Sonofanump;873519 wrote:We are humans, I should be able to compare a person from Niger or Chad to someone living in Martins Ferry or Plymouth, why does where we live make the poverty level change. </SPAN>

Is this a serious question?

sej;873541 wrote:I'm drawing unemployment, and I have a smart phone. When I signed the contract, there was little chance I'd lose my job. Now it's still more cost efficient for me to keep the contract than pay the fee to get out of it. Even when the contract is up, I still won't go without a cell phone. We have no land line, and I'm unaware of any neighbors that are home during the day. I'm sure as hell not going to not a phone if an emergency arises.

I have a flat screen TV, too.

I was also a Pell Grant recipient throughout college. I'm just an awful person all around.

Yep! And it didn't take me till now to come to this conclusion either.

Scarlet_Buckeye;873554 wrote:Yep! And it didn't take me till now to come to this conclusion either.

Good job.



In my prior post, I neglected to include that your theory about a college grad being able to walk in and get hired by the end of the day isn't really all that great. I've tried, and I have significant experience in cash handling, customer service and staff management. Each place has essentially told me I'm over qualified, and they don't want to hire someone who won't be around long.

sej;873541 wrote:I'm drawing unemployment, and I have a smart phone. When I signed the contract, there was little chance I'd lose my job. Now it's still more cost efficient for me to keep the contract than pay the fee to get out of it. Even when the contract is up, I still won't go without a cell phone. We have no land line, and I'm unaware of any neighbors that are home during the day. I'm sure as hell not going to not a phone if an emergency arises.

I have a flat screen TV, too.

I was also a Pell Grant recipient throughout college. I'm just an awful person all around.

</SPAN>
I don’t know if you are an awful person. Did you work prior to unemployment in order to qualify or did you falsify documents to collect? Is not unemployment insurance subsidized by the employer to the state, or is it a government program independent of the employer? </SPAN>

Did you purchase said luxury items while on the government dole?

Too bad that our country is run like it is to cause such unemployment. Inefficient government programs in this welfare state overtaxing the private sector causing job loss. </SPAN>

LJ;873547 wrote:Is this a serious question?

I though we were done?

LJ;873458 wrote:Good to know your viewpoint. I have nothing to discuss with you....

</SPAN>

Sonofanump;873580 wrote:I though we were done?

</SPAN>

Didn't know I wasn't allowed to discuss a different topic with you?

Sonofanump;873578 wrote:</SPAN>
I don&#8217;t know if you are an awful person. Did you work prior to unemployment in order to qualify or did you falsify documents to collect? Is not unemployment insurance subsidized by the employer to the state, or is it a government program independent of the employer? </SPAN>

Did you purchase said luxury items while on the government dole?

Too bad that our country is run like it is to cause such unemployment. Inefficient government programs in this welfare state overtaxing the private sector causing job loss. </SPAN>

It didn't seem to matter to many people prior to this. There have just been some pretty general statements made, and not all cases fit in there. I'm not trying to say everyone who receives assistance uses it properly. In my line of work, I saw plenty who didn't and had no intention to ever use it correctly. I'm merely saying it's not a black and white issue, and the way things appear aren't always what they seem.


Yes, I was employed by my most recent employer for nearly 5 years and was laid off due to some changes in services we provided to the courts. I've had a job (and often more than one) since I turned 16, and not having one is tough. It is definitely not from lack of trying. I believe unemployment is funded in part by the employer.

Neither the phone nor the TV were purchased since I've been unemployed. The TV was actually a gift I received last year for Christmas,and I never would have purchased it for myself.


You didn't ask, but the Pell Grant was received after my youngest brother, who was 4 at the time, was dismembered in an accident. The medical bills were significant, and insurance didn't cover them all. Despite receiving the grant, I still worked throughout college to assist with my costs.


But apparently I'm still an awful person.

sej;873568 wrote:In my prior post, I neglected to include that your theory about a college grad being able to walk in and get hired by the end of the day isn't really all that great. I've tried, and I have significant experience in cash handling, customer service and staff management. Each place has essentially told me I'm over qualified, and they don't want to hire someone who won't be around long.

I can second that. A few years ago I tried to find a second job just for some extra spending money. I did not apply at fast food, because I've done my time in restaurant work. But I applied at several pet stores that were hiring, Lowes, Home depot and TSC. I couldn't even get a call back.

I can't speak for everyone, but your situation is not what I am referring to.

Scarlet_Buckeye;873309 wrote:You're being difficult. Of course I am a fan of people going out and pounding the pavement looking for work. I'm saying, when they have a prospect that needs to call them (but the argument was I need a cell phone), then stay at home and wait for that call.

So, when they have a single potential job prospect, they should put the rest of the job search at a halt so they can wait for the phone call that may or may not come regarding that one prospect?

What you're proposing is exponentially more inefficient and would cause the job search to take longer, thereby forcing people to stay unemployed longer.

I have a hard time seeing any justification for thinking that being phone-accessible without having to put the rest of the job search on hold is a luxury. If anything, all it does is allow them to remain accessible for call-backs without having to stop going to businesses and filling out applications in the meantime.

Scarlet_Buckeye;873309 wrote: After the call, go back to pounding the pavement looking for work [if need be].

But until then, be completely unproductive in a job search. Yes, that sounds like a good plan to get out of assistance as quickly as possible. /sarcasm

Scarlet_Buckeye;873309 wrote:It's not an all or nothing. It's a "use some intelligence / common sense."

It's not all or nothing, but it IS an ENORMOUS difference in efficiency. While I was unemployed, I could venture to the library every day and fill out dozens upon dozens of applications while still having my phone with me, so that if any of them called back, I would be accessible. It allowed me to stay productive in the meantime, though. Same applied to when I went from one business to the next on foot. I was able to keep applying and handing in my resume while I was expecting a call.

I probably had 50 interviews before I got my job. I shudder to think how much time I would have lost ... how many potential employers I wouldn't have applied to ... if I had been relegated to sitting at home waiting for a call that only might come.

A setup that forced people to do that would be virtually ineffective because of the lack of efficiency. I don't mind the notion that cell phones are not a Constitutional right, but under such circumstances, they are hardly a luxury as much as they are a tool that will increase the chances of an individual being hired more quickly.

rydawg5;873368 wrote: i think the food stamp system is not well run nor is it efficient, but lets error on the side of helping those in need even if a few benefit who shouldnt

Instead, let's rally around them with charity instead of governmental assistance.

rydawg5;873393 wrote:You dont think you should regulate if they can have kids without YOUR permission?

I am 100% for people having kids.

I'm also 100% for those people who have kids being able to support them. When did a child's rearing and provision stop being the responsibility of the parent and start being the responsibility of everyone else?

FatHobbit;873410 wrote:I'm fine with that. What many people have a problem with is people having more kids so they get more support. (I don't even know if that's a real or common problem, but that's what I was responding too.)

Amen.

Sonofanump;873500 wrote:Disagree, they (3rd world countries) don't have access to either apples or oranges.

lulz'd

sej;873541 wrote:I'm drawing unemployment, and I have a smart phone. When I signed the contract, there was little chance I'd lose my job. Now it's still more cost efficient for me to keep the contract than pay the fee to get out of it. Even when the contract is up, I still won't go without a cell phone. We have no land line, and I'm unaware of any neighbors that are home during the day. I'm sure as hell not going to not a phone if an emergency arises.

I have a flat screen TV, too.

I was also a Pell Grant recipient throughout college. I'm just an awful person all around.

Satan's minions at work again!

sej;873568 wrote:Good job.



In my prior post, I neglected to include that your theory about a college grad being able to walk in and get hired by the end of the day isn't really all that great. I've tried, and I have significant experience in cash handling, customer service and staff management. Each place has essentially told me I'm over qualified, and they don't want to hire someone who won't be around long.

I got that a lot, too. I was willing to make sandwiches at Subway or McDonalds. I was told even upon coming in that they rarely hired anyone like me.

sej;873591 wrote:It didn't seem to matter to many people prior to this.

So just because something is wrong and people are unaware that you are committing the wrong action makes it ok?

Nice to know.

I'll keep stealing items from the grocery store because no one else is aware I'm doing it. Thanks!

Scarlet_Buckeye;873621 wrote:So just because something is wrong and people are unaware that you are committing the wrong action makes it ok?

Nice to know.

I'll keep stealing items from the grocery store because no one else is aware I'm doing it. Thanks!

No, I was referring to the fact that people didn't seem to think circumstances mattered prior to sonofanup asking me.

Sonofanump;873514 wrote:Not me, It was one my minors, most of my classes where of US concentration.

James Taggart believes that this country was founded on communal social welfare, not individualistic hard work. I was giving him a shovel to see how deep he could bury himself.

I would consider this as economic foundation. To think that the founding fathers weren't considering Christianity when creating rights/liberties/laws... is comical.

There are several different examples in our lives that we see everyday where Christianity had influence where Government is related.

LJ;873586 wrote:Didn't know I wasn't allowed to discuss a different topic with you?

This is a ground breaking moment, You and I have never agreed this much on something.

I was looking at another thread and realized what your name was on JJHuddle. We got into a week long argument between St. Marys Memorial and Sunbury BW playing at Lima Stadium 2nd round in the playoffs I believe.

bigkahuna;873879 wrote:I would consider this as economic foundation. To think that the founding fathers weren't considering Christianity when creating rights/liberties/laws... is comical.

Actually, given that the most we know of many of them is that they were Deists, AND the fact that they were seeking freedom from a government intertwined with "Christianity," it seems FAR more plausible that they were approaching this from a "live and let live" standpoint.

bigkahuna;873879 wrote:There are several different examples in our lives that we see everyday where Christianity had influence where Government is related.

I'm going to assume that you also mean ones put into place by the founders of the country. Which examples are you referencing, out of curiosity?

O-Trap;873912 wrote:Actually, given that the most we know of many of them is that they were Deists, AND the fact that they were seeking freedom from a government intertwined with "Christianity," it seems FAR more plausible that they were approaching this from a "live and let live" standpoint.



I'm going to assume that you also mean ones put into place by the founders of the country. Which examples are you referencing, out of curiosity?

There's obviously a lot of "religious" values, with Christianity being the largely accepted one. The declaration of Independence, for one, declares we are all created equal (by our creator) of which we should have life, liberty, and pursuit of happiness.

This was the seed for social justice, that just because you make less doesn't make you less of a person. Since you are not less of a person, the community feels obligated to help you in need.

For how rich our country is, the American standard of living is not that of a 3rd world country, and being qualified for Food Stamps does not have to mean homeless or nearly homeless. If it helps people maintain a standard of living, it will hopefully keep them motivated to get a better job to enjoy that standard.


I brought up Chrstianity, beacuse I've seen polls state that the USA is >70% Christian. Thefore you're Christian values would conflict of feelings of supremacy over those on Welfare. They aren't lesser than you, and the ignorance and lack of empathy is not of a Christian value system and it's disgusting.

Unless, those who are disagreeing with me are not Christian. A majority of people on this site are and that's why I'm basing it off that.

bigkahuna;873889 wrote:This is a ground breaking moment, You and I have never agreed this much on something.

I was looking at another thread and realized what your name was on JJHuddle. We got into a week long argument between St. Marys Memorial and Sunbury BW playing at Lima Stadium 2nd round in the playoffs I believe.

BW probably won huh?

FatHobbit;873605 wrote:I can second that. A few years ago I tried to find a second job just for some extra spending money. I did not apply at fast food, because I've done my time in restaurant work. But I applied at several pet stores that were hiring, Lowes, Home depot and TSC. I couldn't even get a call back.

I can third this. One of my friends was laid off from the firm I worked at in November '08, good guy, husband with two young daughters. A great education background, undergrad at UVA, law school at William & Mary. After the layoff he got a job at an "eat what you kill" plaintiff's firm that lasted about 6 months, he's had a few contract positions in the interim but he's lost his house and has moved back in with his parents. He can't buy a job, Walmart, Starbucks, etc. isn't going to hire him, he's overqualified. At least he doesn't have much student loan debt, so that's a positive. Not to take this to the political forum, but some people, particularly those with guaranteed positions and guaranteed pensions (supposedly) don't understand how crappy the American economy is. Behind the numbers there are real people, and life isn't going great for them currently.

"In my prior post, I neglected to include that your theory about a college grad being able to walk in and get hired by the end of the day isn't really all that great. I've tried, and I have significant experience in cash handling, customer service and staff management. Each place has essentially told me I'm over qualified, and they don't want to hire someone who won't be around long."

We should all neglect that "theory", it is one of the of the biggest pieces of misinformation on this board. In 2011 you can't just pound the pavement and get a job. My father-in-law is the President of a Honeywell subsidiary and I couldn't get a position at minimum wage licking his boots regardless of my educational background. To get hired you have to apply via their website, undertake a credit check and background investigation, and after a few week HR study you might get a callback. It infuriates him, he's been wanting to increase productivity (not boot-licking, that was just my example) and can't do it. It is a miracle that anyone gets hired these days.

Manhattan Buckeye;874027 wrote:"In my prior post, I neglected to include that your theory about a college grad being able to walk in and get hired by the end of the day isn't really all that great. I've tried, and I have significant experience in cash handling, customer service and staff management. Each place has essentially told me I'm over qualified, and they don't want to hire someone who won't be around long."

We should all neglect that "theory", it is one of the of the biggest pieces of misinformation on this board. In 2011 you can't just pound the pavement and get a job. My father-in-law is the President of a Honeywell subsidiary and I couldn't get a position at minimum wage licking his boots regardless of my educational background. To get hired you have to apply via their website, undertake a credit check and background investigation, and after a few week HR study you might get a callback. It infuriates him, he's been wanting to increase productivity (not boot-licking, that was just my example) and can't do it. It is a miracle that anyone gets hired these days.

That's because there's a difference between walking into a subsidiary of Honeywell and walking into, say, McDonalds or Applebees.

O-Trap;873912 wrote:Actually, given that the most we know of many of them is that they were Deists, AND the fact that they were seeking freedom from a government intertwined with "Christianity," it seems FAR more plausible that they were approaching this from a "live and let live" standpoint.

James Madison, FATHER of the U.S. Constitution: "We have staked the whole future of American civilization, not upon the power of government, far from it. We have staked the future of all our political institutions upon the capacity of mankind for self-government; upon the capacity of each and all of us to govern ourselves, to control ourselves, to sustain ourselves according to the Ten Commandments of God."


Thomas Jefferson, 1781: "God who gave us life gave us liberty. And can the liberties of a nation be thought secure when we have removed their only firm basis, a conviction in the minds of the people that these liberties are a gift of God? That they are not to be violated but with His wrath? Indeed, I tremble for my country when I reflect that God is just; that His justice cannot sleep forever"


George Washington, October 3, 1789: "It is the duty of all nations to acknowledge THE Providence of Almighty God, to obey His will, to be grateful for His benefits, and to humbly implore His protection and favor."

George Washington: "You do well to wish to learn our arts and our ways of life, and above all, the religion of Jesus Christ. Congress will do everything they can to assist you in this wise intention."

Samuel Adams: " Let...statesmen and patriots unite their endeavors to renovate the age by...educating their little boys and girls...and leading them in the study and practice of the exalted virtues of the Christian system."

Benjamin Franklin, June 28, 1787, at the Constitutional Convention: "We have been assured, Sir, in the Sacred Writings, that 'except the Lord build the House, they labor in vain that build it.' I firmly believe this; and I also believe that without His concurring aid we shall succeed in this political building no better than the builders of Babel."

Benjamin Franklin: "History will also afford frequent opportunities of showing the necessity of a public religion...and the excellency of the Christian religion above all others, ancient or modern."

John Adams, 1756 (our 2nd President) -- "Suppose a nation in some distant region should take the Bible for their only Law Book, and every member should regulate his conduct by the precepts there exhibited... What a paradise would this region be!"

Patrick Henry's Last Will & Testament, November 20, 1798: "This is all the inheritance I give to my dear family. The religion of Christ will give them one which will make them rich indeed."


I think they had a lot more in mind than just a "live and let live" attitude for the Country.

"It appears that Skyhook just bear dick punched Otrap.. Can we get a judges ruling?"

Thank you skyhook. I'm not going to retype it lol.

LJ;873967 wrote:BW probably won huh?

Yes, yes they did. The 2 schools have played twice and BW won both times. Hence the reason why I dislike BW.

O-Trap;873615 wrote: I got that a lot, too. I was willing to make sandwiches at Subway or McDonalds. I was told even upon coming in that they rarely hired anyone like me.

This was my point with my earlier post about our family restaurant. People who walk around 5+ establishments back-to-back or people that have a college degree and come in looking for a dishwasher position.... don't plan on being there long because they are looking for something better. Employers are interested in hiring someone that they can invest into. If it's known that they're only going to be there for a few months, then what's the point of being their stepping stone?