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.
Nope, I believe these welfare moms take full responsibility and work as much as possible regardless if their checks are cut due to making too much money.
The bottom line with welfare is we've created the problem ourselves. We have a glut of **** jobs in this country and the vast majority of jobs that are available are easily substituted worker wise. There is no pressure for wages to rise. So you end up with these decades long stagnation of wages on the bottom end which tend to cause stagnation above those wages as well and you end up with a higher reliance on government services.
Then you look at goverment services and there are cutoffs that just don't make sense. The people we should be helping the most are the full time workers that can't make it because wages are low. We shouldn't be cutting benefits just as they are approaching full time work, it is stupid.
So what you end up with is this abortion of a system. The system is designed for people to work as little as possible and that is what they do. Corporations benefit because they can pay **** wages and people tend to go along with it because they have this negative view of anyone or any job below theirs as beneath them.
You know something, Canada has a decent minimum wage, doesn't suffer from massive unemployment and has a great safety net.
The problem is we let problems fester for decades. Had we slowly raised the minimum wage over the time we'd be in a better situation now we've created a massive bubbled of low wage jobs and corporations have grown fat on this expectation making it harder to fix the problem.
The bottom line with welfare is we've created the problem ourselves. We have a glut of **** jobs in this country and the vast majority of jobs that are available are easily substituted worker wise. There is no pressure for wages to rise. So you end up with these decades long stagnation of wages on the bottom end which tend to cause stagnation above those wages as well and you end up with a higher reliance on government services.
Then you look at goverment services and there are cutoffs that just don't make sense. The people we should be helping the most are the full time workers that can't make it because wages are low. We shouldn't be cutting benefits just as they are approaching full time work, it is stupid.
So what you end up with is this abortion of a system. The system is designed for people to work as little as possible and that is what they do. Corporations benefit because they can pay **** wages and people tend to go along with it because they have this negative view of anyone or any job below theirs as beneath them.
You know something, Canada has a decent minimum wage, doesn't suffer from massive unemployment and has a great safety net.
The problem is we let problems fester for decades. Had we slowly raised the minimum wage over the time we'd be in a better situation now we've created a massive bubbled of low wage jobs and corporations have grown fat on this expectation making it harder to fix the problem.
Canada’s unemployment rate is higher than the usa’s
"Wisely designed anti-poverty programs, like the Earned Income Tax Credit, actually increase labor participation."
"A 2015 meta-study of cash programs in poor countries found “no systematic evidence that cash transfer programs discourage work” in seven different countries: Mexico, Nicaragua, Honduras, the Philippines, Indonesia, or Morocco. Other studies of cash-grant experiments in Uganda and Nigeria have found that such programs can increase working hours and earnings, particularly when the beneficiaries are required to attend classes that teach specific trades or general business skills."
Problem is, Republicans don't believe in science and facts.
Problem is, Republicans don't believe in science and facts.
A lesson in irony.
The Food Stamp Program, administered by the U.S. Department of Agriculture, is actually proud of the fact it is distributing the greatest amount of free meals and food stamps ever.
Meanwhile, the National Park Service, administered by the U.S. Department of the Interior, asks us to "Please Do Not Feed the Animals." Their stated reason for the policy is because the animals will grow dependent on handouts and will not learn to take care of themselves.
This ends today's lesson.
For those who understand, no explanation is needed. For those who do not understand, no explanation is possible.
The Food Stamp Program, administered by the U.S. Department of Agriculture, is actually proud of the fact it is distributing the greatest amount of free meals and food stamps ever.
Meanwhile, the National Park Service, administered by the U.S. Department of the Interior, asks us to "Please Do Not Feed the Animals." Their stated reason for the policy is because the animals will grow dependent on handouts and will not learn to take care of themselves.
This ends today's lesson.
For those who understand, no explanation is needed. For those who do not understand, no explanation is possible.
You are saying that people on welfare are equivalent to zoo animals. I think I understand perfectly.
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.
