Are Ford Employees Really Ford Enthusiast?

[NickF1011]

. I know I pay capital gains tax most years and have no problem paying a few more percent if it will help the deficit.

 

So how many times have you contributed extra on your income taxes on the line that asks if you'd like to put aside an additional amount for the debt reduction fund?

[fordmantpw]

It'll be at the shopping mall...or in my living room decorating my fake tree. :P

 

The only real trees I decorate are the ones growing in my front yard!

[grbeck]

It is a queston of fairness and the fact that rich people are paying less in taxes percentage wise than they did under Reagan Presidency.

 

No, they are not. Today, the rich are paying a higher percentage of federal income taxes collected than they did in the 1980s, or even when the top rates were set at 90+ percent in the 1950s. The actual tax RATE on the top brackets has been reduced over the years (starting with President John F. Kennedy in 1962).

 

High income tax rates do not necessarily mean people are actually paying those rates (higher rates give people more incentive to shelter income from taxes). The best, most productive course is a lower tax rate, combined with fewer loopholes.

Edited November 9, 2011 by grbeck

[Bob Rosadini]

I haven't been following this thread, but I will say their WAS a plant that had a lot of Ford enthusiasts- STAP. I've previously posted the story of how the 07 Sport in my Avatar was "signed" by "Topgun" and also followed through the mfg. process by several other employees ("Ute")- all after I posted a thank you note on the quality of my old CV when I ordered the 07. Immediately got a request for the vin, and guess what- they followed it.

 

Posted a similar message when I ordered my SHO- never got a response from anyone at CAP. No problems with the SHO in any case-other than synching the phone which I think is my Samsung issue.

[BrewfanGRB]

That is not accurate. Welfare is far more than the Supplemental Nutritional Assistance Program (SNAP, or Food Stamps).

 

You are forgetting Section 8 vouchers, Medicaid, various government health insurance programs for children, the Women, Infants and Children (WIC) program, free school lunches (and, in many cases, free breakfasts and after-school snacks) and the Low Income Heating and Energy Assistance Program (LIHEAP).

 

Wow. LIHEAP is welfare. Got it. Can't pay your heat? Tough. The point is, none of these programs ARE TANF (and I'll admit to overlooking TANF). They are each directly means-based. Based on income. Ok sure, maybe crack-addled losers have no income are getting free school lunches for their kids and subsidies to keep the heat on. I guess if that's a waste of money, then well...whatever. I'm not even going to debate this with you. It's not welfare that is direct cash to blow on booze.

 

Abuse of TANF should be stopped, absolutely. But to characterize all of the above programs as the same class of welfare as TANF is disingenuous.

[BrewfanGRB]

How much money is wasted on disability for people who don't need it? I see at least one case every single week on Judge Judy and that's a tiny sample.

 

Since you appear to have appointed yourself the arbiter of "yeah, you're ok, you get a little bit for short period...nope, you're a lazy bum and get nothing"....I ask you: My mom had terminal cancer and died in 2008. Her application for disability through the SSA was quickly and efficient processed and approved. She died after receiving 2 payments. Thumbs up? I suppose so, right...I mean, fortunately she managed to die without costing you individually too much money.

 

It would be helpful to understand that for MOST applicants, it takes forever for a decision either way (mainly because their injuries or issue is not terminal or relatively complex). But, if they get approved, either they legitimately deserve it or admittedly, have managed to defraud the system. Fraud exists everywhere. It is large. But eliminating fraud on its own doesn't solve structural deficits or pending insolvency of that program nor does it do anything statistically meaningful to the overall deficit.

 

I didn't say that's all that was needed to clean up the budget. I think we need military cuts and cuts across the board to go along with some increased tax revenue. And eliminating wasteful spending really has nothing to do with the deficit - it's something we should have been doing all along. The entire idea is that we need to cut back to essentials until we get out of this crisis.

 

What do you mean, "until we get out of the crisis"? If we get out of the crisis, why we would need anything beyond the essentials anyway? The point is, while we ARE IN CRISIS, additional efforts are needed to find the right fix or stimulus to move the situation forward. I absolutely refuse to believe that even substantially cutting taxes on ANYONE would suddenly turn the rich or corporations into wonderfully charitable entities that just randomly expand their business and hire additional workers. It makes no sense. At all. Either your business needs to expand or it does not. Understand this: Why would any business, already profitable, decide to expand and substantially increase its overall expense levels after a tax cut? It's already profitable doing just what it's doing right now--if I were a business owner and you cut my taxes 20%, I'd just buy a condo in the Caymans. If I were a corporation, I'd do what they're doing now: Stick it in the bank. Cutting taxes themselves can't possibly be an incentive to expand.

 

Actually, I'm ok with not paying taxes at all on the lowest bracket but 47% not paying any income tax at all is ridiculous. Everybody gets benefit from Federal government services (according to previous assertions) so why shouldn't everyone have to pay at least a little bit of their share?

 

Never asserted that all 47% not paying taxes now should continue to not pay taxes. My only question and point was to people with relatively minimal income being required to pay taxes, which you answered as I would any reasonable person would. For the record, I'm adamantly opposed to: Child tax credits and the mortgage interest deduction. You choose to have a child, you know or should know it's expensive. To me, it's unbelievably counterintuitive to give someone a tax CREDIT for having kids. (Certainly should maintain deductions for each household member, but no credits). As for mortgage interest deduction, it's a use of tax policy that unnaturally influences actions. Housing has a cost of X--to provide yourself and your family with shelter. No matter what anyone tells you, a house should not be treated as or considered an investment or savings vehicle.

Edited November 10, 2011 by BrewfanGRB

[akirby]

Since you appear to have appointed yourself the arbiter of "yeah, you're ok, you get a little bit for short period...nope, you're a lazy bum and get nothing"....I ask you: My mom had terminal cancer and died in 2008. Her application for disability through the SSA was quickly and efficient processed and approved. She died after receiving 2 payments. Thumbs up? I suppose so, right...I mean, fortunately she managed to die without costing you individually too much money.

 

My mom also died of cancer in 1995. My dad waited 18 months for the government to approve a disability pension because he was exposed to an above ground radiation test in Arizona in 1951 and contracted esophogeal cancer in 2003. He died in 2004 - 16 months later. 2 months after he died they approved his disability application and sent a retroactive check for $34K - then promptly took it back when they found out he was already dead. They call it 'accrued benefits" - benefits earned but not collected before death. Since there was no living spouse or dependent children, they kept all of it and only reimbursed us for the funeral. I personally lost $4k from a personal loan. The rest would have gone to pay debts.

 

And none of that has anything to do with people who get disability when they're not really disabled. I saw one two days ago on TV - she said she got disability because she had the beginnings of arthritis in one hand. My neighbor only has one arm - doesn't stop him from working.

 

Talk to anyone who has worked in social security or other forms of public assistance and they'll tell you the fraud is rampant but it's almost impossible to stop. Why do you not believe these people who worked with these people for decades?

 

 

What do you mean, "until we get out of the crisis"? If we get out of the crisis, why we would need anything beyond the essentials anyway?

 

Good point. I was really talking about only keeping the tax increases until we get the debt under control. We should only be paying for the essentials.

 

The point is, while we ARE IN CRISIS, additional efforts are needed to find the right fix or stimulus to move the situation forward. I absolutely refuse to believe that even substantially cutting taxes on ANYONE would suddenly turn the rich or corporations into wonderfully charitable entities that just randomly expand their business and hire additional workers. It makes no sense. At all. Either your business needs to expand or it does not. Understand this: Why would any business, already profitable, decide to expand and substantially increase its overall expense levels after a tax cut? It's already profitable doing just what it's doing right now--if I were a business owner and you cut my taxes 20%, I'd just buy a condo in the Caymans. If I were a corporation, I'd do what they're doing now: Stick it in the bank. Cutting taxes themselves can't possibly be an incentive to expand.

 

You'll be surprised to hear that I totally agree. I don't think businesses should be given tax breaks nor do I believe in trickle down economics.

 

However - I also don't think we should burden businesses with extra taxes or unnecessary regulations. Those can definitely make it harder for a business to grow and add jobs.

 

A reasonable, low tax rate with no loopholes would work just fine.

 

Never asserted that all 47% not paying taxes now should continue to not pay taxes. My only question and point was to people with relatively minimal income being required to pay taxes, which you answered as I would any reasonable person would. For the record, I'm adamantly opposed to: Child tax credits and the mortgage interest deduction. You choose to have a child, you know or should know it's expensive. To me, it's unbelievably counterintuitive to give someone a tax CREDIT for having kids. (Certainly should maintain deductions for each household member, but no credits). As for mortgage interest deduction, it's a use of tax policy that unnaturally influences actions. Housing has a cost of X--to provide yourself and your family with shelter. No matter what anyone tells you, a house should not be treated as or considered an investment or savings vehicle.

 

Once again I agree. I don't want taxes to be a tool for social engineering or anything else.

[Noah Harbinger]

So how many times have you contributed extra on your income taxes on the line that asks if you'd like to put aside an additional amount for the debt reduction fund?

 

Haven't seen that on the federal (is it a long-form thing?), but on the CA state form, if I've got a refund of withholdings owed, I usually tick it to the state's low-income food assistance program.

[BrewfanGRB]

My mom also died of cancer in 1995. My dad waited 18 months for the government to approve a disability pension because he was exposed to an above ground radiation test in Arizona in 1951 and contracted esophogeal cancer in 2003. He died in 2004 - 16 months later. 2 months after he died they approved his disability application and sent a retroactive check for $34K - then promptly took it back when they found out he was already dead. They call it 'accrued benefits" - benefits earned but not collected before death. Since there was no living spouse or dependent children, they kept all of it and only reimbursed us for the funeral. I personally lost $4k from a personal loan. The rest would have gone to pay debts.

 

That's ridiculous. It's still an earned benefit and should have gone to his estate. But I guess I sort of see the point--if there's no true beneficiary, it shouldn't sit with the estate. That's still unfair since there are still survivors that could use those funds (like clearly the situation in your case).

 

Talk to anyone who has worked in social security or other forms of public assistance and they'll tell you the fraud is rampant but it's almost impossible to stop. Why do you not believe these people who worked with these people for decades?

 

I guess I don't know what the solution is, though. I mean, I don't want to just "allow" fraud as a cost of giving the benefit, but if the only way to prevent fraud outright is to eliminate the benefit, that's seems far more unreasonable.

[mettech]

 

And none of that has anything to do with people who get disability when they're not really disabled. I saw one two days ago on TV - she said she got disability because she had the beginnings of arthritis in one hand. My neighbor only has one arm - doesn't stop him from working.

 

Once again I agree. I don't want taxes to be a tool for social engineering or anything else.

 

 

Judge Judy..

[akirby]

Judge Judy..

 

Of course. Where else are you going to see deadbeats like that under oath answering those types of questions?

[akirby]

That's ridiculous. It's still an earned benefit and should have gone to his estate. But I guess I sort of see the point--if there's no true beneficiary, it shouldn't sit with the estate. That's still unfair since there are still survivors that could use those funds (like clearly the situation in your case).

 

No, it's clearly an attempt by the government to save money. Here are the two very specific scenarios that are covered by this law or rule or whatever you want to call it.

 

Accrued benefits are benefits earned by an individual but not yet paid. In this case it was a disability pension for service related illness.

 

Case 1: Benefits have been approved (in most cases retroactive to the application date) but the check has not yet been cut.

 

Case 2: Benefits have been approved, the check was cut and sent but had not yet been cashed at the time of death. It could be sitting on the kitchen table already endorsed but not yet deposited.

 

In both cases the funds become accrued benefits. If there is no surviving spouse or dependent child then the only thing the government will pay out of accrued benefits is funeral costs and unreimbursed medical expenses. In my dad's case, it was $34K (retroactive for 18 months). For 16 of those months he was alive and supporting himself on just social security (with our help) while they shuffled paper around. What it means in the end is that if they manage to delay approving the claim long enough for the applicant to die then they don't have to pay the money. Now I'm not accusing anyone of doing that on purpose, but that is the end result.

 

The part that seals it for me is Case 2 (and this is specifically spelled out in the regulations). If you get the check and cash it the day before you die, it's all part of the estate. If you get the check but don't cash it the government keeps it and only pays funeral and unreimbursed medical expenses. Creditors and the family are SOL. And it's all dependent on how fast the government processes the claim. Delays are in their best interest.

 

I guess I don't know what the solution is, though. I mean, I don't want to just "allow" fraud as a cost of giving the benefit, but if the only way to prevent fraud outright is to eliminate the benefit, that's seems far more unreasonable.

 

I wasn't suggesting a solution - just acknowledging the problem and saying that we need to find a solution without cutting off the people who actually need it. Maybe if you want to continue disability for more than 6 months you need to get a sign off from an independent physician? How does it work today?

[grbeck]

Wow. LIHEAP is welfare. Got it. Can't pay your heat? Tough. The point is, none of these programs ARE TANF (and I'll admit to overlooking TANF). They are each directly means-based. Based on income. Ok sure, maybe crack-addled losers have no income are getting free school lunches for their kids and subsidies to keep the heat on. I guess if that's a waste of money, then well...whatever.

 

Your original point was that only SNAP constituted what we commonly think of as "welfare,'' and that welfare as we know it ended it years ago. Both of which are incorrect.

 

All of these programs, including SNAP, TANF and system it replaced, are means-based. Applicants must meet certain income and asset guidelines to qualify.

 

I'm not even going to debate this with you. It's not welfare that is direct cash to blow on booze.

 

You can refuse to debate the issue - that is certainly your right - but saying these programs are not "welfare" under either the lay definition of the word, or what the government defines as welfare, is not correct.

 

It's not welfare that is direct cash to blow on booze.

 

Again, incorrect. If you aren't paying for heat, for example, that leaves more money for other things.

 

Abuse of TANF should be stopped, absolutely. But to characterize all of the above programs as the same class of welfare as TANF is disingenuous.

 

Again, that is incorrect. Characterizing them as dramatically different from SNAP is wrong. The only difference is what particular means of support they provide (food, for example, with SNAP, or heat with LIHEAP) or whether they are aimed at a limited audience (women with infants for WIC).

Edited November 10, 2011 by grbeck

[BrewfanGRB]

Again, that is incorrect. Characterizing them as dramatically different from SNAP is wrong. The only difference is what particular means of support they provide (food, for example, with SNAP, or heat with LIHEAP) or whether they are aimed at a limited audience (women with infants for WIC).

 

I disagree. I'm not ending the debate out of a childish "La la la I can't hear out' position--but we fundamentally disagree on what or how things like LIHEAP, SNAP and WIC should be characterized compared to TANF. I've stipulated that I didn't know about the ongoing assistance of TANF, etc. I also understand LIHEAP funds frees up other money to let the recipient blow other cash on booze...but if they don't have any money regardless, then TANF gives them that actual cash to blow on booze--LIHEP doesn't do that if they don't have any money anyway.

[BrewfanGRB]

The part that seals it for me is Case 2 (and this is specifically spelled out in the regulations). If you get the check and cash it the day before you die, it's all part of the estate. If you get the check but don't cash it the government keeps it and only pays funeral and unreimbursed medical expenses. Creditors and the family are SOL. And it's all dependent on how fast the government processes the claim. Delays are in their best interest.

 

Neither of these situations seems to be particularly right, but the 2nd case seems especially harsh. I can 100% get behind no payments (beyond any death benefit) if the beneficiary dies before retirement, etc...but to retract payment if you died the day after you received the check or to shuffle paperwork until you die is fundamentally unfair.

 

I wasn't suggesting a solution - just acknowledging the problem and saying that we need to find a solution without cutting off the people who actually need it. Maybe if you want to continue disability for more than 6 months you need to get a sign off from an independent physician? How does it work today?

 

To my understanding, that type of follow up is not needed when the beneficiary has a terminal illness. The original documentation would support this and the rules presume an inability to work. (If they do continue to live, it's possible an additional physician's statement--like "the patient originally responded to some treatments that initially extended their life, but now is expected to die w/in 3 mos" or whatever).

 

For soft-tissue or muscular/skeletal injuries, the standards AND follow-up are much higher, to my understanding. With true "disabilities", the rules also impose stricter and stricter requirements on the type of work the beneficiary must accept, etc. Obviously not foolproof, given the level of fraud, but there are rules designed to ensure the beneficiary provides ongoing support of his claim for benefits.

[2005Explorer]

That is not accurate. Welfare is far more than the Supplemental Nutritional Assistance Program (SNAP, or Food Stamps).

 

You are forgetting Section 8 vouchers, Medicaid, various government health insurance programs for children, the Women, Infants and Children (WIC) program, free school lunches (and, in many cases, free breakfasts and after-school snacks) and the Low Income Heating and Energy Assistance Program (LIHEAP).

 

You're also overlooking that, despite welfare reform, many states have been very lenient in enforcing the requirements (particularly the job-search requirements) designed to encourage people to leave the Temporary Aid to Needy Families program (TANF, or what we commonly think of as welfare). California, in particular, has been notorious for having very weak job-search requirements.

 

Some states have been very lenient in allowing people to qualify for it in the first place. Here in Pennsylvania, under the Rendell Administration, the mantra among personnel at the state Department of Public Welfare was "Close your eyes and authorize," because people rejected by the county welfare offices were able to regularly have that decision reversed at the state level.

 

My wife was a social worker for many years, and is now a special education teacher in an urban, poor school district. She still gets together with her social worker friends, as well as her fellow teachers. What's amazing is how these formerly liberal women, after exposure to both the system and people who use it, sound like Rush Limbaugh after awhile. You hear lots of talk of the need for sterilization and the need to reduce benefits to loafers. Amazingly enough, they do not blame Republicans or the rich for the plight of the poor in this country.

Actually working in the real world with the poor, as opposed to wailing about their plight on the internet or on the pages of The Nation, tends to give one a more accurate picture of the situation.

 

 

 

What's bewildering to me is the assertion that rich are not paying their fair share of taxes, when even a simple and cursory examination of who pays what shows that these supposedly awful "rich" are the ones actually paying most federal income taxes, and that 47 percent of wage earners do not pay any of this tax.

 

The point is that people with skin in the game are less likely to clamor for more government benefits when they have to help pay for them.

 

If your wife or her friends are out there complaining about the kids or families they work with they should be working with a different class of people. I know Rush could care less if the kids get fed at night or even get fed at school, but as a professional educator she should be in support of taking care of children no matter their economic situation. I know some young families that have kids and are working jobs, however minimum wage doesn't go that far when trying to raise a family. If the parents are out working and trying to do their best I have no issue helping them out a litte. If she is not happy working with disadvantaged kids and families, she should transfer over to a high class neighborhood. No reason working with people you dislike.

 

I love the Republican line. No abortions! All babies need to be born no matter the circumstance, however we don't want to help those kids. If their parents are losers let them starve! That's just what Jesus would have done... Let them starve!

Edited November 11, 2011 by 2005Explorer

[Noah Harbinger]

If your wife or her friends are out there complaining about the kids or families they work with they should be working with a different class of people. I know Rush could care less if the kids get fed at night or even get fed at school, but as a professional educator she should be in support of taking care of children no matter their economic situation.

 

Eh, I wish there was a way to flush out the obvious cheats to reform the system, but between right to due process and equal protection under the law, it's impossible to provide a benefit and yet exclude those who you 'just know' are cheating the system.

 

I don't know what to do about it, but I'd rather float a few cheats while we find ways to try to fix the rules, than throw the whole system out and decimate the lives of the truly needy who just need a bit of a helping hand.

[akirby]

Eh, I wish there was a way to flush out the obvious cheats to reform the system, but between right to due process and equal protection under the law, it's impossible to provide a benefit and yet exclude those who you 'just know' are cheating the system.

 

I don't know what to do about it, but I'd rather float a few cheats while we find ways to try to fix the rules, than throw the whole system out and decimate the lives of the truly needy who just need a bit of a helping hand.

 

That's why I suggested replacing that entire system with a system of guaranteed jobs. The people who need it can still get it (just by showing up every day). The people who are only doing it because they don't want to work will probably go find work elsewhere that pays more. So you're only left with the truly disabled who can't even "show up" and that should be a lot easier to manage.

[Biker16]

Believe it or not, I do! But, the argument about the poor kids being affected is lame, and is used to pull at the heart strings of caring citizens. Many on welfare aren't supporting their kids with that money anyway, they are using it to buy drugs/alcohol/big screen TV's. Or, the kids are being used to get more welfare money...hey let's have another kid so we can get more money. How many people complained that forcing drug testing to receive welfare checks was going to force innocent children to go hungry? Really? Do you think folks that can't pass a drug test are really spending their welfare checks for the well-being of their children?

 

in Florida where they have tested welfare recipients for drugs, found a 2 % failure rate, While the USA as whole 8.1% of all Americans use illegal drugs.

 

the myth that welfare recipients use more drugs than the general public has been proven untrue numerous times.

 

2% vs 8.1 % in this case

 

http://economix.blogs.nytimes.com/2009/08/11/drug-use-across-the-united-states-or-rhode-island-needs-more-rehab/

 

http://www2.tbo.com/news/politics/2011/aug/24/3/welfare-drug-testing-yields-2-percent-positive-res-ar-252458/

 

Cost of the tests averages about $30. Assuming that 1,000 to 1,500 applicants take the test every month, the state will owe about $28,800-$43,200 monthly in reimbursements to those who test drug-free.

 

That compares with roughly $32,200-$48,200 the state may save on one month's worth of rejected applicants.

 

The savings assume that 20 to 30 people -- 2 percent of 1,000 to 1,500 tested -- fail the drug test every month. On average, a welfare recipient costs the state $134 in monthly benefits, which the rejected applicants won't get, saving the state $2,680-$3,350 per month.

 

But since one failed test disqualifies an applicant for a full year's worth of benefits, the state could save $32,200-$48,200 annually on the applicants rejected in a single month.

 

Net savings to the state -- $3,400 to $8,200 annually on one month's worth of rejected applicants. Over 12 months, the money saved on all rejected applicants would add up to $40,800-$98,400 for the cash assistance program that state analysts have predicted will cost $178 million this fiscal year.

 

$40,800-$98,400 number only holds up if that number remains at 2% per month which it won't.

 

Nope...I wasn't born until '76...

I wasn't born until '77, yet i still know my history.

[Biker16]

Absolute BS. You can take 100 people at random just out of high school and EVERY SINGLE one of them can be successful if they try hard enough. The fact that some are successful and some aren't is not a reflection of the system. It's a reflection of the individuals and what they're willing to do or not do. You can only guarantee equal opportunity - not equal outcomes.

 

Tell me what systematically prevents any of those 100 people from being successful?

 

myth, yes the American dream is a myth.

 

the number one Deciding factor of a child's success is the wealth of his or her parents. you just don't son and daughter of millionaires living in poverty, you just don't see the children of the wealthy dropping out of high school.

 

http://www.census.go...3/twps0023.html

 

Research shows that wealth is an overriding measurement of future success.

 

financial capital is measured by a family's income and human capital is measured by the parent's education level. Social capital, he explains, is measured by the density of interaction among parents, children and schools, and it is through the positive parent-child interactions that the financial and human capital is transferred. Thus, social capital can exist in the relationships among individuals within communities and neighborhoods, as well as within the family.

 

 

you are assuming the poor graduate high school, where I live the graduation rate in <33% in our urban school district.

 

 

How many of those 49 million Americans are students working part time living at home? My son was in that category all 4 years he was in college. He certainly wasn't living in poverty.

 

As far as an incentive to work - I have a much better incentive to work. If you don't work somewhere doing something you don't get any money. Period. Can't get much more incentive than that. Remember, I'm advocating local part time jobs for anyone willing to show up so there would be no excuse not to work if you're able.

 

college students that are claimed as dependents are not classified as poor, I am assuming you claimed your son as a dependent on you taxes, Right?

 

did he pay for his health insurance? car insurance? renters insurance?

 

that is 49 million Americans who cannot be claimed by other people as being under the poverty line.

 

to the incentive to work. If the government took 90% of your wages what incentive would you have to work? the other story is gas prices, if your job pays you too little to get travel to and from your job how likely are you to keep that job?

If you live in an area where you have to commute long distances for work, because the Area where you work, is too expensive for you to live, you have to decide if paying to fill up your tank is worth it, or would it be more cost effective to simple not drive to work.

 

Wages are only one of many incentives to work, the disincentives can be very strong on the the low end of the labor market, and very low on the high end of the labor market. simply because the basic needs (food, clothing shelter,etc) are constant, regardless of income, a rich man living 200 times the poverty line would be hard pressed to spend 200 times more on food than someone living below the poverty line. if you don't have a high school education ( like most people living in poveerrty) what hope do you have at finding a job that pays well for a person without any marketable skills? not much hope at all, for these people making $20,000 a year is a well paying job.

 

 

Because the idea isn't to aid the poor - the idea is to allow the poor to aid themselves not be poor any more. If you give them handouts there is no incentive for them to do anything differently. They develop a lifestyle based on welfare payments and they stay there. How is that helpful to anybody? Note that I'm not including temporary situations where people need a helping hand. I'm all for that.

 

the Idea is to help people. The lifetime cap on welfare cash benefits is 3 years in ohio. People can no longer stay on welfare. how does welfare help people aid themselves not to be poor? when the average Benifit is $154 a month in florida?

 

How can anyone better themselves on $154 a month? to put it bluntly it is not enough to help people only to keep them alive.

Edited November 14, 2011 by Biker16

[2005Explorer]

myth, yes the American dream is a myth.

 

the number one Deciding factor of a child's success is the wealth of his or her parents. you just don't son and daughter of millionaires living in poverty, you just don't see the children of the wealthy dropping out of high school.

 

http://www.census.go...3/twps0023.html

 

Research shows that wealth is an overriding measurement of future success.

 

 

 

 

you are assuming the poor graduate high school, where I live the graduation rate in <33% in our urban school district.

 

 

 

 

college students that are claimed as dependents are not classified as poor, I am assuming you claimed your son as a dependent on you taxes, Right?

 

did he pay for his health insurance? car insurance? renters insurance?

 

that is 49 million Americans who cannot be claimed by other people as being under the poverty line.

 

to the incentive to work. If the government took 90% of your wages what incentive would you have to work? the other story is gas prices, if your job pays you too little to get travel to and from your job how likely are you to keep that job?

If you live in an area where you have to commute long distances for work, because the Area where you work, is too expensive for you to live, you have to decide if paying to fill up your tank is worth it, or would it be more cost effective to simple not drive to work.

 

Wages are only one of many incentives to work, the disincentives can be very strong on the the low end of the labor market, and very low on the high end of the labor market. simply because the basic needs (food, clothing shelter,etc) are constant, regardless of income, a rich man living 200 times the poverty line would be hard pressed to spend 200 times more on food than someone living below the poverty line. if you don't have a high school education ( like most people living in poveerrty) what hope do you have at finding a job that pays well for a person without any marketable skills? not much hope at all, for these people making $20,000 a year is a well paying job.

 

 

 

 

the Idea is to help people. The lifetime cap on welfare cash benefits is 3 years in ohio. People can no longer stay on welfare. how does welfare help people aid themselves not to be poor? when the average Benifit is $154 a month in florida?

 

How can anyone better themselves on $154 a month? to put it bluntly it is not enough to help people only to keep them alive.

 

Well said. Although I despise people who cheat the system just as much as the next person there are honestly poor people out there. The system won't buy you much of a life so people who think welfare recipients are somehow living a life of luxury... news... they are not. Of course there are bad people who use drugs are stuff that are poor, but there are also bad people who are rich that rip off other people.

 

As far as the number one deciding factor of a child's success being wealth or poverty. Your are right. Very right. Go out and compare any school district in a wealthy neighborhood versus one with a high level of poverty. The students will always achieve at a much higher level in the high socioeconomic areas. So what can we conclude? Poor people are lazy? No. The main thing is that kids from poverty have a lot more to worry about then just their school work. There are a lot of other factors as well like the fact that single parents are more likely to live in poverty, etc.

 

Believe me the solution isn't as easy as just "cut them all off and they will become successful." I wish it was that easy... but it is not.

[FordBuyer]

myth, yes the American dream is a myth.

 

the number one Deciding factor of a child's success is the wealth of his or her parents. you just don't son and daughter of millionaires living in poverty, you just don't see the children of the wealthy dropping out of high school.

 

http://www.census.go...3/twps0023.html

 

Research shows that wealth is an overriding measurement of future success.

 

 

 

 

you are assuming the poor graduate high school, where I live the graduation rate in <33% in our urban school district.

 

 

 

 

college students that are claimed as dependents are not classified as poor, I am assuming you claimed your son as a dependent on you taxes, Right?

 

did he pay for his health insurance? car insurance? renters insurance?

 

that is 49 million Americans who cannot be claimed by other people as being under the poverty line.

 

to the incentive to work. If the government took 90% of your wages what incentive would you have to work? the other story is gas prices, if your job pays you too little to get travel to and from your job how likely are you to keep that job?

If you live in an area where you have to commute long distances for work, because the Area where you work, is too expensive for you to live, you have to decide if paying to fill up your tank is worth it, or would it be more cost effective to simple not drive to work.

 

Wages are only one of many incentives to work, the disincentives can be very strong on the the low end of the labor market, and very low on the high end of the labor market. simply because the basic needs (food, clothing shelter,etc) are constant, regardless of income, a rich man living 200 times the poverty line would be hard pressed to spend 200 times more on food than someone living below the poverty line. if you don't have a high school education ( like most people living in poveerrty) what hope do you have at finding a job that pays well for a person without any marketable skills? not much hope at all, for these people making $20,000 a year is a well paying job.

 

 

 

 

the Idea is to help people. The lifetime cap on welfare cash benefits is 3 years in ohio. People can no longer stay on welfare. how does welfare help people aid themselves not to be poor? when the average Benifit is $154 a month in florida?

 

How can anyone better themselves on $154 a month? to put it bluntly it is not enough to help people only to keep them alive.

 

 

I don't know that anyone could stay alive long term on only $154/month and that's it. Certianly would need begging income on side to survive very long. Even hard to get yourself into prison nowadays with overcrowding leading to court putting you on tether only. Then you can only get about 100 feet away from you cardboard house underneath freeway underpass. And just think every year millions more high school dropouts are being put out onto street to join the underground economy and all the negatives that entails. Shanty Towns just may make a big time comeback soon in America. God knows the shanty towns are happening all over America with this Occupy Movement.

[akirby]

Being poor simply means you have to work harder to get what you want. A high school education is free. In Georgia if you maintain a B average the state will pay for most of your books and tuition at a public college. But you don't need a college degree to be successful - you just need a good job that provides for you and your family whether that's driving a bulldozer, slinging espresso drinks, working a trade (plumber, electrician, roofer, etc.), etc. And that opportunity is available to anyone willing to work for it.

 

Saying that poor people can't do it is a cop out. Did you ever stop to think that the reason people are poor or wealthy to begin with is because of their work ethic and/or motivation to succeed (or lack thereof)? I understand that being poor makes it harder to motivate yourself and there are more obstacles to overcome, but there are poor people who have succeeded and rich people who have not.

 

The opportunity is there for anyone who wants it.

 

As for my son - he's working at Starbucks right now where he gets his own health benefits. His car is paid for (2005 Focus). He has 3 roommates in a house. He is paying ALL of his own living expenses - rent, car insurance, food, utilities, etc. And the job he has right now doesn't even require a high school diploma. I did the same thing except I also had to buy my own vehicle and pay my own way through college including rent, utilities, etc.

 

Making excuses for people doesn't help them - it just enables them to stay where they are.

[fordmantpw]

Success isn't determined by how much money you have...

 

I offer for exhibit A: Lindsay Lohan

[mettech]

Question:

 

Is wealth the reason for success?

 

 

Or is wealth the outcome of success?

 

 

Motivation and focus is more significant to success than money.