[Masthead] Mostly Cloudy ~ 81°F  
High: 91°F ~ Low: 67°F
Tuesday, July 22, 2014

Columns and reactions

Posted Monday, September 15, 2008, at 4:53 PM

I probably wrote more columns, sports and oherwise, than anyone in the history of the Times-Gazette.

Back then, as too often today, some people had a problem with anyone having an opinon that differed from their own thoughts on a given subject.

Two comments I made years ago led to hearing from some of these people.

Drawing the most reaction was a comment I made several times on those who believe the world owes them a living. During that column I wrote those who reach deepest unto the pot never put a darned thing in it and added that an aching belly due to hunger would get them to working for a living more quickly than welfare programs.

Running a close second was when I expressed my opinion that a huge load was put our schools when they were forced to go into the babysitting business.

I found that when you never received a reaction from readers, you'd better take a look at the subjects you are writing about and it is better to write columns pertaining to community problems and other people rather than about my own boring self.

And, most of all, never expect every one to agree with you.


Comments
Showing comments in chronological order
[Show most recent comments first]

I would have to agree with both of those comments though.

-- Posted by greasemonkey on Mon, Sep 15, 2008, at 5:09 PM

Totally agree with your comments. My question is, how do all these illegals drive around here, have wrecks, and nothing happen to them, but fines. Example, I have 2 illegal mexicans that work with me, they were driving thru Rover and got stopped doing 62mph in a 45mph zone. Had no license, registration, insurance, NOTHING. They were wrote a ticket & released to keep on driving toward Shelbyville. How does this happen ? Also, they told a coworker, they didn't need a license or insurance, they just drive to work. They live in Shelbyville & drive to Nolensville, EVERY DAY !! Our law enforcement really needs a wake up call ASAP.

-- Posted by SteelerT on Mon, Sep 15, 2008, at 5:41 PM

Why did you hire illegals? Isn't that illegal?

-- Posted by bettyhbrown on Tue, Sep 16, 2008, at 5:50 AM

Bo . . . usually the truth hurts the most and people dont like to hear it and what you wrote was the absolute truth.

-- Posted by jaxspike on Tue, Sep 16, 2008, at 7:48 AM

Time2relax

You are entitled to your opinions and I am not here to start an argument but racial slurs are inappropriate in every situation.

-- Posted by flat creek girl on Tue, Sep 16, 2008, at 10:03 AM

I agree flat creek girl . . . any argument made is always made void when racial slurs are used in stating that argument. It keeps true dialogue and discussion on the subject from being made.

-- Posted by jaxspike on Tue, Sep 16, 2008, at 10:13 AM

O.K. Report it, have it removed. Not a problem.

-- Posted by time2relax on Tue, Sep 16, 2008, at 10:22 AM

I am not going to report you . . . I just think its better to take your anger and focus it on constructive criticism and make an argument that will be taken more seriously than one filled with racial slurs. I actually agree with some of your points in a way.

-- Posted by jaxspike on Tue, Sep 16, 2008, at 10:45 AM

Wow. You sound like Archie Bunker.

Have you ever been to the health department WIC line, or to the Welfare Office? I assure you, they are both also full of many, many white people.

-- Posted by Nobody'sFool on Tue, Sep 16, 2008, at 1:08 PM

memyselfi,

You don't know me. You don't know how close to poverty level that my family is. I take pride in working and so does my spouse. They may not be the best jobs in the world, but the jobs we have keep us from having to live off YOUR tax money.

I understand that sometimes circumstances beyond their control happens...job layoffs, injuries, illness, accidents and so forth. I'm not talking about those people. I personally know people who have been on welfare, foodstamps etc since their 20's; they are now in their 30's and 40's. Yeah, they've had jobs here and there but would rather live off the gov't. So they intentionally do something to get fired, they ask to be laid off, and yes I've even known a few to fake and injury.

I can't speak for Bo, but I think that was part of his concern for having started this blog. People wanting hand-outs, people sitting on their backsides and getting fat and happy off the work that others do.

-- Posted by time2relax on Tue, Sep 16, 2008, at 1:20 PM

I understand what you are saying time2relax because no one knows any better than I do about people staying on the system for years when they are just as able to work as I am.

Nothing in this world makes me any madder than having to step over some lazy bum laying in the floor playing X-box on their big screen TV knowing my taxes have bought them.

But we must also consider the ones who are truly in need that try to get out of the system yet it seems the system won't allow them to get out.

Example: Not so long ago I had a young single mother of 3 come to me happier than I had ever seen her. She was excited because she had finally got a job and would be making 8.75 an hour. ( I knew in my heart though her happiness would be short lived) After turning in her paperwork on her new job she was told she would lose all of her rental assistance and her rent would go to over $400.00 a month, she would also lose her Food Stamps completely and would not be eligible for child care assistance.

Figure if you will: 3 children in daycare 2 of which are still in diapers $200.00-$250.00 week.

$400.00 a month in rent

plus lights and water

Food

Gas for her car

Expenses

Child Care $800-1000 a month

Rent- $400 a month

Food for 4- $250-300 a month

Lights and water $150-200 a month

Not including Gas for her car or insurance

Even using the lower of the numbers she has 1600 worth of expenses.

Making 8.75 an hour she makes 1400 a month before taxes.

Needless to say she cried when she had to turn down the job because she would not have been able to Feed her children.

I have questioned this several times wondering why the system could not just take some of her assistance and let her work but it seems to be an all or nothing situation.

So many people abuse the system we sometimes forget there are those out there that want to get out but honestly can't.

There is nothing fair or right about the way the system works. Remember there are many elderly out here making less than $500.00 a month on Social Security and only eligible for $20 in food stamps. This makes me sick to think we treat our elderly like this but that is how our system works.

-- Posted by Dianatn on Tue, Sep 16, 2008, at 2:11 PM

Racial slurs are a violation of our terms of service, as posted at http://www.t-g.com/help/legal/ . Please notify us of racial slurs or profanity by clicking the exclamation point logo next to each comment.

-- Posted by Jicarney on Tue, Sep 16, 2008, at 2:19 PM

time2relax, You are exactly right, I do not know you and it is unfair for me to assume anything at all about you. My question to you is pretty much the same though. Do you know the people that you see using food stamps? I see from your comment to me that you do understand that people have hard times. That can be the case regardless of skin color or ethnicity. I see many people of all different races actually working at jobs that do not provide adequate income to support a family. I try to assume the positive about folks when I see them out, even if they are using food stamps.

-- Posted by memyselfi on Tue, Sep 16, 2008, at 3:41 PM

I try to assume the positive about folks when I see them out, even if they are using food stamps.

-- Posted by memyselfi on Tue, Sep 16, 2008, at 3:41 PM

Then good for you. I applaud you for being a saint.

I have seen SOME (not all) of these same persons, forget the race issue, use food stamps and then drive away from the grocery store in newer cars. How can that be? How can they be on food stamps or have 3 kids and use WIC and still be able to drive cars that are less than 2 or 3 years old. If somebody can set me straight on this, then I'll be glad to draw back my negative comments.

-- Posted by time2relax on Tue, Sep 16, 2008, at 4:35 PM

Because cars are no longer considered an asset..cars are now considered a necessity.

A long time ago in order to receive any type of assistance you could not have much if any at all assets even your furniture was considered an asset back then.. and a car was an asset. If you had more than $1000.00 in assets, you had to sell it before you received any help. It's not that way any more.

-- Posted by Dianatn on Tue, Sep 16, 2008, at 4:47 PM

Have you ever considered the possibility that a person can have a good job, a new car, a kid playing sports and a bass boat...and then lose their job when their factory shuts down? Then what? They may be forced to rely on public assistance.

It happens. Just because someone has a new car or a nice home, doesn't mean that it's paid for.

And again, this happens with people of every race. I do agree that it should only be available to legal citizens, but the entire tone of your original post implied that you've clearly labeled entire races as bums, regardless of their legal status.

-- Posted by Nobody'sFool on Tue, Sep 16, 2008, at 6:05 PM

I have been called many things, but never have I been referred to as a saint or even saintly. Thank you. I do not know how to answer you though. Again, I do not know the people. The 2 comments after yours give good plausible reasons though. There are many other possibilities also. Maybe they can afford a nice car because they live in a horse barn with their family. Maybe they share a room with 10 other men to save expenses. It could be a dependable car that 2 or more families share. Maybe they actually live in their car and are paying $75.00 a week to a "we tote the note" car lot. Maybe they are driving their boss's car. Who knows? I certainly do not know their situation. How can you be so certain that you do?

-- Posted by memyselfi on Tue, Sep 16, 2008, at 6:55 PM

People wanting hand-outs, people sitting on their backsides and getting fat and happy off the work that others do.

-- Posted by time2relax on Tue, Sep 16, 2008, at 1:20 PM

And you know what? I wonder if slaves use to say that about the people that captured and kidnapped them, held them prisoners to do work and labour that their "PATHETIC AND LAZY REAR-ENDS, FULL OF NOTHING BUT THE DEVIL, HOW DARE ANYONE CALL THEM CHRISTIANS OR DOERS OF GOD THE MOST HIGH" would do. Their land, cattle, crops, and fortune ALL should be given to the slaves that worked and laboured them! And that is any race. : )

-- Posted by Momof3&3step&1gran on Wed, Sep 17, 2008, at 12:31 AM

How did slavery come in to this?

-- Posted by jaxspike on Wed, Sep 17, 2008, at 8:53 AM

Our government has determined what a livable wage is. If an employer does not pay that equivalent, or a worker has multiple dependants, then that cost is passed on to the public. That results in higher profits for the employer, lower prices for the consumer and higher tax penalties for everyone (with the exceptions of the poor and extremely wealthy). The worker deserves a livable wage, as they are backbone of society. In the long run, it does not matter if it is a paycheck or food stamps except to the paycheck provider. It all comes out of the same pot the workers created to begin with. However, if it is paid with public funds, the middle brackets bear the brunt as opposed to the highest brackets. In reality, reducing costs and more importantly increasing competitiveness, especially in the global market. Many entitlements appear to be based more on protectionist trade and budget manipulation and deception than actually feeding the hungry.

There are many abusers of this system and I doubt the most serious offenders are the recipients. Wal-Mart is one name synonymous with passing the cost of their business to the public, but there are some you may not think of, like the US Armed Forces who have large percentages of the lower ranking enlisted taking advantage of entitlement programs.

I wonder what would happen to our economy if we would take away the entitlement of food stamps. Most people assume that our income taxes would be reduced. That makes sense at first glance, but what happens when the stores sell less, order less, farmers produce less; farmers buy less and so on and so forth, eventually ending up where you work? What you would see is less money floating around being taxed in all corners of the economy.

The dollars (even if they are food stamps) that we see being passed around are our societies "worker bees". 1 single dollar in the right hands can produce 5 or more dollars in revenue within a year. The right hands are the ones who will spend it, and spend it quickly. If you could give away money and get a return like that, would you?

I have no problem with food stamp recipients as I believe that they do have a role to play, even if they are not working, but especially if they are. If there is anyone that believes that believes that being poverty stricken is fun and enjoyable, I do encourage them to try it. More than 50% of this communities children are living in poverty, and are likely on some sort of assistance. I challenge anyone to tell all these children that something is wrong with their families as opposed to the reality that it is a consequence of the system their families live in.

jaxspike, I hope Momof3&3 does not mind me writing why I think she may have brought up slavery, but it may have been to draw a line of comparison to the fact that the people who are not on assistance depend heavily on the ones who are, to provide them the lifestyle they believe everyone should have, without ever realizing that they play a part in why there are so many poor people that have to be dealt with to begin with. I hope that is right, if not I hope she corrects me. That same concept can be extrapolated to the world economy at large though, and even our poor have it so much better than many. Again, gaining at the expense of those with less.

-- Posted by memyselfi on Wed, Sep 17, 2008, at 10:37 AM

jaxspike, I hope Momof3&3 does not mind me writing why I think she may have brought up slavery, but it may have been to draw a line of comparison to the fact that the people who are not on assistance depend heavily on the ones who are, to provide them the lifestyle they believe everyone should have, without ever realizing that they play a part in why there are so many poor people that have to be dealt with to begin with.-- Posted by memyselfi on Wed, Sep 17, 2008, at 10:37 AM

memyselfi, be my guest.

You are very much on target, and made a very good point about the "worker bees". As they say the poorer keeps getting poorer, and the richer keeps getting richer. There is always going to be this 3 way system of poor, middle class, and the rich. They are all dependent on each other just as you said, If you remove one then it is going to interfere with the other and so on. Also I think if it becomes too much one sided, as in one of the classes such as the middle class becoming more into the poor class, then their is going to start being more of a down fall in the rich class as well. "Kind of like how we may be getting into right now". LOL. Thanks for explaining. : )

-- Posted by Momof3&3step&1gran on Wed, Sep 17, 2008, at 11:47 AM

Food stamps are a form of slavery. I know that sounds shocking, but our govt has put the poor on the plantation of entitlements.

Its like Mr. Melson said "an aching belly due to hunger would get them to working for a living more quickly than welfare programs". That is the absolute truth. We are a rewards based creature. If we are rewarded for being poor,i.e. food stamps, then why not stay poor. You have all you need and dont have to work as hard to get it. But, if we are rewarded for being succesful, i.e. higher income, than we strive to climb the ladder. When you realize you have no one to depend on for the neccesities of life but yourself, you find a way to make the money.

I do understand that people have hard times, I have been there. Sometimes people need a little help to get them through a rough patch. Some people, i.e. the elderly or disabled, cant take care of themselves. In these circumstances yes help should be provided. But, when you see generation after generation of the same family getting these entitlements, because they can, well thats a different issue. I would say that most entitlement recievers fall in that catagory. I know some people that "work the system" for a living. I have seen several people with food stamps sell them, so they can buy cigarettes or beer.

There will always be 3 classes of people, thats just how its going to be. I dont mind being lower middle class right now. I was below the poverty level for a long time, but with hard work I have bettered myself. With no entitlements at all.

-- Posted by greasemonkey on Wed, Sep 17, 2008, at 12:14 PM

Very well said greasemonkey. That is true.

-- Posted by Momof3&3step&1gran on Wed, Sep 17, 2008, at 12:48 PM

I agree greasemonkey . . . I just have a hard time feeling sorry for those that wont help themselves when they are capable.

-- Posted by jaxspike on Wed, Sep 17, 2008, at 1:26 PM

Jaxspike,

Yeah, I dont have much pity for those that won't help themselves. I work with a boy that is allowed to work as many hours as he wants. He gets food stamps and is on a couple of other programs like free housing. The reason he can do this is he claims to be a sinlge father, well he is technically single and he does have a child. But, he lives with his girlfriend who has 2 kids and also gets the same entitlements, and she works at Wal-Mart full time. They will not get married because they will lose those entitlements, and he will not work a full 40 hrs its always like 36 -39, because he knows his limits on what he can make and still get the "ole govt check". At the end of the year they get back more taxes than they paid in, how insane is that. With his tax return this year he bought a playstation 3, and within 3 days he had to borrow money from a co-worker to put gas in his car. This is just one example of many that I personally know about. How many more are there out there?

-- Posted by greasemonkey on Wed, Sep 17, 2008, at 2:00 PM

greasemonkey

There are a lot just like him..the problem is when you take away the "entitlements" you are not only hurting these adults you are hurting the children.

I personally have a problem with people collecting disability and working. Did you know they are allowed to work and still draw their disability? Now that's insane. I always thought disability was for those unable to work..

I also know many people who have been trying for years to get disability who truly can not work and can not collect.

Our system amazes me more and more everyday.

-- Posted by Dianatn on Wed, Sep 17, 2008, at 2:18 PM

As I read everyone's comments it is easy to discern between "old school" and "new school". One of my Mothers favorite lines when I wanted something that she could not afford was to tell me that I would just have to learn to "make do".

It seems to me that today I am seeing more and more of a feeling of entitlement (you owe me).

-- Posted by leeiii on Wed, Sep 17, 2008, at 4:54 PM

greasemonkey, We have been all the way around this tree before and never really fully examined it. I am going to write a super long comment that you are obviously not obligated to read, but I hope you do. I understand your position regarding perpetual welfare recipients. I do not view these people as being the same burden as you though, and I will try to explain why. I also do agree that there is a correlation between entitlements and the "slavery" of today. I do not think it is as simple as just the entitlements being a form of slavery, and I believe the causation is misplaced. I also very seriously doubt that I have the ability to show exactly why I believe that is, as it is a very complicated and multi-faceted issue and my ability to express myself is inadequate. I lack the exact words and expressions that I need.

I think the best way to try, is to explain my belief that this pie is in in fact very limited. It can be grown, but to make it bigger, it needs more cooks, not more hostesses. Not everyone can work hard and be successful in this particular equation. I do realize that is not a politically correct statement, but I guess I will have to make several more to accompany it. Here they go all at once:

We, as a society in general, apparently believe that we need several things from the lowest ranks of our socio-economic classes. They must, when taken as a whole, be hungry (not literally, but easily put into that position), undereducated and easily pliable. Their main function is to provide the labor that sustains everyone else as well as themselves, especially by displaying a willingness (or desperation) to do the less than glamorous jobs that make life so much easier for everyone else who is doing something "important". They have been charged with the responsibility of keeping our economy primed with a steady stream of their sustenance income. We must also have some form of population control in place to provide an adequate supply of reserve labor in case of emergency or war.

If you are still with me after all that, it should not be a stretch to reason that not everyone can escape poverty and expect our economy and society to remain unchanged. If you took the average income of all Americans and gave everyone their equal percentage of this "American pie", you would likely see drastic changes in our workforce immediately and watch this same enormous pie shrink every successive year. It is just not in society's best interest to remove the lower classes, or appease them to a point of complacency. They are needed on many levels and for several purposes, even the ones that do not work. More and more of our real manufacturing jobs are being taken away and many that are left could actually be cut with available technology. If all we wanted to do was to maintain everyone in this country with a fairly high standard, my guess is that about a 10 hour work week for about 25% of the population would do the trick. We are in the land of plenty to the 3rd power given the technological advances we have seen and our position in the world economy, even if we do find ourselves apparently dependant on oil at the time. We, in all actuality, do not have the jobs available or the basic need for everyone in our society to work in that way anymore. We do need consumers though. More consumers to purchase more subsidized goods and services to keep the jobs we do have viable and our trade agreements fulfilled thereby keeping the profits rising and the tax revenues coming in. A good example to refer to is the "housing crisis" that was actually a consumer crisis in its most basic form.

I do not think the federal government provides a large percentage of the entitlement programs with the objective of helping the poor. Let me give you just one example. Other more socialized countries call welfare to parents exactly what it is, it is the choice a society can make to pay a parent to give up a career or at least work less at one and raise children instead. There are very real issues involving mothers working outside the home that have effects on society that are more costly in the long run than paying this sustenance "wage". Because of our capitalist mentality, this description is never used, but it is real and it is very important. It does not matter how it is masked to the public either. It can be welfare payments to families until the population gets tired of that and then after promises of reform, switch it to tax "rebates" on taxes never paid. It can be in the form of food stamps, or all 3 of these. It does not matter how it is delivered, the effect is the same and the effect produces the desired goal. That is just one example, there are many other societal and economic ways that the entitlements are in fact beneficial to everyone in general.

We live in a token society anyway. The dollars spent on entitlements or paid in taxes or earned from labor have no real value. The value they have is exactly what is decided by the few and made to be reality for the many through a complicated series of controls and valves. The few do not measure their worth in dollars, but in market share and percentages of GDP with little concern if they are seeing dollars or rocks provided they represent the industry of the population at large. Dollars are not made at the mint, but at your local bank. They come from nowhere and are repaid with very real labor and resources with interest being paid for the use of the imaginary value. It is usually very easy to see when someone is taking your dollars, but it is a little harder figuring out where yours actually come from. The only things of real value in any society are labor, resources and the knowledge to use them. We happen to live in a society that has an abundance of all 3, and I for one am glad that we have the luxury of providing for 3 classes of relatively contented people. There have not been many peasant uprisings lately after all. By the very structure of our society, we need the poor. So the question that is left is: What does the least among us deserve and which one of his many bosses is to make sure that he gets it and divvy it out?

For your other comment: If some guy is trying to milk the system and gains a PS3, while I do not have one, I am not going to complain. (Although I would like one and a very large plasma to go with it) He and his girlfriend work, get food stamps and live in government housing along with other benefits. He is still broke 3 days after getting his check according to your comment. He is not getting wealthy by any stretch of the imagination. He did what he was supposed to do with his distribution. I would be more offended if he purchased a high-rise somewhere....but wait....someone has purchased all of those high-rise buildings...where did they get the funds? Food stamps? Yes!!! I bet many of those buildings owners "get" food stamps on the other end in a round about way, some more directly than others, and you can bet none of them are concerned with helping the poor.

-- Posted by memyselfi on Thu, Sep 18, 2008, at 2:30 AM

I agree that we will always have and need a lower class. They as a group are an essential part of society. Some people work their way up from the lower class to become very wealthy and successful. (Although I believe success has little to do with money, but thats another blog)

Most poor people though are just wired to be poor, and there is nothing wrong with that. You could take a man that has been poor his whole life and seems to never get a break, and then take a man who has great wealth, and switch them around. Put the rich man in the poor mans house and poor man in the rich mans house and in a couple of years they will be back like they started.

If these people (I was there once before someone thinks I am being judgemental) wish to live without any personal responsibility, than so be it. But, we the taxpayer should not have to shoulder the burden. I understand in the grand scheme of things it is a relatively small burden, when you have a govt who spends like a skanky hotel heiress.

-- Posted by greasemonkey on Thu, Sep 18, 2008, at 9:24 AM

While we are on welfare and entitlements, its not just the poor. Its also these business who make poor decisions, we have no business shouldering their burdens either.

It takes all kinds and classes of people to have a functioning society. If we only had wealthy people than who would cut their grass or clean their house? If we were all middle class then who would provide the jobs and who would pay enough taxes to provide neccasary infrastructure?

I think we both have valid arguments, and I can see your point of view. It is awesome to be able to debate in such a fashion without someone telling me I am rascist or that I am spreading fear, hate and discontent.

-- Posted by greasemonkey on Thu, Sep 18, 2008, at 9:49 AM

I think we both have valid arguments, and I can see your point of view. It is awesome to be able to debate in such a fashion without someone telling me I am rascist or that I am spreading fear, hate and discontent.

-- Posted by greasemonkey on Thu, Sep 18, 2008, at 9:49 AM

I absolutely agree . . . discussing differences in opinion in a civilized manner and have true dialogue is how some problems get solved.

-- Posted by jaxspike on Thu, Sep 18, 2008, at 10:12 AM

Also, great point leeiii. That was how I was rasied too . . . if I want something then I need to work for it and if I can't, then do without.

-- Posted by jaxspike on Thu, Sep 18, 2008, at 10:14 AM

memyselfi, that is very well said. And very much true. If Shelbyville, all of a sudden had a new Business that came and opened up here, and was hiring 500 -1300 people with a starting pay of $13.00 hr - $20.00 hr. with great benefits. Alot of people would be trying to get on at this job, the housing market here in Shelbyville would probably improve, as well as spending with stores and restaraunts here. But everyone that applies for the job will not get the job for many different reasons. (In no paticular order):

1. Qualification Experience (Education, Training).

2. Physical ability to do the job, as in (Height, Strength ability).

3. Past job history (Experience, Performance, Years, Attendance).

4. Character/Attitude (Responsible/Reliable/Hard Team Worker/Respectable Attitude)

5. Disability & Handicaps (Mental, Physical)

6. Criminal Records, Citizenship, Not sure, but I believe some check Credit history also.

7. And sometimes, depending on the type of job it is, they will Over Look an application to take another application instead as: Male instead of female if it is a strenghneous type of job, and female instead of male for some jobs as secretary, or childcare.

Any one with a Bad work history, bad character/attitude, disability/handicap is going to have a hard time getting or keeping a job. And alot of these type of people will be dependent upon the welfare system.

Then we have those that do work, that only make $7-$9 hr. whether full time or part-time, possibly with dependents, that still have to have the assistance of welfare to make ends meet. Also when you live in a city that has limited GOOD PAYING JOBS and high population, and only provides mostly low income jobs you will definitely have alot on welfare, and those women that have 2 or more kids quite often will not be able to work due to childcare cost and low income. This is the way Shelbyville is right now.

-- Posted by Momof3&3step&1gran on Thu, Sep 18, 2008, at 12:58 PM

greasemonkey, Not a long comment, but if you dont mind, I really would like an answer to the question "What does the least among us deserve and which one of his many bosses is to make sure that he gets it and divvy it out". I know the first and easiest answer is "What they earn and are worth" but remember, we all serve a purpose and we cannot all be successful. Again, it's not a trick question or a bait. I just want to know your opinion (anyone else's too). You just appear from your comments to be a middle of the road kind of person and I am curious.

Momof3&3step&1gran, That is interesting. I also wonder what would happen if your imaginary business came in with 10,000 jobs like the ones you mentioned and what the effects of that would be.

-- Posted by memyselfi on Thu, Sep 18, 2008, at 7:17 PM

memyselfi,

The least among us deserve to have the opportunity to aquire a decent job, and to be able to work their way up. I agree we cant all be successful, but a person should be willing to work for their success however limited it is. I also believe that if someone is on govt assistance and is able to work they should not be allowed to engage in wasteful spending. I.E. no cigarettes, toys, etc. etc. without removal of said assistance. But, those unable through handicap, should have all the help they need. In short yeah "what they earn and are worth". We can not become enablers of bad decisions. The best help we can give is to help these people gain the freedom of self reliance.

-- Posted by greasemonkey on Fri, Sep 19, 2008, at 9:17 AM

Momof3&3step&1gran, That is interesting. I also wonder what would happen if your imaginary business came in with 10,000 jobs like the ones you mentioned and what the effects of that would be.

-- Posted by memyselfi on Thu, Sep 18, 2008, at 7:17 PM

memyselfi, not really sure but I could picture that the populaion in Shelbyville would Grow tremendously, more houses would be built, more businesses and restaurants would come, and probably more entertainment. Alot of people from other cities will be applying for these jobs as well, and those that are not able to get a job or hold a job will still be jobless. I am curious to know if other places besides Tyson hires hispanics, or somali refugees? This may ease the dependence on welfare as well, if they are legal or actual refugee of course.

I also believe that if someone is on govt assistance and is able to work they should not be allowed to engage in wasteful spending. I.E. no cigarettes, toys, etc. etc. without removal of said assistance. But, those unable through handicap, should have all the help they need. --- Posted by greasemonkey on Fri, Sep 19, 2008, at 9:17 AM

greasemonkey, I agree with you on spending welfare money on things they can live with out as "cigs, beer, toys, etc. as well. I believe they get this with other money than welfare money though. These people usually have a little income coming like child-support, or a part-time job, not enough to live off of though. Alot of people that you see, who are physically able to work, can not work because "NO ONE WILL HIRE THEM" (Unless they can get on at Tysons of course). This is because of criminal background, or poor work history due to (performance, attendance, or bad attitude) ex.:

1.They get the job, keep missing days and coming in late - they get fired. This is usually young people.

2.Also you have people that are a little slower in there performance, can not keep up with faster pace workers, or don't comprehend what they are trained - they get fired.

3.Then you have people that have "Authority Issues" don't like no one telling them what to do, or someone that likes to keep mess going, causing trouble on the job, running their mouth to much - they get fired.

All of these things cause some people to not be able to get a job, becuase their work history follows them. They may get a job that last 2 months and get fired. Some of these people may be able, to straighten up and change for the better, and some will not. They grew up this way, or it is a part of their character, or they don't know how to change it. It actually becomes a handy-cap for them. This could be with young and older people. This can cause the crime rate, violence, and alot of premarital babies to be born, which also end up on welfare too. I really do wish their was a Non-profit organization that has knowlege on helping people like this, as well as people with criminal records to be able to find jobs and become dependable citizens of themselves, as well as contribute back.

It may be hard for you to see, and understand this; but I have seen and know people like this, you can try to help them, and talk to them all you want to, but they have a hard time, or just can not break that cycle.

-- Posted by Momof3&3step&1gran on Fri, Sep 19, 2008, at 2:42 PM

Momof3&3step&1gran,

I agree that it can be hard to find a job with poor past performance, but I shouldnt have to pay for that behaviour. Help I can agree on, but a lifetime of entitlements just because they will not go out and look for a job is unacceptable. These people will never become a better worker if everytime they get fired they know that uncle sam will be there to take care of them.

I also know people like this, I have some of these people in my family. Everyone has hard times, and the only reason they cant break the cycle is because they dont want to.

It goes back to the comment "aching belly due to hunger would get them to working for a living more quickly than welfare programs".

-- Posted by greasemonkey on Fri, Sep 19, 2008, at 3:28 PM

greasemonkey, Before I write anything else, let me make it clear to you that I do understand exactly what you are saying about every point you touch on and you are not wrong at all. I am just asking you to try to look at the same issue from a different angle.

I am guessing that you imagine the "pie" of our economy in the same way that I see the limited "pie" of our socio-economic class structure, and the two have very little in common in my opinion. The pie that represents our economy can grow to infinity, provided it is balanced, and shrink to infinity if it is not. Self reliance is no longer a claim anyone can make and really be serious about it. You are not self reliant, and it should not be expected of anyone else. It just does not happen in our society. Some small groups can get close to it, but never completely.

I am at a loss to try and give an example, but will try to make one for this town. First we have to close the city off. If we are comparing this scenario to a national one, we cannot have too many outside factors because of my own time constraints. Let's assume that there are only 2000 people on food stamps in the city of Shelbyville (low percentage). 50% of those are working and the other half do not. The leaders of this great city decide that their constituents are tired of being burdened by these usurpers of funds that do not put anything into the pot. Overnight, the food stamps are taken away and taxes for everyone are reduced by 10%. The people that were not working are able to get jobs, but at a very low wage. The ones that were working get to keep their jobs, but are now only able to purchase the most basic necessities, as are the newly working group because the starting wage is barely sustenance level. The toy and cigarette makers notice their sales drop sharply, as do the supermarkets. They are selling less meat and more staples. To offset this, they have to reduce their workers, or pay them less. After all, there is an abundance of labor now and it is not justifiable for them to pay so much for labor and lose all their business to their competitor. Some of the butchers, toymakers and cigarette makers are now un-employed and have to find a job or face drastic pay reductions. They find that about the only job they can get is one that pays much less than their previous one, but they have to eat (no food stamps) and they take the jobs offered to them. This group of people now has to budget their funds just as carefully as the newly working ex-food stamp recipients, which puts further stresses onto our little society. The next group to fall are still more toymakers, butchers, some suppliers of the toy factories, some beef and tobacco farmers and some retail positions selling these items. These people also end up on the bottom rung of the pay scale, causing further stress on our society with still more layoffs and wage reductions. And so on and so forth until we find that we have all the labor we need to supply a city of poor people with many many people unemployed anyway, begging for food to survive. The tax revenues would eventually be far below the norm even after the 10% that was originally saved. It would be a cycle that would take us back decades. We would find out fairly quickly what all we do have that we could live without. Once all the funds are in a few hands, the economy tends to stagnate. I used toymakers and cigarette makers because they are the people you singled out to provide wasteful products.

Our currency is not a resource; it is a factor of the government. We cannot make any of it no matter how hard we work. The only way to get it is from the government's circulation. There are 2 basic ways to circulate money. The first is from the top and the second is from the bottom. For any type of trickle down to be effective, the bottom has to have something to begin with. If there is no potential gain, then there is no investment. Why would company X make widgets (or cigarettes or toys) if no one could afford them?

The food stamps and most entitlements should be seen as a control to provide balance to the "pie" so that some people can have more. This is not a political issue at all. The only argument about entitlements this election year is how much they should be increased and exactly what segment of society should benefit first (I said first because the currency should be fluid enough to help us all eventually).

I know it is hard to see that you may not actually "pay for that behavior", but can you understand why I do not believe that you do? It would be great if it were so simple that anyone who wanted a job could go get one, work hard, climb the ladder and be successful. That is just not the world I think we live in though. Let me point again to the current mess with housing. Who ever would have thought that being industrious and building homes with all this labor and resources we have laying around could cause any damage? We had everything we needed to get the job done. We were only lacking consumers. So, since we have the ability to make these houses, why not find more consumers? We can find them at the lower end of the credit and socio-economic scale. Everyone deserves a home and we can charge them enough interest, we can cover our potential losses from default, and most of these guys are so anxious to get the keys, they will sign anything, so lets also hit them with a balloon. Sounds great, we can't lose. It's a win-win situation. The problem is that when the domino falls, it falls on others. Our economy does not play out in a vacuum. The building of these homes for virtually invented consumers has de-valued most homes by causing too many to be on the market with the market only looking for the "right" buyer at this point. Each successive foreclosure made the value of every home drop. These developers, builders and their employees needed to be on food stamps instead of the work they were doing. I do not mean that in a joking way. They did serious damage to the balance of our economy just by trying to be successful. We cannot support everyone's success. We can support many unsuccessful people though and even benefit from them. Sorry I ramble on, but to sum it up, a belly aching from hunger may motivate someone to work, but their collective work may lead to your belly aching in its place, or worse, many bellies aching. We should encourage the mobility out of poverty for those industrious people who look for it, but we cannot force everyone out of their dependence on entitlements without drastic modifications to our society and economy. We support each other in our current situation, and for the most part, the poor are the ones that get the short end of the stick.

-- Posted by memyselfi on Sat, Sep 20, 2008, at 1:53 AM

memyselfi, Bush proved your scenario with the stimulus package. They wanted people to go spend it, stores were getting a decline in sales, but I believe people where trying to hold on to it for rainy days coming ahead, or trying to pay off depts and bills instead. This will cause layoffs, and closing of businesses. Our automobile industries are struggling as well as house market. The automobile business was actually suffering before the housing market.

greasemonkey, you and no one else have to accept or like the way things are with those on welfare, but this is the way it is and it will continue to be. Their can be more regulations on who is actually using it, and if they are really suppose to though, I believe. But it will always be needed by all walks of life sometime or another, and it will remain.

-- Posted by Momof3&3step&1gran on Sat, Sep 20, 2008, at 8:59 PM

Momof3&3step&1gran,

You are right that there will always be a need for help for many in life. That need has always been there and as you pointed out it will remain.

I also agree with others though that if someone has their health and is "able" to work they should work even if it means staarting at the bottom and working up.

The problem I see with the system is the fact that the ones that truly need help do not get enough because it has been spread out too thin to too many who really need to work instead of receive such a disabling crutch as welfare.

However, you have to consider if maybe the problem would not be a problem if the "church" would have kept properly focused on helping the truly of need and administered to the needy as they should have and let a few of the pretty building programs and sound systems lay idle until the needs of the needy were met.

But maybe the "church" innocently dropped the focus because the government implemented all these programs to start with and took the burden upon themselves to admister to the needy.

I really believe that no matter what happened the caring of the needy would have been better managed by the "church" following the principles of Christ and the inspired instructions of the apostles given in the Bible as it used to be.

-- Posted by parkerbrothers on Sun, Sep 21, 2008, at 10:02 AM

PB, In defense of the church at a whole, I have been to many soup kitchens and shelters run by and/or funded by churches. They, for the most part, cater to those that fall through the cracks or are waiting on benefits. This is the only group of really biblically poor people in this country. The majority of families we classify as poor are in all actuality, not doing too badly in comparison. The church still does much for many of the truly poor who are in dire need. In every town in this nation there is a church that will provide food, clothing sometimes even cash for gas or electricity. They cannot do much for the "created" poor at large though, and that is okay as it is not really their responsibility to my way of thinking. They do what they can, some more than others. Most churches depend on this "created poor" segment of the population to help support them anyway.

-- Posted by memyselfi on Sun, Sep 21, 2008, at 11:47 PM

memyselfi,

Sorry if I gave you the impression that the church did nothing to help the poor. My intentions was actually instead to show that the church used to be the administrator to the needy and that changed slowly in the last century as these "programs" were instituted by our government and they slowly became the "look to" for help. Unfortunately the government did not have the same discerning eye that the church did and all these programs have become by and large for the most part crutches to hobble the people with and keep them contentedly in a mild state of poverty.

-- Posted by parkerbrothers on Mon, Sep 22, 2008, at 7:05 AM

memyselfi,

I seriously doubt that removing food stamps would cause the collapse of the economy.

It is that simple, I wanted a job, I got one, I worked hard and I have climbed the ladder and the harder I work the more successful I become. I understand it does not happen like that all the time. I agree with a limited amount of help, we just shouldnt keep giving and giving without expecting some results.

Momof3&3step&1gran,

Thats why our govt is never held accountable for anything, when the people just say "thats just how it is". Do you not understand that the govt is supposed to work for us, not rule us. Some govt help will be needed, but help does not mean to be supported your whole life.

-- Posted by greasemonkey on Mon, Sep 22, 2008, at 10:44 AM

greasemonkey,

A lot of people have had some good points to consider but I have to lean toward you having in nailed right on the head.

Your views remind me of something I have read and been taught by my parents. I was told I would have a job as long as I sat at the table of my parents. I know where they got it from.

8Neither did we eat any man's bread for nought; but wrought with labour and travail night and day, that we might not be chargeable to any of you:

9Not because we have not power, but to make ourselves an ensample unto you to follow us.

10For even when we were with you, this we commanded you, that if any would not work, neither should he eat.

There are a lot of widows and elderly that truly need much more care than they are receiving. They are given so little because so much has been errantly given to men with healthy bodies that could work. There is no trouble in finding a job if you want to work. I dare say that any healthy man could walk less than a mile down the road and have 3 jobs if he would get off the disabling crutch provided him that he does not truly need but wants.

There is a big difference between wants and needs.

-- Posted by parkerbrothers on Mon, Sep 22, 2008, at 11:34 AM

PB, Sorry, I did misunderstand.

greasemonkey, While the elimination of food stamps would not likely cause the complete collapse of the economy, it would have drastic results. If 10% of the US population is being infused with 30 billion dollars, and that is taken away, there will be consequences. If you wanted to take it a step farther and eliminate the earned income credit, you would also be removing an additional 40 billion from our economy. To give you an idea just how widespread this is, that is about 20% of our households in this nation. If you do not see how 70 billion annual dollars that are spent instantly, when taken away from our economy would not affect you in your job, I know for a fact that I cannot explain it. That is $70,000,000,000.00 and not including other entitlements.

greasemonkey & PB, I do not disagree with either of you about the moral issues regarding personal responsibility. I am old-fashioned as well. I do wish that everyone could be proud of their contribution to our world, and then go home tired and feel like they have made a difference. That does not change the fact that we do not live in that reality of yesterday. Yes, the poor are encouraged to remain so (that is not an accident). Yes, there are jobs available if some of the people want them (I said some). I also work hard, have pride in what little I do accomplish and would not want any entitlements unless I really had no choice but to accept them. But all of that does not make today's society any less dependant on these entitlements. I am not defending the decision to structure our economy in this exact way, I am just trying to point out that is has been, and that to a great extent, it works by increasing everyone's standard of living.

-- Posted by memyselfi on Mon, Sep 22, 2008, at 12:18 PM

I seriously doubt that removing food stamps would cause the collapse of the economy.

It is that simple, I wanted a job, I got one, I worked hard and I have climbed the ladder and the harder I work the more successful I become. -- Posted by greasemonkey on Mon, Sep 22, 2008, at 10:44 AM

greasemonkey, good for you. You are a fortunate one and need to count your blessings. But let's change somethings about you, and see.

Let's say you got arrested and had to do some time. When you get out of jail, and apply for a job, and the application asks have you ever been convicted of a crime, and you put yes on the application, and you do not here from them, you call about the application and they tell you they have already filled the spots, or they are not taking anymore applications at this time. You keep applying for other jobs, and you still get the same reaction. You get hired on at McDonalds, working part-time, $7.00 hr. Your rent is $400.00 month, power bill is $80.00 month, Car payment $50.00 wk., car insurance $55.00 a month, plus gas, food, clothing.

Can you honestly afford this?

Let's say you are a single parent with 2 kids and you get $50.00 wk per child for child support. That is $100.00 wk, You work making $8.00 hr for 40 hours, and you have to pay rent, utility bills, car payments, car insurance, health insurance for you and your kids, child care, gas, food, clothes. Now let's add the father of the 2 children looses his job, or gets put in jail. Now their is no child support help coming in.

Can you honestly afford this?

Let's say you are a single parent mom that is struggling to make ends meet. You have a teenage daughter that gets pregnant and has to drop out of school to take care of her child, no funds for day care, Now you are possibly going to be laid off, because of job cut backs, and you have to support your teenage daughter and grand child. Whether you know this or not, these are REAL LIFE SITUATIONS people go through. It is a blessing that you are able to live your life the way you are. Everyone is not as fortunate as you are.

Not everyone is going to get a Job that will be able to support them and their family, and not everyones situation is going to prevent them to work. Some people have children with disabilities, while one parent works the other may not be able to, and they have to live off of one income; If this income is not enough to support the family then they have to depend on assistance.

There are people that are physically able to work, but are not mentally able to, they usually draw disability, and maybe use food stamps.

How many people do you know that has a criminal record with a Good Paying Job and benefits? Most criminals have a low paying job, or no job. So they continue their criminal paths.

How many school drop-outs do you know has a Good paying job? They either have low income jobs and depend on welfare, or no job and depend on welfare, or doing crime.

Whether you know this or not, these are REAL LIFE SITUATIONS people go through. It is a blessing that you are able to live your life the way you are. Everyone is not as fortunate as you are. Although some people put themselves in these bad situations, It is not going to change the fact that people make bad decisions that will ruin the rest of their lives, and cause them to be dependent upon Govt. assistance, which all tax payers will have to pay for.

What you claim "It is that simple" may be for you, but not for everyone else. And the economy has already collapsed, removing food stamps will just complicate things even more.

-- Posted by Momof3&3step&1gran on Mon, Sep 22, 2008, at 12:41 PM

I think a phrase I learned as a child could play into this: Give people a hand up not a hand out. If you just keep giving someone stuff, i.e. food stamps, welfare, etc. they will keep being dependant on it. If you give them assistance with education, job training they will be in more of a position to get a better job and then work their way up the ladder. I do know those that for what ever reason have a felon history have a harder time getting a job. We say they have served their time and should be able to move forward, but as a society have we given them that chance or are we still punishing them?

-- Posted by Sharon22 on Mon, Sep 22, 2008, at 12:53 PM

Momof3&3step&1gran,

I have said several times that there are times when people need assistance. I believe people should recieve assistance for a short period of time, when they need it. I also understand, and have said so repeatadly, that their are disabled persons that will require lifelong assistance.

I know of several people who served time in federal prison that have decent paying jobs. I know one in particular that was in prison 2yrs and is now making $80k/yr driving truck. I understand he didnt make that the day he got out, but by hard work he is now a successful individual.

My father is a good example of a school drop out, he actually never made it to high school, he quit in the 8th grade. He makes decent money with good benefits, because he worked hard at several different trades, until he found the one that suited him.

If I lost my job at this instant, I would walk out the door and could go straight to work. Whether it was hauling scrap metal, farm work, or taking several part time jobs. There are a million things a person can do.

I do not wish to eliminate food stamps or other govt "entitlements", I just wish it was not abused so much. By allowing this abuse we keep people from becoming successful and gaining independence. Who knows what a person could accomplish or how far they could go if they would just throw down the crutch of govt dependance.

As far as the economy goes, it is far from collapsing.

-- Posted by greasemonkey on Mon, Sep 22, 2008, at 1:11 PM

Sharon22,

Well said. I believe that part of the punishment for crimes committed is that life becomes a little harder. Part of the rehabilitation of that person is overcoming those obstacles.

-- Posted by greasemonkey on Mon, Sep 22, 2008, at 1:14 PM

Yes, the poor are encouraged to remain so (that is not an accident).

Posted by memyselfi on Mon, Sep 22, 2008, at 12:18 PM

memyselfi,

You said something in the above line that really needs looking at. It was and is no accident as you said. I have had hard core Democrats laugh at the way Republicans get blamed for keeping the wide seperation of classes going when all along it was their (Democratic) programs that actually keep the poor poor. They (Democrats)herald themselves as helping the poor but they are the chief manufactures of the pride stripping crutches they have put out in the public domain to addict the poor to.

I have seen many a great mind untapped by the candy cane the government "pushed" on them. Yes, they (government)knew the crutch was addicting and would remove the ambition of many by its providing it. Nothing has caused such a great seperation of class by wealth as has the "programs" or more effectively called the "candy canes".

-- Posted by parkerbrothers on Mon, Sep 22, 2008, at 1:14 PM

Sharon22,

Well said. I believe that part of the punishment for crimes committed is that life becomes a little harder. Part of the rehabilitation of that person is overcoming those obstacles.

-- Posted by greasemonkey on Mon, Sep 22, 2008, at 1:14 PM

And think of the pride someone can have by overcoming these obstacles if they try.

Pride is impossible without obstacles to conquer.

Parents that give their children everything have actually robbed them of the opportunity to partake of the earning of pride.

-- Posted by parkerbrothers on Mon, Sep 22, 2008, at 1:19 PM

I know of several people who served time in federal prison that have decent paying jobs. I know one in particular that was in prison 2yrs and is now making $80k/yr driving truck. I understand he didnt make that the day he got out, but by hard work he is now a successful individual.

-- Posted by greasemonkey on Mon, Sep 22, 2008, at 1:11 PM

I think I may know the same person you are talking about. Our house was broke into years ago by a man much like you are describing. I worked him when he got out of jail. He looked me straight in the eye the day he ask for an "opportunity" to work and I saw a new man. He worked hard, very hard, and became someone I respect very much. Everything he has done he done by himself. You can not find a better Christian man today and he is one of only a few I would totally trust with anything and everything. He almost fell for the system and become a victim of the crutches. Today he walks well and tall and is a contributor to our country.

-- Posted by parkerbrothers on Mon, Sep 22, 2008, at 1:32 PM

Sharon22 I agree, that is exactly right.

"I know of several people who served time in federal prison that have decent paying jobs. I know one in particular that was in prison 2yrs and is now making $80k/yr driving truck. I understand he didnt make that the day he got out, but by hard work he is now a successful individual". -- Posted by greasemonkey on Mon, Sep 22, 2008, at 1:11 PM

That is good, I think alot of them give up after trying a few months and keep getting turned down. Sometimes it helps to know someone, or have "FAMILY" help you get a job as well. This benefits some not all. I am only speaking of Shelbyville, I don't know how it is in other cities. It's good when people are able to go back to school to get their diploma, or go and get their GED, taking up trade skills can be helpful too. I know alot of jobs now "like calsonic" you have to have a diploma or Ged to get hired in.

"And think of the pride someone can have by overcoming these obstacles if they try. Pride is impossible without obstacles to conquer. Parents that give their children everything have actually robbed them of the opportunity to partake of the earning of pride".-- Posted by parkerbrothers on Mon, Sep 22, 2008, at 1:19 PM

This is true, pb.

-- Posted by Momof3&3step&1gran on Mon, Sep 22, 2008, at 2:17 PM

parkerbrothers that was brave of you, not many people would dare do such a thing, but by doing so you may have made the change in this mans life for the better. God Bless you.

-- Posted by Momof3&3step&1gran on Mon, Sep 22, 2008, at 2:20 PM

Momof3&3step&1gran,

The only real bravery was in this man that decided to stand up on his own and become a contributor instead of a receiver. He was the man that threw down the crutches he had been offered and walked on his own. He has a lot to be proud of. I know I am very proud of what "he" did.

-- Posted by parkerbrothers on Mon, Sep 22, 2008, at 4:53 PM

PB, I am pretty sure that if you look closely, you will not see any fundamental differences in either party's stance on entitlements. I know the stereotypes, but that is all political posturing in my opinion. There are very few politicians that have any desire to change our society and the ones that do, have no chance of succeeding. When you get down to brass tacks, there is very little party difference as it pertains to economics from the large international scale all the way down to our local Main Street.

I agree with you that our current system neglects many people's potential. It is just that I do not think the untapped minds provide the benefits to society that we are currently looking for. We live in a time when our children could be truly educated while they are at school, but they are not. It is not that our children cannot learn, it is just not their assigned purpose in life. We have created a demand for un-thinking, unfocused utilitarians that want to think no further than tomorrow and do not care to understand their past. All the great thinking has been done in the last decades, centuries and millennia. The proletarians of today are consumers. That is what is expected of them, and that is what we have. I have a serious question for you. Why do you think the government is pushing candy canes? What is the motivation in your opinion?

-- Posted by memyselfi on Mon, Sep 22, 2008, at 7:57 PM

memyselfi,

On the issue of education I can only offer you a quote from George Washington as to what I feel has went wrong:

"What students would learn in American schools above all is the religion of Jesus Christ"

On the issue of pushing candy canes I can only offer a suggestion of thought that some of the ones at the top of the ladder "feel" much higher in the air when they see others further down the ladder. The rich "feel" richer when they can have the poor as a measuring tool. The poorer the poor "look" the richer the rich "feel".

There is a lot of people who have never reached their potential due to the disabling and addicting effects of these crutches or canes.

A hungry belly brings out much more talent in a person than a government cooked meal will ever do.

-- Posted by parkerbrothers on Tue, Sep 23, 2008, at 9:23 AM

But that hungry belly has to have an opportunity to do, as like pb gave an opportunity to this man he claimed to give work. Some people don't realize this because they never have experienced it. It is beyond their reasons to see. Some will not give jobs to some, for many different reasons. Some for fair reasons, and some for unfair reasons. And the ones that do get a "So called job" can not live off of it, Now that is for real, not just an old saying.

-- Posted by Momof3&3step&1gran on Tue, Sep 23, 2008, at 1:27 PM

and that is no accident either, Momof3&3step&1gran.

-- Posted by memyselfi on Tue, Sep 23, 2008, at 4:25 PM

Agreed.

-- Posted by Momof3&3step&1gran on Tue, Sep 23, 2008, at 8:43 PM

But that hungry belly has to have an opportunity to do, as like pb gave an opportunity to this man he claimed to give work. Some people don't realize this because they never have experienced it. It is beyond their reasons to see. Some will not give jobs to some, for many different reasons. Some for fair reasons, and some for unfair reasons. And the ones that do get a "So called job" can not live off of it, Now that is for real, not just an old saying.

-- Posted by Momof3&3step&1gran on Tue, Sep 23, 2008, at 1:27 PM

Momof3&3step&1gran,

There is more opportunity in America that you can shake a stick at. If a person can not find opportunity here they are not looking for opportunity. I think the real problem lies in that the opportunity is also called a "job" and people miss it.

A good opportunity needs to be viewed as more than finding 5 dollars in the street and buying a scratch off ticket.

-- Posted by parkerbrothers on Tue, Sep 23, 2008, at 9:00 PM

"To live off of independently" for some, for others - False. Especially in a Good Ole Boy city like this one. (Got to be family, friend, know some one, or family got to have money type of stuff if you have a tainted rep, or criminal type record). Sex, drugs, and other illegal things, "There's your Opportunity". That's why so many people live off of welfare now. But people with money that can pay their way out of any thing wouldn't know anything about that, or would they? ; )

-- Posted by Momof3&3step&1gran on Wed, Sep 24, 2008, at 10:00 PM

Momof3&3step&1gran,

You may think that this is a "Good Ole Boy" city but it is actually just your typical U.S. town inside and out.

A lot of people like to use that as an excuse but that is all it is. Just an excuse. Look around you. The demand for people that would look at a job as a starting opportunity is what has changed the makeup of our population more than anything. People are risking life and limb to illegally cross our borders to get a piece of the built up demand for "workers".

Our own native born Americans have slowly turned into lazy slobs with attitudes of being above "work" and created such a demand that the supply had to come from hundreds and thousands of miles away to meet it halfway. Almost always demand will drive supply. The demand is almost always there first.

Companies have had to resort to hiring people they knew nothing about and could not even communicate with sometimes to get the job done which is a far greater risk than hiring someone who has paid their debt for a crime they have committed.

This country could not have had the success and growth it has had over the last fifteen years if it had not been for foreigners seeing the "opportunity" that the locals could not see while they were looking for their crutches. I for one respect and admire the Mexicans in pursuit of the opportunity. They are a hard working people that are grateful for the opportunity. Although we have worked very few at least they will roll up their sleeves and get in a muddy ditch with me. Anybody who will work will always have my respect.

I do not have the time of day to give to a healthy man with both arms and legs still attached that will not work and choose to walk around on those silly crutches.

Just my opinion. I work. I pay taxes. I can at least have an opinion like you.

-- Posted by parkerbrothers on Thu, Sep 25, 2008, at 12:46 PM

I agree that a persons self worth depends heavily on how they view their contribution to society. I also agree that there are many low paying jobs available. The 1 factor you appear to be neglecting is the price of the labor that is in demand. It is in fact one thing to dig a ditch when you need one, but something else entirely to dig everyone's ditch and not be able to procure a living wage while doing it. I also respect the hard work of the Hispanic population in our community, but I respect them enough to believe that if they are working for wages that put them below the poverty level, then we as a society must augment their income. It is not a free market option. Workers must have a livable wage or supplements to their incomes. From either the perspective of the employer or employee, what is the least someone who is hungry would work for? Could you find someone to work all day for a meal? Should you be able to?

-- Posted by memyselfi on Thu, Sep 25, 2008, at 1:32 PM

Workers must have a livable wage or supplements to their incomes.

Posted by memyselfi on Thu, Sep 25, 2008, at 1:32 PM

No. Workers must learn to live within their wages and patiently wait for better opportunities to come and by all means have enough sense to seize upon the opportunity when it presents itself. It is called working up.

Let me give you an example of the laziness these programs have created among our natural born. We ran an ad in the paper for help. We had 11 people respond to the job site in one day. We told each one what the job encompassed and ask them if they were still interested. All responded yes as long as it paid 7-9 dollars per hour. We informed each that we started no one at less than 12 per hour for this job and allowed them to progress up to a top out point of 16 per hour. My brother told each one they were hired as they came by. Late that afternoon I asked him if anybody came by in responce to the help wanted ad. He said 11 did. I said, which one did you hire. He said all of them. All said they would be there at 7:00 the following morning. I asked him if he was crazy. We only needed one or two at the most. Guess how many showed up? Zero. That's right. Zero.

Perhaps they had all bought a rock to smoke with their Uncle Sam provided check before they came by and just thought they wanted to work.

-- Posted by parkerbrothers on Thu, Sep 25, 2008, at 3:22 PM

if they are working for wages that put them below the poverty level, then we as a society must augment their income.

-- Posted by memyselfi on Thu, Sep 25, 2008, at 1:32 PM

memyselfi,

You can do all the augmenting you want to. I never had no body to augment me and do not want any of this augmenting. I was told if I wanted it, there it is, go get it. Even my parents had the good sense to know what augmenting does to a person. I closely relate this augmenting you think we should all do to "enabling" a person. Enabling them to be nothing.

There is a world of opportunity there. Unfortunately it does appear so good when a government handout is laid between the opportunity and the person.

The government has destroyed many a good minds. Drugs are a far second.

-- Posted by parkerbrothers on Thu, Sep 25, 2008, at 3:36 PM

Every worker that you have paid, every good or service you purchased at a cost of less than the true market value has in fact augmented your standard of living, enabling you to have what you do. You fail to see that every dollar you have came from someone else. As long as our economy is based on the dollar, we are all augmented & enabled. I say again, you cannot make even the first dollar no matter how hard you work, what you build, how much you plant or what you produce.

I do see your point about moving up the scale although it is really out-dated. The reality on the ground today is that employers do not have the same loyalty to their employees that they did at one time and visa versa. One learns quickly that they cannot expect to move up from entry level positions with very few exceptions. Workers that are paid minimum wage or even close to that can not live on their wages and wait patiently. Perhaps if they are single and have no dependants and live with others, it becomes more realistic. If you expect that such a large percentage of our population would starve while they wait for someone to recognize their ability, you overestimate the patience of the average stomach. The worker deserves enough of the pie that he creates to be able to achieve a level of poverty that makes life sustainable, one way or the other. The more inflated our economy gets, the higher that threshold will be.

$16.00 per hour is a very good wage for unskilled labor. I cannot imagine why you had difficulty filling the position. Do you have a reputation of being a hard to please boss? Was the job dangerous or potentially unsanitary? Were the positions in fact unskilled? All these factors could explain it, but I don't know. I do know that a job like the one you describe is far better than entitlements.

-- Posted by memyselfi on Thu, Sep 25, 2008, at 4:25 PM

I do see your point about moving up the scale although it is really out-dated.

-- Posted by memyselfi on Thu, Sep 25, 2008, at 4:25 PM

That in itself is the problem. It should never be out-dated. What can you update it with? A government that is mommy and daddy. Being Uncle Sam was bad enough. But now you want mommy and daddy to take care of everyone.

I know I could probably find a better saying but as the farmer said about the young colt, "It comes a time when the bit has to replace the tit."

-- Posted by parkerbrothers on Fri, Sep 26, 2008, at 6:52 AM

Every worker that you have paid, every good or service you purchased at a cost of less than the true market value has in fact augmented your standard of living, enabling you to have what you do. You fail to see that every dollar you have came from someone else.

Posted by Posted by memyselfi on Thu, Sep 25, 2008, at 4:25 PM

memyselfi,

What you fail to see is that I am saying the government should not be an augmentor to people who are capable of augmenting themselves. What child won't sit back and let mommy and daddy do a lifelong augmenting for them?

-- Posted by parkerbrothers on Fri, Sep 26, 2008, at 7:00 AM

memyselfi, everything you said is "CORRECT". I could not have said it better.

And you know why Tyson, and even these Wealthy Construction contractors in real estate hire alot of the hispanics, because they can pay them a little to nothing for hard labour and get away with it.

http://dbacon.igc.org/Mexico/20Blacklist...

Oh, and this one tells it all. The Govt. knows and allows this. And you know what, the same thing is happening with "some" Americans as well, they will continue to only be employed by minimum wage employers, and continue to live below the poverty class. "IT'S THE AMERICAN WAY". Not all employers are like that, but it depends on "Who" is doing the hiring in that company.

http://query.nytimes.com/gst/fullpage.ht...

http://www.hartford-hwp.com/archives/46/...

http://www.workingimmigrants.com/2007/03...

-- Posted by Momof3&3step&1gran on Fri, Sep 26, 2008, at 2:52 PM

And you know why Tyson, and even these Wealthy Construction contractors in real estate hire alot of the hispanics, because they can pay them a little to nothing for hard labour and get away with it.

Posted by Momof3&3step&1gran on Fri, Sep 26, 2008, at 2:52 PM

Momof3&3step&1gran,

I have not seen a hispanic that will work for little to nothing. They know very well how to charge for their services. To be quite frank with you the average hispanic worker is worth 20.00 per hour over most native borns at 10.00 per hour.

Another myth you have is that about all these wealthy real estate contractors. In case you have not noticed real estate has been the hardest hit off all sectors of our economy. And guess why. All these programs of virtual hand outs giving people who could not show finacial responsibily the "entitlement" to home ownership by making 100% up to 105% loans instead of demanding they "learn" how to live within their means and save for a down payment one day. Yes, that would require some of that thing called patience.

People were "given" loans when they actually needed money management counseling. They were "enabled" and "augmented" into the American dream of home ownership by the use of such "programs" as Ameridream and Nehimiah.

We would be much better off today if they would have stuck with the old tried and true. Go to work and learn how to save money and come up with at least a 10% downpayment and do not take a handout even if it is offered to you. Have a little pride.

-- Posted by parkerbrothers on Fri, Sep 26, 2008, at 3:21 PM

PB, I think we are all talking past each other and not seeing all the common ground we do share. I do not have time to write much now, but may late tonight. In the meantime, consider the fact that every house you built through the "programs" you mentioned is in fact also a handout to you, your employees and suppliers, not to mention the sellers and the resellers of the red ink.

-- Posted by memyselfi on Fri, Sep 26, 2008, at 4:24 PM

Yes, but my point of contention is that we "all" would have been better off with a true and even housing market instead of an overheated market caused by these programs that ended up turning into a frozen market. All the people that are loosing homes today may have been a good risk if they had been counciled to adhere to the tried and true instead of a program or entitlement that was never going to work from the start.

There is a time and place for everything the right way. Forcing it early nevers works out.

Now all these people who jumped onto the programs prematurely have probably damaged their credit to the point it may be 5-7 years before they can become a true customer.

-- Posted by parkerbrothers on Fri, Sep 26, 2008, at 5:42 PM

Maybe they lost their homes, because of downsizing or layoffs from work.

-- Posted by Momof3&3step&1gran on Fri, Sep 26, 2008, at 9:55 PM

Momof3&3step&1gran,

I do not disagree with you on that. However, my core point is that a lot of these programs or entitlements that do "help in the short run" actually will "destroy in the long run".

Let's face it. If I am working for $11.50 per hour and the company downsizes and lays me off I have some choices I can make.

Some Choices:

#1 - I can draw "unemployment" and adjust my cost of living out accordingly.

#2 - I find a job that pays $9.00 per hour and work 40 hours and find another part time job that pays $8.00 per hour for 15 hours and have an extra $20.00 per week to put toward my house.

#3 - I can draw "unemployment", fail to make defensive adjustments to my cost of living, let the "unemployment" run out and bitch and moan about everything when my home is foreclosed on.

Years ago option #2 was probably what the majority of Americans would have sought. Unfortunately #3 has become more and more acceptable.

A crutch (program or entitlement) was designed to provide short term relief to allow an injured left leg time to heal. However the man that got used to walking on the crutch and come to enjoy it woke up one day years later and looked down at his legs. The left leg had noticeably withered and retracted but the right leg was muscled and toned. He lost his crutch and soon discoved he was crippled.

Of coarse, the man wanted to blame the doctor for giving him the crutch.

-- Posted by parkerbrothers on Sat, Sep 27, 2008, at 8:43 AM

I understand what you are saying, yes that is true some people do not care to do better. They get comfortable living that way. Maybe if children was taught how important it is to have good credit, and save a little portion of what ever income they get. To place it in a checking/savings account. And set goals for things they need, and to be independent. They may have a chance to break the cycle.

Some of these things fall back on upbringing. What they are taught as they grow up. Some people live their lives from day to day, and do not plan for the future. So in the proccess their children does not learn, to plan for the future only how to live from day to day. So if something goes wrong - "hours cut on job, car breaks down and has to go in the shop, get sick and miss days at work" - they are in a jam. If a young person is taught they must work for a living, and explained what types of jobs are out their, what they pay, what the job consists of, and what training they need to have to get that job. Then a young person can decide what job he would like, or is able to do, and go ahead and start getting the training and education for that job. But I don't think our young children are getting this message.

Parents that are failing to succeed in life, are not giving this message to their children because they themselves do not know this. Our younger people are not being encouraged enough to go after better paying jobs, and benefits. They are taught to go to school, get an education, and get a job. That is not enough for some kids, they need more to go on than that. Why can't some of these successful business men and women, with good careers, or well to do entrepenuer people start making themselves known to our younger people. Tell them what they do for a living, how well it pays, and the training or education they had to take to get their.

Back in the old days, men use to sit down with, and tell their children, or grandchildren how things were when they grew up, and what they did to get where they are. The communication ball of the adults to the children stopped. Alot of children now days grow up without their dad, or without their mom. And the parent that is raising the child is so far gone in their own world they are not seing what their children are missing out of. This is when family members need to step in, and try to be that favorite uncle or that favorite aunt, and try to encourage the child, and give them goals to reach for. But that hardly ever happens too.

I believe our children are lacking role models to look up to, and strive to be as good as that successful person. Those that can help a person to be better, or the knowlege of striving for something better in life want help, they are to busy with their on lives.

-- Posted by Momof3&3step&1gran on Sat, Sep 27, 2008, at 10:52 PM

Momof3&3step&1gran,

I agree with each and "every" word you just said. That is the most precise post I think I have ever read. I wish everyone in the world could be made to read it.

-- Posted by parkerbrothers on Sun, Sep 28, 2008, at 8:36 AM


Respond to this blog

Posting a comment requires free registration. If you already have an account, enter your username and password below. Otherwise, click here to register.

Username:

Password:  (Forgot your password?)

Your comments:
Please be respectful of others and try to stay on topic.


Bo Melson is a retired sports and police beat editor of the Times-Gazette.
Hot topics
Just Some Thoughts
(82 ~ 9:43 PM, Jul 22)

Iraq...Again
(40 ~ 5:53 AM, Jul 11)

Recreational Marijuana
(42 ~ 9:30 PM, Jun 26)

Shelbyville Mills School
(757 ~ 10:07 PM, Jun 25)

Gift Of Life
(2 ~ 12:25 PM, May 27)