DEBATE TIME. Welfare

[bassfiend316]

Whoa, 12 months no hassle unemployment? Most people run out in about 6-8 months around here. I don't see why anybody should get a grace period before they have to look for work. I mean, if that's the case, why not take a year off, then work for 3 months to build it back up, then take another year?

I think 2 weeks is more than enough "lazy time." If you need work, but wait a YEAR to even look, that's a huge problem. Sadly, that's how most people look at it anymore. Why work for money when you can get it for free?

I think you're confused between welfare and unemployment... You mean to tell me a chick that just had a kid should be on the job hunt 2 weeks later? Comon now...

On a related note, if you think 10k a year = a year off I guess I need to move to Kansas. Seriously, when I was on unemployment my pay dropped something ridiculous. You're far better off working which is the point.

Then take maternity leave. I know some jobs don't have it, but not a year. A friend of mine spent a week recovering after having her baby before she went job hunting. 3 days later she was working at kohls.

Where did 10k=a year come from? You lost me on that one. I said most people here run out of unemployment about 6-8 months in. You said 12 months of unemployment no questions asked, before you should have to say you're looking. Btw, all you have to do now is call on whatever day of the week (the day depends on your last name) and say you tried. That's basically no questions asked lol

Edit- I see now. In kansas it takes 90 days to be eligible for unemployment. But again, its easy to abuse. Almost as soon as you file, you get paid. If the employer tries to fight it, you get paid through the hearing, and if you get denied, you have to pay it back. Which, in turn, screws up the person even more...

[Bakerman]

I agree 98% with what you're saying. This is actually something I discussed with my parents before. Yes, I do hold discussions with my parents. lol

I'm not even saying you have to actually hold a job to get welfare. Just show me some signs of TRYING to get one, and I'd be content.

I have an issue with the baby momma who has children just so she can collect a check and will sit home all day watching Maury Povich. I'm sorry, but there needs to be a line drawn somewhere.

The hard part is, how do you cut the parent off while still keeping the kid in a decent standard of living? You kill the shitty mom's welfare check, the kid is going to starve as well. Do we punish the kid because they happen to have a shit mom?

So, IDK if this has been reply'd to, as I don't feel like catching up on 1xx posts, but I just wanna say this.

This is what social services are for. First of all, the mom shouldn't be relying on welfare ALONE to feed the child. First thing first, she SHOULD be getting child support. And after all is said and done, the state won't take the check and let the child starve...they will EPC that child.

[bassfiend316]

Whoa, 12 months no hassle unemployment? Most people run out in about 6-8 months around here. I don't see why anybody should get a grace period before they have to look for work. I mean, if that's the case, why not take a year off, then work for 3 months to build it back up, then take another year?

I think 2 weeks is more than enough "lazy time." If you need work, but wait a YEAR to even look, that's a huge problem. Sadly, that's how most people look at it anymore. Why work for money when you can get it for free?

If you pay in to unemployment (which I do) then you should be able to take it when you need it... I'm not going to work for 6/hr, when I make 36/hr just because my job (skilled trade) doesn't have any work right now... Lazy time? LMAO you're a trip...

I think you have shit mixed up man...

Like I said, I know very little about your career. I was just curious. But people around here on unemployment are the ones who worked for 6 months, then try to drain their unemployment dry before they start to look for work. They use their unemployment for stupid shit, then try to blame the government for getting evicted. They are NOT trying to learn a new trade that they can find work in.

I understand I pay into my own unemployment fund, but so do all my previous employers if I were to file. Being a small business owner, it makes it tough paying someone who worked for you in the past to sit around doing nothing. My old boss was paying roughly $3k each month because of all the unemployed ex employees.

[Jd1102]

I cannot for the life of me understand why as a nation (any nation, not just this one) you would not want to take care of your people.

i am only interested in helping someone who is atleast willing to attempt to help his or her self, or is completely unable, such as sensai' example. if someone is just being lazy and only wants welfare so they dont have to work, them i say fuck 'em, let them starve to death in the street.

i am from the old school southern mindset of earning your keep.

I agree. I didn't mean handouts. I am speaking totally of people who NEED help. And when I said nation, I didn't necessarily mean government, actually I would prefer it stay out of their hands. I just know that I want to live in a place (be it a community, city, town, state, ect..) where people who NEED help get it. A woman's husband is killed at work, so the town gets together and supports her. There is more to helping needy people than giving them money. Donating time and labor to her (or whoever) can be a HUGE help to someone that needs it. Lawn needs mowed? Done. Change the oil in the car? Done. Those are simple, but hopefully I got the point across. That is more on a community level but if that was happening everywhere there wouldn't be much need of a big welfare type system.

I am from the same southern mindset of earning your keep also, but what if you bust your ass and something happens out of your control? Are you just shit out of luck? I can't imagine anyone thinking that. Again, help someone get back to the point where they can take care of themselves.

How about making big companies put a percentage of they're profit from every quarter into a fund to use as a stimulus package or pay back our debts to other countries? just a thought?

Hell no. So profit being what you make after all your expenses (including TAXES) and you think they should pay again?

u misunderstood me. im sayin on a precentage that if you make 100 dollars a week and pay 13% you pay 13 dollars in taxes but if you make 100,000 a week and pay 13% then you pay 13,000 same rate of taxes just if you make more u pay more

How do you justify making someone give more of their money away JUST because they made more? Our system is supposed to support people being able to make money, or at least support the ability to make money on their own. If we come up with a system that TAKES more money the more you make then the incentive to make money (AKA have an economy) goes away.

if you think a fair tax isn't fair what is?

edit: pay less taxes if you make more or pay some same number that poor ppl can't afford so no one would work the job. like the ppl at bars fast food no one would work there if you made any other way unless you like the f'd up way it is now where the rich are the only ones that get loopholes and such. and the rich pay less than the own gardeners you think that is fair?

[MrSkippyJ]

if you think a fair tax isn't fair what is?

edit: pay less taxes if you make more or pay some same number that poor ppl can't afford so no one would work the job. like the ppl at bars fast food no one would work there if you made any other way unless you like the f'd up way it is now where the rich are the only ones that get loopholes and such. and the rich pay less than the own gardeners you think that is fair?

I never said the current system worked and just because you call it a fair tax doesn't mean it's fair. The current system is fucked, I agree. However, making someone pay more just because they make more isn't any better. The obvious answer is to cut spending, so less taxes are needed. Get rid of programs we don't need and stop making government a way for politicians to get rich.

[Jd1102]

if you think a fair tax isn't fair what is?

edit: pay less taxes if you make more or pay some same number that poor ppl can't afford so no one would work the job. like the ppl at bars fast food no one would work there if you made any other way unless you like the f'd up way it is now where the rich are the only ones that get loopholes and such. and the rich pay less than the own gardeners you think that is fair?

I never said the current system worked and just because you call it a fair tax doesn't mean it's fair. The current system is fucked, I agree. However, making someone pay more just because they make more isn't any better. The obvious answer is to cut spending, so less taxes are needed. Get rid of programs we don't need and stop making government a way for politicians to get rich.

i agree with that but there will always be a need for some spending without a even percent how could u ever possibly make it fair???

[MrSkippyJ]

if you think a fair tax isn't fair what is?

edit: pay less taxes if you make more or pay some same number that poor ppl can't afford so no one would work the job. like the ppl at bars fast food no one would work there if you made any other way unless you like the f'd up way it is now where the rich are the only ones that get loopholes and such. and the rich pay less than the own gardeners you think that is fair?

I never said the current system worked and just because you call it a fair tax doesn't mean it's fair. The current system is fucked, I agree. However, making someone pay more just because they make more isn't any better. The obvious answer is to cut spending, so less taxes are needed. Get rid of programs we don't need and stop making government a way for politicians to get rich.

i agree with that but there will always be a need for some spending without a even percent how could u ever possibly make it fair???

There will always be spending, of course. We DO need a federal government and they have to get funding somehow. What it is now is a mockery of what it is supposed to be.

Why isn't it possible to reduce the spending to an amount that every citizen can split evenly?

Lets just say there is 200 million working age people in the US. If everyone paid $1000 in taxes, that is like 2 trillion or so. I KNOW this is overly simplified, but couldn't it be possible to govern a county with 2 trillion dollars a year of funding? That way everyone would pay equal money, not equal percent. Maybe $1000 isn't enough but you get the idea. Either that or let the people who pay more have more say in what the money gets used for.

[BassJunkie]

First off...im not going to read through 4 pages of replies at this time.

I agree with sensai, we should have a system for people who need it. In order to get in this system you should have to be actively seeking employment (if you're able to) and be able to pass a urinalysis.

It should be setup like the "food stamps" in my opinion. You should not be cut a check that you can cash at a bank, you should be given a prepaid card for all your necessities. If you can't use a 'visa' card to buy something you absolutely need, then you more than likely do not need it. The only thing I can think of that you absolutely need cash for is drugs and gambling. There are ways around this method but there will always be someone slipping through the cracks.

[Jd1102]

if you think a fair tax isn't fair what is?

edit: pay less taxes if you make more or pay some same number that poor ppl can't afford so no one would work the job. like the ppl at bars fast food no one would work there if you made any other way unless you like the f'd up way it is now where the rich are the only ones that get loopholes and such. and the rich pay less than the own gardeners you think that is fair?

I never said the current system worked and just because you call it a fair tax doesn't mean it's fair. The current system is fucked, I agree. However, making someone pay more just because they make more isn't any better. The obvious answer is to cut spending, so less taxes are needed. Get rid of programs we don't need and stop making government a way for politicians to get rich.

i agree with that but there will always be a need for some spending without a even percent how could u ever possibly make it fair???

There will always be spending, of course. We DO need a federal government and they have to get funding somehow. What it is now is a mockery of what it is supposed to be.

Why isn't it possible to reduce the spending to an amount that every citizen can split evenly?

Lets just say there is 200 million working age people in the US. If everyone paid $1000 in taxes, that is like 2 trillion or so. I KNOW this is overly simplified, but couldn't it be possible to govern a county with 2 trillion dollars a year of funding? That way everyone would pay equal money, not equal percent. Maybe $1000 isn't enough but you get the idea. Either that or let the people who pay more have more say in what the money gets used for.

i agree with most of that maybe even the let them choose if they choose right like restricted options but say someone that works at mcdonalds that unknown amount was a quarter what they made a year how would that be fair to them. they wouldn't want to work when the rich ppl the unknown number would be a drop in the bucket or pocket change they wipe there a** with you know.

[Jd1102]

First off...im not going to read through 4 pages of replies at this time.

I agree with sensai, we should have a system for people who need it. In order to get in this system you should have to be actively seeking employment (if you're able to) and be able to pass a urinalysis.

It should be setup like the "food stamps" in my opinion. You should not be cut a check that you can cash at a bank, you should be given a prepaid card for all your necessities. If you can't use a 'visa' card to buy something you absolutely need, then you more than likely do not need it. The only thing I can think of that you absolutely need cash for is drugs and gambling. There are ways around this method but there will always be someone slipping through the cracks.

i totally agree with this as much of everyone in here does i think. but i think if you have a job it should be a blood test to see if your high at the moment or drunk. bc i feel that it is invasion of privacy to test for things i did on my time that shouldn't matter to an employer. just are you sober at work thats what is important