Virtual Private Server (VPS) Hosting provided by Central Point Networking cpnllc.com
For some reason, the "Nodelist" and "Recent Callers" features are not working.
| Sysop: | Ray Quinn |
|---|---|
| Location: | Visalia, CA |
| Users: | 60 |
| Nodes: | 10 (0 / 10) |
| Uptime: | 12:16:34 |
| Calls: | 12 |
| Files: | 12,930 |
| Messages: | 98,469 |
Check out the US 99 menu above for links to information about US Highway 99, after which the US 99 BBS is named.
Be sure to click on the Amateur Radio menu item above for packet BBSes, packet software, packet organizations, as well as packet how-to's. Also included is links to local and some not-so-local Amateur Radio Clubs.
in the same breath, do not believe those stats about X% are unemployed because they are always short...
i've been unemployed numerous times
for several years in some cases and have never gone down and been
added to the statistics so i know for a fact that they are always at
least one entity short... welfare helps those who are willing to go
that route but there are many others who do not and will not "go
there" for their own reasons...
What is it like to be on welfare and what does it do for your
self-esteem?
Apparently it beats working for a living...
not everyone without a job is on welfare but they can still find ways
to provide for their needs... this does not mean that they do not
"work" for their "living"... contrary to what the gov't believes...
in the same breath, do not believe those stats about X% are unemployed because they are always short... i've been unemployed numerous times
for several years in some cases and have never gone down and been
added to the statistics so i know for a fact that they are always at
least one entity short... welfare helps those who are willing to go
that route but there are many others who do not and will not "go
there" for their own reasons...
not everyone without a job is on welfare but they can still find ways
to provide for their needs... this does not mean that they do not
"work" for their "living"... contrary to what the gov't believes...
Some do. I've been unemployed, and have drawn unemployment (I'm not eligible for welfare due to my military retirement annuity). At the
moment I've been unemployed for just shy of two years, fortunately
I'm eligible for and draw Social Security to pay
the bills (that aforementioned annuity makes the house and insurance payments) - so I can say I'm retired. although not by my choice.
I can remember my parents griping in *1960* about second and third generations of people living on California's at-the-time quite
generous welfare system. Back
in those days states provided varying levels of benefits and people
were moving to California simply to get on the welfare system there,
and the state attempted to place a residency time requirement before
one would become eligible - and lost
a federal lawsuit over it. The feds gradually took over the entire
welfare system -
mainly by mandating that states provide certain levels of benefits
and eligibility,
not by paying for it. The federal Medicaid program is even worse
off than Medicare WRT funding - and has been for years.
in the same breath, do not believe those stats about X% are unemployed because they are always short...
The unemployment figures released by the labor pencil pushers do
not include those who are no longer eligible for bennies or havent
filed for them.
i've been unemployed numerous times for several years in some
cases and have never gone down and been added to the statistics so
i know for a fact that they are always at least one entity
short... welfare helps those who are willing to go that route but
there are many others who do not and will not "go there" for their
own reasons...
The problem with welfare is it creates a dependency, and one
develops a rationale that the reason they got onto it, is reason
enough to perpetually stay on it.
The problem with welfare is it creates a dependency, and one
develops a rationale that the reason they got onto it, is reason
enough to perpetually stay on it.
how does it create a dependency?? if one wanted to get off of it, they could unless they were on it due to
extenuating circumstances...
medical situations would be one of those... extreme obesity might be
one medical situation... cronic fatigue syndrome might be another...
in the same breath, do not believe those stats about X% are unemployed because they are always short... i've been unemployed numerous times
for several years in some cases and have never gone down and been
added to the statistics so i know for a fact that they are always at
least one entity short... welfare helps those who are willing to go
that route but there are many others who do not and will not "go
there" for their own reasons...
But you did not and most do not make welfare their lifetime career.
Some do. I've been unemployed, and have drawn unemployment (I'm not eligible for welfare due to my military retirement annuity).
At the moment I've been unemployed for just shy of two years,
fortunately I'm eligible for and draw Social Security to pay
the bills (that aforementioned annuity makes the house and
insurance payments) - so I can say I'm retired. although not by my
choice.
The problem with welfare is it creates a dependency, and one
develops a rationale that the reason they got onto it, is reason
enough to perpetually stay on it.
how does it create a dependency?? if one wanted to get off of it, they could unless they were on it due to
The system gets abused, its easier to walk out to the mailbox to
get the check, than to actually go out and earn one.
extenuating circumstances...
medical situations would be one of those... extreme obesity might be
one medical situation... cronic fatigue syndrome might be another...
One mans disability is another mans scratch.
FWIW: i don't understand everyone else whining about folk using the services that they have paid into for so long and never will use...
only for those that take advantage of the system and play it... i've
seen much too much of it over the years... heck i could have easily
done the same but never did preferring to go without than to "play the game"... deity knows that i've been without for a long time and i'll
still prefer to go without rather than play some stupid game for the benefit and/or enjoyment of others... i certainly never look down on
those who DO choose to use the system that is in place... none of us
are any better than the next no matter how hard one works or doesn't
or what programs one participats in or not or even if one is religions
or not... and the stupid political swipes that get slung about are
lower than stupid and in many cases are really nothing more than
someone trying to make themselves feel better by putting others down
for some reason or another...
Replying to a message of mark lewis to Jeff Binkley:
once it is given to the government, it is the government's money to do with as it sees fit... once it is out of your hands, it is "out of
your hands"... think about it ;)
Money is given to the government only in the sense that it is given
to a mugger - pay up or else.
God only insists on 10% to run the whole d*mn planet, the
government should be satisfied with half of that to run one
country, but it takes about thirty - or more - percent.
FWIW: i don't understand everyone else whining about folk using the services that they have paid into for so long and never will use...
When the system gets abused by those who didnt pay into it?
FWIW: i don't understand everyone else whining about folk using
the services that they have paid into for so long and never will
use...
When the system gets abused by those who didnt pay into it?
why is that abuse? there is nothing that i'm aware of that says anyone
who participates in is must have paid something into it...
why is it abuse when they can use the monies that you have paid in
that you'll never use?
FWIW: i don't understand everyone else whining about folk using
the services that they have paid into for so long and never will
use...
When the system gets abused by those who didnt pay into it?
why is that abuse? there is nothing that i'm aware of that says
anyone who participates in is must have paid something into it...
why is it abuse when they can use the monies that you have paid in
that you'll never use?
why is it abuse when they can use the monies that you have paid in
that you'll never use?
I wonder whose money he thinks funds the government and these social programs ?
FWIW: i don't understand everyone else whining about folk using the
services that they have paid into for so long and never will use...
When the system gets abused by those who didnt pay into it?
why is that abuse? there is nothing that i'm aware of that says anyone
who participates in is must have paid something into it...
why is it abuse when they can use the monies that you have paid in
that you'll never use?
FWIW: i don't understand everyone else whining about folk using
the services that they have paid into for so long and never will
use...
When the system gets abused by those who didnt pay into it?
why is that abuse? there is nothing that i'm aware of that says anyone
who participates in is must have paid something into it...
why is it abuse when they can use the monies that you have paid in
that you'll never use?
Then leave it in my paycheck so I can use it.
Welfare should be a hand up, not a hand out.
FWIW: i don't understand everyone else whining about folk using the services that they have paid into for so long and never will use...
When the system gets abused by those who didnt pay into it?
why is that abuse? there is nothing that i'm aware of that says anyone who ML>participates in is must have paid something into it...
why is it abuse when they can use the monies that you have paid in that ML>you'll never use?
FWIW: i don't understand everyone else whining about folk using the services that they have paid into for so long and never will use...
When the system gets abused by those who didnt pay into it?
why is that abuse? there is nothing that i'm aware of that says anyone who ML>participates in is must have paid something into it...
why is it abuse when they can use the monies that you have paid in that ML>you'll never use?
Since the dawn of Mankind......there was no free lunch.
Do the math........at some point....nobody's gonna be able to eat
lunch, because there won't be enough coming in to pay for it.
Well from my point of view, for the person I had initially directed
the remarks to, I do take exception to him criticizing another tax
paying participant for having run a newspaper that didnt have the editorial slant he liked.
Someone living off of the taxpayers, and SSI is from the general
fund, ie welfare, he should not be deeming someone who is a
taxpayer a failure.
Too me, it is about having room to talk.
FWIW: i don't understand everyone else whining about folk using
the services that they have paid into for so long and never will
use...
When the system gets abused by those who didnt pay into it?
why is that abuse? there is nothing that i'm aware of that says
anyone who participates in is must have paid something into it...
why is it abuse when they can use the monies that you have paid in
that you'll never use?
I wonder whose money he thinks funds the government and these
social programs ?
why is it abuse when they can use the monies that you have paid in
that you'll never use?
I wonder whose money he thinks funds the government and these social programs ?
The tooth fairy?
I am shocked to think he would feel I wouldnt need it,
or being okay with having to work so others dont have to..
IMO one way to eleiminate the welfare 'problem' is to put a firm
time limit on how long one may draw it - say one year. [...]
Someone living off of the taxpayers, and SSI is from the general
fund, ie welfare, he should not be deeming someone who is a
taxpayer a failure.
why not? i say call a spade a spade no matter who you are...
FWIW: i don't understand everyone else whining about folk using the services that they have paid into for so long and never will use...
When the system gets abused by those who didnt pay into it?
why is that abuse? there is nothing that i'm aware of that says anyone who ML>participates in is must have paid something into it...
why is it abuse when they can use the monies that you have paid in that ML>you'll never use?
FWIW: i don't understand everyone else whining about folk
using the services that they have paid into for so long and
never will use...
When the system gets abused by those who didnt pay into it?
why is that abuse? there is nothing that i'm aware of that says ml>ml>anyone who participates in is must have paid something into it...
why is it abuse when they can use the monies that you have paid in ml>ml>that you'll never use?
I wonder whose money he thinks funds the government and these
social programs ?
what makes you think that ross knows the answer to that question?? if
you want to know what i think or know then ask me instead of talking
out the side of your face to another like that...
FWIW: i don't understand everyone else whining about folk using
the services that they have paid into for so long and never will
use...
When the system gets abused by those who didnt pay into it?
why is that abuse? there is nothing that i'm aware of that says ml>ML>anyone who participates in is must have paid something into it...
why is it abuse when they can use the monies that you have paid in ml>ML>that you'll never use?
Since the dawn of Mankind......there was no free lunch.
[trim]
Do the math........at some point....nobody's gonna be able to
eat lunch, because there won't be enough coming in to pay for
it.
nice story but it still does not answer the questions i posed...
everyone who is working has to pay into the system... if they do not
use the monies they paid in by participating in the system, then why ml>cannot others use those monies?? if you allow no one can to them,
then you are wasting your monies and showing a very negative
charitable side...
IMO one way to eleiminate the welfare 'problem' is to put a firm
time limit on how long one may draw it - say one year. [...]
that may or may not work... there is a variation of that being done
in several places... i'm not aware of the numbers before and/or after
so cannot say how they look...
Do the math........at some point....nobody's gonna be able to eat
lunch, because there won't be enough coming in to pay for it.
nice story but it still does not answer the questions i posed... everyone ML>who is working has to pay into the system... if they do not use the monies ML>they paid in by participating in the system, then why cannot others use ML>those monies??
if you allow no one can to them, then you are wasting your
monies and showing a very negative charitable side...
Hello mark!
18 Oct 10 15:33, you wrote to me:
FWIW: i don't understand everyone else whining about folk using
the services that they have paid into for so long and never will
use...
When the system gets abused by those who didnt pay into it?
why is that abuse? there is nothing that i'm aware of that says
anyone who participates in is must have paid something into it...
why is it abuse when they can use the monies that you have paid in
that you'll never use?
Then leave it in my paycheck so I can use it.
Welfare should be a hand up, not a hand out.
IMO one way to eleiminate the welfare 'problem' is to put a firm
time limit on how long one may draw it - say one year. [...]
that may or may not work... there is a variation of that being done in several places... i'm not aware of the numbers before and/or after so cannot say how they look...
nice story but it still does not answer the questions i posed... ml>everyonewho is working has to pay into the system... if they do not
use the monies they paid in by participating in the system, then why ml>cannot others use those monies?? if you allow no one can to them,
then you are wasting your monies and showing a very negative
charitable side...
The government is not in the charity business.
If the extra money stays in the system then the government decides
who gets the excess. If the government returns the money to the
people,
then the people decide. The choice for me is easy. I trust the
people over the government to make wise decisions with their
money.
Someone living off of the taxpayers, and SSI is from the general
fund, ie welfare, he should not be deeming someone who is a
taxpayer a failure.
why not? i say call a spade a spade no matter who you are...
No, I am referring to:
Person A: Someone earning a living within the confines of the law,
paying taxes, the whole nine yards.
Person B: Someone collecting a check from the govt in the form of
welfare, pays no taxes..
Sorry Mark, person B has no standing or right to critique person A.
Maybe you were raised different from I?
Society may have deemed welfare a necessary evil, but welfare is
not a badge of honor and anyone drawing on it, should be humble.
A bank robber has no business calling a shoplifter a thief.
Someone on public assistance has no business calling another who
has never been on assistance, a failure.
Its that simple.
I wonder whose money he thinks funds the government and these
social programs ?
what makes you think that ross knows the answer to that question?? if
you want to know what i think or know then ask me instead of talking
out the side of your face to another like that...
Feel free to answer the question. You've waded this far into the
water.
IMO one way to eleiminate the welfare 'problem' is to put a firm
time limit on how long one may draw it - say one year. [...]
that may or may not work... there is a variation of that being done
in several places... i'm not aware of the numbers before and/or after
so cannot say how they look...
It worked in the mid 90s and has worked before. If people have the
choice of starving or working, I trust they will make the right
choice. If we took money out of the equation, what would they do
?
On 10-19-10, MARK LEWIS said to TIM RICHARDSON:
Do the math........at some point....nobody's gonna be able to eat
lunch, because there won't be enough coming in to pay for it.
nice story but it still does not answer the questions i posed...
everyone who is working has to pay into the system... if they do not
use the monies they paid in by participating in the system, then why
cannot others use those monies??
I and many other people pay auto insurance. I've been with the same company for over twenty years, and had one accident that was the
other guy's fault. His insurance company paid to have our vehicle
fixed.
So......you could say that I've paid those monies into the system by participating, but never `used' it.
Why should someone else who has *not* paid into the system get to use
what *I* paid into it? Why should *I* have to pay for someone's
accident who has no insurance, and has *never* had any?
And its the same with the Social Security monies I've paid in all
these years. I paid in for many years, enough to be recieving a
fairly good monthly return for it.
But my return would be much higher if the monies weren't also going to support people who do not work. Who whine about headaches, or sore
backs. Not to mention all the other boondoggles those monies have
been stretched out to pay for.
if you allow no one can to them, then you are wasting your
monies and showing a very negative charitable side...
The money is only being `wasted' by the politicians who have control
over it. Any time you have politicians controlling large sums of
money that belong to the people they are supposed to be looking out
for, as well as governing.... you get a whole lot of `governing', and
very little `looking out for'.
It isn't the `governed' who waste the monies.....its the politicians.
As for a `negative charitable side'.......the last time I looked, `charitable' was a matter of personal choice. What the government
does with much of the monies we pay into the system isn't on a
`charitable' level.....it is `mandate'....enforced at the point of a
gun.
That isn't charity.....thats theft!
If the extra money stays in the system then the government decides
who gets the excess. If the government returns the money to the
people,
since when?
then the people decide. The choice for me is easy. I trust the
people over the government to make wise decisions with their
money.
once it is given to the government, it is the government's money to do ML>with as it sees fit... once it is out of your hands, it is "out of your ML>hands"... think about it ;)
once it is given to the government, it is the government's money to do with as it sees fit... once it is out of your hands, it is "out of
your hands"... think about it ;)
What is it like to be on welfare and what does it do for your RC>self-esteem?
What is it like to be on welfare and what does it do for your
self-esteem?
What is it like to be on welfare and what does it do for your
self-esteem?
Apparently it beats working for a living...