Gallup: More Americans Don't Want Reps To Vote For Raising Ceiling

USFREEDOM911 said:
Then would you care to take a stab at explaining how some of the single mothers of 2 are able to get off the handout program and make their lives better?
Click to expand...

It really is gumption, pride, and self respect. They want better for themselves and their kids.
 
Mr. T said:
Oh there are a lot of people sitting around waiting on their wealth redistribution checks.

The way small businesses are attacked by liberals is nothing more than tyranny.

I work my ass of to earn a living and get kicked in the ass by the federal, state and local government with their handsmy pockets every month.
Click to expand...

Yeah, because we all know, no liberals are small business owners.
 
Good Luck said:
Some, by biting the bullet and working the better hours, take the hit in benefits, with the understanding that by working more they will get more job experience as well as better performance reviews, which leads to better paying jobs.

Some tell the government to stuff their little traps, and using help from family, friends, church, and other private organizations, work their fannies off to get them in better condition.

Others get the better jobs through education and/or jobs training programs (which you notice I did not deride as traps).

In all cases, they are willing to work the harder route in the now in order to get themselves a better future. Unfortunately, the social assistance system is set up to quite literally DISCOURAGE that attitude. the people that set up these programs are NOT so stupid as to not understand that if they cut more in benefits than a person's increased income makes up for, they are discouraging the motivation to work harder. They DELIBERATELY set it up so a person can literally make more (total) by working less. If it were not set up that way, a far higher percentage of poor would be getting off the roles, instead of seeing assistance programs turn into a multi-generational way of life. And the problem with that is if people are NOT dependent on the government, there goes a whole locked-down voting block for the democrats.
Click to expand...

That's why it should be a hand-up and not just a hand-out. Unfortunetly there are to many receiving the hand-outs that they now consider their RIGHT to receive it.
 
Rana said:
http://press-pubs.uchicago.edu/founders/documents/v1ch15s32.html

Thomas Jefferson was for taxing the rich.
Click to expand...
How did you get "tax the rich" out of the document cited? Jefferson was deriding the European custom of deeded estates of royalty, which were almost invariably unproductive, being set aside as royal game preserves, which in turn leads to higher unemployment (pre-industrial revolution, don't ya know, majority of employment was agriculturally related), and proposed that in the U.S. poverty and unemployment be met with governmental policies to expand agriculture.

From the article you cited:
It is too soon yet in our country to say that every man who cannot find employment but who can find uncultivated land, shall be at liberty to cultivate it, paying a moderate rent. But it is not too soon to provide by every possible means that as few as possible shall be without a little portion of land. The small landholders are the most precious part of a state.
Click to expand...
It was these types of arguments that eventually led to the Homestead Act.
 
USFREEDOM911 said:
That's why it should be a hand-up and not just a hand-out. Unfortunetly there are to many receiving the hand-outs that they now consider their RIGHT to receive it.
Click to expand...
Indeed - another attitude deliberately cultivated by the progressive liberal movement and underwritten by the DNC. They enforce dependence on the state, and issue propaganda that such is a right simply for knowing how to breathe. The thing is, the reforms did not go far enough. It's STILL a hand-out system, not a hand-up system. They need to put ALL types of assistance, housing, food, child care, medical care, even education and/or job training (in fact job training should be a mandatory, not voluntary part of assistance), under ONE roof, and set it up so when one makes more, the system does not decrease total benefits by more than the additional income. Encourage people to do more for themselves, and pride will kick in so they DO make more of their lives and become independent. Of course, it won't happen because that is the exact opposite of what the government wants to happen. The more we are dependent on government, the more power government has. And in the end, it ain't about money, it's about power.
 
Good Luck said:
Indeed - another attitude deliberately cultivated by the progressive liberal movement and underwritten by the DNC. They enforce dependence on the state, and issue propaganda that such is a right simply for knowing how to breathe. The thing is, the reforms did not go far enough. It's STILL a hand-out system, not a hand-up system. They need to put ALL types of assistance, housing, food, child care, medical care, even education and/or job training (in fact job training should be a mandatory, not voluntary part of assistance), under ONE roof, and set it up so when one makes more, the system does not decrease total benefits by more than the additional income. Encourage people to do more for themselves, and pride will kick in so they DO make more of their lives and become independent. Of course, it won't happen because that is the exact opposite of what the government wants to happen. The more we are dependent on government, the more power government has. And in the end, it ain't about money, it's about power.
Click to expand...

I agree with the education and/or job training; because that way people can put themselves in a position to get themselves off of the hand-out program.
But then; I also feel that if someone refuses, then they lose the opportunity to be part of the hand-out program.
 
USFREEDOM911 said:
I agree with the education and/or job training; because that way people can put themselves in a position to get themselves off of the hand-out program.
But then; I also feel that if someone refuses, then they lose the opportunity to be part of the hand-out program.
Click to expand...
That's what I said: jobs training should be a mandatory part of the system, not voluntary. Heck, just have assistance recipients do some entry-level work within the assistance program itself would give some job experience they otherwise would not have. If child care is to be part of the assistance package, let assistance recipients be required to work a few hours in day care facilities. People with little to no jobs experience get job experience while providing daycare services for those who are working in the private sector. As those who gain job experience in the day care setting (or doing entry-level work in the welfare office, cleaning/serving in soup kitchens, etc.) use their experience to move on to better jobs in the private sector, new applicants to the assistance program take over to provide services to the ones who need heelp while moving up in the private sector, going to training classes, school, etc.

If we let (make?) people, at least in part, EARN some of the assistance they are receiving, it would go a long way in establishing personal pride, derived from the feeling of earning one's way, as opposed to the current system which is not only designed to trap people in the system, but take their pride away so they are less likely to do something about it.
 
Good Luck said:
That's what I said: jobs training should be a mandatory part of the system, not voluntary. Heck, just have assistance recipients do some entry-level work within the assistance program itself would give some job experience they otherwise would not have. If child care is to be part of the assistance package, let assistance recipients be required to work a few hours in day care facilities. People with little to no jobs experience get job experience while providing daycare services for those who are working in the private sector. As those who gain job experience in the day care setting (or doing entry-level work in the welfare office, cleaning/serving in soup kitchens, etc.) use their experience to move on to better jobs in the private sector, new applicants to the assistance program take over to provide services to the ones who need heelp while moving up in the private sector, going to training classes, school, etc.
Click to expand...

If someone is already trained and unemployed there's no point in attempting to retrain them in a different sector.

Good Luck said:
If we let (make?) people, at least in part, EARN some of the assistance they are receiving,
Click to expand...

They earned it through paying taxes for unemployment insurance their entire working life.
 
If you are talking about TANF, that already has a lot of restrictions that come with it. For instance, there's a two year maximum limit for enrollment in the program, no matter how justified your case is.
 
Good Luck said:
How did you get "tax the rich" out of the document cited? Jefferson was deriding the European custom of deeded estates of royalty, which were almost invariably unproductive, being set aside as royal game preserves, which in turn leads to higher unemployment (pre-industrial revolution, don't ya know, majority of employment was agriculturally related), and proposed that in the U.S. poverty and unemployment be met with governmental policies to expand agriculture.
Click to expand...

It's their land. They should be able to do what they want with it.

/s
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top