Dave Smith > wrote in news:48cda5f7$0$7411
:

> *Some* people turn to welfare as a last resort. Meanwhile, there are
> lots of people out there who have no problem getting pregnant and unable
> to support the children and living on welfare. Then they demand day care
> and special education and training programs to get themselves back into
> the work force.

If they're being asked to go into the work force, they should receive
support. All the single mothers I knew who were on welfare in the 80's now
have jobs and own houses because as tight-assed as the system was, it also
provided support. Obviously someone then had no idea what they were doing,
eh?

Michel Boucher wrote:

>> *Some* people turn to welfare as a last resort. Meanwhile, there are
>> lots of people out there who have no problem getting pregnant and unable
>> to support the children and living on welfare. Then they demand day care
>> and special education and training programs to get themselves back into
>> the work force.
>
> If they're being asked to go into the work force, they should receive
> support. All the single mothers I knew who were on welfare in the 80's now
> have jobs and own houses because as tight-assed as the system was, it also
> provided support. Obviously someone then had no idea what they were doing,
> eh?


Yet, there are a lot of women of that generation who are still on
welfare, as are their children. Meanwhile, the rest of us went to
school, got jobs, found places to live and then had children. What
suckers we were. We could have stayed home and let others support us.
Instead, we paid higher taxes to look after them and their kids as well
as ourselves.

Dave Smith > wrote in
:

> Michel Boucher wrote:
>
>>> *Some* people turn to welfare as a last resort. Meanwhile, there are
>>> lots of people out there who have no problem getting pregnant and
>>> unable to support the children and living on welfare. Then they
>>> demand day care and special education and training programs to get
>>> themselves back into the work force.
>>
>> If they're being asked to go into the work force, they should receive
>> support. All the single mothers I knew who were on welfare in the
>> 80's now have jobs and own houses because as tight-assed as the
>> system was, it also provided support. Obviously someone then had no
>> idea what they were doing, eh?
>
> Yet, there are a lot of women of that generation who are still on
> welfare, as are their children. Meanwhile, the rest of us went to
> school, got jobs, found places to live and then had children. What
> suckers we were. We could have stayed home and let others support us.
> Instead, we paid higher taxes to look after them and their kids as
> well as ourselves.

Your...argument, for want of a better word...merely sounds like sour
grapes.

Being on welfare is not a picnic. I was a recipient of basic income at one
time and having to live on what I got was no help in getting employment, in
fact it was a hindrance.

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.

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, I believe not everyone should be made to work. But that's
another debate. 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?

Michel Boucher wrote:
> Dave Smith > wrote in
> :
>
>> Michel Boucher wrote:
>>
>>>> *Some* people turn to welfare as a last resort. Meanwhile, there are
>>>> lots of people out there who have no problem getting pregnant and
>>>> unable to support the children and living on welfare. Then they
>>>> demand day care and special education and training programs to get
>>>> themselves back into the work force.
>>> If they're being asked to go into the work force, they should receive
>>> support. All the single mothers I knew who were on welfare in the
>>> 80's now have jobs and own houses because as tight-assed as the
>>> system was, it also provided support. Obviously someone then had no
>>> idea what they were doing, eh?
>> Yet, there are a lot of women of that generation who are still on
>> welfare, as are their children. Meanwhile, the rest of us went to
>> school, got jobs, found places to live and then had children. What
>> suckers we were. We could have stayed home and let others support us.
>> Instead, we paid higher taxes to look after them and their kids as
>> well as ourselves.
>
> 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.

> Being on welfare is not a picnic. I was a recipient of basic income at one
> time and having to live on what I got was no help in getting employment, in
> fact it was a hindrance.

>
> 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.



>
> 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.

> 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 am all in favour of assistance for those who cannot
work and those who are facing hard times. Businesses shut down, people
lose jobs and run out of unemployment insurance. They need help. Then
there are the abusers..... those who simply prefer not to work. The
latter are the abusers. I don't care if they don't want to work, but I
don't want to pay for them. Why should I? They won't do anythign for
themselves and they sure don't do anything for me. If they owe noting to
themselves I owe as little to them.




> 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???
There is lots to share as long as those who work and contribute have a
surplus. We have surplus because enough of us work to produce it. If we
all produced as much as the abusers there would not be enough for any of
us.

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.

On Mon, 15 Sep 2008 07:43:39 -0500, Michel Boucher wrote:
>
> 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, I believe not everyone should be made to work. But that's
> another debate. 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?

you're a not a person of niggardly spirit?

just a guess.

your pal,
blake

"Michael \"Dog3\"" > fnord
:

> blake murphy >
> news >
>> On Mon, 15 Sep 2008 07:43:39 -0500, Michel Boucher wrote:
>>>
>>> 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, I believe not everyone should be made to
>>> work. But that's another debate. 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?
>>
>> you're a not a person of niggardly spirit?
>>
>> just a guess.
>
> ROFL... oh dear GAWD... such a discussion is cause last time it was
used
> around here.
>
> Michael
>

It's a perfectly valid word. I don't use the "n" word (other than when
I'm listening to music and making a really lame attempt at trying to
sing along to a rap song), but I love saying "niggardly" and freaking
people out.


--
Saerah

"Welcome to Usenet, Biatch! Adapt or haul ass!"
- some hillbilly from FL