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.
I had to file a police report in the city for a bank-owned house that was broken into and had its water heater, furnace, electrical wiring, and circuit breakers stolen -- a common occurrence in the city. I work for a national contracting company for the banks, and see this with alarming frequency. This is an important issue that needs to be addressed, but that's not what this story is about.
Blah, blah, blah, blah, blah. Your subject line is inflammatory, and your post is boring. Next time I suggest you just get to the point with a lot less about you.
Welfare is not an investment. It is a safety net for when bad things happen to good people. Our problem is we lack the programs necessary to help get people BACK into productive lives after their safety is achieved. That's a problem we ALL need to work on, TOGETHER.
I was thinking the same thing; check? what "check?"
What's the name of the Federal program, that just write checks to some young guys out of a blue?
He did say a kind of check but I can't remember what it was. It was an acronym for something. I'm fairly sure it was some kind of welfare, the guys weren't in the military or anything, really skinny.
Welfare is not an investment. It is a safety net for when bad things happen to good people. Our problem is we lack the programs necessary to help get people BACK into productive lives after their safety is achieved. That's a problem we ALL need to work on, TOGETHER.
In my opinion, welfare should be an investment in the general welfare. There is no reason why we could not adopt public policies regarding social spending that result in a positive multiplier effect on our economy and be a true investment in that manner, in the general welfare of the United States.
There is no reason why we could not adopt public policies regarding social spending that result in a positive multiplier effect on our economy and be a true investment in that manner, in the general welfare of the United States.
I believe that is the intention of our existing policies. The problem is that we tend to get people on welfare and stop allowing them to live meaningful productive lives. There are few programs available that determine the recipient's talents and find outlet for them in society. I believe if this were the case, we would have more productive people and our communities would benefit from their work.
He did say a kind of check but I can't remember what it was. It was an acronym for something. I'm fairly sure it was some kind of welfare, the guys weren't in the military or anything, really skinny.
What "kind of welfare?"
I believe it's all simply a hearsay, a myth, because ( at least today) the only "kind of welfare" ( with checks that is) goes to parents with children. The rest of checks are either SSI or SSDI. ( add unemployment checks here.)
Other government programs come in form of services or food stamps, not "checks."
I believe that is the intention of our existing policies. The problem is that we tend to get people on welfare and stop allowing them to live meaningful productive lives. There are few programs available that determine the recipient's talents and find outlet for them in society. I believe if this were the case, we would have more productive people and our communities would benefit from their work.
I believe what you are referring to is mediocre public policies on the part of wealthier politicians who should be able purchase the best solutions money can buy, under any form of Capitalism, but not Socialism.
What objection could there be to unemployment compensation that conforms to the concept and legal doctrine of employment at will. We could end poverty and forms of "wage slavery" as we currently know it, simply by being moral enough to bear true witness to our own laws. Why would persons who could end their poverty on an at-will basis not prefer to become less poor, if they had an income with which to do so?
I believe that is the intention of our existing policies. The problem is that we tend to get people on welfare and stop allowing them to live meaningful productive lives. There are few programs available that determine the recipient's talents and find outlet for them in society. I believe if this were the case, we would have more productive people and our communities would benefit from their work.
It comes down not to government programs, but to you and I. If we are good people, it is our duty to show others how to be good people as well. That is what betters society. We can't just throw money at the problem and expect it to go away, someone actually has to do something about it, and those that are actually willing to give their time and energy are far too few.
If our only civic obligation is to solve poverty, then why not actually solve poverty instead of merely pay for a war on poverty on a longitudinal basis while expecting different results. We could be actually solving poverty in our republic as easily as administering minimum wage laws are now, and, the infrastructure already exists in every State of the Union and the federal districts. The only problem is we are not moral enough to bear true witness to our own laws, even with a McCarthy era phrase in our pledge.
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.
