A girls talk with her dad..... - Page 3

Eric5273 · #21 02-13-2007, 02:46 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Lambeau

Do you consider welfare opportunity??? How many that start on welfare EVER come off? Ever notice that most on welfare or given social charity vote dem???

No, not many, and yes.

1. I do not vote democrat.

2. I am not in favor of the current welfare system.

3. I am a socialist.

I am in favor of things that allow equal opportunity, not equal achievement. There is a difference.

For example, I am not in favor of handing out money to lazy people. But I am in favor of all children being offered the opportunity to get a good education, attend college, have enough to eat, receive proper health care, etc.

So then how to accomplish that?

1. Instead of offering welfare, everyone should be given the opportunity to have a job. If you cannot find one, the government will find one for you.

2. If you are a single adult with young children, then the government will either decide that: a) you will stay home and take care of your children and receive welfare until they are old enough to attend school, or b) you will have a job and receive some sort of proper daycare for your kids. Once your kids are old enough to attend school, you will at least have a part time job during those hours. If you cannot find a job, the government will find one for you.

I know many conservatives do not want to see their tax money pay for this stuff, but that is a very short cited viewpoint. Why? Because when these kids grow up, they will become problems in society. Instead of paying for them to grow up properly, you will end up paying for increased law enforcement and perhaps paying for them to be in prison.

Here in New York, the problems of society are most apparent. The number of homeless people has increased ten-fold over the last 30 years, and two-thirds of the homeless people in New York City are children under the age of 15. Most of these homeless children end up joining gangs and most will be in prison before they reach the age of 18.

And while the population of New York State has not increased in the last 30 years, the number of prisons has gone from 7 (in 1973) to 73 (in 2006).

This is not a trend we want to continue, and it is going to take some sort of organized effort to break this trend. And claiming "personal responsibility" is obviously not going to change things.

Sponsored Links

the head · #22 02-13-2007, 02:49 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by cpatzer

Alright now I had better chime in.

When I was growing up, my family was so poor that we didn't even know where our next meal was coming from some days. My dad busted his ass most days 16hrs a day trying to make ends meet for a family of 6. He is college educated and a fairly smart guy.

At 55 he was diagnosed with cancer. He beat it. Yet he worked every day during the treatment to try to provide for his family.

Sometimes life just throws curve balls at you. For him it was one after the other. He had a business partner that cheated him and a number of deals that fell through because of dishonest people.

If it weren't for the charity of others and yes, "government welfare and health care (DSHS)" we would not have made it.

Seeing what he went through, experiencing it first hand, there isn't a day that goes by that I am not thankful for the opportunities that I have been given. Nor do I look down on people just because sometimes they need a helping hand.

I among most other people here should consider themselves lucky. We all get to drive nice cars, have food on the table every night, and don't have to worry constantly that we don't have a place to stay.

Are there exceptions to the rule? YES! There are lazy people, drug addicts, drunks and so on. Even then, do these people not deserve help? Being a quote unquote conservative I am assuming you believe in God and Jesus. What would Jesus do? Would he tell these people that need help "tough luck"?

I am not a person of religon at all

I fought to get where I am and don't get me wrong I do believe in helping people but with stipulations...I believe that government assistance should have a time limit...you should not be able to stay on welfare indefinately...perfect example I had a friend that was dating this girl...whe had a very nice row house on the edge of downtown...plasma TV, gaming systems, home theater setup, three bedrooms nice place...I found out that she paid $200 dollars a month because of government assistance and she worked jobs for cash so she could still get welfare checks, food stamps (stipend of $150 in food a week) and this nice place for $200 per month...I on the other hand was working as a bartender and a mechanic, had a shitty apartment at $700 plus utilities was paying my way through school eating tofu and ramen noodles most of the time yet because of my investments and the fact that i had to pay capital gains on the money I had invested for college and the future I was paying close to 50k a year in taxes and because I had jobs and invested money I lived like shit and this girl got everything handed to her for being lazy...

BMW X5 · #23 02-13-2007, 03:08 PM

dont want to reinvent the wheel, but why do "rich" people have to pay for their earning? they busted their ass and even if they were in the right place at the right time but why should they share it? we all drive and X5 why should we let someone else drive them? did we not earn them? I agree with helping people like for example helping kids get through college or maybe even making college free wow what an idea. this way everyone gets the same opportunity and not only the rich will be educated. how many brilliant people go to low end schools because their mommy and daddy arent rich and cant pay for Harvard. but me working busting my ass while a government or city worker sits on his/her ass all day long and gets the government to pay their salary out of mine that i dont agree with. i dont agree with 40% of each of my paycheks being taken and given to the government, i work the full 100% why should i only get 60% of it? and if i work for 60% i get fired. its not the fault of the employer. as for drunks addicts etc tough break, they chose their life they didnt take opportunities that might have been given to them. there are ways to get help but it doesnt mean leeching. I look around at those on welfare and you damn well know who they are when you are at a store and they use their card. then walk out and get into a BMW or Benz thats outright wrong.

Eric5273 · #24 02-13-2007, 05:09 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by cpatzer

One of my friend's girlfriend told me that she couldn't wait to have a baby so that she could go on welfare. Her parents taught by example. So, she became a welfare leech too.

The goal of welfare is not to help the mother in this example, but to make sure that the child (baby) has a fair chance.

If you are against giving welfare to this family (mother & baby), then what do you propose we do to help this poor helpless baby to have a normal life and grow up with the same opportunity that everyone else has?

As with anything else, don't complain unless you have a better solution.

And saying "I don't care" is not a solution, that is just sticking your head in the sand, because you will care when that young child grows up to be a violent criminal or drug addict. Then you will end up paying your tax money for them to be kept in prison and for increased law enforcement to protect you from such people.

The goal of welfare was supposed to be to end poverty. Unfortunately the way it has been handled has been very poor, and the result is that it has not solved the problem. As was mentioned, too much has been given in the way of "handouts" instead of "hand ups". More needs to be done to give such kids a chance so that the DON'T end up like their parents. Otherwise, the system is a failure.

cpatzer · #25 02-13-2007, 05:26 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by BMW X5

dont want to reinvent the wheel, but why do "rich" people have to pay for their earning? they busted their ass and even if they were in the right place at the right time but why should they share it? we all drive and X5 why should we let someone else drive them? did we not earn them? I agree with helping people like for example helping kids get through college or maybe even making college free wow what an idea. this way everyone gets the same opportunity and not only the rich will be educated. how many brilliant people go to low end schools because their mommy and daddy arent rich and cant pay for Harvard. but me working busting my ass while a government or city worker sits on his/her ass all day long and gets the government to pay their salary out of mine that i dont agree with. i dont agree with 40% of each of my paycheks being taken and given to the government, i work the full 100% why should i only get 60% of it? and if i work for 60% i get fired. its not the fault of the employer. as for drunks addicts etc tough break, they chose their life they didnt take opportunities that might have been given to them. there are ways to get help but it doesnt mean leeching. I look around at those on welfare and you damn well know who they are when you are at a store and they use their card. then walk out and get into a BMW or Benz thats outright wrong.

Woah,

I am totally against that. That my friend is BS. But at this point what are you going to do. There are honest people that just have some bad breaks, they get on welfare, get back on their feet and payback through taxes what they were given.

So are we to take away from the many that are like this just because some are slacking good for nothing lazy loosers that don't want to do crap. No, we need OVERSIGHT. You go on welfare, you loose a little bit of your privacy, the government checks up on you weekly to make sure that you are atleast trying to get back on your feet.

Most of the people on welfare now were once tax paying citizens. They paid the same tax as you so that they would have services like this if they fell onto hard times. Like the steel plant worker that busts his ass 10 hours a day for 30 years. The plant closes and he looses his pention. These people are deserving of a hand.

One thing you must remember, we can't all be doctors, dentist, lawyers, computer programmers, CEOs, stock brokers etc. Not everybody is born that smart or given the resources to acheive those things. Besides somebody has to do the "other" work. Would you not say that a garbage man doesn't work as hard as you? I'll bet he works harder. As we sit here at desks typing away on computers.

BMW X5 · #26 02-14-2007, 01:02 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by cpatzer

Woah,

I am totally against that. That my friend is BS. But at this point what are you going to do. There are honest people that just have some bad breaks, they get on welfare, get back on their feet and payback through taxes what they were given.

So are we to take away from the many that are like this just because some are slacking good for nothing lazy loosers that don't want to do crap. No, we need OVERSIGHT. You go on welfare, you loose a little bit of your privacy, the government checks up on you weekly to make sure that you are atleast trying to get back on your feet.

Most of the people on welfare now were once tax paying citizens. They paid the same tax as you so that they would have services like this if they fell onto hard times. Like the steel plant worker that busts his ass 10 hours a day for 30 years. The plant closes and he looses his pention. These people are deserving of a hand.

One thing you must remember, we can't all be doctors, dentist, lawyers, computer programmers, CEOs, stock brokers etc. Not everybody is born that smart or given the resources to acheive those things. Besides somebody has to do the "other" work. Would you not say that a garbage man doesn't work as hard as you? I'll bet he works harder. As we sit here at desks typing away on computers.

i'm not trying to knock on you, your experiences or anyone in the position to be on welfare because not everyone wants to be there, all i'm saying is i came to this country with my parents 15 years ago with nothing, no language no money, yes we had family that helped us out a bit but it was more moral support, my parents got jobs, worked minimum wage and yes i think we did get support from the government after which point we got on our feet so yes i agree. what i dont agree is that i should pay more than you or you should pay more than me in taxes. just because i make more or you make more doesnt mean its right to take away my money from me or yours from you. its like ok so you make 100k will take 30 from you and you make 50 so will take 15 from you, it should be a number not based on salary, it should be across the board if this is how it needs to be. i look at my pay check and wonder where the hell my money is. i walk outside and see people on welfare in bmw and benz like i mentioned and thats wrong. and yes there are those who are really in need but unfortunately like with everything those who abuse it ruin it for everyone. so either make a better system to deal with abuse or quit taking our money

Eric5273 · #27 02-14-2007, 02:37 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by BMW X5

its like ok so you make 100k will take 30 from you and you make 50 so will take 15 from you, it should be a number not based on salary, it should be across the board if this is how it needs to be.

Based on the number of taxpayers and the amount of taxes collected in this country, that number would be approximately $35,000 per taxpayer per year.

So then what for people who only make $25,000 per year? All of their money is taken? And what about people who make minimum wage and only make $12,000 per year?

xnsf · #28 02-14-2007, 03:02 AM

the more you earn, the more taxes you pay...it should be a ratio...it would be the only fair way...a flat tax won't work...but many things don't work in the government...

DINANM3 · #29 02-14-2007, 03:34 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Eric5273

Actually, most universities do have a system of grade "redistribution". It is called the "bell curve", and 90% of the classes I took in college were graded by this system.

That has nothing to do with the original post. A curve in college helps the lower students as well as the higher. Whe I was in college. The highest grade would decide the curve. If 1 or more people recieved a 100% there was no curve. If the highest grade was below a 100% then there was a curve. So for example the highest grade was a 90. So that 90 was bumped to 100 and everyone else got bumped up 10 points to. So that helps everyone. Not only the idiots in the class. No teacher has ever asked a student to take some of his points and spread them around to people scoring lower. At least this is how it worked where I went to college all the way up to my MBA. To make onother point most teacher and prof ive had dont even give a curve. Only a few did.

Sometimes I feel like Eric pulls shit out of his ass just to argue even if he has no ground to stand on just for the fact that he wants a reaction out of people. Its very annoying. I also think the father story is an exellent way to describe the difference between dems and repubs. The way I look at it is I worked hard for my things and no ones taking them just because they have less. To me it just means they worked less and in turn deserve less. Success is up to the individual it should not be handed to someone just because they are there. This isnt fuckin China or South Korea.
Wake up

xnsf · #30 02-14-2007, 03:39 AM

well...there's a curve and then there's a bell curve...
you're right about the curve...it is specific to each professor though...

a bell curve is when there is an allotted number of each grade a professor is allowed to give...

"Viewed practically, curved grading is beneficial because it automatically factors in the difficulty a group of test-takers had with a test. If the majority of students have high (or low) scores then the middling grade will be adjusted there and higher or lower grades awarded based on this performance. In addition, the curve ameliorates the problem of deciding grades that fall very near a grade margin. Clustering of marks establish where the margin should be placed. However, grading in this way is essentially normative; scores are referenced to the performance of group members. There must always be at least one student who has a lower score than all others, even if that score is quite high when evaluated against specific performance criteria or standards. Conversely, if all students perform poorly relative to a larger population, even the highest graded students may be failing to meet standards. Thus, curved grading makes it difficult to compare groups of students to one another." from wikipedia

Sponsored Links