Thank you for being a valued part of the CNET community. As of December 1, 2020, the forums are in read-only format. In early 2021, CNET Forums will no longer be available. We are grateful for the participation and advice you have provided to one another over the years.


CNET Support

- Collapse -
maybe they should get a job
Nov 22, 2007 12:32AM PST

seems to me that would feed them, house them, clothe
but what do i know Happy

- Collapse -
"Let them eat cake!", huh?
Nov 22, 2007 1:23AM PST

Though there are some that are guilty of putting themselves in such dire straights, there are others that are not.

If your former employer merged and you lost your job (with benefits), and your only income was the minimum hourly wage (no benefits), would that influence your lifestyle? Could you rent a non-government supported apartment, pay utilities, cable, etc, pay for health insurance, buy an occasional round-trip plane ticket to visit family? Food costs have continued to rise due to increased delivery costs.

Speakeasy Moderator

- Collapse -
if you can work work
Nov 22, 2007 1:48AM PST

you can work at 2 different jobs.
unless a persons totally disabled
and unable to work, theres no excuse.
just lazy and want me to support them.
if there hungry hire them

- Collapse -
RE: if there hungry hire them
Nov 22, 2007 3:08AM PST

Will you want to deduct their wages from your income tax? (charitable donation?)

If they get injured working for you will you pay for their medical expenses? (open yourself to a lawsuit?)

- Collapse -
im not a business
Nov 22, 2007 8:16AM PST

but if they get hired in a legal job there workman's coverage for injuries'

)Will you want to deduct their wages from your income tax? (charitable donation?)) nope let them pay taxes like i do

- Collapse -
Just who in particular, are you thinking of ?
Nov 22, 2007 3:08AM PST

I'm just a bit confused, about who "they" actually are. Who are "They" that you are so sure that "They" are a bunch of freeloaders? Are "they" the single parent family where the adult is working two jobs to be able to pay for childcare while "they" are out of the house working? Are "they" the laid off autoworker in America's heartland? Are "they" the underinsured, who must make a choice between medicine and eating?

You see, stereotypical cliches work both ways. There are a few folks out there, willing to freeload off the system. There also are those folks who work their *** off, and still never get ahead, for a variety of reasons that are not entirely their own fault.

Did you donate your time and/or money during any of the national or world wide crises like 9/11, Hurricane Katrina, the tsunami in indonesia, the Pakistani earthquakes, or the recent cyclones in Bangladesh? Or did you just comment about how tragic those events were, and wait for someone else to step up to the plate?

The reality about life is that people find themselves in need - even in the USA - through no fault of their own. The holidays bring out the charitable side (in some people) but they often forget that some people need help during the rest of the year, too. The only people who can be blamed for being hungry are those who spend their money on drugs, alcohol, and gambling. The rest of the hungry can use a helping hand. If you fail to see the distinction, then I think you need to re-examine some misconceptions you have formed.

Have a good Thanksgiving (if you celebrate it) and try not to eat too much. Oh, and don't forget to be nice to the folk you see working their second or even third jobs in the stores during the holiday season... so they can make ends meet.


- Collapse -
if there able to work
Nov 22, 2007 8:19AM PST

they need earn there way.
simple as that.

if you find fault with that id sugest you take in as many as you can.
lead by example, not do as i say do as i do.

i work i support my self

do these people have cell phones? car payments?

- Collapse -
Just who in particular, are you thinking of ?
Nov 22, 2007 4:45PM PST

Grim. Do not worry about working our third and forth shift in a single day.
You and I can work forever until we are dead. (Morte)

Unfortunately I need some of my own money to stay off the streets.
Not easy these days. Social Security is dreadfull. Take a look at what you would receive right now.
Have you checked it out lately? You will be dissapointed in what you find.

Really pathetic and on top of that you will have to pay income taxes and a charge of $99 a month for Medicare, part A.
What is left to eek out a life? Not much.
I hope it is not your parents that have to rely on Social Security here in the U.S.
Can they even eat a decent meal? I don't think so.

Watch out for our U.S. elderly first. They are the ones that need support right now.
Protect your own first.


- Collapse -
If I recall correctly ...
Nov 22, 2007 7:16AM PST

It seems like there was a more-or-less similar line in a well known book.

Would your first name be Ebenezer by chance?

- Collapse -
I remember an analysis of A Christmas Carol...
Nov 22, 2007 7:31AM PST

which showed the many ways oin which Scrooge was actually right and was a better employer than many others of his time.

To me the salient point is:even if you donate a bit of time or a holiday turkey today, there will still be hungry mouths tomorrow. The less fortunate will still need help in January, February, March, etc.

Yes! It doesn't get better; it only gets worse. All the giving and charity and socialistic government programs do not solve the problem; they make it worse! Sure, they make liberals feel better about themselves (Their main motivation) and give them a basis to look down on those evil misers, but IT DOESN'T SOLVE THE PROBLEM!

So, what then IS the solution?

By the way, you can beat up on the poster all you want, but it is true that people who work hard, don't have children out of wedlock, finish school and don't do drugs do get ahead. The unemployment rate is at an all time low. Of course, nowadays with the price of crack, what is a mother to do?

- Collapse -
I don't think this is it....
Nov 22, 2007 9:41AM PST
But similar to the Scrooge piece I mentioned. You have to admit he makes some good points.

So let's look without preconceptions at Scrooge's allegedly underpaid clerk, Bob Cratchit. The fact is, if Cratchit's skills were worth more to anyone than the fifteen shillings Scrooge pays him weekly, there would be someone glad to offer it to him. Since no one has, and since Cratchit's profit-maximizing boss is hardly a man to pay for nothing, Cratchit must be worth exactly his present wages.

No doubt Cratchit needs?i.e., wants?more, to support his family and care for Tiny Tim. But Scrooge did not force Cratchit to father children he is having difficulty supporting. If Cratchit had children while suspecting he would be unable to afford them, he, not Scrooge, is responsible for their plight. And if Cratchit didn't know how expensive they would be, why must Scrooge assume the burden of Cratchit's misjudgment?

As for that one lump of coal Scrooge allows him, it bears emphasis that Cratchit has not been chained to his chilly desk. If he stays there, he shows by his behavior that he prefers his present wages-plus-comfort package to any other he has found, or supposes himself likely to find. Actions speak louder than grumbling, and the reader can hardly complain about what Cratchit evidently finds satisfactory.

More notorious even than his miserly ways are Scrooge's cynical words. "Are there no prisons," he jibes when solicited for charity, "and the Union workhouses?"

Terrible, right? Lacking in compassion?

Not necessarily. As Scrooge observes, he supports those institutions with his taxes. Already forced to help those who can't or won't help themselves, it is not unreasonable for him to balk at volunteering additional funds for their extra comfort.

Scrooge is skeptical that many would prefer death to the workhouse, and he is unmoved by talk of the workhouse's cheerlessness. He is right to be unmoved, for society's provisions for the poor must be, well, Dickensian. The more pleasant the alternatives to gainful employment, the greater will be the number of people who seek these alternatives, and the fewer there will be who engage in productive labor. If society expects anyone to work, work had better be a lot more attractive than idleness.
- Collapse -
It's actually a bit more complex than that ...
Nov 22, 2007 10:13AM PST

I have no opinion at all about Mr. Scrooge's employment practices. You may be correct, but his employment policies are hardly relevant.

I don't doubt that in most cases you are correct re: it is true that people who work hard, don't have children out of wedlock, finish school and don't do drugs do get ahead but that statement makes a number of assumptions, the most important of which is that everybody is actually able to work hard, finish school, ... I don't have a lot of patience with people who have messed up their lives by making truly stupid choices, but there are a fair number of people (I meet them daily at work) who literally cannot do what is required to 'get ahead' for any number of reasons that have nothing to do with their personal choices.

Some of the people I'm referring to were injured at work, some of them have diseases that prevent hard work and education. Some have mental illness and wouldn't recognize a good life choice if it grabbed them by the hand and tried to drag them along. The list goes on and on and on and ... you get the idea.

I do not have any real solution to the problem of poverty, and I do not believe that government can solve the problem by expanding welfare programs. OTOH, I do not believe a humane person can simply ignore the problem of poverty.

I do not pretend to have the wisdom or discernment to reliably separate those who are poor as a result of making stupid choices from those who are poor because they do not have any alternatives. But for that second category it is certainly true that even if you donate a bit of time or a holiday turkey today, there will still be hungry mouths tomorrow. The less fortunate will still need help in January, February, March, etc. Furthermore, for that second category I do not believe it is accurate to claim that charity makes things worse. Finally, I'm not aware of any evidence that 'liberals' engage in charitable activity primarily to feel better about themselves. I don't always agree with liberals, but I do not believe you can justify that particular zinger.

- Collapse -
I do not believe it is accurate....
Nov 22, 2007 11:42AM PST
that charity makes things worse.
Not exactly what I said. What I am saying is that the sum total of charity, both voluntary and forced has in the long run not only failed to solve the problem, but has made it worse. When you subsidize something you get more of it.

Finally, I'm not aware of any evidence that 'liberals' engage in charitable activity primarily to feel better about themselves.
Ha! You don't think so? Sorry, I see plenty of evidence of it all the time.
- Collapse -
Jesus said the hungry would always be with us.
Nov 22, 2007 11:47AM PST

He didn't say they would be the same hungry ones over and over.

I had to collect aid for awhile, but got a hand up and out. I don't begrudge the one behind me.


- Collapse -
I didn't say charity was wrong..
Nov 22, 2007 12:16PM PST

or that you should never give to the poor. I am just pointing out that we seem to have created a self-perpetuating subculture of dependent poor who never get up and out. We have spent billions trying to solve the problem and it has not been solved.

Maybe we should rethink it instead of treading the same old ground.

- Collapse -
Perhaps we should have the concept of
Nov 23, 2007 6:11AM PST

a hand up rather than a hand out.

Perhaps requiring some sort of work from those on welfare - either school or volunteer work or some classes on how to look and apply for a job.

I think some people are afraid to lose their medicaid more than the welfare money. If there is some way to keep medicaid for the first year or two after getting off welfare, that might work.

Maybe they can work on some of those jobs that illegals do that are beneath Americans.

Having people on welfare for three or four generations is a difficult mindset to break.


- Collapse -
Perhaps we should have the concept of?
Nov 23, 2007 7:48AM PST

Diana, "A hand up rather than a hand-out."
Right-on!! How simple. Great observation and challenging to fulfill
that idea. How do you do that and where do you start?
Nice post, Diana.


- Collapse -
Like i said
Nov 23, 2007 8:07AM PST

Teaching people skills to get and hold a job and literacy. So many need basic life skills.

I remember some of the people I worked with in California went to the people in prison to teach basic literacy. So many couldn't even fill out an employment application.


- Collapse -
Like i said?
Nov 23, 2007 8:27AM PST

Diana, Well that is a start for some.
How do you teach the mentally ill or the homeless?
It is very hard for the mentally ill to be employed and to hold down a job for any length of time at all.
I only wish we knew how to solve the problem. :

- Collapse -
There will always be some that we will have to care for
Nov 23, 2007 9:00AM PST

There are several group homes in Syracuse that care for the disabled. They buy their groceries at Sam's. They bring in two to four of their people each time just to give them outings. They range from completely wheelchair bound to just a little off.

I have friends that are completely or legally blind and independent because of SS disablity.

The local grocery store employs retarded people as baggers or re-shoppers. Some can do their jobs and others need handlers.

I do not believe in calling alcholics or drug addicts disabled and putting them on disability. That is called co-dependence and is condemed in people but seems to be OK for the government.

As for the homeless - why are they homeless? Is it because of mental illness or addiction or bad luck?

Some are homeless because they have no address. I know that sounds silly but they could get help or SS if they had an address. Perhaps just giving them a mailbox or a general delivery at the Salvation Army or Rescue Mission might help.

I think I'll quit rambling.


- Collapse -
Funny that you mention Jesus....
Nov 22, 2007 1:04PM PST

When he said that, was he not rebuking the disciples for their self-righteous attitude when they said the woman, rather than wasting the anointing fluid on Jesus should have sold it and given the money to the poor?

Of course I am not a Bible scholar...

- Collapse -
That was the context of the statement, but
Nov 23, 2007 12:48AM PST

My point was that (bigger picture) there would always be poor to feed; that issue will not be completely solved until Christ returns.

Of course, that doesn't mean we shouldn't try, and He also said the disciples could help the hungry when they wanted to. I didn't see any specific plan for that. Wink


- Collapse -
Matthew 25:35-40
Nov 23, 2007 6:13AM PST
35For I was hungry and you gave me something to eat, I was thirsty and you gave me something to drink, I was a stranger and you invited me in, 36I needed clothes and you clothed me, I was sick and you looked after me, I was in prison and you came to visit me.'

37"Then the righteous will answer him, 'Lord, when did we see you hungry and feed you, or thirsty and give you something to drink? 38When did we see you a stranger and invite you in, or needing clothes and clothe you? 39When did we see you sick or in prison and go to visit you?'

40"The King will reply, 'I tell you the truth, whatever you did for one of the least of these brothers of mine, you did for me.'

That seems pretty specific.

- Collapse -
(NT) Amen!
Nov 23, 2007 6:51AM PST
- Collapse -
Perhaps, in an odd way, we need the poor among us
Nov 23, 2007 10:12AM PST

Our church teaches that humans needs include a need to give. Therefore, the poor among us actually help to fulfill us and nourish us in special way. Of course that talk is usually given about the time the pastor is warming up to give his annual sermon on tithing. Wink

- Collapse -
and you didnt want it either id bet
Nov 22, 2007 1:53PM PST

you took control got a job and worked.

- Collapse -
Yes, but
Nov 23, 2007 1:00AM PST

I still needed the help when I needed it. Had it not been there, I would have not been ABLE to do the things I needed to accomplish in order to get out of the system.

I agree there should never be the chance to have generation after generation live off of the dole; however, there HAS to be some program in place for people who fall on hard times.

What would you do without your disability? When you need it, you're thankful it's there.


- Collapse -
there should never be..
Nov 23, 2007 5:19AM PST
the chance to have generation after generation live off of the dole

We already have that. That's the problem.

I suggest that there has to be some kind of qualification to get the aid. Some proof that one is trying to kick their habit or better themselves or can't. Triage if you will.

Maybe it should be treated as a loan to be repaid later. The concept of "microloans" is working well in some countries, why not here?

Otherwise what we have is a dependency infrastructure that will only grow and get worse.
- Collapse -
(NT) Well said, Cindi.
Nov 23, 2007 7:24AM PST
- Collapse -
you have to be kiddin' us.....
Nov 22, 2007 5:17PM PST

"that charity makes things worse."

Not exactly what I said. What I am saying is that the sum total of charity, both voluntary and forced has in the long run not only failed to solve the problem, but has made it worse

so if i say "how many eggs do you have?" and you say "12"

and i order "1 dozen" will you say i don't have a dozen?

gimme a break....