Jesse Jackson's latest blunder
 

I agree also, but keep in mind that a single mother who takes a minimum
wage job with no health benefits, who possibly has to travel a long distance
to get to the job, isn't going to be able to take care of her kids. Who is?
There's not much of a safety net in place, and thus we have welfare, etc.

--
"j" ganz @@
www.sailnow.com

"Peter Wiley" wrote in message
. ..

In that specific case I'd agree with you. However I've seen Anglo
Americans begging for change outside shops with 'help wanted' ads in
the window, and all minimum wage service positions seemed to be held by
Hispanics.

Anyone physically capable who won't take a job because it's beneath
them has abrogated any claim to public support IMO. First you get a
job, any job, then you chase your aspirations. A boring dirty job is a
wonderful incentive to get your ass into gear.

Bit late in replying but I've been playing with big ships.

PDW

In article , Jonathan Ganz
wrote:

So did I but you can't really expect someone who was employed for
30 years as a master machinest to take a farm laborer or burger flipping
job. They're probably not physically capable of the former, nor hireable
as the latter.

Most people want to work, even kids in the innercity ghettos. There is
no work for them either, not even in Burger King.

"Peter Wiley" wrote in message
. ..
In article , Jonathan Ganz
wrote:

Sorry, but you're talking about a specific case in a specific state. I
don't
know anyone who really wants to be a farm laborer. It's a dangerous,
dirty job. In general, people want to work. They don't want handouts.

Bwahahahahahahaaaaaa. What Jon's arguing, in effect, is that a person
is entitled to only work at those jobs that fit their percieved station
in life, and if they can't find one, they're entitled to be supported
by the taxpayers until they can.

You end up with a lot of wannabe lion tamers that way :-)

When I was a *lot* younger I took any job I could get that paid while
looking for a better one. Wanting to do a dirty, tiring job isn't
relevant if you can't get another one.

PDW

Jesse Jackson's latest blunder
 

And from there the law of unintended consequences takes over, big-time.
I don't have any good answers. Paying welfare is better than letting
people starve if they can't find work. Paying welfare to a single
mother is also fine for the first child, provided the mother is under
the age of adulthood.

What happens if the single mother decides to have another child? Soon,
for a minority of people, you're in the business of providing income
for people to have babies. That might not be so bad, considering the
general decline in fertility in the Western world, if those kids
actually grew up to go to school, learn useful things and then get a
job. I think we've seen after 30+ years of welfare that this doesn't
happen in practice, in the majority of cases.

There are a lot of issues WRT single parents on low incomes. Adopting
the kids out was one solution. Caused other problems - hence law of
unanticipated consequences. Orphanages - ditto.

Bit different here. Everyone has access to reasonable health care so
that's not such an issue (provided you're not in the outback
somewhere). Childcare is an issue. The real answer is for women not to
get pregnant until they can support a child, whether this is on their
own resources or in a partnership/extended family. Easy to say.......

Meanwhile, healthy teenagers and 20-somethings who aspire to positions
beyond their education, training and intelligence should get a grip on
reality and start digging potatos or sandblasting rusty steel on a hot,
humid day.

PDW

In article , Jonathan Ganz
wrote:

I agree also, but keep in mind that a single mother who takes a minimum
wage job with no health benefits, who possibly has to travel a long distance
to get to the job, isn't going to be able to take care of her kids. Who is?
There's not much of a safety net in place, and thus we have welfare, etc.

Jesse Jackson's latest blunder
 

Yeah, it's a tough problem with no easy solution. It's really sad to
see some of the kids from that sort of situation. I'm part of non-profit
that attempts to give them some self-worth, which I guess is better
than nothing. We sponsor a few kids each year for sailing lessons...
we cover the expense and have been able to get a local gourmet
restaurant to kick in lunch.

--
"j" ganz @@
www.sailnow.com

"Peter Wiley" wrote in message
. ..

And from there the law of unintended consequences takes over, big-time.
I don't have any good answers. Paying welfare is better than letting
people starve if they can't find work. Paying welfare to a single
mother is also fine for the first child, provided the mother is under
the age of adulthood.

What happens if the single mother decides to have another child? Soon,
for a minority of people, you're in the business of providing income
for people to have babies. That might not be so bad, considering the
general decline in fertility in the Western world, if those kids
actually grew up to go to school, learn useful things and then get a
job. I think we've seen after 30+ years of welfare that this doesn't
happen in practice, in the majority of cases.

There are a lot of issues WRT single parents on low incomes. Adopting
the kids out was one solution. Caused other problems - hence law of
unanticipated consequences. Orphanages - ditto.

Bit different here. Everyone has access to reasonable health care so
that's not such an issue (provided you're not in the outback
somewhere). Childcare is an issue. The real answer is for women not to
get pregnant until they can support a child, whether this is on their
own resources or in a partnership/extended family. Easy to say.......

Meanwhile, healthy teenagers and 20-somethings who aspire to positions
beyond their education, training and intelligence should get a grip on
reality and start digging potatos or sandblasting rusty steel on a hot,
humid day.

PDW

In article , Jonathan Ganz
wrote:

I agree also, but keep in mind that a single mother who takes a minimum
wage job with no health benefits, who possibly has to travel a long
distance
to get to the job, isn't going to be able to take care of her kids. Who
is?
There's not much of a safety net in place, and thus we have welfare,
etc.

Jesse Jackson's latest blunder
 

On Mon, 12 Jul 2004 22:25:21 -0700, "Jonathan Ganz"
wrote this crap:

Yeah, it's a tough problem with no easy solution. It's really sad to
see some of the kids from that sort of situation. I'm part of non-profit
that attempts to give them some self-worth, which I guess is better
than nothing. We sponsor a few kids each year for sailing lessons...
we cover the expense and have been able to get a local gourmet
restaurant to kick in lunch.


It's just your way of meeting little boys.





Pathetic Earthlings! No one can save you now!

Jesse Jackson's latest blunder
 

"Jonathan Ganz" wrote in message

Yeah, it's a tough problem with no easy solution. It's really sad to
see *some* of the kids from that sort of situation.

You might have said *the vast majority* rather than *some.*

I'm part of non-profit
that attempts to give them some self-worth, which I guess is better
than nothing. We sponsor a few kids each year for sailing lessons...
we cover the expense and have been able to get a local gourmet
restaurant to kick in lunch.

A friend and I founded a program here to enable such kids to have
pets--those that the Pet Refuge take in and attempt to place in homes. We
gave the kids classes on caring for their pets (mostly cats and dogs),
provided them with all the animal food and pet supplies they need, and we
had two veterinarians who cared for their pets gratis. Our members
monitored the kids and their pets regularly, and maintained a 24/7 "hotline"
for problems. I had to leave the program after 15 years due to time
constraints, but it thrives today in good hands.

Studies have shown that pets instill a sense of responsibility in kids.
They've also demonstrated that kids with pets tend to be less violent,
kinder to their peers. Yes, there have been some dismal failures, but the
program has had a substantial net profit on the humanity income statement.

Max

Jesse Jackson's latest blunder
 

"Michael" wrote

.. . you have to be willing to work. It's hard chipping rust in the hot
sun
but tell me this. IF I can do at age 59 . . .....what's your excuse?

Too old (66)? Too out of shape from flying a desk the last 20 years?

Jesse Jackson's latest blunder
 

Something you have a lot of experience with, apparently.

--
"j" ganz @@
www.sailnow.com

"Horvath" wrote in message
...
On Mon, 12 Jul 2004 22:25:21 -0700, "Jonathan Ganz"
wrote this crap:

Yeah, it's a tough problem with no easy solution. It's really sad to
see some of the kids from that sort of situation. I'm part of non-profit
that attempts to give them some self-worth, which I guess is better
than nothing. We sponsor a few kids each year for sailing lessons...
we cover the expense and have been able to get a local gourmet
restaurant to kick in lunch.


It's just your way of meeting little boys.





Pathetic Earthlings! No one can save you now!

Jesse Jackson's latest blunder
 

Horass is gay. That's his excuse.

--
"j" ganz @@
www.sailnow.com

"Michael" wrote in message
...
Nothing wrongwith sandblasting steel on a hot day. If you are willing to
work. And it pays well too! The first year it's $40-50,000 After one year
it's $60,000 to $80,000 a year or more and you pay for zero food, lodging
or medical. On the ship's it's a common task. You use chipping and
scaling
hammers (elbow greae powered), needle guns and chisel guns (air powered)
and occasionally bead blasters (electric powered). Then you have to
primer,
and paint. But you have to be willing to work. For the last few years
there's been a lack of people in my industry to do the work. Especially
in
MSC. Moe, Shep, and Curly pay well too and pay you while you are training
and while you are on vacation. But you have to be willing to work.
That's
just one, JUST ONE, of the skills you learn in this job. If nothing else
you come out of it as a highly skilled fork lift driver, or a trained and
trainable crane operator or . . . . . .and that's just deck department.
Even moreskills in the engine department. But you have to be willing to
work. . Trouble is, in the US there's a seeming lack of people
willing
to work. Must be. A lot of our positions, including working for MSC
directly, a government agency, are being filled by people from the
Phillipines, a foreign country, as well as from places like Guam, a US
territory. So if things are so bad, how come we're always shorthanded in
our industy?????????????? Oh yes .. .it's that little bitty small
problem
.. . you have to be willing to work. It's hard chipping rust in the hot
sun
but tell me this. IF I can do at age 59 . . .....what's your excuse?

Sincerely,

Able Bodied Seaman Michael

PS . . .My job's coming open soon. I'm going back to retirement (and
sailing under my license, by the way). Quick, call Manila and have them
send over a replacement. No one here wants the job.

Jesse Jackson's latest blunder
 

I said "some" because we only see some of them.

--
"j" ganz @@
www.sailnow.com

"Maxprop" wrote in message
ink.net...

"Jonathan Ganz" wrote in message

Yeah, it's a tough problem with no easy solution. It's really sad to
see *some* of the kids from that sort of situation.

You might have said *the vast majority* rather than *some.*

I'm part of non-profit
that attempts to give them some self-worth, which I guess is better
than nothing. We sponsor a few kids each year for sailing lessons...
we cover the expense and have been able to get a local gourmet
restaurant to kick in lunch.

A friend and I founded a program here to enable such kids to have
pets--those that the Pet Refuge take in and attempt to place in homes. We
gave the kids classes on caring for their pets (mostly cats and dogs),
provided them with all the animal food and pet supplies they need, and we
had two veterinarians who cared for their pets gratis. Our members
monitored the kids and their pets regularly, and maintained a 24/7
"hotline"
for problems. I had to leave the program after 15 years due to time
constraints, but it thrives today in good hands.

Studies have shown that pets instill a sense of responsibility in kids.
They've also demonstrated that kids with pets tend to be less violent,
kinder to their peers. Yes, there have been some dismal failures, but the
program has had a substantial net profit on the humanity income statement.

Max

Jesse Jackson's latest blunder
 

On Tue, 13 Jul 2004 13:51:49 GMT, "Maxprop"
wrote this crap:

A friend and I founded a program here to enable such kids to have
pets--those that the Pet Refuge take in and attempt to place in homes. We
gave the kids classes on caring for their pets (mostly cats and dogs),
provided them with all the animal food and pet supplies they need, and we
had two veterinarians who cared for their pets gratis. Our members
monitored the kids and their pets regularly, and maintained a 24/7 "hotline"
for problems. I had to leave the program after 15 years due to time
constraints, but it thrives today in good hands.


It's just your way of meeting little boys.





Pathetic Earthlings! No one can save you now!