what is your definition of *poor*?
Moderator
Joined: Sep 2004
Posts: 109,435
Likes: 1,651
From: SJC
Originally Posted by RBC3,Jan 14 2008, 11:48 AM
It always has to start at home.
Then it goes into social settings.
It shouldn't be frowned upon to make people feel bad for abusing the system.
The system needs to be overhauled and fine tuned.
Better tracking and assement of needs and assistance given!
Registered User
Joined: Jun 2002
Posts: 10,274
Likes: 0
From: Madison, AL
This $303 amount you keep talking, where did it come from?
If you work 160 hours a month, then it would equal $1.89 an hour! You can't be paid that little in the US!! Minimum wage is $5.85 an hour, which means they only worked 52 hours a month. Taking taxes out, means they realistically worked only 72 hours a month! Where did the other 90 hours go to?
Education has to come into play some time to tell people that procreation is unadviseable, when they can't afford to take care of themselves, let alone a child!
If you work 160 hours a month, then it would equal $1.89 an hour! You can't be paid that little in the US!! Minimum wage is $5.85 an hour, which means they only worked 52 hours a month. Taking taxes out, means they realistically worked only 72 hours a month! Where did the other 90 hours go to?
Education has to come into play some time to tell people that procreation is unadviseable, when they can't afford to take care of themselves, let alone a child!
Registered User
Joined: Nov 2007
Posts: 563
Likes: 0
From: Fircrest/Seattle
Originally Posted by zeiss,Jan 14 2008, 01:03 PM
" the people that are poor come from 3rd world countries. Poor people in america just dont have the luxuries that others have. "
Less than $303 a month for three people in the U.S. is poor. This isn't a matter of not having luxuries. This is a matter of not having money for food and shelter. Where can you live in the U.S. on less than $101 a person a month? That's $1,012 a year. I'd like to see someone live on that annual salary for a month, let alone try to survive for a year on that amount. Or is there some place in the U.S. where the cost of living is so fantastically low that one could live on that?
Less than $303 a month for three people in the U.S. is poor. This isn't a matter of not having luxuries. This is a matter of not having money for food and shelter. Where can you live in the U.S. on less than $101 a person a month? That's $1,012 a year. I'd like to see someone live on that annual salary for a month, let alone try to survive for a year on that amount. Or is there some place in the U.S. where the cost of living is so fantastically low that one could live on that?
Registered User
Joined: Jun 2002
Posts: 10,274
Likes: 0
From: Madison, AL
8D, I don't claim to have the magical solution, but I do have some ideas.
1st, I think that welfare should be a limited solution. A max of 5 years, except for extreme situations..ie illness and such.
2nd, Welfare needs new strict guidelines. Your child misses more than the alloted # of days for school, your revoked! You get arrested, your revoked! Your kid is arrested, your revoked! Make it tough, better yet, make it a privelage!!!! If it isn't easy, then it won't be so attractive!
3rd, Make jobs for these people. If your going to run welfare, why not let them staff it? And if you miss days at work, your done! The rest of us live by strict work codes, and so should they!
4, Random drug tests for all family members on the application. You fail, your done! Hell, check for alcohol too.
ZERO tolerance is the key. Or at the minimum a 3 strike rule.
Actually earning things is a way to make people feel better about themselves and what they do, so set the system up to allow them to achieve this!
1st, I think that welfare should be a limited solution. A max of 5 years, except for extreme situations..ie illness and such.
2nd, Welfare needs new strict guidelines. Your child misses more than the alloted # of days for school, your revoked! You get arrested, your revoked! Your kid is arrested, your revoked! Make it tough, better yet, make it a privelage!!!! If it isn't easy, then it won't be so attractive!
3rd, Make jobs for these people. If your going to run welfare, why not let them staff it? And if you miss days at work, your done! The rest of us live by strict work codes, and so should they!
4, Random drug tests for all family members on the application. You fail, your done! Hell, check for alcohol too.
ZERO tolerance is the key. Or at the minimum a 3 strike rule.
Actually earning things is a way to make people feel better about themselves and what they do, so set the system up to allow them to achieve this!
Registered User
Joined: Nov 2007
Posts: 563
Likes: 0
From: Fircrest/Seattle
Originally Posted by RBC3,Jan 14 2008, 01:22 PM
8D, I don't claim to have the magical solution, but I do have some ideas.
1st, I think that welfare should be a limited solution. A max of 5 years, except for extreme situations..ie illness and such.
2nd, Welfare needs new strict guidelines. Your child misses more than the alloted # of days for school, your revoked! You get arrested, your revoked! Your kid is arrested, your revoked! Make it tough, better yet, make it a privelage!!!! If it isn't easy, then it won't be so attractive!
3rd, Make jobs for these people. If your going to run welfare, why not let them staff it? And if you miss days at work, your done! The rest of us live by strict work codes, and so should they!
4, Random drug tests for all family members on the application. You fail, your done! Hell, check for alcohol too.
ZERO tolerance is the key. Or at the minimum a 3 strike rule.
Actually earning things is a way to make people feel better about themselves and what they do, so set the system up to allow them to achieve this!
1st, I think that welfare should be a limited solution. A max of 5 years, except for extreme situations..ie illness and such.
2nd, Welfare needs new strict guidelines. Your child misses more than the alloted # of days for school, your revoked! You get arrested, your revoked! Your kid is arrested, your revoked! Make it tough, better yet, make it a privelage!!!! If it isn't easy, then it won't be so attractive!
3rd, Make jobs for these people. If your going to run welfare, why not let them staff it? And if you miss days at work, your done! The rest of us live by strict work codes, and so should they!
4, Random drug tests for all family members on the application. You fail, your done! Hell, check for alcohol too.
ZERO tolerance is the key. Or at the minimum a 3 strike rule.
Actually earning things is a way to make people feel better about themselves and what they do, so set the system up to allow them to achieve this!
Moderator
Joined: Sep 2004
Posts: 109,435
Likes: 1,651
From: SJC
Originally Posted by RBC3,Jan 14 2008, 01:22 PM
1st, I think that welfare should be a limited solution. A max of 5 years, except for extreme situations..ie illness and such.
[QUOTE]2nd, Welfare needs new strict guidelines.
Registered User
Joined: May 2006
Posts: 9,409
Likes: 0
From: Calgary
Originally Posted by 8D_In_Trunk,Jan 14 2008, 02:57 PM
Collect welfare, loose your rights. Nice.
BTW when did drug use become a right? I have several clients who perform random testing on their employees for alcohol consumption, as required by their insurance to continue receiving coverage.
I do know what you're getting at though, but I happen to think that if you are on welfare, you better not be spending money on drugs or alcohol. Everyone may have the right to abuse themselves with intoxicants I guess, but the place you're getting the handout money from has every right to have you agree to spend it only in approved places.
Registered User
Joined: Sep 2006
Posts: 2,440
Likes: 1
From: NORCAL
Originally Posted by zeiss,Jan 14 2008, 02:03 PM
" the people that are poor come from 3rd world countries. Poor people in america just dont have the luxuries that others have. "
Less than $303 a month for three people in the U.S. is poor. This isn't a matter of not having luxuries. This is a matter of not having money for food and shelter. Where can you live in the U.S. on less than $101 a person a month? That's $1,012 a year. I'd like to see someone live on that annual salary for a month, let alone try to survive for a year on that amount. Or is there some place in the U.S. where the cost of living is so fantastically low that one could live on that?
Less than $303 a month for three people in the U.S. is poor. This isn't a matter of not having luxuries. This is a matter of not having money for food and shelter. Where can you live in the U.S. on less than $101 a person a month? That's $1,012 a year. I'd like to see someone live on that annual salary for a month, let alone try to survive for a year on that amount. Or is there some place in the U.S. where the cost of living is so fantastically low that one could live on that?
he says he collects over $10,000 a year.
jumbo jacks from jack in the box cost 99 cents and provide 600 calories. theoretically, one could eat 3 jumbo jacks every day in order to maintain neare 2000 calories a day. thats 3 dollars x 30 days = ~$90 a month to survive. its possible.
i live in san francisco where there are a lot of bums. i have noticed a lot are overweight so i can assume there is no shortage on food. the US must be dumpster diving heaven.
Registered User
Joined: Nov 2007
Posts: 563
Likes: 0
From: Fircrest/Seattle
[QUOTE=trainwreck,Jan 14 2008, 02:33 PM] i saw a special on sports center last night about a retired man that collects cans for a local school sports program.
he says he collects over $10,000 a year.
jumbo jacks from jack in the box cost 99 cents and provide 600 calories.
he says he collects over $10,000 a year.
jumbo jacks from jack in the box cost 99 cents and provide 600 calories.
Registered User
Joined: May 2006
Posts: 9,409
Likes: 0
From: Calgary
Originally Posted by trainwreck,Jan 14 2008, 03:33 PM
jumbo jacks from jack in the box cost 99 cents and provide 600 calories. theoretically, one could eat 3 jumbo jacks every day in order to maintain neare 2000 calories a day. thats 3 dollars x 30 days = ~$90 a month to survive. its possible.