- This topic is empty.
-
AuthorPosts
-
August 1, 2013 at 11:01 pm #794629
WFMemberjob it was lying on the table in front of the TV in plain site. but it is an example of someone not planning for their future that is not fair to those that do plan (live more frugally/save)
miws how is sticking the middle class with added tax levies being compassionate?
lindsey surprisingly i happen to understand the value of education. reading, writing and arithmetic skills are basic needs to be successful. carpenters need to know how to read a plan and make measurements et al. and actually i did save for the education but the costs are far greater than they were when my folks helped me go to college.
having a kid in the first place is a big responsibility. too many people make bad choices and why is it that the tax payer has to pay for bad decision making? this is far different than being afflicted with an unlucky life event such as a spouse dying or being hit with cancer.
the baby indeed is innocent but the parents are guilty of not using foresight to use BC and a second mistake not giving the innocent child up for adoption that in most cases is far better for the child.
August 2, 2013 at 12:08 am #794630
miwsParticipantmiws how is sticking the middle class with added tax levies being compassionate?
IDFK, WFhoop!
Why don’t you ask These Companies?
Mike
August 2, 2013 at 2:34 pm #794631
JoBParticipantWF..
it may have been laying on the table in plain sight
but that doesn’t mean that you should share it.
August 2, 2013 at 2:39 pm #794632
JoBParticipantWF
“and a second mistake not giving the innocent child up for adoption that in most cases is far better for the child.”
this is a big fat ASSumption based on your fictional land of should
hehehe
if you couldn’t afford to pay for your children’s education no matter how much the costs went up.. you should have given them up for adoption
because the world according to whoop clearly states that all parents are solely responsible … regardless of changing circumstances…
and that their children should suffer if they didn’t prepare well enough to meet all possible circumstances
or is that only when the kids that would suffer are someone else’s kids?
August 2, 2013 at 2:53 pm #794633
WFMembermiws good post #177 but you forgot the other part of the squeeze on the middle class
http://www.cbo.gov/sites/default/files/cbofiles/attachments/43059_Medicaid.pdf
and the above does not include state spending!
some spending such as for vaccines is so cost effective that the benefits far out weigh the cost.
job – it was a example with no name included; but is indicative of a significant part of the problem. too many people fail to save and it is not fair to those that do to have to pay for those that didn’t!
August 2, 2013 at 4:08 pm #794634
miwsParticipantmiws good post #177 but you forgot the other part of the squeeze on the middle class
Oh FFS.
Now we’re back to “let the poor and unfortunate die”.
Mike
August 2, 2013 at 4:21 pm #794635
JoBParticipantAugust 2, 2013 at 4:30 pm #794636
JoBParticipantWF..
if disclosing information you obtained snooping in the homes of people kind enough to make your their guest …
yes snooping…
if it wasn’t handed to you to read you had no business reading it…
just because you can
doesn’t mean that you should
if this is your idea of respecting other people’s privacy
you fail personal ethics 101…
you know.. that’s part of that personal responsibility thing you use to justify your attacks on anyone you think isn’t dealing with their personal business the way you think they should.
not only did you read the information
you disclosed it publicly
and identified the owner of that information for anyone computer savvy enough to have long ago figured out who you are.
How would you feel if someone invaded your privacy that way?
there is no justification for invading another person’s privacy and sharing the information gained from snooping with others without their express consent.
somehow, i am guessing she didn’t give you that consent, did she?
epic fail
you owe her a lot more than a big apology
August 2, 2013 at 4:40 pm #794637
WFMemberjob IT WAS IN MY HOME AND ON MY TV STAND AND I WAS NOT SNOOPING.
the issue is that the point i raised is very valid; that too many people fail to save for their retirement and then end up on the dole via medicaid. this is not fair to those that save nor future generations that end up paying for this
August 2, 2013 at 4:44 pm #794638
JoBParticipantAugust 2, 2013 at 4:46 pm #794639
WFMemberi do not snoop or invade anyone’s private space job, you owe me an apology on this one
August 2, 2013 at 4:53 pm #794640
miwsParticipantJo, I’m not giving up overall, just giving up on talking to the brick wall.
That being said, if, using the brick wall’s logic, I snooped through your purse the next time you came to my apartment to visit me, would you be fine with that, or would you slap me silly?
Oh, wait, using WFhoopbrickwall logic, I wouldn’t have the right to do that, because I’m merely a renter—-I don’t own the property….
Mike
August 2, 2013 at 4:55 pm #794641
WFMemberit was lying face up right next to the remote control job and i am not blind, granted my eyesight is not what it used to be!
the fact that it points to a very valid item of too many people failing to save and then end up on medicaid is a fairness issue. there needs to be a way to not allow this to happen. maybe a mechanism that restricts access to medicaid for 3 to 5 years after you retire thus you have to take care of yourself for a minimum amount of time (3 to 5 years) before you can even qualify for medicaid.
my mom has been in assisted care/adult home since 2009 that my brother and i are paying for; not the government.
August 2, 2013 at 4:58 pm #794642
HMC RichParticipantCalm down. Go back into your corners. Take a deep breath please.
August 2, 2013 at 5:08 pm #794643
WFMemberHMC Rich yes a few deep breaths are definitely in order.
miws is correct corporations do indeed need to pay more in taxes.
but job/miws continue to not acknowledge that people have some personal responsibility to take care of themselves. medicaid eligibility ought to include a provision that requires people to have taken care of themselves for a minimum of 3 (5 is better) years after retirement; thus people that fail to save do not burden those that did or future generations. failure to save needs to be a factor in eligibility.
August 2, 2013 at 5:14 pm #794644
miwsParticipantit was lying face up right next to the remote control job and i am not blind
Hmmmm…..a year and a half or so ago, I was asked to, and entrusted with, sorting various personal papers of someone into like piles, by date, etc, in preparation to refile some in proper order, and shred others.
Among these papers, were pay-stubs I never even saw any of the various dollar amounts on each of the stubs, out of respect for whom they belonged to, focusing only on the dates.
And that was with my very out of date 13 year old glasses at the time!
Mike
August 2, 2013 at 5:30 pm #794645
WFMembermiws ok i get your point. i did not snoop nor disclose any personal data. i simply indicated that as an example that many people fail to save and it is not fair to future generations to have to pay for their failure to save!
btw i agreed with your post #177.
why are you not agreeing with the issue that too many people have failed to save for their own retirement and that medicaid eligibility rules need to be tightened to exclude these folks for a minimum of 3 years.
August 3, 2013 at 9:24 am #794646
JoBParticipantWF
“but job/miws continue to not acknowledge that people have some personal responsibility to take care of themselves”
not true.. i believe in personal responsibility
but before jumping to the conclusion that a person is irresponsible because they are not contributing to an IRS sanctioned retirement plan…
or that teen mothers are having babies because they want to live on government subsidies
or that homeless people end up on the streets because they just want to live off of everyone else..
or…
i would wonder whether i had enough information to make that judgment call.
My first question would be whether or not my assumptions about the way things should be reflected current reality..
My second.. Did the person i was about to judge have the opportunity to “take care of themselves”?
Walk a mile in someone else’s shoes and you still won’t understand their journey…
“too many people have failed to save for their own retirement and that medicaid eligibility rules need to be tightened to exclude these folks for a minimum of 3 years.”
do you realize you are saying that you don’t think some people deserve to live because you don’t think they did everything they could have done to keep themselves alive..
regardless of whether it was actually possible for them to do what you think they should have done?
what if the test for living was whether or not you had done enough for others to earn your space on this planet Whoop?
what if i got to decide that based on who and what i assumed you were based on your posts?
I am positive you would be the first to point out that i don’t have enough information to make that call.
***
I am sorry but i don’t believe i owe you an apology.
i agree that the person whose tax information you disclosed was careless leaving their return in plain sight on your table…
and i agree that it would probably be pretty tempting to take a look…
but you didn’t glance at that return Whoop.. you scrutinized it for details… and then you disclosed those details in a public place.
that’s invading another person’s privacy..
made worse in my opinion by the fact that you did so with someone who had every reason to think you would respect her privacy because of a family connection.
You would be appalled if she did the same thing to you.
August 3, 2013 at 1:58 pm #794647
TanDLParticipant“If you’re automatically sure that you know what reality is and who and what is really important – if you want to operate on your default setting – then you, like me, probably will not consider possibilities that aren’t pointless and annoying. But if you’ve really learned how to think, how to pay attention, then you will know you have other options.” David Foster Wallace
When you become so annoyed thinking of teens having babies and needing assistance or the elderly running out of savings before they’ve died or a young person asking for governmental help to attend school because their parents didn’t save enough, you are likely operating on your automatic default setting. There are other options though. Thanks to Ken for posting this in an earlier thread.
August 3, 2013 at 4:15 pm #794648
JoBParticipantAugust 3, 2013 at 5:03 pm #794649
WFMembertandl – yes there are other defaults such as some personal responsibility. too many able bodied/minded folks simply fail to save for a rainy day and then want the government (aka taxpayer) to provide them an umbrella when it rains. if they choose not to buy an umbrella when they had a chance, too bad!
providing a temporary umbrella for people that are truly unlucky, such as a spouse dieing unexpectedly or get cancer is reasonable.
August 3, 2013 at 5:38 pm #794650
JoBParticipantWF
reality bites when it comes to statistics for kids who are placed in state care…
http://www.fixcas.com/scholar/fatal.htm
skipping to the summary …
“The most reliable data sources show that the ratio of deaths in foster care to deaths in parental care is 5.25 in Arizona, 9.5 in Saskatchewan, 6.9 in Manitoba, 11.9 in Britain and in Ontario 17.1 or 10.2, depending on whose side you take in a controversy. An overall round number of ten to one seems reasonable.
Projected over Americas 550,000 foster children, there should be 1540 deaths per year. Our list of foster deaths from news sources shows less than a hundred annually. A reasonable guess is that only one foster death out of twenty makes it into the press, even fewer than that in Ontario.”
that’s 10 deaths in foster care to each death in parental care…
and it’s likely that the number of deaths in foster care is vastly under-reported …
You are likely too young to remember the precursor to widespread foster care… orphanages…
but that’s where a lot of kids were raised back in the good old days when giving your child up for adoption was the norm.
the stats for those homes weren’t so good either
August 3, 2013 at 6:29 pm #794651
WFMemberjob making BC readily available and reducing teen pregnancy is in everyone’s interest.
adoption is also a very good option that needs to be pushed much harder. adoption is far different than foster care; thus identifying the short coming of foster care this is not apples to apples comparison.
learning from this post from my added research and feedback from the community. from this the costly social service spending elephant is medicaid. Consumer Reports data identifies an abysmal savings rate, in particular with people nearing retirement. The failure of individuals to save has significant ramifications!
August 4, 2013 at 12:32 am #794652
JoBParticipantWF..
not everyone’s kid gets adopted
that’s one of the reasons there are so many kids in foster care.
and even when they do
it’s not always the happily ever after scenario you insist on promoting as the norm.
August 7, 2013 at 5:11 am #794653
miwsParticipantQuoth WFhoop:
(if you can afford a cell phone you can afford to save).
http://pentopapertherapy.blogspot.com/2013/08/my-simple-contribution-why-homeless.html
Mike
-
AuthorPosts
- You must be logged in to reply to this topic.