WWTBAM Bored

Been really busy lately-but I can see the liberals on FB having orgasms about Pope Francis.

Quote from one>>>Just recently, Pope Francis released an “Apostolic Exhortation” that laid out poverty and economic inequality as two of the main concerns of this Papacy. He used strong terms like “idolatry of money” (reminds me of someone) and speaks of unfettered capitalism as “a new tyranny” while praying and pleading with lawmakers to work toward providing all people with “dignified work, education, and healthcare.” <<<

Pope Francis should try and run a business here in the US providing "Dignified Work" for "Poor" people where he depends on them to show up every day. Good Luck with that!!!!!!

I am just finishing up with a major barn remodel, for which an independent contractor was the lead. He did a lot of work himself. He had a couple of guys that help him. Oddly, enough the main employee only showed up about half the time. Some days he wouldn't answer his phone. One day, I had to give him gas to get home.

The contractor and I were discussing his attendance habits. As he said-"He(the employee) doesn't have anything. Usually, if you don't have anything by the time you are 40, there is a reason."
I can guarantee you he and his family are on food stamps.

OK, Francis-this guy has the opportunity for "Dignified Work" and refuses to take full advantage of it. What am I supposed to do now? Am I supposed to give up stuff that I have earned for him? For example, My Africa Trip? Keep in mind, by going to Africa-I helped provide
"Dignified Work" for people there.

Am I supposed to support government policies (food stamps, etc) that enable his behavior? That doesn't seem to be the total Christian response to me.

It's complicated. SteelersFan was Field Supervisor for a local contractor for a long time, and one of his jobs was to go bail out one or two guys Monday morning after a DUI arrest -- or crash. It drove him crazy, and as soon as we could afford it, he went to a much lower-paying, lower-headache job.

I read an article on-line a while back which I still remember well, except not well enough to google and find it. The 40-something guy's point was not that he is blameless for his own train wreck of an economic situation after staying drunk most of the past 20 years, it was that when you're poor, the cards are stacked in favor of your staying poor. One car crash or serious illness can wipe out all your savings and put the whole family on food stamps.

I don't know your guy. I would be willing to bet that alcohol or drugs are involved. Despite an otherwise spotless work record, my nephew is back in jail because he broke parole by using crystal meth, the drug of choice for poor people in rural Colorado. There's no chance for Dignified Work for him as long as he's behind bars. If you can solve the drug problem around the world, it will solve the poverty problem for many people, obviously not everybody.

Then there is this essay from Killermartinis

http://killermartinis.kinja.com/why-i-m ... 1450123558

I make a lot of poor financial decisions. None of them matter, in the long term. I will never not be poor, so what does it matter if I don't pay a thing and a half this week instead of just one thing? It's not like the sacrifice will result in improved circumstances; the thing holding me back isn't that I blow five bucks at Wendy's. It's that now that I have proven that I am a Poor Person that is all that I am or ever will be. It is not worth it to me to live a bleak life devoid of small pleasures so that one day I can make a single large purchase. I will never have large pleasures to hold on to. There's a certain pull to live what bits of life you can while there's money in your pocket, because no matter how responsible you are you will be broke in three days anyway. When you never have enough money it ceases to have meaning. I imagine having a lot of it is the same thing.

Spoiler

You see, Linda Walther Tirado, or "KillerMartinis," as she's known on her Kinja screen name, wrote this brain-grating essay, and it's all about being subjected to the pitfalls of poverty. Linda's not actually poor, though, nor was she raised in what most would describe as poverty. Unless you consider a boarding school education as a marker for poverty, anyway.

http://blogs.houstonpress.com/artattack ... hts_es.php

Spock wrote: I am just finishing up with a major barn remodel, for which an independent contractor was the lead. He did a lot of work himself. He had a couple of guys that help him. Oddly, enough the main employee only showed up about half the time. Some days he wouldn't answer his phone. One day, I had to give him gas to get home.

The contractor and I were discussing his attendance habits. As he said-"He(the employee) doesn't have anything. Usually, if you don't have anything by the time you are 40, there is a reason."
I can guarantee you he and his family are on food stamps.

I'd be willing to guess that your contractor looked to pay the bottom dollar possible, probably off the books, with no benefits, and then finds to his surprise that the only people he gets are losers like this guy.

silverscreenselect wrote:
I'd be willing to guess that your contractor looked to pay the bottom dollar possible, probably off the books, with no benefits, and then finds to his surprise that the only people he gets are losers like this guy.

I'd be willing to guess that your contractor looked to pay this guy what he was worth. FIFY

themanintheseersuckersuit wrote:

silverscreenselect wrote:
I'd be willing to guess that your contractor looked to pay the bottom dollar possible, probably off the books, with no benefits, and then finds to his surprise that the only people he gets are losers like this guy.

I'd be willing to guess that your contractor looked to pay this guy what he was worth. FIFY

More likely look to pay the minimum amount that would generate a warm body in response and then hope things work out okay. That's the same strategy Circuit City adopted before they went out of business.

I don't remember for sure, but it seems to me that Spock lives in one of the lowest-unemployment areas of the country. In that case, it is very difficult to find reliable workers for any kind of wage.

I thought of something reading Sprots's post. Her husband gave up a higher-paying job for fewer hassles and less stress. I think we have a number of people in this country who are, while not necessarily locked into a poverty death-spiral, at least find it less of a hassle and less stressful to live off the government. They don't make as much or live as comfortably as they could if they worked full time, but they make enough from "the system" to get by.

It used to be that we had a hard-core 2-3% of the population who were unemployable. I think that percentage has doubled in the past 40 years because of various social-engineering programs. That leaves another 2-3% or the current unemployed (not to mention the under-employed) who can't find meaningful work that matches their skills. In other words, it explains all the statistical and anecdotal evidence we've seen from all sources.

mrkelley23 wrote:I think we have a number of people in this country who are, while not necessarily locked into a poverty death-spiral, at least find it less of a hassle and less stressful to live off the government.

Yep, we've made it pretty easy and less 'stressful'. And we've made prison life easier, too.

Sometimes I wonder what direction we are trying to move this country.

BackInTex wrote: Sometimes I wonder what direction we are trying to move this country.

A direction away from the Republican way of thinking will be a big improvement.

silverscreenselect wrote:

BackInTex wrote: Sometimes I wonder what direction we are trying to move this country.

A direction away from the Republican way of thinking will be a big improvement.

Sometimes I actually agree with you on stuff and then you make a ridiculous attempt at some point with this goofiness. You and BobJ need to back off the repub thing because in case you haven't noticed a lot of us are disenamored of parties in general. It's like geezers telling people to cut their hair or something. Seriously.

Beebs52 wrote:

silverscreenselect wrote:

BackInTex wrote: Sometimes I wonder what direction we are trying to move this country.

A direction away from the Republican way of thinking will be a big improvement.

Sometimes I actually agree with you on stuff and then you make a ridiculous attempt at some point with this goofiness. You and BobJ need to back off the repub thing because in case you haven't noticed a lot of us are disenamored of parties in general. It's like geezers telling people to cut their hair or something. Seriously.

If you don't agree with the direction the Republican Party is taking, register as Independent and stop being offended every time someone slams the Republicans.

Bob Juch wrote:

Beebs52 wrote:

silverscreenselect wrote:
A direction away from the Republican way of thinking will be a big improvement.

Sometimes I actually agree with you on stuff and then you make a ridiculous attempt at some point with this goofiness. You and BobJ need to back off the repub thing because in case you haven't noticed a lot of us are disenamored of parties in general. It's like geezers telling people to cut their hair or something. Seriously.

If you don't agree with the direction the Republican Party is taking, register as Independent and stop being offended every time someone slams the Republicans.

I would almost entertain your argument if you'd agree that the dems have equally huge bags of dogshit sitting on their sidewalks needing pickup. You assume there's some monolithic repub juggernaut out there. You take the intellectually lazy way out. Thought you were Mensa.

Getting back to what the Pope said about this and other things it is funny how we are surprised when the Pope says something a truly religious person would say.

It took almost 800 years for a Pope to name himself after St. Francis. There have been, what, nine or ten Popes during that time?

Beebs52 wrote:

Bob Juch wrote:

Beebs52 wrote: Sometimes I actually agree with you on stuff and then you make a ridiculous attempt at some point with this goofiness. You and BobJ need to back off the repub thing because in case you haven't noticed a lot of us are disenamored of parties in general. It's like geezers telling people to cut their hair or something. Seriously.

If you don't agree with the direction the Republican Party is taking, register as Independent and stop being offended every time someone slams the Republicans.

I would almost entertain your argument if you'd agree that the dems have equally huge bags of dogshit sitting on their sidewalks needing pickup. You assume there's some monolithic repub juggernaut out there. You take the intellectually lazy way out. Thought you were Mensa.

Yeah, there're all those Democratic elected officials who voted against the extension of the Violence Against Women Act.

Bob Juch wrote:

Beebs52 wrote:

Bob Juch wrote: If you don't agree with the direction the Republican Party is taking, register as Independent and stop being offended every time someone slams the Republicans.

I would almost entertain your argument if you'd agree that the dems have equally huge bags of dogshit sitting on their sidewalks needing pickup. You assume there's some monolithic repub juggernaut out there. You take the intellectually lazy way out. Thought you were Mensa.

Yeah, there're all those Democratic elected officials who voted against the extension of the Violence Against Women Act.

And this guy:

Bob Juch wrote:

Beebs52 wrote:

Bob Juch wrote: If you don't agree with the direction the Republican Party is taking, register as Independent and stop being offended every time someone slams the Republicans.

I would almost entertain your argument if you'd agree that the dems have equally huge bags of dogshit sitting on their sidewalks needing pickup. You assume there's some monolithic repub juggernaut out there. You take the intellectually lazy way out. Thought you were Mensa.

Yeah, there're all those Democratic elected officials who voted against the extension of the Violence Against Women Act.

I think you're just selectively insane to annoy. Santorum? Really? Minority of repubs on violence against women act for some interesting reasons. Disingenuity is an art. Takes practice.

Beebs52 wrote:

Bob Juch wrote:

Beebs52 wrote: I would almost entertain your argument if you'd agree that the dems have equally huge bags of dogshit sitting on their sidewalks needing pickup. You assume there's some monolithic repub juggernaut out there. You take the intellectually lazy way out. Thought you were Mensa.

Yeah, there're all those Democratic elected officials who voted against the extension of the Violence Against Women Act.

I think you're just selectively insane to annoy. Santorum? Really? Minority of repubs on violence against women act for some interesting reasons. Disingenuity is an art. Takes practice.

That so cute when someone who wants to be considered smart wants the rest of us to think a legislative act entitled Violence Against Women Act is truthfully labeled.

themanintheseersuckersuit wrote:

Beebs52 wrote:

Bob Juch wrote: Yeah, there're all those Democratic elected officials who voted against the extension of the Violence Against Women Act.

I think you're just selectively insane to annoy. Santorum? Really? Minority of repubs on violence against women act for some interesting reasons. Disingenuity is an art. Takes practice.

That so cute when someone who wants to be considered smart wants the rest of us to think a legislative act entitled Violence Against Women Act is truthfully labeled.

True, it should have been labeled the Prevention of Violence Against Women Act.

themanintheseersuckersuit wrote:

Beebs52 wrote:

Bob Juch wrote: Yeah, there're all those Democratic elected officials who voted against the extension of the Violence Against Women Act.

I think you're just selectively insane to annoy. Santorum? Really? Minority of repubs on violence against women act for some interesting reasons. Disingenuity is an art. Takes practice.

That so cute when someone who wants to be considered smart wants the rest of us to think a legislative act entitled Violence Against Women Act is truthfully labeled.

True, it should have been labeled the Prevention of Violence Against Women Act.