70k Unemployed in NC lose federal benefits July 1

[Larry Gude]

The biggest flaw in your argument is that there are things we, as a society, can and do in fact do for the unemployed and for low income folks. If you are unemployed or you are genuinely poor, you can pretty much get a free education.

A, there is no flaw in my argument. B, you don't 'do' things for folks at that level. You make sure that there are things THEY can chose to go do. Like work. At decent pay. So they can buy things. And the smart guys can make money off of them working and buying things.

 

[Larry Gude]

Since getting an education is something you feel they shouldn't have to do, does society owe them a job?

This is a constant theme with you which makes debating you tedious; you pretty much always throw in something I did NOT say or even suggest.

I did NOT say folks should not have to get an education. I think education is a good thing. I try to learn something every day. I think folks should pursue education. I think folks would be better off in general if they were as smart and educated as you.

However, not everyone is a smart as you and isn't going to seek as much education as you so that they can be more and more marketable.

Some people, like me, are just dumb and stubborn. Some people simply are not going to be able to reach the heights you've achieved. The world DOES need ditch diggers. We DO need garbage men, cooks, dishwashers, swing a hammer, change oil, people willing to sow and transplant and space and drench and spray and pick and ship gerber daisies and then clean up and do it all over again. And then there is that grass that needs mowing, snow that needs shoveling and general manual labor and such so that the smart guys, like you, can sneer and look down on us in relative comfort.

You don't 'owe' us a damn thing but, maybe, enough respect to think, between latte's, that it is in YOUR interest that people that are willing and, perhaps, too stupid or lazy to do anything else, DO have those jobs to do and at wages that allows them to not be a burden on your lifestyle, your investments, your general cost and quality of life. I would submit that if the dummies are doing OK, you'll be doing great. If they are not, it's going to affect you negatively.

Things like having to pay for the states's latest attempt to buy their votes. Things like dealing with run away illegal immigration. Things like the growing sense of "WTF?" when the smart guys get bailed out for their mistakes while the working man is out of luck.

Congratulations on being one of the smart guys and being in a marketable position to look down on the rest of us. Maybe give a moment or two of thought and consideration for all us sore hands, blue jean and cheap beer types who are still, somehow, the backbone of this nation and the lifestyle you are able to take advantage of.

After all, if there weren't so many of us 'losers' who didn't get as edumucated as you, think how much harder you'd have to work if we were as smart as you.

It's really not that hard to appreciate and even respect working people. And, if you want it in your terms, it makes you more 'marketable' if you can see the good people do. Even those so far below you. Who knows? You could be our boss one day. It helps to get along with folks. That starts with a basic respect for folks who will, if nothing else, work.

 

[Pushrod]

Look, -snip-

The thing that is so effed up about all this is that you DON'T bail out the people who are educated, who are smart enough to figure things out under stress. You bail out the working man, the customer, the person who has a pretty simple life to live. Let them be in decent shape and the smart guys will figure out how to profit, properly so, off of them. You don't just freaking take it. Like we've done.

No, the federal government shouldn't be bailing out ANYONE (or anything) period! That is not what they were chartered to do or in their enumerated powers that we granted them. Not allowing entities and persons to fail just teaches those entities/persons that they don't have to work hard to achieve a better life, because the government will be their safety net, and it underminds the faith of the rest of the nation.

 

[MMDad]

This is a constant theme with you which makes debating you tedious; you pretty much always throw in something I did NOT say or even suggest.

Talk about throwing out something I didn't say....

If there was suddenly no demand for flowers would you try to learn a different trade? Would that not be an education? Or would you sit around and refuse to learn something new? I never said he should go out and earn an MBA. I said that if he can't find work in lawn care he should have gotten an education.

Sure some are untrainable - but that's why we have a disability system. Those who are unable to learn can survive. That's a completely different issue.

There are programs available to give you the education that can help you get a job. My brother was in a coma for ten days last year and now is unable to work as a mehanic, which he did for 30 years. He's getting retrained for another job.

You act as if I'm the unreasonable one for thinking that during eight months of collecting unemployment he might have put forth just the tiniest bit of effort to make himself marketable for something other than lawn care. Do you really think that is too much to ask?

Why do you think we owe people this safety net when they choose to remain untrained? Read the Grapes of Wrath. That should be this guy, packing up and going where the work is, doing work outside his comfort level. It may not be fun, but I rarely get paid for having fun.

 

[Larry Gude]

Talk about throwing out something I didn't say....

If there was suddenly no demand for flowers would you try to learn a different trade? Would that not be an education? Or would you sit around and refuse to learn something new? I never said he should go out and earn an MBA. I said that if he can't find work in lawn care he should have gotten an education. .

THERE ARE NO JOBS!!!! Maybe your field is short handed?

I got people with your vaunted college education working for me for $8 an hour. I got a chemical engineering major working for me this summer because he can't find intern work. I got another kid got laid off from body work and my #1 guy, my $50k a year, long time guy, just retired AND WE AIN'T replacing him. My #1 client cut 100 part time jobs this past year. There are a bunch of people whose work load is about to go up and a bunch of others about to be let go. Good, solid jobs.

3 of the four outside guys I use, carpenters/fix thing guys, 2 of them almost lost their homes. The third went from making $200,000 a year to being, basically, a full time drunk because he's too stupid and too prideful to work for $15-20 an hour. They are getting older. They are tired. They are NOT getting ahead anymore.

I can't count how many kids of friends are moving back in with the folks to try and get their finances in order from school. Can't find work.

Good for you all is well in your world and your circles. It ain't so good all over. And I got news for you. With ever growing 'productivity' gains, growing costs of doing business, outrageous energy costs, illegals, manufacturing jobs that ain't coming back, I have read plausible arguments that we are well into the upper teens in terms of percentage of unemployment.

You don't just 'educate' yourself into jobs that don't exist. Especially for folks not as smart and not as capable and not having the foresight that you have.

So, no. They ain't owed a job. And you ain't owed a functioning, decent society. But, we'd all be better off if there was work, good pay, a dollar that meant something and some sort of faith in tomorrow.

 

[Larry Gude]

No, the federal government shouldn't be bailing out ANYONE (or anything) period! That is not what they were chartered to do or in their enumerated powers that we granted them. Not allowing entities and persons to fail just teaches those entities/persons that they don't have to work hard to achieve a better life, because the government will be their safety net, and it underminds the faith of the rest of the nation.

I would argue that 'promoting the general welfare' is in the 'charter'. And the way you do that is focus on the foundation and work up from there. Too Big To Fail is the proposition that successful people should be guaranteed success. A top down approach that is, in a word, backwards. It's a great roof on a rotting house.

 

[DipStick]

A, there is no flaw in my argument. B, you don't 'do' things for folks at that level. You make sure that there are things THEY can chose to go do. Like work. At decent pay. So they can buy things. And the smart guys can make money off of them working and buying things.

The difference here is, you're talking about people who refuse to help themselves. I'm talking about helping people who can help themselves. Education grants for poor people and trade school grants fall under teaching a man to fish.

 

[Larry Gude]

The difference here is, you're talking about people who refuse to help themselves. I'm talking about helping people who can help themselves. Education grants for poor people and trade school grants fall under teaching a man to fish.

Let me tell you something, dipstick, if there is one state where everyone already knows how to fish, it's North Carolina.

Point being, you don't teach people in some school or some grant. You 'teach' them by having an economy that is looking for good people and stands to make enough money off of their help that THEY train them not in what some ####-o in DC or Raleigh thinks they oughta know but train them, on the job, in what the company wants them to know and do.

 

[GURPS]

The third went from making $200,000 a year to being, basically, a full time drunk because he's too stupid and too prideful to work for $15-20 an hour.

I am genuinely curious - was this guy a UNION Carpenter ?

 

[bcp]

Lets look at this realistically
situation 1.
Some guy has worked his whole life earning money, paying taxes etc... now he gets laid off, he gets X number of weeks of unemployment, then nothing. Lose the house, the car the credit rating etc...
seems fair.

situation 2.
ho been on welfare since the day she turned 18 and was able to get her own entitlements, after housing and food and spending money etc.. she lives on what would amount to somewhere near 70k a year in the working world, she gets to keep this for life even though the only thing she has ever done in her life is to ho and birth 15 or 20 new generations of entitlement "workers"

lets put this right.
if the guy from situation 1 is not able to find work, and has been looking, or he finds himself underemployed and in fear of losing everything he WORKED for, then we pay him to keep his stuff until his situation changes and he is back on his feet.
to pay for this, we cut Tonailisha and her brood of criminals to be off of the welfare and we cut her back to what unemployment would pay had she actually ever produced anything of value.

in both cases, both people would be inclined to do better for themselves and in the long run we would save billions.

 

[acommondisaster]

The difference here is, you're talking about people who refuse to help themselves. I'm talking about helping people who can help themselves. Education grants for poor people and trade school grants fall under teaching a man to fish.

You're painting with a very broad brush. Not everyone who is unemployed is someone who refuses to help themselves. There's a difference someone living perpetually on the government dime, in subsidized housing is a whole lot different than a middle aged man or woman who finds themselves "RIF'D". A lot of those grants and "programs" don't apply to them for a variety of reasons.

Granted, there are people who game the system. There are those who pretend to look for work, but only apply where they know they won't get hired. But I think that for every one of those types, there are quite a few who genuinely want to work. We all, to some degree, identify ourselves by what we "do", and if we're not working, we lose that.

 

[MMDad]

lets put this right.
if the guy from situation 1 is not able to find work, and has been looking, or he finds himself underemployed and in fear of losing everything he WORKED for, then we pay him to keep his stuff until his situation changes and he is back on his feet.

How long? 8 months and still no job, yet you think we should be paying his mortgage, car payment, bar tab, and lottery tickets? Where does it end?

This article isn't about someone who had some bad luck, lost his job, and used unemployment until he got something better. This guy had a job AFTER all the crap went down that Larry is ranting about. He has been on unemployment for 8 months.

After 8 months, why couldn't this guy do something about it? NC has a high unemployment rate, and that isn't likely to change any time soon. Why not move somewhere with jobs? ND has a 3.3% rate. I bet he could find something there. Do you know why he doesn't try? Because people like you feel that we should keep paying his bills until he finds the job he wants, where he wants.

 

[bcp]

How long? 8 months and still no job, yet you think we should be paying his mortgage, car payment, bar tab, and lottery tickets? Where does it end?

This article isn't about someone who had some bad luck, lost his job, and used unemployment until he got something better. This guy had a job AFTER all the crap went down that Larry is ranting about. He has been on unemployment for 8 months.

After 8 months, why couldn't this guy do something about it? NC has a high unemployment rate, and that isn't likely to change any time soon. Why not move somewhere with jobs? ND has a 3.3% rate. I bet he could find something there. Do you know why he doesn't try? Because people like you feel that we should keep paying his bills until he finds the job he wants, where he wants.

We dont seem to have a problem paying the welfare ho for 40 or 50 years, why should we question paying someone out of work during a depression in the country when there is high unemployment and no way that he can sell his house due to it being upside down.
but lets rub the laid off workers nose in his laziness while we worship some welfare queen that is popping out a new criminal every 10 months in between her wal-mart trips in her new lexus..

subsidizing the worker would increase his odds of being able to take a lower paying job for the time being until the economy turns around after the POS obama is sent back to kenya.

 

[MMDad]

THERE ARE NO JOBS!!!! Maybe your field is short handed?

Indeed.com has 75,000 open jobs in NC. Maybe this guy doesn't want to become qualified for any of them, but they exist.

I never, not once, said anything about him needing a degree, so you can stop putting words in my mouth. There are many ways to get an education. College is just one of them. You can even get on the job education and learn a marketable trade. But then you couldn't stay on unemployment...

My initial post had two portions. You are latching onto the one you want to argue, and completely ignoring the other one. Stop putting words into my mouth, and stop pretending that I am ignoring something that I clearly stated before you went off on your paragraphs of rants.

 

[bcp]

Indeed.com has 75,000 open jobs in NC. Maybe this guy doesn't want to become qualified for any of them, but they exist.

and, during good times and times like now, could welfare queen momma gone out and found employment?

I never, not once, said anything about him needing a degree, so you can stop putting words in my mouth. There are many ways to get an education. College is just one of them. You can even get on the job education and learn a marketable trade. But then you couldn't stay on unemployment...

and, does this same apply to welfare queen momma?

My initial post had two portions. You are latching onto the one you want to argue, and completely ignoring the other one. Stop putting words into my mouth, and stop pretending that I am ignoring something that I clearly stated before you went off on your paragraphs of rants.

Not sure what Larry is arguing, but Im saying that you have two people, one did work and contribute, one did not. Which on should go without.

I say the one that has always refused to work should be the one cut from their income.
the other guy might take that job at 30k when he really needs 60k if the government is going to help him with the extra 30 for a while, yet, you seem to argue that its better to pay the welfare crack ho a full 70 in benefits instead..
I dont understand.
can you explain why crack ho deserves more than the guy that worked most his life

 

[MMDad]

We dont seem to have a problem paying the welfare ho for 40 or 50 years, why should we question paying someone out of work during a depression in the country when there is high unemployment and no way that he can sell his house due to it being upside down.
but lets rub the laid off workers nose in his laziness while we worship some welfare queen that is popping out a new criminal every 10 months in between her wal-mart trips in her new lexus..

subsidizing the worker would increase his odds of being able to take a lower paying job for the time being until the economy turns around after the POS obama is sent back to kenya.

1. The topic is unemployment. Try to stay on topic for once.

2. We are not in a depression. Pretending we are does nothing to help your argument.

3. A "lawn care worker" with a mortgage? Really? Sounds like whatever program helped him to qualify for a loan with no education and no job security is to blame. Why would we bail him out? Upside down? Where do you get that? It isn't in the original story. Stop making up things that you do not know.

4. Follow the link to the story. Look at the picture of the guy, and notice the picture on the wall. You are picking the wrong guy to stick up for if you want to use it to continue your incessant psycho birther crap.

BCP, if you want "put this right" it would benefit you greatly if you actually were just a tiny bit honest about it. Making up things that are just not true so you can turn it into "Obama sucks" again does nothing to add to your credibility. Of course, your refusal to capitalize makes your posts seem dumb enough that most people just write them off as more illiterate rambling.

 

[bcp]

1. The topic is unemployment. Try to stay on topic for once.

2. We are not in a depression. Pretending we are does nothing to help your argument.

3. A "lawn care worker" with a mortgage? Really? Sounds like whatever program helped him to qualify for a loan with no education and no job security is to blame. Why would we bail him out? Upside down? Where do you get that? It isn't in the original story. Stop making up things that you do not know.

4. Follow the link to the story. Look at the picture of the guy, and notice the picture on the wall. You are picking the wrong guy to stick up for if you want to use it to continue your incessant psycho birther crap.

BCP, if you want "put this right" it would benefit you greatly if you actually were just a tiny bit honest about it. Making up things that are just not true so you can turn it into "Obama sucks" again does nothing to add to your credibility. Of course, your refusal to capitalize makes your posts seem dumb enough that most people just write them off as more illiterate rambling.

BUT YOUR INSISTENCE TO PROTECT THE GAY AND THE LAZY DO NOTHING BUT ENHANCE YOUR ARGUMENT.
I GET IT.

THERE, I CAPITALIZED.

Now, lets look at it realistically, do you want to help the guy that worked to support himself most of his life, or do you want to continue to throw good money away supporting some crack whore and her fatherless brood of criminals to be.
I prefer my money goes to the guy that tried.

 

[MMDad]

BUT YOUR INSISTENCE TO PROTECT THE GAY AND THE LAZY DO NOTHING BUT ENHANCE YOUR ARGUMENT.
I GET IT.

THERE, I CAPITALIZED.

Now, lets look at it realistically, do you want to help the guy that worked to support himself most of his life, or do you want to continue to throw good money away supporting some crack whore and her fatherless brood of criminals to be.
I prefer my money goes to the guy that tried.

Gee, that sure made you look like an intelligent person.

Let me get this straight - you are trying to equate me thinking that endless unemployment is bad means that I am in favor of supporting crack whores.

You have taken your ignorance and stupidity to a new level.

 

[DipStick]

You're painting with a very broad brush. Not everyone who is unemployed is someone who refuses to help themselves. There's a difference someone living perpetually on the government dime, in subsidized housing is a whole lot different than a middle aged man or woman who finds themselves "RIF'D". A lot of those grants and "programs" don't apply to them for a variety of reasons.

Granted, there are people who game the system. There are those who pretend to look for work, but only apply where they know they won't get hired. But I think that for every one of those types, there are quite a few who genuinely want to work. We all, to some degree, identify ourselves by what we "do", and if we're not working, we lose that.

NO, I'm not. You're just not comprehending what I'm saying. If you go back to what I've said in this thread and, honestly, what I've been saying for a couple years now, you'll find that you and I are on the same page.

I'm saying that there are programs in place already to help people who do want to help themselves - though many of those people don't necessarily know they exist. Larry seems to be implying that we shouldn't do anything to help people because, if they want to help themselves, they'll be able to do it on their own. In reality, some people do need help. Some people do have everything stacked against them and just need someone else to help them somewhere.

What I'm saying is that we can and do and should help people who want to succeed, who want to get an education and work. Unfortunately, the minority of people who want to live off you and me make the lot look bad. There are people who don't want to better themselves and are perfectly content with living in Section 8 housing on my dime their whole lives.

Go down to the Department of Labor and you'll see there are many things they do - and yes, the State of Maryland does have a program that will pay for unemployed people to go to a trade school or go to college. And people who are legitimately poor can pretty much go to a community college for free.

 

[DipStick]

1. The topic is unemployment. Try to stay on topic for once.

2. We are not in a depression. Pretending we are does nothing to help your argument.

3. A "lawn care worker" with a mortgage? Really? Sounds like whatever program helped him to qualify for a loan with no education and no job security is to blame. Why would we bail him out? Upside down? Where do you get that? It isn't in the original story. Stop making up things that you do not know.

4. Follow the link to the story. Look at the picture of the guy, and notice the picture on the wall. You are picking the wrong guy to stick up for if you want to use it to continue your incessant psycho birther crap.

BCP, if you want "put this right" it would benefit you greatly if you actually were just a tiny bit honest about it. Making up things that are just not true so you can turn it into "Obama sucks" again does nothing to add to your credibility. Of course, your refusal to capitalize makes your posts seem dumb enough that most people just write them off as more illiterate rambling.

BUT YOUR INSISTENCE TO PROTECT THE GAY AND THE LAZY DO NOTHING BUT ENHANCE YOUR ARGUMENT.
I GET IT.

THERE, I CAPITALIZED.

Now, lets look at it realistically, do you want to help the guy that worked to support himself most of his life, or do you want to continue to throw good money away supporting some crack whore and her fatherless brood of criminals to be.
I prefer my money goes to the guy that tried.

Gee, that sure made you look like an intelligent person.

Let me get this straight - you are trying to equate me thinking that endless unemployment is bad means that I am in favor of supporting crack whores.

You have taken your ignorance and stupidity to a new level.