What was I thinking?

[Angelsjunky]

I have nothing against hard work. I have something against mandating 60 hours a week as a guideline for whether or not one can receive governmental assistance. 12 hours a day x 5 = 60 hours a week. That's inhumane, in my opinion, and not healthy - especially if you have a family and kids, or even more so if you're a single mother. One can work hard and work less than that.

 

You guys remind me of this ridiculous commercial:

 

[Brandon]

Unreal. Seriously, unreal.

 

People don't have to work 60 hours to make it in this country, that's the great thing. Most of us work 40 hours or less and can make it without needing to be on welfare.

 

I don't mean to be mean, but when you see everyone from diverse/different political backgrounds laughing at you, don't you think that it's maybe a hint you're off your rocker?

 

Please don't respond if you're going to go Lifetime on me like you do everyone else.

[Tank]

I have nothing against hard work. I have something against mandating 60 hours a week as a guideline for whether or not one can receive governmental assistance. 12 hours a day x 5 = 60 hours a week. That's inhumane, in my opinion, and not healthy - especially if you have a family and kids, or even more so if you're a single mother. One can work hard and work less than that.

 

pure deflection. 60 hours isn't required to sustain a household. cut it down to 40 like the rest of us do. 

 

but you still seem hellbent on having the gov't take care of an awful lot of people.

[Stradling]

What's wrong with working 60 hours a week? I have very few of those weeks these days but coming up my weeks were closer to 60 than 40. The role I have now I may not be physically working in the stores 60 hours a week but I'm compensated the way I am because I'm never really off. AJ's definition of Inhumane is hilarious. I'm pretty sure all of us assumed that during those 60 hours the person was going to be compensated. If you have to work 60 hours to provide for you and your family and you're capable of working 60 hours, then work the damn hours. How is working 60 hours a week different than the college student that works 30 hours and is taking 15 units? AJ is truly in the wrong country if these are his beliefs.

[Angelsjunky]

Unreal. Seriously, unreal.

 

People don't have to work 60 hours to make it in this country, that's the great thing. Most of us work 40 hours or less and can make it without needing to be on welfare.

 

I don't mean to be mean, but when you see everyone from diverse/different political backgrounds laughing at you, don't you think that it's maybe a hint you're off your rocker?

 

Please don't respond if you're going to go Lifetime on me like you do everyone else.

 

You're over-reacting and making a strawman. I know people don't have to work 60 hours and that for most 40 is enough. But I was responding to wopphil, who said "If people on welfare would get up at 4:00 a.m. and work a 12+ hour day, they wouldn't need welfare."

 

If he had said "If people on welfare would get up at 7am and work an 8 hour day, they wouldn't need welfare" I wouldn't have responded to it.

[Angelsjunky]

pure deflection. 60 hours isn't required to sustain a household. cut it down to 40 like the rest of us do. 

 

but you still seem hellbent on having the gov't take care of an awful lot of people.

 

Read my response to Brandon. I'm not deflecting, I was just disagreeing with what wopphil said.

 

And yes, I do think that we should have universal healthcare, lower college tuition, parental leave, more vacation days, etc.

[Stradling]

You're over-reacting and making a strawman. I know people don't have to work 60 hours and that for most 40 is enough. But I was responding to wopphil, who said "If people on welfare would get up at 4:00 a.m. and work a 12+ hour day, they wouldn't need welfare."

If he had said "If people on welfare would get up at 7am and work an 8 hour day, they wouldn't need welfare" I wouldn't have responded to it.

So if you had to wake up at 4 and work 12 hours a day to support your family, you'd quit and go on welfare?

[Angelsjunky]

What's wrong with working 60 hours a week? I have very few of those weeks these days but coming up my weeks were closer to 60 than 40. The role I have now I may not be physically working in the stores 60 hours a week but I'm compensated the way I am because I'm never really off. AJ's definition of Inhumane is hilarious. I'm pretty sure all of us assumed that during those 60 hours the person was going to be compensated. If you have to work 60 hours to provide for you and your family and you're capable of working 60 hours, then work the damn hours. How is working 60 hours a week different than the college student that works 30 hours and is taking 15 units? AJ is truly in the wrong country if these are his beliefs.

 

Because there's more to life than work, work, work. Now if you have a job you love, and perhaps you don't have a family, then that's one thing. But again, I don't think 60 hours a week should be the standard or what is needed to get by.

[Stradling]

Read my response to Brandon. I'm not deflecting, I was just disagreeing with what wopphil said.

And yes, I do think that we should have universal healthcare, lower college tuition, parental leave, more vacation days, etc.

You want more vacation pay? Earn it. When I started I got 1 week of vacation, now I have no idea what I get, my guess is it's around 28 vacation days a year, five weeks plus 3 floating holidays for the three days were closed.

[Angelsjunky]

So if you had to wake up at 4 and work 12 hours a day to support your family, you'd quit and go on welfare?

 

It totally depends on the situation, the job, etc. I'd do whatever it took to support my family and maintain my sanity. If working that much was impacting my ability to be a present father and husband, and to have time to myself, I'd probably work less--and more reasonably 40ish hour job--and look for governmental assistance of some kind.

 

You'd realize it isn't either/or. A lot of people work AND receive government help.

[Stradling]

Because there's more to life than work, work, work. Now if you have a job you love, and perhaps you don't have a family, then that's one thing. But again, I don't think 60 hours a week should be the standard or what is needed to get by.

It isn't, but sometimes you have to sacrifice to provide.

[Angelsjunky]

Good for you, Stradling. I'm sure you work hard and are capable. It doesn't mean everyone is as capable as you are.

 

Anyhow, I'm not talking about myself--but people as a whole. I think our country is really behind when it comes to things like parental leave, for instance, or as has been discussed ad nauseam, healthcare.

[Angelsjunky]

It isn't, but sometimes you have to sacrifice to provide.

 

No kidding. But here's a question for you. Do you think a single mother should work two jobs, 60+ hours a week and rarely see her kids, and be exhausted when she sees them, or is it OK in your mind if she works 30-40 hours a week and receives government assistance? See, I think we should encourage the latter, that her having the time and energy to be a mom is more important than "sacrificing to provide."

[Brandon]

Maybe I'm an asshole and people can correct me, but I think your income and value should come into consideration before having kids. There is a level of personal responsibility that comes with having kids or starting a family. Simply having kids or a family shouldn't be something that others have to change your parameters. If anything, we should be striving to work harder to provide a better life for our families and mainly our kids to hopefully surpass us when they are older.

 

People take advantage of the system now by having kids or taking in foster kids to live off government funds without having to work.

 

I agree on a work/life balance and appreciate it more as I'm older, but I feel I have to be responsible and work harder to earn that or put myself in that position than have it handed to me. If I had a family and my income wasn't enough, that's on me to work harder or find a new job that gave me the work life balance I wanted. The amount of immigrants that come to this company and make something of themselves and provide for their families is so profound, it's really not fair to just hand things over to people that don't deserve them or haven't worked for them.

 

I respect both sides of the party and different points of view, but this is one of the most asinine things and thought processes I have ever come across. 

[Angelsjunky]

You're overreacting to a strawman, Brandon. I don't know how my thought process is any different than the standard progressive/liberal one -- unless you think progressivism is asinine, then fair enough.

 

I don't think anyone, including myself, would disagree with your first paragraph. But things don't always work out that way. As the saying goes, "fit shappens" - or rather, babies happen. You can go up to every single mom and lecture her about her poor choice in getting pregnant, but it doesn't change the reality that she lives in.

 

Also, realize that over 90% of welfare benefits go to people who are disabled, elderly, or working. The point being, most of the people "leeching" off society are people that actually need it and/or are working and not making enough to get by.

[Blarg]

You're refusing reality and want a world where there is no personal responsibilty. Progressivism is asinine when it enslaves the entire population to provide for irresponsibilty.

[Tank]

He also wants a world where gov't takes care of us. Gov't needs to set the rules and make sure we each have opportunity; what we do with that opportunity is up to each of us. Results aren't (or shouldn't be) guaranteed. Adding in things like more family leave and free college are false flags.

[Angelsjunky]

You're refusing reality and want a world where there is no personal responsibilty. Progressivism is asinine when it enslaves the entire population to provide for irresponsibilty.

 

LOL, that is simply not true on multiple levels that I don't know where to start. Very simply:

 

I don't "want a world where there is no personal responsibility." You can believe that if you want, it simply isn't true. Your assertion of this is just another instance of black-and-white thinking, either there is no or complete personal responsibility. The reality--which in this case you are either refusing or ignorant of--is more complex than that.

 

Secondly, progressivism doesn't have to "enslave the entire population." Where do you get that ridiculous idea? Your statement seems based upon the common erroneous conflation held by many conservatives of all degrees and kinds of socialism with communism. Again, all that I've every really advocated for is for the US to follow the basic approach of Nordic countries which provide much stronger programs in a basically free economy. Tell me why the following are completely unreasonable:

 

*Affordable college education

*Universal health care

*Longer parental leave

*Higher minimum wage

*General social programs that help those in need

Edited April 3, 2016 by Angelsjunky

[Stradling]

LOL, that is simply not true on multiple levels that I don't know where to start. Very simply:

I don't "want a world where there is no personal responsibility." You can believe that if you want, it simply isn't true. Your assertion of this is just another instance of black-and-white thinking, either there is no or complete personal responsibility. The reality--which in this case you are either refusing or ignorant of--is more complex than that.

Secondly, progressivism doesn't have to "enslave the entire population." Where do you get that ridiculous idea? Your statement seems based upon the common erroneous conflation held by many conservatives of all degrees and kinds of socialism with communism. Again, all that I've every really advocated for is for the US to follow the basic approach of Nordic countries which provide much stronger programs in a basically free economy. Tell me why the following are completely unreasonable:

*Affordable college education

*Universal health care

*Longer parental leave

*Higher minimum wage

*General social programs that help those in need

I'll tell you why those can't happen. The government takes enough money and can't manage it for one. Two, nearly half the people that pay into the system get damn near all their money back come tax time.

[Angelsjunky]

I'll tell you why those can't happen. The government takes enough money and can't manage it for one. Two, nearly half the people that pay into the system get damn near all their money back come tax time.

 

So you're saying there's no room for change, no adjustment possible? That government spending can't be tightened up, re-allocated? I have my own cynical side, but I still hold out hope that real positive change is possible. I mean, it has happened before.

 

Anyhow, still waiting for your response to my question above: Do you think a single mother should work two jobs, 60+ hours a week and rarely see her kids, and be exhausted when she sees them, or is it OK in your mind if she works 30-40 hours a week and receives government assistance? See, I think we should encourage the latter, that her having the time and energy to be a mom is more important than "sacrificing to provide."

[Stradling]

I agree with your example of helping the single mom. But I would also have time limits on the assistance. I also would do this. When someone goes on welfare for the first time, that would be the rate of assistance. So if they were single with no kids the first time they get welfare, then years later when they have kids and go back on welfare they still can only collect at the single welfare rate.

[Angelsjunky]

Not a bad idea as a deterrent, although again I don't know how it would work in actual practice.

 

At the risk of over-simplying, the conservative view towards this sort of thing seems to boil down to, "You ****ed up, deal with it." But if we really played hardball, we'd end up with more people on the streets, more people starving, more people selling kidneys to feed their families (or what-not). Maybe some would say, "shit, I've got to actually work." But a lot wouldn't be able to take this step, so we'd see a pretty awful collapse of the very poor. It would be a rather Social Darwinistic approach to "fixing the problem": a eugenic survival of the fittest. I find that abhorrent, personally.

 

Despite what some here seem to think in their mischaracterization and straw-manning of my view, I've said time and time again that we need better social programs, that include "paths towards prosperity"--or if not prosperity, at least financial independence. This is why I believe in these social programs--not to get free stuff, but to better allow for more people to stand on their own two feet, and live a decent lifestyle.

[Blarg]

People clamouring for higher minimum wage have no clue as to how an economy runs and just create a devaluation of the dollar which affects the ederly on fixed incomes. So on one side you want youth with no job experience to receive wages higher than their productive value and in the same sweeping legislation impoverish those that are no longer in the workforce.

Progressives are idiots.

Edited April 3, 2016 by notti

[RallyMo]

There should be a law against having kids if you're on welfare. Problems solved.

Instead, welfare encourages people to pump out kids. So ****ing ridiculous.

Timestamp doesn't say April 1st. This is confusing.

[ten ocho recon scout]

I went to the Audi dealership a couple weeks ago just to look around. This kid salesman comes up to me to help. He was dressed very well, including a tie. He was very nice, very well spoken. Answered every question I had and clearly knew the Audi product. I finally asked him "how long you been selling Audis?" He responded "this is just my fifth day on the job, sir."

Needless to say, I was extremely impressed. The kid was 19. Goes to a JC and works for the dealership. He is going to be incredibly successful, whether selling cars or doing something else, because he works his ass off, has a great attitude, and has tremendous ambition. If everyone approached their job like him, they'd also succeed in life.

My guess is that he probably isn't a Bernie supporter.

im always impressed when i come accross kids like that. You can tell whos got a chance (no guarantee) and who doesnt.