Every day is a new circus.

[JudgeRightly]

Or even looking for a job!

If someone isn't able to provide for themselves, they have roughly 5 6 options:

Option 1: Forage - not recommended, but, I guess, doable
Option 2: Get a different, better paying job (asking for a raise works too)
Option 3: Get another job in addition to the one they already have
Option 4: Do nothing and starve
Option 5: Request help from their family, friends, neighbors, and the church
Option 6: Demand that the government to take care of them using their neighbor's money, so that they can continue to be the losers that they are

 

[Arthur Brain]

If someone isn't able to provide for themselves, they have roughly 5 6 options:

Option 1: Forage - not recommended, but, I guess, doable
Option 2: Get a different, better paying job (asking for a raise works too)
Option 3: Get another job in addition to the one they already have
Option 4: Do nothing and starve
Option 5: Request help from their family, friends, neighbors, and the church
Option 6: Demand that the government to take care of them using their neighbor's money, so that they can continue to be the losers that they are

Well, not everybody has the luxury of family and friends that can help. There's no such thing as full employment so many people who are out of work aren't unemployed through choice and need help in the meantime. They'll have also paid taxes into the system that provides a safety net. It's no good arguing that they could take any old job as even competition for 'menial jobs' is high. Many who are out of work and homeless suffer with mental problems and that, btw, includes war veterans.

Still, you continue to righteously judge those on benefits as losers, as if you have a clue.

 

[JudgeRightly]

Well, not everybody has the luxury of family and friends that can help.

Which leaves them with neighbors and the church. :think:

:deadhorse:

I wonder what percentage of those who ]have family and friends who CAN help are refused help because they've burned the bridges between them...

There's no such thing as full employment

No idea what you're talking about...

so many people who are out of work aren't unemployed through choice and need help in the meantime.

Which brings us back to family, friends, neighbors, and the church...

They'll have also paid taxes into the system that provides a safety net.

Which is part of the problem, not the solution.

Eliminate the safety net programs and taxes will fall, and people will spend and give more because they have more to spend, which boosts the economy, which means jobs pay more, and more available to give to those in need, which solves (or at least, mitigates) the problem of those who are unwilling to give to those in need due to financial reasons...

It's no good arguing that they could take any old job

:think:

They could always work as a maid or butler for someone who is wealthy. That used to be a thing, but because of the redistribution of wealth brought about by socialist programs, there are fewer people who are financially stable enough to employ maids and butlers.

:idunno:

as even competition for 'menial jobs' is high.

Cite?

Many who are out of work and homeless suffer with mental problems and that, btw, includes war veterans.

Repeat after me:

Family, friends, neighbors, the church.

Still, you continue to righteously judge those on benefits as losers, as if you have a clue.

Like you would know...

 

[Arthur Brain]

Which leaves them with neighbors and the church. :think:

:deadhorse:

I wonder what percentage of those who ]have family and friends who CAN help are refused help because they've burned the bridges between them...

You keep flogging the same dead horse alright and the same obvious rebuttal stands. Even with welfare in place the church can only do so much to supplement those still in need, there's no way on earth they'd be able to help all of those out of work if that was their only recourse for help. Actually, come to think on it, if you think that only those who work should eat then why should the church bear responsibility for giving charity anyway? Shouldn't they just tell all of those "bums" to just get a job?

Why do you suppose that someone's neighbour is A: in a position to aid and B: would be willing to do so anyway? Your position is ignorantly simplistic at absolute best.

The last bit just smacks of snooty speculation. How many do you suppose come from broken homes and unstable backgrounds?

No idea what you're talking about...

What's tripping you up? There's no such thing as full employment, aka a job for everyone. With the advent of technology a lot of jobs have been replaced by machines, automated check out tills in supermarkets for one. We are not living in an age of tribes and low population levels where people were dependent on each other in order to survive.

Which brings us back to family, friends, neighbors, and the church...

Which has been addressed time and again already and for which you've never had a rebuttal that holds up to scrutiny.

Which is part of the problem, not the solution.

Eliminate the safety net programs and taxes will fall, and people will spend and give more because they have more to spend, which boosts the economy, which means jobs pay more, and more available to give to those in need, which solves (or at least, mitigates) the problem of those who are unwilling to give to those in need due to financial reasons...

No, it isn't. This is just 'pie in the sky' reasoning with nothing substantive to support it. If you think taxes would magically fall without a welfare system then that's just naive at best. How you even correlate a decrease in such with more charitable giving is again, just naive. You think most people would be willing to go and visit run down areas, council estates, ghettos to ensure that the poor would regularly have sustenance? Lots of people would just be glad to have more money and be no more inclined to help than beforehand.

:think:

They could always work as a maid or butler for someone who is wealthy. That used to be a thing, but because of the redistribution of wealth brought about by socialist programs, there are fewer people who are financially stable enough to employ maids and butlers.

Um, what world do you live in? :AMR: It was only the upper classes who could afford that kind of luxury and benefits didn't "destroy" any such thing. You really are prone to hyperbole. Also, just how would everyone be able to get a job as such given how many people are on the lower end of the financial ladder?

Cite?

Look at any given job site, a vacancy and how many applications have been sent. Look at advertisements that often advise that due to an expected high volume of applications they won't be able to respond to unsuccessful candidates. This is news to you?

Repeat after me:

Family, friends, neighbors, the church.

Um, why would I want to repeat an ignorant mantra?

Pass.

Like you would know...

A lot more than you. Your attitude towards people, simply for being out of work and on benefits is ignorant, uncharitable and bereft of understanding.

 

[annabenedetti]

Eliminate the safety net programs and taxes will fall, and people will spend and give more because they have more to spend, which boosts the economy, which means jobs pay more, and more available to give to those in need, which solves (or at least, mitigates) the problem of those who are unwilling to give to those in need due to financial reasons...

They could always work as a maid or butler for someone who is wealthy. That used to be a thing, but because of the redistribution of wealth brought about by socialist programs, there are fewer people who are financially stable enough to employ maids and butlers.

That's a rather cold-hearted way of looking at things, because it assumes the person is physically and mentally able to take care of themselves, or able to reach out when necessary, or that help is actually even there for them.

One of my kids and I used to deliver Meals on Wheels, and the majority of the people we delivered to were elderly, barely able to hang on living on their own by that point. Almost all lived in some kind of trailer or mobile home, more women than men (not surprising, given that women in general live longer than men).

One thing any Meals on Wheels volunteer can tell you is how heartbreakingly happy they are to see you, because they're virtual shut-ins at that point. If they're receiving Meal on Wheels, it's quite likely there is no family, no church to help, and they're past the point of getting a job, a better job, an extra job. They're elderly, and frail. These are the invisible people you drive past while you're on your way to your job or your fun activities, or your home where someone might be waiting for you.

These are women who were of a generation which wasn't as likely to have a college degree or a career which might provide them a more financially comfortable retirement. They can't cook anymore, they can't stand that long or they can't remember how the stove or the microwave works. They sit in their chairs all day because they don't know what else to do or that's all they can do. Meals on Wheels is a stopgap measure, it won't provide their space rent or pay for their supplemental insurance, or any other cost of living. And Meals on Wheels isn't free.

If our 'socialist programs' like Medicare and Social Security weren't here, where would these people go when they could no longer pay their rent?

 

[annabenedetti]

Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez Reveals Chilling Morning Ritual In Face Of Death Threats

Rep. Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez (D-N.Y.) hit back at a minor league baseball team that depicted her as an “enemy of freedom” in a Memorial Day tribute clip by revealing a regular morning ritual she goes through to ensure her safety.

The lawmaker on Tuesday responded to a controversial video that the Fresno Grizzlies aired at Chukchansi Park with a Twitter thread explaining how her life has changed due to “the flood of death threats” that those kind of “hateful messages” inspire.

“I‘ve had mornings where I wake up & the 1st thing I do w/ my coffee is review photos of the men (it’s always men) who want to kill me,” Ocasio-Cortez tweeted.

“I don’t even get to see all of them,” she added in a follow-up tweet. “Just the ones that have been flagged as particularly troubling.”​

 

[Arthur Brain]

That's a rather cold-hearted way of looking at things, because it assumes the person is physically and mentally able to take care of themselves, or able to reach out when necessary, or that help is actually even there for them.

One of my kids and I used to deliver Meals on Wheels, and the majority of the people we delivered to were elderly, barely able to hang on living on their own by that point. Almost all lived in some kind of trailer or mobile home, more women than men (not surprising, given that women in general live longer than men).

One thing any Meals on Wheels volunteer can tell you is how heartbreakingly happy they are to see you, because they're virtual shut-ins at that point. If they're receiving Meal on Wheels, it's quite likely there is no family, no church to help, and they're past the point of getting a job, a better job, an extra job. They're elderly, and frail. These are the invisible people you drive past while you're on your way to your job or your fun activities, or your home where someone might be waiting for you.

These are women who were of a generation which wasn't as likely to have a college degree or a career which might provide them a more financially comfortable retirement. They can't cook anymore, they can't stand that long or they can't remember how the stove or the microwave works. They sit in their chairs all day because they don't know what else to do or that's all they can do. Meals on Wheels is a stopgap measure, it won't provide their space rent or pay for their supplemental insurance, or any other cost of living. And Meals on Wheels isn't free.

If our 'socialist programs' like Medicare and Social Security weren't here, where would these people go when they could no longer pay their rent?

Just brilliantly put.

:thumb:

 

[Arthur Brain]

That's a rather cold-hearted way of looking at things, because it assumes the person is physically and mentally able to take care of themselves, or able to reach out when necessary, or that help is actually even there for them.

One of my kids and I used to deliver Meals on Wheels, and the majority of the people we delivered to were elderly, barely able to hang on living on their own by that point. Almost all lived in some kind of trailer or mobile home, more women than men (not surprising, given that women in general live longer than men).

One thing any Meals on Wheels volunteer can tell you is how heartbreakingly happy they are to see you, because they're virtual shut-ins at that point. If they're receiving Meal on Wheels, it's quite likely there is no family, no church to help, and they're past the point of getting a job, a better job, an extra job. They're elderly, and frail. These are the invisible people you drive past while you're on your way to your job or your fun activities, or your home where someone might be waiting for you.

These are women who were of a generation which wasn't as likely to have a college degree or a career which might provide them a more financially comfortable retirement. They can't cook anymore, they can't stand that long or they can't remember how the stove or the microwave works. They sit in their chairs all day because they don't know what else to do or that's all they can do. Meals on Wheels is a stopgap measure, it won't provide their space rent or pay for their supplemental insurance, or any other cost of living. And Meals on Wheels isn't free.

If our 'socialist programs' like Medicare and Social Security weren't here, where would these people go when they could no longer pay their rent?

One of the people I visit as part of home care is a retired farmer approaching the age of 101. He has absolute family support and they pay for his care so he can still live on the farm home. He's a lovely guy and it was humbling when I first visited there some time ago. A lot of elderly people are vulnerable and alone where family isn't so much an option and they've outlived a lot of their friends. Will that matter to the likes of JR?

Let's see if he has it about him to address your post because it absolutely deserves a response.

 

[annabenedetti]

One of the people I visit as part of home care is a retired farmer approaching the age of 101. He has absolute family support and they pay for his care so he can still live on the farm home. He's a lovely guy and it was humbling when I first visited there some time ago. A lot of elderly people are vulnerable and alone where family isn't so much an option and they've outlived a lot of their friends. Will that matter to the likes of JR?

Let's see if he has it about him to address your post because it absolutely deserves a response.

So true. At age 101 it's likely he served in WWII?

I hope he does respond. It's the kind of discussion looked for here, right?

 

[Arthur Brain]

So true. At age 101 it's likely he served in WWII?

I hope he does respond. It's the kind of discussion looked for here, right?

Yes, it is although I don't know his entire background. He's very well respected among the staff and has had no time for platitudes or recognition of any sort.

It absolutely is the sort of discussion for around here.

 

[annabenedetti]

Waaay too late for media to realize they should've been using the word "lies" all along. They were too hesitant until it didn't make a difference anymore. There's no doubt that as much as the right wants to be outraged by 'leftist' news - with few exceptions mainstream media failed in their duty to say the hard words.

 

[annabenedetti]

Trump in his own words today on Twitter:

"I had nothing to do with Russia helping me to get elected."

 

[annabenedetti]

I forgot I saved this one. Somewhere, can't remember where, I read an online Trumpster comment that perfectly illustrates his base's adoration. I'd be rofl if it wasn't so sad.


"President Trump is a mighty stallion of sheer POWER"

 

[Arthur Brain]

Trump in his own words today on Twitter:

"I had nothing to do with Russia helping me to get elected."

What a giveaway...

:freak:

 

[Arthur Brain]

Trump in his own words today on Twitter:

"I had nothing to do with Russia helping me to get elected."

It's gotten beyond a circus now. Not that clowns are funny in particular anyway but this one has tweeted himself beyond the slapstick phase.

Yet there'll still be folk clamouring that he can "make America great again"! Whatever that means...

 

[Town Heretic]

It's gotten beyond a circus now. Not that clowns are funny in particular anyway but this one has tweeted himself beyond the slapstick phase.

Yet there'll still be folk clamouring that he can "make America great again"! Whatever that means...

It seems mostly a code for aging white people. A way of saying what they can't say aloud about power sharing.

 

[ok doser]

It's gotten beyond a circus now. Not that clowns are funny in particular anyway but this one has tweeted himself beyond the slapstick phase.

Yet there'll still be folk clamouring that he can "make America great again"! Whatever that means...

meanwhile, the government in great britain is in freefall, brexit hangs by a thread and all artie can talk about is "orangemanbad"

 

[Arthur Brain]

meanwhile, the government in great britain is in freefall, brexit hangs by a thread and all artie can talk about is "orangemanbad"

Oh, it certainly is, a shambles in fact and a complete farce. What, you think that's news to anyone over here? At least I don't pretend otherwise while some over the pond still remain in denial...

 

[ok doser]

people in france are in denial?

 

[ok doser]

Yet there'll still be folk clamouring that he can "make America great again"! Whatever that means...

so far it's meant a resurgent economy, historically low unemployment rates for Hispanics and Negroes, a disentanglement from the aggressive messes left by bammy in syria and north korea...