1. While it is impossible (and undesirable) to ensure equality of outcome, society should strive for equality of opportunity.
2. No one, no matter how lazy or inept, should starve to death. No one should be denied access to basic shelter, or clean water.
3. No one, no matter their sexual orientation, religious beliefs (or lack thereof), race, or culture, should be denied the rights afforded to other citizens.
4. We're all people. We aren't better because of where we are from, or what god we believe in. We have no right to force others to our way of thinking through military or economic coercion.
5. Free markets are wonderful and useful, but they aren't perfect. Their proper operation sometimes requires circumstances that do not exist in the real world, therefore not everything can be fixed by "letting the market handle it."
6. Fundamentalism of all stripes is evil. The most common type of fundamentalism in the modern world is religious.
7. Beware anyone who seeks to dehumanize others.
8. There are very few absolutes. Though humans like to think that way, most things in the real world just aren't that simple. Beware oversimplification and binary thinking.
9. Violence is the last resort; sometimes the last resort is necessary. Usually it isn't.
10. Knowledge is knowing what you don't know. If the other guy's position seems stupid to you, you probably don't understand it.
I reserve the right to add more later. :)
2. No one, no matter how lazy or inept, should starve to death.
This one is the big argument point for me. If you are too lazy to work, you should reap the consequences of your laziness. If that means starving, you starve.
Those who go to the effort of actually doing something, or at least trying, should never have to pick up the slack for those who refuse to do so. Those who cannot - injury, illness, mental incapacity, or other such restrictions - are a different class, but those who willingly choose "I'm lazy and won't work" should get what they have coming to them.
If you make an effort, even if you fail, I'll help you; if you don't even do that much, I have no use for you.
Maybe I would word a couple of things differently, but for the basics, I pretty much side with what you've declared here.
2. No one, no matter how lazy or inept, should starve to death.This one is the big argument point for me. If you are too lazy to work, you should reap the consequences of your laziness. If that means starving, you starve.
Those who go to the effort of actually doing something, or at least trying, should never have to pick up the slack for those who refuse to do so. Those who cannot - injury, illness, mental incapacity, or other such restrictions - are a different class, but those who willingly choose "I'm lazy and won't work" should get what they have coming to them.
If you make an effort, even if you fail, I'll help you; if you don't even do that much, I have no use for you.
They should still get food and water, but they should be basics. If they do not produce honest fruits of labor according to their capabilities, then they shouldn't be getting the prime rib but rather the rump roast. ;)
They should still get food and water, but they should be basics. If they do not produce honest fruits of labor according to their capabilities, then they shouldn't be getting the prime rib but rather the rump roast. ;)2. No one, no matter how lazy or inept, should starve to death.This one is the big argument point for me. If you are too lazy to work, you should reap the consequences of your laziness. If that means starving, you starve.
Those who go to the effort of actually doing something, or at least trying, should never have to pick up the slack for those who refuse to do so. Those who cannot - injury, illness, mental incapacity, or other such restrictions - are a different class, but those who willingly choose "I'm lazy and won't work" should get what they have coming to them.
If you make an effort, even if you fail, I'll help you; if you don't even do that much, I have no use for you.
Who's going to provide it for them then? If they're willingly unwilling to make even the slightest effort, I don't think they deserve for someone else to foot the bill for them. And that includes through their taxes.
Who's going to provide it for them then? If they're willingly unwilling to make even the slightest effort, I don't think they deserve for someone else to foot the bill for them. And that includes through their taxes.
I will. The marginal cost of feeding someone a subsistence diet is so laughably low as to be moot. I'm not talking about *good* food here, just enough calories to keep you healthy. Green baloney Arizona jail style if need be. That alone would easily motivate almost anyone...
That's perfectly fine then, if that's your choice to do with what's yours then I have no complaints.
|
Who's going to provide it for them then? If they're willingly unwilling to make even the slightest effort, I don't think they deserve for someone else to foot the bill for them. And that includes through their taxes.I will. The marginal cost of feeding someone a subsistence diet is so laughably low as to be moot. I'm not talking about *good* food here, just enough calories to keep you healthy. Green baloney Arizona jail style if need be. That alone would easily motivate almost anyone...
The problem with this approach is when this program gets into the hands of the politicians who quickly realize that they have a ready voting block available by incrementally increasing and improving these necessities.
Eventually, it creeps up to the point where there is little incentive for someone to take an entry level/minimum wage job because the government (by taxing the productive) will provide better without the lazy/ienpt having to work for it.
If it could fixed so that politicians couldn't use it as leverage to sway votes, then I'd be inclined to agree with this sentiment.
Who's going to provide it for them then? If they're willingly unwilling to make even the slightest effort, I don't think they deserve for someone else to foot the bill for them. And that includes through their taxes.I will. The marginal cost of feeding someone a subsistence diet is so laughably low as to be moot. I'm not talking about *good* food here, just enough calories to keep you healthy. Green baloney Arizona jail style if need be. That alone would easily motivate almost anyone...
Very true. As cheap as baloney, red beans and rice, and Spam is nobody should have to starve in the U.S..
Who's going to provide it for them then? If they're willingly unwilling to make even the slightest effort, I don't think they deserve for someone else to foot the bill for them. And that includes through their taxes.I will. The marginal cost of feeding someone a subsistence diet is so laughably low as to be moot. I'm not talking about *good* food here, just enough calories to keep you healthy. Green baloney Arizona jail style if need be. That alone would easily motivate almost anyone...The problem with this approach is when this program gets into the hands of the politicians who quickly realize that they have a ready voting block available by incrementally increasing and improving these necessities.
Eventually, it creeps up to the point where there is little incentive for someone to take an entry level/minimum wage job because the government (by taxing the productive) will provide better without the lazy/ienpt having to work for it.
If it could fixed so that politicians couldn't use it as leverage to sway votes, then I'd be inclined to agree with this sentiment.
Bingo.
No person should be forced to eat baloney. Death has more dignity.
Very true. As cheap as baloney, red beans and rice, and Spam is nobody should have to starve in the U.S..
There is the option.
No person should be forced to eat baloney. Death has more dignity.
Very true. As cheap as baloney, red beans and rice, and Spam is nobody should have to starve in the U.S..
Not when there's perfectly good Spam available!
2. No one, no matter how lazy or inept, should starve to death.This one is the big argument point for me. If you are too lazy to work, you should reap the consequences of your laziness. If that means starving, you starve.
Those who go to the effort of actually doing something, or at least trying, should never have to pick up the slack for those who refuse to do so. Those who cannot - injury, illness, mental incapacity, or other such restrictions - are a different class, but those who willingly choose "I'm lazy and won't work" should get what they have coming to them.
If you make an effort, even if you fail, I'll help you; if you don't even do that much, I have no use for you.
+ 10 billion
Next thing people will be expecting others to bathe and clothe them too, even if they are perfectly capable of doing so themselves.
Who's going to provide it for them then? If they're willingly unwilling to make even the slightest effort, I don't think they deserve for someone else to foot the bill for them. And that includes through their taxes.
So, if you're a parent and you have a lazy child who won't do a stitch of work around the house, are you going to starve them out. Or make them watch Sound of Music as punishment?
:P
Who's going to provide it for them then? If they're willingly unwilling to make even the slightest effort, I don't think they deserve for someone else to foot the bill for them. And that includes through their taxes.So, if you're a parent and you have a lazy child who won't do a stitch of work around the house, are you going to starve them out. Or make them watch Sound of Music as punishment?
:P
There were multiple times my parents threatened me with no food until I got my chores done. I see no reason why I wouldn't do the same. You do the math. :)
(Besides, too many people in my family like TSOM for that to be effective even on those of us who don't. ;) )
As an example: Do you know anyone on unemployment right now? How hard do they work to find a job when they have 6 months left on their unemployment? What did extending unemployment do for these people? Did it provide them with a few more months of hitting the streets for a job or a few more months of Playstation/ Oprah/ Travel/ etc? For every one person who got back to work as fast as possible I bet I can find 3 or more that use it as an extended vacation. Who pays for this when its a free vacation?
This is exactly why I haven't yet applied for unemployment, despite being a month and a half without work. One, I still had money left from my last paycheck (though that's about to run out) and two, I was hoping to find a job before it ran out. No luck, still looking, but I'm - as much as I despise the thought - nearing the point where I may have to do it anyway.
So, if you're a parent and you have a lazy child who won't do a stitch of work around the house, are you going to starve them out. Or make them watch Sound of Music as punishment?
You are legally required to see to the health and well-being of your minor dependents. You should ensure they have adequate food and shelter available to them. Should your child refuse to be a participating member of your household then you are free to use whatever social correctional tools you wish so long as they are not illegal. Deprivation often works wonders with children. Take away the things they enjoy and you can quickly correct them into complying with your households social expectations.
I know personally that if I were unemployed tomorrow I would be at the unemployment office first thing in the morning, or as quickly after becoming unemployed as possible. I have a responsibility to my family to ensure adequate food and shelter and I have many financial responsibilities I must ensure are met. I have no problem taking advantage (using the term loosely) of a system I have spent over 20 years paying into in order to ensure my family does not suffer. I have no idea how long I will be unemployed and waiting until the last minute, for me, would be irresponsible. If I were wealthy or had adequate savings to cover several months of not working then I might not go apply right away, but I would certainly otherwise.
|
|
Who's going to provide it for them then? If they're willingly unwilling to make even the slightest effort, I don't think they deserve for someone else to foot the bill for them. And that includes through their taxes.So, if you're a parent and you have a lazy child who won't do a stitch of work around the house, are you going to starve them out. Or make them watch Sound of Music as punishment?
:P
A lazy, stubborn, and/or disobedient child has no say in the running of the household, nor are the parents required by law to abide by their suggestions.
In keeping with this example, if people who were living on taxpayer provided amenities were denied the right to vote for the duration that they were receiving said services, then it would be an apples to apples comparison.
New subject.
6. Fundamentalism of all stripes is evil.
Explain why.
Bella Sara Charter Superscriber
|
Maybe I'm just lucky, but I have yet to meet any of these people who are so lazy that they will starve to death. I've met people too incompetent to hold a job, I've met people who have no idea what is reasonable for an employer to expect and for them to perform, but I've never met anyone who is capable of having a job but chooses not to just to get a free ride. Do these people really exist outside of farm fields where they presumably scare off stray birds?
Plus, if such people starved to death, it wouldn't really be a problem. They'd have all died out by now. They're much more likely to switch to black market employment *cough* crime *cough*.
Honestly, if given a choice between allocating resources to prisons/law enforcement and to just keeping these people fed, clothed, and out of my way, I'd choose the later (assuming, of course, it's cheaper). I don't particularly give a rats ass if someone doesn't want to work or not. If they are able to live with themselves and those around them while being a drain on society, that's their business. Maybe I'm old-fashioned, but I think the rewards of having a career, doing good work, and being a productive member of society are greater than merely the cash value of my paycheck. Which is not to say that I would work for no monetary compensation, but rather that people who would receive monetary compensation without work are still losing out on a lot in life. I feel bad for them, but not particularly angry.
At least as long as its cost effective to subsidize them. Obviously, there are limits to my willingness to pay someone to f~%* off.
In keeping with this example, if people who were living on taxpayer provided amenities were denied the right to vote for the duration that they were receiving said services, then it would be an apples to apples comparison.
The problem is you have no way of knowing who is abusing the system and who is not. In a family of 4-5 (or maybe a few more) it is easy for a parent to see which member of their small social network is not contributing their expected share. A family is also unique in that it is not a democracy and minors do not have the same rights as adults. In a family, an adult (the parent or guardian) can explicitly give or take away rights as desired or even at their whim.
In general it is the families responsibility to see to the proper socialization of their spawn. Those ejected from the families small social structure into the greater social structure of "the world" are assumed to be able to "get along" with others. Often that socialization process is only made possible due to the complete authority of the parent figure over the child figure. The parent figure is king and/or god in their small social network.
Maybe I'm just lucky, but I have yet to meet any of these people who are so lazy that they will starve to death. I've met people too incompetent to hold a job, I've met people who have no idea what is reasonable for an employer to expect and for them to perform, but I've never met anyone who is capable of having a job but chooses not to just to get a free ride. Do these people really exist outside of farm fields where they presumably scare off stray birds?
I see some of these people fairly often. I drive along the infamous 8-mile (made so well known thanks to Detroits own Eminem). There are countless places on 8-mile where these sorts occupy corners with cardboard signs asking people to support them. These individuals have been occupying these same corners for over a decade and no amount of charity has changed their social situation. These individuals appear to be taking advantage of the charity of others.
Plus, if such people starved to death, it wouldn't really be a problem. They'd have all died out by now. They're much more likely to switch to black market employment *cough* crime *cough*.
Oh they certainly wouldn't starve to death, but their drug and alcohol habits might be impaired for a bit.
Honestly, if given a choice between allocating resources to prisons/law enforcement and to just keeping these people fed, clothed, and out of my way, I'd choose the later (assuming, of course, it's cheaper). I don't particularly give a rats ass if someone doesn't want to work or not. If they are able to live with themselves and those around them while being a drain on society, that's their business. Maybe I'm old-fashioned, but I think the rewards of having a career, doing good work, and being a productive member of society are greater than merely the cash value of my paycheck. Which is not to say that I would work for no monetary compensation, but rather that people who would receive monetary compensation without work are still losing out on a lot in life. I feel bad for them, but not particularly angry.
Bah. I don't make enough money to encourage other people not to support themselves. I'm all for paying somewhat into a communal fund for emergency temporary support for those between jobs but that support should be limited term and should be low enough to strongly encourage returning to supporting oneself as quickly as possible - not allowing them to suckle at the teat of common weal for their entire existence.
At least as long as its cost effective to subsidize them. Obviously, there are limits to my willingness to pay someone to f%!~ off.
lol
|
|
In keeping with this example, if people who were living on taxpayer provided amenities were denied the right to vote for the duration that they were receiving said services, then it would be an apples to apples comparison.The problem is you have no way of knowing who is abusing the system and who is not. In a family of 4-5 (or maybe a few more) it is easy for a parent to see which member of their small social network is not contributing their expected share. A family is also unique in that it is not a democracy and minors do not have the same rights as adults. In a family, an adult (the parent or guardian) can explicitly give or take away rights as desired or even at their whim.
In general it is the families responsibility to see to the proper socialization of their spawn. Those ejected from the families small social structure into the greater social structure of "the world" are assumed to be able to "get along" with others. Often that socialization process is only made possible due to the complete authority of the parent figure over the child figure. The parent figure is king and/or god in their small social network.
So you agree with me, then, that the analogy I responded to was flawed.
New subject.
6. Fundamentalism of all stripes is evil.Explain why.
Anyone so entrenched in their position that they cannot be swayed, irrespective of evidence, is dangerous. Surrendering your reason, and along with it your responsibility for your actions, leads to terrible, terrible things. Like, say, flying planes into buildings.
Anyone so entrenched in their position that they cannot be swayed, irrespective of evidence, is dangerous. Surrendering your reason, and along with it your responsibility for your actions, leads to terrible, terrible things. Like, say, flying planes into buildings.New subject.
6. Fundamentalism of all stripes is evil.Explain why.
So your opinion is that basically everyone who has leanings this way is a time bomb waiting to go off? Curious.
I'm mostly asking to find out if I qualify. I've gotten various different definitions of "fundamentalist" from different people, sometimes I match up sometimes I don't.
There were multiple times my parents threatened me with no food until I got my chores done. I see no reason why I wouldn't do the same. You do the math. :)
(Besides, too many people in my family like TSOM for that to be effective even on those of us who don't. ;) )
Because as children, our weak wills eventually succumb to fail. They won the battle of wills (as they were the primary income bringer and provider of food). Now, if you were stronger willed, they may eventually cave in or you'd find another way around.
....wait, that would cause ambition and you thus make an effort to be parceled your fair portion.
You tricked me, Orthos. Damn you! <raises fist>
:P
|
Anyone so entrenched in their position that they cannot be swayed, irrespective of evidence, is dangerous. Surrendering your reason, and along with it your responsibility for your actions, leads to terrible, terrible things. Like, say, flying planes into buildings.New subject.
6. Fundamentalism of all stripes is evil.Explain why.
I think that would be extremist. That we can agree is a dangerous thing. Fundamentalism is far to often labeled as such, but they are not one and the same.
|
Bella Sara Charter Superscriber
|
I see some of these people fairly often. I drive along the infamous 8-mile (made so well known thanks to Detroits own Eminem). There are countless places on 8-mile where these sorts occupy corners with cardboard signs asking people to support them. These individuals have been occupying these same corners for over a decade and no amount of charity has changed their social situation. These individuals appear to be taking advantage of the charity of others.
Given the unemployment rate in Michigan, and particularly in Detroit, both historically and currently, isn't it possible that these people can't get jobs because they're not available? Even if they are available, how do you know they are capable of holding down a job? It's likely they have a substance abuse problem or mental health problem or they wouldn't be on the street.
I'd rather cut out the middleman and just give them the money to go buy booze/drugs or, better yet, seek treatment and not have to see them panhandling. But, at the end of the day, they may never be hardworking productive members of society. I think we live in a wealthy enough society that we can spare enough for them to subsist even if they can't contribute.
Bah. I don't make enough money to encourage other people not to support themselves. I'm all for paying somewhat into a communal fund for emergency temporary support for those between jobs but that support should be limited term and should be low enough to strongly encourage returning to supporting oneself as quickly as possible - not allowing them to suckle at the teat of common weal for their entire existence.
What if they're not capable of getting a job?
I'm all for providing people the resources to improve their lot in life. I think it's a good idea to have them foot a portion of the cost to give them some skin in the game. I'm all for lining up the carrots from here to eternity, but I just can't get behind the notion that the "let them starve" stick really works. I don't think it transforms the incompetent leech into the competent productive member of society, it just drives the incompetent leech into worse niches in society where they cause problems for the competent productive members. As a competent productive member, I'd like to minimize the costs of the incompetent leeches, and if the easiest way to do that is to pay them to f&&+ off, I'm happy to pay them. I'm even happier to pay them to become productive. I pay for them one way or the other anyway - if not directly, then indirectly from the social ills that follow such people.
So your opinion is that basically everyone who has leanings this way is a time bomb waiting to go off? Curious.I'm mostly asking to find out if I qualify. I've gotten various different definitions of "fundamentalist" from different people, sometimes I match up sometimes I don't.
I'm not sure what you mean by "leanings this way."
Anyone who is so convinced that they have the One True Way that they're willing to kill others "for their own good," or "for a higher cause" are time bombs waiting to go off, yes. That's what I mean by fundamentalist. In retrospect, that term is muddy enough to avoid (which I didn't realize until you asked me to clarify).
I think that would be extremist. That we can agree is a dangerous thing. Fundamentalism is far to often labeled as such, but they are not one and the same.Anyone so entrenched in their position that they cannot be swayed, irrespective of evidence, is dangerous. Surrendering your reason, and along with it your responsibility for your actions, leads to terrible, terrible things. Like, say, flying planes into buildings.New subject.
6. Fundamentalism of all stripes is evil.Explain why.
Exactly.
I think that would be extremist. That we can agree is a dangerous thing. Fundamentalism is far to often labeled as such, but they are not one and the same.
Thank you, that is a better word.
Anyone who is so convinced that they have the One True Way that they're willing to kill others "for their own good," or "for a higher cause" are time bombs waiting to go off, yes. That's what I mean by fundamentalist. In retrospect, that term is muddy enough to avoid (which I didn't realize until you asked me to clarify).
Okay, so you draw the line at "willing to kill", which I am not. That's what I was looking for.
Just as an addendum, I really don't disagree with the POV about those not doing their share in order to be fed. I'm guilty of being a devil's adovcate or subtly sarcastic. My true feelings are actually more ambivalent to their woes up to a point that if they starve themselves out by laziness, then it's just another cycle of attrition in the natural order. But that's a topic of social darwinism for another OTP. ;)
Okay, so you draw the line at "willing to kill", which I am not. That's what I was looking for.Anyone who is so convinced that they have the One True Way that they're willing to kill others "for their own good," or "for a higher cause" are time bombs waiting to go off, yes. That's what I mean by fundamentalist. In retrospect, that term is muddy enough to avoid (which I didn't realize until you asked me to clarify).
Well, I'd also include willing to inflict bodily harm, kidnap, torture, etc. People can disagree as vehemently as they like. Once they use violence to achieve their ends, they've gone over the line. Extremism, however, is a much better word in any case.
Literal starvation is much more of a danger for the mentally ill, homeless, handicapped, or the children of neglectful parents. I don't think many people would actually rather starve than do the 15 minutes of work they'd need to do at minimum wage to earn enough calories to survive.
Edit: I surprised it is this particular issue that is generating the most responses. I'm kinda shocked at the number of people who seem to feel that death by starvation is an appropriate punishment for laziness...
Okay, so you draw the line at "willing to kill", which I am not. That's what I was looking for.Anyone who is so convinced that they have the One True Way that they're willing to kill others "for their own good," or "for a higher cause" are time bombs waiting to go off, yes. That's what I mean by fundamentalist. In retrospect, that term is muddy enough to avoid (which I didn't realize until you asked me to clarify).
Well, I'd also include willing to inflict bodily harm, kidnap, torture, etc. People can disagree as vehemently as they like. Once they use violence to achieve their ends, they've gone over the line. Extremism, however, is a much better word in any case.
*nodnod* I would agree with you there. In that case your first post in that sentence makes more sense.
Edit: I surprised it is this particular issue that is generating the most responses. I'm kinda shocked at the number of people who seem to feel that death by starvation is an appropriate punishment for laziness...
I think that's just because that's the first one that got discussed. I'll admit I'm not very generous towards the idea of someone not being willing to do anything to help their own case, as I stated above. Thankfully the amount of people involved in that sort of thing is relatively small.
Literal starvation is much more of a danger for the mentally ill, homeless, handicapped, or the children of neglectful parents. I don't think many people would actually rather starve than do the 15 minutes of work they'd need to do at minimum wage to earn enough calories to survive.
And these people are either exceptions, or they're at least trying. That I can respect. It's those who are capable and choose simply to not do anything that are the subjects of my ire.
|
|
Thank you, that is a better word.
I think that would be extremist. That we can agree is a dangerous thing. Fundamentalism is far to often labeled as such, but they are not one and the same.
That said, and I know you and I very seldom agree when we post on these types of threads, there are far to many folks on either side of any debate who refuse to be truly willing to discuss their stance without resorting to attacks. I once heard, can't remeber from where/who, that the true sign of actual intellegence is the ability to consider that ones own outlook may not be correct. What I m saying in a roundabout way is I agree that those who refuse to see the possibility that the "other side" has valid points, is both smallminded and far to entrinched in their own opinion to be considered rational.
|
|
I know personally that if I were unemployed tomorrow I would be at the unemployment office first thing in the morning, or as quickly after becoming unemployed as possible. I have a responsibility to my family to ensure adequate food and shelter and I have many financial responsibilities I must ensure are met. I have no problem taking advantage (using the term loosely) of a system I have spent over 20 years paying into in order to ensure my family does not suffer. I have no idea how long I will be unemployed and waiting until the last minute, for me, would be irresponsible. If I were wealthy or had adequate savings to cover several months of not working then I might not go apply right away, but I would certainly otherwise.
+1. Trust me, for me at least. being out of a job for the last four and a half monthes has been the worst hell I can imagine. It has not been a vacation.
|
|
I think where a lot of people, myself included, get frustrated is in cases when people don't even try to get back on their feet. We have a neighbor who recieves food stamps, housing assistance nd child support from two different guys. Now she works, and makes decent money, but she can't pay her rent on time, complains about not hving any money, but then gets a new car, new furniture, and her kids got a Wii this christmas from a local charity. I get a little P.O.'d that when we needed a hand we were told "we make to much money".... well hell. If I made to much money then I wouldn't be asking for help now would I?
I have arrived. Please do not fight anymore, as all contrary opinions have been outlawed.
I have arrived. Please do not fight anymore, as all contrary opinions have been outlawed.
Do you really want to go Pony-boy?
|
|
I know personally that if I were unemployed tomorrow I would be at the unemployment office first thing in the morning, or as quickly after becoming unemployed as possible. I have a responsibility to my family to ensure adequate food and shelter and I have many financial responsibilities I must ensure are met. I have no problem taking advantage (using the term loosely) of a system I have spent over 20 years paying into in order to ensure my family does not suffer. I have no idea how long I will be unemployed and waiting until the last minute, for me, would be irresponsible. If I were wealthy or had adequate savings to cover several months of not working then I might not go apply right away, but I would certainly otherwise.
Um, I don't know about your state, but in Texas, the former employer pays unemployment insurance. I don't "pay in" to anything here.
|
Bella Sara Charter Superscriber
|
I think where a lot of people, myself included, get frustrated is in cases when people don't even try to get back on their feet. We have a neighbor who recieves food stamps, housing assistance nd child support from two different guys. Now she works, and makes decent money, but she can't pay her rent on time, complains about not hving any money, but then gets a new car, new furniture, and her kids got a Wii this christmas from a local charity. I get a little P.O.'d that when we needed a hand we were told "we make to much money".... well hell. If I made to much money then I wouldn't be asking for help now would I?
I don't mean to dismiss that frustration. I guess in my ideal world, there would be more help for those above the cut-off for subsistence assistance. I'd advocate for a well maintained ladder to help those who want to make their lives better. And, I'm willing to tolerate people taking advantage of the ladder to a certain extent if that's what it takes to make it widely available.