America's greatest obstacle to recovery?

[Alien]

It is often more desirable for people to stay on government assistance than to accept an entry level job.

I'd call this common sense, not laziness. Let's consider a single mother, not particularly qualified for anything but a basic wage job. She gets welfare and Medicaid for herself and her kids. If she takes a basic wage job, she loses the benefits she gets now and her kids have no medical coverage. Pretty much of a no-brainer for her, and frankly, I'd make the same decision in her position, without a single twinge of conscience. Survival comes first.

I find it interesting that when a a high earner finds a way to make more money with less work it's praiseworthy, but if a poor person does what is essentially the same thing it's "laziness".

The more one succeeds in life, the greater percentage of taxation they experience, til they get to a point where it makes no sense to increase earnings.

Er, doesn't the tax rate hit a maximum? The highest tax bracket is currently 35%. So why should paying 35% on one's second (or hundredth) million be any more of a disincentive than paying it on the the first million? Interesting also that someone in your profession would call becoming very rich "success".

[Darth Executor]

I'd call this common sense, not laziness. Let's consider a single mother, not particularly qualified for anything but a basic wage job. She gets welfare and Medicaid for herself and her kids. If she takes a basic wage job, she loses the benefits she gets now and her kids have no medical coverage. Pretty much of a no-brainer for her, and frankly, I'd make the same decision in her position, without a single twinge of conscience. Survival comes first.

I find it interesting that when a a high earner finds a way to make more money with less work it's praiseworthy, but if a poor person does what is essentially the same thing it's "laziness".

I've never seen a more succinct explanation of how the Democrat plantation owners keep their slaves on a voting leash in my life. I'd send you pearls if common sense didn't dictate that if I gave some to you, I'd have fewer left. Pretty much of a no-brainer for me.

[Cow Poke]

I'd call this common sense, not laziness. Let's consider a single mother, not particularly qualified for anything but a basic wage job. She gets welfare and Medicaid for herself and her kids. If she takes a basic wage job, she loses the benefits she gets now and her kids have no medical coverage. Pretty much of a no-brainer for her, and frankly, I'd make the same decision in her position, without a single twinge of conscience. Survival comes first.

I think you're jumping the gun here, just a bit. I specifically was addressing "laziness", not desperation. Those who NEED help, I believe, should receive help.

I was referring to actual "laziness" which is why I said "laziness"

I find it interesting that when a a high earner finds a way to make more money with less work it's praiseworthy, but if a poor person does what is essentially the same thing it's "laziness".

Hmmmm.... again, I said "laziness" because I actually meant "laziness". I love efficiency - and part of efficiency is - for the "high earner" - working "smarter not harder", and for the "low earner" (if you want to call them that) it's "getting more bang for the buck".

Er, doesn't the tax rate hit a maximum? The highest tax bracket is currently 35%. So why should paying 35% on one's second (or hundredth) million be any more of a disincentive than paying it on the the first million? Interesting also that someone in your profession would call becoming very rich "success".

I am in an industry where, just like many other industries and small businesses, we are "sitting on cash" because we have no idea what Obama is going to do regarding the "Bush Tax Cuts". It is UNCERTAINTY that is hampering growth. I'm in the energy business, so "Cap and Trade" (which is, of course, called "Cap and Tax") could hurt us substantially.

It is ALREADY hurting, because we have long term contracts in a fee based business where customers do not want to commit to 3 year contracts because of the uncertainty of the "tax the rich" mentality, and "Cap and Trade".

[gharfish]

The tax rates under Clinton did not hamper the economy before Bush made his cuts.


>

[Cow Poke]

find it interesting that when a a high earner finds a way to make more money with less work it's praiseworthy, but if a poor person does what is essentially the same thing it's "laziness".

This just hit me - what makes you say that a high earner "finds a way to make more money with less work"? A lot of the "high earners" work 60 to 70 hours a week. How did you arrive at your conclusion?

[Alien]

I've never seen a more succinct explanation of how the Democrat plantation owners keep their slaves on a voting leash in my life. I'd send you pearls if common sense didn't dictate that if I gave some to you, I'd have fewer left. Pretty much of a no-brainer for me.

If you are saying what I think you area saying, I agree. Welfare should aim at getting people off welfare. I wouldn't do it by making their lives less comfortable where they are (as previous "reforms" of welfare have done) but by making the path out of poverty easier. I could go into details, but most of it it is pretty obvious.

And keep your pearls, I have plenty, all gained by hard work, thrift and gun ownership!

(Delete that last one).

[Alien]

I think you're jumping the gun here, just a bit. I specifically was addressing "laziness", not desperation. Those who NEED help, I believe, should receive help.

Well good. You did put "laziness" up there as a serious problem for the economy, though. What I would like to know is what proportion of welfare recipients are actually lazy as opposed to needy. I don't know the answer, but it would have to be a high proportion to make it a big problem.

Hmmmm.... again, I said "laziness" because I actually meant "laziness". I love efficiency - and part of efficiency is - for the "high earner" - working "smarter not harder", and for the "low earner" (if you want to call them that) it's "getting more bang for the buck".

Yes, and the most bang for the buck would be getting paid for doing nothing at all, like welfare recipients, and someone living on inherited wealth.

OK, I do know what you mean, it's just that I dislike seeing the term "lazy" being applied only to people at one end of the wealth spectrum.

I am in an industry where, just like many other industries and small businesses, we are "sitting on cash" because we have no idea what Obama is going to do regarding the "Bush Tax Cuts". It is UNCERTAINTY that is hampering growth. I'm in the energy business, so "Cap and Trade" (which is, of course, called "Cap and Tax") could hurt us substantially.

It is ALREADY hurting, because we have long term contracts in a fee based business where customers do not want to commit to 3 year contracts because of the uncertainty of the "tax the rich" mentality, and "Cap and Trade".

We seem to be at cross purposes. I thought you were a Minister.

This just hit me - what makes you say that a high earner "finds a way to make more money with less work"? A lot of the "high earners" work 60 to 70 hours a week. How did you arrive at your conclusion?

Pretty much what you said about efficiency.

[Cow Poke]

Well good. You did put "laziness" up there as a serious problem for the economy, though. What I would like to know is what proportion of welfare recipients are actually lazy as opposed to needy. I don't know the answer, but it would have to be a high proportion to make it a big problem.

All I have would be anecdotal, and in 35 years of Ministry, perhaps I've only seen the "bad" side. But prior to that (and concurrent for 5 years) I was a police officer, and had lots of contact with people on the lower end of the earnings scale. I think it's high, but maybe just a perception on my part.

Yes, and the most bang for the buck would be getting paid for doing nothing at all, like welfare recipients, and someone living on inherited wealth.

Maybe we have a language barrier.

OK, I do know what you mean, it's just that I dislike seeing the term "lazy" being applied only to people at one end of the wealth spectrum.

I think there are wealthy lazy people, perhaps who have "inherited" their money, but there are a lot of people who have really worked hard and earned and deserve their money.

We seem to be at cross purposes. I thought you were a Minister.

I'm that, too!

[RumTumTugger]

Not sure why this is pertinent. If it is, please elaborate.

ETA : Thanks for bearing with me, still developing my views

that is gharfish being upset because Fox news makes sure that the news that the obama news corp does'nt want to get out gets out.

[gharfish]

FOX News doesn't keep their anti-Obama punditry off of their newsroom floor, RTT. See, it's one thing to have your anger stoking and fear mongering and divisive neo-con talk shows, (that's fair), but it's another to let those views bleed out into the news reporting. They shape what people will decide. ("We report, You decide" motto). There it should be fair and balanced - just a straightforward politically unbiased presentation of what is happening in the world and in our country.


>

[CodewordConduit]

All I have would be anecdotal, and in 35 years of Ministry, perhaps I've only seen the "bad" side. But prior to that (and concurrent for 5 years) I was a police officer, and had lots of contact with people on the lower end of the earnings scale. I think it's high, but maybe just a perception on my part.

That perception thing goes both ways. Would you say that having that general impression of poor people could possibly alter the way you treat them?

[Cow Poke]

That perception thing goes both ways. Would you say that having that general impression of poor people could possibly alter the way you treat them?

Absolutely.

When I was younger, I was a police officer at the same time I was a youth minister.
The roles often conflicted.

I remember the family of one of our young people was having a particularly tough time - large family and "dad" was not involved much. I arranged for a bunch of our Church family to round up canned goods and other groceries, and we took two pickup truck loads of stuff (clothes and shoes) to her house. Arriving JUST BEFORE us was her "dad" (who we had arrested the previous week for DWI) carrying two12 packs of Budweiser.

I have to admit, I felt quite a bit of anger at him for NOT taking care of his family, but he seemed to find the means to buy beer and cigarettes... but it didn't change the compassion I had for his neglected family.

[Darth Executor]

who we had arrested the previous week for DWI

Driving with Indiana Jones?

[CodewordConduit]

Absolutely.

When I was younger, I was a police officer at the same time I was a youth minister.
The roles often conflicted.

I remember the family of one of our young people was having a particularly tough time - large family and "dad" was not involved much. I arranged for a bunch of our Church family to round up canned goods and other groceries, and we took two pickup truck loads of stuff (clothes and shoes) to her house. Arriving JUST BEFORE us was her "dad" (who we had arrested the previous week for DWI) carrying two12 packs of Budweiser.

I have to admit, I felt quite a bit of anger at him for NOT taking care of his family, but he seemed to find the means to buy beer and cigarettes... but it didn't change the compassion I had for his neglected family.

Of course he had the means to buy beer and cigs, he took it out of the money given to his family for food, clothing and other necessary items. You've highlighted a very good example here of how it's often much better for the partner of an abusive person (and refusing to buy necessities for your family while buying luxury items for oneself is abusive) to be a single parent, if it means they can at least be a better steward of the money given to them for their family, by the state.

I suppose after seeing stuff like that with your own eyes, it's impossible to go along with the old "kids are always better off with their dad around" conservative line.

[Alcoth]

I suppose after seeing stuff like that with your own eyes, it's impossible to go along with the old "kids are always better off with their dad around" conservative line.

I never knew that this type of thought (which I don't really share) was labeled exclusively "conservative".