By using this site, you agree to our Privacy Policy and our Terms of Use. Close

Forums - Politics - Herman Cain: It is your fault you are not rich...

richardhutnik on 11 October 2011
thranx said:
richardhutnik said:
scat398 said:
Sometimes the truth hurts but the reality is most people are not driven enough to be uber-successful. We have people who chose to stay at home and unemployed because the check they receive from the government is actually more than a 9-5 job, that's the truth.

I don't blame those people for sitting at home though when the government gives them that option, I blame the government for babying people. Personally I'd like to see either an immediate reduction in unemployment benefits or 90 suspension of benefits. Some people right now need a good kick in the ass to get off the couch.

So, do you think the laziness could be cured if the government would go into homes of people who didn't find jobs after their unemployment rant out and execute them and then show this is what happens to people who don't get work?  Do you think the unemployment rate could drop to zero if the penalty for not finding work happened to be upped?  Consequences works wonders, right?

You do know that, at least in NY state, they require people who are unemployment to apply to a certain number of jobs each month to keep their unemployment, right?

Who said people need to be shot and executed? All that needs to happen is that failure needs to be an option again. Sometimes people will fail at life, and if we stop these people from failing they will not learn from their mistakes and make the right choices. I am sure the impending starvation and homelessness would keep enough fear in people to et them motivated when they get that close, or to save for a rainy day so they do not get that close to the edge. Instead we have been rewarding the wrong behavior by giving those who too much help too soon. It rewards bad behavior that will han be retaught and redone. The government are also not the only ones that are able to help, people can often go to a church of any denomation and get help. Especially if they are willing to work and to clean up their act. About the onley ones in society that really need the governments help should be  the mentally ill.

So, in other words, you prefer that people die of starvation and homelessness, rather than being shot.  How about a compromise position, where there is an active campaign to get those who are losers to want to kill themselves, and then a merciful assisted suicide?  It could be paid for by harvesting their organs everywhere.  That is win-win.  There would be consequences this way, and it be managed.  Might even be able to build a surplus out of managed failure in society.  And once, the herd is thinned down by the elimination of losers, then you really have things take off.

Do you even remotely understand how the current welfare system is set up and who gets help?  You may have a case when discussing women who get pregnant and have children, so she gets money for her kids.  To toughen that up, you can still standby that children born into such environments get no help from kids.  There is the good old leave the baby in the dumpster as a solution.   Beyond this, do you even know how the system works, regarding people on welfare?  Are you aware they are on a timetable, and have to actually get involved with looking for work and finding something?  Or are you totally unaware of this?



Around the Network
thranx on 11 October 2011
richardhutnik said:
thranx said:
richardhutnik said:
scat398 said:
Sometimes the truth hurts but the reality is most people are not driven enough to be uber-successful. We have people who chose to stay at home and unemployed because the check they receive from the government is actually more than a 9-5 job, that's the truth.

I don't blame those people for sitting at home though when the government gives them that option, I blame the government for babying people. Personally I'd like to see either an immediate reduction in unemployment benefits or 90 suspension of benefits. Some people right now need a good kick in the ass to get off the couch.

So, do you think the laziness could be cured if the government would go into homes of people who didn't find jobs after their unemployment rant out and execute them and then show this is what happens to people who don't get work?  Do you think the unemployment rate could drop to zero if the penalty for not finding work happened to be upped?  Consequences works wonders, right?

You do know that, at least in NY state, they require people who are unemployment to apply to a certain number of jobs each month to keep their unemployment, right?

Who said people need to be shot and executed? All that needs to happen is that failure needs to be an option again. Sometimes people will fail at life, and if we stop these people from failing they will not learn from their mistakes and make the right choices. I am sure the impending starvation and homelessness would keep enough fear in people to et them motivated when they get that close, or to save for a rainy day so they do not get that close to the edge. Instead we have been rewarding the wrong behavior by giving those who too much help too soon. It rewards bad behavior that will han be retaught and redone. The government are also not the only ones that are able to help, people can often go to a church of any denomation and get help. Especially if they are willing to work and to clean up their act. About the onley ones in society that really need the governments help should be  the mentally ill.

So, in other words, you prefer that people die of starvation and homelessness, rather than being shot.  How about a compromise position, where there is an active campaign to get those who are losers to want to kill themselves, and then a merciful assisted suicide?  It could be paid for by harvesting their organs everywhere.  That is win-win.  There would be consequences this way, and it be managed.  Might even be able to build a surplus out of managed failure in society.  And once, the herd is thinned down by the elimination of losers, then you really have things take off.

Do you even remotely understand how the current welfare system is set up and who gets help?  You may have a case when discussing women who get pregnant and have children, so she gets money for her kids.  To toughen that up, you can still standby that children born into such environments get no help from kids.  There is the good old leave the baby in the dumpster as a solution.   Beyond this, do you even know how the system works, regarding people on welfare?  Are you aware they are on a timetable, and have to actually get involved with looking for work and finding something?  Or are you totally unaware of this?


Your exagerations are getting old. Its that kind of attitude that leads to long term unemployment, i have no optoins. I gave you an option in my post, they can go to get help from almost any church. Not die of starvation. My argument is that our welfare system in its current state is broken and only serves to exacerbate problem and i feel it would be left better in the hands of the people. People aren't cold and heartless and will tend to help those around them, especially through various churches, and often i feel these organiztions do a better job as they offer help in getting needed items, and in re education so people make the right choice. If you see the only option for people is to starve you need to think out side of the box. Government assistance or starvation aren't the only options.



Kasz216 on 11 October 2011

Also actually, there are currently a bunch of jobs available for people willing to move.

For example, you could make $15 an hour working at Mc Donalds in North Dakota

Once again, North Dakota is in the news as the place to go if you are looking for a job.

http://www.startribune.com/business/122807639.html

Farmers are complaining about not enough people being there to pick fruit. That pays $10.50 an hour to anyone who wants to go.



thranx on 11 October 2011
Kasz216 said:

Also actually, there are currently a bunch of jobs available for people willing to move.

For example, you could make $15 an hour working at Mc Donalds in North Dakota

Once again, North Dakota is in the news as the place to go if you are looking for a job.

http://www.startribune.com/business/122807639.html

Farmers are complaining about not enough people being there to pick fruit. That pays $10.50 an hour to anyone who wants to go.

I think people would prefer to starve to death



Kasz216 on 11 October 2011
richardhutnik said:
Kasz216 said:
Furthermore, most rich people ARE salaried workers for other people.  That's what CEO's are for example.
Sure LLC's and S Corps (there are more of these then LLC's) are great for people with their own buisness.... but that goes for those who are rich, as well as those who just have their own etsy store selling bracelts they make from Johanns fabrics.

According to the book, Millionaire Next Door, there are 4 times as many millionaire entrepreneurs as there are employees:

http://www.nytimes.com/books/first/s/stanley-millionaire.html

* About one in five of us is retired. About two-thirds of us who are working are self-employed. Interestingly, self-employed people make up less than 20 percent of the workers in America but account for two-thirds of the millionaires. Also, three out of four of us who are self-employed consider ourselves to be entrepreneurs. Most of the others are self-employed professionals, such as doctors and accountants.

 

Individuals who are self-employed are not salaried.  And when you are self-employed, you are your own boss.  Being self-employed, and acting as an entrepreneur, you have more control over your environment, and are able to take more chances.  There are exceptions of course, heads of large corporations, but among the rich, they are in the minority.

Also, take the case of individuals in professions who work for each other and generally get to the top.  These individuals are in sales and not salaried.  They live off commission, and can make a lot of money.  They aren't salaried.

You keep jumping around from "Rich" to "Millionaire" to try and make your points valid.  Please stick with one. 

Rich is $155,000 per year or so.

Aside from which as soon as you incorproate you DO become a salaried worker.

Everything you save is buisness related. 

Aside from which, you didn't actually bother to attempt to rebut any of the points i laid down except that one.

So you should really consider sticky to the points already at hand.  Aside from which....

More risks also mean more chances for loss.  Sure someone has a better chance of getting rich when they take more chances, they also have a better chance of going bankrupt.

As for commission jobs?  Usually lower level and they're exactly the kind of jobs people DON'T want to work.

Shit, I worked a commission job what was $10 an hour and $15 dollars a sale, i quit it because agressive selling is stressful as hell.



Around the Network
scat398 on 11 October 2011
thranx said:
richardhutnik said:
thranx said:
richardhutnik said:
scat398 said:
Sometimes the truth hurts but the reality is most people are not driven enough to be uber-successful. We have people who chose to stay at home and unemployed because the check they receive from the government is actually more than a 9-5 job, that's the truth.

I don't blame those people for sitting at home though when the government gives them that option, I blame the government for babying people. Personally I'd like to see either an immediate reduction in unemployment benefits or 90 suspension of benefits. Some people right now need a good kick in the ass to get off the couch.

So, do you think the laziness could be cured if the government would go into homes of people who didn't find jobs after their unemployment rant out and execute them and then show this is what happens to people who don't get work?  Do you think the unemployment rate could drop to zero if the penalty for not finding work happened to be upped?  Consequences works wonders, right?

You do know that, at least in NY state, they require people who are unemployment to apply to a certain number of jobs each month to keep their unemployment, right?

Who said people need to be shot and executed? All that needs to happen is that failure needs to be an option again. Sometimes people will fail at life, and if we stop these people from failing they will not learn from their mistakes and make the right choices. I am sure the impending starvation and homelessness would keep enough fear in people to et them motivated when they get that close, or to save for a rainy day so they do not get that close to the edge. Instead we have been rewarding the wrong behavior by giving those who too much help too soon. It rewards bad behavior that will han be retaught and redone. The government are also not the only ones that are able to help, people can often go to a church of any denomation and get help. Especially if they are willing to work and to clean up their act. About the onley ones in society that really need the governments help should be  the mentally ill.

So, in other words, you prefer that people die of starvation and homelessness, rather than being shot.  How about a compromise position, where there is an active campaign to get those who are losers to want to kill themselves, and then a merciful assisted suicide?  It could be paid for by harvesting their organs everywhere.  That is win-win.  There would be consequences this way, and it be managed.  Might even be able to build a surplus out of managed failure in society.  And once, the herd is thinned down by the elimination of losers, then you really have things take off.

Do you even remotely understand how the current welfare system is set up and who gets help?  You may have a case when discussing women who get pregnant and have children, so she gets money for her kids.  To toughen that up, you can still standby that children born into such environments get no help from kids.  There is the good old leave the baby in the dumpster as a solution.   Beyond this, do you even know how the system works, regarding people on welfare?  Are you aware they are on a timetable, and have to actually get involved with looking for work and finding something?  Or are you totally unaware of this?


Your exagerations are getting old. Its that kind of attitude that leads to long term unemployment, i have no optoins. I gave you an option in my post, they can go to get help from almost any church. Not die of starvation. My argument is that our welfare system in its current state is broken and only serves to exacerbate problem and i feel it would be left better in the hands of the people. People aren't cold and heartless and will tend to help those around them, especially through various churches, and often i feel these organiztions do a better job as they offer help in getting needed items, and in re education so people make the right choice. If you see the only option for people is to starve you need to think out side of the box. Government assistance or starvation aren't the only options.

@richardhutnik.  I understand your points, despite the uneeded exagerations and I am also familiar with the current public assistance system (not in New York mind you, but in California, although they are similar).  Just to get this out of the way right now, if you think for one minute that the requirements by the state to receive benefits are anything but a bunch of rubberstamping  and one big giant circle jerk we are not going to find common ground.  Our current system is designed to have you jump through just the right number of hoops to keep uncle sam sending you a check and nothing more, it's a lesson in CYA to the ultimate extreme. 

But my point was that these individuals are not stupid, they know what they are doing and are making a concious choice to not work for minimum wage or slighlty better because they can and do receive more from the goverenment to stay home.  We can talk all day long about the lady with five kids that can't work because she can't afford daycare but the truth is she shouldn't have five kids, she shouldn't have any kids, but you can't say that can you?

The truth is people need to go back to work at reduced wages.  These wages overtime will reduce prices and will lower the burden on the federal government. But you have to decide if that is what you really want.  We both know the circe gets smaller as the number of unemployed increases.  More people on federal assistance, less taxes come in, less demand for goods, more unemployed, more people on federal assistance...raise taxes...and so on, we both know it doesn't end well. 

 



scat398 on 11 October 2011
thranx said:
richardhutnik said:
thranx said:
richardhutnik said:
scat398 said:
Sometimes the truth hurts but the reality is most people are not driven enough to be uber-successful. We have people who chose to stay at home and unemployed because the check they receive from the government is actually more than a 9-5 job, that's the truth.

I don't blame those people for sitting at home though when the government gives them that option, I blame the government for babying people. Personally I'd like to see either an immediate reduction in unemployment benefits or 90 suspension of benefits. Some people right now need a good kick in the ass to get off the couch.

So, do you think the laziness could be cured if the government would go into homes of people who didn't find jobs after their unemployment rant out and execute them and then show this is what happens to people who don't get work?  Do you think the unemployment rate could drop to zero if the penalty for not finding work happened to be upped?  Consequences works wonders, right?

You do know that, at least in NY state, they require people who are unemployment to apply to a certain number of jobs each month to keep their unemployment, right?

Who said people need to be shot and executed? All that needs to happen is that failure needs to be an option again. Sometimes people will fail at life, and if we stop these people from failing they will not learn from their mistakes and make the right choices. I am sure the impending starvation and homelessness would keep enough fear in people to et them motivated when they get that close, or to save for a rainy day so they do not get that close to the edge. Instead we have been rewarding the wrong behavior by giving those who too much help too soon. It rewards bad behavior that will han be retaught and redone. The government are also not the only ones that are able to help, people can often go to a church of any denomation and get help. Especially if they are willing to work and to clean up their act. About the onley ones in society that really need the governments help should be  the mentally ill.

So, in other words, you prefer that people die of starvation and homelessness, rather than being shot.  How about a compromise position, where there is an active campaign to get those who are losers to want to kill themselves, and then a merciful assisted suicide?  It could be paid for by harvesting their organs everywhere.  That is win-win.  There would be consequences this way, and it be managed.  Might even be able to build a surplus out of managed failure in society.  And once, the herd is thinned down by the elimination of losers, then you really have things take off.

Do you even remotely understand how the current welfare system is set up and who gets help?  You may have a case when discussing women who get pregnant and have children, so she gets money for her kids.  To toughen that up, you can still standby that children born into such environments get no help from kids.  There is the good old leave the baby in the dumpster as a solution.   Beyond this, do you even know how the system works, regarding people on welfare?  Are you aware they are on a timetable, and have to actually get involved with looking for work and finding something?  Or are you totally unaware of this?


Your exagerations are getting old. Its that kind of attitude that leads to long term unemployment, i have no optoins. I gave you an option in my post, they can go to get help from almost any church. Not die of starvation. My argument is that our welfare system in its current state is broken and only serves to exacerbate problem and i feel it would be left better in the hands of the people. People aren't cold and heartless and will tend to help those around them, especially through various churches, and often i feel these organiztions do a better job as they offer help in getting needed items, and in re education so people make the right choice. If you see the only option for people is to starve you need to think out side of the box. Government assistance or starvation aren't the only options.

@richardhutnik.  I understand your points, despite the uneeded exagerations and I am also familiar with the current public assistance system (not in New York mind you, but in California, although they are similar).  Just to get this out of the way right now, if you think for one minute that the requirements by the state to receive benefits are anything but a bunch of rubberstamping  and one big giant circle jerk we are not going to find common ground.  Our current system is designed to have you jump through just the right number of hoops to keep uncle sam sending you a check and nothing more, it's a lesson in CYA to the ultimate extreme. 

But my point was that these individuals are not stupid, they know what they are doing and are making a concious choice to not work for minimum wage or slighlty better because they can and do receive more from the goverenment to stay home.  We can talk all day long about the lady with five kids that can't work because she can't afford daycare but the truth is she shouldn't have five kids, she shouldn't have any kids, but you can't say that can you?

The truth is people need to go back to work at reduced wages.  These wages overtime will reduce prices and will lower the burden on the federal government. But you have to decide if that is what you really want.  We both know the circe gets smaller as the number of unemployed increases.  More people on federal assistance, less taxes come in, less demand for goods, more unemployed, more people on federal assistance...raise taxes...and so on, we both know it doesn't end well. 

 



richardhutnik on 11 October 2011
scat398 said:

@richardhutnik.  I understand your points, despite the uneeded exagerations and I am also familiar with the current public assistance system (not in New York mind you, but in California, although they are similar).  Just to get this out of the way right now, if you think for one minute that the requirements by the state to receive benefits are anything but a bunch of rubberstamping  and one big giant circle jerk we are not going to find common ground.  Our current system is designed to have you jump through just the right number of hoops to keep uncle sam sending you a check and nothing more, it's a lesson in CYA to the ultimate extreme. 

But my point was that these individuals are not stupid, they know what they are doing and are making a concious choice to not work for minimum wage or slighlty better because they can and do receive more from the goverenment to stay home.  We can talk all day long about the lady with five kids that can't work because she can't afford daycare but the truth is she shouldn't have five kids, she shouldn't have any kids, but you can't say that can you?

The truth is people need to go back to work at reduced wages.  These wages overtime will reduce prices and will lower the burden on the federal government. But you have to decide if that is what you really want.  We both know the circe gets smaller as the number of unemployed increases.  More people on federal assistance, less taxes come in, less demand for goods, more unemployed, more people on federal assistance...raise taxes...and so on, we both know it doesn't end well. 

And I am familiar first hand with the current welfare system and see that it is broken. It is a system designed to placate collective guilt and try to prevent mass riots from people doing without.  The system will place demands on people, and unless you have kids or a disability, you get kicked off welfare after a few years.  This is the current system that is in place.  The system will then shuffle someone into any sort of work they remotely can do, and pay for the rest.  There were reforms done during the Clinton administration that did things.  Also, the public assistance in NY is only a few hundred dollars a month, excluding food stamps and medicaid.  It isn't a lot.  It is barely enough to survive at this point.

As far as "people need to get back to work", that is nice, so long as there are jobs.  When, for example, McDonald's does National Hiring Day, and over 1 million apply and they only hire 60,000, the thing is broken.  Out of this then is, as some have argued, if you just make things harsh enough, people will get motivated to go and find work. Just make it brutal enough.  Is that the answer?  I gave a very harsh way above, an extreme.  Do you thing a situation like this will lead to zero percent unemployment?  Death is a pretty harsh motivator.



Darth Tigris on 11 October 2011

http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/compost/post/the-real-problem-with-herman-cain/2011/10/11/gIQAcbV3cL_blog.html



pb1285n on 14 October 2011

You guys don't seem to understand. Not everyone has the knowledge or the skill to move up in a company or start their own business. That doesn't mean they don't work hard. Besides, there aren't enough upper management jobs to go around for everyone. On paper it seems nice but it doesn't work in reality.

Minimum wage in New York is 6.25, that is about 900 a month after taxes

The average cost of an apartment is $2800, minimum wage doesn't even cover a third of the rent.

Again it's not about asking for a hand out, it's about getting a fair share.

The rich get rich by taking advantage of the poor, because they know they can. They say it's about their bottom line and making a profit, but all they really care about is lining their own pockets. The government couldn't do anything about it, even if they wanted to, because we'd just lose more jobs to countries with cheaper labor.

but are we really any better then they are? We don't want to pay are workers fairly and now we want to take away benefits that help them get by. When they complain we attack them saying "it's your fault, you spent money on frivolous things like a trip to the movies with your family or a new low end TV. How dare you try and find any happiness or enjoyment out of life! BRB I gotta go jump on my private Jet to the Bahamas".

The average CEO salary is 11.5 million dollars. You can argue that they keep a company running, but it goes both ways, without the workers underneath you their is no company to run.



This is only my opinion.