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.
Where did I indicate we need to get rid of the safety net?
The implication is quite clear.
Quote:
Originally Posted by pghquest
But you just said we dont have generations upon generations on welfare, so if thats true, that means we are in no better condition with a safety net, than without, since according to you, people get kicked off of them.
The fact is the right is terrified of the electoral consequences of their own ideas that is why they are so desperate to obfuscate them with lies.
Next to China and India. The USA has to support 315 million plus people.
No matter how wealthy the USA seems. Supporting 50, even 100 million of its residents with a social safety net is not plausible. Especially since the definition of "poor" in the USA is completely different than poor in India or China.
There is another thread about being poor in the USA.
I have been to the slums of Brazil. That is poor.
Poor people have access to food and shelter in the USA for the most part.
Other counties do not afford this net we provide already.
It's estimated there are 40 million Americans in poverty. To put this is in perspective. 40 million Americans in poverty is more people to support than the entire population of Canada.
There is only so much we can do. And only so many social services we can offer.
That is total crap. The fact is if you work you are going to have a higher standard of living, almost everyone I have encountered on welfare lives in a trailer park, nor can they afford cable. You cannot be eating steak and lobster when you have about $31 a week for groceries and you cannot use food stamps at restaurants in the vast majority of states and even in those states that allow it you need to be elderly or disabled, and even if you could, again $31 a week means you ain't going to restaurants.
You can afford those things if you are unmarried and have a baby daddy, sugar daddy or biological daddy subsidiizing you on top of welfare.
You can afford those things if you are unmarried and have a baby daddy, sugar daddy or biological daddy subsidiizing you on top of welfare.
And if that is the case and the government catches wind of it you and baby daddy are going to be on the hook. Most states not make identification and cooperation in obtaining child support a condition of welfare to recoup costs.
In essence if you are on welfare the state in most cases is going after baby daddy for reimbursement of welfare expenses via child support payments to the state, and mom is going to be helping or she is getting cut off.
And if that is the case and the government catches wind of it you and baby daddy are going to be on the hook. Most states not make identification and cooperation in obtaining child support a condition of welfare to recoup costs.
In essence if you are on welfare the state in most cases is going after baby daddy for reimbursement of welfare expenses via child support payments to the state, and mom is going to be helping or she is getting cut off.
By biological daddy - as distinct from baby daddy - I was referring generally to parents and other relatives (siblings, grandparents, etc) who "help out" under the table.
I've read many posts here that claim we nations of the west are 'civilized' because of all our 'safety nets' in place that take care of the poor and the downtrodden.
But this hasn't always been so. It would seen that large-scale national welfare is a 20th century phenomena (though local community welfare is probably as old as civilization itself.) But I ask you this? Are these 'safety nets' doing more harm than good? In order to succeed and advance ourselves individually, do we require a very real threat of hunger or death if we don't keep moving?
Right now, I'm working 2 jobs after an imminent job loss. It's very tiring and my time for leisure with my family is limited. And it would seem that a small portion of my earnings are going toward those who did NOT work for it. But, if there are any more 'safety nets' put into place by our people-loving altrustic government, shouldn't I stop the madness. I mean, why shouldn't I take advantage of the safety net and let someone else fund it? And then what happens when everyone else decides to ride on these benevolent benefits?
If every last able-bodied American, or shall we say, denizen of the Western World, knew that if they didn't find a way to produce, they would be maggot food on the back alley w/o welfare, what would our economy be like today? What would the GNP look like?
I agree that we need welfare reform.
Especially for young Americans. I say that being a young American. Too many in our generation have not experienced true poverty and need that hard knock to grow as individuals.
With that said. Corporate reform needs to happen too. Some individuals need to learn that they are dependent upon others and society for their well being. Hoarding cash and resources beyond use is harmful to society, wasteful, and greedy.
We all have a lot of growing to do IMO.
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.
