Dave Hall Jr.(N3CVJ) wrote:
And at 30-40% less of a salary, for

the same job, that limits one's buying power.

Yep,,salaries for workers who work for another have always been low
compared to the northern states.

Exactly my point. Which limits my 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.

Your salary has nothing to do with one living beyond their means.

Sure it does. You salary determines what

"your means" is.

One
can make 200 bucks a week and live beyond their means, just as one who
makes 2000 bucks a week can live beyond their means. It is also not
linked to geography or earning power.

When one budgets carefully and lives a

certain standard of living in one area and

"lives within his means", suddenly up roots

and moves somewhere else, and his salary

decreases, he is now living beyond his means

assuming the bills stay relatively the same.


Demonstrating anyone can live beyond their means.

Cuts in spending involve changing your

standard of living. Someone used to driving a

BMW might now have to deal with a Chevy. It

might not be their idea of "living".



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.

Yet, government medical care enables people to live and be healthy, yet,
you are against that.
Because it is a widening blacke hole


Sure,,when the US in covering Iraqi medical care for the asking.


As long as there are no attempts to cap

medical costs they will keep spiraling, no

matter how much the government kicks in on

our behalf.


Yet, you speak out against our own people getting such care, but you
have said nothing concerning the current admin's waste of medical care
and supplying the Iraqi's with it, or any other of the "enemies' on our
list

That's what self sufficiency and personal

responsibility are all about.

One can not be self sufficient if one is sick and ailing.

People got sick in the 1930's too.


Try to stay relevant, Dave, and not slip into your preference of
discussing ancient history that will not change anything.

And you know what? They went to work

anyway, or there might not be any food on the

table that night.


Advocating people to go to work sick in today's climate is a very
irresonsible thing to do, Dave. Even the CDC and the WHO tell people to
stay home. In fact, many employers, such as hospitals have policies
against coming to work ill.
_
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 folks would benefit and live healthier and longer if they were
permitted even temporary medical assistance from the government,,,so are
you for it or against it?

No. Not as long as nothing is done to address

the supply side of the equation. There are

many problems in the medical field.



And those who lost everything and are in need of medical assistance were
not responsibe for any of them.

Fraud is

rampant, lawsuits are commonplace,

everyone looks to wring big bucks out of the

medical industry. Until there is meaningful tort

reform, lessening of malpractice insurance,

and someone steps in to run roughshod over

billing practices, I don't want one more penny

pumped into this industry only to encourage it

to grow even further in costs.
=A0



It's not a oney shortage problem, like you assume, it's a budget issue
of where and how the monies are spent. Instead of spending health care
on the enemy overseas, there are many children in this country who could
benefit from the care El Mohammed Mujasteen receives and which you
condone.




-
=A0Now 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.

But they AREN'T making good on their claims, Dave, and this is the
problem.

Well, if they aren't because they can't, that's

one thing.

If they can't, the fault lies with your government because they are the
ones that regulate the premiums and the industry.

You can't get blood from a rock. If

they're just dragging their feet, the government
should step in and push on behalf of the

residents.

And they should be made to repay the

.government for any "handouts" it had to pay

to house people until the insurance companies
settled.

The government disagrees, this is why FEMA was created.

FEMA provides assistance to people

displaced due to natural disasters.


Hurricanes -are- natural disasters, Dave. You perhaps thought otherwise?

.Which they should.

But they AREN'T doing it, and the government is STILL permitting these
companies do write more policies.

So you advocate that the government control

aspects of business?

That's socialism.


Better read up on who the insurance industry answers to, Dave. The feds
regulate everything to do with them.

Besides, if the insurance companies don't

write more policies, where are they going to

get the money they need to pay the claims

(Other than by raising MY rates for no good

reason)?


From their catastrophic relief fund, a fund specifically created in
order to prevent such problems.
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.

Those displaced by the hurricanes need aid and they are not slackers.
Does being displaced for a year equate your idea of temporary?

Yes.

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

Based on what?

Based on your invoked claims of your material possessions.

Which means what exactly? I grew up in a

struggling middle class family. My parents

were both penny pinchers, and I learned it

from them. I'm not rich by any standard, but I

pick and choose what things I spend my

money on. I prefer to spend money on a few

big things rather than on a bunch of smaller

ones.

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, when all of your equipment enabling you to partake
in this "fun" has been destroyed, then you -may- be qualified to speak
of what these people should and shouldn't do.

The thing is, if I had a member of my family

who was displaced from their home in Florida,

I would take a week or two off of work, hook

up the trailer to my truck, load up the

generator and drive down. I would let them

live in the trailer until their home was rebuilt.

Again, not everyone has families that can help, Dave. If it were that
simple, there would be no displaced families there now,,,and there are
thousands and thousands.

THAT is what I meant before by leaning on

and getting support from family. I can't believe

all those people who lost homes don't have

relatives they can live with, or who can help

them in some way.


Yea..they all choose to live without roofs and appliances and choose to
cook outdoors because of their pioneering spirit.

My in-laws had a fire in 1987. Their home

was unlivable for almost a year, while waiting

for insurance claims to settle. I invited them to

live with my wife and I for the time period. It

was tight, but that's what you do for family.

Ummm,,,actually, i would have rented them their own place.

-
Among a boatload of reasons you ignore...abuse, peer pressure,
self-esteem, curiosity, lies told to them by those who buy into the
government's bull**** war on drugs...etc. It's hypocritical of us to
tell the kids to just say no when we ply them with ritalin from a young
age and mom smokes cigarettes, drinks cup after cup of coffee, and dad
drinks alcohol, even if it's the cocktail with dinner.

Not an issue. Peer pressure is something you

have to deal with.



And something whcih parents have no control to what their children are
exposed in public schools.

I took a lot of peer pressure abuse when I

was a kid.



Dave, multiply that times your highest faction you can handle and then
you amy come close to understanding the level of peer pressure today.

You learn to ignore and deal with it. You learn
that those people are not worth your time, and
when it's all said and done, they'll be serving

you fries 20 years from now.


You know better than to try and tell a child what it will be like in 20
years. 20 weeks is an eternity to kid. 20 years is inconceivable.

Provide them with many sorts of creative

avenues to release, and there will be no need

to turn to destructive behavior.

Again,,,bull****.

Not at all.

Perhaps just youare just naive, then.

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.

Your mistake is believing drug use by children is inherent to these you
call "slackers".

Drug use is done mainly as an escape by

those who can't handle life.

Then the same can be said for alcohol and obacco users.


Mostly this is a result of isolating parents who

protected their kids for too long, and who now

have to deal with the ugliness of the real

world. They have self-esteem and social

issues. But in their minds they are perfectly

ok, and they try to get other kids to partake as

well, to further bolster the illusion of normalcy

that dopers tend to believe.


Same can be said for those who drink, then.

Being an alert and supportive parent who can

intercede when your kid starts to have

"problems" before they turn to drugs.



Drugs are not the problem Dave, they are a symptom.

That's why it's also important to know their

friends.

=A0=A0Giving 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.

Yup,,character that is torn down when these suburban kids from loving
families begin using harmful drugs.

If the character is strong, and you believe

enough in yourself, you can just say no. I

never did drugs in school. For one thing I

never smoked at all, and the smell of smoke

bothered me. Other drugs seemed silly to me.

To me, they were pointless. Plus I never had

enough money to buy them anyway. I spent all
my cash on CB radio stuff. I guess you could

say CB was my "drug".

Keep your kids poor! And for God's sake, don't
give them a credit card.
=A0

Keep your kids poor? That's the most ridiculous thing I ever heard. On
one hand, you claim that if you act one way with your kids, they will
avoid drugs and other pitfalls you mistakenly only attribute to
"slackers", yet you believe giving them a credic card or a pocket full
of cash will destroy the values you instill in your kids.
Oh man, just you wait. You are in for the shock and heartbreak of your
life like you can never imagine.

=A0Lastly, 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.


I don't equate not keeping my children "poor" (as you do) with
permitting them to "run amuck".


Talk to them always. Know all their friends

(and their parents).
=A0
=A0Make 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!

All that is great advice, but is irrelevant in the real world.

It is great advice, and it is very relevant in the

real world. Not every kid is a weak, spineless

bowl of self esteem goo, that can be shattered
.by the taunting of some lowlife idiot.


Who said otherwise? Those are your mistaken core beliefs.

If you build their confidence and show them

their potential, they will know enough to laugh

.at the pathetic attempts by the slackers who

use peer pressure to elevate their own pitiful

self-esteem at the expense of others.

There are two types of people in the world.


No Dave, despite your best attempts at pigeonholing people into neat
little groups of twos, it's not true.

Those who excel, and the ones that those who
excel laugh at.


Again, despite your mistaken core beliefs, most successful people do not
laigh at those less fortunate than themselves. It's also not a very
christian thing to do, let alone something a parent should be teaching
their child.

I used to laugh a lot when I

was in school. I still do.

I know how my parents raised me. I know from
a child's perspective which disciplines worked,
and which ones didn't.
=A0

You know what works with -you-. You have no clue what works in other
families, religions, faiths, cultures, cities, etc. Your myopic view
that everyone shares your beliefs has never been more wrong, as the
majority of good caring, parents would never laugh at the misfortune or
expense of other's, regardless the situation.

=A0I use what I learned to my advantage as a

parent.


As far as learning as a parent, you are in the infancy stage.

You ignore the fact that peer pressure is greater today than you can
comprehend

No it's not. It's the same old story done for the

same reasons.

Yea, ok. How many people were killed for their sneakers or clothes when
you were a kid, Dave?

People elevate themselves by trying to make

other people feel lousy.



Like laughing at those less fortunate than you, yes, I see your point,
but you are extremely hypocritical.

Once you understand

the psychological forces that drives this, you

can defuse them.


Uh-huh.


...your advice has been followed time and time again, yet there are
great kids who succumb to drugs every day.

Then that advice was not followed completely.
Once you understand there is no guarantee in parenting, you will
understand.


Dave

"Sandbagger"