On Sep 15, 10:57*am, Dave Smith > wrote:

> > Your...argument, for want of a better word...merely sounds like sour
> > grapes.
>
> Yeah. Right. *Your argument was that you knew some single mothers who
> got off the system and eventually got jobs and now own houses because
> the system provided support. But my argument that those who got their
> education and jobs and houses before having children and without
> government assistance has no validity.

But your argument posits that support is wasted. Mine is that support
works and I can prove it. If you really want people to get off
welfare, you should stop trying to make them guilty for your opinions.

> > Employers, being the sharp pinheads they are, don't want to hire a welfare
> > recipient because precisely of the same mentality which you exhibit here. *
> > Put them to work, yes, but NIMBY.
>
> Yep. Some sort of conspiracy, eh. *Employers try to hire the best people
> for their companies. Given a choice between someone with experience and
> a work history or someone who has not been gainfully employed, most will
> choose the one who has experience and who has shown a willingness to work..

And that's not a conspiracy? One of the meanings of "conspire" is
"seem to be working together, esp. disadvantageously". So if
employers agree that they must keep welfare recipients out of the work
force while dexter governments try to drive them in, one can conclude
that the employers have indeed conspired to work against the stated
policy (i.e. disadvantageously). The fact that they will claim it is
in their interest to behave in this unsociable fashion doesn't do
their case any good.

> > So until this attitude of (ugly) capitalist entitlement ceases, it is
> > unlikely that welfare recipients will be fully empowered to find their way,
> > and, honestly,
>
> OK. I see..... the conspiracy theory is clear. *It is about the poor
> being entitles to take from the capitalist system.

Oh, get over that one. Find a better argument than that whiny flip.

> > I believe not everyone should be made to work. *But that's
> > another debate.
>
> Oh? Who is it that gets to stay home while the rest of us have to pay to
> support them? *

I said it was another debate. If you want to have that debate fine,
but it's not the current topic so stick to it.

> > Me, I have 275 calendare days to go until I retire and yet
> > I have no animosity towards those whose basic need exceeds their ability. *
> > Why is that, do you think?
>
> Because of your strange political agenda???

But we're talking about YOUR agenda. Besides, what do you know about
my "strange political agenda"? I have no political agenda, except
maybe breaking through encrusted prejudices. You, on the other hand,
feel justified in demanding things of people you yourself would not be
prepared to do were you in their situation.

Tell you what. Spend just three months on welfare, living in a cheap
rented room that smells of mildew, using a public toilet, eating the
cheapest food you can get every single day, feeling your health
decline every day and being told by "honest citizens" (tm applied for)
that they cannot take a chance on hiring you because of your current
circumstances, and then come tell me how you feel. I think you'll
understand then that you're the one with the agenda.

Of course, your agenda includes ignoring the real world in favour of
your bourgeois construct. And don't deny it.