No Soda Bought With Food Stamps?

[Cheryl in NM]

Favors-there are no guarantees. And those who start out poor do have to struggle harder, sometimes to no avail. And I think she meant that the corrupt govt. favors the rich.

Lakota

 

Maybe that's what she meant, but that's not what she said. Capitalism is all about working for what you want and using your hard work to succeed. Most of the companies in America were started by immigrants with nothing when they started. If the people that are abusing government aid now had 1/2 the work ethic of the immigrants we wouldn't even be having this discussion. If that were the case you wouldn't hear me complain about the "few" who abuse the system.

[Cheryl in NM]

Many very poor people work very hard and very long hours and often more than one job. I understand business. It is very hard work, but honestly there are many hard working poor struggling that worked more than the 60 hours a week I put in to grow and maintain my business. The poor don't always get ahead by working hard.

 

How do these statements support "capitalism favors the rich"? You must work to get ahead. You will not get ahead by abusing a government aid program, you will only survive. Unfortunately, many are willing to make this a way of life, especially in my state.

 

I believe that taking away the need to work is denigrating to a person. Our feelings of worth come from be able to be productive people.

 

ETA: Did you even read the definition of capitalism that I posted?

Edited June 3, 2011 by Cheryl in NM

[KristinaBreece]

Many very poor people work very hard and very long hours and often more than one job. I understand business. It is very hard work, but honestly there are many hard working poor struggling that worked more than the 60 hours a week I put in to grow and maintain my business. The poor don't always get ahead by working hard.

 

:iagree:

My DH works 60-80 hour work weeks so we can afford to scrape by on one income. Anecdotal, I know. But our experience is comparable to that of many families we know. Short of a lottery windfall (which apparently won't ever happen since we don't play it ;)), we'll be the working poor for the rest of our lives. I do a little side work with photography that enables me to buy curriculum & birthday gifts for my kids, and the money I earn babysitting is usually enough to get DH gas for the first half of his work week. There's just no end in sight to it. As long as our cost of living keeps skyrocketing (tell me I'm not the only one watching the price of gas go through the roof... and electricity, and water, and natural gas...), and pay rates keep behind that curve... there's no out.

[KristinaBreece]

How do these statements support "capitalism favors the rich"? You must work to get ahead. You will not get ahead by abusing a government aid program, you will only survive. Unfortunately, many are willing to make this a way of life, especially in my state.

 

I believe that taking away the need to work is denigrating to a person. Our feelings of worth come from be able to be productive people.

 

IDK about where you're at, but in Ohio, a minimum of one working adult is required in two-parent homes to qualify for any assistance. And in single parent homes, once your kids hit 5 or you've been on any assistance for a certain number of years (IIRC it's 4), you must have a job to continue to get that assistance. This was put in place to stop the welfare queens that many people imagine are out there draining the entire economy.

[Tea Time]

Is this not true? Quoted from here.

 

Read the book I suggested. It is a little longer and more in depth than this article. Sorry about that. Economics is best not taken in sound bites.

 

But there is something else to consider. Even if there has been an increase in the top and bottom, this does not mean that capitalism is to blame. Capitalism has been being slowly dismantled over the time period that this article talks about. Government interference in the market is ever increasing, and it is not helping, so your article seems to suggest. My book explains that as well.

 

But you obviously are not open to this, so I am pretty much done. You go ahead and bite the hand that feeds you if you want. See how that works out for you.

[Cheryl in NM]

IDK about where you're at, but in Ohio, a minimum of one working adult is required in two-parent homes to qualify for any assistance. And in single parent homes, once your kids hit 5 or you've been on any assistance for a certain number of years (IIRC it's 4), you must have a job to continue to get that assistance. This was put in place to stop the welfare queens that many people imagine are out there draining the entire economy.

 

I wasn't talking about receiving aid and not working at all. Please read the post I quoted. Hard work is necessary. If you are trying to achieve the American dream, then working 60 hours a week is necessary to you feeling productive. Saying, "oh you poor baby, you shouldn't have to work 60 hours a week or work 2 job, here let me feed you" takes away a person's dignity and sense of worth.

[Embassy]

How do these statements support "capitalism favors the rich"? You must work to get ahead. You will not get ahead by abusing a government aid program, you will only survive. Unfortunately, many are willing to make this a way of life, especially in my state.

 

I believe that taking away the need to work is denigrating to a person. Our feelings of worth come from be able to be productive people.

 

American promotes capitalism. The government gives benefits and perks to the rich. Special interest groups protect the assets of the rich. Corporations don't necessarily agree that you must work hard to get ahead. They have no problems asking for or receiving handouts.

[KristinaBreece]

I wasn't talking about receiving aid and not working at all. Please read the post I quoted. Hard work is necessary. If you are trying to achieve the American dream, then working 60 hours a week is necessary to you feeling productive. Saying, "oh you poor baby, you shouldn't have to work 60 hours a week or work 2 job, here let me feed you" takes away a person's dignity and sense of worth.

 

I guess we'll have to agree to disagree again. I don't think it should be necessary to work 60 hour weeks to scrape by supporting a family. I think my kids should get to see my DH once in a while. Unfortunately, that's just not the way things are going to work for now.

 

ETA: I also quoted the post you quoted. I agreed with her. ;)

[Cheryl in NM]

I guess we'll have to agree to disagree again. I don't think it should be necessary to work 60 hour weeks to scrape by supporting a family. I think my kids should get to see my DH once in a while. Unfortunately, that's just not the way things are going to work for now.

 

I didn't say that it should be necessary, just don't announce that *you* think they shouldn't live that way and give them a hand-out as Wehomeschool said.

[KristinaBreece]

I didn't say that it should be necessary, just don't announce that *you* think they shouldn't live that way and give them a hand-out as Wehomeschool said.

 

I just didn't take that at all from what she said. That's ok. ETA: I mean that I think it's okay that we read the same thing & drew 2 different conclusions from it. If I had somehow taken the same meaning from her post that you did, I would likely have agreed with your conclusions.

Edited June 3, 2011 by KristinaBreece

[Cheryl in NM]

American promotes capitalism. The government gives benefits and perks to the rich. Special interest groups protect the assets of the rich. Corporations don't necessarily agree that you must work hard to get ahead. They have no problems asking for or receiving handouts.

 

You are speaking about a country that you don't even live in. I have spent my life living in this system. Our corporations are taxed so heavily that they are fleeing the country just so they can stay open. Our government is continually taking over industries. We are slowly becoming socialist. All that aside, how would you like it if I started running down Canada based on the information I received in the news?

[Cheryl in NM]

I just didn't take that at all from what she said. That's ok. ETA: I mean that I think it's okay that we read the same thing & drew 2 different conclusions from it. If I had somehow taken the same meaning from her post that you did, I would likely have agreed with your conclusions.

 

Got it. :001_smile: Agree to disagree. :)

[lakotajm]

I wasn't talking about receiving aid and not working at all. Please read the post I quoted. Hard work is necessary. If you are trying to achieve the American dream, then working 60 hours a week is necessary to you feeling productive. Saying, "oh you poor baby, you shouldn't have to work 60 hours a week or work 2 job, here let me feed you" takes away a person's dignity and sense of worth.

Whoa, now we're gonna tell them how hard to work?

Maybe 60 hours is necessary for you to feel fulfilled, but for me that would be hellish! It would rob me of my dignity, sanity, kids, husband, church life etc. So anyone who doesn't work "as hard" as you doesn't deserve aid? (and one person's hard is another's easy and vice versa.)

See now we're back to taking a morality stance based on one's own narrow perspective and wanting it to be everyone's cup of tea. Fine, it's a democracy-if you can get enough like-minded individuals to agree, go for it. Doesn't seem very God-honoring to me, though, so I am left sighing and shaking my head. Reminds me of a Billy Graham sermon I just read in their Decisions mag about the lack of love in Christians, quoting the love passages in 1 Corinthians.:001_smile:

Lakota, who just needs love

[Cheryl in NM]

Whoa, now we're gonna tell them how hard to work?

Maybe 60 hours is necessary for you to feel fulfilled, but for me that would be hellish! It would rob me of my dignity, sanity, kids, husband, church life etc. So anyone who doesn't work "as hard" as you doesn't deserve aid? (and one person's hard is another's easy and vice versa.)

See now we're back to taking a morality stance based on one's own narrow perspective and wanting it to be everyone's cup of tea. Fine, it's a democracy-if you can get enough like-minded individuals to agree, go for it. Doesn't seem very God-honoring to me, though, so I am left sighing and shaking my head. Reminds me of a Billy Graham sermon I just read in their Decisions mag about the lack of love in Christians, quoting the love passages in 1 Corinthians.:001_smile:

Lakota, who just needs love

 

That was my point. Wehomeschool suggested that just because someone is working 60 hours a week we give them government assistance, without them asking for it. I'm not saying everyone HAS to work that amount, just that we shouldn't be FORCING assistance on those who haven't asked.

 

ETA: If I wish to work 60 hours a week instead of accept government assistance that is my basic right as a human being; no one should pity me or try to force me to take assistance. If you are able to work a normal 40 hour a week but refuse to do so and then ask for government assistance; I am opposed to that. Even if you (the universal you) don't know it; you need to work in some way to feel fulfilled.

Edited June 3, 2011 by Cheryl in NM

[Tea Time]

American promotes capitalism. The government gives benefits and perks to the rich. Special interest groups protect the assets of the rich. Corporations don't necessarily agree that you must work hard to get ahead. They have no problems asking for or receiving handouts.

 

Let us be a little more clear here. The bolded part is contrary to capitalism. If you do not like those things, then perhaps what you would really like is a more pure form of capitalism. I think it would do you well to read some things about capitalism from a different perspective than you have been using, because what you are saying is contradictory and confused in regards to capitalism. I agree, I am sure we all do, that there is a lot of corruption, some corporations do unethical things (although not all operate that way, that is too broad a brush), the government often rewards unproductive behavior, to be sure. But you seem to be blaming all the problems on capitalism. This is very misguided.

 

I assure you, other economic systems are not immune to corruption.

Edited June 3, 2011 by Tea Time

[lakotajm]

That was my point. Wehomeschool suggested that just because someone is working 60 hours a week we give them government assistance, without them asking for it. I'm not saying everyone HAS to work that amount, just that we shouldn't be FORCING assistance on those who haven't asked.

 

ETA: If I wish to work 60 hours a week instead of accept government assistance that is my basic right as a human being; no one should pity me or try to force me to take assistance. If you are able to work a normal 40 hour a week but refuse to do so and then ask for government assistance; I am opposed to that. Even if you (the universal you) don't know it; you need to work in some way to feel fulfilled.

Is that what they do in Canada-force you to take aid when you haven't asked for it? Seriously? Anyone know?

[Cheryl in NM]

Is that what they do in Canada-force you to take aid when you haven't asked for it? Seriously? Anyone know?

 

I never said that either. Seriously, :chillpill:. Read the words I'm actually posting in the context they are posted instead of just trying to fight and be contrary.

 

ETA: It is my understanding that all Canadian media is government owned. Now it wouldn't behoove them to paint a pretty picture of capitalism, would it? No wonder Wehomeschool is confused about capitalism.

[Audrey]

I never said that either. Seriously, :chillpill:. Read the words I'm actually posting in the context they are posted instead of just trying to fight and be contrary.

 

ETA: It is my understanding that all Canadian media is government owned. Now it wouldn't behoove them to paint a pretty picture of capitalism, would it? No wonder Wehomeschool is confused about capitalism.

 

:lol: Your understanding of Canadian media is woefully inaccurate. A quick google would have cleared up that misunderstanding. CBC is a Crown corporation, but we have more than one radio station and one tv station up here, plus the myriad newspapers and magazines. Oh, and Canada is a capitalist country, too. Again, google can be your friend.

[BlsdMama]

 

I sincerely hope you never find yourself in an area short on jobs with your DH suddenly unemployed. I also hope that you've never made a less than perfect financial choice, because that is what you're yelling at people for: Needing help, sometimes through their own mistakes, sometimes through no fault of their own whatsoever.

 

I think there is a ton that could be done for food system program. But I really wanted to comment on this part. We moved from the Midwest to the PNW eighteen months ago. When we were in Iowa, we thought we had an economic problem there. You heard, sometimes, about people losing a job. You also heard a lot of people get their hours cut - no more overtime, taking Fridays off as unpaid company wide, etc. And we thought, "Wow, how does someone get by making these cuts? Going part time?" Etc.

 

Then we moved here. The economy is ENTIRELY different and we learned very quickly how bad it was. We weren't used to seeing homeless. Yes, occasionally you'd see someone begging. But not every time you traveled twenty miles would you see 2, 4, 10+ homeless. Yes people were losing their houses in the midwest. Here? The amount of empty houses and for sale signs are just plain overwhelming. You don't NOT know someone who hasn't lost their job.

 

In Iowa, you saw "Help Wanted" signs everywhere. They were at gas stations, McDonald's, etc. They may not be the job you WANTED, but frankly? There were jobs to be had if you wanted them. And if you chose to support your family, you could get two.

Here? I NEVER see those ads. Truly, within a month of coming here, I did NOT want to answer the question, "So what brought you all out here?" Because the truth is we came out here for an increased income. DH had the opportunity to transfer with his company, take a much higher cost of living adjustment, and keep the raises that came with the job when we move back to the Midwest. How do you say that to folks around here? We just say company transfer.

 

It's not that we lacked compassion. It's that our LIFE EXPERIENCE had shown us there were jobs to be had for those who wanted to work. My mom and sister were here a few months ago and we went into Portland. They were horrified at the amount of homeless, begging, etc. And they too wondered why these people don't just "get a job." And I explained that was an over-simplification. I asked them to watch closely the rest of the week and let me know if they saw ANY (even one) Help Wanted ad in any window - fast food, gas, etc. In the end they never saw one sign. It didn't really change their mindset, they stuck to their guns.

 

But I do wonder, pack up and move? How? We are a one income family. We live closer to paycheck to paycheck than I sure would like. So you stick around your house, your life, assuming you'll pick up something new in a month... Or two. What do you do when the money runs out? You don't have it for gas. And when someone reports you for living in a vehicle with children? Do you risk your kids? Because you sure couldn't afford a new rental deposit, etc. I just can't imagine what we would do / how we would feel if DH came home tomorrow and we were out of income. Okay, *I* can, but we have a LOT of family that would open their homes until he found something and my or his parents would pay our way back to the Midwest. But we're not average.

 

I HATE that people need assistance. Would that NO ONE ever needed it. But I don't know anyone that could go 12 months or a lot more without income and still feed their families and pay their bills.

 

Changes? Yes. There is a ton that should be non-food items. But there are other things that SHOULD be covered - like soap, shampoo, etc. What about SEEDS for growing food?

 

Wouldn't it be awesome if we had stores just for those receiving assistance? You could get a monthly allocation and you could buy things like soap, laundry soap, seeds, cloth diapers, USEFUL things. And then they just wouldn't carry other things like junk food. No matter how you slice it, junk food is junk food and while you may or may not choose to eat it, no one says the government has to subsidize foods of no nutritional value. I'd rather see a child getting tuna, fresh carrots, etc. the way the WIC program works, although I HATE that they give folks so much cereal and dairy. Not good. Methinks there was an awful lot of lobbying going on there.

 

I also think supporting local would be great. What if the stores bought produce from local places? And I think Farmer Markets should be covered by food stamps - but I thought they were? I've seen little signs, so maybe that's only a state by state basis?

 

Truth is it is pride that thinks something could never happen to US. Ladies, we are one tragic accident from it being us. If my husband dies, we have insurance. How many have that? What if he doesn't die? What if it's only permanent disability? Do you also carry longterm disability insurance? We do but I know MANY do not. Then what? What if his company just shuts down and walks away?

 

I believe we have worked hard. We did the "right" things. DH put himself through school to get his Bachelor's degree. Later, he joined the military so they could pay off those loans. While he was in the Army, he went on to get three Masters degrees in various related fields. They paid for a decent chunk of that and we're paying for a decent part too. :glare: He got a "good" job by being a hard working intern and he's stuck with the company for almost 13 years now. It could happen to us. How dare we think it couldn't? Should a mama with little ones, single through no choice of her own, go back to work rather than stay home for a few years and raise those little ones? I'd be glad if my tax dollars were going for that.

 

I don't want to subsidize health care that includes abortions. I don't want to subsidize food that is POISONING children - like soda.

 

But, I can be against those things without saying it couldn't happen to me. "I'd never be in that position." "Not me." Those are dangerous words. :D

Edited June 3, 2011 by BlsdMama

[amo_mea_filiis.]

I don't want to subsidize health care that includes abortions. I don't want to subsidize food that is POISONING children - like soda.

 

 

Abortions are already paid for by medicaid.

 

While a person can't get useful non-edible items on FS, one can use the cash allowance to do so.

[amo_mea_filiis.]

Being on assistance, I've seen a lot. Too much.

 

Recently while at the social service office a man came in asking about utility help. The LIHEAP program had ended and there were no more funds. This man had filed the initial paperwork and then was admitted to the hospital and was in a coma due to a brain tumor (I wasn't really following his story, had just overheard) and had the medical paperwork. He didn't remember many things. The woman at the window never offered for him to see a caseworker. Just told him that the funds were spent and gave him the number of another place to which I already know has no funds because there a sign that the program's closed until November.

 

In NY social services- A woman and her 3 children did not qualify for housing assistance. If they were a family of 5, they would. What happened? She came back 9 months later as a family of 5.

 

Also in NY- When my son was young I qualified for needed-in-home (unable to work due to a child's disability and receiving assistance). Every 3 months I had to drive 45 minutes to be recertified. This usually included 2-3 visits to them. I would have to sit in a group of people being put to work (which I'm fine with), and then sit with a daycare supervisor, and then another supervisior all to show that nothing changed and there were still no daycare providers on their lists willing or able to take my son. It was a waste of everyone's time. I always had updated medical files on my son, as well as a statement from a home daycare provider, and a center provider as to why they were unable to care for my son. Even with all of this, time and resources were wasted on us that should have been spent on someone else.

[NoPlaceLikeHome]

Catholic Academics Challenge Boehner

 

“From the apostles to the present, the magisterium of the church has insisted that those in power are morally obliged to preference the needs of the poor. Your record in support of legislation to address the desperate needs of the poor is among the worst in Congress. This fundamental concern should have great urgency for Catholic policy makers. Yet, even now, you work in opposition to it.â€

 

Not about soda, but when the poor get judged for being poor and how they spend it upsets me. The whole letter is good.

 

:iagree::iagree:

[BlsdMama]

Abortions are already paid for by medicaid.

 

While a person can't get useful non-edible items on FS, one can use the cash allowance to do so.

 

I'm aware of this, and not terribly thrilled. :glare:

[NoPlaceLikeHome]

I'll stand by my remark. No one has a gun to anyone's head that I know of. Please correct me if I'm wrong.

 

Yes but if you have to decide whether to pay the rent or put food on the table, then it becomes not so much a choice IMHO:(.

[Ravin]

Not going to get into the debate here, but someone asked what about seeds for growing food? You can and all along have been able to buy seeds and plants that are food producing on food stamps.

[NoPlaceLikeHome]

Abortions are already paid for by medicaid.

 

While a person can't get useful non-edible items on FS, one can use the cash allowance to do so.

 

Federal funds for abortions are restricted to rape, incest, and when the life of the mother is threatened. Some states have chosen to fund abortions with medicaid with their own money and not federal money.

 

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hyde_Amendment

[BlsdMama]

their own money

 

Bwaaaa Haaa Haaaa...

 

Sorry. Found it amusing. As if the state has any money we the people don't give to it. :D

[NoPlaceLikeHome]

Bwaaaa Haaa Haaaa...

 

Sorry. Found it amusing. As if the state has any money we the people don't give to it. :D

 

My point was that funding is not from the federal government since some people like to bash the federal government.

[NoPlaceLikeHome]

Bwaaaa Haaa Haaaa...

 

Sorry. Found it amusing. As if the state has any money we the people don't give to it. :D

 

Also, if you don't like it you can vote and lobby your representatives:D Taxes are necessary in a civil society:)

[NoPlaceLikeHome]

I think there is a ton that could be done for food system program. But I really wanted to comment on this part. We moved from the Midwest to the PNW eighteen months ago. When we were in Iowa, we thought we had an economic problem there. You heard, sometimes, about people losing a job. You also heard a lot of people get their hours cut - no more overtime, taking Fridays off as unpaid company wide, etc. And we thought, "Wow, how does someone get by making these cuts? Going part time?" Etc.

 

Then we moved here. The economy is ENTIRELY different and we learned very quickly how bad it was. We weren't used to seeing homeless. Yes, occasionally you'd see someone begging. But not every time you traveled twenty miles would you see 2, 4, 10+ homeless. Yes people were losing their houses in the midwest. Here? The amount of empty houses and for sale signs are just plain overwhelming. You don't NOT know someone who hasn't lost their job.

 

In Iowa, you saw "Help Wanted" signs everywhere. They were at gas stations, McDonald's, etc. They may not be the job you WANTED, but frankly? There were jobs to be had if you wanted them. And if you chose to support your family, you could get two.

Here? I NEVER see those ads. Truly, within a month of coming here, I did NOT want to answer the question, "So what brought you all out here?" Because the truth is we came out here for an increased income. DH had the opportunity to transfer with his company, take a much higher cost of living adjustment, and keep the raises that came with the job when we move back to the Midwest. How do you say that to folks around here? We just say company transfer.

 

It's not that we lacked compassion. It's that our LIFE EXPERIENCE had shown us there were jobs to be had for those who wanted to work. My mom and sister were here a few months ago and we went into Portland. They were horrified at the amount of homeless, begging, etc. And they too wondered why these people don't just "get a job." And I explained that was an over-simplification. I asked them to watch closely the rest of the week and let me know if they saw ANY (even one) Help Wanted ad in any window - fast food, gas, etc. In the end they never saw one sign. It didn't really change their mindset, they stuck to their guns.

 

But I do wonder, pack up and move? How? We are a one income family. We live closer to paycheck to paycheck than I sure would like. So you stick around your house, your life, assuming you'll pick up something new in a month... Or two. What do you do when the money runs out? You don't have it for gas. And when someone reports you for living in a vehicle with children? Do you risk your kids? Because you sure couldn't afford a new rental deposit, etc. I just can't imagine what we would do / how we would feel if DH came home tomorrow and we were out of income. Okay, *I* can, but we have a LOT of family that would open their homes until he found something and my or his parents would pay our way back to the Midwest. But we're not average.

 

I HATE that people need assistance. Would that NO ONE ever needed it. But I don't know anyone that could go 12 months or a lot more without income and still feed their families and pay their bills.

 

Changes? Yes. There is a ton that should be non-food items. But there are other things that SHOULD be covered - like soap, shampoo, etc. What about SEEDS for growing food?

 

Wouldn't it be awesome if we had stores just for those receiving assistance? You could get a monthly allocation and you could buy things like soap, laundry soap, seeds, cloth diapers, USEFUL things. And then they just wouldn't carry other things like junk food. No matter how you slice it, junk food is junk food and while you may or may not choose to eat it, no one says the government has to subsidize foods of no nutritional value. I'd rather see a child getting tuna, fresh carrots, etc. the way the WIC program works, although I HATE that they give folks so much cereal and dairy. Not good. Methinks there was an awful lot of lobbying going on there.

 

I also think supporting local would be great. What if the stores bought produce from local places? And I think Farmer Markets should be covered by food stamps - but I thought they were? I've seen little signs, so maybe that's only a state by state basis?

 

Truth is it is pride that thinks something could never happen to US. Ladies, we are one tragic accident from it being us. If my husband dies, we have insurance. How many have that? What if he doesn't die? What if it's only permanent disability? Do you also carry longterm disability insurance? We do but I know MANY do not. Then what? What if his company just shuts down and walks away?

 

I believe we have worked hard. We did the "right" things. DH put himself through school to get his Bachelor's degree. Later, he joined the military so they could pay off those loans. While he was in the Army, he went on to get three Masters degrees in various related fields. They paid for a decent chunk of that and we're paying for a decent part too. :glare: He got a "good" job by being a hard working intern and he's stuck with the company for almost 13 years now. It could happen to us. How dare we think it couldn't? Should a mama with little ones, single through no choice of her own, go back to work rather than stay home for a few years and raise those little ones? I'd be glad if my tax dollars were going for that.

 

I don't want to subsidize health care that includes abortions. I don't want to subsidize food that is POISONING children - like soda.

 

But, I can be against those things without saying it couldn't happen to me. "I'd never be in that position." "Not me." Those are dangerous words. :D

 

:iagree: Lots of people make judgments base only on their small worlds of experience. Any of us could fall into hard times:( For the grace of God, go I (I think that is the phrase:tongue_smilie:).

[Embassy]

You are speaking about a country that you don't even live in. I have spent my life living in this system. Our corporations are taxed so heavily that they are fleeing the country just so they can stay open. Our government is continually taking over industries. We are slowly becoming socialist. All that aside, how would you like it if I started running down Canada based on the information I received in the news?

 

I am speaking about my country. I'm an American. I work for an American company. I earn American dollars. I lived in the USA most of my life.

[Embassy]

That was my point. Wehomeschool suggested that just because someone is working 60 hours a week we give them government assistance, without them asking for it. I'm not saying everyone HAS to work that amount, just that we shouldn't be FORCING assistance on those who haven't asked.

 

You will have to remind me of where I said that. I don't recall saying anything like that.

[Embassy]

Let us be a little more clear here. The bolded part is contrary to capitalism. If you do not like those things, then perhaps what you would really like is a more pure form of capitalism. I think it would do you well to read some things about capitalism from a different perspective than you have been using, because what you are saying is contradictory and confused in regards to capitalism. I agree, I am sure we all do, that there is a lot of corruption, some corporations do unethical things (although not all operate that way, that is too broad a brush), the government often rewards unproductive behavior, to be sure. But you seem to be blaming all the problems on capitalism. This is very misguided.

 

I assure you, other economic systems are not immune to corruption.

 

There are different kinds of capitalism. The bolded part isn't contrary to all kinds of capitalism. I do agree that corruption is everywhere.

[Embassy]

ETA: It is my understanding that all Canadian media is government owned. Now it wouldn't behoove them to paint a pretty picture of capitalism, would it? No wonder Wehomeschool is confused about capitalism.

 

:lol: I rarely watch Canadian news. But when I do I find them more balanced than the tendency toward right and left wing news coverage in the USA.

[Impish]

Is that what they do in Canada-force you to take aid when you haven't asked for it? Seriously? Anyone know?

*snicker* No.

ETA: It is my understanding that all Canadian media is government owned. Now it wouldn't behoove them to paint a pretty picture of capitalism, would it? No wonder Wehomeschool is confused about capitalism.

Uh...This is so far wrong I don't even know where to start.

:lol: Your understanding of Canadian media is woefully inaccurate. A quick google would have cleared up that misunderstanding. CBC is a Crown corporation, but we have more than one radio station and one tv station up here, plus the myriad newspapers and magazines. Oh, and Canada is a capitalist country, too. Again, google can be your friend.

There's a start. Thanks Audrey. Cheryl, we even *gasp* get US stations and news.

You are speaking about a country that you don't even live in. I have spent my life living in this system. Our corporations are taxed so heavily that they are fleeing the country just so they can stay open. Our government is continually taking over industries. We are slowly becoming socialist. All that aside, how would you like it if I started running down Canada based on the information I received in the news?

Well...the idea that the media is all government owned and we're blind and ignorant to anything remotely not government spoon fed to the masses could be considered 'running down Canada'...and have you never read a heath care thread? :lol:

[twoforjoy]

Just wanted to point out that working isn't the solution to being poor, especially now, when nearly all of the new jobs being created are very low-paying service jobs. A study recently came out showing that, not only can you not get by on a full-time minimum-wage job (which should be a no-brainer for anybody to see, given that 40 hours a week of minimum-wage work only brings in $15,080/year before anything is taken out), but that even having two full-time minimum-wage workers in a home would not be enough, in many cases, to support a family given the cost of living.

 

http://www.freep.com/article/20110531/NEWS06/105310351/New-study-You-can-t-live-minimum-wage

 

So "just get a job and work hard!" doesn't cut it, sorry. When jobs that pay a real living or family wage are disappearing, and being replaced with low-paying or minimum-wage service jobs, that's not going to work for many people. I think you have to be speaking from a place of enormous privilege to imagine that.

 

If we want to benefit from the labor of poorly-paid service workers, and if companies want to profit off of the labor of these workers and keep their wages low, then we have no right at all to complain about "our" money going to make up the difference between what these workers are paid and what you actually need to get by.

Edited June 3, 2011 by twoforjoy

[Tea Time]

Catholic Academics Challenge Boehner

 

“From the apostles to the present, the magisterium of the church has insisted that those in power are morally obliged to preference the needs of the poor. Your record in support of legislation to address the desperate needs of the poor is among the worst in Congress. This fundamental concern should have great urgency for Catholic policy makers. Yet, even now, you work in opposition to it.â€

 

Not about soda, but when the poor get judged for being poor and how they spend it upsets me. The whole letter is good.

 

:iagree::iagree:

 

Well plenty of Catholics disagree, and academia is HARDLY the institution to whine about the issues. They are practically putting young people into positions of indentured servants to make sure they keep their jobs, so I don't want to hear their philosophical/theological, irrational, certainly not Catholic, and not true to the idea of subsidiarity ramblings.

 

It is not moral to keep people perpetually in a cycle of poverty by supporting programs that never have to account for actual results. It is not moral to be so completely irresponsible with public funds as to drive an entire nation into bankruptcy with borrowed funds from future generations.

 

And if that organization is so concerned with Catholic teaching, then where is their outrage against law makers so fond of abortion? MIA. Give me a break. I have already explained (ignored), that Christ did not mandate government taxation but individual charity. That picture makes a pretty good Monty Python style joke.

 

This convinces no one who is not part of that choir already, and it definitely is not the position of the Vatican. Repeating it and adding :iagree: signs does not make it correct.

[Mejane]

Yes but if you have to decide whether to pay the rent or put food on the table, then it becomes not so much a choice IMHO:(.

 

Not an easy or a happy choice but a choice nonetheless, as evidenced by folks right here who have decided not to do it and are finding other ways to make it. Like Tara, I do not begrudge people services, but I applaud those who are finding ways to make it without using them.

[Tea Time]

Just wanted to point out that working isn't the solution to being poor, especially now, when nearly all of the new jobs being created are very low-paying service jobs. A study recently came out showing that, not only can you not get by on a full-time minimum-wage job (which should be a no-brainer for anybody to see, given that 40 hours a week of minimum-wage work only brings in $15,080/year before anything is taken out), but that even having two full-time minimum-wage workers in a home would not be enough, in many cases, to support a family given the cost of living.

 

http://www.freep.com/article/20110531/NEWS06/105310351/New-study-You-can-t-live-minimum-wage

 

So "just get a job and work hard!" doesn't cut it, sorry. When jobs that pay a real living or family wage are disappearing, and being replaced with low-paying or minimum-wage service jobs, that's not going to work for many people. I think you have to be speaking from a place of enormous privilege to imagine that.

 

If we want to benefit from the labor of poorly-paid service workers, and if companies want to profit off of the labor of these workers and keep their wages low, then we have no right at all to complain about "our" money going to make up the difference between what these workers are paid and what you actually need to get by.

 

Do you think the government really has the power to fix that reality? Do you think that passing laws and regulations will add wealth to this nation? Is that how wealth was first generated or how the innovations that generated wealth came to exist?

 

I know of nothing that will make people be prosperous except people being productive. Just like with education, the government cannot "provide" it; the government can only promise it, but people seek it for themselves or it simply never materializes. And when a large enough amount of people do that, and when enough of them become "rich," then that spreads around without any government having to do anything. This is the history of it. I am sorry that people do not like that reality, but it is the reality.

 

We have been trying it the other way around for some time now, but things are not getting better, they are getting worse.

[twoforjoy]

It is not moral to keep people perpetually in a cycle of poverty by supporting programs that never have to account for actual results.

 

Well, before we had government-sponsored welfare programs, people were watching their children starve. That's not happening here today. So, I'd say that's a good result, no?

 

I think people are very, very naive about why we have welfare. Do you really think it's because we just love the idea of the poor not working? Or we just cater to the poor so much we don't want to upset them by making them get the jobs that are obviously out there waiting for them? That's not my reality.

 

It seems like a lot of the most ardent proponents of capitalism are woefully misinformed about how capitalism actually works. For one thing, capitalism REQUIRES that there be a certain degree of unemployment (and that means that a certain amount of qualified, able, and seeking workers not have jobs). If there isn't a pool of surplus, qualified labor, wages would go up so much that profits would drop precipitously. In an "ideal" capitalist economy, you'd have about 3-5% unemployment. Again, that's not counting people who aren't looking for work (like SAHPs) or people who can't work (the elderly, the disabled, children). It's only counting those who want, need, and can do the work. So, for capitalism to create profits, we need 3-5% of the qualified labor force that wants/needs work unemployed at any given time.

 

Full employment is anathema to capitalism. In fact, full employment WAS proposed in the 1930s, and was resoundingly shot down as a terrible, socialist idea.

 

So, there will ALWAYS be unemployed people in a capitalist economy, and a quite significant number of them. That's what capitalism requires. Do we bear no responsibility for them?

 

For another, the reason we have a social safety net in the first place isn't because the government just wants to coddle the poor; it's because the poor threatened to disrupt social stability when the situation got really dire. People who are watching their children sleep outside because they have no home, and their children starve, are desperate people. They will do things like set up tent cities outside of businesses and demand jobs and higher wages. Know who doesn't like that? The people with money. They don't want poor people to be desperate, because desperate poor people make noise and demands.

[twoforjoy]

Not an easy or a happy choice but a choice nonetheless, as evidenced by folks right here who have decided not to do it and are finding other ways to make it. Like Tara, I do not begrudge people services, but I applaud those who are finding ways to make it without using them.

 

Why?

 

Again, the stupidest thing my husband and I ever did, financially, was to not apply for and use government assistance when we could have. It's a number of years later, and we have yet to dig ourselves out of the hole we got into trying to "make it without using them."

[twoforjoy]

We have been trying it the other way around for some time now, but things are not getting better, they are getting worse.

 

What? You do realize that the marginal tax rate has been dropping precipitously since the 1940s, right? That we've been deregulating since the late 1970s, which happens to coincide with wealth becoming more and more concentrated in the hands of fewer and fewer people, and the average worker seeing less and less of our gains in productivity reflected in their earnings? (In the 1950s, tax rates were much higher, especially on the wealthiest, and productivity gains were spread relatively evenly across the board--i.e., if the economy grew by 10%, your average worker saw 10% more income. In recent years, as we've stripped away nearly all regulations and continued to reduce taxes, particularly on the most wealthy, we've seen that stop happening. Now if the economy grows by 10%, we'll see the wealthiest Americans have their income rise dramatically, while the average worker sees no increase in income at all.)

 

What facts/statistics are you working off of, to make the claims you are making? Because they don't seem to accord with economic reality.

[KristinaBreece]

Well, before we had government-sponsored welfare programs, people were watching their children starve. That's not happening here today. So, I'd say that's a good result, no?

 

I think people are very, very naive about why we have welfare. Do you really think it's because we just love the idea of the poor not working? Or we just cater to the poor so much we don't want to upset them by making them get the jobs that are obviously out there waiting for them? That's not my reality.

 

It seems like a lot of the most ardent proponents of capitalism are woefully misinformed about how capitalism actually works. For one thing, capitalism REQUIRES that there be a certain degree of unemployment (and that means that a certain amount of qualified, able, and seeking workers not have jobs). If there isn't a pool of surplus, qualified labor, wages would go up so much that profits would drop precipitously. In an "ideal" capitalist economy, you'd have about 3-5% unemployment. Again, that's not counting people who aren't looking for work (like SAHPs) or people who can't work (the elderly, the disabled, children). It's only counting those who want, need, and can do the work. So, for capitalism to create profits, we need 3-5% of the qualified labor force that wants/needs work unemployed at any given time.

 

Full employment is anathema to capitalism. In fact, full employment WAS proposed in the 1930s, and was resoundingly shot down as a terrible, socialist idea.

 

So, there will ALWAYS be unemployed people in a capitalist economy, and a quite significant number of them. That's what capitalism requires. Do we bear no responsibility for them?

 

For another, the reason we have a social safety net in the first place isn't because the government just wants to coddle the poor; it's because the poor threatened to disrupt social stability when the situation got really dire. People who are watching their children sleep outside because they have no home, and their children starve, are desperate people. They will do things like set up tent cities outside of businesses and demand jobs and higher wages. Know who doesn't like that? The people with money. They don't want poor people to be desperate, because desperate poor people make noise and demands.

 

And we don't want anyone making noise & demands! ;)

[ezrabean2005]

Well, before we had government-sponsored welfare programs, people were watching their children starve. That's not happening here today. So, I'd say that's a good result, no?

 

I think people are very, very naive about why we have welfare. Do you really think it's because we just love the idea of the poor not working? Or we just cater to the poor so much we don't want to upset them by making them get the jobs that are obviously out there waiting for them? That's not my reality.

 

It seems like a lot of the most ardent proponents of capitalism are woefully misinformed about how capitalism actually works. For one thing, capitalism REQUIRES that there be a certain degree of unemployment (and that means that a certain amount of qualified, able, and seeking workers not have jobs). If there isn't a pool of surplus, qualified labor, wages would go up so much that profits would drop precipitously. In an "ideal" capitalist economy, you'd have about 3-5% unemployment. Again, that's not counting people who aren't looking for work (like SAHPs) or people who can't work (the elderly, the disabled, children). It's only counting those who want, need, and can do the work. So, for capitalism to create profits, we need 3-5% of the qualified labor force that wants/needs work unemployed at any given time.

 

Full employment is anathema to capitalism. In fact, full employment WAS proposed in the 1930s, and was resoundingly shot down as a terrible, socialist idea.

 

So, there will ALWAYS be unemployed people in a capitalist economy, and a quite significant number of them. That's what capitalism requires. Do we bear no responsibility for them?

 

For another, the reason we have a social safety net in the first place isn't because the government just wants to coddle the poor; it's because the poor threatened to disrupt social stability when the situation got really dire. People who are watching their children sleep outside because they have no home, and their children starve, are desperate people. They will do things like set up tent cities outside of businesses and demand jobs and higher wages. Know who doesn't like that? The people with money. They don't want poor people to be desperate, because desperate poor people make noise and demands.

 

I like you. :001_smile:

[twoforjoy]

 

I know of nothing that will make people be prosperous except people being productive. Just like with education, the government cannot "provide" it; the government can only promise it, but people seek it for themselves or it simply never materializes. And when a large enough amount of people do that, and when enough of them become "rich," then that spreads around without any government having to do anything. This is the history of it. I am sorry that people do not like that reality, but it is the reality.

 

Can you point to a time or place when this has happened? When prosperity really was evenly spread around, with no government intervention? Any time or place in history at all would do.

 

I'm just not sure how you can think, when we KNOW that the jobs being created right now are low-paying service jobs, and that good-paying jobs are disappearing, that "being productive" or getting a job is the answer. Americans are actually REALLY productive; the problem is that their productivity is lining the pockets of a very, very small number of people, rather than being evenly spread throughout the economy. This is why we can see companies bringing in record profits when unemployment is at record highs and the average person sees their wages stagnate or fall.

 

What jobs do you want the poor to take? How do you think that more deregulation--doing exactly what we've been doing for the last 30 years--would make things better for them or create more jobs? Can you point to times or places where this has actually worked, and the situation of the poor IMPROVED when government safety nets weren't present and the economy went unregulated?

[Tea Time]

There are different kinds of capitalism. The bolded part isn't contrary to all kinds of capitalism. I do agree that corruption is everywhere.

 

Then stop blaming capitalism and bad mouthing capitalism. You inadvertently send out erroneous messages about America and capitalism by equating corruption with those terms. That is unhelpful and it is propaganda.

 

I stated that capitalism has generated the most wealth the world has ever known, but that happened while it was beholden to a value system that the world had also never known. As that value system erodes, you will see that no manner of reform will fix our economic situation. How do you fix the human heart? That is all part of the philosophical side that is so hard to address.

 

We need the capitalism that created wealth; we do not need socialism, Marxism, or communism because those things never historically created wealth. They have only been something that sits back and spends it like someone living off an inheritance (which is what it is doing in many parts of the world right now). But the end of that gravy train is starting to be clear.

 

There are no easy answers, and if we really care about the poor, we have to start getting that through our collective heads now.

 

Twoforjoy, you read your side of things and tell others they don't understand. Part of the problem is that our tax code and regulatory system is so vast and complex that we can hardly comprehend it. Politicians are not able to follow it and get in trouble for tax violations. The result is that analyzing statistics is nearly impossible because they can and are reported in various ways that paint very different pictures. I have given one source for my information on this thread, but it is more related to how the statistics are reported, the drawbacks and flaws, than reporting them. Why is it that both sides seem to have their own set of data to march out?

 

I can readily admit (can you?) that it is easy to "be had" by the reporting of statistics (for example, although the taxes were higher in the past, there were many loopholes so the revenues were not always any higher). That is a major, major part of the problem because the lack of transparency drives class warfare, like you see right here. That is very helpful to politicians and special interest groups (who are not always "the rich" either). but I don't really see it being that helpful to corporations unless they are in cahoots with government (which would not be a capitalistic principle). I am willing to abide by empirical evidence, if only it can be found. But the theory and history of these economic systems, that is much more clear to me.

 

The allocations of scarce resources that have alternative uses is not something that we can be gods over, and central planning and planners have created the biggest poverty disasters in history. There are inherent realities behind it that cannot be "systemed" away by wishes and fair thoughts, despite what the politicians tell us.

 

We LIKE you and your wishes and fair thoughts, but reality doesn't give a whit. The government does not have the power to fix us all, and I am not going to sit by and give them all the resources to do with what they please, at least not without a fuss. Anyone who has taken up homeschooling to solve the never-solved education crisis should readily get that!

[Joanne]

Here's where you are wrong. Capitalism favors those who are willing to work, most times very hard. Business don't just grow on trees, they are built from the ground up by someone sacrificing to succeed.

 

Your hope in the American Dream is not based in reality of contemporary times (and, frankly, I'm not sure it was accurate "back when", either). In post after post of yours, you posit working hard as the solution.

 

The *reality* is that it is quite possible to work hard at 1, 2 and even 3 jobs and not be able to move forward.

 

I'm in an odd situation right now where I "work" as a Therapist in my last semesters of my Masters. It is brain work; and I have worked hard (cerebrally, and time wise) to acquire the knowledge for this role. The actual work is easier, more gratifying, less draining, and in general "better" than most jobs I've had. Simultaneously, however, I am working for minimum wage as a library assistant. In the last 10 years, I have:

 

Managed/worked Fireworks stands

Run poker tournaments for a free (meaning they don't pay money to pay and it's not gambling) poker league

Cleaned an office building

Provided before and after school care at public schools

Owned and operated daycares

 

I worked harder, for less pay, less reward, and longer hours in the above than I do as a trained, credentialed therapist.

 

Working at or close to minimum wage is not a livable reality. My husband was just offered $7.75 an hour to work at Wal Mart (he is a former police officer and has a college degree in business).

 

I don't care what opinion you have of people, assistance, and abuse of the system. But your assumptions about working, hard work, and the financial reality are inaccurate and sometimes insulting. What millions of Americans are experiencing does not match your point of view.

 

Just wanted to point out that working isn't the solution to being poor, especially now, when nearly all of the new jobs being created are very low-paying service jobs. A study recently came out showing that, not only can you not get by on a full-time minimum-wage job (which should be a no-brainer for anybody to see, given that 40 hours a week of minimum-wage work only brings in $15,080/year before anything is taken out), but that even having two full-time minimum-wage workers in a home would not be enough, in many cases, to support a family given the cost of living.

 

http://www.freep.com/article/20110531/NEWS06/105310351/New-study-You-can-t-live-minimum-wage

 

So "just get a job and work hard!" doesn't cut it, sorry. When jobs that pay a real living or family wage are disappearing, and being replaced with low-paying or minimum-wage service jobs, that's not going to work for many people. I think you have to be speaking from a place of enormous privilege to imagine that.

 

If we want to benefit from the labor of poorly-paid service workers, and if companies want to profit off of the labor of these workers and keep their wages low, then we have no right at all to complain about "our" money going to make up the difference between what these workers are paid and what you actually need to get by.

 

Exactly. Thank you.

Edited June 3, 2011 by Joanne

[Cheryl in NM]

:lol: Your understanding of Canadian media is woefully inaccurate. A quick google would have cleared up that misunderstanding. CBC is a Crown corporation, but we have more than one radio station and one tv station up here, plus the myriad newspapers and magazines. Oh, and Canada is a capitalist country, too. Again, google can be your friend.

 

I thought Canada had government run health care, as well as other government run industries?

 

My apologies about the media. Notice I said it was my understanding instead of stating unequivocally. It was very late here and I really shouldn't have still been on the boards! :D I had spent all day googling different things in this thread and my brain was hurting! :tongue_smilie:

 

Of course, you can have more than one government-run media station, but I get what you are saying.

[Tea Time]

Can you point to a time or place when this has happened? When prosperity really was evenly spread around, with no government intervention? Any time or place in history at all would do.

 

I'm just not sure how you can think, when we KNOW that the jobs being created right now are low-paying service jobs, and that good-paying jobs are disappearing, that "being productive" or getting a job is the answer. Americans are actually REALLY productive; the problem is that their productivity is lining the pockets of a very, very small number of people, rather than being evenly spread throughout the economy. This is why we can see companies bringing in record profits when unemployment is at record highs and the average person sees their wages stagnate or fall.

 

What jobs do you want the poor to take? How do you think that more deregulation--doing exactly what we've been doing for the last 30 years--would make things better for them or create more jobs? Can you point to times or places where this has actually worked, and the situation of the poor IMPROVED when government safety nets weren't present and the economy went unregulated?

 

I posted the other comment before I read this.

 

Look around. The West has generated immense wealth. Mexico has people immigrating like crazy because of it. It is not spread around in perfect equality. That has never happened, and it will not ever happen. This is not because we don't have the correct form of economic system or the right, wise people in place. It is because of the reality of life, like gravity and wrinkles. The illusion is thinking that if we just pull off the "excess" (in our opinion) of the "rich" then we can "fix" poverty. But that doesn't happen either.

 

The closest we have come to healthy balance has happened right here in the West, in free countries with free markets. Not perfect, to be sure, but a whole lot better than communist Russia or China, for that matter.

 

Now you tell me where in history has socialistic governments generated wealth on that scale? Tell me where in history all have lived in equality? Don't tell me about small pockets who are doing that right now living off the wealth accumulated through that process. Those ships are sinking.

 

You cannot make people rich, but you can make everyone poor. It is like growing plants, you can create the environment that encourages growth, but you can't force it. You can, however, create the environment that will kill all the plants. We can certainly all live in poverty if equality is your highest goal.

 

Look, I know people are struggling. I've got two kids in college, and that is the biggest scam ever run. I worry! I know there are problems. I just think it is crazy that people really believe more government programs will fix those problems. People are getting frighteningly close to behaving as if they have a right to claim other peoples possessions (using the blunt instrument of government) because they view them as "the rich." Anyone who has gotten a leg up should find that idea frightening. And I think a lot of people have seen improvements in their standard of living in their lifetime. The things I see holding my children back are cost of college and SS and medicare programs. Those will cripple the progress of young people.

 

Again, I repeat: How can anyone who has taken up homeschooling because of the FAILURE of public education think the government has the solutions? HOW?

 

I try to honestly answer your questions. I want to get to real answers, but I think your side (not a person per se) ignores mine and just lists off more problems they think government programs will solve. Yes, we get that, but your solutions are untenable and scary.

 

I don't think anyone here is putting down people on assistance or in need, nor do they want to curtail their freedoms (hardly!). That is not the issue really, it is the disconnect in how to spend public funds. We will always have fights over that when individuals do not have freedom to make those choices, politicians do. I don't really want to see more of that myself.

 

Have a great day!

[LidiyaDawn]

It's actually the polar bears that run everything up here. :w00t: