Guest shiloh357 Posted July 23, 2015 Share Posted July 23, 2015 The Bible also says that the one who doesn't eat, doesn't work. There are welfare recipients who could work and are physically able to work and are just lazy leeches. The ones who are determined to be physically capable of work need to taken off of welfare and forced to find a job. Some people need to be kicked in the rear end to make them work. They need to force those who apply for welfare to provide a doctor's evaluation saying that they are too ill or disabled to support themselves before receiving benefits. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest shiloh357 Posted July 23, 2015 Share Posted July 23, 2015 Income inequality being debated elsewhere on the board is really kind of a pointless issue if you don't want to work and remain on welfare. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Qnts2 Posted July 23, 2015 Group: Royal Member Followers: 3 Topic Count: 20 Topics Per Day: 0.00 Content Count: 2,875 Content Per Day: 0.71 Reputation: 1,336 Days Won: 9 Joined: 03/13/2013 Status: Offline Share Posted July 23, 2015 The Bible also says that the one who doesn't eat, doesn't work. There are welfare recipients who could work and are physically able to work and are just lazy leeches. The ones who are determined to be physically capable of work need to taken off of welfare and forced to find a job. Some people need to be kicked in the rear end to make them work. They need to force those who apply for welfare to provide a doctor's evaluation saying that they are too ill or disabled to support themselves before receiving benefits. If a person is disabled, they do not go on welfare. The go on social security for the disabled. That is a separate government program. A person who is not permanently disabled, but is too ill to work is another issue. The back to work programs were designed for 'lazy leeches', but either they have not been effective, or the programs are allowed to expire. I'm not sure which. The people who are reducing their hours to remain on welfare are not 'lazy leeches' since they are working. I assume they are reducing their hours because the minimum wage increase caused certain benefits to be lost which they needed but could not afford with the raise. Was the minimum wage increase to get people off of welfare or was it designed to give them a livable wage. If it was to give a livable wage, it did not work. It didn't work because they still needed assistance to have what they needed. Welfare is geared towards families with children. Adults without children have very little support and I knew of more adults without children who were in dire positions. In scripture, giving to the poor is considered a good deed. Giving taxes to the government is not considered a good deed, but rather an obligation. Since the government stepped up to provide for the poor, people grumble about the system, as they do not think of taxes as a good deed. People who receive then benefits look at it as more of a guaranteed benefit rather then caring people trying to assist. But, with the number of Christians at only 10% of the population, Christians can not support all of the poor, lame, blind, etc. who need assistance. Before the government programs, more people starved or froze to death. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest shiloh357 Posted July 23, 2015 Share Posted July 23, 2015 Yes, those who want their hours reduced to get their welfare are lazy. If they were not lazy, they would get off of welfare and live according to their wages. They want something for nothing. If they are working, they need to get a second job and get off of welfare. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
tigger398 Posted July 23, 2015 Group: Diamond Member Followers: 6 Topic Count: 562 Topics Per Day: 0.08 Content Count: 2,074 Content Per Day: 0.31 Reputation: 648 Days Won: 2 Joined: 11/01/2005 Status: Offline Birthday: 05/31/1966 Share Posted July 23, 2015 Here is what I think. If min. wage goes up. Hours will go down to save company's money. I know that for a fact. I have seen it done. So there pay checks stay the same. Company's will always find a loop hole. Such as we we will hire part time instead of full time. Well cut hours so you will still get paid the same, Even though min. wage went up. Or raises will be less or if any. I been a min. wage jobs all my life. I know how it is done. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
missmuffet Posted July 23, 2015 Group: Royal Member Followers: 34 Topic Count: 1,991 Topics Per Day: 0.48 Content Count: 48,689 Content Per Day: 11.80 Reputation: 30,343 Days Won: 226 Joined: 01/11/2013 Status: Offline Share Posted July 23, 2015 Here is what I think. If min. wage goes up. Hours will go down to save company's money. I know that for a fact. I have seen it done. So there pay checks stay the same. Company's will always find a loop hole. Such as we we will hire part time instead of full time. Well cut hours so you will still get paid the same, Even though min. wage went up. Or raises will be less or if any. I been a min. wage jobs all my life. I know how it is done. I thought at first that the minimum wage going up was a good thing but I do not believe that now. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
tigger398 Posted July 23, 2015 Group: Diamond Member Followers: 6 Topic Count: 562 Topics Per Day: 0.08 Content Count: 2,074 Content Per Day: 0.31 Reputation: 648 Days Won: 2 Joined: 11/01/2005 Status: Offline Birthday: 05/31/1966 Share Posted July 23, 2015 Here is what I think. If min. wage goes up. Hours will go down to save company's money. I know that for a fact. I have seen it done. So there pay checks stay the same. Company's will always find a loop hole. Such as we we will hire part time instead of full time. Well cut hours so you will still get paid the same, Even though min. wage went up. Or raises will be less or if any. I been a min. wage jobs all my life. I know how it is done. I thought at first that the minimum wage going up was a good thing but I do not believe that now. Here is example. You work 5 days a week. Min wage goes up. You now will work 4 days a week to keep your pay check the same. You work 40 hours. Min wage goes up. You now will work 30 hours a week. They been doing that for years. That is why a low paying job is always a low paying job. Working 40 hours at my job is a no no. Unless you are asked by a manger. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest shiloh357 Posted July 23, 2015 Share Posted July 23, 2015 Exactly Tigger... You are right. The problem with the Left is they either ignore the matrix of economics or they simply don't understand. If you force an employer to raise wages on a non-merit basis, that is an extra expense and the extra money needed doesn't just fall out of the sky. It has to come from somewhere. Either raise prices or cut employee hours or both. You have to maintain a certain profit margin and a bottom line or your business goes belly up. Raises need to be based on merit and profitability. If an employee is more valuable to the company and has helped the company be profitable, then they deserve raise, at the level the company can afford. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
OneLight Posted July 23, 2015 Group: Royal Member Followers: 22 Topic Count: 1,294 Topics Per Day: 0.21 Content Count: 31,762 Content Per Day: 5.23 Reputation: 9,762 Days Won: 115 Joined: 09/14/2007 Status: Offline Share Posted July 23, 2015 This is just another insane idea. The 30 hour week came before the min wage increase, which nullifies the 30 hours a week idea. It's all a circle game spiraling downward, out of control. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
tigger398 Posted July 23, 2015 Group: Diamond Member Followers: 6 Topic Count: 562 Topics Per Day: 0.08 Content Count: 2,074 Content Per Day: 0.31 Reputation: 648 Days Won: 2 Joined: 11/01/2005 Status: Offline Birthday: 05/31/1966 Share Posted July 23, 2015 Exactly Tigger... You are right. The problem with the Left is they either ignore the matrix of economics or they simply don't understand. If you force an employer to raise wages on a non-merit basis, that is an extra expense and the extra money needed doesn't just fall out of the sky. It has to come from somewhere. Either raise prices or cut employee hours or both. You have to maintain a certain profit margin and a bottom line or your business goes belly up. Raises need to be based on merit and profitability. If an employee is more valuable to the company and has helped the company be profitable, then they deserve raise, at the level the company can afford. It's not that they don't understand, they don't care. They consider us low paying jobs lazy. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts