Well, then, you’re living, in part, on loans. The money in your bank account isn’t put into little boxes in hte vault with labels saying “Tuition” and “Food.” Your borrowing money to afford school means you’re living in part on loaned money. The loans allow you to pay for school without having to give up a home, or car, or food, or clothes, so the loans pay for that as much as they do tuition and books, to whatever percentage of your incoming cash the loans constitute.
There’s nothing wrong with that - it’s a smart reason to borrow money - but why deny it?
I think it was rather stupid for anyone to have brought up **starwarsfreek42’**s loans to begin with. They have nothing to do with this situation, and aren’t particularly relevant or analogous to anything we’ve talked about thus far.
You’re right, RickJay, in that she shouldn’t deny that she’s needed some excess funds.
I’ve been working over 25 years now. I have had one - ONE - job that required pre-employment drug screening. Just ONE. Even the current Federal job I have right now did not require drug screening.
Yes, some jobs require drug-screening. For some positions - bus driver, airline pilot, etc, - this makes a great deal of sense. For the stock boy at Wal-Mart not so much, but society has decided that we must be protected from stock boys who smoke pot because… I dunno, they’ll mis-stack cans of peas or something. “Low class” jobs taken by poor people most frequently require pre-employment drug screening, but not “high class” jobs like banker or stock broker or insurance executive… gee, there couldn’t possibly be some sort of bias as work here? Like the perhaps the automatic assumption that poor people are druggies and people making a good salary aren’t? Which would be complete BS if anyone had that notion, as drug use and abuse cuts across all socio-economic levels. It’s just a heck of a lot easier to get away with it when you’re rich.
I was just pointing out an error in your post. If that’s all you wanted to say, then there was no need for you to claim a 20% income tax deduction for minimum wage earners.
Pretty much anyone can go to their local health department and recieve free or low cost birth control in the form of pills, patches, implants, IUDs, rings, or at least free condoms and spermicide. Yes, that is the case for everyone.
I did say that there would be exemptions for people with allergies or adverse reactions. I’m good with Depo, but I’ve heard all the horror stories about it, believe me.
Also, I don’t give a damn about the anti-abortion crowd.
I’m not denying that I needed excess funds to go to college, but I’m not “living” off them day to day. I don’t use them for food, clothes, or gas. I don’t depend on them to survive. Student loans are not welfare. I will be paying them back, plus interest, out of my own pocket. But you are right, they are irrelevant to this discussion.
For some reason I feel the need to clarify about loans again–they don’t go into my bank account. They go to the school. When I go register, they apply my loan to my tuition. Then I walk down to the bookstore, where I tell them my student ID number and they charge my books to my student loan. Usually I can look at the classes I need and the books I will need and calculate exactly how much they will cost, and borrow that amount rounded up to the nearest hundred. If anything is left over I might buy supplies or other materials from the book store, or have them send the remainder back to the bank as a payment toward the loans. I never see any cash. There is no physical “income” here. I could just as easily use a credit card, but I don’t have $15,000 worth of credit.
And we are supposed to know that… how? MOST college students enter college directly from high school and frankly none of us have any way of knowing you’re an exception. It’s unreaonable for you to get huffy because we aren’t mind readers.
And you don’t see a problem with that?
Except if you get some kinds of sick you’re going to die because you can’t afford proper treatment.
Neither do I - my mommy happens to be dead. I hope yours is in better health.
Is that so?
But until you TELL us that you’re not a typical college student we have no way of knowing that, do we? Sorry, failed that mind-reading course. You have to actually say it in words here.
I’m not being snarky, I’m just disagreeing with you. I’m far from hostile here, but yes, I do find some of your attitudes repugnant and I will say so explicitly. As for “ignorant sorority chick” - again, we have no way of knowing what sort of college student you are until you tell us.
Well, why don’t you have health insurance? A lot of people would view it as irresponsible of you not to, because if you become sick or injured and can’t afford emergency care you become a liability to the hospital/society.
You can afford to go to college, care for nine animals, and jump through the required hoops for Depro shots but you can’t afford to go to a doctor? That does not make sense.
Funny, back when it was a concern I never “forgot” my birth control. Discarded? Well, yes, that IS what one does with used condoms.
Look, use whatever birth control works for you and makes you happy, but don’t assume it’s wonderful for everyone else.
It’s not unheard of in urban school districts to require uniforms, but the school will not provide them. The parents have to provide them. This is, of course, a potential problem for those on welfare as there is no clothing allowance. Such districts do try to organize swap-meets and second hand sale/purchase of used uniforms, but yes, there are public schools with a dress code.
Condescending? Well, you said you were a college student so I assumed that you were a typical college student, 18-22, with little real life experience. If you find that condescending I’m sorry, but I have no way of knowing you’re not that until you tell me.
Where the floor is and what it’s made of.
I worked four years at a clinic that had a unit specifically for drug-abusing mothers. Yes, I’ve seen crack babies. Know what’s funny about crack? Addicts will choose it over food and water - so restricting their welfare benefits won’t do jack to stop them from getting high, or from having unprotected sex in exchange for more crack. The only people for whom your system will make any difference are the intelligent, responsible, sober ones - who are exactly the people we don’t want to sterilize.
No, we say we care for one another, but we don’t really. That’s why we let 1 in 6 be shut out of the “greatest medical system in the world”. That’s why we continue an antiquated school funding system that results in highly unequal education based soley on where a child lives rather than what a child needs. That’s why we walk by homeless people in the street, or call the police to take them away so we don’t have to look at them, rather than funding programs that will actually help them, or build low-cost housing even a minimum wage job can pay the rent for.
You just contradictred yourself - socialized medicine is based on the notion that everyone is entitled to health care. Of course, in the real world the execution isn’t perfect, but it’s the idea.
Actually, that idea has a great deal of merit. MRE’s are actually a bit high-calorie for the average civilian, but pre-prepared, nutritious meals that require nothing more than heating actually are more useful for a poor person struggling to get work or work two job, much less raise kids at the same time, than bulk items that take considerble time and effort to prepare.
Ah, I see - you just dismiss anything that doesn’t fit your world view. Very convenient. What DO you consider reliable?
[quote]
[quote]
You’re telling people that they will be temporarily sterilized if they don’t get job training and they don’t look for a job… but even if they do everything right and still don’t get hired because there are more people looking for work than work available then… tough luck, you’re still having to show up for a shot if you want assistance in surviving until you do land a job. So sorry, you did everything right but tough luck, we’re going forcibly modify your body chemistry and you’ll submit to it if you want a roof over your head and food to eat. And you don’t see anything coercive or wrong about that?
So… someone needs job training to get a job, and they can’t get a job until they get that training, but they can’t get a loan for the training until they can get the job they can’t get without training… you don’t see a problem here?
[/quote[
No, they will be temporarily sterilized if they want money without getting a job. They don’t have to participate in job training if they don’t want/need it.
No, I don’t see a problem. They can get a different job, and they can still get a loan if the bank is willing.[/quote]
My whole point was that someone could get training, apply, and still not get a job! So you answer, “they can get a different job”. The point is that there is no job to be had. Or not enough jobs to go around. So… you try and try and can’t get a job, you’re broke, and now here comes someone saying “sure, we’ll give you money for food and shelter - you just have to consent to be temporarialy sterialized in the meanwhile”. That actually IS coercive. Because people that destitute can’t get a loan, not from anyone reputable. The bank won’t be willing. Especially these days, when even people with good credit and a job can’t get a loan.
What’s the point of going to college unless you’re going to focus on getting an education? Why else would you spend all that money?
Yes, but you also say you can’t afford to go to a doctor… so yes, I am questioning your priorities in paying to care for nine animals rather than see to your own health. You are, of course, free to make decisions of that nature. I am free to regard such decisions as foolish and irresponsible.
I thought you said you had nobody to help you? But it seems your neighbors were willing to dogsit for you. Very nice of them. It also means you are NOT alone in the world and doing it all without assistance.
And meanwhile you say you can’t afford to take yourself to a doctor… well, OK, but I still think your priorities are very messed up. People before animals. That means yourself, too.
OK, here are some of my suggestions:
Health care for all, without exception, and no longer tied to having a job. This would include free birth control.
Instead of local education funding have all taxes for education go into a state fund and apportion them EQUALLY amongst all school districts in a state to eliminate the current outrage where poor districts have insufficient resources and wealthy districts have lavish goodies. Level the playing field state wide.
Allow much more generous funds for retraining workers, including those who already have college degrees, for new careers.
State-funded daycare for any parent (male or female) who is in college, at work, in retraining, or looking for work and does not have a significant other or relative available for babysitting services. Make it an extension of local school districts, where parents are already accustomed to leave their children most of the day. (I’m pretty sure we’re close on this one)
That’s just for starters.
And yet, you go without health insurance so if you are sick or injured the cost of your treatment may well be borne by society… it just seems contradictory to me.
Because denying it allows her to maintain the myth that she a truly independent human being who needs help from no one. Except she needs her neighbors to dog-sit And if she’s in a car accident and winds up in the ER and can’t pay that bill then the hospital will have to write it off as bad debt.
This is yet another reason why I say our nation is not civilized - a civilization means people are interdependent on each other. A civilization requires giving as as well as getting. Very few people in the world are truly independent and never need rely on anyone else, but a lot of Americans sure like the myth they’re rugged individualists - never mind a strong historical tradition of working together which is one of the hallmarks of a civilization.
If we were civilized, truly civilized, we’d realize that those of us who are doing well are obligated to give more back to society than those who are not doing so well without keeping a tally sheet and expecting full payback.
Nonsense. Loans aren’t “help” in the sense that you are using the term. Loans are nothing more than services purchased. Borrowers help the lender as much as vice versa, assuming an interest rate is charged. They aren’t handouts.
To provide a cite for Broomstick, my daughter goes to a public school which requires the students wear a particular uniform. I live in a Cook county suburb of Chicago and I would describe the neighborhood as working class.
I like many of your suggestions, Broomstick. Another suggestion I read that I liked was that the government pay part of the wages for a while when a previously employed worker returns to the workforce at a new job. It helps give incentive to companies to re-train individuals. Many experienced workers are out of work and are trained for jobs that won’t be coming back, at least to a location near them. This would help get them back to work. My understanding is that Germany is doing this now in order to make their workforce more flexible.
I think we need something like this partly due to the housing market. It is much harder to pack up and move if you can’t easily sell your house. This means that if company x needs a FlurBity 6.0 expert, unlike previous years, the applicant pool is limited to those nearby, and not those anywhere in the nation. There may be more job seekers, but finding a good fit may be harder.
Help comes as more than handouts. If you need/want a loan you can’t get one without cooperation from someone or some entity. This applies whether you’re Donald Trump trying to finance a skyscraper or your cousin asking to borrow $20.
Or, for another analogy, the people down at the unemployment office can help you get your benefits or a new job, but they aren’t doing it for free or as a handout. They’re still helping you.
Welfare is not only a handout…or a handup or whatever.
Look…If I find myself looking at being hungry…well I can just go out, find a cow, slaughter it and eat it.
No? Someone owns the cow?
Can I hunt?
Can I look for edible plants to eat? Heck…can I PLANT some plants and eat them when they mature?
Why not?
AHHHHHH…society won’t let me…they have this concept of land ownership and such.
If you restrict peoples ability to feed themselves by restricting access to resources…then society really, truely DOES OWE people a minimal standard of living.
If you do not, then people will be forced to attempt to get access to the restricted resources…and then you have other problems to deal with much more serious (and expensive) than welfare.
It doesn’t matter how you shuffle the dollars, you’re relying on loans to get by. If you did not have the loans, you would either have to part with the money you’re currently spending on food, gas, shelter, and so on, or you would not be able to go to school. You’re trying to create a distinction where there is no difference. your position is like me saying I don’t pay income taxes because under the deduction system it goes straight from my employer to the government.
There’s nothing wrong with relying on loans, so why are you so loath to admit it? There are some things that are worth borrowing money for.
What are you talking about? I’m not loath to admit I’m relying on loans. Yes, I am borrowing money that I would not otherwise need if I were eligible for pell grants or scholarships. But I’m not “living” off that money. I do not have the option of spending it on anything other than school. And a loan is not welfare. There is a distinction between being on food stamps and borrowing money to further my education which will be paid back in full and then some. If I did not have the loans I could use credit cards or just save up till I could afford it, but I still wouldn’t be starving or making myself a burden to the rest of society.
You see, that’s the thing - I view paying taxes to fund a safety net as a sort of insurance. I pay my taxes for years, then when I fall on hard times I get food stamps or a FEMA loan or whatever I need to get back on my feet. At which point I start paying taxes again. I’m actually hoping I don’t need to collect as much in services as I pay in taxes over a lifetime. While I may be a burden for a short while over a lifetime I more than make up for it.
The up side for me is that my neighbor’s children are educated and better able to fend for themselves, even poor people don’t have to starve to death, and, if I had my preference, no one would have to go without essential or preventive health care, and no one would be rendered bankrupt due to accident or illness. I view all of these as a benefit to society as a whole, and creating a society I would prefer to live in versus a dog-eat-dog merciless competition between individuals with no help to the less fortunate.
That’s probably why I see things as more of a continuum rather than rigidly divided into “loans” and “handouts”.
People seem to forget that everyone relies on handouts at sometime in their life. The lucky ones only need direct handouts from their parents only when they are young and from their own children only when they are old.
If I save money now, and spend it later when I can no longer work, I am relying on others to give me what I need when I am not currently earning it. Saving money is gambling that the form we chose to save what we have earned will be exchangeable for someone else’s labor when we need it.
By living in a society, we all rely on a complex web of IOUs so that each one of us does not need to eke enough food from the earth to survive. We can extend this web enough to include safety nets for some, and even permanent shelters for others. The more people entangled in this web the more people who have reason to keep the web going.
I’m not seeing this. The case of Cleveland Bd. of Educ. v. LaFleur was one of whether or not the teacher was forced to maternity leave early and whether or not she would have a job afterwards, not whether or not she had the right to have a child. And if they want to apply ‘to be free from unwarranted governmental intrusion into matters so fundamentally affecting a person as the decision whether to bear or beget a child’, then I’d think that would include the governmental intrusion of sending them money on the assumption they cannot raise the child without the governments help!
We should have the option to tell women that if they have children they cannot provide for, they will lose those children. Indeed, we already do under CPS. If we quit paying women to have children, fewer will be born in poverty.
Ah, OK then - set it at one child! Still a heck of a lot of savings!
If she is all that poor there wouldn’t be any money in her account, eh? And yes, if she wants to have more children, or at least take the chance it’s going to happen, why should the taxpayer have to pay for it?
And living off the government isn’t? Having a baby isn’t?
In your opinion.
But we SHOULD be able to tell them if they cannot delay having them until they can afford them, WE are not going to pay to raise them.
Non-existence is perferable to being born into poverty.
How do you know this?
And because you don’t agree with her ideas, you assume this?
It isn’t being forced on her - she has a choice. Live off the government and delay having kids, or have the kids now and raise them in squalor and poverty, until CPS takes them away.
Are you serious? Have you seen the size of the fed debt as it is??
And now we have a huge number of children being raised in poverty. You think things are better for them today?
And if she’s in a car accident and winds up in the ER and can’t pay that bill then the hospital will have to write it off as bad debt.