"Are there no prisons?”

 

"Plenty of prisons," said the gentleman, laying down the pen again. "And the Union workhouses." demanded Scrooge. "Are they still in operation?"

 

"Both very busy, sir."

 

"Oh. I was afraid, from what you said at first, that something had occurred to stop them in their useful course," said Scrooge. "I’m very glad to hear it."

 

"Under the impression that they scarcely furnish Christian cheer of mind or body to the multitude," returned the gentleman, "a few of us are endeavouring to raise a fund to buy the Poor some meat and drink, and means of warmth. We choose this time, because it is a time, of all others, when Want is keenly felt, and Abundance rejoices. What shall I put you down for?"

 

"Nothing!" Scrooge replied.

 

Translation: When someone refutes me and I have no comeback I'm going to take this to God know where.

I don't disagree with your willingness to do whatever job it takes to survive. However, I think a lot of people overestimate just how difficult it is for a highly qualified individual to get a minimum wage/entry level job. Employers are reluctant to hire a person like that for many reasons.....some assume that you won't be around long (as you'll likely still be looking for a "better" job), don't believe you'll be happy doing menial work, or are intimidated by your credentials. Not saying it isn't possible, but it's not as easy as you think.

 

Then I'll dip into my savings. Since I've been working full-time (my 20s) I've been taking advantage of employers retirement programs and have built up a bit of a nest egg. Even when I was a smelly-footed, tree hugging, hippie liberal I never wanted to be in the position that I would be totally dependent on the government for my income. It would likely be uncomfortable. It would be difficult. I may have to sell my house and get an apartment. I may not be able to afford the DirectTV or the internet access or some of the other LUXURIES I currently enjoy. Bottom line is I would do what I needed to do to get by.

Then I'll dip into my savings. Since I've been working full-time (my 20s) I've been taking advantage of employers retirement programs and have built up a bit of a nest egg. Even when I was a smelly-footed, tree hugging, hippie liberal I never wanted to be in the position that I would be totally dependent on the government for my income. It would likely be uncomfortable. It would be difficult. I may have to sell my house and get an apartment. I may not be able to afford the DirectTV or the internet access or some of the other LUXURIES I currently enjoy. Bottom line is I would do what I needed to do to get by.

 

I completely agree. My only point was that I don't believe folks on unemployment are just kicking back and letting the government take care of them, and have no incentive to work, especially those that have lost higher paying jobs. For that segment, unemployment is a huge paycut, and it's not that easy for this group to be able to get "any" job. With long hiring processes, I just think 26 weeks may be too short, but 99 weeks is way too long.

Read all about it: "Rand Paul Speaks Out Against Corporate Welfare"

 

If the Bluegrass State's junior senator uses the term "corporate welfare" on his website, that's good enough for me.

 

Sen. Paul Speaks Out Against Corporate Welfare Rand Paul | United States Senator

 

So your going to vote for Rand Paul now? I love Rand Paul, doesn't mean I have to agree with every term he may use. I'm not afraid to disagree with politicians who I mostly agree with.

 

I completely agree. My only point was that I don't believe folks on unemployment are just kicking back and letting the government take care of them, and have no incentive to work, especially those that have lost higher paying jobs. For that segment, unemployment is a huge paycut, and it's not that easy for this group to be able to get "any" job. With long hiring processes, I just think 26 weeks may be too short, but 99 weeks is way too long.

 

I don't think they ALL are but to say that there aren't people who game the system is absurd. Where I diverge from my liberal friends is in not being willing to ignore those that game the system because changing the system MAY have an adverse effect on some people.

 

Sent from my SCH-I405 using Forum Runner

I completely agree. My only point was that I don't believe folks on unemployment are just kicking back and letting the government take care of them, and have no incentive to work, especially those that have lost higher paying jobs. For that segment, unemployment is a huge paycut, and it's not that easy for this group to be able to get "any" job. With long hiring processes, I just think 26 weeks may be too short, but 99 weeks is way too long.

 

I 100% agree a lot of people are hard working and looking for a job. If we go back to the article that started this thread republicans weren't even against extension of the benefits they just asked the extension to be paid for instead of added to the debt. I was making the point that there needs to be a cut off at some point to motivate those who are on the program to look harder. We all know there are plenty of hard working people forced out of work, but we also know there are plenty gaming the system.

 

We just have one poster who side tracked us from a pretty decent conversation. Many people who don't normally agree in this forum seem to be pretty close on this topic.

Translation: When someone refutes me and I have no comeback I'm going to take this to God know where.

Scrooge-like transformation takes place when one focuses on the message, not the messenger.

I don't think they ALL are but to say that there aren't people who game the system is absurd. Where I diverge from my liberal friends is in not being willing to ignore those that game the system because changing the system MAY have an adverse effect on some people.

 

Sent from my SCH-I405 using Forum Runner

 

True..there are always a few that will take advantage of any situation. And it's that 2% (or 3%, or 5% or whatever...ultimately I don't think it's anywhere close to the majority) that screws it up for the people that really need it. And I don't think we should punish the vast majority for the sins of a few. Which is what I feel the conservative side is hung up on doing. Because a few folks ARE lazy and jobbing the system, we should just eliminate the sytem. Don't get me wrong, again, I think 99 weeks is way too long.

Scrooge-like transformation takes place when one focuses on the message, not the messenger.

TRANSLATION: When I have no logical way to argue my point I'm going to go to the Allinsky playbook and villify those whose views differ from mine. When that is pointed out I'm going to continue to muddy the waters because I have no logical retort.

 

Sent from my SCH-I405 using Forum Runner

 

True..there are always a few that will take advantage of any situation. And it's that 2% (or 3%, or 5% or whatever...ultimately I don't think it's anywhere close to the majority) that screws it up for the people that really need it. And I don't think we should punish the vast majority for the sins of a few. Which is what I feel the conservative side is hung up on doing. Because a few folks ARE lazy and jobbing the system, we should just eliminate the sytem. Don't get me wrong, again, I think 99 weeks is way too long.

 

So we just bury our heads in the sand and pretend it's not happening? If that happens how long before the 2% becomes 4 and 4 become 8 and so on?

 

Sent from my SCH-I405 using Forum Runner

I 100% agree a lot of people are hard working and looking for a job. If we go back to the article that started this thread republicans weren't even against extension of the benefits they just asked the extension to be paid for instead of added to the debt. I was making the point that there needs to be a cut off at some point to motivate those who are on the program to look harder. We all know there are plenty of hard working people forced out of work, but we also know there are plenty gaming the system.

 

We just have one poster who side tracked us from a pretty decent conversation. Many people who don't normally agree in this forum seem to be pretty close on this topic.

 

 

Kind of unusual that the two sides can actually agree:clap:

TRANSLATION: When I have no logical way to argue my point I'm going to go to the Allinsky playbook and villify those whose views differ from mine. When that is pointed out I'm going to continue to muddy the waters because I have no logical retort.

Yet another example of attacking the messenger with general insults and resurrecting the hackneyed Allinsky line. Did I bash Bash, for instance, when he lamented the fact that people were using the term "corporate welfare"? No. I simply pointed out that Rand Paul is using same term on his website. See? I focused on the message. Just because people hold opposing viewpoints is no reason to attack the messenger.

Yet another example of attacking the messenger with general insults and resurrecting the hackneyed Allinsky line. Did I bash Bash, for instance, when he lamented the fact that people were using the term "corporate welfare"? No. I simply pointed out that Rand Paul is using same term on his website. See? I focused on the message. Just because people hold opposing viewpoints is no reason to attack the messenger.

 

But I didn't ask you who used the term, I asked you to define it. I'm still waiting.

But I didn't ask you who used the term, I asked you to define it. I'm still waiting.

 

Haven't I already established that it doesn't make a lick of difference? Stop getting hung up on silly semantics. Would you prefer "federal gifts to the corporate world?"

Yet another example of attacking the messenger with general insults and resurrecting the hackneyed Allinsky line. Did I bash Bash, for instance, when he lamented the fact that people were using the term "corporate welfare"? No. I simply pointed out that Rand Paul is using same term on his website. See? I focused on the message. Just because people hold opposing viewpoints is no reason to attack the messenger.

 

TRANSLATION: I still have no comeback so here comes more mud. We are now so far away from the original topic that we'll probably never get back to it. Mission accomplished. Saul would be proud of me.