I believe this is why hardcore libs want a more"European" America

[Ronin13]

It's already happening here. There are a lot of people that would rather be on welfare and food stamps as it pays better than Walmart does to stock shelves.

I read a piece not too long ago that spoke about how people on Welfare and food stamps here in CO make more than any entry level position for someone without prior experience or education can make... That's half the problem right there- the other half is that absent work ethic.

[Rucker61]

I read a piece not too long ago that spoke about how people on Welfare and food stamps here in CO make more than any entry level position for someone without prior experience or education can make... That's half the problem right there- the other half is that absent work ethic.

By entry level, do you mean full time minimum wage, or some other rate? I'm curious what entry level would be. I work for a pretty big company, and entry level here for a EE isn't typical.

[Ronin13]

By entry level, do you mean full time minimum wage, or some other rate? I'm curious what entry level would be. I work for a pretty big company, and entry level here for a EE isn't typical.

I mean entry level for the average company for some joe schmo off the street... I don't mean like "mail room clerk" for Trans Montane, generally speaking more of the "fry dude" at McDonald's entry level employment, or entry level position at WalMart.

What we need (in my estimation) is a weaning of the sucklings. To wish death on people is wrong. We need to start cutting back support, make people hungry, not starving. Hungry enough to see the benefit of working. We need to scale back the Federal government massively. But, we dont want wide spread death and destruction because of it. We need to close the borders, stop birth tourism, eliminate the 14th amendment.

But, we dont want our own people to die. Wake up people, death sucks. This isnt your video game or tv. It is reality.

Honestly, I couldn't agree more... I probably couldn't have worded as nicely either.

[Rucker61]

I mean entry level for the average company for some joe schmo off the street... I don't mean like "mail room clerk" for Trans Montane, generally speaking more of the "fry dude" at McDonald's entry level employment, or entry level position at WalMart.

Just to make sure I understand, you want welfare recipients to leave the house and get minimum wage jobs.

[Ronin13]

Just to make sure I understand, you want welfare recipients to leave the house and get minimum wage jobs.

I don't care what kind of jobs they get- hell if they work hard or have valuable skills they should be able to get some pretty well paying jobs... I was simply saying that if you look at some minimum wage or close to minimum wage job, at 40 hrs a week it doesn't pay as much as welfare and food stamps... and that's a big part of the problem. I saw what you were trying to do there- please don't try and twist my words. But if someone lacks skills or experience, they don't have a right to just jump into a job that pays $50K/yr, they need to learn that they get what they earn and with most places of employment, you start at the bottom and work your way up, no one is entitled to earn a comfortable living from the very start.

[Rucker61]

I don't care what kind of jobs they get- hell if they work hard or have valuable skills they should be able to get some pretty well paying jobs... I was simply saying that if you look at some minimum wage or close to minimum wage job, at 40 hrs a week it doesn't pay as much as welfare and food stamps... and that's a big part of the problem. I saw what you were trying to do there- please don't try and twist my words. But if someone lacks skills or experience, they don't have a right to just jump into a job that pays $50K/yr, they need to learn that they get what they earn and with most places of employment, you start at the bottom and work your way up, no one is entitled to earn a comfortable living from the very start.

Ronin, mon ami, I wasn't trying to put words in your mouth. That's why I asked a clarifying question. First, I think that we're all in alignment with the desired goal, to reduce the numbers of people on government assistance and reduce the amount of money that the Feds and States spend on government assistance. I do see that there's some disagreement as to the efficacy of suggested methods. For one, I disagree that there are jobs out there for welfare recipients, as there aren't enough jobs out there for people who want to work. I'd would surmise that of the minimum wage jobs that are out there that a substantial percentage are not full time, to avoid having to provide benefits to employees. For single parents on assistance, the cost of childcare while working can be a disincentive to work outside of the home. We'd also have to change the laws that allow someone to earn up to $1000 per month and still collect welfare to reduce overall costs.

Regarding the lifestyles afforded by welfare and by minimum wage jobs, it's true that no one is entitled to earn a comfortable living, at any time. Both lifestyles are poverty level, and by definition those are uncomfortable lifestyles. There are those who are self-directed to work hard enough to escape the generational poverty trap, and we applaud those people who succeed, but those numbers are low enough that there is no significant impact on the numbers who continue on. If we want to reduce government assistance and end up with an enhanced workforce, we have to find ways to teach the majority during childhood, how to escape that trap. We also need to follow through on employment once adulthood is reached

[Ronin13]

Ronin, mon ami, I wasn't trying to put words in your mouth. That's why I asked a clarifying question. First, I think that we're all in alignment with the desired goal, to reduce the numbers of people on government assistance and reduce the amount of money that the Feds and States spend on government assistance. I do see that there's some disagreement as to the efficacy of suggested methods. For one, I disagree that there are jobs out there for welfare recipients, as there aren't enough jobs out there for people who want to work. I'd would surmise that of the minimum wage jobs that are out there that a substantial percentage are not full time, to avoid having to provide benefits to employees. For single parents on assistance, the cost of childcare while working can be a disincentive to work outside of the home. We'd also have to change the laws that allow someone to earn up to $1000 per month and still collect welfare to reduce overall costs.

Regarding the lifestyles afforded by welfare and by minimum wage jobs, it's true that no one is entitled to earn a comfortable living, at any time. Both lifestyles are poverty level, and by definition those are uncomfortable lifestyles. There are those who are self-directed to work hard enough to escape the generational poverty trap, and we applaud those people who succeed, but those numbers are low enough that there is no significant impact on the numbers who continue on. If we want to reduce government assistance and end up with an enhanced workforce, we have to find ways to teach the majority during childhood, how to escape that trap. We also need to follow through on employment once adulthood is reached

Okay, glad you weren't trying to put words in my mouth. I agree but also have to give the harsh, stark reminder of rights guaranteed in this country: You have the right to life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness. You do not have the right to be comfortable in your living. You do not have the right to not be poor. You are not guaranteed the right to succeed- some do, some fail, that's life, no one said it was easy. As far as parents (single or otherwise)- no one forced them to have children. We as a society, and I feel bad for the unfortunate kids, don't get me wrong, have eroded away responsibility- if you can't afford a child, abstain! I know that's asking something that's not realistic, but you do that dance you have to accept the potential consequences of doing so- kinda like jumping onto a bull's back. I have sympathy for children who grow up poor, I have no sympathy for parents who made the choice to take the risk, had a kid, and can't care for it without assistance from the tax payers and (key here) have no desire to rise above the system of assistance. I understand hard times can befall anyone- and I'm not knocking them, I'm knocking the lazy folks who don't try and get off the gov tit. Look at countries that lack a welfare system- Afghanistan for example- they live within their means as they can afford, seems to me like they get along fine without an Escalade and a Sony 40" TV... that's where I get a little angry over this whole bullshit- live within your means- if you make $9.50 an hour, live like you make $9.50 an hour! Jr. doesn't need a fucking XBox.