Hey, Daneliuk and Jack-ass Stein,

I'm still waiting for a lucid explanation as to why it's cheaper for
me to be sitting around, receiving health care and collecting social
assistance instead of working and paying taxes.

Either of you two have enough balls between the two of you to give a
sensible answer to that question?

Upscale wrote:
Hey, Daneliuk and Jack-ass Stein,

I'm still waiting for a lucid explanation as to why it's cheaper for
me to be sitting around, receiving health care and collecting social
assistance instead of working and paying taxes.

Either of you two have enough balls between the two of you to give a
sensible answer to that question?

It's possible to do both...

On Thu, 25 Mar 2010 13:56:14 -0500, "HeyBub"
wrote:

It's possible to do both...

In the Canadian system, not with any real benefit. Once one reaches a
basic level of taxation by working, social assistance evaporates. In
other words, social assistance is supposed to help you until you get
back on your feet and then you're on your own.

"Upscale" wrote in message
...
On Thu, 25 Mar 2010 13:56:14 -0500, "HeyBub"

wrote:

It's possible to do both...

In the Canadian system, not with any real benefit. Once one
reaches a
basic level of taxation by working, social assistance
evaporates. In
other words, social assistance is supposed to help you until you
get
back on your feet and then you're on your own.

We have 3-5 generations now living on that.

--
Nonny
Suppose you were an idiot.
And suppose you were a member
of Congress.... But then I repeat myself.'

-Mark Twain
..

On Thu, 25 Mar 2010 20:05:32 -0700, "Nonny" wrote:

We have 3-5 generations now living on that.

Ok, but consider the limitations of such a life. Maybe because of
apathy, sheer laziness, or even medical difficulties, someone is
living such a life. No future, never having any real discretionary
income, nothing ever to look forward to except for more of the same.
It's debilitating, depressing and a really difficult existence to
follow. Not at all attractive. I don't consider that living.

On Mar 26, 12:43*am, Upscale wrote:
On Thu, 25 Mar 2010 20:05:32 -0700, "Nonny" wrote:
We have 3-5 generations now living on that.

Ok, but consider the limitations of such a life. Maybe because of
apathy, sheer laziness, or even medical difficulties, someone is
living such a life. No future, never having any real discretionary
income, nothing ever to look forward to except for more of the same.
It's debilitating, depressing and a really difficult existence to
follow. Not at all attractive. I don't consider that living.


That's is exactly the point: these people who were supposed to use the
system to get back on their feet have instead decided to live off of
it for literally generations. There is no incentive to get off.

True, they know no better. And maybe THAT is the real problem. We
keep on giving these people fish whenever they are hungry and never
teach them how to fish nor do we make an environment in which they
even WANT to fish. They have become a group of circus seals who bark
and get a fish tossed their way. Not enough to live off of, so they
bark some more, but enough that they don't have any reason to go out
and fend for themselves.

There is a lot of bashing going on in here and, quite frankly, all
around the country. It is really disheartening. People who disagree
with what is happening politically are being slammed, from Obama
himself on down the line. We are all called extremists because we
have the audacity to think differently and to speak up. We are
labeled as racists because we disagree with a President who happens to
have darker skin than any past President. Heck, we have even been
labeled as terrorists because we dare to push back and speak up. I
thought that was why Freedom Of Speech was in the very first section
of The Bill Of Rights? I guess not....

I have posed this sort of question many times over the past week or so
and I have not gotten any response from the progressives in here. Why
did we have to scrap everything that was already in place and replace
it with a new, EXPENSIVE bill? (Oh, and why was the student loan
program bundled in a freaking health care bill? But that is a wholly
different topic!) We had the safety nets in place and have had them
in place for 40+ years now. Medicare and Medicaid were supposed to
fix these sorts of problems but they haven't. If government could not
afford those be-all and end-all programs, how the heck can it afford
this one? (Answer: eventually they can't. There is only so much
blood in the host and whenever the parasites have drained it all, they
kill the host and the parasites go hungry.)

Here is my question: Why not fix what is there already? Seriously.
And by fixing, I mean do not change any laws, do not increase taxes,
do not decrease taxes (yet), and take a serious look at what we
already have to clean out all of the bullcrap. The reason is that
government is not in the business of business. And they SHOULDN'T be--
that is not its role, at least not in America. The only thing they
know to do is to increase taxes to pay for an ever increasing deficit.

I have suggested it befo Hire a bunch of Wal-Mart and/or/ Home
Depot and/or Lowes and/or any number of people who have run businesses
and have them come in to clean house. I am 100% sure they will find
tremendous inefficiencies in every government run program. And I am
also sure that they can define processes and procedures that will
drastically reduce the waste and inefficiencies and the nest result
will be a huge amount of money that can actually be given back to the
citizens of this country. That way, the programs that are already in
place will do what they were intended to do, the liberals get what
they want, and everybody will get a little bit of money back into
their pockets.

On Mar 26, 12:43*am, Upscale wrote:
On Thu, 25 Mar 2010 20:05:32 -0700, "Nonny" wrote:
We have 3-5 generations now living on that.

Ok, but consider the limitations of such a life. Maybe because of
apathy, sheer laziness, or even medical difficulties, someone is
living such a life. No future, never having any real discretionary
income, nothing ever to look forward to except for more of the same.
It's debilitating, depressing and a really difficult existence to
follow. Not at all attractive. I don't consider that living.


That's is exactly the point: these people who were supposed to use the
system to get back on their feet have instead decided to live off of
it for literally generations. There is no incentive to get off.

True, they know no better. And maybe THAT is the real problem. We
keep on giving these people fish whenever they are hungry and never
teach them how to fish nor do we make an environment in which they
even WANT to fish. They have become a group of circus seals who bark
and get a fish tossed their way. Not enough to live off of, so they
bark some more, but enough that they don't have any reason to go out
and fend for themselves.

There is a lot of bashing going on in here and, quite frankly, all
around the country. It is really disheartening. People who disagree
with what is happening politically are being slammed, from Obama
himself on down the line. We are all called extremists because we
have the audacity to think differently and to speak up. We are
labeled as racists because we disagree with a President who happens to
have darker skin than any past President. Heck, we have even been
labeled as terrorists because we dare to push back and speak up. I
thought that was why Freedom Of Speech was in the very first section
of The Bill Of Rights? I guess not....

I have posed this sort of question many times over the past week or so
and I have not gotten any response from the progressives in here. Why
did we have to scrap everything that was already in place and replace
it with a new, EXPENSIVE bill? (Oh, and why was the student loan
program bundled in a freaking health care bill? But that is a wholly
different topic!) We had the safety nets in place and have had them
in place for 40+ years now. Medicare and Medicaid were supposed to
fix these sorts of problems but they haven't. If government could not
afford those be-all and end-all programs, how the heck can it afford
this one? (Answer: eventually they can't. There is only so much
blood in the host and whenever the parasites have drained it all, they
kill the host and the parasites go hungry.)

Here is my question: Why not fix what is there already? Seriously.
And by fixing, I mean do not change any laws, do not increase taxes,
do not decrease taxes (yet), and take a serious look at what we
already have to clean out all of the bullcrap. The reason is that
government is not in the business of business. And they SHOULDN'T be--
that is not its role, at least not in America. The only thing they
know to do is to increase taxes to pay for an ever increasing deficit.

I have suggested it befo Hire a bunch of Wal-Mart and/or/ Home
Depot and/or Lowes and/or any number of people who have run businesses
and have them come in to clean house. I am 100% sure they will find
tremendous inefficiencies in every government run program. And I am
also sure that they can define processes and procedures that will
drastically reduce the waste and inefficiencies and the nest result
will be a huge amount of money that can actually be given back to the
citizens of this country. That way, the programs that are already in
place will do what they were intended to do, the liberals get what
they want, and everybody will get a little bit of money back into
their pockets.

"Upscale" wrote in message
...
On Thu, 25 Mar 2010 20:05:32 -0700, "Nonny" wrote:

We have 3-5 generations now living on that.

Ok, but consider the limitations of such a life. Maybe because of
apathy, sheer laziness, or even medical difficulties, someone is
living such a life. No future, never having any real discretionary
income, nothing ever to look forward to except for more of the same.
It's debilitating, depressing and a really difficult existence to
follow. Not at all attractive. I don't consider that living.

Nonny makes a good point, it isn't hard in the US to find
large numbers of people that they or anyone in their family
has not worked or done anything of even minor importance to
contribute to the system for generations.

I'm not speaking of the disabled or unhealthy, these are
people that are healthy and able to work, but lack desire
and motivation. They were not taught to work, they were
taught to game the system.
And yes, they live a minimal life, one that no one here
could tolerate.

How do you break this cycle of dependancy without
destroying the disabled and ones that only need a hand up.
I don't know, it is more of a moral/ethical issue of the people
than a broken welfare system.

It isn't hard to understand why some rage against what is billed
as yet another freebie, it is an affront to all that have worked
all their life without asking anything from the government.

I have mixed feelings about the health care issue, on one hand
me and my wife both have preexisting conditions extensive enough
that they could be tied to almost any health issue, any insurance
company would be glad to be rid of us, on the other hand we
have excellant health care and insurance. We never pay
any amount for anything and only pay a small portion of the premiums.
It is part of my pay, no union lobbied for me, I earned these benefits
by hard work and careful selection of who I was willing to work for.
I expect to be heavily taxed in the future, for the being in this position.

One thing I know for certain, whether you are politically right, left,
center, or space alien, the government can be lots of things, but it is
never your friend.

basilisk

On Thu, 25 Mar 2010 23:43:26 -0500, the infamous Upscale
scrawled the following:

On Thu, 25 Mar 2010 20:05:32 -0700, "Nonny" wrote:

We have 3-5 generations now living on that.

Ok, but consider the limitations of such a life. Maybe because of
apathy, sheer laziness, or even medical difficulties, someone is
living such a life. No future, never having any real discretionary
income, nothing ever to look forward to except for more of the same.
It's debilitating, depressing and a really difficult existence to
follow. Not at all attractive. I don't consider that living.

Far, far too many people DO consider that living, Uppy. I've read
stats that say up to 90% of people in the Philly (ditto the whole
eastern USA) grow up, live, and die within 10 miles of their birth
city. I'd guess that a whole bunch of them would not have a problem
with it. If people don't have any creativity, they have no need to do
things, to move around, and to switch jobs for fun like the rest of
us. Others are just lazy and don't care at all. shrug

--
Challenges are gifts that force us to search for a new center of gravity.
Don't fight them. Just find a different way to stand.
-- Oprah Winfrey

Nonny wrote:
"Upscale" wrote in message
...
On Thu, 25 Mar 2010 13:56:14 -0500, "HeyBub"

wrote:

It's possible to do both...

In the Canadian system, not with any real benefit. Once one
reaches a
basic level of taxation by working, social assistance
evaporates. In
other words, social assistance is supposed to help you until you
get
back on your feet and then you're on your own.

We have 3-5 generations now living on that.

Some of the evacuees from Katrina ended up in places like Salt Lake City,
Billings, Omaha, and were amazed. A common refrain was "You means all I has
to do is stand behind the counter and make Slurpees? And I gets PAID for
that? Damn, that's cool!"

And the chain linking five generations of poverty was broken.

For many of the others, who landed in Houston for example, the refrain was:
"Whatchew mean I can't be moseyin' thru my 'hood with a malt and a toke? I
could back home!"

Welcome to the Grey Bar Hotel.