Forum for discussing local and world politics and issues. All views are welcomed. Let your opinions be heard on current news and politics.
All standard guidelines apply to this board, No Flaming, No Taunting, No Foul Language,No sexual innuendos,etc..
As politics can be a volatile subject, please consider how you would feel if your comment were directed toward yourself.
Any post deemed to be in violation of guidelines will be deleted or edited without warning or notification. Any continued misbehavior will result in a ban or hidden status, so please play nice!!!
*"Moderators are here for a reason. If a moderator (or Global Moderator or Fencer) requests that a discussion on a certain subject to cease - for whatever reason - please respect these wishes. Failure to do so may result in being hidden, or banned."
Subiectul: OK, now let's see if V stays on point here...
Modificat de Papa Zoom (22. August 2011, 01:39:40)
" I did ask you if you thought it was OK for the government to support low wage employees via food stamps and welfare instead of the companies paying what people need to live on."
Is it "OK" for the government to subsidize people who have jobs but don't make enough money at those jobs to live on?
No. Not entirely. First, I object to the word, "support." It's not clear exactly what you mean by that.
I think it's necessary that government has SOME programs that offer "help" (different from support) for people who REALLY NEED it. If a person has a job but can't make ends meet, they need another job. It's not the job of the government to make up the difference. If the person has just fallen on hard times, the government can offer some help in the gap, but it shouldn't be a long term situation.
Where there are children in the equation, then yes, the government ought to help with some support mechanisms (again, different from support-define your terms- I mean temporary help). People need to learn personal responsibility.
In SOME cases this help will be long term. There are always situations that deem long term help necessary. And wherever children are concerned, help should always be available. It's not a kids fault that his/her parents are losers. Still, situations ought to be properly evaluated and it should never be a given that you get food stamps cuz you have hungry kids. Maybe just feed the kids and let the lazy parents go hungry.
That said, it's NOT the governments responsibility to feed starving kids. It is however the responsibility of ALL OF US. Communities ought to have MANY failsafe mechanisms in place to help feed the needy (this includes individuals, businesses, and certainly churches). Community outreach should be the front lines and the government should serve to catch those that fall between the cracks.
Lazy people who refuse to work should go hungry.
I've been on food stamps a couple of times in my life (after married with kids). We've had people buy us groceries (unsolicited) because they knew we were in need). But in the cases where I was on food stamps (due to a lay off) I NEVER collected my full allotted amount. Why? Because I didn't sit on my lazy bum and do nothing. I went out and found a job. Once while my kids were young I had THREE different jobs. I worked full time during the week and two part time jobs at night and weekends. It's MY JOB to care for MY FAMILY and not the job of any government.
The government was there to offer HELP to get me through a difficult period. But I did my part by seeking UNTIL I found a new job. And I took whatever was offered. That's how the government should operate. Offer help but expect the recipient to do their part. Help should have an ending period.
(ascunde) Joacă în timp real cu adversarul!Pentru ca acesta să fie posibil şi tu şi adversarul trebuie să selectaţi opţiunea "Mută şi rămâi aici" şi să reâncarci pagina cu tasta F5! (TeamBundy) (arată toate sfaturile)