This is just stupid.

[LaMidRighter]

So, I just want to make sure where you're coming from, you promote having people starve to death with their children because it's taking from the strong?

Don't get me wrong here, we have got to make sure that people have a chance to get back on their feet, I am not advocating a complete and immediate pull-out from the war on poverty, more of a strategic retreat with a resonable time-table and exit strategy.(sorry, couldn't resist):mrgreen:
In all seriousness though, your families own story is inspiring, I believe that 90-95% of most families in these assistance programs are capable of insuring that it is temporary and they will either not need them soon or will improve their situation more permanently in a reasonable time-frame, However, I do believe that there is probably about 25-35% on the program who just won't use it for the right purposes, My main goal in advocating reform is to force those who abuse the system to ween themselves off of it, while insuring that those who are using it for the intended purpose don't suffer, and to take total social program permanent dependence down to as close to the absolute need number as possible.

 

[Kelzie]

Don't get me wrong here, we have got to make sure that people have a chance to get back on their feet, I am not advocating a complete and immediate pull-out from the war on poverty, more of a strategic retreat with a resonable time-table and exit strategy.(sorry, couldn't resist):mrgreen:
In all seriousness though, your families own story is inspiring, I believe that 90-95% of most families in these assistance programs are capable of insuring that it is temporary and they will either not need them soon or will improve their situation more permanently in a reasonable time-frame, However, I do believe that there is probably about 25-35% on the program who just won't use it for the right purposes, My main goal in advocating reform is to force those who abuse the system to ween themselves off of it, while insuring that those who are using it for the intended purpose don't suffer, and to take total social program permanent dependence down to as close to the absolute need number as possible.

Well sure. I never said the system was perfect, although I think people do over estimate the amount of abuse. Welfare should be a hand up, not a hand out.

 

[LaMidRighter]

Well sure. I never said the system was perfect, although I think people do over estimate the amount of abuse. Welfare should be a hand up, not a hand out.

I believe we pretty much agree about the last statement. I mostly break away when people assert welfare as a government duty however, I believe some people need help, but once we establish that they just won't help themselves they should simply be cut loose. (reciprocal effort by beneficiary).
I can't really do more than assume about the abuse because prosecution and records are not kept up with very well.

 

[Kelzie]

I believe we pretty much agree about the last statement. I mostly break away when people assert welfare as a government duty however, I believe some people need help, but once we establish that they just won't help themselves they should simply be cut loose. (reciprocal effort by beneficiary).
I can't really do more than assume about the abuse because prosecution and records are not kept up with very well.

It's so weird how hard it is to find numbers on the welfare system. It kinda bugs me.

 

[RightinNYC]

It's a principle thing, if you make just over 200k a year you are still technically middleclass, it starts at about 205k, but you would get damn near 45% of your hard earned money taken back, this very fact keeps many people from even wanting to produce the kind of effort required which penalizes everyone. And think about this, why should I have to do 205k dollars worth of work(in my field not impossible, but very draining) to take home maybe 110K, still seems like a great amount of take home pay. Right? Wrong, the point being that someone in a smaller bracket will probably make, oh, let's say 50k in a year and take home probably about 40-45k, this is before tax cuts, naturally, and I know people want to make the greed argument, but I don't care, it all boils down to right and wrong and the concept of class warfare as a political tool.

The numbers in there are a little off....200k a year is not exactly middle class, that would put you well into the top 5% of earners. And while the 45% for a 200k earner is basically correct, someone making 50k a year is still paying around 25% of taxes too, so it's not as big a divide as you imply.

 

[LaMidRighter]

The numbers in there are a little off....200k a year is not exactly middle class, that would put you well into the top 5% of earners.

Don't get me wrong, I understand that, but for tax code purposes I used
205k cause that's when the real pain starts.

And while the 45% for a 200k earner is basically correct, someone making 50k a year is still paying around 25% of taxes too, so it's not as big a divide as you imply.

I did understand the fact that 10-15k a year on taxes would hurt about the same way as a five to six digit hit on a higher earner, the main point however is the same, someone's hard work is rewarded by a huge chunk of the fruits of their labor being re-allocated at the governing body's whim.

 

[RightinNYC]

Don't get me wrong, I understand that, but for tax code purposes I used
205k cause that's when the real pain starts.

For who?

For married couples, the thresholds are

58000 - 25%
117000 - 28%
178000 - 33%
319000 - 35%

For single, it's

29000 - 25%
70000 - 28%
146000 - 33%
319000 - 35%

That doesn't seem like too big of a jump anywhere in there to me...

 

[cnredd]

Don't get me wrong, I understand that, but for tax code purposes I used 205k cause that's when the real pain starts.

How many would like to feel this "pain"?...:2wave:

 

[LaMidRighter]

For who?

For married couples, the thresholds are

58000 - 25%
117000 - 28%
178000 - 33%
319000 - 35%

For single, it's

29000 - 25%
70000 - 28%
146000 - 33%
319000 - 35%

That doesn't seem like too big of a jump anywhere in there to me...

The overall principle remains the same though however, the main reason we work in general is not because we enjoy it, it certainly isn't for some great societal good, it is to improve our own quality of life and standing, to better our sense of security, and to invest in our lives and our children/families. So, anything over a standard, equal tax and a sense of accountability in government spending is the only logical direction when we take so much from even just the middle class within the country, n'est pas.

 

[LaMidRighter]

How many would like to feel this "pain"?...:2wave:

I know, and I have to usually explain my reasoning to many people for calling a 6 digit after tax income unacceptable, I don't even make that right now, don't get me wrong, but am in a position to eventually. As hard as I am working just for basic survival right now it insults me to think that people will lecture me about wanting more of my hard earned money after all of this investment of time and money because someone may be without, it also insults me that people will tell me it's my duty to take care of strangers that I do not know and will not know if their personal pain is self-induced or a bad set of circumstances, Chances are if I ever get caught up I will help people personally and in my own way, but like I said, I stand on principle, let the federal government take care of things the public can't, like infrastructure and defense, then carry basic social services, and then let said government go away, then maybe we can start to enjoy the fruits of our labor a little more.

 

[Middleground]

It's quite interesting how people make snap judgments on the poor. I know, because I used to be one of them. I used to think that most were bums, who either had a drinking/drug problem and/or had zero motivation to be a productive member of society.

What I discovered through educating myself on the subject is that I was dead wrong.

Of course, there will always be those who cheat the system. You'll find cheaters in every aspect of life and that's not going to change. After all, rich people cheat too, eh? That said, there are those who genuinely need the help and support to get back on their feet. Kelsie's mom is a great example. So are others that I personally know and some that I heard about.

One of the most interesting discoveries that I made when I educated myself on the matter is that MANY WORKING families have to rely on the dole and food banks to feed, clothe and house themselves. That's right, families with working parent(s) who fall short each and every month. And boy, do they work hard. LaMidRighter, I see you've bitched about how much tax one gets deducted for working so hard. I can understand your point to a degree, but how would you feel if you have not gotten a pay increase in eons (minimum wage)? You work year after year, long, hard and arduous hours for the same friggen wage as 10 years before. You put up with crap from managers and clients because you NEED the job. A job that few want, is far from rewarding, but will allow you to feed your family to a certain degree. That, my friend, is an example of many a welfare recipient.

And now, there are more cuts. The middle-class is getting smaller and most of them are heading south, unfortunately.

 

[DeeJayH]

It's quite interesting how people make snap judgments on the poor. I know, because I used to be one of them. I used to think that most were bums, who either had a drinking/drug problem and/or had zero motivation to be a productive member of society.

What I discovered through educating myself on the subject is that I was dead wrong.

Of course, there will always be those who cheat the system. You'll find cheaters in every aspect of life and that's not going to change. After all, rich people cheat too, eh? That said, there are those who genuinely need the help and support to get back on their feet. Kelsie's mom is a great example. So are others that I personally know and some that I heard about.

One of the most interesting discoveries that I made when I educated myself on the matter is that MANY WORKING families have to rely on the dole and food banks to feed, clothe and house themselves. That's right, families with working parent(s) who fall short each and every month. And boy, do they work hard. LaMidRighter, I see you've bitched about how much tax one gets deducted for working so hard. I can understand your point to a degree, but how would you feel if you have not gotten a pay increase in eons (minimum wage)? You work year after year, long, hard and arduous hours for the same friggen wage as 10 years before. You put up with crap from managers and clients because you NEED the job. A job that few want, is far from rewarding, but will allow you to feed your family to a certain degree. That, my friend, is an example of many a welfare recipient.

And now, there are more cuts. The middle-class is getting smaller and most of them are heading south, unfortunately.

just what is the is hypothetical person doing starting a family if he/she can not make more than minimum wage for 10 years +?

 

[Middleground]

just what is the is hypothetical person doing starting a family if he/she can not make more than minimum wage for 10 years +?

Here's the answer to your typical knee-jerk question.

Because he/she did not envision being in the same dead end job for 10 years.
Because he/she did not think that minmum wage would be the same for eons.
Because he/she did not expect the cost of living to increase so dramatically.
Because he/she did not get the promotion that they wanted.
Because he/she did not plan on starting a family at sixteen (oops).
Because he/she did not plan on the condom breaking (oops).
Because he/she could not afford birth control and the rhythm method failed (oops).
Because he/she did not expect their parent to die tragically and now have to raise their siblings.
Because he/she did not expect the breadwinner of the family to lose their job.
Because he/she did not expect the breadwinner of the family to abandon them.

And so on, and so on.....

 

[RightinNYC]

I know, and I have to usually explain my reasoning to many people for calling a 6 digit after tax income unacceptable, I don't even make that right now, don't get me wrong, but am in a position to eventually. As hard as I am working just for basic survival right now it insults me to think that people will lecture me about wanting more of my hard earned money after all of this investment of time and money because someone may be without, it also insults me that people will tell me it's my duty to take care of strangers that I do not know and will not know if their personal pain is self-induced or a bad set of circumstances, Chances are if I ever get caught up I will help people personally and in my own way, but like I said, I stand on principle, let the federal government take care of things the public can't, like infrastructure and defense, then carry basic social services, and then let said government go away, then maybe we can start to enjoy the fruits of our labor a little more.

Oh, no, trust me, I agree with you 100%. I think that the vast majority of people get paid relatively what they produce, and don't think it's a "sin" to be successful at all. I just think that it's not so bad to have a tiered tax system, as long as it's reasonable, which I think nowadays tax system is.

 

[RightinNYC]

Here's the answer to your typical knee-jerk question.

Because he/she did not envision being in the same dead end job for 10 years.
Because he/she did not think that minmum wage would be the same for eons.
Because he/she did not expect the cost of living to increase so dramatically.
Because he/she did not get the promotion that they wanted.

There is absolutely no reason whatsoever for someone to be making minimum wage for 10 years.

Unless you suck at your job, you can move up. And if your company doesn't offer too many opportunities, change jobs.

I grew up in the shittiest economy in the world, rural upstate NY, and started working at 16, making 5.15 an hour. After 6 months, that was 5.60. Then I got a second job, paying 6.50 an hour. After another year there, my first job went up to 8.50. I got rid of my second job, and through a temp service, found a job making 10 an hour. The temp job turned into a full time w/benefits offer at a salary of 28,000 a year to start, 35,000 in 2 years. In upstate NY, where you can buy a house for 50,000, that's a damn good salary for a 19 year old. Turned it down because I was going back to school, but the offer was there. This was all while in high school, or just with a degree.

If you are willing to work hard enough, there is no such thing as being "stuck" in a job.

Because he/she did not plan on starting a family at sixteen (oops).
Because he/she did not plan on the condom breaking (oops).
Because he/she could not afford birth control and the rhythm method failed (oops).

Birth control is free at all planned parenthoods, and if you're using a condom as well, odds are you're fine. Regardless, even if worst comes to worst and you get pregnant, and you decide to start a family, see above.

Because he/she did not expect their parent to die tragically and now have to raise their siblings.
Because he/she did not expect the breadwinner of the family to lose their job.
Because he/she did not expect the breadwinner of the family to abandon them.

And in those cases, that's why we have social nets. They're all terrible scenarios, but there are programs in place. If kids parents die, they get social security in addition to numerous other benefits. If the breadwinner loses their job, they can get unemployment while finding another job (which shouldn't take long). If the breadwinner abandons them, there's alimony, child support, and abovementioned programs until the adult can find a job.

 

[hipsterdufus]

It's a principle thing, if you make just over 200k a year you are still technically middleclass, it starts at about 205k, but you would get damn near 45% of your hard earned money taken back, this very fact keeps many people from even wanting to produce the kind of effort required which penalizes everyone. And think about this, why should I have to do 205k dollars worth of work(in my field not impossible, but very draining) to take home maybe 110K, still seems like a great amount of take home pay. Right? Wrong, the point being that someone in a smaller bracket will probably make, oh, let's say 50k in a year and take home probably about 40-45k, this is before tax cuts, naturally, and I know people want to make the greed argument, but I don't care, it all boils down to right and wrong and the concept of class warfare as a political tool.

I don't know where you're getting your numbers from, but they're way off the mark. That also doesn't factor in the numerous tax loopwholes and corporate welfare that has been instituted over the past 5 years.

Joint return Single taxpayer Rate
$0–$14,600 $0–$7,300 10.0%
14,601–59,400 7,301–29,700 15.0
59,401–119,950 29,701–71,950 25.0
119,951 –182,800 71,951–150,150 28.0
182,801–326,450 150,151–326,450 33.0
326,451 and up 326,451 and up 35.0

http://www.infoplease.com/ipa/A0106989.html

 

[jallman]

Yes, the bridge to nowhere in Alaska means a lot more to these idiots that people in need.

WHOA wait just a minute there...I got about four posts into this thread, saw this stroke of genius, and became ill that you would even use the word wise in your handle. Bridge to nowhere? Where the hell did you get your geography lessons from? Now lets pull out a map of Alaska, shall we?

View attachment 1355

Now, If you will see by the line I added, there are many small buroughs separate by short distances of water but currently, to drive to these areas takes 3 hours or more from anchorage. However, a bridge would connect these areas by minutes. The increase in commerce potential is exponential with the addition of the bridge.

In the spirit of trying to be old AND wise, one would think you might know a bit about a topic before you start referencing it.

 

[Deegan]

Welfare certainly is an important part of our society, and one that must continue, especially for the children, those who cannot take care of themselves. The welfare system is in need of more reform, and the last time it was reformed, it saved about 68 billion dollars in five years, through the Personal Responsibility Act. I still believe more can be done, and the most recent example of this was after Katrina, in the state of LA, especially the city of New Orleans. It is my opinion that the structuring of the government housing, and the lack of over sight in to the issuing of welfare funds, this is indeed the problem that needs immediate attention.

When you create a community of poor, disenfranchised people, and allow them to all live huddled in one big welfare city, of course this only leads to violence, crime, and desperation. This can be seen in every major city in the country, and recently was the cause of riots, and violence in Ohio. If we were to place these housing projects in neighborhoods that promote success, I believe we would see much improvement, and less violence. These people would have a constant reminder of what they are reaching for, now all they have is a constant reminder of how awful things can be. They have been separated from the rest of society, and we just "poor" money in to an already broken system, this has to change.

You can find some valuable information here......

http://www.urban.org/publications/306620.html

 

[Middleground]

There is absolutely no reason whatsoever for someone to be making minimum wage for 10 years.

Unless you suck at your job, you can move up. And if your company doesn't offer too many opportunities, change jobs.

Why not? Do you have proof that backs-up your statement?

Not every position offers a chance to move up. I have a good paying job, but I cannot move up. No such thing as head graphic designer where I am.

And frankly, I never hear of a head janitor.

I grew up in the shittiest economy in the world, rural upstate NY, and started working at 16, making 5.15 an hour. After 6 months, that was 5.60. Then I got a second job, paying 6.50 an hour. After another year there, my first job went up to 8.50. I got rid of my second job, and through a temp service, found a job making 10 an hour. The temp job turned into a full time w/benefits offer at a salary of 28,000 a year to start, 35,000 in 2 years. In upstate NY, where you can buy a house for 50,000, that's a damn good salary for a 19 year old. Turned it down because I was going back to school, but the offer was there. This was all while in high school, or just with a degree.

If you are willing to work hard enough, there is no such thing as being "stuck" in a job.

No doubt you did well for yourself (not bad for an Appleknocker ). Perhaps it was either a bit of luck, who you knew or your strong work ethic. Or perhaps it was a bit of everything.

I can say the same for myself. I've been lucky but I can also pat myself on the back. That said, it does not always happen for everyone. The lady at my cafeteria has been here for years and has not received an increase in eons despite working for different companies. Her specialty is cafeteria work, and damn it, she's good and works hard. However, no better opportunities have come her way. She needs the job to keep the house going and shows up with a smile everyday despite being unhappy with her pay and benefits.

Birth control is free at all planned parenthoods, and if you're using a condom as well, odds are you're fine. Regardless, even if worst comes to worst and you get pregnant, and you decide to start a family, see above.

And in those cases, that's why we have social nets. They're all terrible scenarios, but there are programs in place. If kids parents die, they get social security in addition to numerous other benefits. If the breadwinner loses their job, they can get unemployment while finding another job (which shouldn't take long). If the breadwinner abandons them, there's alimony, child support, and abovementioned programs until the adult can find a job.

Gosh, if everything were that simple there would be less social problems in this world. Unfortunetly, **** happens. Condoms break. Planned Parenthood is not available in my town or they turned down my request. I got laid-off and the only job offer I've gotten so far is $12.00 less an hour. I'm in the hole big-time and have to wait another year before my child custody case comes to trial.

It's just not that simple. Especially when the aforementioned programs are facing cuts while having to juggle more cases!

Like I said, **** happens.

 

[LaMidRighter]

I don't know where you're getting your numbers from, but they're way off the mark. That also doesn't factor in the numerous tax loopwholes and corporate welfare that has been instituted over the past 5 years.

It isn't as simple as that, I also factored in state and local taxes, plus professional license(many who earn over 5 digits are subject to this) which is basically another recurring tax, property tax, vehicle licensing(and in my state, inspection fees), and other miscellaneous taxation, that usually comes out to about 45-47% total taxation, the brunt of it coming from the federal government. This is all before sales taxes, I purposfully leave those out of the equation because it is a per-purchase occurance. Also, if you choose to invest, you now have to pay taxes on the interest earned. Matter of fact, many people choose to stave off investment in a tax heavy market because of increased tax liability which diminishes return on risk.

 

[Middleground]

Here's a link with some interesting facts on poverty and/or homelessness. I strongly urge all to read this, especially those who think that most as lazy-assed leeches.

I found this paragraph to be absolutely eye-opening and chilling:

Contrary to popular belief, the homeless is not lazy and dependent exclusively on public welfare. According to the National Low Income Housing Coalition, on average in the United States, a single worker earning minimum wage would have to work 87 hours each week just to pay for a 2-bedroom apartment with 30% (Federal definition of affordable housing) of his or her income. The rest would be barely sufficient to acquire other necessities such as food and clothing. As a result of low wages, many impoverished workers are forced out of their homes when extenuating circumstances come into play. In fact, up to 40% of the homeless are employed and working.



http://www.freedonation.com/homeless/homeless_stats.php3

 

[LaMidRighter]

One of the most interesting discoveries that I made when I educated myself on the matter is that MANY WORKING families have to rely on the dole and food banks to feed, clothe and house themselves. That's right, families with working parent(s) who fall short each and every month. And boy, do they work hard. LaMidRighter, I see you've bitched about how much tax one gets deducted for working so hard. I can understand your point to a degree, but how would you feel if you have not gotten a pay increase in eons (minimum wage)? You work year after year, long, hard and arduous hours for the same friggen wage as 10 years before. You put up with crap from managers and clients because you NEED the job. A job that few want, is far from rewarding, but will allow you to feed your family to a certain degree. That, my friend, is an example of many a welfare recipient.

How would I feel if stuck at a minimum wage job for ten years? I wouldn't feel anything because I wouldn't be in the situation, I am qualified for about four career opportunities because:
A) I will have a college degree in December.
B) My college job was in the service industry which I did well in.
C) I have an insurance producers license and will probably expand that to financial planning and stocks brokering.
D) Because of C I have practical sales experience and B has helped me to develop people skills.
Why am I saying this you ask? Sounds like bragging doesn't it? But no, I say this as an example of how an average person like myself can better his/her situation just by developing a few skills, by the way, practical work experience and improving people skills are free, for the person willing to do a little introspective thinking. Worst case scenario, I go back to waiting tables and live comfortably.
Given the above example, why can't any American do that?

 

[LaMidRighter]

Oh, no, trust me, I agree with you 100%. I think that the vast majority of people get paid relatively what they produce, and don't think it's a "sin" to be successful at all. I just think that it's not so bad to have a tiered tax system, as long as it's reasonable, which I think nowadays tax system is.

I don't see tiered taxes as unreasonable per se, however it gives politicians a carte blanche invitation to waste money, this requires them to take more in the way of taxes eventually when they will eventually overspend, this becomes unreasonable eventually and then it has to be defended, now comes class warfare and the blame game, it's a nasty cycle really. The way to fix this is either a flat tax or national sales tax(fair tax). Flat taxes would pretty much dictate how much you would pay at the end of the year, period, thus people could determine what they could invest or purchase and it would allow for more market growth, plus, more market growth means more tax dollars paid. National sales taxes are an even better idea, you choose when to pay taxes and how much every time you decide to make a purchase, naturally, people who can better predict their own monetary reserves will develop more confidence and therefore purchase/invest more. I think these are much more reasonable than the progressive tiered tax we follow now.

 

[galenrox]

With unemplyment down, wages up an you convince me it doesn't need to be cut? Why does it need to remain the same?

I'm assuming you haven't spent too much time in completely impoverished areas, right? Cause I've noticed the only time someone can be as callous as you is when s/he has either not faced the problem or really seen how big of a problem it is, or just doesn't have a soul, and since I'm assuming you have a soul, then the only other assumption is that you just haven't seen how awful it really is out there.

It's not suppose to serve the people who don't feed at the government trough?

Right, screw the people who can't take care of themselves, we need to focus more attention on those who can take care of themselves very capably, or at least are very skilled on living of their parents' money, those are the ones who we should focus our resources on. Of course, it makes perfect sense, that's why we're cutting welfare and not cutting oil subsidies in a year when oil companies made record profits, of course!

Was the amount that an individual recieves cut?

I'd assume so. Despite what neocons tell you, in some areas what you've got is what you've got, so if there's less money in welfare, one could only assume that the amount the individuals get will be cut.

The government already gives them money someone else earned.

Right, those bastard poor people! Maybe if they weren't so damn poor this wouldn't be a problem, considering we all know that there are an infinite amount of jobs paying the amount to make a living wage, enough so that everyone in the ghetto is just poor because they're lazy, and thus we should let them become homeless and starve to death, that'll teach them to stop being so damn lazy!

But you had a computer and the time to use while someone else was working to pay for your food. Someone who may not have had a computer nor the time to use it as they were working so hard.

Right, because the majority of tax revenue comes from the working poor:roll:
Dude, you can keep pretending that the current batch of conservatives actually cares about the working class, but when it comes down to it, you can beat up a little kid and tell them it's because you love them, but eventually they'll realize that you were just being a dick.

Why don't you donate more and get others to do that?

Right, with all of this money I'm bathing in.

BTW it didn't pass and in only effected families in states that had concocted extra genrous rules that allowed those families who would not qualify in other states because of thier income and savings to recieve them in these certain states.

I've noticed you like to use vague terms like extra generous, why is that?

 

[RightinNYC]

Why not? Do you have proof that backs-up your statement?

Not every position offers a chance to move up. I have a good paying job, but I cannot move up. No such thing as head graphic designer where I am.

And frankly, I never hear of a head janitor.

There are other companies that have graphic designers, and other buildings that need to be cleaned. Someplace probably needs a facility manager.

No doubt you did well for yourself (not bad for an Appleknocker ). Perhaps it was either a bit of luck, who you knew or your strong work ethic. Or perhaps it was a bit of everything.

I can say the same for myself. I've been lucky but I can also pat myself on the back. That said, it does not always happen for everyone. The lady at my cafeteria has been here for years and has not received an increase in eons despite working for different companies. Her specialty is cafeteria work, and damn it, she's good and works hard. However, no better opportunities have come her way. She needs the job to keep the house going and shows up with a smile everyday despite being unhappy with her pay and benefits.

There are enough places that have cafeteria facilities that one should be able to find a place that offers yearly raises based on performance. Or, alternatively, learn a new trade while working. Or find a different type of work through a temp place. There is always something that can be done, anecdotal evidence aside.

Gosh, if everything were that simple there would be less social problems in this world. Unfortunetly, **** happens. Condoms break. Planned Parenthood is not available in my town or they turned down my request. I got laid-off and the only job offer I've gotten so far is $12.00 less an hour. I'm in the hole big-time and have to wait another year before my child custody case comes to trial. It's just not that simple. Especially when the aforementioned programs are facing cuts while having to juggle more cases! Like I said, **** happens.

I know, and I completely understand that. That's why there's a safety net, to catch the cases of just plain and simple "ohshit." I just think the net should be just that, something to save people, not something that people rely on. People have gotten too accustomed to things.