Toro
Diamond Member
Social programs should be a stop gap, not a way of life.
Follow along with the video below to see how to install our site as a web app on your home screen.
Note: This feature may not be available in some browsers.
Social programs should be a stop gap, not a way of life.
Social programs should be a stop gap, not a way of life.
Took the words right out of my mouth.
1.) At what point, in your belief, would you cut off State aid to a poor family showing no reasonable signs of effort towards improvement? Or, conversely, do you feel there is no point it should be cut?
2.) As it pertains to question number one, do you feel that the overabundance of safety nets, such us an ever-extending unemployment benefit, effects ambition AT ALL? If not, how can that be?? If so, at what point do you look for an alternative route to just saying "here you go."
3.) Do you feel that social safety nets AT ALL are playing a part in how poorly our inner city families are turning out? If no, explain how that can be. If yes, then what's the big idea?
1.) At what point, in your belief, would you cut off State aid to a poor family showing no reasonable signs of effort towards improvement? Or, conversely, do you feel there is no point it should be cut?
Humans have an intrinsic desire to be successful, the notion that public assistance acts as some sort of a disincentive is a fallacy given the fact the majority of food stamp recipients are employed. The idea that the only way to get those receiving benefits off of assistance and back to work is by threatening to end those benefits is part of that fallacy.2.) As it pertains to question number one, do you feel that the overabundance of safety nets, such us an ever-extending unemployment benefit, effects ambition AT ALL? If not, how can that be?? If so, at what point do you look for an alternative route to just saying "here you go."
3.) Do you feel that social safety nets AT ALL are playing a part in how poorly our inner city families are turning out? If no, explain how that can be. If yes, then what's the big idea?
They are pretty unreasonably long, and they do keep getting extensions. This is about welfare, food stamps, etc. also....though. All that
The states get to set the time line for UE benefits, 20 weeks is the norm.
Food stamps, are not a lifetime benefit either, there are limitations to all welfare. On SNAp, foodstamps, has a requirement that you look for work and report theses searches to the unemployment office, or you will be sanctioned.
As far as food stamps - - what's the limit? I didn't know there was one.
Have you ever seen that special on Ole Dirty Bastard? He was a millionnaire rapper who also continued to collect his welfare. And, he was very public about it.
To be quite honest, I expected conservatives to come in here with their smug, intelligence demeaning rhetoric as to what THEY think, a lefty thinks.
The corporate welfare issue is another entirely. I'm likely with you, on that.
It's really more intertwined with it than many realize.
Yea, though, based on averages being unemployed for more that 6mos would be a special case (this recession isn't normal by any means), but the special case shouldn't be the rule.
In my opinion, the 6 months you do have, plus the 20 or-so weeks ue, to be used after or before your savings (I'm not sure), would in the great majority of cases be enough time to get yourself back to planted on your feet.
True in some instances but that assumes no other emergencies follow the original, even for the special cases...and we know 'shit happens' almost everyday. To me it keeps coming back to what's enough to generally equate someone with being financially reasonable/responsible? To which I think there is no real answer, only opinions. Everyone can't be wealthy, and I don't think it's reasonable to think someone that lives check to check should be able to save up that much money in every instance, and it's not that they aren't trying, they're just apparently not trying enough. The whole discussion gets blurry at this point.
You are right that this is obviously all opinion, and also that the individual situations can vary greatly. I would like to ask this, though : do you think that the person(s) who live paycheck to paycheck, who try to save money but cannot do so, are in a good position to purchase a house?
I think that people in this country do not, in many cases, plan for the future with their money. There are many reasons for this, and in a lot of ways out society seems to be based on it (so much is based on payments over time, loans, and debt), but it is still playing with fire to an extent.
Does this mean we should not have any governmental safety nets? Of course not. I think the bigger issue may be fraud and corruption, rather than the rules as they stand being bad. As with so many political issues, we don't necessarily need to make new rules or rewrite the current ones, just enforce the ones that exist and prevent cheating as much as possible.
My mother in law (83 years old)lost all of her retirement when the stocks crashed in 2008. Those saftey nets can be lost on other circumstances other than ur own deeds.
Your MIL, at her age, should have had her retirement in something much less risky than stocks... Stocks are not a "safety net"...
again u assume what u don't know.
The logic is, before buying a home, one must plan for every situation......One must plan to have at least two years worth of EMERGENCY mortgage payments locked into an account, before even thinking about signing the note.I was only addressing unemployment. Welfare needs a complete and serious overhaul.
So does unemployment, imo.
It's a tough life when your sister is going to lose her home, but what's a home vs. an apartment but a status picture and a sign of your own financial stability? What's wrong with her life actually REFLECTING that she lost her job? Having to sell thing/ her home, and building herself back up?
Is she starving like an african child? Lacking an education for a future job? Built no real savings at age 54? Honest, not smug, questions.
Honest not smug? Okay. Are you fucking kidding me?? She worked her whole life. She's working again now. So the fact that nobody would hire her over the course of 14-15 months means she should fall through the cracks. Right? How old are you? Would you want that for your parents??
I'm living in someone else's home. I have a room with a family. Sometimes, their son asks me why I'm not in my own house, and when I will be. Well, I'm here because his parents are in the same shoes I am - but he doesn't need to know that. So we just tell him that I'm saving money to get my own house.
Life isn't supposed to suck like this, home skillet. We lived our lives as law-abiding citizens who paid our taxes and contributed to our communities. So now we should just go oh, well. I lost my job. That's not bad enough. I should lose my home as well. And my dog, of course, since they aren't generally welcome in apartments.
I'm really not following your alleged logic at all.
Maybe tomorrow I'll do the right.
I'm asking from an honest place and am asking ahead of time, don't bother responding to be smug, etc. and especially if this question isn't even addressed at you, to begin with.
So, I have a few questions:
I'll just fire them off.
1.) At what point, in your belief, would you cut off State aid to a poor family showing no reasonable signs of effort towards improvement?
As to the last question, it's not vague it's specific: what's your ideal Countrylook like in regard to social safety nets?
EITC fixed all that a while back."Well I can do nothing and make x dollars, or I can work and make less than x dollars, the same as x dollars or barely more but not a significant number."