Originally Posted by Wallace 88

Kiff has a problem explaining this.

Ziggy did a fine job explaining it. Thanks to him for the clarification.

Originally Posted by Wallace 88

Then, there's sustainability.

I would be very careful about using the word "sustainability" in the context of defending the profligate behavior of the upper class.

Originally Posted by Aramea

It is quite possible that those dividends represent profits "earned" from laying of 1000's of people.

Bingo!! And the person collecting welfare or food stamps might be trying to raise a child or two. I'd call that a productive activity.

Originally Posted by Child of Socrates

Bingo!! And the person collecting welfare or food stamps might be trying to raise a child or two. I'd call that a productive activity.

Very true. When childcare is factored in it is often pointless to take a low paying job ...

Originally Posted by Aramea

Very true. When childcare is factored in it is often pointless to take a low paying job ...

Which makes it irresponsible to have children if you can't afford to raise them.

Originally Posted by The Rani

Which makes it irresponsible to have children if you can't afford to raise them.

Of course it is if you know ahead of time. I suspect that many people have them when they can afford them and fall on hard times later ...

http://money.cnn.com/galleries/2011/...ntent=My+Yahoo

Faces of poverty

Millions of people are living in poverty and barely getting by, depending on government assistance. Here's what they're doing to survive.

Mary Ijaz, 48
Monmouth, Ore

Only five years ago, Mary Ijaz was living in a 5-bedroom house in California with a Lexus and Land Rover. Then her husband left her and their seven children, emptying out their bank accounts.

With no money or job, she survived by cramming her family into her sister's two-bedroom apartment in Oregon, before leaving to spend the summer in a campground tent. Having hit rock bottom, she turned to the Dallas Resource Center for help.

The social service agency set her up with housing and helped her apply for other government aid. She now receives $2,660 in food stamps, cash assistance and housing help, as well as $1,850 in a Pell Grant to go to community college, where she's getting straight A's. She plans to study radiology so she can earn more than enough to support her family.

"It's a complete turnaround. I'm so excited about the potential for the future," Ijaz said. "My kids are not going to be on government assistance as adults."

Lyn Grotke, 47
Fayette, Maine

A few years ago, Lyn Grotke was supporting herself and two young children. She owned a house, paid her bills on time.

But her life unraveled in February 2008, when she broke her leg. When she could return to work a year later, she had no job. She lost her home to bankruptcy and lives in a trailer while waiting to be approved for federal housing assistance. She applied more than three years ago.

Grotke, who has a master's degree in outdoor education, is scrambling to stay afloat. She works a few days a month for the city of Augusta, consults for the Muskie School of Public Service and teaches domestic violence prevention. She's also babysat, taken care of the elderly and worked for the Census.

Still, she earns only between $200 and $800 a month. Even adding in $750 in food stamps and death benefits for the children's father, "it's clearly not enough to live on. It won't meet my expenses. There's no chance." The trailer alone costs $700 a month, plus she needs $1,100 for food, insurance, gas and other expenses.

Charlie Fields, 79
Abingdon, Va.

Though he collects Social Security and an Army pension, Charlie Fields is still poor.

Fields, who worked most of his life hauling coal, spends his days caring for his wife, who was disabled by a stroke. But even if she were healthy, the couple couldn't afford to do much. His meager monthly income, combined with $50 she receives in food stamps, doesn't go far, even in rural Virginia.

Heating alone can cost up to $400 a month in the winter, and groceries and the mortgage cost more than $700 every month. If something breaks, he tries to fix it himself.

"Each month, when I get my check, by the last week of the month, it gets pretty close," said Fields. "We can't go anywhere. You can't even get a hamburger and a milkshake for less than $12 to $15 around here."

Nygia Edwards, 36
Columbia, Mo.

Nygia Edwards has devoted herself to her church and it has helped her and her family through tough times.

Though her husband works for the city of Columbia, he does not earn enough to keep their family of seven out of poverty. Edwards is recovering from cancer, an appendectomy and a car accident. They get by on food stamps, federal housing assistance, and Social Security disability payments.

But even this isn't always enough to support their large family. So their Baptist church recently donated clothes to each of their five girls. Parishioners also provide tutoring for the children, who benefited from the Head Start school readiness program.

Edwards hopes to return to school soon and then land a job so she can provide more for her daughters.

"It makes me feel like I failed my family," said Edwards, who spent her early years in a New Orleans housing project. "I want to provide a better life for them. They deserve it. They are really good kids."

The sad thing is that but for our collective ignorance, these people could have living wage jobs that would cost us nothing and have our economy more prosperous and sustainable for all of us.

Originally Posted by Hutch74

Just a thought, but couldn't perpetually extending unemployment benefits be a form of welfare? There is a thought that a number of people who would otherwise get jobs ..don't..because UI benefits pay more.

Ummm....I always thought they didn't get jobs because they couldn't find work. Extended unemployment benefits keeps them housed.

Originally Posted by Aramea

Sitting on your ass collecting dividends = sitting on your ass
Sitting on your ass collecting silly minimum income = sitting on your ass

A person collecting an ass-sitting income spending money in the economy = money circulating in the economy while doing nothing. They are quite the same. I don't know why anyone assumes that dividends paid to an individual assumes money invested in a productive way. It is quite possible that those dividends represent profits "earned" from laying of 1000's of people.

Sitting on your ass collecting social security = sitting on your ass, too.

Originally Posted by summer in the fall

Yes there is. You must be employed to get food stamps which means that it is basically a subsidy to employers who refuse to pay their employees a livable wage. Get you facts straight.

Not quite. If you are able-bodied, have no children, and are between 18-49 years of age, you need to either be working or in some kind of work-search or job-training program. However, if you live in an area with high unemployment, your state can apply for a waiver.

That said, about 30 percent of food stamp households do have someone working. Another 34 per percent receive either SSI or SSA, which means someone in the household is elderly and retired, or on disability. About 20 percent have no cash income whatsover. Only about 12 percent are receiving traditional cash welfare (either Federal TANF benefits or State-funded General Assistance benefits).

So 1/3 working, 1/3 elderly or disabled, and 1/3 on welfare or with no income. That's a rough breakdown of who's on food stamps these days.

Originally Posted by Child of Socrates

No, no, Playwrite!! People WANT to be slackers!! Don't disabuse your fellow posters of that notion.

Madam,
Your snarky behavior is disruptive to the forum.

Signed,
The Thought Police

Originally Posted by The Wonkette

Originally Posted by summer in the fall

Yes there is. You must be employed to get food stamps which means that it is basically a subsidy to employers who refuse to pay their employees a livable wage. Get you facts straight.

Not quite. If you are able-bodied, have no children, and are between 18-49 years of age, you need to either be working or in some kind of work-search or job-training program. However, if you live in an area with high unemployment, your state can apply for a waiver.

That was in response to this foolishness:

Originally Posted by Wallace 88

Really. There's a work requirement for food stamps and section eight hiousing?.

Also "in some kind of work-search or job-training program" is as good (or as bad as) working. From what I have seen, those "waivers" aren't being used and the "work-search" programs a waste of time. They are more like "punishment" programs. The subsidy to employers comment is based on the experience of being a student and being told that they had to drop out school and look for a job to receive food stamps.

Originally Posted by The Wonkette

That said, about 30 percent of food stamp households do have someone working. Another 34 per percent receive either SSI or SSA, which means someone in the household is elderly and retired, or on disability. About 20 percent have no cash income whatsover. Only about 12 percent are receiving traditional cash welfare (either Federal TANF benefits or State-funded General Assistance benefits).

I would argue that barring the TANF, those 12 percent actually receiving cash welfare are homeless or are in some sort of revolving door situation.

In other words, there is no huge population of couch-sitting unemployed people living off welfare. And that is point...

.......
......
......
......

Originally Posted by The Grey Badger

Sitting on your ass collecting social security = sitting on your ass, too.

Yes it is. Idle income is coming under attack. It was interesting that someone commented that a 30 year old man sitting on his ass with a large trust fund (even though he could work) carried more prestige than collecting unemployment, food stamps, WIC or SS (though to be fair he didn't specifically say SS). I find that premise fascinating, given that this guy is referred to as a job creator when he doesn't even have one. I knew a guy like this and no, he did not employ a servant. His job was to travel all over the world and drink vodka.

Originally Posted by playwrite

The sad thing is that but for our collective ignorance, these people could have living wage jobs that would cost us nothing and have our economy more prosperous and sustainable for all of us.

You could be right, playwrite.

Originally Posted by The Rani

Madam,
Your snarky behavior is disruptive to the forum.

Signed,
The Thought Police

Revised above.

Originally Posted by The Rani

Well, I'll probably get slammed by EVERYONE for this, but here goes ...

I happen to believe that both forms of idle income are bad karma, whether it's sitting on your ass collecting welfare or sitting on your ass playing the stock market.
Everyone needs to make a positive contribution to society to feel good about him/herself.
You don't need to get paid for it either, you just need to do it.

I won't slam this. I happen to agree.

Originally Posted by Child of Socrates

Originally Posted by The Rani

Well, I'll probably get slammed by EVERYONE for this, but here goes ...

I happen to believe that both forms of idle income are bad karma, whether it's sitting on your ass collecting welfare or sitting on your ass playing the stock market.
Everyone needs to make a positive contribution to society to feel good about him/herself.
You don't need to get paid for it either, you just need to do it.

I won't slam this. I happen to agree.

Meh. Who defines what constitutes "positive contribution"?

Originally Posted by The Rani

Well, I'll probably get slammed by EVERYONE for this, but here goes ...

I happen to believe that both forms of idle income are bad karma, whether it's sitting on your ass collecting welfare or sitting on your ass playing the stock market.
Everyone needs to make a positive contribution to society to feel good about him/herself.
You don't need to get paid for it either, you just need to do it.

OK. Please feel free to enhance your karma. It comes at no one's expense, so why not?

Everyone else should do the same .. or not.

Originally Posted by The Rani

Well, I'll probably get slammed by EVERYONE for this, but here goes ...

I happen to believe that both forms of idle income are bad karma, whether it's sitting on your ass collecting welfare or sitting on your ass playing the stock market.
Everyone needs to make a positive contribution to society to feel good about him/herself.
You don't need to get paid for it either, you just need to do it.

Your position is consistent. I believe in safety nets and protecting seniors that have worked all their lives and are ready to retire from the capriciousness of the economy. The idle rich and people that just dont want to work are at the very edges of the spectrum and seem to have the same goal of not working and not contributing. For some reason one is vilified and one is celebrated. That is what I don't understand.

Originally Posted by Aramea

Your position is consistent. I believe in safety nets and protecting seniors that have worked all their lives and are ready to retire from the capriciousness of the economy. The idle rich and people that just dont want to work are at the very edges of the spectrum and seem to have the same goal of not working and not contributing. For some reason one is vilified and one is celebrated. That is what I don't understand.

The answer to that is the answer to why we have class in the first place.

Originally Posted by The Rani

I see both being villified, by different people.
What I don't get is the arguing over which is worse. Both are bad.

Yes both are a drain on the country ...

Originally Posted by The Rani

Originally Posted by Aramea

For some reason one is vilified and one is celebrated. That is what I don't understand.

I see both being vilified, by different people.
What I don't get is the arguing over which is worse. Both are bad.

To be expected, that's consistent with The Rani's philosophy -- classless society.

Originally Posted by The Rani

I see both being vilified, by different people.
What I don't get is the arguing over which is worse. Both are bad.

Retirement is bad? Why? It may be unhealthy, but only if it's idle retirement. Why can't someone retire to liesure pursuits after contributing for 50-60 years, without being expected to do another productive thing?

I may hate golf, but wouldn't deny my neighbors the joy of it.

Originally Posted by The Rani

What's worse, in my opinion, is that both are a drain on the people involved.
The country can handle a little draining, but people have to contribute to be fulfilled in life.

Not everyone feels the need forever. I may retire to book reading at some point ... and I won't feel a second of guilt about it either.