NationStates Jolt Archive

Jaguar is an American car now. Think it was Ford that bought them. Maybe they will get them to finally work properly.

Yeah, I forgot about the Ford buyout. And yes, Jaguars may have used extremely expensive parts, but typical of British engineering, they left much to be desired in performance.

So now it isnt even good enough to freely give money to charity, they have to also meet some arbritrary level of sympathy for those less well off?

I'm saying that if people were only to give to charity instead of being taxed for social programs, they'd give only to certain charities, thus leaving a lot of people behind. And that wouldn't be good at all.

Aha! I found one in spite of brain fog. :D

The first twenty I came across were about estate planning.
http://www.charitynavigator.org/index.cfm/bay/content.view/catid/38/cpid/200.htm
Wait, you mean people are judging how much people are giving based on their "wealth" ie, "investment assets"? WTF kind of method is that? Investment assets are to provide for your future and your children’s future. You don't donate money away from the principle that you're saving up for your own future. You do donate based on your personal income. I call faulty method of analysis.

Some parts are expensive, some parts are cheap. Varies on the part. Especially now that Jags share parts from the trash pile, er, Ford Corporate Parts Bin. Anyway, price of parts does not an expensive car make.

Now a Jaguar E Type... :D

Dad had a 71 E type convertible. It was his pride and joy. The first year of the 12 cylinder.

Jaguar is an American car now. Think it was Ford that bought them. Maybe they will get them to finally work properly.

Yes Ford, yes they've been becoming more reliable.

Dad had a 71 E type convertible. It was his pride and joy. The first year of the 12 cylinder.

You had better not be pleading poverty anytime soon...

Not when it comes to people making unfounded assumptions based upon their self-created sterotypes. Nor do I particualary feel any need to explain or "justify" myself on an internet message board. Thusly

:rolleyes:

Hmm... well those aren't "unfounded" assumptions. You have expressed on this forum that you don't seem to think that people cannot be in situations to do influences outside of their own actions. Thus, "it's peoples fault that they are in certain situations". No one should help them. Nobody is telling you that you must give away any of your money or belongings to people. They're just trying to show you that there are people out there that don't have clothing, food, shelter, etc and you should at least care. I can't imagine that there wasn't a time in your life where people didn't help you.

Many people are recieveing aid and money from charity and organizations that they don't deserve.

Many people are and they do deserve it because they don't have basic nesessities because of problems that are beyond their control.

Many people aren't and they do deserve it because they don't have basic necessities that are beyond their control.

Not when it comes to people making unfounded assumptions based upon their self-created sterotypes. Nor do I particualary feel any need to explain or "justify" myself on an internet message board. Thusly

:rolleyes:

Unfounded assumptions based upon their self-created sterotypes? *cough cough* And if you fell no need to justify yourself on an internet message board, why are you still posting?

Very nice find, indeed. How's that for "compassion"?

Funny how that article bases its findings off of "Total Assets" rather than what people earn, because if someone with nothing gives even a little it is going to be a HUGE percentage versus those who have saved for years...

http://www.charitynavigator.org/index.cfm/bay/content.view/catid/38/cpid/200.htm

"Using 2001 tax data, the report shows that if filers with incomes of $200,000 to $10 million and average assets of $1.7 million to $46 million had donated as high a percentage of their asset wealth to charity as did lower wealth groups, total individual giving would have been 23 percent, or roughly $41.6 billion, higher."
________________________________________

Most people agree that such things should be judged on "income" and not total assets because you are basically "charging" the rich on the same money year after year with the method used in this research. Whereas poor people assets tend to not accumulate over time.

So you want to vilify people for wanting to "save" their money, versus spend it all...

Nice try, shall we look at some "real numbers" or are you content living in your ignorance on the matter?

Regards,
Gaar

Very nice find, indeed. How's that for "compassion"?

That group(200,000 +) is also being taxed the most. They are already funding a large percentage of the govt programs.

Funny how that article bases its findings off of "Total Assets" rather than what people earn, because if someone with nothing gives even a little it is going to be a HUGE percentage versus those who have saved for years...

http://www.charitynavigator.org/index.cfm/bay/content.view/catid/38/cpid/200.htm

"Using 2001 tax data, the report shows that if filers with incomes of $200,000 to $10 million and average assets of $1.7 million to $46 million had donated as high a percentage of their asset wealth to charity as did lower wealth groups, total individual giving would have been 23 percent, or roughly $41.6 billion, higher."
________________________________________

Most people agree that such things should be judged on "income" and not total assets because you are basically "charging" the rich on the same money year after year with the method used in this research. Whereas poor people assets tend to not accumulate over time.

So you want to vilify people for wanting to "save" their money, versus spend it all...

Nice try, shall we look at some "real numbers" or are you content living in your ignorance on the matter?

Regards,
Gaar

Notice how it said "if filers with incomes of $200,000 to $10 million and average assets of $1.7 million to $46 million had donated as high a percentage of their asset wealth to charity as did lower wealth groups", not income wealth.

That group(200,000 +) is also being taxed the most. They are already funding a large percentage of the govt programs.

And surprise surprise, another Libertarian saying "gov't"! It's like a disease, only slightly more sickening. The rich should be taxed even more than they already are, because they hoard a lot of their money in savings bonds and annuities to escape taxes. They're selfish bastards, the lot of them.

You had better not be pleading poverty anytime soon...

LOL
My father hasn't supported me for 21 years. Yes, my father has money. It didn't stop me from being homeless.

Perhaps you should study the ranks of those who are considered "poor" in this Country...

They live better than an "average" European.

Yes, "average" not a "poor" European an AVERAGE European.

Shall we talk about truly needy?

Regards,
Gaar

I agree with you completely. I'm very thankful for everything I have and admit that it's more than I deserve. However, this topic is based on the needs of people and how it relates to their merit. Clearly, there are many people in this thread who don't believe that people should have help of any kind. The people who need help are not Americans. They are not Europeans. They are Africans, Cambodians, I could go on. The whole premise of what I'm trying to argue is that THERE ARE people who do not have water, food, clothing, and shelter due to reasons beyond their control. People who think that everyone can help their self out of poverty in ignorant. If you look at Africa and think that the world is doing a pitiful job but agree with this idea, then you are as much of a hypocrite then next person.

I'm saying that if people were only to give to charity instead of being taxed for social programs, they'd give only to certain charities, thus leaving a lot of people behind. And that wouldn't be good at all.

And you were able to determine this how? Surely you some basis for making this statement beyond simply because you think so.

Even if I was to believe this statement, perhaps some of those people being "left behind" need to be left behind. Perhaps they are the ones who would take advantage. But since you havent provided any information on

1)why some people would be left behind

2)who these mythical people might be.

I guess we will never know

Hmm... well those aren't "unfounded" assumptions. You have expressed on this forum that you don't seem to think that people cannot be in situations to do influences outside of their own actions.

Intersting. I've noted in my posts already that some people deserve aid and some people get screwed over, such as by disease. Perhaps you skipped those posts?

Thus, "it's peoples fault that they are in certain situations". No one should help them. Nobody is telling you that you must give away any of your money or belongings to people.

You need to read the other peoples posts as well. Because that is exactly what people are saying.

Notice how it said "if filers with incomes of $200,000 to $10 million and average assets of $1.7 million to $46 million had donated as high a percentage of their asset wealth to charity as did lower wealth groups", not income wealth.

I am beginning to feel you don't understand the difference between "asset wealth" and "income wealth"...

But thanks for proving my point with your post.

Regards,
Gaar

Intersting. I've noted in my posts already that some people deserve aid and some people get screwed over, such as by disease. Perhaps you skipped those posts?

And I have said the same...

Interesting that some need to "give us" an opinion so they may refute it.

You need to read the other peoples posts as well. Because that is exactly what people are saying. [/QUOTE]

I second that suggestion.

Regards,
Gaar

Clearly, there are many people in this thread who don't believe that people should have help of any kind. The people who need help are not Americans. They are not Europeans. They are Africans, Cambodians, I could go on.

Could you please point out some of these people in this thread who believe that no one should have help of any kind? I don't think I've seen anyone in here say that. Also this debate has been in the context of America the entire time. Not Africa or South East Asia.

I am beginning to feel you don't understand the difference between "asset wealth" and "income wealth"...

But thanks for proving my point with your post.

Regards,
Gaar

It's simply saying that the wealthy don't donate as much of their asset wealth as do the middle classes.

And you were able to determine this how? Surely you some basis for making this statement beyond simply because you think so.

Even if I was to believe this statement, perhaps some of those people being "left behind" need to be left behind. Perhaps they are the ones who would take advantage. But since you havent provided any information on

1)why some people would be left behind

2)who these mythical people might be.

I guess we will never know

If you possibly think that nobody will be left behind with simple charity instead of social programs, you're in serious need of re-education. And if you think that those who could be left behind do need to be, then you should invest in a consience.

Just because they give to charity doesn't make them compassionate. A lot of them are, but just as many do it because they think it's their personal "duty".

Does that really matter? a dollar given to a charity out of compassion and a dollar given out of a sense of duty are the same thing. why attack the one when both are inherently charitable "acts"?
in my opinion, the motives for charity are irrelevant, as long as they are non-exploitative. therefore, giving out of a sense of duty is a perfectly valid reason for contributing to a charity.

Unfounded assumptions based upon their self-created sterotypes? *cough cough* And if you fell no need to justify yourself on an internet message board, why are you still posting?

To debate the debate and to pay little more than lip service to the personal attacks and red herrings?

Clearly, there are many people in this thread who don't believe that people should have help of any kind.

Really!?!?

Perhaps you would be kind enough to point one out, because the two people you are accusing of such behavior have already made statements that refute that assertion.

The people who need help are not Americans. They are not Europeans. They are Africans, Cambodians, I could go on. The whole premise of what I'm trying to argue is that THERE ARE people who do not have water, food, clothing, and shelter due to reasons beyond their control. People who think that everyone can help their self out of poverty in ignorant. If you look at Africa and think that the world is doing a pitiful job but agree with this idea, then you are as much of a hypocrite then next person.

Where did "anyone here" suggest anything like what you just asserted for them? Would you please point it out? Because I have seen just the opposite from those "you" are attacking on such matters.

Regards,
Gaar

It's simply saying that the wealthy don't donate as much of their asset wealth as do the middle classes.

As noted, asset wealth is personal savings for your future. Also the classes listed also pay far more in taxes already and probably the thinking "well, I've already paid X in taxes and that supports chairties as well, so I'll give this additional amount above taxes"

If you possibly think that nobody will be left behind with simple charity instead of social programs, you're in serious need of re-education. And if you think that those who could be left behind do need to be, then you should invest in a consience.

:rolleyes: I must need a conscience then.

And surprise surprise, another Libertarian saying "gov't"! It's like a disease, only slightly more sickening. The rich should be taxed even more than they already are, because they hoard a lot of their money in savings bonds and annuities to escape taxes. They're selfish bastards, the lot of them.


Ahhh, now it comes out.

This isnt about people starving because of lack of govt or private charity.

This is about class envy. Some people are better off than you so to make yourself feel better you have to denigrate them. Call them selfish, greedy ect. Blame them for your lot in life and dont give them any credit for theirs.

Its all too clear now.


About the munis(tax free municipal bonds)
You realize that tax free munical bonds came about because state governments needed to raise money to build various projects, from public housing to dams and power plants. Instead of paying the market rate of return, they pay much less BUT the investors get to save on taxes.

So, you can get a lower return and pay less taxes(and fund a govt project) or get a higher return and pay more taxes (and fund a private project).

I am sure that you knew the return rate on munis was lower than non munis with comparable credit rating and maturity(duration) before you made that statement..right?

I noticed most of the sites I saw when looking for info on income percentage compared with charitable contributions were about estate planning and such. Does giving to charity really give that much of a tax advantage?
And Salvondia, you never answer my honest questions. Is this because you would rather engage in heated arguement or do you just think they're stupid questions?

I noticed most of the sites I saw when looking for info on income percentage compared with charitable contributions were about estate planning and such. Does giving to charity really give that much of a tax advantage?

Yes. The idea being to increase the money given to private charities because they do a better job of it than the government.

And Salvondia, you never answer my honest questions. Is this because you would rather engage in heated arguement or do you just think they're stupid questions?

Which questions? If you repeat them I'll probably be happy to answer them. Provided its not something I consider a private matter.

Clearly, there are many people in this thread who don't believe that people should have help of any kind. .

Who are these people and where have they said that? I must have missed their posts.

Yes, I don't give a shit about the lazy. You are right.

I could feed a family of twenty on the food stamp allowance he is given. But I guess if you don't get macdonalds twice a week you are poor.


This family does not sound at all like there lazy.

Yep, when you price yourself out of the Market you better plan on finding new work.

Employers are not required to provide you with work simply because you want to do it.

U.S. citizens have been "taking" jobs from other Nations for decades. Why is it we only don't like such practices when it affects us in a negative manner and we didn't say anything when it was helping us?

We're just a bunch of Hypocrites I guess.

Regards,
Gaar

Here's an example. You seem to have this weird idea that people who are fired or are unable to do certain jobs are able to go to night school or have training. Hmm... if they don't have money, I wonder how they're going to pay for it? Perhaps it will come out of thin air or perhaps they can get some assistance from the government. I don't know. :rolleyes:

You may have compassion but compassion is not enough if you don't understand the situation. Criticizing people is not compassion. Salvondia in another thread expressed a stigma towards people who are on welfare. "Everyone I know on welfare are fat and lazy". Compassion actually involves understanding of the situation. If he did understand their situation and had compassion for them, then who would realize that there are other people who do need compassion and the character of those people are no reflection of anyone else on welfare.

Maybe I'm delusional but it seems you and Salvondia don't know anyone personally who has needed "help" because you seem to have such quick answers. Why I wonder why they didn't come with that themselves. :rolleyes:

Yes. The idea being to increase the money given to private charities because they do a better job of it than the government.



Which questions? If you repeat them I'll probably be happy to answer them. Provided its not something I consider a private matter.

Perhaps you consider some of them too personal. But I would like a comment on this one- I think more people would make the transition from government aid if some of these problems were fixed.


All the welfare programs I'm aware of require those able to work. But these have a lot of flaws. If you are a single mother and go to work, you lose the childcare you got while looking for a job. If your first job doesn't have health insurance, your children have lost medicaid. Very bad if you have a sick child. I can understand someone not working. If I start work now, I lose my medical benefits. If I weren't on medication, I would certainly require hospitalization. If I could keep the medical benefits until I could afford my medication I'd certainly be less terrified about the whole thing.

And I asked for a little more info on your general philosophy.

I'm afraid I need a clearer explanation. If it's all their fault, the views you seem to espouse would point to just telling them "tough shit." Am I just rambling or suffering from terminal brain fog? I'm not trying to be difficult, it just really doesn't make sense to me.
__________________

Perhaps you think I'm a little dense, but I am trying to understand. Not that understanding will neccesarily make me agree, but I like to understand where people are coming from.

Here's an example. You seem to have this weird idea that people who are fired or are unable to do certain jobs are able to go to night school or have training. Hmm... if they don't have money, I wonder how they're going to pay for it? Perhaps it will come out of thin air or perhaps they can get some assistance from the government. I don't know. :rolleyes:

If they're complacent in their skills and aren't actively working to always better their odds while they are employed, and saving while they're employed, they haven't little excuse for their fate. At the same time current unemployment help gives people options. So what, you lost your job. Fine. Take one that pays less, cut down your standard of living and go back to school and gain a new school. Are people prevented from doing that now? They’re not capable of sharing an apartment and going back to a city college? Really? Hmmm.

You may have compassion but compassion is not enough if you don't understand the situation. Criticizing people is not compassion. Salvondia in another thread expressed a stigma towards people who are on welfare. "Everyone I know on welfare are fat and lazy".

Really? I said "everyone I know on welfare are fat and lazy"? Where did I say that? Link please?

Compassion actually involves understanding of the situation. If he did understand their situation and had compassion for them, then who would realize that there are other people who do need compassion and the character of those people are no reflection of anyone else on welfare.

Except that I do realzie that there are people who do need compassion and their character is not a reflection of them being on welfare. The difficulty becomes that there are always the exceptions to the rule, but the rule still ends up being accurate for the vasty majority of the cases.

Maybe I'm delusional

Yep.

If they're complacent in their skills and aren't actively working to always better their odds while they are employed, and saving while they're employed, they haven't little excuse for their fate. At the same time current unemployment help gives people options. So what, you lost your job. Fine. Take one that pays less, cut down your standard of living and go back to school and gain a new school. Are people prevented from doing that now? They’re not capable of sharing an apartment and going back to a city college? Really? Hmmm.



Really? I said "everyone I know on welfare are fat and lazy"? Where did I say that? Link please?



Except that I do realzie that there are people who do need compassion and their character is not a reflection of them being on welfare. The difficulty becomes that there are always the exceptions to the rule, but the rule still ends up being accurate for the vasty majority of the cases.



Yep.

Good, you said what I wanted to here. Now I shall leave you so you can agree with other poster's delusional thoughts.

Here's an example. You seem to have this weird idea that people who are fired or are unable to do certain jobs are able to go to night school or have training. Hmm... if they don't have money, I wonder how they're going to pay for it? Perhaps it will come out of thin air or perhaps they can get some assistance from the government. I don't know. :rolleyes:

First off, I don't mind expressing my own opinion and would prefer to do just that, rather than have "you" tell me what you think I think...

Who said anything about school or training after someone is fired? I believe I said that, if someone is on the welfare role and able to work they should be given a job, someone else pointed out that they are. I am not sure if that is true, but if it is, it is a step in the right direction, in my mind.

And perhaps they should also think about taking that "minimum wage" job, because many of them have potential for advancement beyond minimum wage.

You may have compassion but compassion is not enough if you don't understand the situation. Criticizing people is not compassion. Salvondia in another thread expressed a stigma towards people who are on welfare. "Everyone I know on welfare are fat and lazy". Compassion actually involves understanding of the situation. If he did understand their situation and had compassion for them, then who would realize that there are other people who do need compassion and the character of those people are no reflection of anyone else on welfare.

Maybe I'm delusional but it seems you and Salvondia don't know anyone personally who has needed "help" because you seem to have such quick answers. Why I wonder why they didn't come with that themselves. :rolleyes:

You may not believe that telling people the truth and introducing them to the "real world" is not compassion. But sometimes it is exactly what some need...

You seem to be suggesting that everyone in the U.S. who is receiving assistance desperately "needs it". I say if you believe that you are "delusional", but you are free to disagree with me.

Compassion isn't always a matter of just giving people things to make their lives better. Sometimes it involves teaching people so they themselves can help themselves out of their situation.

What really gets to me is, the people like Potoria who are receiving assistance and instead of being thankful for what they are receiving they want to denigrate those they are getting it from for not giving them more!

And you wonder why those people don't think they should give it to them?

Perhaps if they just said thank you and showed they were doing everything in their own power to "change" their situation, then perhaps people might be willing to help a bit more. But when those people show up demanding that you "give them" because "you have" so much, well don't expect a very good reception for such actions...

And before you go off on "my" Charity, perhaps it would make you a bit more informed if you read some of my posts describing the circumstances in which I was raised and the things I have done during my life to affect the things that concern me. Then perhaps you wouldn't look so silly should you ever find out what I am talking about.

In other words, I have been there my friend and I don't need a lecture from someone about how difficult it can be and just how bad it can get. I just decided that I was going to be personally responsible for my own lot in life and went out and did something about it instead of just complaining about how bad I had it.

Regards,
Gaar

Perhaps you consider some of them too personal. But I would like a comment on this one- I think more people would make the transition from government aid if some of these problems were fixed.

All the welfare programs I'm aware of require those able to work. But these have a lot of flaws. If you are a single mother and go to work, you lose the childcare you got while looking for a job. If your first job doesn't have health insurance, your children have lost medicaid. Very bad if you have a sick child. I can understand someone not working. If I start work now, I lose my medical benefits. If I weren't on medication, I would certainly require hospitalization. If I could keep the medical benefits until I could afford my medication I'd certainly be less terrified about the whole thing.

Yes I agree with you. The current welfare system as it exists needs a massive overhaul to fix many of the problems you point out.

And I asked for a little more info on your general philosophy.

I'm afraid I need a clearer explanation. If it's all their fault, the views you seem to espouse would point to just telling them "tough shit." Am I just rambling or suffering from terminal brain fog? I'm not trying to be difficult, it just really doesn't make sense to me.

I ascribe to them the fault they deserve. Just because I feel someone is responsible for their own situation does not mean I don't think they should be given help to pull themselves out of their situation if they desire that.

I said earlier that I have no pity for those that didn't triumph and nothing but contempt for those that started middleclass and end middleclass who think they have accomplished something. I should probably qualify that statement. I have no pity for those that didn't succeed because they were lazy and now expect others to pay their way. Likewise I have nothing but contempt for people who started middle class and managed to stay middle class through the help of others and think that they are responsible for their own position in life.

I can be the most compassionate person in the world but if my compassion is wasted on those who won’t put it to good use it’s worthless.

Yes I agree with you. The current welfare system as it exists needs a massive overhaul to fix many of the problems you point out.



I ascribe to them the fault they deserve. Just because I feel someone is responsible for their own situation does not mean I don't think they should be given help to pull themselves out of their situation if they desire that.

I said earlier that I have no pity for those that didn't triumph and nothing but contempt for those that started middleclass and end middleclass who think they have accomplished something. I should probably qualify that statement. I have no pity for those that didn't succeed because they were lazy and now expect others to pay their way. Likewise I have nothing but contempt for people who started middle class and managed to stay middle class through the help of others and think that they are responsible for their own position in life.

I can be the most compassionate person in the world but if my compassion is wasted on those who won’t put it to good use it’s worthless.

Harsh, but understandable. I think you and my dad would get along. When I was young I thought he was a liberal. As I've gotten older I understand he's a libertarian.

Just an aside, you may or may not be interested.
My father grew up in South Texas. His father farmed a little and managed a concrete factory. Dad was a ne'er do well. He joined the army because the other choice was jail. While in the army he met and married my mother. Since his man job in the army was in his words "beating the shit out of niggers" he left with no more skills than he started with. (he's not really quite as racist as he sounds, and he spent most of his time boxing)
He bluffed his way into an electronics industry- in it's infancy at that time. He told them he learned to work on computers in the army. Then he went and checked out a bunch of books and studied hard. He managed to fool them. He also got two electronics patents while working for TI. He and my step mother managed a nice upper-middle class life. Though his father might also be considered middle class, my grandfather was on the lower edge of it. My greatgrandfather was a moonshine runner.

Unfotunately I'm the first in several generations to not outdo my parents. Believe me, I'd do a lot not to be such a disappointment to my father. He had higher hopes for me than any of my other siblings.

Perhaps you are right that I do wish some sympathy for my problems. But I really would rather have help in getting my life back on track. I'd really rather have the self esteem boost I got from being self-sufficient. You may not find it agreeable, but middle class would be just fine with me. I'd rather just have enough money to give me a comfotable living and a few luxuries. The people in my life are more important to me than making more money than I need to be comfortable.

Harsh, but understandable. I think you and my dad would get along. When I was young I thought he was a liberal. As I've gotten older I understand he's a libertarian.

Just an aside, you may or may not be interested.
My father grew up in South Texas. His father farmed a little and managed a concrete factory. Dad was a ne'er do well. He joined the army because the other choice was jail. While in the army he met and married my mother. Since his man job in the army was in his words "beating the shit out of niggers" he left with no more skills than he started with. (he's not really quite as racist as he sounds, and he spent most of his time boxing)
He bluffed his way into an electronics industry- in it's infancy at that time. He told them he learned to work on computers in the army. Then he went and checked out a bunch of books and studied hard. He managed to fool them. He also got two electronics patents while working for TI. He and my step mother managed a nice upper-middle class life. Though his father might also be considered middle class, my grandfather was on the lower edge of it. My greatgrandfather was a moonshine runner.

Unfotunately I'm the first in several generations to not outdo my parents. Believe me, I'd do a lot not to be such a disappointment to my father. He had higher hopes for me than any of my other siblings.

Perhaps you are right that I do wish some sympathy for my problems. But I really would rather have help in getting my life back on track. I'd really rather have the self esteem boost I got from being self-sufficient. You may not find it agreeable, but middle class would be just fine with me. I'd rather just have enough money to give me a comfotable living and a few luxuries. The people in my life are more important to me than making more money than I need to be comfortable.

Your dad sounds cool.

Harsh, but understandable. I think you and my dad would get along. When I was young I thought he was a liberal. As I've gotten older I understand he's a libertarian.

Just an aside, you may or may not be interested.
My father grew up in South Texas. His father farmed a little and managed a concrete factory. Dad was a ne'er do well. He joined the army because the other choice was jail. While in the army he met and married my mother. Since his man job in the army was in his words "beating the shit out of niggers" he left with no more skills than he started with. (he's not really quite as racist as he sounds, and he spent most of his time boxing)
He bluffed his way into an electronics industry- in it's infancy at that time. He told them he learned to work on computers in the army. Then he went and checked out a bunch of books and studied hard. He managed to fool them. He also got two electronics patents while working for TI. He and my step mother managed a nice upper-middle class life. Though his father might also be considered middle class, my grandfather was on the lower edge of it. My greatgrandfather was a moonshine runner.

Unfotunately I'm the first in several generations to not outdo my parents. Believe me, I'd do a lot not to be such a disappointment to my father. He had higher hopes for me than any of my other siblings.

Perhaps you are right that I do wish some sympathy for my problems. But I really would rather have help in getting my life back on track. I'd really rather have the self esteem boost I got from being self-sufficient. You may not find it agreeable, but middle class would be just fine with me. I'd rather just have enough money to give me a comfotable living and a few luxuries. The people in my life are more important to me than making more money than I need to be comfortable.

Heh, always confuses me when you Americans say 'middle class' - here in England middle class is actually a very rich set of people. Anyways, to the matter at hand; the problem seems to be the same as we have here with the welfare system. Namely, that it would have been practically impossible for my mother to take a minimum-wage job, because as soon as she does she loses EVERY benefit she has, and ends up on less than she was on before. I dislike welfare, but it could at least be done properly, so that finding employment doesn't lower your means. A major problem with the whole system, I'm sure you'll agree.

I also agree entirely with your desires; lots of money would be nice, but I'd be happy with getting enough to support my family and buy the occasional 102 inch plasma screen TV. Thing is, as you're quite able to testify, welfare isn't helping you a great deal. Our (Or at least my) perspective is that as it is failing, and failing in many cases, it would be better to try a different system, even if said system appears to be selfish.

As for me, I don't know... welfare has helped in financial terms, but my father wouldn't have been half the deadbeat drunkard he was if he'd actually been forced to EARN something. He had no reason - and I must stress this, no reason whatsoever - not to work, and he could have gone damned far before he wrecked his brain/liver/kidneys with alchohol, except his own laziness. Now I resent that I'm not well-off because of his laziness, but I can't sit around doing that until I starve to death wondering where all the internet went. I've got my own issues to deal with - mainly crippling depression - but I'd rather have to tough it out myself than lean on anyone else, friends excepted, and friends to support me, not my bank account.

Yes, that's just my opinion and yes, other people have it worse than I do, but it's still a belief I hold closely. Certainly, people with real conditions which severaly hamper or entirely prevent their working need help, but welfare should really be about sustaining you whilst you, or they, negotiate with an employer who'll cut you some slack, rather than letting you live in apparent poverty.