I would argue that basic high speed internet and a basic used car payment are justifiable, ....
---End Quote---
???? Really... Funny, I have been "getting by" with neither for a very long time. Oh woe is me.....
I guess you just illustrated some of the problems in this country... PRIORITIES!
You're rural and chose that sacrifice but in reality more than mere dialup is becoming a basic necessity. Each day I cast votes for animal shelters in Houston to filling food pantries via the Pepsi Challenge. Millions go to good causes but casting 5 votes on 44.4 kbps dialup makes a 3 minute task take as long as a half hour. The pages have all sorts of code to load to keep Pepsi happy. No vote button appears till it's all loaded.
I need to sign into Google mail several times a day despite using it's most basic settings and an AV update takes a full day without any other uses. Advertisers expect everyone having fast access by now.
You're against big government but your concerns about how the poor use money would require an army of Feds just checking to be sure no welfare folks have better stuff than you do.
__________________
__________________
I'll believe corporations are persons when Texas executes one.: LBJ's Ghost
You're against big government but your concerns about how the poor use money would require an army of Feds just checking to be sure no welfare folks have better stuff than you do.
All I am saying is that if folks can afford "extras" (which they ARE) then they do not need help with actual necessities. Thus, helping our nation to not waste as much money. I know of plenty of people who don't even know how to use the internet (because they don't have to) and they are getting by just fine. Also, I understand that some jobs require work from home which may involve working from home. Also though, if you are working from home doing work that needs highspeed internet I am willing to bet that MOST of those job types would pay enough for you to not need financial help either.
And I could care less who has "more than I do" as long as I am not paying for it... Just doesn't make any sense! Why should I pay for others to have stuff I cannot afford (while paying for my actual necessities).
Way to go man..... Working on the mortgage here, started with a 30yr in '04 and just refi'd into a 15 with the same monthly payment (still paying extra..).... Hope to be TOTALLY debt free by 2020 ..
Anyway, the problem today is that everyone thinks that living by the car payment, the credit card, the payday lender.... WHATEVER, is the way of life today... We shouldn't be surprised that the government runs such a sloppy economic ship.... I don't think we should promote such behavior by subsidizing those that live beyond their means.
A mortgage is a justifiable debt, and you are on the right approach to resolving it. I avoided a mortgage by building my own house. I found at the time that I could afford to pay for all the material I could nail up in a month. My vehicles are an 85 Cherokee and a 96 Prism.
A car payment is not a necessity. Not by any means. Neither is a cell phone, or the internet.
How many homeless people do you see in a 'used car' with payments, and high-speed internet? Perhaps a cell phone with a 20$ data package? None? Shocker. Because they aren't necessities.
Every time I roll by our local welfare office, I am disgusted by the people with brand new cars, the latest cell phones, a cigarette between two fingers, and 5 kids. GET A JOB. SET AN EXAMPLE. You could eat if you had bought a car within your means. You could eat if you didn't have a 200$ cell phone payment each month. You could eat if you got a job and set a good example for your children.
But why work when there is free money to be had?
News flash, genius, but the reason I'm not one of those homeless people and that I'm supporting myself and my family is, in part, because I have a cell phone with an extra $20/month data package, a $50 high speed internet connection, and I own a car. If I didn't have a car, if I didn't have internet, my earning ability would be slashed to poverty-level wages. Without those things, I would be one of these people on welfare. I *have* a job, a good paying job, because I have these things. If I *lost* my current job, I would *need* these things to get a good paying job within my field of expertise. (Maybe not the $20/month data plan, but definitely a cell phone... The $20/month data plan saves me more money than it costs)
What you are saying is equivalent to saying that a master carpenter does not need tools. You're saying that a man down at the welfare office who happens to own a hammer, a saw, and a screwdriver is a man who is gaming the system.
You're talking about "necessity" as "necessary to survive" - we've been using it as "necessary to thrive". Should welfare be used to ensure survival, or should it be used to help people thrive?
__________________
We work together every damn day. --Jon Stewart
While it may be true that there are good jobs that need high speed internet and smart phones it has little to do with those lined up at DSS. I have never needed them except for one job as a construction engineer where a simple cell phone would have been convenient on the job site and while on travel. However, that was before cell phones and had they been available my employer would have provided them.
News flash, genius, but the reason I'm not one of those homeless people and that I'm supporting myself and my family is, in part, because I have a cell phone with an extra $20/month data package, a $50 high speed internet connection, and I own a car. If I didn't have a car, if I didn't have internet, my earning ability would be slashed to poverty-level wages. Without those things, I would be one of these people on welfare. I *have* a job, a good paying job, because I have these things. If I *lost* my current job, I would *need* these things to get a good paying job within my field of expertise. (Maybe not the $20/month data plan, but definitely a cell phone... The $20/month data plan saves me more money than it costs)
What you are saying is equivalent to saying that a master carpenter does not need tools. You're saying that a man down at the welfare office who happens to own a hammer, a saw, and a screwdriver is a man who is gaming the system.
You're talking about "necessity" as "necessary to survive" - we've been using it as "necessary to thrive". Should welfare be used to ensure survival, or should it be used to help people thrive?
Tell me, What do you do? What do you do that requires you to have high-speed internet at HOME for WORK? What could you possibly do that requires a data package that you could not simply print off at work?
Unless you own your own business and work from home, of course. Then, you don't need that fancy car payment and high insurance rate... now do you?
Moving along... If you are not disabled, you don't deserve welfare. PERIOD. There is a job for everyone, but most are too goddamn lazy to take it.
Having a car DOESN'T equal having a car payment.... Maybe that's the problem. People assume that you HAVE to buy a new car and have a car payment or not have a car. Those aren't the only two options. Where I live, you DO have to have a car. Doesn't have to be an expensive new car with the money sucking payments.
Having a car DOESN'T equal having a car payment.... Maybe that's the problem. People assume that you HAVE to buy a new car and have a car payment or not have a car. Those aren't the only two options. Where I live, you DO have to have a car. Doesn't have to be an expensive new car with the money sucking payments.
..
Linear Mode
