NPR: Economy in Crisis; Families cannot afford meat

[Kiwon]

NPR has outdid themselves this time. Being forced to go on a diet is the best thing to ever happen to these two.

http://farm4.static.flickr.com/3021/2683256022_94617e4341_o.jpg

Struggling In Ohio As The Economy Tightens

by Yuki Noguchi

All Things Considered, July 17, 2008 ·

"A generation ago, the livelihood of Gloria Nunez's family was built on cars.

Her father worked at General Motors for 45 years before retiring. Her mother taught driver's education. Nunez and her six siblings grew up middle class.

Things have changed considerably for this Ohio family.

Nunez's van broke down last fall. Now, her 19-year-old daughter has no reliable transportation out of their subsidized housing complex in Fostoria, 40 miles south of Toledo, to look for a job.

Nunez and most of her siblings and their spouses are unemployed and rely on government assistance and food stamps. Some have part-time jobs, but working is made more difficult with no car or public transportation.

Low-income families in Ohio say they are particularly hard-hit by the changes in the economy, according to a new poll conducted by NPR, The Kaiser Family Foundation and Harvard School of Public Health. Two-thirds of lower-income respondents, or 66 percent, say paying for gas is a serious problem because of recent changes in the economy. Nearly half of low-income Ohioans, or 47 percent, say that getting a well-paying job or a raise in pay is also major problem.

'I Just Can't Get A Job'

Nunez, 40, has never worked and has no high school degree. She says a car accident 17 years ago left her depressed and disabled, incapable of getting a job. Instead, she and her daughter, Angelica Hernandez, survive on a $637 Social Security check and $102 in food stamps.

Hernandez received her high school diploma and has had several jobs in recent years. But now, because fewer restaurants and stores are hiring, she says she finds it hard to find a job. Even if she could, she says it's particularly hard to imagine how she'll keep it. She says she needs someone to give her a lift just to get to an interview. And with gas prices so high, she's not sure she could afford to pay someone to drive her to work every day.

People tell Nunez her daughter could get more money in public assistance if she had a child.

"A lot of people have told me, 'Why don't your daughter have a kid?'"

They both reject that as a plan.

"I'm trying to get a job," Hernandez says. "I just can't get a job."

Hernandez says she's trying to get training to be a nurse's assistant, but without her own set of wheels or enough money to pay others for gas, it hasn't been easy.

'What's Going To Happen To Us?'

Most of their extended family lives in the same townhouse complex. The only employer within walking distance is a ThyssenKrupp factory that makes diesel engine parts. That facility, which employs 400 people, is shutting down and moving to Illinois next year.

The only one with a car is Irma Hernandez, Nunez's mother. Hernandez says that with a teenage son still at home, the cost of feeding him and sending him to school is rising, and she can no longer pay for the car.

She's now two car payments behind.

"I'm about to lose my car," she says on her way to pick up one of her daughters to take her to Toledo. "So then what's going to happen to us?"

So Nunez and her daughter are mostly stuck at home.

The rising cost of food means their money gets them about a third fewer bags of groceries — $100 used to buy about 12 bags of groceries, but now it's more like seven or eight. So they cut back on expensive items like meat, and they don't buy extras like ice cream anymore. Instead, they eat a lot of starches like potatoes and noodles.

http://www.npr.org/templates/story/story.php?storyId=92592545

[SkinBasket]

LOL. Oh no! No ice cream? That does it. I am now convinced we are in a recession.

[sheepshead]

see: Phil Gramm had a point! worth repeating however.

[Zool]

Instead, they eat a lot of starches like potatoes and noodles

Great fuckin idea. Maybe you could eat tubs of crisco along with the all starch diet. I got an idea, how about taking a walk. Maybe walk a few extra blocks to a bus stop that's not nearest to your house.

[Freak Out]

Do us a favor and leave the photos out next time wanker. Ugghh.....

[SkinBasket]

Do us a favor and leave the photos out next time wanker. Ugghh.....

Why? That's the actual photo associated with the story. Their way of life is being threatened. They are the picture of the poor, starving because their public assistance isn't enough to buy steaks and ice cream in this struggling economy that's leaving impoverished people like this, too depressed to work after a car accident 2 decades ago, to starve in their townhomes.

[Charles Woodson]

1st How the fuck are you 40, and have never had a job?
2nd Who would hit that... Like how does she have a kid?
3rd Maybe if you get a high school education you could get a job!

[Freak Out]

Do us a favor and leave the photos out next time wanker. Ugghh.....

Why? That's the actual photo associated with the story. Their way of life is being threatened. They are the picture of the poor, starving because their public assistance isn't enough to buy steaks and ice cream in this struggling economy that's leaving impoverished people like this, too depressed to work after a car accident 2 decades ago, to starve in their townhomes.

It's what I deserve for cruising Rats while eating breakfast.

[Kiwon]

Do us a favor and leave the photos out next time wanker. Ugghh.....

"A picture is worth a thousand words." In this case, it's worth about a couple thousand.

NPR led their story with the photo. That they want to make economic victims out of these two by asserting that they can't eat what they want to!!!!!! :shock:


I mean, really, even far-Left liberals have to have some common sense.

[GBRulz]

This reminds me of about 15 years ago. I was in standing in line at the grocery store in Wausau with my sister and her 7 year old daughter. The people checking out in front of us paid for their groceries with food stamps. Well, my niece says "Why do they get free lobster and steaks when we have to pay for them?" She said it so innocently, yet loud enough for everyone to hear and of course, cheer her on.

Anyhow, that is what bothers me about so many of these families who depend on government assistance. If you can't afford the steak and seafood, guess what...you'll have to do without it, but they don't. Also, more often than not, mooching off the government is a way of life for one family after another.

[Kiwon]

This reminds me of about 15 years ago. I was in standing in line at the grocery store in Wausau with my sister and her 7 year old daughter. The people checking out in front of us paid for their groceries with food stamps. Well, my niece says "Why do they get free lobster and steaks when we have to pay for them?" She said it so innocently, yet loud enough for everyone to hear and of course, cheer her on.

Anyhow, that is what bothers me about so many of these families who depend on government assistance. If you can't afford the steak and seafood, guess what...you'll have to do without it, but they don't. Also, more often than not, mooching off the government is a way of life for one family after another.

(Flashback to 1991) It reminds me of being in a convenience store waiting to pay for gas when a young lady, seemingly healthy (despite being very large) made the statement to the cashier, "I got my stamps today. Do you have my ice cream? Oh, you do!" as she started to get box after box out of the freezer. She said defiantly, "I missed it last month but I'm not going to miss it this month!"

So her food stamps that month went for ice cream rather than healthy food for her family.

Some people face economic difficulities due to circumstances out of their control but many people are poor for a reason - they habitually make irresponsible, short-sighted choices.

[SkinBasket]

This isn't fair.

Ice cream is starting to get a bad name in this thread.

[MJZiggy]

I'm all for ice cream...

[Iron Mike]

http://farm4.static.flickr.com/3021/2683256022_94617e4341_o.jpg

Didn't somebody mention in another thread about hot latinas with huge racks?

[bobblehead]

struggling for words....not finding....

[Partial]

Ramen is 10 cents. Food stamps should be for apples, bananas, broccoli, and ramen.

[Charles Woodson]

http://farm4.static.flickr.com/3021/2683256022_94617e4341_o.jpg

Didn't somebody mention in another thread about hot latinas with huge racks?

Btw, is that her daughter behind her?

[MJZiggy]

Ramen is 10 cents. Food stamps should be for apples, bananas, broccoli, and ramen.

This I agree with. (well I might swap out the ramen for regular pasta at 77¢ a pound.--less sodium and fills you up longer) And don't forget peanut butter.

[Zool]

Did the tattoo parlor take food stamps for her wrist tattoo or was that $100+ out of pocket?

[digitaldean]

NPR has outdid themselves this time. Being forced to go on a diet is the best thing to ever happen to these two.

http://farm4.static.flickr.com/3021/2683256022_94617e4341_o.jpg


I saw that story link off of drudgereport.com the other day. If it wasn't so disgusting it'd be funny.

I've got two words for these two Goodyear blimps....
GASTRIC BYPASS

I'd be in favor of the gov't paying for that procedure on the condition they got off their fat arses and got a job.

I work 2 jobs and my taxes have to pay for that?!

[Partial]

I refuse to pay for them to take the easy way out. I have lost 20 pounds in the past month just by making minor changes to my diet, walking up the stairs instead of taking the elevator, and doing some light exercising.

They got themselves in the position, and they should be forced to remain living a shitty life or help themselves out. Lessons aren't learned when people are spoonfed and bailed out of situations.

[MJZiggy]

I got 3 words.

Diet and exercise. (they can afford to both stop eating AND get off their fat asses and walk if Granny loses the car.)

This is why it pissed me off that MATC stopped offering a GED course. God knows these pigs need it.

[gex]

I worked at a convienence store a while back and the one thing that really bothered me was people buying fountain soda, bags of chips, pizza, and fricking candy with the food stamp card. There even was a wal-mart across the street so if you gotta have that shit at leat go pay half of what your paying at a gas station! :shock:
Food stamps should only be for milk, bread, meat, and other essentials, not snacks and other luxuries.

[retailguy]

I got 3 words.

Diet and exercise. (they can afford to both stop eating AND get off their fat asses and walk if Granny loses the car.)

This is why it pissed me off that MATC stopped offering a GED course. God knows these pigs need it.

Look, I don't wanna be a jerk, but I'm gonna be one.

You either support entitlement programs or you don't. You cannot "pick and choose" which ones you'll support.

We have entitlement programs, therefore, we get what we get. And if we don't, then we get lawsuits and stories on MSNBC and CNN, etc, about how "unfair" we are and how "discriminatory" we are..

These people are a much bigger percentage of "entitlement money" than you may think. Don't believe me? go work in a grocery store as a checker for 6 months. That ought to be enough to make a republican out of anyone.... Perhaps even a libertarian.

[MJZiggy]

I got 3 words.

Diet and exercise. (they can afford to both stop eating AND get off their fat asses and walk if Granny loses the car.)

This is why it pissed me off that MATC stopped offering a GED course. God knows these pigs need it.

Look, I don't wanna be a jerk, but I'm gonna be one.

You either support entitlement programs or you don't. You cannot "pick and choose" which ones you'll support.

We have entitlement programs, therefore, we get what we get. And if we don't, then we get lawsuits and stories on MSNBC and CNN, etc, about how "unfair" we are and how "discriminatory" we are..

These people are a much bigger percentage of "entitlement money" than you may think. Don't believe me? go work in a grocery store as a checker for 6 months. That ought to be enough to make a republican out of anyone.... Perhaps even a libertarian.

I can so pick and choose which entitlement programs I think are worthy. As I recall WIC has very specific requirements as to what you can purchase with those funds. I am for heat assistance in the winter because even though people may be idiots, I don't want to see them freeze to death. I wholeheartedly support unemployment compensation as a bridge for those who have lost their jobs, and I support education, homeless shelters and voluntary addiction recovery programs. If food stamps had limitations on what you could purchase with them like the WIC program does, I would be more in favor of it. It (and rent assistance) should also come with time limits attached. Entitlement programs were originally thought of as a way to help the people who'd lost everything in the Great Depression and reduce the number of folks jumping out their office windows when the market crashes. I fully support programs that do that, but when they get to the point where the perpetuate dependence upon them I feel fully justified in drawing a line in the sand. Now someone please take me to the beach so I can draw a line!

[retailguy]

I can so pick and choose which entitlement programs I think are worthy. As I recall WIC has very specific requirements as to what you can purchase with those funds. I am for heat assistance in the winter because even though people may be idiots, I don't want to see them freeze to death. I wholeheartedly support unemployment compensation as a bridge for those who have lost their jobs, and I support education, homeless shelters and voluntary addiction recovery programs. If food stamps had limitations on what you could purchase with them like the WIC program does, I would be more in favor of it. It (and rent assistance) should also come with time limits attached. Entitlement programs were originally thought of as a way to help the people who'd lost everything in the Great Depression and reduce the number of folks jumping out their office windows when the market crashes. I fully support programs that do that, but when they get to the point where the perpetuate dependence upon them I feel fully justified in drawing a line in the sand. Now someone please take me to the beach so I can draw a line!

Thank you Zig, for proving my point.

You're right, you CAN pick and choose, but so can I, so can Bobblehead, so can Kiwon, even Tex and Tyrone...

This is the fundamental reason why our GOVERNMENT should not be involved in these programs. Your line is about 50 miles farther back than mine is, but it doesn't make me less right than you. Yet, if I posted all of my views around here, I'd be seen as an "unsympathetic jackass".

You are looking at this through ONLY YOUR eyes and your point of view. Look at it through mine.

I don't want to see people starve, I want to see them work. I don't want them to freeze, I want them to pay the God-Damned heat bill (sorry to resemble Tex for a moment).

But when you offer, they take it, and don't develop the learnings from the lessons, because well meaning people like you let them out of the their consequences time and time again. This is the basic reason why our entitlement government is not working, and will never work, and we'll eventually borrow our way into bankruptcy. There can be no other result. Why work when you can watch Oprah all day and someone else will pay your bills? It doesn't encourage them to achieve, quite the opposite, it encourages them to become even more dependent than they already are.

I don't doubt your sincerity, but I do doubt your excecution. You make the common mistake of thinking that people share your views and your morals and your desire to achieve and better yourself. They don't. They are, in large measure, using you and your sincere nature.

I reiterate, and clarify, IF our government is involved in entitlement programs, you can't complain and you must just accept what you get. See, even if there is only one idiot in the world who supports the two in this story, (and there must be, because someone wrote the story), then that person is a PART of the government in some small way (through their citizenship and taxes), so their viewpoint matters... as long as they aren't conservative or libertarian, then they are fair game for ridicule.

[falco]

programs like this stay in place because elected officials do not want to lose out on the massive "chubby chaser" demographic of the voting population

[retailguy]

programs like this stay in place because elected officials do not want to lose out on the massive "chubby chaser" demographic of the voting population

Very very true. I couldn't agree more. Pandering is sadly, not new, people have been doing it for thousands of years. Yet another reason why charity/entitlement should not be part of public sector government.

[Tyrone Bigguns]

I refuse to pay for them to take the easy way out. I have lost 20 pounds in the past month just by making minor changes to my diet, walking up the stairs instead of taking the elevator, and doing some light exercising.



I call bullshit on this. 5 pounds a week, with only minor changes...lol.

[texaspackerbacker]

I don't want to see people starve, I want to see them work. I don't want them to freeze, I want them to pay the God-Damned heat bill (sorry to resemble Tex for a moment).

----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Just for the record, RetailGuy, I'm not the conservative who emphasizes a lack of compassion, etc. While I'm generally not much for liberal government programs, I'm only half-heartedly against them, and would prefer a bit of a safety net to seeing even rotten Americans who may deserve it, suffer.

I hope you read my posts and STRIVE to resemble me instead of apologizing for it.

[MJZiggy]

Thank you Zig, for proving my point.

You're right, you CAN pick and choose, but so can I, so can Bobblehead, so can Kiwon, even Tex and Tyrone...

This is the fundamental reason why our GOVERNMENT should not be involved in these programs. Your line is about 50 miles farther back than mine is, but it doesn't make me less right than you. Yet, if I posted all of my views around here, I'd be seen as an "unsympathetic jackass".

You are looking at this through ONLY YOUR eyes and your point of view. Look at it through mine.

I don't want to see people starve, I want to see them work. I don't want them to freeze, I want them to pay the God-Damned heat bill (sorry to resemble Tex for a moment).

But when you offer, they take it, and don't develop the learnings from the lessons, because well meaning people like you let them out of the their consequences time and time again. This is the basic reason why our entitlement government is not working, and will never work, and we'll eventually borrow our way into bankruptcy. There can be no other result. Why work when you can watch Oprah all day and someone else will pay your bills? It doesn't encourage them to achieve, quite the opposite, it encourages them to become even more dependent than they already are.

I don't doubt your sincerity, but I do doubt your excecution. You make the common mistake of thinking that people share your views and your morals and your desire to achieve and better yourself. They don't. They are, in large measure, using you and your sincere nature.

I reiterate, and clarify, IF our government is involved in entitlement programs, you can't complain and you must just accept what you get. See, even if there is only one idiot in the world who supports the two in this story, (and there must be, because someone wrote the story), then that person is a PART of the government in some small way (through their citizenship and taxes), so their viewpoint matters... as long as they aren't conservative or libertarian, then they are fair game for ridicule.

I did not prove your point at all. I was speaking to what those programs were initially thought up for, namely to help people bridge the gap during a sudden crisis until they could get back on their feet. They were never intended to be permanent, nor do I think they should be. Give them all the entitlements you want, but correct the mistake they made in initial concept--the idea that people could be so lacking in personal pride that they would never correct the financial problem and get themselves out of the program. Give the two fatties a deadline and a GED program (ok, and maybe a bus pass for a month) and they will eventually fend for themselves. If they don't, they will become much thinner. But the government has every right to cut or regulate programs that perpetuate dependence.

[bobblehead]

I don't want to see people starve, I want to see them work. I don't want them to freeze, I want them to pay the God-Damned heat bill (sorry to resemble Tex for a moment).

----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Just for the record, RetailGuy, I'm not the conservative who emphasizes a lack of compassion, etc. While I'm generally not much for liberal government programs, I'm only half-heartedly against them, and would prefer a bit of a safety net to seeing even rotten Americans who may deserve it, suffer.

I hope you read my posts and STRIVE to resemble me instead of apologizing for it.

Tex is giving a fair representation of himself, while misrepresenting my view. He is for gov't handouts, I am for policy that creates jobs and competition in he workforce so those evil rich people have to pay more in wages. You can give money to a poor person, but you aren't really helping them. Even the fatty in the article said something like "i don't want ??? what I want is a job" I give her credit, she gets it better than a lot of people do.

I know you didn't name me tex, but I somehow felt I was implied (with others). I don't have a lack of compassion, I just don't think its compassionate to create a dependant. I recongnize problems and look for the BEST solution, but most liberals look for the most simplistic feelgood solution.

[retailguy]

I don't want to see people starve, I want to see them work. I don't want them to freeze, I want them to pay the God-Damned heat bill (sorry to resemble Tex for a moment).

----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Just for the record, RetailGuy, I'm not the conservative who emphasizes a lack of compassion, etc. While I'm generally not much for liberal government programs, I'm only half-heartedly against them, and would prefer a bit of a safety net to seeing even rotten Americans who may deserve it, suffer.

I hope you read my posts and STRIVE to resemble me instead of apologizing for it.

Tex, my comparison was directed at the "God-damned" part of my comment. I recognize where your viewpoints are, and agree with a lot of them. I do not strive to "emulate" you, sorry, but I don't think the level of confrontation you engage in here, solves anything. Perhaps it makes you feel better, that I don't know, but I don't strive to be like that at all.

[retailguy]

I did not prove your point at all. I was speaking to what those programs were initially thought up for, namely to help people bridge the gap during a sudden crisis until they could get back on their feet. They were never intended to be permanent, nor do I think they should be. Give them all the entitlements you want, but correct the mistake they made in initial concept--the idea that people could be so lacking in personal pride that they would never correct the financial problem and get themselves out of the program. Give the two fatties a deadline and a GED program (ok, and maybe a bus pass for a month) and they will eventually fend for themselves. If they don't, they will become much thinner. But the government has every right to cut or regulate programs that perpetuate dependence.

Well, Zig, if you can't see that you proved my point, then I'm not sure what to do. You did, whether you see it or not.

My point was, and is, that YOU see a need for change after reading the article. You don't feel sorry for the people in the story. However, obviously, unless the NPR reporter secretly desires to work for the Onion, then that person DOES NOT agree with you, or me.

I don't even agree that the programs you advocate with limits work. Does that make me wrong? Does that make the NPR guy wrong? Does that make you wrong?

Exactly what you argued proves my point that our government should not be engaged in these types of programs. None of the 3 of us agree with one another, yet each thinks our viepoint is correct. The Government by default must try to listen to each of us, and act accordingly. It won't work. It hasn't worked. It's created a lot of bad blood, debt, unworking social programs, dependence, and ruined many many people from productive livelihood, and helped very very few people overcome their circumstances.

You were the poster child for defending that viewpoint why stating all the things should change based on what YOU believe. Let's say you changed the government to represent EXACTLY what you believe. What about those who disagree with you?.... Do they have a voice, even if they're wrong?

This is why government shouldn't be involved in this, but since it is, we must just accept what we get. We cannot make this work to anyone's satisfaction, even those getting the damned handout.

[retailguy]

Tex is giving a fair representation of himself, while misrepresenting my view. He is for gov't handouts, I am for policy that creates jobs and competition in he workforce so those evil rich people have to pay more in wages. You can give money to a poor person, but you aren't really helping them. Even the fatty in the article said something like "i don't want ??? what I want is a job" I give her credit, she gets it better than a lot of people do.

I know you didn't name me tex, but I somehow felt I was implied (with others). I don't have a lack of compassion, I just don't think its compassionate to create a dependant. I recongnize problems and look for the BEST solution, but most liberals look for the most simplistic feelgood solution.

Bobblehead, I agree with the "compassion" part of your argument, but it doesn't always work to stand on principle. I agree with your viewpoint, in large order, and I really realy respect Barr. However, a vote for Barr, does NOTHING for fixing what is wrong with the world. That's where the libertarians lose me. They stand on principle at the cost of losing ANY say in what goes on.

Sometimes you've got to gag, then pull the Hammer for John McCain, in the hopes that if he gets elected we'll see less situations as depicted in the NPR article.

That article makes me ill. Those people genuinely believe that they "deserve" a larger handout then they are receiving. They blame "society" for the fact they can't find work, can't get a car that runs, and can't as a result get to work....and are incapable of finding ANY solution without outside help.

Our social programs created this viewpoint (or at least helped). It has taken multiple generations but we're there. A significant portion of the electorate thinks, acts and believes as they do. What a waste of a potential productive life. It is very sad.

[retailguy]

I refuse to pay for them to take the easy way out. I have lost 20 pounds in the past month just by making minor changes to my diet, walking up the stairs instead of taking the elevator, and doing some light exercising.



I call bullshit on this. 5 pounds a week, with only minor changes...lol.

Hey, he's 22. He could lose 5 pounds by typing a 30 page paper. Wait until he hits 40, he wouldn't be able to stem the gain with the changes he's made.

[MJZiggy]

I'm not talking about my viewpoint. I'm talking about the INTENT of the original design of the programs. You don't see people buying Fritos with WIC checks. Why is that?

And since when has the government ever listened to me or given a rats ass about my individual viewpoint ever?

Oh. And my viewpoint that things need to change was in no way influenced by this article. I've never thought that assistance should be more than a stopgap for regular people.

[HowardRoark]

I refuse to pay for them to take the easy way out. I have lost 20 pounds in the past month just by making minor changes to my diet, walking up the stairs instead of taking the elevator, and doing some light exercising.



I call bullshit on this. 5 pounds a week, with only minor changes...lol.

Hey, he's 22. He could lose 5 pounds by typing a 30 page paper. Wait until he hits 40, he wouldn't be able to stem the gain with the changes he's made.

Exactly.

I was going to type the exact same thing a few minutes ago, but my energy level was too low.

[retailguy]

I'm not talking about my viewpoint.

From your first post:


MJZiggy wrote:
I got 3 words.

Diet and exercise. (they can afford to both stop eating AND get off their fat asses and walk if Granny loses the car.)

This is why it pissed me off that MATC stopped offering a GED course. God knows these pigs need it.


This isn't "your" viewpoint? Ok. Whatever. <sigh>



I'm talking about the INTENT of the original design of the programs. You don't see people buying Fritos with WIC checks. Why is that?

They don't need to buy fritos with the WIC check, because they can use their own money since we've "liberated" them from using their own money to buy things that their children need.

WIC does get milk into the mouths of children (presumably), however, at the cost of the Mother believing it is NOT her responsibility (and the baby's father too). We've "transferred" that responsibility to the state (and ultimately the taxpayer)....



And since when has the government ever listened to me or given a rats ass about my individual viewpoint ever?

It isn't about "individual" viewpoint. It is about the "collective" viewpoint of those that agreed with you. 50 years ago, you'd band with others of "like" mind and start a charity and "fix" it. Now, when the government is involved we must "be fair" to all citizens (or at least strive to be).



Oh. And my viewpoint that things need to change was in no way influenced by this article. I've never thought that assistance should be more than a stopgap for regular people.

It may not have been influenced but this article affected you. The government you voted for has put these programs into place over your lifetime and they don't resemble what you say you want - AT ALL.

You say you want something that isn't achievable. They've tried for 50 years and have failed at achieving anything remotely similar to what you want. Yet you want them to keep trying? I don't get that.

[MJZiggy]

I just can't make a 3 foot quote so you'll have to follow along.

The fact that I think they're fat pigs who could do with a diet and exercise has absolutely nothing to do with entitlement programs. And yes, it did piss me off that MATC stopped offering GED which wasn't an entitlement program either but helped a lot of people start over after quitting school.

What exact problem do you have with offering an entitlement with a deadline? Why is a deadline an impossible dream.? 24 months from your first check comes your last. And in the middle, education, and job training or no check. Do you think that the majority of taxpayers like this system and want it to remain as is? Do you think the majority don't think it's broken? And yes. If it's broken they should not just throw up their hands and declare it unfixable. Try something new for pity's sakes, but if you're gonna try the same damn thing over and over and expect a different result...

And I'm just not that old, RG. This started before I got here, but thanks for aging me...lol. There are still plenty of charities trying to fix the problems. I get a newsletter every month from the nice minister who runs a local homeless shelter in town and runs from all appearances a decent addiction program as well. They tend to come out of his programs very religious people.

[retailguy]

I just can't make a 3 foot quote so you'll have to follow along.

I have no problem following along. Nailing it down is perhaps a different matter, but, I can successfully tack jello to a tree, so I'll be fine.



The fact that I think they're fat pigs who could do with a diet and exercise has absolutely nothing to do with entitlement programs. And yes, it did piss me off that MATC stopped offering GED which wasn't an entitlement program either but helped a lot of people start over after quitting school.

But quite honestly, there wouldn't have been an article for you to criticize them if it hadn't been for entitlement programs would there? Also, if there weren't entitlement programs, sadly, both of these women would probably have jobs and support themselves, but that's not the way it is. We have them, and they're on them, and the poor souls can't afford meat.




What exact problem do you have with offering an entitlement with a deadline? Why is a deadline an impossible dream.? 24 months from your first check comes your last. And in the middle, education, and job training or no check.

And that's what that minister down the street is doing, or some variant, with much greater success than the government has ever done.

Go ahead and name one state government that does things this way. Many have tried, NONE have succeeded. Why is that?



Do you think that the majority of taxpayers like this system and want it to remain as is? Do you think the majority don't think it's broken? And yes. If it's broken they should not just throw up their hands and declare it unfixable.

Great theory, but it doesn't work this way in the world I live in. Or the one you live in. Yes, the majority thinks it's broken, but they keep voting in those who want to break it further. They keep sending their money to the ACLU and others who sue everytime reforms are made.

At some point, you have to throw all the good ideas in the trash can, and just STOP. Because, nothing anyone tries will ever make the "majority" happy. 50+ years proves that.



Try something new for pity's sakes, but if you're gonna try the same damn thing over and over and expect a different result...

What you're proposing has been tried many many times, and it's EXACTLY what you're proposing to try yet again. And you are expecting a different result. Remember "Workforce Wisconsin"? Do you think those of us that live in Wisconsin (not me or you) think it's working? Heck, the first thing that the guy that followed Tommy Thompson did was revise, repeal and change it.

Trying something NEW is to admit the same old tired entitlement programs don't work.




And I'm just not that old, RG. This started before I got here, but thanks for aging me...lol.

Aging you? Please. I'm married and would do no such things. These programs started before BOTH of us got here. I'm not that old either, however, at some point you have to take responsibility for them, because you did vote for them, by voting for people that supported/expanded/touted them. They also built their careers around keeping the entitlements in place as Falco so rightly pointed out.

You share responsibility, as do I, and every other person that reads this.



There are still plenty of charities trying to fix the problems. I get a newsletter every month from the nice minister who runs a local homeless shelter in town and runs from all appearances a decent addiction program as well. They tend to come out of his programs very religious people.

Really too bad you had to inject religion into this discussion. But hey, that's to be expected I guess. Let me apologize for the well meaning Christians who were a bit too exhuberant and then a bit too judgemental when they talked with you. Deep down they really just wanted to share what they had, but that went horribly wrong. Hopefully one day, you can overcome that and see what I've received in a positive light. If not, well maybe you can just see that not all of us have to preach and judge those that don't adopt Christianity.

I'll guarantee you one thing. That minister down the street is making more headway with this issue than out government ever has. And if they come out of there a "little too religious" but with jobs, self esteem, and the ability to figure out how to get their car paid for and how to afford meat, well then I'll take that because it's better than the alternative.

One thing I know for sure, there is NO ONE in that church that is still "being supported" after 24 months. The leeches have moved on by then, because they can't handle the message that God put them on this earth to work, not to take....

My reference to charity, for clarity sake, WAS NOT related to religious charity, though there are lots of those. There are plenty of non-religious charities too. The religious ones tend to have a bit more money, but hey, then you've got to look at the donor base, and I can't fix all the worlds problems. If the "non-religious" types don't want to give, then, well they don't want to give.

[texaspackerbacker]

I don't want to see people starve, I want to see them work. I don't want them to freeze, I want them to pay the God-Damned heat bill (sorry to resemble Tex for a moment).

----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Just for the record, RetailGuy, I'm not the conservative who emphasizes a lack of compassion, etc. While I'm generally not much for liberal government programs, I'm only half-heartedly against them, and would prefer a bit of a safety net to seeing even rotten Americans who may deserve it, suffer.

I hope you read my posts and STRIVE to resemble me instead of apologizing for it.

Tex, my comparison was directed at the "God-damned" part of my comment. I recognize where your viewpoints are, and agree with a lot of them. I do not strive to "emulate" you, sorry, but I don't think the level of confrontation you engage in here, solves anything. Perhaps it makes you feel better, that I don't know, but I don't strive to be like that at all.

And I respect you and your posts too--and agree with many of them. I was mostly joking about striving to emulate my posts--just like when I say Rush Limbaugh has people scouting my posts for material--MOSTLY joking.

As for being confrontational, I VERY seldom say anything derogatory about other posters--although I do quite a bit of "if the shoe fits" sort of thing as with Bobblehead above. When I say "God damned" something or somebody, I generally mean it sincerely, as I am referring to forces which are IMO deliberately harming and disrespecting this country--and "damning"--which basically is praying that God consign them to the lowest region of hell, as leftist politicians and media assholes so richly deserve--is exactly the fate I'm wishing for their sick evil asses. I hope I explained my reasoning clearly enough ........

[texaspackerbacker]

I don't want to see people starve, I want to see them work. I don't want them to freeze, I want them to pay the God-Damned heat bill (sorry to resemble Tex for a moment).

----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Just for the record, RetailGuy, I'm not the conservative who emphasizes a lack of compassion, etc. While I'm generally not much for liberal government programs, I'm only half-heartedly against them, and would prefer a bit of a safety net to seeing even rotten Americans who may deserve it, suffer.

I hope you read my posts and STRIVE to resemble me instead of apologizing for it.

Tex is giving a fair representation of himself, while misrepresenting my view. He is for gov't handouts, I am for policy that creates jobs and competition in he workforce so those evil rich people have to pay more in wages. You can give money to a poor person, but you aren't really helping them. Even the fatty in the article said something like "i don't want ??? what I want is a job" I give her credit, she gets it better than a lot of people do.

I know you didn't name me tex, but I somehow felt I was implied (with others). I don't have a lack of compassion, I just don't think its compassionate to create a dependant. I recongnize problems and look for the BEST solution, but most liberals look for the most simplistic feelgood solution.

Bobblehead, I suppose the truth of your position and mine is somewhere in between. I respect your zealotry against liberal social programs and in favor of fairness. I wish you were as fervent against the REAL sinister activity of government on all levels--regulation/sticking its ugly nose into good normal people's business.

I certainly do not support these leftist social programs either--even though you seem to accuse me of that. I only say--as Ronald Reagan said--that inevitably, there will be a percentage of losers, trash, dregs of society--whatever we choose to call them who just won't succeed no matter how many lofty and logical free enterprise opportunities and solutions are placed in front of them. Observation of life in this country proves the truth of that. And many of those pathetic souls have kids too. You may claim to NOT be without compassion, but in following a policy of fairness to its logical conclusion, some people WILL suffer.

It inevitably comes down to a choice of let it happen or bail them out. Sorry, but conservative that I am, I still lean toward the latter.

[MJZiggy]

RG, I'm not familiar with the Wisconsin program you speak of as I left there a long time ago. Perhaps that was structured as a persoal stopgap measure, I don't know, but if it didn't have a timeline for getting people out of itself and firm qualifications for getting the money and what that money could be used for, then it's not what I'm talking about.

And I didn't bring Father John into the discussion to disparage or criticize religion, more to demonstrate that he is absolutely not in a government program and that with many addicts, "giving yourself up to a higher power" is often very successful. Wait. I just thought of this. Isn't giving yourself up to a higher power abdicating responsibility just as giving yourself up to the govt. is? That's beside the point.

I agree that the dear Father is doing better than the government and what I'm saying is not that the govt. should give up, but that they need to operate closer to what he is doing. He doesn't have the space or the resources to allow someone to flounder in his system. Neither should the government.

And if you don't believe that the will of the people can fix a problem then we may as well pack it in and become a dictatorship because that's what you're saying when you say that we all know it's broken but it should go away. I don't want unemployment compensation to go away, and frankly that's an entitlement program that does work well. It's a model for what I'm talking about. You get what you need at the time and have a time limit on it.

Who said non-religious people don't give? Don't be silly.

[HowardRoark]

Wait. I just thought of this. Isn't giving yourself up to a higher power abdicating responsibility just as giving yourself up to the govt. is?

Ziggy, I hope this was just a random musing, because it is quite frankly ridiculous. Comparing God (higher power…..I guess you could have been talking about Superman though) to Government? People who give themselves up to God do not abdicate responsibility; they actually start acting responsible..

Higher Power = Government…….explains a lot though.

[retailguy]

RG, I'm not familiar with the Wisconsin program you speak of as I left there a long time ago. Perhaps that was structured as a persoal stopgap measure, I don't know, but if it didn't have a timeline for getting people out of itself and firm qualifications for getting the money and what that money could be used for, then it's not what I'm talking about.

Ziggy, the reason I brought up that program is that what I recall of it (I lived in California when it started, and in Washington when Thompson's term ended), was that it tried to implement exactly what you say you want. It was started by a republican Governor, Tommy Thompson, and one of the things that I am certain it included was a 5 year timeline for removal from the welfare roles. There was some provision, can't remember the details, but it required work to remain on welfare, with job training, etc. The liberal hand-wringing was felt coast to coast. As I recall the ACLU was involved with lawsuits at some point...

You should google it and read about it. You might see that what you propose, which sounds GREAT in theory (and I agree with your desires, BTW), doesn't work in reality. For principally, the very reasons I've been talking about.



And I didn't bring Father John into the discussion to disparage or criticize religion, more to demonstrate that he is absolutely not in a government program and that with many addicts, "giving yourself up to a higher power" is often very successful.

Perhaps you should look at WHY he's had success. See, Father John, should be talking about self esteem, which working builds, and about bible based principles of contributing to society instead of taking from it.

"Conversion" to Christianity is not the goal for most of these programs, however, the "attendee" sometimes needs to participate and agree to hear about the "mission" of the church if they want the help offered. The church is footing the bills, so by default, it can pick the program it wants to provide, and can require the terms on which you or I can participate.

Since Government is using public funds provided by taxpayers, what it can "require" is different. This primary difference is that you & I, and the NPR reporter have all paid taxes, and all have a representative say in how things run. Unless we're members of the church, we have ZERO say in how those programs are run. Can't you see the difference?

I cannot "choose" to exempt myself from my Government. I cannot "choose" to exempt myself from taxes for programs that I don't want to support. The Government cannot "choose" to remove me from participation in the process, nor "revoke" my membership because I don't agree/support the principles of the mission.

To a certain degree the Government MUST at least try to reflect each of our respective groups in the planning, process and mission of the Government. How much say we have depends on how many representatives each of our "little groups" get elected, but to some degree we ALL have some say. Or a legal recourse if we don't have "enough" say.

No matter what the Government tries (and it's tried everything multiple times in the last 50 years), it'll NEVER reach concensus.



Wait. I just thought of this. Isn't giving yourself up to a higher power abdicating responsibility just as giving yourself up to the govt. is? That's beside the point.

NO, not at all. See Howards response above. He's much more elequoent than I am.

What I will say, is that unknowingly, you've hit on a personal belief of mine. 50 years ago, the mission began to eliminate GOD from our lives and replace them with the Government. For me at least, the Government will never replace God, because it is full of imperfect people who make mistakes, and have selfish desires. Whether you believe in God or not, surely you can see the fallicy in replacing something based on perfection, with something based on imperfection?



I agree that the dear Father is doing better than the government and what I'm saying is not that the govt. should give up, but that they need to operate closer to what he is doing. He doesn't have the space or the resources to allow someone to flounder in his system. Neither should the government.

Our Government has some fundamental obligation to it's citizens. The ACLU will never let you or anyone else abandon those obligations. We now have precendent that the "underprivliedged" needs will be taken care of at some rudimentary level. Good luck getting that changed. Maybe when we're broke, out of sheer desperation, but that's about it. Until then.... you and your policies don't stand a chance. And waiting for bankruptcy is not a solution to anything.

Hence, my solution to quit complaining and just accept whatever you get is the likely conclusion. And no, I'm not advocating it, and I don't like it, but all alternatives have been tried and have failed.



And if you don't believe that the will of the people can fix a problem then we may as well pack it in and become a dictatorship because that's what you're saying when you say that we all know it's broken but it should go away. I don't want unemployment compensation to go away, and frankly that's an entitlement program that does work well. It's a model for what I'm talking about. You get what you need at the time and have a time limit on it.

Unemployment is abused too. I have a neighbor that knows to the DAY how long he has to work (in construction) before he qualifies for full benefits. Then he engineers some reason to be laid off, and then sits at home for the full duration of unemployment. When his benefits are exhausted, he catches on with another company and starts the process again.

ALL Government programs have abuse. By there very nature they WILL be abused. When those programs exist to create dependency, as ALL entitlement programs do, they are invetiably headed for disaster.

I disagree that unemployment works well. As a former business owner, I can tell you that the fees are high, and keeping someone intent on abusing the system off unemployment is difficult if not impossible. The business owner is "presumed guilty" until proven innocent, which is timeconsuming & expensive, and not usually worth the effort.



Who said non-religious people don't give? Don't be silly.

I did. Lets be clear. I said that based on my anectodal evidence from several years running my own tax business. While it probably doesn't qualify as statistical evidence, I along with a partner, prepared about 2,000 individual tax returns a calendar year.

You meet a lot of people, and you get to know them VERY well, right down to birthday's, social security numbers and every facet of their financial life including charitiable contributions.

I saw firsthand what people gave and to whom they gave it, and how much it was. I saw people give significant amounts of money and I saw others give NOTHING.

There is a correlation between church giving and non church giving. The more an individual gave to their church, the more they gave to organizations not affiliated with religion. The less they gave to a church, the less they gave elsewhere. There were exceptions, but they were very few and far between.

People often tell you their politics, or their cars do it for you. My office was in a strip mall with parking away from the buildings. Washington liberals LOVE bumper stickers, and you can glean a lot about a person from the bumper stickers you see.

So, that is something I believe from the evidence I've gleaned. I could give you 50 examples, or more, of couples that make $40k a year out giving couples that make $150k a year. That example would hold true whether you wanted to look at total contributions or whether you wanted to exclude religious based contributions and just look at secular ones.

[retailguy]

I hope I explained my reasoning clearly enough ........

Yes, I understand. Thanks. And I hope you know I meant no disrespect.

[texaspackerbacker]

I hope I explained my reasoning clearly enough ........

Yes, I understand. Thanks. And I hope you know I meant no disrespect.

Same here, RetailGuy.

I wouldn't read anything all that negative into Ziggy's "higher power" comment. As she said, it wasn't meant to inject religion into the discussion.

If the pathetic suffering poor are to have their situation alleviated at all, and government is not the force to do it, charity from the "haves" is about the only other way. And in this country, far and away, the largest provider and expediter of charity is religious groups. That's objective fact--not a should or shouldn't type controversy, as with government programs.

Sadly, there ARE always gonna be poor--losers who can't cope, even with all the magnificent opportunities our free enterprise system makes possible. That's where I differ with Bobblehead, etc. I say that simple observation of reality proves people like that exist and always will. Compassion just has to take precedence over fairness--the fair thing probably being to let 'em suffer, starve, whatever.

That leads to the bottom line question, can charity--religious and otherwise--do the job? Or does it come down to a question of government programs or suffering? I really don't know.

[MJZiggy]

Perhaps you should look at WHY he's had success. See, Father John, should be talking about self esteem, which working builds, and about bible based principles of contributing to society instead of taking from it.

"Conversion" to Christianity is not the goal for most of these programs, however, the "attendee" sometimes needs to participate and agree to hear about the "mission" of the church if they want the help offered. The church is footing the bills, so by default, it can pick the program it wants to provide, and can require the terms on which you or I can participate.

Since Government is using public funds provided by taxpayers, what it can "require" is different. This primary difference is that you & I, and the NPR reporter have all paid taxes, and all have a representative say in how things run. Unless we're members of the church, we have ZERO say in how those programs are run. Can't you see the difference?

While I see what you're saying (but might disagree on the conversion part as people who do convert in addiction programs TEND to have more success--not a guarantee or predictor), but I think Fr. John has a decent amount of success not so much because he's working with private money, but because he runs a local program. If someone is having difficulty he is there to counsel them, if they are trying to abuse his program, he is standing there looking at them and if they are making progress, he is there to offer praise and further encouragement which is something the government simply cannot do. I wonder if they wouldn't be better off taking all programs down to a local level, though the costs would be unrealistic. Too bad. It would be nice to have a way to make people accountable--for someone to be asking why they were at a convenience store and not a grocery. (Come to think of it, convenience stores shouldn't even take food stamps. What are these people thinking?)

[bobblehead]

I don't want to see people starve, I want to see them work. I don't want them to freeze, I want them to pay the God-Damned heat bill (sorry to resemble Tex for a moment).

----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Just for the record, RetailGuy, I'm not the conservative who emphasizes a lack of compassion, etc. While I'm generally not much for liberal government programs, I'm only half-heartedly against them, and would prefer a bit of a safety net to seeing even rotten Americans who may deserve it, suffer.

I hope you read my posts and STRIVE to resemble me instead of apologizing for it.

Tex, my comparison was directed at the "God-damned" part of my comment. I recognize where your viewpoints are, and agree with a lot of them. I do not strive to "emulate" you, sorry, but I don't think the level of confrontation you engage in here, solves anything. Perhaps it makes you feel better, that I don't know, but I don't strive to be like that at all.

And I respect you and your posts too--and agree with many of them. I was mostly joking about striving to emulate my posts--just like when I say Rush Limbaugh has people scouting my posts for material--MOSTLY joking.

As for being confrontational, I VERY seldom say anything derogatory about other posters--although I do quite a bit of "if the shoe fits" sort of thing as with Bobblehead above. When I say "God damned" something or somebody, I generally mean it sincerely, as I am referring to forces which are IMO deliberately harming and disrespecting this country--and "damning"--which basically is praying that God consign them to the lowest region of hell, as leftist politicians and media assholes so richly deserve--is exactly the fate I'm wishing for their sick evil asses. I hope I explained my reasoning clearly enough ........

I don't disagree with you tex, and ultimately we both overstate our position to make it clear. I know you don't advocate huge gov't welfare programs, but I also am not against small ones...designed to help people between jobs. I am not against "reasonable" regulation, I'm against policies that limit competition and let one group benefit from the regulation. Ect, ect, I can go on, but we mostly agree.