Yeah, these people vote

[Jeff Young]

That's cool. You still get to vote in Jeff's World. Marc's World not so much.

Also, Marc gets to vote for rules like the above.

Which is worse? Being tricked into saying something dumb on a TV show or actually believing stuff like that?

 

[Keith]

Al, just a quick question. I am curious to discover just how Jeff knew that? Is there a website somewhere you can check up?

 

[Jeff Young]

No. Al acknowledged it here on this board a while back.

I've always told him I'm fine with that. He was entitled to the benefits.

I'm NOT fine with:

1. Folks who receive one form of benefits complaining about others who receive other forms.

2. Ideas like teh above, where we disenfranchise folks from voting because they've had a rough patch and needed some government help.

That's all.

 

[Keith]

That's perfectly fair Jeff, thank you..

 

[Al Wohlstrom]

Al, just a quick question. I am curious to discover just how Jeff knew that? Is there a website somewhere you can check up?

I mentioned it on a post a couple of years ago.

Just so everyone knows, I COLLECTED UNEMPLOMENT ONCE.

 

[Keith]

I mentioned it on a post a couple of years ago.

Just so everyone knows, I COLLECTED UNEMPLOMENT ONCE.

Better not let Marc know..... :uneasy:

 

[Jim Rosenthal]

It's okay, Al, we still love you. Besides, I collected it once, too- mostly to punish my old employer who was a dickhead.

 

[Jack]

Was eligable for 52 weeks of unemployment once, never applied, never drew a dime
in my entire 70 year old life! I could also get some Social Security disability, but I don't absolutely need it and won't apply for it either. Too WOGGish.

 

[Doug S.]

Would you prefer that vote be cast by an i-n-f-o-r-m-e-d voter...or by someone who couldn't care less about how he votes and 'simply throws the 1st lever he sees because 'the law' says he has to throw one of them?

All your bowing to "P.C." aside, Doug, I think you probably completely understand - and 'get' - my point. Dare I say that at some level you likely DO agree with it?

:chug:

No doubt, Larry. I have ALWAYS maintained that an uninformed vote is worse than no vote at all...but that's just MHO and the level of information each person needs to develop their voting preference is a very personal issue and not subject to determination by anyone other than themselves, as is the nature of the information on which they make their decision. If someone decides to vote for Obama because they like his new diamond earring, well, it's their right to express that with a vote (although, as I think we'd all agree, a bit of an unusual criterion, IMHO...but it might be a VERY important issue to someone else).

I think everyone should vote, but I am against making voting compulsory. Making voting compulsory is bullshit.

Agreed! I cannot remember a time since I turned 18 that I did not vote...although believing that an uninformed vote is worse than no vote I have MANY times not voted in a "race" that either had nothing to do with me or was not important enough for me to have researched the opinions of the candidates.

It's okay, Al, we still love you.

AGREED on this issue, too!!!

Cheers!

Doug

 

[Doug S.]

Was eligable...unemployment once

As was I...did draw unemployment for a few weeks, until I was stupid enough to NOT present poorly in an interview for which I had no skills, was offered the job and declined the job offer, at which time the unemployment "officer" stopped my payments for a period of time which I do not remember. It wasn't important, though...I had to do something to support myself so I found a job on my own.

It's a real shame we don't educate EVERYONE past high school...I DO like Obama's suggestion that community college training programs ought to be available free to EVERYONE...and if that recommendation were instituted also believe that any individual who DOES NOT take advantage of those opportunities to develop job skills should NOT be eligible for unemployment benefits.

I seem to remember Clinton (hope it was him) who instituted what they called "Workfare"...in essence if you were getting welfare benefits you had to do some sort of work to maintain them and if you couldn't provide proof that you did the benefits were cut off. Sort of a long time ago and I've slept since then, but it was a requirement I liked!

Cheers!

Doug

 

[Larry L.]

...I DO like Obama's suggestion that community college training programs ought to be available FREE TO EVERYONE (red = mine)...

Cheers!

Doug

How 'bout "free" housing, food, clothing, medical & dental care - AND a "free" car for everyone as well, Doug? I mean, why should we stop at "free" 'college? The same 'logic'(?!) is just as valid when applied to other areas as well...right?

...and yet some wonder WHY this country is almost $19 trillion in debt and climbing...:disappointed:

 

[Jack]

Not to mention the "free" cell phones.

 

[Steve]

Obama has a diamond earring?

 

[Doug S.]

How 'bout "free" housing, food, clothing, medical & dental care - AND a "free" car for everyone as well, Doug? I mean, why should we stop at "free" 'college? The same 'logic'(?!) is just as valid when applied to other areas as well...right?

...and yet some wonder WHY this country is almost $19 trillion in debt and climbing...:disappointed:

As for housing, clothing, food, medical/dental I have no problems with public support for those who do not have a method of providing those for themselves...they are all things that I think of as necessary for general life support and I am not hard-hearted enough to want those who cannot provide those things for themselves to be allowed to die without them...although there are certainly some of the "street people", homeless, whatever you want to call them who choose to live in the woods, alleys, cardboard boxes, behind convenience stores, etc. and that's their choice. The free medical/dental care could be provided by students who are studying medicine or dentistry and who could also benefit from the exposure to the situations/conditions they will need to deal with once they are out in the workforce as professionals. I WOULD like to see some sort of "Workfare" like I recall Clinton requiring...and like Pete mentioned...there are plenty of methods in which those receiving welfare could be put to "work" to help reduce the cost of public services and that should be acceptable to them, IMHO.

As for a "free car" and "free college"...no... but yes to (preferable to me if it would be available) a free municipal bus pass, since there is minimal impact on the cost of running a bus for yet one more passenger (or even more than one, when you take into account the impact PER PASSENGER) and if that would turn a welfare recipient into a working, taxpaying contributing member of our society by making sure they could get to their job I see no reason to oppose that.

I am also a proponent of vocational rehabilitation services if they will result in an injured individual being able to work and contribute to our society again. My experience with that involves a fall from 32' onto hard packed clay, resulting in a broken pelvis and two broken wrists, as well as some nerve damage somewhere along my spine (can't believe I survived it, much less avoided paralysis and have pretty much fully recovered from it). I was referred to Voc Rehab by my doctor who was certain I was not going to be able to work in the construction industry any more. I realized that further education would provide me with a manner in which to avoid that and was immediately accepted into the Speech Pathology program at the local university. The Voc rehab representative was absolutely LIVID because he could not help me...I already had a college degree and he could not pay for a graduate degree. He railed against the system, said he found it totally disgusting that he had to help drug addicts and criminals with benefits for vocational training and yet could not help an accomplished individual like me who might not be able to continue contributing at the level I had been just because I already had a (useless, for the most part) college education. As it turned out, Worker's Comp and S/S total temporary disability got me through the 2 year M.S. degree and I have since contributed at a much higher level than I had been prior to the industrial accident.

There really ARE some long-term benefits to spending some $$ on individuals who have fallen on hard times and I think I'm a splendid example. Without that S/S and W/C I'd have been left unable to support myself and would have needed to continue with whatever governmental supports for which I would have qualified. In the end, my contributions to our friends at the IRS have repaid those government $$ that were spent on me many times over and our society has benefited from that "investment"...perhaps those we have seen on JayWalking could be given some training and become contributing members such as I have instead of a drain on our economy?

I'm just sayin'......... :idea:

Cheers!

Doug

 

[Al Wohlstrom]

To set the record straight,
Unemployment benefits are generally paid by state governments, funded in large part by state and federal payroll taxes levied against employers, to workers who have become unemployed through no fault of their own. So the employer pays for unemployment compensation through taxes and the State and Federal governments take credit for the money and call it an "social welfare benefit"
It's Social Security that paid for by equal 7 1/2% employer and employee payments based on the employees earnings. It was started as a Trust by FDR and would have been self sustaining had not LBJ taken the money and put it in the General fund in 1967, which most likely broke multiple laws. It is also now called a "social welfare benefit" although it is not except for those who have not contributed to it.

 

[Steve]

Doug, while I agree with much of what you've said above (esp the Vic rehab part) don't underestimate the cost of "free" medical care. Even Medicare and Medicaid, despite paying physicians below the cost of doing business, fail to stay in line with inflation.

 

[Steve]

To set the record straight,
Unemployment benefits are generally paid by state governments, funded in large part by state and federal payroll taxes levied against employers, to workers who have become unemployed through no fault of their own. So the employer pays for unemployment compensation through taxes and the State and Federal governments take credit for the money and call it an "social welfare benefit"
It's Social Security that paid for by equal 7 1/2% employer and employee payments based on the employees earnings. It was started as a Trust by FDR and would have been self sustaining had not LBJ taken the money and put it in the General fund in 1967, which most likely broke multiple laws. It is also now called a "social welfare benefit" although it is not except for those who have not contributed to it.

One of the joys of being self employed is that I get to pay the FICA tax twice on myself, once as an employer and once as an employee (I believe it's 6.2% each time, not 7.5%)

 

[Doug S.]

It...would have been self sustaining had not LBJ taken the money and put it in the General fund in 1967, which most likely broke multiple laws.

That has been a common practice here in TX for most of the 35 years I've lived here...and our "Governor Goodhair" used some of those $$$$ to fund his run for the presidency as well as some very expensive trips elsewhere, which he claimed were necessary to perform his job.

It is a hugely favorite practice for our legislature...we pay huge sums for road maintenance, construction and improvement (including a rather unpleasant "bridge" fee on each of our vehicle registrations)...and the pols, who don't want to be viewed as the reason that taxes increase, instead take other monies out of the specific fund for which the $$ was intended and put it into the "general fund"...ain't politics great????? It was a big enough deal that the individual who won the governor's race in our last election campaigned on a promise that funds raised for roads would not be "re-purposed" by moving them to the general fund. We'll see whether he can keep that promise or not...like the elder Bush's "Read my lips, NO NEW TAXES". Seems like a lot of Texas politicians are known for "...speaking with forked tongue".

You might have heard of our previous governor who partially financed his campaign and travels with tax dollars...his name is Rick Perry. You might well hear more about him, too...like, he's going to try to run for POTUS again :shocked:

Doug

 

[Al Wohlstrom]

That has been a common practice here in TX for most of the 35 years I've lived here...and our "Governor Goodhair" used some of those $$$$ to fund his run for the presidency as well as some very expensive trips elsewhere, which he claimed were necessary to perform his job.

It is a hugely favorite practice for our legislature...we pay huge sums for road maintenance, construction and improvement (including a rather unpleasant "bridge" fee on each of our vehicle registrations)...and the pols, who don't want to be viewed as the reason that taxes increase, instead take other monies out of the specific fund for which the $$ was intended and put it into the "general fund"...ain't politics great????? It was a big enough deal that the individual who won the governor's race in our last election campaigned on a promise that funds raised for roads would not be "re-purposed" by moving them to the general fund. We'll see whether he can keep that promise or not...like the elder Bush's "Read my lips, NO NEW TAXES". Seems like a lot of Texas politicians are known for "...speaking with forked tongue".



You might have heard of our previous governor who partially financed his campaign and travels with tax dollars...his name is Rick Perry. You might well hear more about him, too...like, he's going to try to run for POTUS again :shocked:



Doug

They used Social Security money?

 

[Doug S.]

They used Social Security money?

No...just did the same thing with state tax dollars intended to keep our roads up and build new roads as FDR did with the S/S $$$$....but, then, of course Perry's also thick like thieves with the investors, who built the highway with the highest speed limit in the state and are hoping to make out like bandits with the profits from the tolls. Fortunately (well, not so fortunately for the investors) the people of TX have decided that it's not so important to be able to drive 5 mph faster and therefore the toll roads are not paying for themselves...but I'm sure some Texas politician will find a way to "buy" the roads from the investors and ensure that they get a HUGE profit on the back end.

Rick Perry is one of the most reprehensible politicians I've ever known of...perhaps eclipsed only by Tom Delay.

Makes me rather embarrassed to be from here...although I do believe that all politicians have to be crooked to get to where they are, it's just everything is of "greater magnitude" here in TX so the transgressions are, too.

Doug