I read this article from the Washington Post about a family in rural Virginia which is struggling to get by. Another victim of coal community collapsing, but the main premise of the post goes further than that. Both parents are on disability; the son goes out to beg for money on the streets. He's been fired from a couple of jobs and has not been able to land another job. A local person made headlines by criticizing what he calls "laziness" from their part: he offered the father a job and he refused.

Read the article and share your thoughts.

Laziness?

I kinda want to side with Hess on this. I don't know how it is out in rural America; I can speak for Puerto Rico where people on disability Can work but can convince government authorities that they have an illness that prevents them from doing so. I wouldn't be surprised if other areas in the US were similar: people collecting benefits when they're able bodied.

That's not to say that everyone who collects disability and benefits is lazy, but this family could be an example of it: just how bad is the father's injury that he can't do other tasks? And while the son was able to work before being fired by McDonald's (for something that could and should be excused...not everyone has the means to commute during a weather event), the closing parts of the article are what made me side with Hess: in a grocery store, where everyone else is holding down a job, why isn't he asking the manager to be hired?

einsteinboricua wrote:

A local person made headlines by criticizing what he calls "laziness" from their part: he offered the father a job and he refused.

Correction, frm the article. The local offered the begging son a job, the son refused on the basis he'd make more money panhandling.

The article would not load for me but I have some questions:

If the son is not on disability, why make him a bad person? He begs to help his parents who are on disability. Maybe the parents have cancer from the coal industry so they legitimately can not work. The son is being honest and saying that begging is keeping their home. I would not call it lazy. To go out every day not knowing if people are going to give anything.

seb146 wrote:

The article would not load for me but I have some questions:

If the son is not on disability, why make him a bad person? He begs to help his parents who are on disability. Maybe the parents have cancer from the coal industry so they legitimately can not work. The son is being honest and saying that begging is keeping their home. I would not call it lazy. To go out every day not knowing if people are going to give anything.

I saw that article earlier. They are lazy. There is no good reason why the son/daughter in law are not working. They are just leeching off the disabled mom. They get little sympathy from me...

I will say that there should be some sort of relocation fund available to these people to help them move to areas with better opportunities...

Some thoughts here; working in a coal mine is probably harder work than that guy Hess ever did. Back to the Dad, getting seriously hurt in that type of work, just another example where the company throws the injured worker to the wolfs. As for the kid, he should have planned for the future while he was in high school. He should have looked in vocational programs in the military, which would allow him to get out of that dump, get a regular income and benefits, that being said he might not have been able to pass the entrance exam. In the end he will be just like his parents, if he doesn't go out on his own. Big screen tv, game player, tattoos guess we know what was important.

Hold on. So a man with arms damaged in the coal industry, who probably also had black lung, declined a moving job?

What next? Attack a legless Iraqi vet for passing up a job with the New York Ballet?

What a bunch of crap. Arbeit Macht frei at its best. Get over it; some people just can't work. They aren't lazy. If anything, they need help getting past the humiliation and shame that begging causes, not a public whipping.

We have a name for articles like this in Britain. It's poverty porn. A 21st Century version of whipping the poor or Victorian gentry visiting the workhouse to gaze upon the feckless and undeserving.

ChrisKen wrote:

einsteinboricua wrote:

A local person made headlines by criticizing what he calls "laziness" from their part: he offered the father a job and he refused.

Correction, frm the article. The local offered the begging son a job, the son refused on the basis he'd make more money panhandling.

And therein lies the problem - when you can make more money begging for it than doing honest work, you know there's something wrong.

The one guy can not get a job because his arms are so damaged and he is in so much pain he can not pass a drug test because of opioids (and probably pot) but he is lazy? Because he worked?

I get that the kid can probably do something. If he had the money. But, he does not because that is all he knows and all he thinks he can afford.

This is another case of "you need to pull yourself up by your bootstraps but we are not going to give you any help so you start with less than zero." Or blame the victim. Whichever is easier to understand.

usflyer msp wrote:

here is no good reason why the son/daughter in law are not working.

they do work, as in putting time in to make money...

I will say that there should be some sort of relocation fund available to these people to help them move to areas with better opportunities...

you don´t have that? Amazing....

best regards
Thomas

The overall point is that there is a certain proportion of the population that live off the state, and whose career it is to get every possible handout from government and charity. Some people are true experts at this.

No doubt, pan handling is tax free, and has other grey market advantages. In the UK, to massage unemployment numbers, people are moved to disability status quite quickly.

BestWestern wrote:

The overall point is that there is a certain proportion of the population that live off the state, and whose career it is to get every possible handout from government and charity. Some people are true experts at this.

Please don't be too harsh on politicians and staffers. No doubt they see themselves as making a valuable contribution.

Channex757 wrote:

Hold on. So a man with arms damaged in the coal industry, who probably also had black lung, declined a moving job?

It's more than that. I don't know the extent of damage to the guy's arms but you mean to tell me you can't do ANY work at all?

The legless Iraqi veteran has hope: he gets a prosthetic installed and can get on with life.

seb146 wrote:

This is another case of "you need to pull yourself up by your bootstraps but we are not going to give you any help so you start with less than zero." Or blame the victim. Whichever is easier to understand.

I disagree with you. This is a case of not having priorities straight. If you read the article, how can a $500 disability check pay for internet and cigarettes and junk food? "It makes life easier and keeps me connected to the outside world". NO! Cut off the internet for a while unless you're putting in job applications. Work a night shift at a gas station or a local retail store. I'm glad the kid was actually trying to get ahead by going to community college. But if they all have money to fund frivolous things, they also have money to save for future use.

As for the father, again, is he SO disabled that he can't do anything at all? Work at a local post office sorting mail? Work as a janitor? Wash dishes at a restaurant? Stock shelves? Might as well cut them off if they're useless.

The article calls people by their last name only half the times, when all in the family have the same one, making it difficult to read.

I got that the guy offered a job to the father, not the son.

Now it seems to me the father should have answered that he couldn't work because disability/drugs/jail, but that his son could be interested in the job.

Of course when you're living a crappy life, depression kicks in and you might not care anymore.

tommy1808 wrote:

usflyer msp wrote:

I will say that there should be some sort of relocation fund available to these people to help them move to areas with better opportunities...

you don´t have that? Amazing....

Not that I don't like the idea in some ways, but the question I have is: At what point is the state not responsible for finding someone a place where there are jobs, and jobs they will actually try to get and work? What if the state provides funds to move to a city and the person still doesn't find a job? Is the state still responsible? Or maybe even more responsible since they assisted in the move? Is the person receiving such a benefit required to move to a certain location (a region with low unemployment perhaps), or do you leave it to the person to choose freely?

Why would the state get involved in something like that?

Now one big difference could be the German versus US point of view and that fact that the US spans four times zones, the places you can move people are far greater and so are the consequences. If the state creates a situation where they begin to assume some level of responsibility, the costs can be far higher (especially in a litigious country like the USA, if the state offers something it will be taken to its absolute maximum, beyond what was planned/expected, unless perfectly crafted. I do not know if other countries have a similar issue with that).

Again I am just posing questions for discussion.

Tugg

It depends what you make of opportunity. Many people make nothing of ANY opportunity. Their destiny is to be a whiny loser, completely irrespective of opportunity level. Moving around the USA is pitifully easy. It almost makes me cry how easy it is. If you can't do it, that is your fault.

Others hustle and demand nothing but the best from themselves. They wake up early, study hard, and work hard. They end up millionaires not because of greed, often, but because they have achieved something. I put many people in this category who not only grew up poor in the USA, but in Nepal, India, Pakistan, Mexico, China, even Iraq. Growing up "poor" means you need to study a little harder and hustle a little more. But good parents matter far more than your level of poverty. Without good parents you are basically destined to be a ward of the state - it's expected.

Now the time comes for moral judgment. Who is a "good person" and who is a "bad person?" Well, that is up to you.

Tugger wrote:

At what point is the state not responsible for finding someone a place where there are jobs, and jobs they will actually try to get and work? What if the state provides funds to move to a city and the person still doesn't find a job? Is the state still responsible? Or maybe even more responsible since they assisted in the move? Is the person receiving such a benefit required to move to a certain location (a region with low unemployment perhaps), or do you leave it to the person to choose freely?

This is no different than when a company pays for your relocation. You either accept the help or you're on your own. And if you DO accept the help, you're liable to pay back all monies in case you can't hold down a job for reasons other than lack of jobs in the area. And, as with any assistance, if you blew it off on frivolous things, it's all on you and if did not help land a job (you blew it all on a trip or cigarettes or beer or bets...), then community service or another form of recovery.

For example, for this family, the state can bring them to a more active town so that if the family is not working the mines, at least the son has plenty of job opportunities working at retails or other enterprises. If he's fired for failing a drug test or missing shifts (though the McDonalds case was overkill...I also would have chosen safety over work) that's a cause for trying to recover the money spent (one way or another).

My company requires me to spend a year at the new place before I am able to move elsewhere and I'm not liable for it anymore. I don't see why the government couldn't impose a similar scenario. The fund does not have to be so that people get a new home, but enough that they have means to reach the new towns. Whether it be a small loan to fix a car, buy wardrobe for an interview, etc...something to allow them to leave that small town behind and seek opportunities elsewhere. The government can even assist with connecting people to prospective employers so that any amount disbursed is justified.

The government tells you where the jobs are. It will help take you there. It's up to you to take initiative and go there; if you stay behind, it's no one's fault but yours.

Flighty wrote:

It depends what you make of opportunity.

einsteinboricua wrote:

It's up to you to take initiative and go there; if you stay behind, it's no one's fault but yours.

Thanks, good points. I guess I can see something like the disaster declaration process with FEMA. If a town or region is blighted and their economies all collapse then the state can declare such (an economic disaster?) and people within the region can be eligible for low cost loans to afford to move. I don't know if I agree with a "no pay back" clause but I could see something crafted where by if someone earns x amount over the following year or two (or whatever criteria is decided) then a certain value is waived.

I agree that is is always up to the person to find something they can do. And maybe that is only answer phones and transfer calls (weak arms?).

I am not a fan of much "permanent-temporary" government assistance, and in fact think we have too much assistance that should be temporary that is abused by those who can/game the system and that essentially ruins it for those that truly could use it. It can be difficult for an average person to access assistance (which I understand there need to be a process to go through) and so you end up with experts that know how to do it and get it. So too many that don't or shouldn't end up getting a benefit while those that need it don't know how or don't want to deal with the hassle and so don't access it.

Tugg

Tugger wrote:

tommy1808 wrote:

usflyer msp wrote:

I will say that there should be some sort of relocation fund available to these people to help them move to areas with better opportunities...

you don´t have that? Amazing....

Not that I don't like the idea in some ways, but the question I have is: At what point is the state not responsible for finding someone a place where there are jobs, and jobs they will actually try to get and work? What if the state provides funds to move to a city and the person still doesn't find a job? Is the state still responsible? Or maybe even more responsible since they assisted in the move? Is the person receiving such a benefit required to move to a certain location (a region with low unemployment perhaps), or do you leave it to the person to choose freely?

Why would the state get involved in something like that?

Now one big difference could be the German versus US point of view and that fact that the US spans four times zones, the places you can move people are far greater and so are the consequences. If the state creates a situation where they begin to assume some level of responsibility, the costs can be far higher (especially in a litigious country like the USA, if the state offers something it will be taken to its absolute maximum, beyond what was planned/expected, unless perfectly crafted. I do not know if other countries have a similar issue with that).

Again I am just posing questions for discussion.

Tugg

The simple solution to that is to hook them up with an employer that needs workers so that they have a job before they move. They can do web/phone interviews and what not before the funds are disbursed...

Tugger wrote:

tommy1808 wrote:

usflyer msp wrote:

I will say that there should be some sort of relocation fund available to these people to help them move to areas with better opportunities...

you don´t have that? Amazing....

Not that I don't like the idea in some ways, but the question I have is: At what point is the state not responsible for finding someone a place where there are jobs, and jobs they will actually try to get and work? What if the state provides funds to move to a city and the person still doesn't find a job?

You got my idea wrong and/or i phrased it badly. The idea is to subsidize moving after someone finds a job. People without cash in the bank are otherwise limited to jobs in their area, if moving costs are only a minor issue, that reason is removed. For people living from check to check and job starters that can be a real obstickle.

Why would the state get involved in something like that?

Because having people in a job is just as much in their interest as it is in the jobless persons. In case of minimum wage jobs it may even be more in the states interest, because the savings for them may very well exceed the standard of life improvement of the job seeker.

Now one big difference could be the German versus US point of view and that fact that the US spans four times zones, the places you can move people are far greater and so are the consequences.

Nah, I think it is because of Germany having a pretty much 360° social security network with the associated cost/month/unemployed person vs. a rather leaky net in the US. Unemployment befits here are 60 to 67% of your net income, and it is a real insurance, not paid out of taxes. So they are very keen on doing stuff to keep their costs down. They also pay trips to job interviews if need be, reimburse expenses to sent out CVs (and offering you training classes on how to do those properly, pay for classes to fill little gaps in your qualifications like Excel or languages)... apparently there is a RoI in financial aid to find and arectually start a job.

Best regards
Thomas

einsteinboricua wrote:

Channex757 wrote:

Hold on. So a man with arms damaged in the coal industry, who probably also had black lung, declined a moving job?

It's more than that. I don't know the extent of damage to the guy's arms but you mean to tell me you can't do ANY work at all?

The legless Iraqi veteran has hope: he gets a prosthetic installed and can get on with life.

A legless Iraqi vet also has the VA and government health care.

einsteinboricua wrote:

seb146 wrote:

This is another case of "you need to pull yourself up by your bootstraps but we are not going to give you any help so you start with less than zero." Or blame the victim. Whichever is easier to understand.

I disagree with you. This is a case of not having priorities straight. If you read the article, how can a $500 disability check pay for internet and cigarettes and junk food? "It makes life easier and keeps me connected to the outside world". NO! Cut off the internet for a while unless you're putting in job applications. Work a night shift at a gas station or a local retail store. I'm glad the kid was actually trying to get ahead by going to community college. But if they all have money to fund frivolous things, they also have money to save for future use.

As for the father, again, is he SO disabled that he can't do anything at all? Work at a local post office sorting mail? Work as a janitor? Wash dishes at a restaurant? Stock shelves? Might as well cut them off if they're useless.[/quote]

I get that buying booze and smokes is a waste. But, as another poster pointed out, the father (and probably the mother) probably have such severe depression, they don't know what else to do. It sounds like the father contributed to society through working in the mines and that messed him up physically so throw him out? That is not who we should be.

But, this brings up another point: Health care for us. This man's arms are so badly damaged that he can not do anything. He can not afford to get them fixed because of our for-profit only health care system. This is something we, as a nation, should be talking about. Not throwing him away but figuring out how he can be fixed so he can go back to contributing. This sort of thing is more common than we think.

Flighty wrote:

Now the time comes for moral judgment. Who is a "good person" and who is a "bad person?" Well, that is up to you.

Time for moral judgement by whose clock? Yours?

treetreeseven wrote:

Flighty wrote:

Now the time comes for moral judgment. Who is a "good person" and who is a "bad person?" Well, that is up to you.

Time for moral judgement by whose clock? Yours?

I guess the point was that the rest of my post was not meant as a morality essay. Some people are "go-getters" and other people are not. We can't expect both types of people to be equally rewarded. If there are no jobs in your town you need to leave town. Our ancestors ALL did that.. in the US anyhow. Not everybody does it... if you have 10 kids, 1 might leave. That's something. We can't expect every story is a happy successful story - that's not what human history is.

ChrisKen wrote:

einsteinboricua wrote:

A local person made headlines by criticizing what he calls "laziness" from their part: he offered the father a job and he refused.

Correction, frm the article. The local offered the begging son a job, the son refused on the basis he'd make more money panhandling.

That presents another fundamental flaw thar requires a different thread.

Flighty wrote:

treetreeseven wrote:

Flighty wrote:

Now the time comes for moral judgment. Who is a "good person" and who is a "bad person?" Well, that is up to you.

Time for moral judgement by whose clock? Yours?

I guess the point was that the rest of my post was not meant as a morality essay. Some people are "go-getters" and other people are not. We can't expect both types of people to be equally rewarded. If there are no jobs in your town you need to leave town. Our ancestors ALL did that.. in the US anyhow. Not everybody does it... if you have 10 kids, 1 might leave. That's something. We can't expect every story is a happy successful story - that's not what human history is.

I hear this from some people and my response is: it takes money. If a person has nothing, they can not afford to pick up and move because they do not have the financial backing to do so. Also, when our ancestors did that, they did not have debt like we have today, and they knew their gamble would pay off. Now, who knows. If a miner leaves coal country to study coding at a good college, there is no guarantee a good paying job will be waiting on the other end. This is not true of all people these days, but this is how some of them are.

seb146, I disagree - there were no guarantees of comfort before. Life has never been as comfortable for the poor as it is now in this country. It was always worse. You just need to study history (and geography) to see what the human condition was like 200 years ago - many people were in chains!!! women were bought and sold. And much of the world is still like that today. Saying people are "needy" means nothing to me - when I worked in airlines, pilots and mechanics told of their "financial needs" and I see medical doctors doing that today not uncommonly. These are cognitive problems, not money problems.

When I hear "it takes money," my response is, if we give out money to people, we professionalize their doing the action that generated that money for their family. Such as having a child they cannot afford. Professional poor person. If we pay people to move around and be poor, then they are professionals, and they must never exit poverty, or else that profession will end. An increasing proportion of people can;t survive outside government human custody programs of one kind of another. It's like people expect government to be their zookeeper!! It's an insurmountable class divide cropping up - harmful to the lower half I'd say, because it prevents and prohibits success. Once you get on all the programs, you're never getting off. It is an anti-success lifestyle. It's amazing that people expect communism to work - it doesn't; this all causes great harm to people.

einsteinboricua wrote:

Channex757 wrote:

Hold on. So a man with arms damaged in the coal industry, who probably also had black lung, declined a moving job?

It's more than that. I don't know the extent of damage to the guy's arms but you mean to tell me you can't do ANY work at all?

The legless Iraqi veteran has hope: he gets a prosthetic installed and can get on with life.

seb146 wrote:

This is another case of "you need to pull yourself up by your bootstraps but we are not going to give you any help so you start with less than zero." Or blame the victim. Whichever is easier to understand.

I disagree with you. This is a case of not having priorities straight. If you read the article, how can a $500 disability check pay for internet and cigarettes and junk food? "It makes life easier and keeps me connected to the outside world". NO! Cut off the internet for a while unless you're putting in job applications. Work a night shift at a gas station or a local retail store. I'm glad the kid was actually trying to get ahead by going to community college. But if they all have money to fund frivolous things, they also have money to save for future use.

As for the father, again, is he SO disabled that he can't do anything at all? Work at a local post office sorting mail? Work as a janitor? Wash dishes at a restaurant? Stock shelves? Might as well cut them off if they're useless.

I agree all the way to the end until you talk about the dad. Hand injuries can be quite painful and all the jobs you mentioned involve using the hands. I hope what you said about cutting them off was in jest because that should really not be done unless it was a last resource in order to save a life...

There is a local guy here, who is on disability, but he manages to make it to the local gay bar and drink all night long, walk around, walk in gay pride parades, and party. Then complains about being on disability on social media. I'm a bit dumbfounded by it.

Flighty wrote:

seb146, I disagree - there were no guarantees of comfort before. Life has never been as comfortable for the poor as it is now in this country. It was always worse. You just need to study history (and geography) to see what the human condition was like 200 years ago - many people were in chains!!! women were bought and sold. And much of the world is still like that today. Saying people are "needy" means nothing to me - when I worked in airlines, pilots and mechanics told of their "financial needs" and I see medical doctors doing that today not uncommonly. These are cognitive problems, not money problems.

When I hear "it takes money," my response is, if we give out money to people, we professionalize their doing the action that generated that money for their family. Such as having a child they cannot afford. Professional poor person. If we pay people to move around and be poor, then they are professionals, and they must never exit poverty, or else that profession will end. An increasing proportion of people can;t survive outside government human custody programs of one kind of another. It's like people expect government to be their zookeeper!! It's an insurmountable class divide cropping up - harmful to the lower half I'd say, because it prevents and prohibits success. Once you get on all the programs, you're never getting off. It is an anti-success lifestyle. It's amazing that people expect communism to work - it doesn't; this all causes great harm to people.

I grew up in a depressed area. The best jobs people could hope for are either seasonal or minimum wage. Thankfully, one can survive on minimum wage there. Not get out, but survive. But, being a small town, those jobs are scarce. There are people who are on "welfare" (read: food stamps, state-assisted health care, WIC) because they have exhausted all their options, not because they want free stuff. And it is easy to get off "welfare" because it ends.

No one but no one WANTS to be on "welfare." As much as people say we do, we do not. Go talk to these people you believe are on "welfare" and ask them why they have to mooch off the government. Those people begging. The homeless vets. The homeless mothers. Go on and ask them why they don't have jobs and why they want to live on government handouts.

Of course, the reason I know so much about this is because we had to figure out how to get by without "welfare" and, once we took that crap government peanut butter, crap government powdered egg mix, crap government powdered milk, we had to figure out how we could get to a place where we never needed that crap again.

AntonioMartin wrote:

I agree all the way to the end until you talk about the dad. Hand injuries can be quite painful and all the jobs you mentioned involve using the hands.

That's what reasonable accommodation is for then. But again, are the hands and arms so affected that he can't do ANY work?

AntonioMartin wrote:

I hope what you said about cutting them off was in jest because that should really not be done unless it was a last resource in order to save a life...

No...I'm dead serious.

Of course it's a jest. But think about it: why would I keep useless extremities? You're essentially saying that the person is justified in not working because they're not able to do any work. If you can lift a cigarette to your mouth, you can pick up a phone (and with headsets these days, the job is as easy as they come); you can push a cart with trays as a busboy; you can sit at a cash register to take money and scan items with a scan gun.

einsteinboricua wrote:

AntonioMartin wrote:

I agree all the way to the end until you talk about the dad. Hand injuries can be quite painful and all the jobs you mentioned involve using the hands.

That's what reasonable accommodation is for then. But again, are the hands and arms so affected that he can't do ANY work?

AntonioMartin wrote:

I hope what you said about cutting them off was in jest because that should really not be done unless it was a last resource in order to save a life...

No...I'm dead serious.

Of course it's a jest. But think about it: why would I keep useless extremities? You're essentially saying that the person is justified in not working because they're not able to do any work. If you can lift a cigarette to your mouth, you can pick up a phone (and with headsets these days, the job is as easy as they come); you can push a cart with trays as a busboy; you can sit at a cash register to take money and scan items with a scan gun.

It may have been said earlier but the person in the original story who had the arms that could not work probably also has some form of depression. Of course, it would be "welfare" if s/he got government backed health care to deal with his depression, so that is out...

I guess I am one of those "new age hippie" types that is okay with things like mental health counseling along with medical guidance covered by health care.

In before "mental illness is a moral failing"

seb146 wrote:

It may have been said earlier but the person in the original story who had the arms that could not work probably also has some form of depression. Of course, it would be "welfare" if s/he got government backed health care to deal with his depression, so that is out...

I guess I am one of those "new age hippie" types that is okay with things like mental health counseling along with medical guidance covered by health care.

I don't see anything wrong with someone being counseled back to a healthy mental state being covered by health care, but I also believe there needs to be a limit. You can't claim to be depressed to live off the government. If the threat of losing all you have does not make you go out to work, then no counseling is gonna help.

Again, you can take a horse to water but you can't make it drink. People must want to be helped for any counseling to work. This person seems more content on reflecting on the woes of the family while claiming that his arms are preventing him from working than actually attempting a bit of work in any form. I simply refuse to accept someone saying "my arms don't work, give me my check". Back home this was the norm, except people didn't have disabilities; they could ask a doctor to write a note, they'd give it to the government and hello welfare check. Maybe that's why I'm suspicious of stories like these.

But fine, the father is truly disabled that he can't do ANY sort of work. What about the wife? The son? The daughter in law? We know what happened to the son, but again, that last paragraph speaks volumes: at the grocery store, phoning back home but not talking to the manager? The priorities for this family are not straight and no amount of help will get them back on their feet until they make the efforts needed.

einsteinboricua wrote:

seb146 wrote:

It may have been said earlier but the person in the original story who had the arms that could not work probably also has some form of depression. Of course, it would be "welfare" if s/he got government backed health care to deal with his depression, so that is out...

I guess I am one of those "new age hippie" types that is okay with things like mental health counseling along with medical guidance covered by health care.

I don't see anything wrong with someone being counseled back to a healthy mental state being covered by health care, but I also believe there needs to be a limit. You can't claim to be depressed to live off the government. If the threat of losing all you have does not make you go out to work, then no counseling is gonna help.

Again, you can take a horse to water but you can't make it drink. People must want to be helped for any counseling to work. This person seems more content on reflecting on the woes of the family while claiming that his arms are preventing him from working than actually attempting a bit of work in any form. I simply refuse to accept someone saying "my arms don't work, give me my check". Back home this was the norm, except people didn't have disabilities; they could ask a doctor to write a note, they'd give it to the government and hello welfare check. Maybe that's why I'm suspicious of stories like these.

But fine, the father is truly disabled that he can't do ANY sort of work. What about the wife? The son? The daughter in law? We know what happened to the son, but again, that last paragraph speaks volumes: at the grocery store, phoning back home but not talking to the manager? The priorities for this family are not straight and no amount of help will get them back on their feet until they make the efforts needed.

Amen. While mental illness / attitude is clearly the main factor in these cases IMO... to "help" them is a misnomer. Helping them is not actually helping them, it is making yourself feel better by enabling someone's dysfunction. It's one of the tactics you can try. If it doesn't work, you stop doing it.

This family could also be a product of putting family ahead of individuals. I am not condoning any of this bad behavior. Some areas of the country, the collective family must survive. They all contribute and they all share. Again, this does not excuse anything. Think about it: Family is the most important thing to some. Maybe the son had this instilled in him from a very young age. That he must take care of his parents no matter what. And the parents had instilled in them that they must take care of their children no matter what. The son goes out and begs for money so he can contribute things like tobacco and alcohol (maybe drugs, too, but benefit of the doubt). In return, the parents let him use their food stamps.

It makes for an interesting psychological talk.

I did a bit of investigating (Facebook is a great tool...).

On the one hand, I empathize with the family. And I may be a bit harsh expecting a 19-year old to be bringing home the bacon.

However, as the article points out, if they're going hungry and he's able bodied, is it so wrong to ask him to take up a job? The wife? The mother?

Which is why I bring up the psychological study aspect. I think it would be interesting to figure this out from that angle. It sounds like there may be some OCD issue or something similar. "This seems to be working well for us now, so why bother changing" is a kind of mental conditioning. I have found myself doing that when driving or at work. It does not excuse anything but it could put these, and many others, on a better path.

It is absolutely normal to expect the person to take up a job, but if the job is going to give him fewer money than not working, then it would be financially suicidial for him to take up the job?

c933103 wrote:

It is absolutely normal to expect the person to take up a job, but if the job is going to give him fewer money than not working, then it would be financially suicidial for him to take up the job?

Yes. Homo Economicus. The same way businesses don´t usually take loss making contracts and, if no alternative to keep them busy, offload workers into unemployment assistance and welfare. Only difference is that one is called "lazy" and the other gets you applause from the stock markets.

best regards
Thomas

tommy1808 wrote:

Only difference is that one is called "lazy" and the other gets you applause from the stock markets.

This is where I break with Democrats. Receiving welfare after being laid off isn't being lazy. Receiving welfare and complaining about being laid off without putting the effort to find a job is. If I'm in an industry that is dwindling or being automated, that's enough for me to get out while I still can and find another industry that's stable. That is why I am reserved about this family; they seem content to dwell in their sorrow rather than setting priorities straight and plan a way out of their situation. I would make it a condition that, if you were laid off, you must show us evidence that you're either acquiring a new skill to enter a new industry or have put time and effort into getting a new job anywhere.

Where I break with Republicans, however, is with the delusion that cutting/eliminating welfare benefits will balance the budget and will spur people to get a job faster. Some areas are simply not feasible; some people are evidently disabled. To pull the rug from under them to allow the rich to get a juicy tax cut is inhumane. I can cross the aisle to reform the programs (maybe add a few strings here and there) but cutting benefits for "budget issues" is out of the question for me.

einsteinboricua wrote:

[This is where I break with Democrats. Receiving welfare after being laid off isn't being lazy. Receiving welfare and complaining about being laid off without putting the effort to find a job is

You misunderstood, laying off is the company getting welfare and being lazy. If you can find a job whenever you want to, companies can also always find orders to fulfill. So, a company that lays of people is just to lazy to secure orders.....

Did i made more clear what i mean?

best regards
Thomas

tommy1808 wrote:

You misunderstood, laying off is the company getting welfare and being lazy. If you can find a job whenever you want to, companies can also always find orders to fulfill. So, a company that lays of people is just to lazy to secure orders.....

Did i made more clear what i mean?

Oh I see...

einsteinboricua wrote:

tommy1808 wrote:

Only difference is that one is called "lazy" and the other gets you applause from the stock markets.

This is where I break with Democrats. Receiving welfare after being laid off isn't being lazy. Receiving welfare and complaining about being laid off without putting the effort to find a job is. If I'm in an industry that is dwindling or being automated, that's enough for me to get out while I still can and find another industry that's stable. That is why I am reserved about this family; they seem content to dwell in their sorrow rather than setting priorities straight and plan a way out of their situation. I would make it a condition that, if you were laid off, you must show us evidence that you're either acquiring a new skill to enter a new industry or have put time and effort into getting a new job anywhere.

Where I break with Republicans, however, is with the delusion that cutting/eliminating welfare benefits will balance the budget and will spur people to get a job faster. Some areas are simply not feasible; some people are evidently disabled. To pull the rug from under them to allow the rich to get a juicy tax cut is inhumane. I can cross the aisle to reform the programs (maybe add a few strings here and there) but cutting benefits for "budget issues" is out of the question for me.

I dunno. shouldn't people save money for a rainy day? What about borrowing money from family or friends? That is what non-citizens do in this country. They are even poorer than citizens. Yet, they are amazed by how easy it is to make high wages and raise a family in the US, compared to their home countries.

Welfare is a last resort to prevent starvation and homelessness. It is not something people should automatically rely on. It should be an emergency program, for emergencies only. It should not be a lifestyle. It should not last 40+ years. Eliminating (extensions to) unemployment benefits does directly spur people to gain employment - plenty of recent evidence on that.

Disability is a whole other thing - a lifelong emergency status that means you need to be taken care of by society for life. If cutting benefits (such as Medicaid) is out of the question for you, do you pay your fair share of Medicaid annually, with an extra payment over and above your taxes? We are just issuing new debt to pay for entitlements. If you believe in that, you should make extra payments to the government rather than just vote for our children to be indebted.

Flighty wrote:

I dunno. shouldn't people save money for a rainy day?

How much do you think someone making just 20 or 30k can safe while feeding a family?
That people should safe for a rainy day is acounted for by setting limits on how much welfare or unemployment benefits you get. People that can maintain their life's at those "income" levels usually have a pay that doesn't allow them to safe any substantial amount of money beyond much more than existing.

What about borrowing money from family or friends?

If you have family and friends, they do have money to give to you and have a concept of family and friendship that makes them give the money, yes, that is a possibility.
There is also the little issue of paying back on a, let's say, minimum wage job, where you need close to 100% of your income to just pay your bills.

That is what non-citizens do in this country.

Tells you something about the value friendship and family have in that community.

They are even poorer than citizens. Yet, they are amazed by how easy it is to make high wages and raise a family in the US, compared to their home countries.

Tells you something about how poor their home countries are. Poor in a wealthy country can of course be better than being poor in a poor country. The people sawing the closes for your first lady would surely prefer wing poor in the US over their current full time job.

Welfare is a last resort

Yes

to prevent starvation and homelessness.

No, it is actually to allow a standard of living adequate for the health and well-being of himself and of his family, including food, clothing, housing and medical care and necessary social services.

is not something people should automatically rely on.

They should not see it as free income without even trying, but they should be able to rely on it. It is their right just as much as voting or their freedom of religion.

It should be an emergency program, for emergencies only.

It is, no one gets it without needing it. At least in theory that is, there will always be leakers in the system of course.

It should not last 40+ years.

It should last as long as it is needed. You don't get just 5 votes or two changes of religion in your lifetime.

Eliminating (extensions to) unemployment benefits does directly spur people to gain employment - plenty of recent evidence on that.

Please, do share that evidence....

There is also a neat correlation between having some money and crime, see for example here: http://www.people.hbs.edu/ffoley/Crime.pdf

A well made, in terms or fraud prevention and such, welfare can be a very effective crime prevention tool. Prisons ain't cheap either...

Disability is a whole other thing - a lifelong emergency status that means you need to be taken care of by society for life.

I disagree. Few disabilities disqualify you from work, in Germany almost 90% of the severely disabled hold a job, generally their unemployment rate hovers about twice that of healthy people. Instead of having them on welfare, we rather support the costs of upping their work place to enable them to do their job.

If cutting benefits (such as Medicaid) is out of the question for you, do you pay your fair share of Medicaid annually, with an extra payment over and above your taxes? We are just issuing new debt to pay for entitlements. If you believe in that, you should make extra payments to the government rather than just vote for our children to be indebted.

Welfare ain't charity.

Best regards
Thomas

Flighty wrote:

If cutting benefits (such as Medicaid) is out of the question for you, do you pay your fair share of Medicaid annually, with an extra payment over and above your taxes? We are just issuing new debt to pay for entitlements. If you believe in that, you should make extra payments to the government rather than just vote for our children to be indebted.

I find it difficult to understand how you can actually believe such nonsense.

Should we make extra payments, over and above our taxes, to fund our police departments, libraries, public schools or any other functions that we assign to governments?

The answer to not borrowing to fund current programs is either (or both):

1. Reduce the size of (or eliminate) the programs.

2. Increase tax rates to fully cover our costs.

Voluntary donation programs to fund shortfalls in revenue has never been and never will be a solution.

Many people do, of course, make donations in support of non-governmental programs that address social problems (food banks vs. food stamps, for instance).

Flighty wrote:

I dunno. shouldn't people save money for a rainy day? What about borrowing money from family or friends? That is what non-citizens do in this country. They are even poorer than citizens. Yet, they are amazed by how easy it is to make high wages and raise a family in the US, compared to their home countries.

While $1000 a month will go forever in some other countries, it barely covers anything here. Even in rural areas. And immigrants quickly find that out. On paper, it looks great, but in reality, it does not work. Add to that the fact that immigrants are hated and not welcome in rural areas because they are terrorists and/or drug dealers.

Welfare is a last resort to prevent starvation and homelessness. It is not something people should automatically rely on. It should be an emergency program, for emergencies only. It should not be a lifestyle. It should not last 40+ years. Eliminating (extensions to) unemployment benefits does directly spur people to gain employment - plenty of recent evidence on that.

That people were forced to take whatever they could instead of what would keep their families surviving. Which is why we have the homeless crisis we have today.

Disability is a whole other thing - a lifelong emergency status that means you need to be taken care of by society for life. If cutting benefits (such as Medicaid) is out of the question for you, do you pay your fair share of Medicaid annually, with an extra payment over and above your taxes? We are just issuing new debt to pay for entitlements. If you believe in that, you should make extra payments to the government rather than just vote for our children to be indebted.

Companies are not going to shell out forever for injuries for workers. If a person working in a coal mine loses their arm and develops lung cancer because of mining work, how are they to survive and pay their medical expenses? The kindness of strangers? The company will not pay for their lifetime of care. Maybe a one-time payment. How is that supposed to feed and house and pay medical insurance? Especially considering that worker now has a pre-existing condition.