On Fri, 10 Jun 2005 11:08:32 -0400, (I
AmnotGeorgeBush) wrote:


For
example, take the layoffs GM just announced. Many are single parents
with school age children who can not go back to school AND support a
family.

Why are they single parents in the first place?


Such has nothing to do with the layoffs, but death is one reason why
many are single parents.

Yes, but it's a small minority.

What should they do, Dave? They lost their well paying jobs and medical
insurance for themselves and their children.

Job retraining is usually available for people
displaced by layoffs.


In Detroit for GM workers? Who pays for that?

We do. But in this case, it's money well spent. I tend to think of it
as an investment. An investment in humanity. Teaching a person a new
skill is far better than just paying welfare.

You need to realize many can't move away for myriad of reasons, such as
caring for an infirm parent nearby in a care facility for but a single
example.

Most people have large extended families.

Most? How you figure that?

Uh, probably because of genetics and reproduction.


I know the concept of family has become
somewhat foreign with today's younger
generation. No one branch of a family should
be made to bear the burden of such hardships
themselves.



You are assuiming all families share your core beliefs. They do not.

No, you are right. Many don't. But that's part of the problem.
Families used to take care of each other. There was no need for the
government.


This country is a melting pot of so many value systems and beliefs that
you will never have families all sharing the same.

Especially when you start emphasizing diversity instead of encouraging
assimilation into the melting pot of American culture.


People lean on the internal support of the
family for temporary hardships.


We're not talking emotional or physical, we are talking financial.

So am I. Most families can assume some hardship (such as elderly
member care). The care of an elderly family member should not have to
fall squarely on the shoulders of one (or two) people.



A strong family negates the need for the
government to stick its nose into it (At other
people's expense).


I know many strong family units who would die for each other.

Yes! And that's how it should be.

That
doesn't mean one has the financial means to provide a solution for
another's misfortunes, especially when catastrophic health issues arise.

But a strong large family has more resources than a single person.


More
children are now caring for parents than in any other time in our
history. Many have taken out home equity loans to pay for health care
and prescription coverage that they lost through no fault of their own.

Yes, and those who are ambitious will pay it
all back when they adjust to their situation and
find a new vocation.


Many are disabled or seniors and can't work. MANY.

There is a big difference between those who can't work, and those who
chose not to, or who are underemployed due to lack of motivation.


Surely you aren't
presenting the idea that all those without health care can simply
"adjust". You are assuming these people can all work when a great number
of them, esecially in Florida are seniors with a host of health
problems.

What did these people do 50 years ago, when health insurance was still
in its infancy and few people had it?


What is your solution to this very large group?
There is an entire contingency in many demographical areas of the US in
which many are trapped in a sort of financial snare.

Subsidizing health care costs is what put us in this mess to begin
with. Private insurance subsidies have enabled the healthcare field to
sharply increase costs. If the government got involved, it would only
get worse. Unless, there were mandatory caps put on the costs


Well, if you live in a town where 80% of the
people work at "the factory" and that factory
closes up, well yea the town's in a real pickle.


All towns have a major employer.

That's wrong. Had you said "many" or a "good deal", I would have to
reluctantly agree with you. But the area where I live has no "one"
major employer. There is a collection of many smaller professional and
technology businesses. The same is true in many areas of California,
and Texas.

Years ago, when the textile mills ran, the steel mills flourished, and
other large factories dotted the landscape, there might have been a
bigger impact. But most of those factories have been closed now for
over 20 years, and have been replaced by smaller, denser high tech
industries.


That's why an intelligent person looks to live in
an area where alternate employment id
plentiful, and diverse commerce is well
established.



You are focusing on a select group of healthy individuals.

Which makes up the greatest majority of the workforce. That is what I
was talking about initially.

The number of
those without health care (seniors included) far outnumber those healthy
workers who get laid off.

Most companies who employ skilled workers, have some form of
healthcare coverage as part of their benefits package. I've never had
a job without it. Resumption of healthcare coverage is tied to the
laid-off worker's need to find another job.



That way, no one layoff can cripple a
significant portion of the population.


Depends what you consider a significant portion of the population. I can
think of several examples..Reagan importing cheaper metals from the
Asians decimated the steel industry in Pa and Ohio.

I live within an easy drive of 4 different steel plants. The towns
that surrounded them were dependant on those mills for the majority of
their income. But 20 years later and things have pretty much
recovered. People can get pretty creative when they need to be.



In many of those
industry towns, this led to the closing of the mills and a significant
layoff of those town's populations and many of those towns became
ghettos or ghost towns because of that.

Not in my area. The towns (Allentown, Phoenixville, Fairless Hills,
and Conshohocken) are still going strong, although the people who live
there are forced to commute to work now. The towns are going through a
revitalization, where the old factories have been leveled and in their
place have sprung up huge business campuses.



Same can be said with coal
mining and to a certain extent, the auto industry. History repeats
itself.

Yes, as we continue to become more efficient at manufacture, the
nature of jobs have evolved along with it. The automobile pretty much
ended the demand for blacksmiths. But we shouldn't blame the
automobile for causing the demise of the blacksmith industry. The
smart blacksmith went back to school and learned to repair cars.


That's one of the reasons why I still live where
I do. I was once contemplating a move to both
Florida and North Carolina. But the lack of
.diverse skilled jobs and much lower pay
scales pretty much nixed that move.

Lack of diverse skilled jobs?

Excuse me, I should have said diverse high paying skilled jobs.


When was the last time you checked the
stats? Florida has led the country in adding new jobs and has not felt
the inflation the country has felt the last so many years. The pay here
was always offset by the lower cost of living.

That's a myth. Yes, there are certain costs which are lower in
Florida. The homestead exemption saves a bundle on property tax. Homes
are (were) cheaper. There is no state tax, and utilities are somewhat
lower. Yes, many costs ARE lower to an extent. But if you try to buy
something like a car, gasoline, or a major appliance or consumer good,
the cost is pretty mush the same as it is in any other state. And at
30-40% less of a salary, for the same job, that limits one's buying
power.



The only people that have
trouble adjusting are those who live beyond their means.

Living beyond one's means is somewhat subjective. It depends on where
you are living and what your earning power is.

_
*People like you
usually get what is coming in the end
Yes, we tend to survive, because we don't
look to other people to blame, or to the
government for help.

What about this job retraining you speak of? Who pays for it?

We do. That's one area of assistance that I'm very much in favor of.
Training enables people to become self-sufficient.


That's what self sufficiency and personal
responsibility are all about.


Looking to the government for assistance is perfectly acceptable in many
instances, Dave. There are thousands and thousands and thousands of
people STILL homeless in Fl because of the hurricanes.

Yes, Yes, and YES. I'm totally cool with hardship TEMPORARY
assistance.

Many of the major
insurance companies are STILL unable to pay for their customer's claims.

And my insurance premiums have increased as a result. Yet the company
swears that it has nothing to do with the large payouts they had to
make to cover those claims. Somehow I don't believe them.....


If it wasn't for the government assistance (what you always refer to as
"handouts") with food, water, shelter, etc., these folks would be on the
welfare tit.

What's the difference? A handout is a handout, unless you are expected
to pay it back. Government assistance or welfare? Comes from the same
place. But again, I have no problem if it's temporary only.



Now please 'splain how being self-sufficient and personally
responsible can help these folks who paid their premiums on time
faithfully all those years, had their homes destroyed or damaged to the
point they are rendered unsafe for living conditions, lost all their
possessions, yet still manage to survive by living in tents, can bring
them up out of their hell created by the insurance companies who are
regulated by the federal government.

The insurance companies are obligated to make good on their claims.
And they should be made to repay the government for any "handouts" it
had to pay to house people until the insurance companies settled. Call
it an "incentive" clause.



You really have no clue the
magnitude of damage these storms had on many people in Florida.

I saw some of it when I was there last fall.


There
are so many hardworking people that are struggling just to feed their
kids, living in tents, and waiting for the federal government to crack
down on the insurance companies and make them ante up.

Which they should.

To suggest these
fine families are anything less than responsible or self-sufficient
shows you haven't a clue, Dave.

I never said anything of the sort. I'm not talking about temporarily
displaced people. I'm talking about perpetual slackers.


On the contrary, I will lay odds these
folks are illustrating survival skills and grit that you couldn't
handle.

Based on what?



Many of these folks have been living out of doors, literally,
for almost a year and cooking on fires or grills.

I do that for fun.


Try this for a year,
Dave, then you -may- be qualified to speak of what these people should
and shouldn't do.

_
and karma, luck, divine
intervention, whatever, will dictate you end up just like those you
blame for being poor, black, queer, liberal, etc. In fact, your daughter
may quit school, commonly become pregnant to an African-American or
three, have many children and volunteer at the ACLU before realizing she
is a lesbian and needs a job to pay the attorney for the crack and
prostitution charges.

Not likely because she will have grown up in a
solid supportive family that helps each other
and promotes open communications and a
.strong work ethic with solid morals.


What the hell does that have to do with having children to another race?

Nothing. If she wants to marry a black guy, I'm cool with it. As long
as they love each other.


You can tell you are about to tread in unfamiliar parenting territory.
Just you wait. Mistakenly believing that strong morals and all that good
stuff aimed at raising your child will prevent her from making her
mistakes is the mistake many people make. In fact, many of us who have
raised children to adults know better than to believe such tripe, as we
were there long before you, Dave. If what you say were true, drug
addicts and prostitutes and the like would come from only families that
were broken and had no communications, strong work ethic or solid
morals. Addiction has no cultural, socioeconomic boundaries.

Yes it does to a certain degree. Kids rebel and turn to things like
drugs because they need an outlet for their energy, or they are
craving attention. Provide them with many sorts of creative avenues to
release, and there will be no need to turn to destructive behavior. A
kid who plays sports, acts in drama clubs, plays in the band,
participates in the arts, or has a worthwhile hobby, will be way too
busy to hang out with the slackers. Giving a kid an activity that
they can be proud to excel at and bolster their self esteem (While
learning what it means to truly EARN it) builds character. Lastly,
never lose communication with them. Set your ground rules while they
are young, and they become adjusted to them. Let a child run amuck
when they are young, and then try to reign them in when they hit the
teenaged years, and you've already lost. Talk to them always. Know all
their friends (and their parents). Make sure they know that you're
always there for them. Support them in whatever they do. Show up at
their plays, cheer them on at their games. Listen to their teachers
when you have conferences. Trust them enough and allow them to make
small mistakes, but keep on the lookout for major ones. In short,
STAY INVOLVED!

I know how my parents raised me. I know from a child's perspective
which disciplines worked, and which ones didn't. I use what I learned
to my advantage as a parent.


And I have taken enough steps to ensure that
she will not have to bear the financial burden
of taking care of me when I'm old and infirm.
I'm only 45,
and if I lost my job tomorrow, I'd be able to live
comfortably for 4 years without another job,
and before I have to worry. If I take a job at
half the pay, that number doubles. If the wife
also goes back to work, that number
increases. If I liquidate some assets, that
.number increases even more. Before you
know it, I'll be at retirement age, and my
.pensions will kick in, not to mention my 401K.
Have you planned for financial hardship?


I can provide food, water, and the basic necessities.

Hell, I could retire right now, if that's all I needed to do.



Believe it or not,
there are many in Florida, more in the rural areas, who rely on no cash
at all, and it's always been that way.

Talk about self sufficiency! In this area, that just isn't very
practical. Unless, of course, you're Amish.


Self-sustainment has always been
a large part of the original Floridians and their families.

Like that guy in the swamps of Tampa that was just forced, by eminent
domain, off his land to the tune of 5 mil?


They have
survived Indians, draughts, plagues (such as citrus canker that
decimates entire industries and family enterprises) hurricanes on a
regular basis..on it goes. Florida has never been the cushy place your
ads in between Homer Simpson and reality shows depict. Miami and Disney
have always presented an unrealistic portrait of Florida. It is still a
very much undeveloped state,

That's because much of it is swamp. There's an on-going battle between
rabid developers who want to drain the swamps, and the ecologists who
want to preserve the natural ecosystem


,,except on the coastal regions. There are
state roads that traverse through the state east and west that have
nothing in between the coasts except for a few small unremarkable towns
with populations in the double digits.

Sounds like the Pine Barrens in New Jersey......

What's your excuse not to?

I can always sell my home and move north (or inland) and buy incredible
acreage and 4 or 5 times the home I have here and still have enough left
over to live fairly well.

I could do the same. For the price that my home can get in today's
market, I could move to an unremarkable (READ: not in demand) area and
by a similar place for a fraction of the cost. But there's no place
to work at a livable wage. But when I retire, that's probably what I
will do.


Our home values increased over 70% in the last
ten years in some areas.

My home appreciated about 70% in the 5 years that I've lived here.
It's unreal, and it won't last. I pity the people who are buying into
the market now with a 10% down payment and will likely find themselves
upside down when the bottom finally falls out of the market.


Taxes when I bought my original home here were
less than 300 bucks a year.

I'd die for that rate. Right now, I'm approaching $5500

Now they are over 3G.

Even 3G would be better than what I'm paying now.

Houseboats are another option for those of us who tame the sea.

I once toyed with the idea of living on a boat. But I have far too
much junk to make it practical. Especially with family considerations.
If I was a loner, I could live in boat or a trailer and I'd be just
fine.


Of course, I can always throw a
trailer or mobile home near JerryO's place after selling my home and
never have to worry about money again.

At least you'd have a drinking buddy ;-)

Dave
"Sandbagger"