Could you make 'an extra $10,000' next month IF YOU HAD TO?

If you were facing a medical crisis and you had to come up with $10,000 to get the treatment you or a family member needed because you are uninsured?

If you were facing foreclosure on your home and you had no home equity or credit on your credit cards?

If you got a notice of termination at work today and a new job was at least 90 days away?

These are real life situations being faced by people across the country.

So if you could make 'an extra $10,000.00' next month, HOW WOULD YOU DO IT?

And if you cannot do it, why should we expect our fellow citizens facing this challenge to succeed where we could not?

I rarely do that... I do voice work. There are many companies I would prefer not to work with, but they pay well.


But then, how many Americans do contracted voice work?

Or not. I'd probably settle for digging into the home equity.

...but then I realized how much weight you'd have to move to make 10,000. So no.

how to suddenly "make" $10,000. That's why I save as much as I can, and also why I support universal health care, progressive taxation, unions, and the rest of the safety net.

I have no idea how I'd come up with the remaining $9,998.50, though.

However, with no capital and few assets to draw upon today, these families are facing an impossible situation.

IMHO the greatest assets that these people might possess are the people they know who are willing to 'mentor' them. However, given the limited time frame, there still is not much hope of meeting the desperate need.

If you 'could' make an extra $10,000 in 30 days, would you be willing to mentor or help another to meet that goal?

It comes down to helping others, who in turn will break the cycle of 'limited assets', and they will then help someone else.

But if I could point someone in need to someone who could help them, I would.

If I absolutely had to, I could get it. How? White powder and pills. Desperate times call for desperate measures. Fortunately, I'm not in that situation. I don't have to take extreme risks to provide my family with healthcare and it's disgusting that in this day age that anyone does.

"Yeah, I know Dad is only three years away from retirement, BUT..."


That might work. Or I could sell a kidney.

I sure hope it's hypothetical. If not, I am so sorry. :hug:

(If it's true... isn't there some legal recourse against the Realtor {why does "Realtor" always have to be capitalized? It looks stupid. We don't say "the Lawyer" or "the Banker"} who sold you the property while knowing its history?)

I could put it on my credit card, but it would probably break me.

If I didn't have an unnecessarily high credit limit, there would be no way at all.

IS there a role for Government to play?

What do we do for these people if Government opts out?

Will they remain 'invisible' to the well off?

Does Our Government belong to them too?

And what about the children? How are they affected?

THis is a 'what if' hypothetical question thread. But the kicker is that this is no hypothetical at all. THere are thousands of people facing these exact situations today. It is one thing to point out how things should be changed, but until they do change .... these people will continue to suffer without help. And time is very short.....

1. of course there is a role for gov. to play: universal single payer healthcare, assistance to be able to live at a minimal but reasonable level (minimum living assistance, say $10K/yr...cheaper than prisons)

2. Hospice care, free funerals and burial. The medical service are otherwise horrifically expensive and the greedheads would make sure we have no access. Charity services would not be able to take up the slack, despite the theo-cons beliefs. Let's hear it for "back to the 19th century"...

3. The rich do not, and never have, cared (see Dickens' works). They have no idea how stressful such situations can be for people of limited resources.

4. Government of the People, by the People and for the People. All the People, not just the rich.

5. The kids have a rough time, too. If their family is supportive, they come through it ok. If not, then they spend the rest of their lives undoing the emotional damage.

There are a lot of children that get that one nutritious meal a day at school, and very little at home.

Therein lies a basic difference about the role of government in providing for the general welfare of all its citizens.

Our Food Banks are swamped and supplies are low with the holidays coming up.

One worker related that the demand on resources goes up tremendously during the holidays, not because people want to eat more food than usual, but because the kids are out of school and at home requiring more meals be provided by the family.

another reason food banks need more resources: both Thanksgiving and Christmas fall near the end of the month, when most of the food money has run out.

Been there; only needed to visit the food pantry once, thank goodness. Then Mom informed me that I was to call and she would send money or a gift card for the grocery store.

The free lunch program is important for the education of low-income students. It may be the only real "balanced" meal they get that day; sometimes the only meal at all, if the family is out of money.

IN a nation with this wealth of riches it is inconceivable that the richest of the rich insist on their tax cuts, and that those tax cuts be balanced at least in part on the backs of hungry children.

we went through bankruptcy, and Hubby gets disability payments, Medicare and Medicaid. I have a $284 monthly Share of Cost to get any coverage.

Ask me about negotiating the system. Been there, doing that.

USDA free macaroni, anyone?

If the family spends down enough assets, they might qualify for assistance. Note: the current rules (at least in CA) allow a family to keep their house and one car.

$10K? No way. We live on $14K per year SSDI.

I could get some of that money from my father and probably my grandparents, and a bit here and there from friends. The rest with the help of friends involved in... less-than-fully-legal economic activities.

And a guy to boot.

The problem with each example is the same in each example. Entropy. We can't escape it, it's why we die. We can run from it, constantly, but we get tired.

There is no answer to your question. At some point, physical reality catches up to us. The further we push it off, when we can't push it off anymore(and maybe we'll find a way to do that, but maybe we won't), the worse it will be.

So what do you do? Do you let the person stay sick and/or die? You can't. But you can't let the next person stay sick or die either. So then we have more people living longer, which increases our impact on the environment.

If someone loses their house, what do you do? Do you pay for them to be able to keep it? What if that money runs out? Do they have to move in with family/friends? Might be cheaper for everyone to do that, and have a little less impact on the planet. That doesn't really help with the economic growth though.

People lose their jobs because of outsourcing, or automation, or they're just no longer needed/wanted. What do you do? Get rid of outsourcing? As long as everyone likes easy travel and communication, outsourcing isn't going anywhere. Get rid of automation? That cuts into efficiency. Get rid of corporations who no longer need or want you? That would be fairly difficult.

The only possible answer I can come up with is that you can't sustain the unsustainable. Yet that's what we've been doing for thousands of years. Like I said, we might be able to keep doing that. Another possibility would be that we finally have to pay the bill we've run up during that time. Keep eating, or ask for the check. If we stop eating, what happens? If we actually take care of the check, what happens?

When circumstances change so quickly that resources are not utilized with high efficiency, we all lose. Look at these individuals not as people just consuming with a hand out. Most of them have worked all their lives.

Mentoring helps people find their place in the current economic environment. It helps them 'plug in' to an efficient way to contribute and earn their subsistence in our society. When those with the resources and ability to 'mentor' others turn their backs, and concentrate on their own selfish consumer driven value system --we all lose.

The goal of government has to include the efficient use of all resources, and in order to promote that worthy goal government sometimes has to ease the transition from one way of life to another. THat is exactly what happen post Depression.

In the meantime, we have experienced the highest corporate profits in history, and multi-billionaire creation under this Administration. It is time to reorder the allocation of resources for the overall good and to help those at the top contribute their fair share of the tax revenue needed to meet that goal.

We're a means to an end? At least define the end, define the goal. Using people as efficient resources isn't really a goal. Why should that be done?

I'm guessing you would agree with at least most of this:

http://www.fordham.edu/halsall/mod/1911taylor.html

People have a desire to succeed and be self-sufficient. They just need a helping hand sometimes, and when the government extends that helping hand it is helping itself as well.

Nothing I posted was intended to diminish the value of our fellow citizens.

I reject that argument that letting people sink into homelessness, hunger, sickness etc. is an expected economic result that we cannot change.

But I reiterate that these people have value on an economic scale that we should not overlook.

Including all the power cards.

IF I killed myself in the process. It would entail working 60 hour weeks all month and I understand that I am fortunate in that regard.
Many couldn't do it even working that.

We don't even own 10,000 worth of stuff if we sold everything we own .

plus we have $250,000 equity in our house.

and if all else fails- there's the 1st Parental Bank of Mom & Dad...and between my wife and i, we have two separate branches to draw from.

or- i could always put the bitch out on the stroll(she ain't just sittin' on her money...she's sittin' on MY money!)

Without equity or savings of some kind, speaking only as in the present, only a select few could do it.

Don't you know, the conservatives have told you, just get an extra 10 jobs and work hard! :sarcasm:

:kick:

... but MAKING $10,000? I'd come up short by a little more than a half.