What does living paycheck to paycheck mean to you?

There was a time when I was an apprentice, making short money, and feeding three kids.

I had to save up for three weeks to buy a new pair of work boots.

That's living pay check to pay check.

Eventually my skills and pay improved and the kids grew up. But for a lot of years an affliction like a broken leg would have made me homeless.

I'd like us to rise above that kind of a society.

 

Double post...

 

　
　
Hopefully enough people will have the same sentiment, and stop voting the party lines, but I haven't seen a viable candidate being introduced that isn't on the two party payroll.
　
　
With a third of the voting population voting one extreme and a third voting another extreme the party who sways the most of the rest will win. I just don't see enough of the remaining third on the same page at all.
　
It would be nice though.
　
　
Back to the subject, this one the best so far;
　

　
　
　

 

Living 'paycheck to paycheck' means getting paid and spending all your money before you get paid again. This means that your expenditures equal your income. That's all it really means however, the implication is that one is always in danger of NOT being able to 'make ends meet.'

 

Are you being facetious? The only time I have had cable in my entire life was for the five years I lived at my father's house as a kid, trust me it is not necessity. Welfare is to provide necessities like food and basic pleasures including heat, electric, & private housing. I don't think you have an idea of what being poor means. Cable??, if your being serious your idea of what welfare should provide is ridiculous.

 

Show me how much money is spend on welfare for people who have an income but blow it all....

Yes, there is a poverty line and below that food stamps are available and your kid can get school lunches. Below the poverty line, it is hard to get by when living within your means... Go ahead, rent an apartment, pay your bills, buy your food all on less than $10,890 a year with no food stamps and no housing help.

I am not saying there are not a few lazy people who would rather live in a craphole and do nothing while getting state assistence than get a job, but that is not a big problem, a big expense, or the reason for our current economic conditions.

Right wingers whine over and over about these few people who live like crap and get some handouts.

Safety net programs are 14% of the budget while 40% is borrowed but are blamed by the right wing for everything. They include programs for abused and neglected children, is that what you want to cut. Or school lunches for kids who that might be their only meal, is that what you want to cut. Or unemployment, or help for the disabled poor. What, you want that poor adult with down syndrome to starve on the street? When you really talk about the few undeserving cases of government assistence, it is really not a significant amount of the federal budget, yet is is all we hear from the right wing. Let all the really poor people starve to prevent a few people who abuse the system to starve. Even though cutting those programs would not make a dent in the deficit or debt.

Right wingers "claim" that the left is jeolous of rich people and want to take their money, when the left is only asking them to pay a couple percent more than the RECORD low tax rates they enjoy now. But it is the right that somehow have this huge hangup about some poor schlep getting something for nothing. Yes, we all work for our money, but is that 1% or less of the budget that really is wasteful handouts really the big problem?

 

times have changed, basic pleasures such as food, heat, healthcare etc.. have all become rights

 

If, once you have paid the rent, paid the bills and bought groceries, you are broke, then I would say that is living from pay cheque to pay cheque.

If you have enough for the basics but not enough for emergencies, then that is the same.

If you have money in the bank the day you get paid, then that is savings. You are saving money and will either continue to save, or use that extra money to get you through the following week.

 

Having cable TV is certainly not a right. Not having a TV won't kill you or affect your health. Not having enough to eat, or decent healthcare might.

 

I don't have cable TV because a) its (*)(*)(*)(*), and b) I can't afford it.

I don't have any snacks in my apartment because I can't afford them at the moment.

Can I expect the government to provide me with these unnecessary items for free?

 

yes there should be a surplus in government bennies after basic rights have been met such as health care and food to cover for the basic pleasures

paycheck to paycheck only covers rights it never covers basic pleasures and the pursuit of happiness includes cable and snacks, imo.

 

Okay. I think I have finally met someone further left than me.

 

You keep saying paycheck to paycheck while referring to welfare. The question posed refers to people who receive paycheck by working a job. Paycheck does not equal welfare check, and welfare as I said before is to cover necessities like food, medical care, and basic pleasures which include heat, electric, private housing. Although the last three items are not necessities, I still agree with welfare helping provide those items for people who need help. When you start making the argument that welfare should also cover excessive luxuries is when people start getting uppity and slamming poor people for being lazy, and cheating them out of their earned tax dollars for frivolous items.

 

Most of the ones who live paycheck to paycheck are not on welfare nor social programs. They live paycheck to paycheck to stay off welfare.

 

snacks and cable tv are not necessities.

arent' the libs the ones complaining about obesity? then why are they trying to make sure all poor people have tv and snacks? the two top reasons for obesity? overeating and being sedentary...

 

then let them read a book, go for a walk, draw or sew. People have lived for centuries without getting to see the Real Housewifes of Whereever act stupid.

 

thanks for correction, thought paycheck was synonymous with welfare check

welfare recepients often have it just as hard if not harder as the working poor but that is another topic then

 

bullcrap!!

 

I use to shovel that when I was young to get an allowance... Maybe more people should shovel it and sell it for fertilizer, maybe they could afford cable and other pleasures.

 

It means what if (*)(*)(*)(*)ing means, there is no debate here. Living paycheck to paycheck means living paycheck to mother(*)(*)(*)(*)ing paycheck. There I win, where's my cookie.