Relay-Version: version B 2.10 5/3/83; site utzoo.UUCP Path: utzoo!watmath!clyde!cbatt!ihnp4!qantel!lll-lcc!pyramid!voder!kontron!cramer From: cramer@kontron.UUCP (Clayton Cramer) Newsgroups: net.misc Subject: Re: Poor People/Lazy People Message-ID: <1074@kontron.UUCP> Date: Fri, 19-Sep-86 13:54:10 EDT Article-I.D.: kontron.1074 Posted: Fri Sep 19 13:54:10 1986 Date-Received: Sun, 28-Sep-86 00:02:44 EDT References: <1010@cad.cs.cmu.edu> <919@gilbbs.UUCP> Organization: Kontron Electronics, Mt. View, CA Lines: 117 > In article <1010@cad.cs.cmu.edu>, mjc@cad.cs.cmu.edu (Monica Cellio) writes: > > From: mc68020@gilbbs.UUCP (Thomas J Keller) > > > Sure, there is work available for *MANY* (not all) who are able to work. > > > BUT, can one earn a LIVING WAGE doing the work that is available. In most > > > cases, no. According to every survey and study I have encountered, of all > > > the "new jobs" being created by the economy MOST are minimum wage jobs. > > > It is simply not feasible to provide for a family on minimum wage. > > > > Fine. Rather than not work and collect everything they need from welfare, > > why don't they take the minimum wage job and only get in aid the difference > > between that income and what they "need" (by welfare standards)? It's the > > lazy people who decide they don't need to work *at all* in order to receive > > enough money to live on who are ripping off the taxpayers. > > Well, gee. What a wonderful idea. Unfortunately, people *USED* to be able > to do just that. Many people in fact DID take minimum wage jobs, and > collect only what they needed as assistance over their pay. Then Reagan > was elected to the presidency. One of his earlier actions was to do away > with such programs, "to save money." > I've seen one study on the results -- only about 10% of the "working poor" ended up completely on welfare. The rest were interested enough in working to continue working. I agree that this action by the Reagan Administration was a mistake -- I firmly believe anyone with enough character to work when they could sit back and do nothing are the LAST group that should be penalized. > Try checking out the facts next time. This was a harmless enough piece > of business, involving a legitimate question. I get so sick of the idiots > who claim that welfare recipients are living in "comfort." I suggest that > these self-righteous jerks just *TRY* to survive on $456/month for a single > mother with one child. Then I will listen to their evaluations of the > "comfort" welfare recipients live in. > Levels of comfort differ dramatically. I couldn't live comfortably on less than $3000 a month. I know druggies (like my brother-in-law) who can live comfortably on $400 a month -- of course, he chooses to live at a level I find incredible, because the alternative is working. > > > > And by the way, while it isn't possible to support a family on minimum wage, > > I do know individuals who are supporting themselves on minimum wage or > > thereabouts. > > > > The implementation of the current welfare system leaves a lot to be desired > > (as does, probably, the system itself). The system does little to weed out > > the lazy bums (who are probably a small fraction of welfare recipients), so > > they take advantage of it. I'm tired of supporting cheats and bums with my > > money; I don't object to helping the genuinely poor. (And yes, I *do* > > consider it to be *our* money, not *theirs*. They have no right to it; they > > are merely receiving it as a gift.) > > Oddly enough, I agree that your money is yours. What the "libertarians" > fail to comprehend is that the very opportunity to produce wealth is a > benefit of the society in which we live. Therefore, it is not completely > unreasonable that each individual return a small portion of that wealth > to society to provide for societal needs. > "Small portion"? You obviously haven't looked at a withholding statement recently. > I'll tell you what, when I see the people bitching about welfare trying > to do something constructive about $600 toilet seats, $45 nuts and bolts, > and multi-trillion dollar SDI boondoggles, **THEN** I will pay some > attention to their complaints. I say they're just using the poor as > scapegoats, because the poor aren't in a position to fight back. Pay more attention. Much of the complaining about absurd military spending comes from "cheap conservatives" like Newt Gingrich (R-GA) who resent money being wasted. Also, much of the material on military waste was originated by Ms. Dina Rasor while working on a stipend from the Cato Institute -- a libertarian "think tank". The poor aren't the constituency that fights for welfare -- it's wealthy liberals who want to make sure their good-for-nothing kids have welfare offices to work in when they get out of school. > (of course, *MANY* of the so-called "libertarians" who bitch so loudly > about the government make nice comfy livings either directly or indirectly > from the government they hate so much) > This is an interesting moral problem: is it OK to work on government contracts, since your taxes are funding the contracts, or should a libertarian only work in free market originated businesses? Most libertarians I know try for the latter -- but as the government has enlarged its activities in the last 20 years, this becomes an increasingly difficult action. > I have said before, and I will say again: I do not accept that society > or any individual in society has the right to expect a person to devote > their entire workday to performing functions to meet that society's or > that individual's needs, and not pay the worker sufficiently to live with > dignity and pride. It is not reasonable to expect people to do your > dirty work for you, and to live in poverty and degradation as their > reward. Anyone who claims otherwise is a self-serving, inconsiderate > jack ass. > > tom keller "She's alive, ALIVE!" Define "poverty". Define "degradation". These are highly relative terms. I find being enslaved by the government through taxation to be the most degrading action I will tolerate without violent resistance -- and it's not just the money. I'm offended that I fund a mechanism designed to burn millions of people to death (although I can see no better solution at the moment). I'm offended that I fund a mechanism that rewards laziness and irresponsibility. Speaking of self-serving, inconsiderate jackasses, are you STILL unemployed? There's no shortage of jobs -- maybe you are just lazy to go get a job. I'm not surprised you spend a lot of time trying to justify laziness. Clayton E. Cramer