doxieluvr
Junior Associate
Joined: Dec 30, 2010 11:28:59 GMT -5
Posts: 5,458
|
Post by doxieluvr on Oct 25, 2012 13:19:03 GMT -5
Sheila, I think I was asking for $40k. I was buying a used Peterbilt and enough to get ifta stickers and insurance. I have a driver already.
|
|
muttleynfelix
Junior Associate
Joined: Dec 20, 2010 15:32:52 GMT -5
Posts: 9,406
|
Post by muttleynfelix on Oct 25, 2012 13:26:02 GMT -5
Sheila, I think I was asking for $40k. I was buying a used Peterbilt and enough to get ifta stickers and insurance. I have a driver already. Did you read anything Shiela or I wrote? The reason you could not get a loan is because it was (and still is) a bad investment. We are doing some business for a trucking company that is doing extremely well, but he is the exception, not the rule. LIke I said, the mayors' trucking company nearly went out of business this year and he resigned from being mayor to try to right the ship.
|
|
sheilaincali
Senior Member
Joined: Dec 19, 2010 17:55:24 GMT -5
Posts: 4,131
|
Post by sheilaincali on Oct 25, 2012 13:27:59 GMT -5
I'm still not surprised they weren't willing to take the risk. I assume the driver was your husband. Ok- so you were going to find a used Peterbilt for under $40,000 and pay registration on it. Plus you would need a trailer. So take the example I used (assuming you are paying your husband wages as the driver). You have to take your $85 for that trip (after fuel and wages) and from that you'll have to deduct your insurance, maintenance, tires, your loan payment for the $40,000 and standard overhead expenses.
Where I live there are rules that state you can't run certain businesses out of your house so I really doubt your HOA is going to let you park a big rig in front of your condo and do the oil changes in the driveway. Renting someplace to park and maintain the truck would fall under standard overhead expenses. As would things like business card, phones, paper, computers, fax, envelopes, utilites, internet, etc.
|
|
The Captain
Junior Associate
Hugs are good...
Joined: Jan 4, 2011 16:21:23 GMT -5
Posts: 8,717
Location: State of confusion
Favorite Drink: Whinnnne
|
Post by The Captain on Oct 25, 2012 13:29:16 GMT -5
Orphanages funded by whom? Surely not tax dollars. If you are proposing taxpayer-funded orphanages, it becomes pretty obvious that the issue is not the money, or necessarily the best interest of the child, but about punishing the parents. And the children. That is just a ridiculous suggestion. Not everyone that is low wage is a crappy parent & doesn't deserve children. Not only that you could end up punishing people that were high wage & had some bad luck. Nothing like losing your job & then losing your kid also. As a society aren't we better than that? As a society if we continue to support those who do not support themselves, as well as continue to make bad choices, we will all go fail together. So yea, I hope as a society we are better than that and find some way to stop funding those who fail to take responsibility for themselves. Someone having a short period of a rough times is one thing. ANYONE who has additional kids when they can't support the one(s) they have is not contributing to the strength of our society, but is rather draining it.
|
|
doxieluvr
Junior Associate
Joined: Dec 30, 2010 11:28:59 GMT -5
Posts: 5,458
|
Post by doxieluvr on Oct 25, 2012 13:34:56 GMT -5
I'm still not surprised they weren't willing to take the risk. I assume the driver was your husband. Ok- so you were going to find a used Peterbilt for under $40,000 and pay registration on it. Plus you would need a trailer. So take the example I used (assuming you are paying your husband wages as the driver). You have to take your $85 for that trip (after fuel and wages) and from that you'll have to deduct your insurance, maintenance, tires, your loan payment for the $40,000 and standard overhead expenses. Where I live there are rules that state you can't run certain businesses out of your house so I really doubt your HOA is going to let you park a big rig in front of your condo and do the oil changes in the driveway. Renting someplace to park and maintain the truck would fall under standard overhead expenses. As would things like business card, phones, paper, computers, fax, envelopes, utilites, internet, etc. I was parking it at my parents. But he is now more interested in me starting a bail bonds business, which falls under my license. To answer the previous question, i have had some interest in friends wanting to be bounty hunters.
|
|
midjd
Administrator
Your Money Admin
Joined: Dec 18, 2010 14:09:23 GMT -5
Posts: 17,719
|
Post by midjd on Oct 25, 2012 13:36:57 GMT -5
Kari and others have posted multiple studies that show that "someone having a short period of a rough times" are the majority of welfare recipients. The number of "generational welfare" families is much lower than you'd think.
Yes, we all know THAT person who has a ton of kids s/he can't afford, and who buys crab legs with their food stamps, and drives an expensive car, but that's the exception, rather than the rule.
Legislating to the exception rather than the majority usually results in some negative unintended consequences.
|
|
sheilaincali
Senior Member
Joined: Dec 19, 2010 17:55:24 GMT -5
Posts: 4,131
|
Post by sheilaincali on Oct 25, 2012 13:38:34 GMT -5
To the OP- sorry I got sidetracked with Doxie and strayed away from the original intent of your thread.
To the original topic- I sometimes wonder if there really is that much "need" or more an expectation of entitlement. I've noticed a real trend with people (women I graduated with, daughters of co-workers, etc) that feel that if they get pregnant the county some how owes them. I realize that this isn't the case with everyone but from what I have witnessed it's only a matter of time between when the pee stick turns blue and they are showing up with their hand out.
Everyone I know that's a single mom gets subsidized housing, daycare assistance, WIC, etc. Very frustrating because I know a lot of them sneak their baby daddy in to their house and have him living with them on the sly. We have had several employees tell me that they don't want to marry their baby's mother because then they'd lose out on and the assistance $$. I've had employees quit their job so we can't take child support out of their checks.
Sadly I think some of the need does come from that sense of entitlement. Example- Suzie got daycare and housing assistance when she had her baby so I'm owed that too dammit.
When DH and I were pregnant with DS we were married and both active duty enlisted Air Force. When we went to the hospital to get the paperwork for my commander (had some restrictions on it and it served as their official notification) they handed us an application for WIC right along with it. They had regular hours on Base in which the WIC people were available to sign people up and help them with their application and paperwork. That to me is sad. We refused to apply and tried to give them back the application but they said they were required to give it to me even if I didn't want to fill it out.
|
|
Angel!
Senior Associate
Politics Admin
Joined: Dec 20, 2010 11:44:08 GMT -5
Posts: 10,722
|
Post by Angel! on Oct 25, 2012 13:40:44 GMT -5
And the children. That is just a ridiculous suggestion. Not everyone that is low wage is a crappy parent & doesn't deserve children. Not only that you could end up punishing people that were high wage & had some bad luck. Nothing like losing your job & then losing your kid also. As a society aren't we better than that? As a society if we continue to support those who do not support themselves, as well as continue to make bad choices, we will all go fail together. So yea, I hope as a society we are better than that and find some way to stop funding those who fail to take responsibility for themselves. Some people are always going to be unable to support themselves. I think the fact we care for these people makes us a great nation. Sure we could do with welfare reform, but I think it is stupid to even suggest we get rid of all these programs & leave these people to the wolves. And as Mid pointed out - most welfare recipients are not lifers, they are people who need short-term help. I both agree & disagree. Our society has too low of a birthrate as it is. We are below the replacement birth rate which is a bad thing. Kids are future tax payers, future workers, future business owners. And yes, some may be future welfare cases. While I would prefer people who can afford the kids have the kids, if the middle & upper class are going to keep deciding they can't afford to have a lot of kids, well someone needs to.
|
|
Tired Tess
Well-Known Member
I'm so ready to wrap it up.
Joined: Jan 16, 2011 8:47:41 GMT -5
Posts: 1,313
|
Post by Tired Tess on Oct 25, 2012 13:43:37 GMT -5
Kari, thank you for that clear explanation. I get it now.
|
|
The Captain
Junior Associate
Hugs are good...
Joined: Jan 4, 2011 16:21:23 GMT -5
Posts: 8,717
Location: State of confusion
Favorite Drink: Whinnnne
|
Post by The Captain on Oct 25, 2012 13:48:23 GMT -5
As a society if we continue to support those who do not support themselves, as well as continue to make bad choices, we will all go fail together. So yea, I hope as a society we are better than that and find some way to stop funding those who fail to take responsibility for themselves. Some people are always going to be unable unwillingto support themselves. I think the fact we care for these people makes us a great nation. Sure we could do with welfare reform, but I think it is stupid to even suggest we get rid of all these programs & leave these people to the wolves. And as Mid pointed out - most welfare recipients are not lifers, they are people who need short-term help. I both agree & disagree. Our society has too low of a birthrate as it is. We are below the replacement birth rate which is a bad thing. Kids are future tax payers, future workers, future business owners. And yes, some may be future welfare cases. While I would prefer people who can afford the kids have the kids, if the middle & upper class are going to keep deciding they can't afford to have a lot of kids, well someone needs to. Fixed. As far as the birthrate thing I can only say the movie idiotacracy (spelling probably wrong) comes to mind...
|
|
midjd
Administrator
Your Money Admin
Joined: Dec 18, 2010 14:09:23 GMT -5
Posts: 17,719
|
Post by midjd on Oct 25, 2012 13:50:04 GMT -5
So everyone who receives assistance is "unwilling" to support themselves? Good thing we don't have any disabled or mentally handicapped people living in the US...
|
|
movingforward
Junior Associate
Joined: Sept 15, 2011 12:48:31 GMT -5
Posts: 8,358
|
Post by movingforward on Oct 25, 2012 13:50:17 GMT -5
Kari and others have posted multiple studies that show that "someone having a short period of a rough times" are the majority of welfare recipients. The number of "generational welfare" families is much lower than you'd think. Yes, we all know THAT person who has a ton of kids s/he can't afford, and who buys crab legs with their food stamps, and drives an expensive car, but that's the exception, rather than the rule. Legislating to the exception rather than the majority usually results in some negative unintended consequences. I can honestly say I don't know THAT person
|
|
The Captain
Junior Associate
Hugs are good...
Joined: Jan 4, 2011 16:21:23 GMT -5
Posts: 8,717
Location: State of confusion
Favorite Drink: Whinnnne
|
Post by The Captain on Oct 25, 2012 13:50:43 GMT -5
Kari and others have posted multiple studies that show that "someone having a short period of a rough times" are the majority of welfare recipients. The number of "generational welfare" families is much lower than you'd think. Yes, we all know THAT person who has a ton of kids s/he can't afford, and who buys crab legs with their food stamps, and drives an expensive car, but that's the exception, rather than the rule. Legislating to the exception rather than the majority usually results in some negative unintended consequences. I believe the same studies show the same transitional families using welfare go on and off it several times during their lives. It's not the one and done thing as I read above.
|
|
HoneyBBQ
Junior Associate
Joined: Dec 27, 2010 10:36:09 GMT -5
Posts: 5,395
Mini-Profile Background: {"image":"","color":"3b444e"}
|
Post by HoneyBBQ on Oct 25, 2012 13:51:16 GMT -5
But he is now more interested in me starting a bail bonds business, which falls under my license. What license??
|
|
The Captain
Junior Associate
Hugs are good...
Joined: Jan 4, 2011 16:21:23 GMT -5
Posts: 8,717
Location: State of confusion
Favorite Drink: Whinnnne
|
Post by The Captain on Oct 25, 2012 13:53:45 GMT -5
So everyone who receives assistance is "unwilling" to support themselves? Good thing we don't have any disabled or mentally handicapped people living in the US... Note the use of the word SOME. Do you really believe there is not a significant amount of dollars spent to support people who are totally incapable of supporting thems selves. Do you believe 100% of the people who get welfare are totally incapable of being self-sufficient?
|
|
Deleted
Joined: May 3, 2024 10:32:11 GMT -5
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Oct 25, 2012 13:53:53 GMT -5
Cause we all were born with different levels of talent, drive, ambition, intelligence, morals, work ethics, and parental advantages. When you add a crappy economy to that mix, you end up with alot of people in need. It's more complicated then "they're all lazy", "all poor people are scammers" and "government wants them dependent". If it were that "simple" then there'd be no more poverty cause we'd fix it already. jaya, In my mind that is the clearly the case. Everyone has certain degree of contributing factor to succeed in life or not. It's not about the race nor how they brought up. One can come over any challenge with right mind set with intelligence. Maybe,my belief in life is little different then others. I think, good karma has also gives you additional fortune. See, I came from old school of thought
|
|
Angel!
Senior Associate
Politics Admin
Joined: Dec 20, 2010 11:44:08 GMT -5
Posts: 10,722
|
Post by Angel! on Oct 25, 2012 13:54:29 GMT -5
So everyone who receives assistance is "unwilling" to support themselves? Good thing we don't have any disabled or mentally handicapped people living in the US... Well at least you know if we cut off all welfare, then you won't need to open any orphanages. It wasn't that these people were in a rough patch or couldn't support themselves, they were just being lazy
|
|
Angel!
Senior Associate
Politics Admin
Joined: Dec 20, 2010 11:44:08 GMT -5
Posts: 10,722
|
Post by Angel! on Oct 25, 2012 13:56:23 GMT -5
So everyone who receives assistance is "unwilling" to support themselves? Good thing we don't have any disabled or mentally handicapped people living in the US... Note the use of the word SOME. Do you really believe there is not a significant amount of dollars spent to support people who are totally incapable of supporting thems selves. Do you believe 100% of the people who get welfare are totally incapable of being self-sufficient? No, I believe as I said SOME are UNABLE. I also believe some have hit a rought patch. I think some lack education to do better - which is what we as a society need to focus on most. I think there are very, very few that are lifers just gaming the system.
|
|
midjd
Administrator
Your Money Admin
Joined: Dec 18, 2010 14:09:23 GMT -5
Posts: 17,719
|
Post by midjd on Oct 25, 2012 13:57:42 GMT -5
Angel said some people are always going to be unable to support themselves. This is true.
You said some people are always going to be unwilling to support themselves. This is also true.
But crossing out "unable" and inserting "unwilling" (without also acknowledging the truth of Angel's original comment) implies that you don't believe anyone is unable to support themselves, just unwilling.
If this is wrong, I apologize - but that's how it reads.
|
|
Angel!
Senior Associate
Politics Admin
Joined: Dec 20, 2010 11:44:08 GMT -5
Posts: 10,722
|
Post by Angel! on Oct 25, 2012 13:59:03 GMT -5
Angel said some people are always going to be unable to support themselves. This is true. You said some people are always going to be unwilling to support themselves. This is also true. But crossing out "unable" and inserting "unwilling" (without also acknowledging the truth of Angel's original comment) implies that you don't believe anyone is unable to support themselves, just unwilling. If this is wrong, I apologize - but that's how it reads. I read it that way too. You said you fixed my statement, but there was nothing wrong with my initial statement. Your fix didn't make my statement any less true. Thus, there was nothing to fix.
|
|
sheilaincali
Senior Member
Joined: Dec 19, 2010 17:55:24 GMT -5
Posts: 4,131
|
Post by sheilaincali on Oct 25, 2012 14:02:45 GMT -5
Didn't we have a discussion awhile ago about how difficult it is for some people to get off public assistance? IIRC didn't Carl have someone he wanted to promote or give more hours to that had to turn the job down because the increase in income would result in a larger decrease in her benefits. If memory serves in the long run it was going to cost her money to take the promotion or additional hours?
I think more understanding or care needs to go into planning how to phase people off of assistance- this is for those that need it as a temporary thing. Obviously I'm not suggesting you phase the mentally and physically disabled off of public assistance.
|
|
midjd
Administrator
Your Money Admin
Joined: Dec 18, 2010 14:09:23 GMT -5
Posts: 17,719
|
Post by midjd on Oct 25, 2012 14:05:00 GMT -5
Who said "one and done"? I certainly didn't.
Getting off welfare is a pretty difficult process - it's been explored before (particularly the cases in which someone working a McJob and paying for childcare actually has a net loss). Is it worse to go on and off a few times before digging yourself out for good, or to stay on it forever because it's not worth trying? Obviously the person will be criticized either way, but I'm not going to begrudge someone a few setbacks if they are genuinely making an effort to get off welfare. And I think most do - to the best of their abilities (which are not necessarily the same as yours and mine).
|
|
movingforward
Junior Associate
Joined: Sept 15, 2011 12:48:31 GMT -5
Posts: 8,358
|
Post by movingforward on Oct 25, 2012 14:07:09 GMT -5
Didn't we have a discussion awhile ago about how difficult it is for some people to get off public assistance? IIRC didn't Carl have someone he wanted to promote or give more hours to that had to turn the job down because the increase in income would result in a larger decrease in her benefits. If memory serves in the long run it was going to cost her money to take the promotion or additional hours? I think more understand or care needs to go into planning how to phase people off of assistance- this is for those that need it as a temporary thing. Obviously I'm not suggesting you phase the mentally and physically disabled off of public assistance. Yes. I think this is one of the major things needed in welfare reform. When you make something all or nothing instead of having a sliding scale most people will pick whatever makes the most financial sense.
|
|
Angel!
Senior Associate
Politics Admin
Joined: Dec 20, 2010 11:44:08 GMT -5
Posts: 10,722
|
Post by Angel! on Oct 25, 2012 14:07:35 GMT -5
Didn't we have a discussion awhile ago about how difficult it is for some people to get off public assistance? IIRC didn't Carl have someone he wanted to promote or give more hours to that had to turn the job down because the increase in income would result in a larger decrease in her benefits. If memory serves in the long run it was going to cost her money to take the promotion or additional hours? I think more understand or care needs to go into planning how to phase people off of assistance- this is for those that need it as a temporary thing. Obviously I'm not suggesting you phase the mentally and physically disabled off of public assistance. Yes they need to seriously re-work the phasing of assistance. Making an extra $100/month could cost you $1000 in daycare assistance. It should not be set up that way because it makes it much harder to get off. This is one area where I feel EITC is actually well-designed. There is never a point where you have a net loss by earning more income.
|
|
movingforward
Junior Associate
Joined: Sept 15, 2011 12:48:31 GMT -5
Posts: 8,358
|
Post by movingforward on Oct 25, 2012 14:08:06 GMT -5
Who said "one and done"? I certainly didn't. Getting off welfare is a pretty difficult process - it's been explored before (particularly the cases in which someone working a McJob and paying for childcare actually has a net loss). Is it worse to go on and off a few times before digging yourself out for good, or to stay on it forever because it's not worth trying? Obviously the person will be criticized either way, but I'm not going to begrudge someone a few setbacks if they are genuinely making an effort to get off welfare. And I think most do - to the best of their abilities (which are not necessarily the same as yours and mine).
|
|
The Captain
Junior Associate
Hugs are good...
Joined: Jan 4, 2011 16:21:23 GMT -5
Posts: 8,717
Location: State of confusion
Favorite Drink: Whinnnne
|
Post by The Captain on Oct 25, 2012 14:10:42 GMT -5
Angel - I was responding to Mid. Yes sometimes someone hits a rough patch. But there is a significant portion (20%) who use it for five years or more. I do not consider that a temporary rough patch but becoming a way of life. www.statisticbrain.com/welfare-statistics/Also, the urban institute would dispute the statement about lifers... www.urban.org/publications/900288.html"In sum, the majority of families who ever turn to the welfare system for support will use it for relatively short periods of time, but the majority of families receiving assistance at any given point in time (i.e., the current caseload) will eventually receive welfare for relatively long periods of time. While these statements often seem contradictory, both are accurate and both are necessary to present a complete picture of time on welfare." So what the doctor is saying is that there is a core majority of the families currently on welfare who will receive it for a long period of time.
|
|
Angel!
Senior Associate
Politics Admin
Joined: Dec 20, 2010 11:44:08 GMT -5
Posts: 10,722
|
Post by Angel! on Oct 25, 2012 14:12:55 GMT -5
Angel - I was responding to Mid. Yes, involving how you "fixed" my quote. It seems reasonable I can be involved in the conversation.
|
|
Angel!
Senior Associate
Politics Admin
Joined: Dec 20, 2010 11:44:08 GMT -5
Posts: 10,722
|
Post by Angel! on Oct 25, 2012 14:17:17 GMT -5
"In sum, the majority of families who ever turn to the welfare system for support will use it for relatively short periods of time, but the majority of families receiving assistance at any given point in time (i.e., the current caseload) will eventually receive welfare for relatively long periods of time. While these statements often seem contradictory, both are accurate and both are necessary to present a complete picture of time on welfare." So what the doctor is saying is that there is a core majority of the families currently on welfare who will receive it for a long period of time. But, the majority of people that ever use it are on it for a short period. The fact is some people aren't bright enough to do much more than a minimum wage job & weren't given the education or opportunities to do much else. These people will need welfare. That doesn't mean they are gaming the system or lazy. Just that their capabilities make them unable to support a family. Others may disagree, but I'm not going to say that someone with low-pay & low-skills should never deserve to have children. For one that would mean we are going to start judging who does & does not deserve to procreate which I find abhorrent. And back to the birthrate issue - someone needs to have them. I don't see society functioning without a poor working class & I don't see it right to deny them children.
|
|
NomoreDramaQ1015
Community Leader
Joined: Dec 20, 2010 14:26:32 GMT -5
Posts: 47,263
Member is Online
|
Post by NomoreDramaQ1015 on Oct 25, 2012 14:20:26 GMT -5
But there is a significant portion (20%) who use it for five years or more
That means 80% of recipients don't use it for 5 years or more.
That's a significant portion too.
|
|
The Captain
Junior Associate
Hugs are good...
Joined: Jan 4, 2011 16:21:23 GMT -5
Posts: 8,717
Location: State of confusion
Favorite Drink: Whinnnne
|
Post by The Captain on Oct 25, 2012 14:20:58 GMT -5
I also agree that the current system appears to be set up to doom those trying to move ahead to failure. That is what needs to be changed.
Mid also commented on people's abilities which may not be the same as hers or mine. Gotta comment on that.
It was stated earlier not everyone has the same smarts or drive as everyone else. I agree with that. I am no smarter than the average bear but what I do have is a lot of ambition and work ethic. I worked a lot of hours at some very crappy jobs to get an education that will enable me to get ahead. I currently work a very difficult work schedule and commute long distances to have a good job. So yes, I have to admit I get a little testy when I'm told to suck it up and support someone too lazy to stick it out in high school or learn a trade or for figgen sake, even learn english.
|
|