Quote Originally Posted by Kendal View Post
What does "weed out" mean exactly. Would you provide these people with the minimum needed to live or would you stop all benefits entirely. I have no problem with reducing them to the basics but do not see it as a simple "to pay or not to pay" problem. I would be looking for initiatives to address the underlying problems and I'd also be looking to raise minimum wages so the difference between welfare and wage does make it woth while.
There is a small chance that I have been hearing "initiatives to address the underlying problems" longer than you have been alive. Just what do you think "the underlying problems" are?
Raising the minimum wage does not do what is expected. Any increase in wages does two very basic things not ever considered; raises the cost to the businesses, and forces a concomitant increase in the cost of goods sold. Meaning the increase in minimum wage is a wash.
The difference between minimum wage and welfare is immaterial! When you work you do not remain at the same wage you start your entire career. Heck feqw people even remain at the same job.


Quote Originally Posted by Kendal View Post
But - as I understand it the problem in America today is not there are lots of jobs but the lazy buggers won't take them. The problem is there are not enough jobs because the greedy bankers screwed up the economy. I would not even bother trying to address the problem of the dont-wanna-job when there are millions of do-wanna-jobs out there and not enough jobs for them.
"(T)here are not enough jobs because the greedy bankers screwed up the economy". Now where did you acquire that little insight into the job market? The economy was sent into a tailspin by regulations put in place forcing those "greedy" bankers to engage in business practices they knew were high rick and a poor business practice. But they had no choice because the other party to the equation has the power of force in their arsenal. When one party to rule setting has the ability to force their favored rules on the agreements what choice dose the party without force have? There is even evidence that the Government corporations involved in banking exacerbated the problem, looked the other way, and cooked the books.
This was not a matter of greed but a matter of trying to survive as a business. It is really getting to VERY old hearing any business that works to make money, based solely on being successful, being painted as greedy. There has to be more to this than is being claimed by these shouters of "GREED! GREED! END THE GREED!" In addition applying this appellation to any and every entity you do not like for some reason actually weakens the argument.