Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
Yes, if they are being supported by the tax payers.
You know why many are supported by tax payers? It is because businesses do not pay enough for people to live on. If we payed people a decent wage at their jobs we would not have to worry about supporting them through welfare. Of course then you will complain how people are not "worth" that much money. You can't have it both ways.
You know why many are supported by tax payers? It is because businesses do not pay enough for people to live on. If we payed people at their jobs we would not have to worry about supporting them through welfare. Of course then you will complain how people are not "worth" that much money. You can't have it both ways.
Matt who is going to determine what level of pay is acceptable or appropriate? A labor board, a committee of Soviets, the President?
That seems to be it. You must divest yourself of everything but your underwear before you accept one dime of assistance.
No doubt the $20 you'd get for the Wii would save the taxpayers millions of dollars in unemployment benefit payouts ...
I can't rep you again for your posts, but I can at least underscore what you've written. Very eloquently said.
Actually he has it slightly wrong the wealth of a nation is in fact based on the people. However not because of what is given to them but what they create.
Actually he has it slightly wrong the wealth of a nation is in fact based on the people. However not because of what is given to them but what they create.
That's right. And Colorado Rambler's point, since you missed it, is this: What we are creating is a nation of mean-spirited people who no longer care about their fellow countrymen who are less fortunate than they are, and who cannot, will not, or refuse to understand that everyone can be in those very same circumstances through no fault of their own.
What we are creating is a nation of mean-spirited people who no longer care about their fellow countrymen who are less fortunate than they are, and who cannot, will not, or refuse to understand that everyone can be in those very same circumstances through no fault of their own.
Everyone should be free to care as much as they desire...
What YOU and others want is for people to be FORCED to care,through taxation/forced charity.
A question...If the circumstances are TOTALLY through their own fault,is the person still held in the same regard by you and should receive the same benefits?
That's right. And Colorado Rambler's point, since you missed it, is this: What we are creating is a nation of mean-spirited people who no longer care about their fellow countrymen who are less fortunate than they are, and who cannot, will not, or refuse to understand that everyone can be in those very same circumstances through no fault of their own.
But if they can afford cable TV every month then why are they also taking government assistance ? There has to be a line somewhere that divides necessities vs "nice to have".
When I was laid off from my job in 2010 I applied for benefits because even though I had savings I didn't want my son to go without medical coverage. And I didn't feel the least bit guilty about it because I've been paying taxes since I was 15. I was able to get in with a good temp agency that kept me working until I found something permanent but during that time I did qualify for benefits. I also had an a.c and a wii at the time.
Is the thought behind this that I should have broken my lease and moved somewhere with no ac and perhaps taken my wii to a pawn shop?
NO. That is not what anyone is saying at all. Subsidies were created for exactly your situation - a helping hand til you got back on your feet.
To be considered POVERTY LEVEL in this country, you fall into very specific government established guidelines, wh/ include so many months/years of poverty, and to get benefits your assets cannot total a specified amount.
This whole thread is about folks who managed to get qualified for those guidelines and either lied about their assets or managed to acquire them once they were being given supplemental income, housing vouchers, healthcare, childcare, etc. In other words, pretty much gaming the system.
THe elderly, infirm and those needing help during tough times should have programs and assistance to help them so they can get back to a self sufficient lifestyle.
Matt who is going to determine what level of pay is acceptable or appropriate? A labor board, a committee of Soviets, the President?
Does it matter who decides it as long as people who are living in poverty do not have to worry if they wil be able to eat that day. We live in a society that is a community that looks out for all its people either rich or poor.
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
