Out-of-state welfare money being used around Orlando attractions

Chriscub said:
."...Unless I can my own PC so I can be on Facebook during working hours..I am NOT interested.." your own PC at a pizza restaurant ????

What a moron. Doesn't he know that's what Smartphones are for?

Aamilj, your use of RANDOMLY capitalized WORDS is very IMPRESSIVE. I for ONE have been CONVINCED solely by the INTENSITY with which you HOLD your VIEWS.

Until something is done to address the growing income inequality gap in this country, there's not going to be a lot of ways to get people off of government assistance. I know the political right has it in their minds that everyone on government assistance is a lazy moron who sits at home all day watching Judge Judy while collecting their "fat" welfare checks. Most people want to work, but 15 hours a week at McDonald's just isn't going to provide enough for a single person to live on, much less someone with a family.

As long as all the money keeps flowing upwards, nothing is going to change. Trickle down economics has been proven time and again to be a failure, but yet we just keep trying it.

CP Chris said:
Most people want to work, but 15 hours a week at McDonald's just isn't going to provide enough for a single person to live on, much less someone with a family.

Well, there's the problem! We should all be able to support families by working 15 hours a week at McDonald's!

It's so obvious in hindisght. :)

I meant to suggest that the McJobs are mistakenly being touted as a good alternative to unemployment or welfare. In a lot of places and for a lot of people, better jobs simply don't exist or aren't available. If those better jobs were being created, it would be a totally different story.

CP Chris said:
I meant to suggest that the McJobs are mistakenly being touted as a good alternative to unemployment or welfare.

This I'll give you. However, any job is a better alternative than welfare.

In a lot of places and for a lot of people, better jobs simply don't exist or aren't available.

I think that says more about the people than anything. Our philosphy has always been to follow the money. I'm a firm believer that if there aren't jobs or jobs suited for you in your area, you go find the jobs.

If those better jobs were being created, it would be a totally different story.

Then people need to create opportunity and quit complaining that someone else isn't.

There's a very self-sufficient theme in my replies. And it's not just lip service. This is exactly how I (we? my wife and I? my family? whatever.) have made our way through life. We've taken crap jobs when needed, we gone where we needed to for things to happen, and we've taken initiative to create situations that benefit our financial well-being.

So forgive me for having opinions shaded by experience. I have a hard time understanding why everyone can't do what seems so obvious (and successful) for regular schlub like me and his family.

And I do understand that it's not always possible, but too often the things you're citing simply sound like excuses. You can wait forever for someone else to change your situation or you can go out and try to change it yourself. I'll always bet on myself first and foremost.

Great points Gonch, but not everyone has the ability to change their situation on a whim. Not saying I don't agree with you, but some people in this country have been down for so long they might feel they can't make their own luck like you obviously have.

In that case, the next move should be obvious: Occupy.

In early November, Rock Center with Bryan Williams reported about a job opportunity surge in Williston, ND. There is apparently an oil boom in the area that has created a lot of employment opportunity there. They featured three gentlemen and a newly married couple who all moved to Williston to seek these opportunities. I believe at least one was living out of his car and spoke to being down to his last few dollars...literally. The couple was lucky enough to find a basement space of someone's home to live in.

The problem is that this area can't accommodate this migration just yet. They don't have the housing infrastructure. So you can move there for the work, but you won't have any place to live.

In fact, after the report aired, they were inundated with calls, emails, and requests for applications. That's a good sign that folks really do want to work, but maybe don't know where the opportunities are. But even still, the locals are worried about the approaching winter and the fact that there is no place for people moving to the area to live.

Anyway, I guess the point for me, is yes, there are opportunities. But no, the choices and sacrifices aren't nearly as simple as some make them out to be.

The resonating theme in all of these discussions seem to revolve around perception. What does it really mean to be living in poverty? And what does it really mean to make sacrifices to find opportunity?

CP Chris said:
Until something is done to address the growing income inequality gap in this country...

No one seems willing to make me understand why this has to be addressed. Why exactly is this a problem? By problem, I mean economically, not in terms of what's "fair" (because crying about what you don't have has nothing to do with real life).

Vater said:
In that case, the next move should be obvious: Occupy.

Occupy = free camping

Jeff said:
No one seems willing to make me understand why this has to be addressed. Why exactly is this a problem? By problem, I mean economically, not in terms of what's "fair" (because crying about what you don't have has nothing to do with real life).

Please tell me that you don't really believe that in the way you and others keep presenting it. First of all, crying about what you don't have has everything to do with real life unless you live in a society that's different than mine. It is our culture. But besides that, I really don't understand some of the seemingly callous statements you and others make about the "have nots." Again, it's part of that perception issue I mention, I think.

But anyway, let me see if I can at least try to make a statement that speaks to the problem. How about procreation? With an anecdotal perspective only... is it possible that the folks on the lower end of the gap are having more babies than those on the upper end of the gap? If so, I would say that will have an economic impact at some point if the gap is not addressed.

Corkscrew Follies said:
Great points Gonch, but not everyone has the ability to change their situation on a whim. Not saying I don't agree with you, but some people in this country have been down for so long they might feel they can't make their own luck like you obviously have.

Why not?

They might feel they can't make their own luck, but that doesn't mean they can't do it.

And Aamilj has a very important point: How does it benefit the country in general if we insure that at least 50% of our population is dependent on government assistance? The other 50% of the population can't afford to pay for that! I already pay right around 36% of my income to various taxes*, to the point where supporting the government is my highest expense (my next biggest single expense is the 9.6% I spend on my house). And even with the governments taking the biggest single share of my income, they have demonstrated that they don't collect enough in taxes to cover the costs of all of their activities. As government dependency grows, where does the money come from? It won't do any good to take so much from me that I become dependent on government assistance myself!

At some point, we all have to make our own luck. Gonch is a useful case study, as if I remember correctly from previous discussions, he even lacks a certain widely-recognized advantage that many of the rest of us have, and yet he seems to have done pretty well for himself. The trick is to be willing to take action on your own behalf!

--Dave Althoff, Jr.

* Includes income, sales, gasoline, property, and vehicle license taxes

--DCAjr

That's part of the story, but not all. Again, I point to the situation in North Dakota, where they have lots of opportunity but not the living infrastructure to support the migration. It's not all as simple as people make it out to be.

And I respect the hell out of Gonch. I really do. But I don't think his situation is at all the same as everyone's, though I admittedly don't know his entire story. But transferring work situations to follow the money or to open the doors to advancement is not the same as having absolutely nothing and needing to migrate to a new area and start from scratch. I've made similar moves as what I believe Gonch and his wife have done to sustain and even better my situation. Hooray.

But I haven't met really hard times. At all. How many of us can really say we know what that means, let alone what we'd do if we were in that situation?

I've followed my job across the country and back twice. But, I have never hit rock bottom either so I don' t know what I would do in that situation either.

With our Government's issue at balancing their own budget what can they do but increase taxes across the board and decrease their own spending on stupid wars and useless pork barrel spending.

And in the last 20 yrs. or so it doesn't matter if its a Democrat, Republican or a tea-bagger in office all they care about is who greases their wheels the most.

Jeff said:
No one seems willing to make me understand why this has to be addressed. Why exactly is this a problem? By problem, I mean economically, not in terms of what's "fair"...

I'll take a stab at it, though I've probably made similar comments in the past.

Funneling the money to a small percentage of the population is not a sustainable economic model. If we're to assume that most of the wealthy folks in this Country are business owners or job creators or whatever, that dictates that their income relies on their businesses' health. If the vast majority (the so-called "99%") of folks can no longer afford to go to the movies, eat a microwaved dinner at Applebee's, buy a new car and so on, then the wealthy minority will see their income stream dry up.

Business owners do not, have never, and likely never will "create jobs" simply due to a tax break or other monetary incentive. The only reason a job is ever created is due to demand. If, through some mechanism, that concentrated wealth was distributed among the less-wealthy majority, the movie theater would have lines out the door, requiring additional staff; Applebee's would need to buy 2 more microwaves and staff them; Assan Motors would have to build another factory to meet demand.

As it is now, tax breaks for "job creators" have done nothing but funnel money, rightly or wrongly, into the hands of a minority. "Spreading the wealth", as Obama so unfortunately stated during his 2008 campaign, really does have some economic logic behind it, unpopular though the concept may be.

Carrie J. said:
But I haven't met really hard times. At all. How many of us can really say we know what that means, let alone what we'd do if we were in that situation?

A couple of things.

1. What defines hard times? It sounds like such a cliche and I even feel like stupid for bringing it up, but I grew up in and around this stuff and it still affects people very close to me today. By accepted definitions I grew up in poverty, we existed thanks to public assistance. Most of my friends and neighbors did too and most of them still live that way - including family. And since I've moved out on my own and after I was married and such, I suspect we've been in worse situations than most would imagine (especially given what appears to be a disparity in my definition of bad and society's definition). I'm not entirely comfortable divulging details which doesn't help my credibility, but I like to think I'm not just "looking down my nose at the lazies." I truly believe I hold the strong opinions I do because of experience more than anything.

Not that the fact gives me carte blanche to say whatever I want, but...

2.Have we (you, I, whomever) not met really hard times because of how we approach life? Maybe people who do well (or cover themselves at least) all share the same qualities? Maybe it really isn't much harder than playing the game correctly to some degree?

3. I don't believe there are any guarantees in life. It's nice to think someone, everyone, some greater entity has your back, but I don't think it should be considered a given - a right. I suppose that follows the line of thought as to what is guaranteed in life and to me, it's simply the chance to play the game. Not everyone can win.

4. And to follow up that thought, how much are we supposed to have as this 'right' to have certain things? Someone mentioned it earlier, but we have a good bit of 'first world poor' in our country. People with 40-inch LCDs and PS3s attached that are considered to be living in poverty. Now that doesn't mean everyone lives like this - there are certainly people seriously hurting out there for a multitude of reasons. But what are our expectations? I personally feel they've been blown WAY out of proportion. And by definition half the people will have less than the other half, so how much is a right? Does the top 50% have to give to the bottom 50% to make it 'fair' in some way - or the top 1% to the bottom 99% as the case may be? That seems like such crap.

5. There's a human factor involved to be sure. At some point what happens to the simple goodness of caring for your fellow man? I get that. But I go back to the idea that everyone can't have everything. I'm not sure there's a society in the history of human life that worked that way. At what point is it one's responsibility to care for another and to what degree?

That's pretty much all I have. I don't even know what it means. They're areas I consider and think about and somehow all add up to my opinion on the subject. Some would say it's a ****ty attitude, I'd argue that it's a realistic one.

Just my 2c for now:
How much of Gonch's story (or the story of whoever pulled themselves up by their own boot straps) is truly personality and how much is circumstance?

We can safely say that there are a lot of people who don't try and lose and that's okay. We can safely say there are a lot of people who do try and win and that's okay.

But how many people try and, for circumstances outside of their control, still lose? And how many people don't try and, for circumstances outside of their control, still win?

And to what extent are either of these bad things?

(Not even going to get into how much of a person's personality is a result of their circumstance.)

The luck vs skill debate has always been interesting to me. I often sway from side to side on that one, because I believe that circumstance plays a role, but I can also see how being aware of circumstance such that you can ward off bad situations, also plays a big role. Interesting stuff, always.

Gonch, I hear you. I also have a story. Like someone else mentioned in this thread, my family had to use the food bank to sustain itself while I was growing up. Is that hard times? Don't know. We survived. But it was indeed with assistance. The program/plan worked for us. It worked for us as a family at the time until my dad got on his feet after an unexpected job loss and it worked for my siblings and myself who learned the value of financial/career planning in order to find success, however we define that.

So, in the end, it's a sore spot for me when a casual approach is taken to discussing assistance programs. Do folks take advantage? Yep. But do they also work in a lot of cases you probably don't hear about? Absolutely.

Carrie J. said:
The luck vs skill debate has always been interesting to me. I often sway from side to side on that one, because I believe that circumstance plays a role, but I can also see how being aware of circumstance such that you can ward off bad situations, also plays a big role. Interesting stuff, always.

Same here. Definitely interesting stuff. I'm pretty weird in that I don't think I necessarily believe in luck in that sense. I suspect that people who are 'lucky' have the abilty to do (whether consciously or not) exactly what you say - set themselves up in/with certain situations.

So, in the end, it's a sore spot for me when a casual approach is taken to discussing assistance programs. Do folks take advantage? Yep. But do they also work in a lot of cases you probably don't hear about? Absolutely.

I don't mean to imply that the system never helps those who deserve/need/benefit from it. But I feel that overall there's much wrong with it. I do wonder at what point one should be given help, how much and for how long.

Wow, there's a lot to respond to, so let me see if I can keep track of it all...

First off, Carrie, I think you're responding to something different than what I was asking. I was asking very specifically, why is it a problem if the "distance" between the rich and the average gets bigger? I mean that in the macroeconomic sense, not a moral sense. According to that graph, the average folks are still on the rise, just not as fast as the rich.

To Brandon's point, it's the phraseology of things, the toxic and divisive language, that really gets to me. To suggest that money is being "funneled" to anyone suggests that something immoral is occurring here. The general ethos of the whole occupy movement is that anyone who makes over $250k got there by being "greedy" or otherwise immoral, with complete disregard to how those people invest, conduct themselves or contribute time and money to charitable causes. That kind of annoys me.

Also to Brandon's point, I agree that ultimately it's market forces that decide whether or not a business owner a hires a person. That's how it should be. Raising taxes on the rich so they pay an effective rate equal to middle class people is absolutely the right thing to do, coupled with reduced spending. Not a single person in Washington will agree to that, however obvious it is.

I grew up a "have not" and had my share of grilled government cheese sandwiches. I've had more than my "fair" share of speed bumps in my adult life as well. My experience positions me pretty well to be sympathetic to people having a tough time. That said, this atmosphere of blaming the rich, "the system" and government is not productive. This country has a rich history of innovation and strong will to create, but that history is being displaced by a culture of victimhood and tears. I'm just not OK with that.

I think Andy's questions about people losing due to circumstance is a good question, and I don't know what the answers are. Ultimately people have to make choices about their lives, and it's hard for me to accept that you can't choose to overcome and change your circumstances. I've met too many people who came from the worst of places, under oppressive regimes, and see them come here and flourish, to accept that there's no way out.