A Can of WORMS

1. 86

   gmwilliamsposted 4 years ago

   
   Why do some Americans EXPECT, even DEMAND that the upper socioeconomic class bail out the lower socioeconomic class ?   Why does the American lower socioeconomic class believe that other more affluent socioeconomic class should pay their way, instead of taking responsibility to do for themselves?    What makes the American lower socioeconomic class believe that other socioeconomic classes should RESCUE them from their socioeconomic impoverishment?  Lastly, why does the American lower socioeconomic class PUT themselves in situations, KNOWING WELL that there will be a NEGATIVE outcome?  Is the American upper socioeconomic class OBLIGATED to RESCUE the American lower socioeconomic class?

   replyreport
   1. 76

      wildernessposted 4 years agoin reply to this

      Because others are "too rich".
      Because others are "stealing" from the lower classes.
      Because others don't "deserve" what they earn.
      Because others don't "need" the money as much as they do.
      
      And, in today's political climate, because their skin is a darker color, at least for some.

      replyreport
      1. 86

         gmwilliamsposted 4 years agoin reply to this

         I remember in college, there was a woman on welfare who was a speaker.  She complained that welfare wasn't enough for her to live on.  She further asserted that no one should be making $100,000 per annum(this was near a half century ago) when there are poor people.

         replyreport
         1. 95

            MizBejabbersposted 4 years agoin reply to this

            I went for a masters degree in the 1990s. A young woman with six-year-old twin sons was also working on her masters. She was a single mom, and a career reporter for a small-town newspaper. She explained to me that she had gotten a grant, quit her job and was drawing all the help she could get from the government, including food stamps and welfare, but only until she completed the degree. I don't know where the father was, but in my state, if the father is available to go after to pay child support, one couldn't draw welfare and child support then, too. She said it was worth it to her because she would be able to draw a much larger salary and "pay society back" for the two years she would spend bettering herself for her family.  She asked me why I had not done that when I was a single mother with two children? Why had I raised my children in poverty? In my day, we wouldn't have considered doing something like that. I look back at how things have changed and say, "why not?"
            I wonder where this woman is today. After my experience with the exponential increase in my salary after I got my MA, I see her logic.
            I just wanted to present a different picture from the one you presented of the woman who apparently preferred pulling other people down from those temporarily using welfare to better themselves. I guess those are few and far between.

            replyreport
            1. 76

               wildernessposted 4 years agoin reply to this

               I'm not seeing the difference.  Living off the tax base is most certainly "pulling down" those that are paying the tax.
               
               It is unfortunate that the negative stigma to living off of charity has declined to the point that people work to increase what they can force others to pay for, and are proud of what they accomplish.

               replyreport
            2. 85

               GA Andersonposted 4 years agoin reply to this

               Your story made me pause. Since I am, (also?), of the Baby Boomer generation, my first thought is predictable—`that ain't right.' Then I began digesting her rationalization, and your `seeing her logic."
               
               So I gave it a second think. . .
               
               Nope, no matter how it is described or rationalized, and even if the future benefits to society were ten-fold her most optimistic projections, It still `ain't right.' She had the luxury of choice and she chose to take a ride on other folks' dime.
               
               As for your "seeing her logic," that wasn't quoted as a criticism, but just a recognition that her logic could make sense in a gain or lose situation. I don't think that is her situation. I think it is simply a right or wrong situation.
               
               GA

               replyreport
               1. 95

                  MizBejabbersposted 3 years agoin reply to this

                  But GA, if she was trying to support her kids on $12,000 a year (the average small-town newspaper salary about that time), and she doubled or tripled her salary within four or five years, after several years of that, wouldn't her taxes make up for the money she received? It would definitely pay it back with interest over her working lifetime. Sorry, but I think your thinking is an example of the haves trying to hold a have-not down. Or is it because she was white, not a minority, or is it because she was a woman, not a man. I see a lot of discriminatory thinking here.
                  This was 30 years ago, and it just wasn't right for a woman to try to better herself and her children. In the late 1970s I actually had a male co-worker tell me that "Bill" who had custody of his two boys who were the same ages as my boys deserved to make more money than I did. His reasoning was that it was harder on a man to raise kids. I knew Bill and I knew that he was a very good father and competent housekeeper, cook and manager of his children. I was the custodial parent of my two boys and rarely got child support. When I asked the coworker why Bill's children deserved a better life because they lived with their father than my boys deserved because they lived with their mother, he couldn't answer that.

                  replyreport
         2. 76

            wildernessposted 4 years agoin reply to this

            Just so.  The rich shouldn't be earning that much; they don't "deserve" it.  And some of the poor complain they can't live on what they are given, leaving out the part where they can't live the way they want to on the charity they receive.

            replyreport
   2. 86

      Sharlee01posted 4 years agoin reply to this

      There is what I feel a minority of Americans that feel the "upper-class"  should bail out the ower socioeconomic class.
      
      In regard to why the lower socioeconomic class thinking they need to be supported by the more wealthy instead of taking responsibility to do for themselves. --- There very well appears to be a segment of our society that feels that way. IMO this mindset comes from their individual life experiences, how they were raised, lack of education, lack of incentive to support themselves and family.
      
      I don't think most that live in poverty knowingly put themselves into the situation of poverty. I think the majority of the time poverty is a cycle that follows families. They are overwhelmed early in their lives and just see no way out.  Research shows that poor families tend to have a history of that were poor and lived off of Government support.
      
      I don't feel citizens should feel obligated to rescue the lower socioeconomic class. I would hope we as a society would feel somewhat obligated to help solve the problems of poverty through education. I feel education is the road to jobs, jobs that can provide the lower socioeconomic class funds to support themselves.
      
      One must always consider we will always have people that are unable to work due to physical as well as mental problems. I feel we need to care for the infirmed.

      replyreport
      1. 86

         gmwilliamsposted 4 years agoin reply to this

         AMEN to THAT.

         replyreport
      2. 95

         MizBejabbersposted 3 years agoin reply to this

         I know you are talking about entitlements attitudes, but there is also a misunderstanding that the wealthy paying their fair share of taxes is "taking their earnings away from them and giving to the poor." I think the burden shouldn't be on the working poor and the middle class to keep bailing out the rich who manage to get out of paying taxes. I remember one rich man telling us that if he ever had to pay taxes, he'd immediately fire his accountant and hire someone more competent. Whatever year it was that Donald Trump paid $750 in income taxes, I paid 10 or 12 times that much, and I'm retired.

         replyreport
         1. 85

            GA Andersonposted 3 years agoin reply to this

            What amount if the rich's `fair share'?
            Does their fair share change from year to year?
            
            I keep hearing "fair share," but I haven't heard anyone say what that fair share is?
            
            GA

            replyreport
            1. 76

               wildernessposted 3 years agoin reply to this

               It appears that the "fair share" is as much as they can grab before the rich move out of the country...ar at least move their wealth to someplace that wont take it from them.
               
               All while dreaming that wealth will NOT be removed from their grasp because it actually belongs to the poor.

               replyreport
   3. 81

      Mark O Richardsonposted 3 years agoin reply to this

      Entitlement

      replyreport
   4. 82

      peterstreepposted 3 years agoin reply to this

      Do they?

      replyreport
   5. 80

      Kyler J Falkposted 3 years agoin reply to this

      Answer to questions:
      
      1. A misunderstanding of promoting the general welfare.
      2. See answer one.
      3. Still answer one.
      4. That's a disingenuous and unfair question, it is rare even those who claim to know where their life is heading truly know what the consequences of their actions will be. Lack of a proper education and opportunities, perhaps, as well.
      5. Yes, they are obligated to rescue the lower classes by way of promoting the general welfare, but they are not required to give any more than the federal laws demand.

      replyreport
   6. 81

      Kathryn L Hillposted 3 years agoin reply to this

      ... because they have no hope they can do it themselves and they may be absolutely correct in this assessment of themselves. They know how uninformed and uneducated and untrained in anything worthwhile they truly are.
      
      
      Thanks to the SYSTEM
      
      
      Q. Is the American upper socioeconomic class OBLIGATED to RESCUE the American lower socioeconomic class?
      
      A. Obligated directly with financial assistance, NO, but perhaps they could help out somehow. (Since they are likely to have the means and influence.)
      
      
      How is the question.

      replyreport
2. 0

   ValKarasposted 4 years ago

   To me it sounds like talking about some people being tall, others shorter, some blue-eyed, other brown-eyed, because there have always been, and always will be, in any country under any regime the same thing: poor ones wanting more, and rich ones wanting more.
   
   In my many visits to the US, I asked the folks there if they had ever experienced a substantial change in their prosperity markers after their favorite party got in power.
   They didn't answer. But then they continued talking about "what was wrong with the big picture". To me it sounded like it's simply the American favorite pastime to be pissed at someone, whether rich or poor, white or non-white, anybody will do.
   Here, I am a Canadian, now you've got someone else to blame. Why? Who cares.

   replyreport
   1. 76

      wildernessposted 4 years agoin reply to this

      Now there's and idea; we can all blame you terrible Canadians for all our woes, bringing us together with a common enemy!

      replyreport
3. 85

   Readmikenowposted 4 years ago

   I owned a business in California for a period of time.
   
   The state/federal government had welfare to work programs.
   
   I hired one a woman who was part of this program.  She was a top notch worker and only wanted an opportunity.  I eventually worked out a deal where she could take over the company.  She took it to levels I had not envisioned.
   
   My conclusion is that there are people who are kept down by welfare.  I learned how there are families who know how to get benefits and how to get everything possible from the system.  It is something that goes on for generations.  They aren't taught how to be independent of it.
   
   Many people when given opportunity and a desire to change their mindset can do amazing things.  The woman I previously mention had a terrible time with her family.  She heard things like she's acting white, she's making more money than people in her neighborhood should make.  So much negativity and no support.  She was an amazing person.
   
   Why do the lower classes believe they should be supported by the upper classes?  It reminds me of an old saying that goes "It's easier to curse the darkness than to light a single candle."
   
   I guess it's easier to complain about people having more than you rather than going out and making it happen for yourself.  The trouble is they also complain about those who leave that mind set and try to do the best they can.

   replyreport
4. 82

   Brenda Arledgeposted 4 years ago

   Wow! There are some who undoubtedly use the system for their own benefit, but trust me...there are oeople who really need the help.
   What about a person with a terrible illness who can no longer work for fear of losing insurance.
   The doctor bills must be met if the person is to survive.
   But yes,  there are those who constantly have children who they only think of as money makers...more money for them & food stamps.
   
   But we choose to be a good society where we reach out to help other people..the ones who truly need the help.
   
   Fate does repay people eventually...even the ones who think they are too good.
   I've seen msny people on top of the world end uo falling to nothing & needing help.
   What would Jesus do??

   replyreport
5. 81

   Kathryn L Hillposted 3 years ago

   If we banned planes, trains, automobiles, credit cards and computers we could go back to the free market based on the mutual needs of goods and services.
   But man, the natural way is so deviated from normal, typical and workable.
   
   
   What is a modern man to do?

   replyreport