Community Chat

[inallsincerity]

On 3/3/2015 Stella Dallas said:

On 3/3/2015 SoftRaindrops said:

On 3/3/2015 mominohio said:

On 3/3/2015 SoftRaindrops said:

On 3/3/2015 mominohio said:

On 3/3/2015 terrier3 said:

On 3/3/2015 mominohio said:

As to the picture in the OP, the billions received in government assistance isn't because of Walmart's low wages, it is because a large portion of those receiving those benefits are too lazy to do better, don't want to do better, and purposefully set themselves up in a job with hours and wages that fall just within the guidelines to keep getting that federal assistance.

I Walmart paid double, those people would still be on the dole, as they would be sure to only work half the amount of hours, in order to continue their eligibility for the programs.

As the mom of a former Walmart worker, you couldn't be more wrong.

Many, if not most, Walmart workers are just people trying to make a living and this was the best job they could find. Most Walmart workers are p/t - the company does this on purpose to limit benefits. They cut medical benefits in 2015 - prior to that you could get a VERY rudimentary health insurance policy if you had worked for them either f/t or for 2 years p/t. This year they changed the long term p/t requirements to 30 -39 hours a week p/t only. They didn't notify their employees in advance - they just said that if you averaged less than 30 hours/wk. in 2014 you were ineligible for HI in 2015. Since many p/t Walmart employees work 3 days a week (24 hours), they were shut out of HI this year. They were directed to apply for Medicaid on the ACA exchange.

They also are notorious for changing shifts every week. It's tough to plan a college schedule (or a second job!) if you don't know from week to week when you will be scheduled. If you "block out" time due to another job/school or any other reason, your hours are greatly reduced. They basically give the most hours to people who are available 24/7 - but even then they don't get f/t!

The main problem at Walmart isn't workers cutting shifts to get benefits. Even working FULL TIME there at $8 an hour, an employee would make $16,640 a year. The income level for Medicaid is $16,100 a year for one person (138% of poverty level). If you are a single mother with one child and work there FULL TIME, you still would be eligible for Medicaid, food stamps and other assistance. Even when they raise pay to $9, a single mom would still be eligible for assistance.

So claiming the moochers who work there would just ask to have their hours cut is patently false...even working there full time (and very few workers at a store are f/t), many workers STILL qualify for gvt. assistance.

These are entry level jobs, and not intended to support entire families. People who need and want to better themselves can and will, whether within Walmart or by finding better jobs or educational opportunities that lead to better jobs.

Sitting in a minimum wage job, or just above minimum wage, and whining about your lot in life is a full time job for some, but seems to be more a battle cry from those not even living the actual life.

The wages, hours, and scheduling aren't different from much of the other restaurant and retail work available out there, but Walmart being so large and profitable seems to be the big target, while others do the same thing without being mentioned.

My statements are not patently false about the moochers. Full time, part time, whatever, they, by the millions, know the system and the level at which they must underperform to stay on the dole. Lets put the blame where it belongs for MOST, and hold responsible those that have families when they can't or won't work and achieve at the level necessary to live a decent life, and provide for them. Let's stop blaming businesses that actually provide work, opportunity to learn, earn, advance, or move on to something better.

Tell that to a young mother whose husband just left her with two children that she is unable to feed. Tell that to a person born into poverty with an educational system that has failed because they live in a school district wrought with poverty. All of your statements about the working poor are wrong on every level and just that......assumptions and a desire to put blame on people living in poverty to help your conscience. Just another example of the blame game.

None of us start on the same playing field. Some of us have had opportunities given to us from the minute we were born. Having a little empathy and using our intellect to understand that we're all in this together hurts no one.

This is the typical rampage of the 'bleeding heart'. Everyone has an excuse, a 'good reason' and a pass not to live up to their responsibility.

I come from people who had no start in life. Poverty, broken homes, incest, no high school education, alcoholic parent, abuse, abandonment. They had nowhere to go but up, and they did because they came up in a time where if you didn't you plain didn't have. There were no safety nets like today. Decisions about who to marry, when to have kids were contemplated because there was no backup plan and they knew they would be responsible.

Many People today do what feels good, what they want for now, with no regard to what the consequences will be, or how they will pick up the pieces if plan A fails (if they are even smart enough to have a plan A).

None of us do have the same playing field, but we all have the opportunity to advance, if we want to bad enough. Using our empathy and intellect to understand we are all in this together is the exact way I arrive at my opinions on the idea that most people are where they are because of their own doing. There will always be those that are dealt a bad hand from which they never recover, but it is becoming the few who are taking care of the many, and a great percentage of that 'many' have no empathy for what they are taking from those who are giving. The givers need to stand up and be counted, and demand that others take responsibility for their own lives.

Quit blaming big business for the poverty in this nation, and put it back to the individual, the family unit, and the community.

I guess that helps you sleep at night. So be it.

Amen!

And add to that the thought, how many people have said on their deathbed "I wish I would have kept more of my own money and helped other people less."

I wonder how many people, as they swipe an EBT card said, "Maybe I should sell the TV." Although I don't agree with some of the harsh words on this thread, in all fairness, I don't really see anybody saying that they don't or that they won't help people. I think they don't like being told who it is that needs that help.

[SnowPink]

On 3/3/2015 inallsincerity said:

I wonder how many people, as they swipe an EBT card said, "Maybe I should sell the TV." Although I don't agree with some of the harsh words on this thread, in all fairness, I don't really see anybody saying that they don't or that they won't help people. I think they don't like being told who it is that needs that help.

People would say telling poor people to sell their TV, get rid of internet access, sell the video game consoles, don't eat out at restaurants .... is mean. When really ... if you want to succeed with money, you have to eliminate spending money on things that aren't needed. It's no one's responsibility to make sure every family can own a Playstation and eat at Applebees once a week. No one is entitled to these things. And it's not anyone else's fault if you can't have those things.

[Mominohio]

On 3/3/2015 SoftRaindrops said:

On 3/3/2015 mominohio said:

On 3/3/2015 SoftRaindrops said:

On 3/3/2015 Complicated said:

never mind, not going to make a dent.

I read your reply and I completely agree with it.

I would far prefer to be called a bleeding heart than a cold, callous you know what, who cares nothing about anyone else but A number 1.

Sorry Complicated wasn't inclined to leave up the post. But, just because someone sees the reality of a situation and points out that personal responsibility is paramount in success and failure at all levels, and refuses to buy into the the victim mentality, doesn't make them uncaring or out for only themselves. Tough love, people, tough love.

Tough love? More like any excuse that makes it easy to live with oneself when they don't have any empathy for someone down on their luck.

Personal responsibility is about giving a hand to someone in need. Personal responsibility is having the ability to see, regarding employment, that none of us are on a level playing field. And the ability to decipher that and do what it takes to try and help people in need. If that is your definition of a bleeding heart, so be it. I'd rather be a bleeding heart than someone who lives my life with a dozen excuses giving myself permission to denigrate the poor.

I don't know who you think is denigrating the poor. To give a hand up is to help, to excuse away is to keep down. The whole 'teach a man to fish' philosophy is where I come from. We should be actually supplying a lifetime of fish to the very few, who are truly in need, and will never be able to provide for themselves because of disability or advanced age. Most of the needy you so 'selflessly' think you are helping, are living better than many who will take no help, because of pride, ethics and values.

I sleep quite fine at night, knowing that I come from, live a life of, and have raised a child in the light of self reliance and responsibility. That in no way implies we don't care, give, share, teach, enlighten, empathize and sympathize. You seem to confuse strength of character and expectations with hardhearted. One of the many reasons this country now has so many that don't succeed.

[terrier3]

On 3/3/2015 inallsincerity said:

I wonder how many people, as they swipe an EBT card said, "Maybe I should sell the TV." Although I don't agree with some of the harsh words on this thread, in all fairness, I don't really see anybody saying that they don't or that they won't help people. I think they don't like being told who it is that needs that help.

Used TVs don't go for much money.

Many people who have been forced to accept aid were formerly middle class or above. Many are in their late 50s - early 60s and were kicked to the curb because they made too much money and couldn't be replaced with a newbie for a lot less.

In fact, some who post here have had it happen to them or to their spouse.

A safety net helps the entire community (and it's businesses) as much as it helps the individual family.

[PIT-HAG Melissa]

On 3/3/2015 feline groovy said:

On 3/2/2015 GoodStuff said:

It probably means that Walmart hires quite a few inadequately educated, socially disadvantaged people who without Walmart wouldn't have jobs at all and would be totally dependent on the rest of us for everything.

And as another poster has pointed out, "received" is misspelled.......in a sign probably composed and printed by an inadequately educated social activist related to the aforementioned Walmart employees.

There, but for the grace of God, go you - or any of us.

AMEN!!

[inallsincerity]

On 3/3/2015 SnowPink said:

On 3/3/2015 inallsincerity said:

I wonder how many people, as they swipe an EBT card said, "Maybe I should sell the TV." Although I don't agree with some of the harsh words on this thread, in all fairness, I don't really see anybody saying that they don't or that they won't help people. I think they don't like being told who it is that needs that help.

People would say telling poor people to sell their TV, get rid of internet access, sell the video game consoles, don't eat out at restaurants .... is mean. When really ... if you want to succeed with money, you have to eliminate spending money on things that aren't needed. It's no one's responsibility to make sure every family can own a Playstation and eat at Applebees once a week. No one is entitled to these things. And it's not anyone else's fault if you can't have those things.

4 years ago we had dial up and flip phones. For real! Dial up! We would tell people and they thought we were kidding.

[SnowPink]

On 3/3/2015 terrier3 said:

On 3/3/2015 inallsincerity said:

I wonder how many people, as they swipe an EBT card said, "Maybe I should sell the TV." Although I don't agree with some of the harsh words on this thread, in all fairness, I don't really see anybody saying that they don't or that they won't help people. I think they don't like being told who it is that needs that help.

Used TVs don't go for much money.

Many people who have been forced to accept aid were formerly middle class or above. Many are in their late 50s - early 60s and were kicked to the curb because they made too much money and couldn't be replaced with a newbie for a lot less.

In fact, some who post here have had it happen to them or to their spouse.

A safety net helps the entire community (and it's businesses) as much as it helps the individual family.

I think her implication was to get rid of the monthly cable bill.

Those people in their 50s and 60s should have been saving money in retirement accounts for the inevitable time when they are replaced with younger people.

It all boils down to being smart with your income and purchases. Create your OWN safety net -- don't rely on the government. Who would want to be a slave to government?

[inallsincerity]

On 3/3/2015 terrier3 said:

On 3/3/2015 inallsincerity said:

I wonder how many people, as they swipe an EBT card said, "Maybe I should sell the TV." Although I don't agree with some of the harsh words on this thread, in all fairness, I don't really see anybody saying that they don't or that they won't help people. I think they don't like being told who it is that needs that help.

Used TVs don't go for much money.

Many people who have been forced to accept aid were formerly middle class or above. Many are in their late 50s - early 60s and were kicked to the curb because they made too much money and couldn't be replaced with a newbie for a lot less.

In fact, some who post here have had it happen to them or to their spouse.

A safety net helps the entire community (and it's businesses) as much as it helps the individual family.

I'm not disagreeing at all terrier. As another said, there but for the grace of God go I. I think there are a lot more people that don't even try. You are making an apples and oranges comparison. The people that you are referring to that have been unfairly "kicked to the curb" are proven producers that have worked for and contributed to the system. Now they need help. It's not the same as those that are being described in these posts, by either "team".

[Mominohio]

On 3/3/2015 SnowPink said:

On 3/3/2015 inallsincerity said:

I wonder how many people, as they swipe an EBT card said, "Maybe I should sell the TV." Although I don't agree with some of the harsh words on this thread, in all fairness, I don't really see anybody saying that they don't or that they won't help people. I think they don't like being told who it is that needs that help.

People would say telling poor people to sell their TV, get rid of internet access, sell the video game consoles, don't eat out at restaurants .... is mean. When really ... if you want to succeed with money, you have to eliminate spending money on things that aren't needed. It's no one's responsibility to make sure every family can own a Playstation and eat at Applebees once a week. No one is entitled to these things. And it's not anyone else's fault if you can't have those things.

And these are the exact things that a percentage (and not small either) on assistance are doing, whether or not they are working while getting benefits. They are allowing us to pay for their medical care, food, housing, education, child care, etc. while holding down that part time or full time job and spending the money made there on all this unnecessary stuff. Then, when they choose the cell phone, or the over $100 per month cable package over necessities, we are supposed to buy into the fact that they are to be pitied and helped, and raised up.

How about instead of the current give away programs, we provide financial control over their earnings, pay their necessities out of their paychecks first (rent, food, health care premiums) and give them what is left to blow on the extras. If many of these people were forced to pay for the necessities first, they wouldn't need the programs.

That is the way I started out. When there was nothing left, I had to get another job, a second or even a third. It worked.

[terrier3]

On 3/3/2015 SnowPink said:

I think her implication was to get rid of the monthly cable bill.

Those people in their 50s and 60s should have been saving money in retirement accounts for the inevitable time when they are replaced with younger people.

It all boils down to being smart with your income and purchases. Create your OWN safety net -- don't rely on the government. Who would want to be a slave to government?

Save money in retirement accounts?

Many people are between paying for their children's education and helping their parents.

It's not always possible to save enough money to live on for 10 years or so (until SS and Medicare kick in)...when you weren't planning on losing your job.

Easy for you to say...life doesn't always work out according to plans.