiable need to "win", or to prove the other side of the argument to be "wrong". Massive egos seem to have come to bear, in the finest PPOT fashion.

I'm sorry, but I just can't see where there is a "right" or "wrong" answer in this discussion. I don't see this discussion as some contest to prove which side has the more valid point of view. I have expressed my point of view, and the reasons I hold to it. I have expressed dismay over some of the lack of compassion I see here, and for the attacks I've seen on Byron. That's it, that's all. Some of you seem very much hell-bent on making this far more than that. Your egos seem to be at the heart of that.

[Nathans_Dad]

Originally Posted by JCF

This is getting a little off topic but it is a lot more interesting than restating what a big fat hypocrite Byron is.

But don't you see it is part of the whole statement ?
I'm not sure what kind of place you live in but stupid, irresponsible people seem to be everywhere.
Now that does not give them absolution from the stupid , irresponsible things they do - you don't need to keep repeating that . I agree with it - no matter how you cut it.
But it doesn't end there.
Stupid, irresponsible people are going to do stupid irresponsible things (that is what makes them stupid and irresponsible).

So if there are those who know that and use that knowledge to make money at the risk of hurting those of us who are not stupid and irresponsible but who have 401k's and other investments (realizing and accepting of course that there are no guarantees) and the economy tanks you can not just blame the little stupid irresponsible people. I would even go so far as to say they are the lesser of the two evils.
Those are OUR banks as well.
If the bankers and brokers said "no, you are too stupid and irresponsible so I will not give you this loan" - then there would be no place for them to sign.
If you give a stupid and irresponsible teenager that asks for them the keys to a 930 turbo then yes, it is the kids fault that the turbo lag sends him into a ditch - but it is AT LEAST AS MUCH the fault of the stupid irresponsible adult that can not forsee the consequences of HIS actions (of giving the kid the keys).
And since he is the one with the power to give or take , in my opinion he is MORE stupid and irresponsible.

Do you see my point ?

Yes, I understand that and agree that greater regulation is needed in the credit market. We disagree somewhat, however, in the fact that I believe a businesses job is to do whatever it can (legally of course) to grow the business.

Obviously there are exceptions, I am not advocating scam artists and the like. However, if the government mandated (which it did) that banks begin to give more loans to low income families and the bank then begins to give out those loans, I'm not sure how a significant proportion of the blame should fall on the bank when that loan defaults. I would put most of the blame on the consumer who signed up for a loan they knew they couldn't afford and on the government for being so short sighted as to think mandating loans to low income families would magically make them able to pay for it.

In short, to the point that stupid and irresponsible people have the ability to harm another person, yes the government should try and prevent that. To the extent they harm themselves? Well, that's their choice isn't it?

[Nathans_Dad]

Jeff that's a very long answer which didn't answer the question.

Please just provide one link that shows the existence of the established, lazy welfare class you refer to. I'm seriously curious to see if anyone has actually looked at this or if it is just one of those things we all assume actually exists.

BTW, I tried to google "lazy welfare" and got a lot of opinions, but not many facts.

[Jeff Higgins]

What makes you think I was answering you, Rick?

Rick, I just cannot believe you are serious. Long-term welfare dependancy has been pretty darn thoroughly studied. I simply cannot believe anyone could be unaware of the existence of long-term welfare recipients in our society. I mean, really? You really didn't know of them? How bizarre. So now I guess I will answer, although I'm still not sure why.

http://www.wsipp.wa.gov/rptfiles/Welftime.pdf

http://www.childtrendsdatabank.org/pdf/62_PDF.pdf

http://www.heritage.org/Research/welfare/BG1063.cfm

http://www.brookings.edu/media/NewsReleases/2002/20020924waller.aspx

http://www.urban.org/UploadedPDF/900527.pdf

http://www.urban.org/UploadedPDF/310559_DP02-10.pdf

http://www.sciencedirect.com/science?_ob=ArticleURL&_udi=B6VBF-4CFV5J6-2&_user=10&_rdoc=1&_fmt=&_orig=search&_sort=d&view=c&_version=1&_urlVersion=0&_userid=10&md5=a917d895a9d17cf6fbb306502a59c1db

I could go on and on ad nauseam. Just where on Earth are you going with this? I simply stated I tend to have more sympathy for, and will give more leeway to, some one who utilizes these programs to get out of a one-time bind than I would for some one who makes a habit of it. Do you think that is unreasonable? Or why else are you harping on this so? My god, you're like a dog chewing on an old slipper - you can't seem to let go. Now just what did this have to do with this discussion again? This is really getting weird...

[Jim Richards]

Originally Posted by Jeff Higgins

Maybe it is time to reframe all of this for you "critical thinkers". While your discussion has been all over the map, veering off into all kinds of wild tangents, at the core this at least started out quite simply.

1) Byron announces one of his entertainers is in tax trouble and that the gubmint is screwing him. Yes, he did

2) Several of you jump all over him, trying to demonstrate he is guilty of applying a double standard. You suggest (demand?) that he treat this "tax cheat" in the same manner, with the same lack of compassion he has displayed for the rest of the "welfare class" many of us deride. No, we chided him for blame shifting for his friend, but you know that and conveniently have ignored that. Or are you still having problems with critical thinking, Jeff?

3) I suggest you may not have the whole story, and are unfairly jumping to conclusions. Some of you simply because you do not like Byron, but all of you because you insist there is no difference between Byron's friend and any other welfare recipient; regardless of circumstances, they are all the same. Deflection. The friend's problems are not at issue. Byron's blame shifting to the evil government is the only issue.

4) I try to explain the difference between a one-time user of our programs designed to help folks when they fall on hard times, and other users who spend their lives - or at least very lengthy periods of time taking advantage of these programs. Irrelevant. The problem you keep ignoring is Byron's blame shifting. Isn't this against his core values?

5) Rick demands that I prove the latter even exist. Well, you make lots of wild unsubstantiated assertions.

Seriously? And because I refuse to waste my time on such a pursuit, I "got nuthin'", and I'm "buggin' out"? Really? You guys honestly feel that way? Is there any one of you that can honestly say you have never heard of such people, and do not believe they exist? Wow. Just wow.

Wow. Just wow.

Rick, you've gone off-topic, IMO, and that gives Jeff cover for his ridiculous assertions.

[Jeff Higgins]

Actually, Jim, if you had been paying attention, you would have noticed I discussed all of those issues on this thread already. All I'm trying to do at this point is address Rick's infatuation with the existence or non-existence of of a long-term welfare class.

Byron has not shifted the blame from his friend to the evil gubmint, as much as you would like to believe he has. He was clearly upset that the IRS is garnishing the man's wages, and that he would have to be the messenger delivering this bit of bad news. I think most of us would find it upsetting to be placed in that position. Maybe even to the point of wanting to vent a bit. But, and this is where you and your ilk seem to have lost touch, he never absolved his friend of his responsibilities. He never asserted the man should not pay what he owes. He did point out that his friend has been in a rather tough situation, but he did not do so with any implication that that situation should absolve him of his responsibility. Quite the contrary - he has made it abundantly clear that he believes his friend is obligated to pay. How did you miss that part?

Your ability to objectively read what he has been saying is quite obviously clouded by your dislike of him. You read into it what you dearly wish he said, taking all manner of license to add or subtract as necessary until it suits you. You have simply ignored anything he may have said that did not fit the image you have created for yourself, that of a man trying to shift blame from his friend to the gubmint. Tell you what, why don't you go back and re-read this thread, maybe more of it will sink in the second time around.

[stuartj]

Originally Posted by Jeff Higgins

I could go on and on ad nauseam.

For posterity.

[JCF]

Originally Posted by Jeff Higgins

Maybe it is time to reframe all of this for you "critical thinkers". While your discussion has been all over the map, veering off into all kinds of wild tangents, at the core this at least started out quite simply.

1) Byron announces one of his entertainers is in tax trouble and that the gubmint is screwing him.

2) Several of you jump all over him, trying to demonstrate he is guilty of applying a double standard. You suggest (demand?) that he treat this "tax cheat" in the same manner, with the same lack of compassion he has displayed for the rest of the "welfare class" many of us deride.

3) I suggest you may not have the whole story, and are unfairly jumping to conclusions. Some of you simply because you do not like Byron, but all of you because you insist there is no difference between Byron's friend and any other welfare recipient; regardless of circumstances, they are all the same.

4) I try to explain the difference between a one-time user of our programs designed to help folks when they fall on hard times, and other users who spend their lives - or at least very lengthy periods of time taking advantage of these programs.

5) Rick demands that I prove the latter even exist.

Seriously? And because I refuse to waste my time on such a pursuit, I "got nuthin'", and I'm "buggin' out"? Really? You guys honestly feel that way? Is there any one of you that can honestly say you have never heard of such people, and do not believe they exist? Wow. Just wow.

We are simply discussing points of view, are we not? I'm simply explaining to you lot why I would cut this guy a little more slack than I would for a life-long welfare rat. I believe you are trying to explain to me why you would not. Beyond that, I'm not sure where else this conversation is going, or where you all think it is going. So now I have to "prove" my feelings on a matter to you guys?

I have to say that the twists and turns of this discussion have made this one of the more bizarre threads in which I have participated. It really has been all over the map. Some of you clearly think it is some kind of a contest, that must have a "winner" and a "loser". You have headed off on all kinds of wild tangents, driven by some insatiable need to "win", or to prove the other side of the argument to be "wrong". Massive egos seem to have come to bear, in the finest PPOT fashion.

I'm sorry, but I just can't see where there is a "right" or "wrong" answer in this discussion. I don't see this discussion as some contest to prove which side has the more valid point of view. I have expressed my point of view, and the reasons I hold to it. I have expressed dismay over some of the lack of compassion I see here, and for the attacks I've seen on Byron. That's it, that's all. Some of you seem very much hell-bent on making this far more than that. Your egos seem to be at the heart of that.

In case you were pointing this partially at my digression I was not out to "win" , just be sure I was clearly understood by Nathans_Dad.
I respect his right to have a different opinion (as I already stated)
Though it is not far off the topic.
Things happen - they are more complicated than black vs. white.
People who try to over simplify them - are simple minded.

As for the rest of your rant...

Maybe you need to read a few of BVD's old posts with a less "he's with us" attitude and maybe you would see why there are those of us who think has no credibility to be asking us to give a damn about his feelings.

[Nathans_Dad]

Jeff,

I wasn't questioning the existence of a long term welfare class. I was questioning your assertion that all those people are simply lazy.

Just clarifying.

[Porsche_monkey]

Originally Posted by Racerbvd

More of the government screwing the little guy.

Had Byron posted the same information, without the line shown above, this thread would now be on page 12. He turned a sad personal story into a political argument, likely by accident.

Byron I feel sorry for your friend, but I simply don't see your friend being screwed.

[mossguy]

Originally Posted by Porsche_monkey

Had Byron posted the same information, without the line shown above, this thread would now be on page 12. He turned a sad personal story into a political argument, likely by accident.

.

Or by habit?

[Porsche_monkey]

Byron is a long time poster that I have no issue with, other than too many cat photo's.

I will give him the benefit of the doubt, he was likely pissed off when he typed it. I suspect that in hindsight he knows how the system works.

[mossguy]

Originally Posted by Porsche_monkey

I will give him the benefit of the doubt, he was likely pissed off when he typed it. I suspect that in hindsight he knows how the system works.

Agreed. My comment was tongue-in-cheek.

Tom

[JCF]

Originally Posted by Porsche_monkey

Byron is a long time poster that I have no issue with, other than too many cat photo's.

I will give him the benefit of the doubt, he was likely pissed off when he typed it. I suspect that in hindsight he knows how the system works.

I like the cat photos.

[Porsche_monkey]

Originally Posted by mossguy

Agreed. My comment was tongue-in-cheek.

Tom

I am quite stupid, I did not realize that. Seriously.

[Christien]

Originally Posted by Jeff Higgins

So now I guess I will answer, although I'm still not sure why.

http://www.wsipp.wa.gov/rptfiles/Welftime.pdf

http://www.childtrendsdatabank.org/pdf/62_PDF.pdf

http://www.heritage.org/Research/welfare/BG1063.cfm

http://www.brookings.edu/media/NewsReleases/2002/20020924waller.aspx

http://www.urban.org/UploadedPDF/900527.pdf

http://www.urban.org/UploadedPDF/310559_DP02-10.pdf

http://www.sciencedirect.com/science?_ob=ArticleURL&_udi=B6VBF-4CFV5J6-2&_user=10&_rdoc=1&_fmt=&_orig=search&_sort=d&view=c&_version=1&_urlVersion=0&_userid=10&md5=a917d895a9d17cf6fbb306502a59c1db

At the risk of propagating the off-topic-ness of this off-topic thread, I read through those, and while there's a fair bit of information in there, not one had a credible source that actually discussed the percentage of welfare recipients that were long-term, or what those numbers represent as a percentage of the whole population. Now I did only skim through them quickly, but could not find this data. If it's in there, I missed it. The only one that mentioned actual numbers (http://www.heritage.org/Research/welfare/BG1063.cfm) was from a clearly biased source that did not cite its data, beyond a vague reference stating "all data is from this other book".

I think the question Rick might be raising is, is the number of lazy long-term welfare bums actually statistically significant? Are there really that many that abuse the system? Of course there are *some*, nobody will argue that there are literally no abusers. But if the number of welfare recipients that are actually long-term, lazy welfare bums is, say, 2% (of all welfare recipients, not the total population), then I don't think it's worth doing anything about. A gov't will spend far more in resources trying to get rid of them than they will just allowing them to coast. Sure, it's an aggravation, but why through good money after bad?

[Jeff Higgins]

Originally Posted by Christien

I think the question Rick might be raising is, is the number of lazy long-term welfare bums actually statistically significant? Are there really that many that abuse the system? Of course there are *some*, nobody will argue that there are literally no abusers. But if the number of welfare recipients that are actually long-term, lazy welfare bums is, say, 2% (of all welfare recipients, not the total population), then I don't think it's worth doing anything about. A gov't will spend far more in resources trying to get rid of them than they will just allowing them to coast. Sure, it's an aggravation, but why through good money after bad?

Christian, at the very real risk of sounding glib or impertinent, let me say this: I could give a shyte. None of that has anything whatsoever to do with anything on this thread. I mean, c'mon - Geezus H. Christ, all I did was say I would be inclined to give Byron's friend more benefit of the doubt than I would a long-term welfare rat. Somehow, that evolved into Rick demanding proof that such even exists, followed quickly by Jim's typically unimaginative, disingenuous "me too! me too!" when he didn't even know what the hell was going on. This disputed existence of a long-term welfare population somehow took on a life of its own, and for the life of me, I still don't understand why Rick harped on it so. Again, I only mentioned that I would be inclined to cut Byron's friend a bit more slack than some one who had been on the public dole for an extended period of time.