Why do some think the people on welfare are entitled to luxuries afforded by the employed, and not just basic substance?
-Geaux
My point didn't really have anything to do with your reply.
To answer your question, I don't think those who don't work should be entitled to luxuries at all.
However to return to my point, the person is regurgitating what has been force fed her. Solutions for the problem of welfare are not as simple as what she's making out. There's not much thinking going on at all. That's why I have a problem with what has been said.
Force fed? I'd say it's common sense.
There was a time when being on welfare was embarrassing...those days need to return.
You'd say it's common sense huh? I wouldn't, I don't have time right now to go into it, I gotta run, but I'll try and remember when I get back in a looooong while.
I'd say things need to change, but not necessarily with simplistic nonsense.
When there's no shame being on the dole and they come to feel it's their right to receive it we have a problem.
And it should be abundantly clear to those who are on welfare that they are a burden on society and the benefits they receive should reflect that.
You think this is all about shame. I don't.
A good system works because it works.
Shame won't exist in the modern world because people can hide away from their neighbors, no longer reliant on the community around them, the world has changed, and people need to accept these changes.
What I believe is that people should get welfare based on what they have done. If you haven't paid into the system for five years, you should get nothing. After five years you should be the first level, you lose your job, you get welfare. I'm not sure what works best, whether welfare lasts for a certain amount of time, or the welfare payments get reduced after a period of time or not. Then after say 10 years of work that welfare level would rise, then after 15, or 20 years it would rise again. You paid in to the system, you should be able to get something out.
Also, those who have worked for a long period of time, are liable to have a work ethic, and therefore want to rely less on welfare, this would work better than your view, in my opinion, because you've built up a work ethic, instead of expecting people to have it at the age of 18.
For those who can't get welfare, there should be choices. The choice of education, I don't mean English literature and things like that, but work based education that aims to give people the skills they need to get jobs. The same in prisons too, so that prisoners when they leave prisons also have the ability to work.
The choice of some kind of apprenticeship, so that companies can do the same, educate people, get paid for educating them.
Joining the Armed Forces. Okay, the option is already there, but pushing this with those who aren't in work.
Community projects.
Whatever happens, these people only get money if they're actually doing something.
I believe we have similar ideas based on this, basically to stop there being the entitlement attitude that exists quite strongly in certain parts of the country.
However education is also essential to this, and by this I mean pre-19 education. Having education which isn't a one size fits all type education, where kids are learning skills that are necessary to their future, this depends on the person.
In poor inner city areas with major problems there needs to be a massive program of trying to reverse the entitlement attitude, the crime attitude and so on.
The problem is, many politicians aren't interested much in this. Look at the Flint water supply issue, who cares? No one, it doesn't enhance their career, so they don't bother.
Politicians shouldn't be about career enhancing, they should be about working for the people, they're also into this entitlement nonsense, just in a different way.