discrimination by the government
The government discriminates against people that work. They will give assistance to people that don't work, but won't give assistance to people that will work. Where is the equality in that.
Not that I need or even want government assistance, but in this day of PC, everybody is supposed to be equal. So I'm just wondering whether why the f the people that work don't get assistance while people that don't work gets assistance...
I have a solution that will make all people equal as far as getting assistance.... Don't give anybody assistance. Problem solved
I mean, in this day and age there is a help wanted sign in the window at every storefront, and help wanted ads in every paper in the United States. Nobody needs assistance
Not that I need or even want government assistance, but in this day of PC, everybody is supposed to be equal. So I'm just wondering whether why the f the people that work don't get assistance while people that don't work gets assistance...
I have a solution that will make all people equal as far as getting assistance.... Don't give anybody assistance. Problem solved
I mean, in this day and age there is a help wanted sign in the window at every storefront, and help wanted ads in every paper in the United States. Nobody needs assistance
0
-
If people couldn't get a little assistance between jobs, it would be harder to recover from recessions because the laid off part of the workforce would be in no shape to work. They'd be homeless, starving, living in shelters, perhaps the victims of crime.
People would save more and spend less because they'd be afraid to patronize your business in case they went out of work and needed to get by for a few months without a paycheck.
It may be cheaper to pay someone a little assistance than to keep them in jail.
Why make up sentimental reasons why assistance is not fair? Some things about it are a good idea.0 -
quote:Originally posted by SoreShoulder
If people couldn't get a little assistance between jobs, it would be harder to recover from recessions because the laid off part of the workforce would be in no shape to work. They'd be homeless, starving, living in shelters, perhaps the victims of crime.
People would save more and spend less because they'd be afraid to patronize your business in case they went out of work and needed to get by for a few months without a paycheck.
It may be cheaper to pay someone a little assistance than to keep them in jail.
Why make up sentimental reasons why assistance is not fair? Some things about it are a good idea.
people survived just fine before the government started giving out handouts. So your argument is invalid.
Saving money to be self-sufficient it's not what you think. It's not a bad thing, it's a good thing.
As far as it's better than paying people assistance then to pay them to be in jail, bring back the chain gang. Make them pay their own way for their stay. Beside not being a burden on tax payers, a lot of people would be deterred from becoming criminals because they wouldn't want to work that hard if they got caught. So you see bringing back the chain gang and making them pay for their own state, will it also lessen the crime rate. Which would be a good thing0 -
quote:Originally posted by remingtonoakspeople survived just fine before the government started giving out handouts. So your argument is invalid.
I didn't say they died. Unemployment cost society more.
More people probably did die during recessions though. More people survived? All of them? How do you know? Some people survived the Tambora eruption or the plague; that doesn't mean they did just as well as a good year.0 -
quote:Originally posted by remingtonoaksSaving money to be self-sufficient it's not what you think. It's not a bad thing, it's a good thing.That's money they'll never spend at your business. If they cancelled unemployment insurance, you might get fired too. 0 -
quote:Originally posted by SoreShoulder
quote:Originally posted by remingtonoakspeople survived just fine before the government started giving out handouts. So your argument is invalid.
I didn't say they died. Unemployment cost society more.
More people probably did die during recessions though. More people survived? All of them? How do you know? Some people survived the Tambora eruption or the plague; that doesn't mean they did just as well as a good year.
Unemployment doesn't cost society anything. That's why companies have to carry unemployment insurance that the company pays a percentage of a person's income in case a person becomes unemployed,that way unemployment is not a burden on society. Government assistance cost society money. Not Unemployment.
And yes during recessions or depressions unemployment benefits are extended and paid for by a reserve from the unemployment insurance premiums that the companies paid. So even in a recession, unemployment is not a burden on taxpayers. Government assistance is a bird on taxpayers everyday, whether there's a recession or not.0 -
quote:Originally posted by remingtonoaksAs far as it's better than paying people assistance then to pay them to be in jail, bring back the chain gang. Make them pay their own way for their stay. Beside not being a burden on tax payers, a lot of people would be deterred from becoming criminals because they wouldn't want to work that hard if they got caught. So you see bringing back the chain gang and making them pay for their own state, will it also lessen the crime rate. Which would be a good thing
How much value could you extract vs what would it cost?
They'd take work away from people who haven't committed crimes.0 -
quote:Originally posted by SoreShoulder
quote:Originally posted by remingtonoaksAs far as it's better than paying people assistance then to pay them to be in jail, bring back the chain gang. Make them pay their own way for their stay. Beside not being a burden on tax payers, a lot of people would be deterred from becoming criminals because they wouldn't want to work that hard if they got caught. So you see bringing back the chain gang and making them pay for their own state, will it also lessen the crime rate. Which would be a good thing
How much value could you extract vs what would it cost?
They'd take work away from people who haven't committed crimes.
so let's go back to my original post where I said there is a help wanted sign in front of every storefront, anf the newspapers are full of help wanted ads.0 -
unemployment cost society more than welfare???
that's rich.
I suppose you ignore the fact that our welfare system has created an entire class of people who for generations haven't worked, thus the kids don't even know what it's like to work because their parents and grandparents never have.
this country will never return to it's former greatness, when you have people campaigning to give handouts to those who won't hustle at the expense of those who do, that is the end.
Why in the hell should I go to work and bust my ass and pay taxes so the government can redistribute the money to all the "poor"?0 -
unemployment cost society more than welfare???
that's rich.
I suppose you ignore the fact that our welfare system has created an entire class of people who for generations haven't worked, thus the kids don't even know what it's like to work because their parents and grandparents never have.
this country will never return to it's former greatness, when you have people campaigning to give handouts to those who won't hustle at the expense of those who do, that is the end.
Why in the hell should I go to work and bust my ass and pay taxes so the government can redistribute the money to all the "poor"?0 -
quote:Originally posted by jesnlsn
unemployment cost society more than welfare???
that's rich.
I suppose you ignore the fact that our welfare system has created an entire class of people who for generations haven't worked, thus the kids don't even know what it's like to work because their parents and grandparents never have.
this country will never return to it's former greatness, when you have people campaigning to give handouts to those who won't hustle at the expense of those who do, that is the end.
Why in the hell should I go to work and bust my ass and pay taxes so the government can redistribute the money to all the "poor people too lazy to work"?
There, I fixed it for you...0 -
I'm what I call an Equaligist. That is everyone is equal, the same, no difference, and so on. While it states all men are created equal, no one really wants to believe in that. They all want to be more equal. By equal, I mean equal in all things. This of course would not apply to genuine special needs people. But race, sex, religion, or what ever, gets you no special treatment, as we are all equal. Either everyone gets it or no one gets it.
There is a few ways of looking at this. One is if you have something like the NAACP, then you should be able to have the NAAAP for Asians, NAAWP for Whites, NAAJP for Jews, and so on, with out being called non PC. If you are able to have Miss Black America, then you should have Miss White America, Miss Latino America, Miss Asian American, the list goes on.
You either open the field to everyone, or close it to everyone, as we are all equal. It's not just organisations and funds, but many Government payments/programs/and such are race, creed, sex, or origin orientated.
Think about it, if we are all equal, the same, there are no minorities. So there is no need for special groups.
I realize this, we are all equal and should all be treated the exact same, sounds communist/communist orientated. But it is the last thing the Left wants. Their main carrots is special treatments for this group or that group. They don't want everyone equal and treated the same.
Sorry for the rant. But on a parting shot. The dreaded, (who said that), N word. Is it a derogatory word. If so, the use of the word should cause the same reaction, regardless of who uses it. If it is not derogatory, then anyone can use it. If we are all equal, it cant be OK for some to use it and not OK for others.0 -
how cruel, trying to destroy MANY fine homes of people who have sat faithfully by waiting for the checks...for YEARS 0 -
quote:Originally posted by Fazer1
I'm what I call an Equaligist. That is everyone is equal, the same, no difference, and so on. While it states all men are created equal, no one really wants to believe in that. They all want to be more equal. By equal, I mean equal in all things. This of course would not apply to genuine special needs people. But race, sex, religion, or what ever, gets you no special treatment, as we are all equal. Either everyone gets it or no one gets it.
There is a few ways of looking at this. One is if you have something like the NAACP, then you should be able to have the NAAAP for Asians, NAAWP for Whites, NAAJP for Jews, and so on, with out being called non PC. If you are able to have Miss Black America, then you should have Miss White America, Miss Latino America, Miss Asian American, the list goes on.
You either open the field to everyone, or close it to everyone, as we are all equal. It's not just organisations and funds, but many Government payments/programs/and such are race, creed, sex, or origin orientated.
Think about it, if we are all equal, the same, there are no minorities. So there is no need for special groups.
I realize this, we are all equal and should all be treated the exact same, sounds communist/communist orientated. But it is the last thing the Left wants. Their main carrots is special treatments for this group or that group. They don't want everyone equal and treated the same.
Sorry for the rant. But on a parting shot. The dreaded, (who said that), N word. Is it a derogatory word. If so, the use of the word should cause the same reaction, regardless of who uses it. If it is not derogatory, then anyone can use it. If we are all equal, it cant be OK for some to use it and not OK for others.
Or, one can go about his life and expect others to do the same.
These race or religion specific groups you cite serve to maintain social dependency and/or cultural angst by attempting (and often succeeding) to define what is the proper way of thought for the group. The NAACP has been remarkably successful in motivating a fairly large percentage of the black population to think a certain way, often in conflict with the actual self interest of its members.
LBGTRFQWXYZ groups have done the same, as have most advocacy groups that attempt to separate their members from the greater society in one way of another.
There is no NAAWP because there is sufficient diversity of thought in the W community to render such an organization impotent. Truth be told, the same probably occurs in the C community at large, but those that disagree with the organization's positions are either unwelcome or underrepresented.
Lastly, the idiocy of citing the use of terms by one group vs. another has nothing to do with equality. If you wish to use the term you cite, go ahead. I really do not see how it being socially unacceptable for you to use that term makes you any less equal than someone for whom the use of that term is acceptable.0 -
As long as you have all these special interest groups, that are for one group only, you drive the wedge deeper. I'm not saying a NAAWP is needed or should be. But I do feel that One should be able to start such a group with out being condemned a racist, non PC and all that. The furor if that was attempted would be huge, but there is no outrage over other groups doing this.
quote:Lastly, the idiocy of citing the use of terms by one group vs. another has nothing to do with equality. If you wish to use the term you cite, go ahead. I really do not see how it being socially unacceptable for you to use that term makes you any less equal than someone for whom the use of that term is acceptable.
You have answered the question there yourself. The fact that I won't be treated and considered the same as someone else using the term, only because of my race, means we are not equal in this.0 -
I don't understand why the government didn't ask the multipack children factories to get their tubes tied if they want freebies? I'm thinking after two and if they can't take care of them close up the baby factory. 0 -
You left out the U.S. pays Millions (billions) for Refugees, illegal aliens, immigrants, etc. Immigrants appear to have MORE privileges in the U.S. then the citizens.
If Trump doesn't come up with a way to stop/limit immigration we'll be JUST LIKE FRANCE in the future. Taxed to death, immigration, climate change and social destruction.
Immigration is JUST one of the costs MACRON was responsible for in addition to more gas taxes. I believe France has the highest tax burden on it's average working citizens anywhere in the E.U.
(Sound familiar)0 -
quote:Originally posted by Fazer1
I'm what I call an Equaligist. That is everyone is equal, the same, no difference, and so on. While it states all men are created equal, no one really wants to believe in that. They all want to be more equal. By equal, I mean equal in all things. This of course would not apply to genuine special needs people. But race, sex, religion, or what ever, gets you no special treatment, as we are all equal. Either everyone gets it or no one gets it.
There is a few ways of looking at this. One is if you have something like the NAACP, then you should be able to have the NAAAP for Asians, NAAWP for Whites, NAAJP for Jews, and so on, with out being called non PC. If you are able to have Miss Black America, then you should have Miss White America, Miss Latino America, Miss Asian American, the list goes on.
You either open the field to everyone, or close it to everyone, as we are all equal. It's not just organisations and funds, but many Government payments/programs/and such are race, creed, sex, or origin orientated.
Think about it, if we are all equal, the same, there are no minorities. So there is no need for special groups.
I realize this, we are all equal and should all be treated the exact same, sounds communist/communist orientated. But it is the last thing the Left wants. Their main carrots is special treatments for this group or that group. They don't want everyone equal and treated the same.
Sorry for the rant. But on a parting shot. The dreaded, (who said that), N word. Is it a derogatory word. If so, the use of the word should cause the same reaction, regardless of who uses it. If it is not derogatory, then anyone can use it. If we are all equal, it cant be OK for some to use it and not OK for others.
You can consider Stephen Hawkins a special needs person, but yet he never went on welfare. He worked full-time, in fact he probably works 14 to 16 hours a day 7 days a week0 -
quote:Originally posted by Fazer1
As long as you have all these special interest groups, that are for one group only, you drive the wedge deeper. I'm not saying a NAAWP is needed or should be. But I do feel that One should be able to start such a group with out being condemned a racist, non PC and all that. The furor if that was attempted would be huge, but there is no outrage over other groups doing this.
quote:Lastly, the idiocy of citing the use of terms by one group vs. another has nothing to do with equality. If you wish to use the term you cite, go ahead. I really do not see how it being socially unacceptable for you to use that term makes you any less equal than someone for whom the use of that term is acceptable.
You have answered the question there yourself. The fact that I won't be treated and considered the same as someone else using the term, only because of my race, means we are not equal in this.
My mistake. I thought the thread was about Government discrimination.
The fact that someone thinks you are a jerk for doing something only a jerk would do is a societal, not a government response.
There are federal set-asides for procurement from minority owned business.
I believe that it is legal in some cases in hiring and promotion for government to factor race as a qualifier.
In the big picture, however, Government discrimination is, as noted in the OP, based upon economic condition, not race, gender, or faith.0 -
quote:Originally posted by jesnlsn
unemployment cost society more than welfare???
that's rich.
I suppose you ignore the fact that our welfare system has created an entire class of people who for generations haven't worked, thus the kids don't even know what it's like to work because their parents and grandparents never have.
From Wikipedia:In 1996, the Personal Responsibility and Work Opportunity Reconciliation Act changed the structure of Welfare payments and added new criteria to states that received Welfare funding. After reforms, which President Clinton said would "end Welfare as we know it",[41] amounts from the federal government were given out in a flat rate per state based on population.[42] Each state must meet certain criteria to ensure recipients are being encouraged to work themselves out of Welfare. The new program is called Temporary Assistance for Needy Families (TANF).[43][44] It encourages states to require some sort of employment search in exchange for providing funds to individuals, and imposes a five-year lifetime limit on cash assistance.[41][43][45] In FY 2010, 31.8% of TANF families were white, 31.9% were African-American, and 30.0% were Hispanic.[44]0 -
quote:Originally posted by remingtonoaks
quote:Originally posted by SoreShoulder
quote:Originally posted by remingtonoakspeople survived just fine before the government started giving out handouts. So your argument is invalid.
I didn't say they died. Unemployment cost society more.
More people probably did die during recessions though. More people survived? All of them? How do you know? Some people survived the Tambora eruption or the plague; that doesn't mean they did just as well as a good year.
Unemployment doesn't cost society anything. That's why companies have to carry unemployment insurance that the company pays a percentage of a person's income in case a person becomes unemployed,that way unemployment is not a burden on society. Government assistance cost society money. Not Unemployment.
And yes during recessions or depressions unemployment benefits are extended and paid for by a reserve from the unemployment insurance premiums that the companies paid. So even in a recession, unemployment is not a burden on taxpayers. Government assistance is a bird on taxpayers everyday, whether there's a recession or not.
You're talking about unemployment insurance. I was referring to being unemployed. It has costs.
If you are in no shape to go back to work when the hard times are over because you're living in a hobo camp, then your company loses business or has to train a new guy.
If people save emergency funds instead of buying stuff, it costs business.0 -
quote:Originally posted by remingtonoaks
quote:Originally posted by SoreShoulder
quote:Originally posted by remingtonoakspeople survived just fine before the government started giving out handouts. So your argument is invalid.
I didn't say they died. Unemployment cost society more.
More people probably did die during recessions though. More people survived? All of them? How do you know? Some people survived the Tambora eruption or the plague; that doesn't mean they did just as well as a good year.
Unemployment doesn't cost society anything. That's why companies have to carry unemployment insurance that the company pays a percentage of a person's income in case a person becomes unemployed,that way unemployment is not a burden on society. Government assistance cost society money. Not Unemployment.
And yes during recessions or depressions unemployment benefits are extended and paid for by a reserve from the unemployment insurance premiums that the companies paid. So even in a recession, unemployment is not a burden on taxpayers. Government assistance is a bird on taxpayers everyday, whether there's a recession or not.
Do you think the money the businesses have to spend on Unemployment insurance grows on trees? That's part of the costs they pass onto you.0 -
quote:Originally posted by jesnlsn
unemployment cost society more than welfare???
that's rich.
I suppose you ignore the fact that our welfare system has created an entire class of people who for generations haven't worked, thus the kids don't even know what it's like to work because their parents and grandparents never have.
this country will never return to it's former greatness, when you have people campaigning to give handouts to those who won't hustle at the expense of those who do, that is the end.
Why in the hell should I go to work and bust my ass and pay taxes so the government can redistribute the money to all the "poor"?
Well put.0 -
quote:Originally posted by chiefr
quote:Originally posted by jesnlsn
unemployment cost society more than welfare???
that's rich.
I suppose you ignore the fact that our welfare system has created an entire class of people who for generations haven't worked, thus the kids don't even know what it's like to work because their parents and grandparents never have.
this country will never return to it's former greatness, when you have people campaigning to give handouts to those who won't hustle at the expense of those who do, that is the end.
Why in the hell should I go to work and bust my ass and pay taxes so the government can redistribute the money to all the "poor"?
Well put.
From Wikipedia:In 1996, the Personal Responsibility and Work Opportunity Reconciliation Act changed the structure of Welfare payments and added new criteria to states that received Welfare funding. After reforms, which President Clinton said would "end Welfare as we know it",[41] amounts from the federal government were given out in a flat rate per state based on population.[42] Each state must meet certain criteria to ensure recipients are being encouraged to work themselves out of Welfare. The new program is called Temporary Assistance for Needy Families (TANF).[43][44] It encourages states to require some sort of employment search in exchange for providing funds to individuals, and imposes a five-year lifetime limit on cash assistance.[41][43][45] In FY 2010, 31.8% of TANF families were white, 31.9% were African-American, and 30.0% were Hispanic.[44]0 -
quote:Originally posted by chiefr
quote:Originally posted by jesnlsn
unemployment cost society more than welfare???
that's rich.
I suppose you ignore the fact that our welfare system has created an entire class of people who for generations haven't worked, thus the kids don't even know what it's like to work because their parents and grandparents never have.
this country will never return to it's former greatness, when you have people campaigning to give handouts to those who won't hustle at the expense of those who do, that is the end.
Why in the hell should I go to work and bust my ass and pay taxes so the government can redistribute the money to all the "poor"?
Well put.
From Wikipedia:In 1996, the Personal Responsibility and Work Opportunity Reconciliation Act changed the structure of Welfare payments and added new criteria to states that received Welfare funding. After reforms, which President Clinton said would "end Welfare as we know it",[41] amounts from the federal government were given out in a flat rate per state based on population.[42] Each state must meet certain criteria to ensure recipients are being encouraged to work themselves out of Welfare. The new program is called Temporary Assistance for Needy Families (TANF).[43][44] It encourages states to require some sort of employment search in exchange for providing funds to individuals, and imposes a five-year lifetime limit on cash assistance.[41][43][45] In FY 2010, 31.8% of TANF families were white, 31.9% were African-American, and 30.0% were Hispanic.[44]0 -
quote:Originally posted by gruntled
quote:Originally posted by remingtonoaks
quote:Originally posted by SoreShoulder
quote:Originally posted by remingtonoakspeople survived just fine before the government started giving out handouts. So your argument is invalid.
I didn't say they died. Unemployment cost society more.
More people probably did die during recessions though. More people survived? All of them? How do you know? Some people survived the Tambora eruption or the plague; that doesn't mean they did just as well as a good year.
Unemployment doesn't cost society anything. That's why companies have to carry unemployment insurance that the company pays a percentage of a person's income in case a person becomes unemployed,that way unemployment is not a burden on society. Government assistance cost society money. Not Unemployment.
And yes during recessions or depressions unemployment benefits are extended and paid for by a reserve from the unemployment insurance premiums that the companies paid. So even in a recession, unemployment is not a burden on taxpayers. Government assistance is a bird on taxpayers everyday, whether there's a recession or not.
Do you think the money the businesses have to spend on Unemployment insurance grows on trees? That's part of the costs they pass onto you.
I owned my own business all my life, if I didn't have to pay in on unemployment insurance for my employees I would just give that money to my employees in the form of higher wages. So in essence the consumer doesn't pay for unemployment insurance, the employees pay for it in the form of receiving lower wages to make sure if I have to let them go, they have some income coming in.
So in essence what you're saying if unemployment insurance is passed on to the consumer, then so is the all of the labor cost. and if you have a problem with unemployment insurance, then you have a problem with all labor costs. Which makes you a communist that believes that nobody should get paid anything and the government should just take care of us. By supplying the necessities in life for doing nothing. That doesn't work though, even in communism there is a labor cost. It may not be in the form of wages, but somebody has to work for the money it goes into the communistic coffer to take care the citizens of that country.0 -
quote:Originally posted by remingtonoaksI owned my own business all my life, if I didn't have to pay in on unemployment insurance for my employees I would just give that money to my employees in the form of higher wages. So in essence the consumer doesn't pay for unemployment insurance, the employees pay for it in the form of receiving lower wages to make sure if I have to let them go, they have some income coming in.Yes but it's a system we all pay in to.
That means it lowers wages LESS than if you had to save for the possibility of unemployment by yourself because everybody carries the few unemployed.
Even those with high job security profit from the stability because business is better. Also, they might not have their secure job if it wasn't for unemployment insurance, because high job security would be worth more, and a smarter person would have out competed them for their job.0 -
I have no problem with assisting someone who needs it.
A woman and two kids who just got left by her husband.
A disabled person who is incapable of working.
A person who just got laid off and is in need of retraining for employment.
A person who falls ill and is broke due to medical bills.
A mom who needs additional help paying rent because she can't earn enough to cover it all..things like this.
I do not support any system where collecting SNAP, EBT, Section 8 etc. has become a career path. Sadly, this has become the norm.0 -
Been so long since I worked, but didn't the people who were working pay into unemployment (insurance?) and also the employer. It was a "state" run system, where as welfare is mostly a federal program.
Seems to me unemployment would be much less of a burden,, maybe NONE whereas welfare is a tax sponge.
0 -
quote:Originally posted by us55840
Unemployment doesn't cost society anything.
[/quote]
And so who pays for all those fully staffed unemployment offices, the forms and paperwork, office equipment, printing and mailing out the unemployment checks? Also the business must complete and submit forms/funds for the 'unemployment tax fund" and that places a cost on the business.
There is a cost involved.
[/quote]
There is a cost involved. And those buildings and employees that work for the unemployment insurance agency is paid for by on insurance premiums. Not by the government... No doubt about it. But it's not a handout from the government... it's an insurance playing payout to a person that legitimately has a claim to the insurance payout that he has paid into, that's why it's called unemployment INSURANCE, not unemployment government freebie
Instead of sidetracking what this thread is about, you might want to think about sticking with the subject matter at hand. And start your own thread if you want to talk about something that this thread is not about...0 -
I have long maintained that if the government got out of the welfare business and reduced the tax burden accordingly that churches and privately funded organizations would help the vast majority of those in legitimate need (and probably some of the moochers, too). 0
Please sign in to leave a comment.
Comments
35 comments