- Joined
- Dec 1, 2010
- Messages
- 61,695
- Reaction score
- 32,334
- Location
- El Paso Strong
- Gender
- Undisclosed
- Political Leaning
- Conservative
What do you think? Attaching poll.
What do you think? Attaching poll.
This isn't an either or. Almost everybody wants to be financially self-sufficient, but tens of millions of Americans live in abject poverty, often temporarily, and the richest country in the history of the planet shouldn't have tens of millions of starving, desperate people. Public assistance programs should be there to catch someone when they fall with the intent of helping them back to the point of being financially self-sufficient. No significant number of poor people are just leaning back and enjoying the sweet ride, rather they're normal, working class families that work multiple jobs and much harder than I do and can barely keep it together. We can do better than this.
So if the goal is financial self sufficiency, that would indicate an understanding that self sufficiency is more beneficial. Why the hesitation is acknowledging that? My question has nothing to do with doing away with government programs or even saying they’re bad or that we shouldn’t have them.
Because there's literally nobody on either side of the aisle who thinks people being on assistance is better than them being self-sufficient. Nobody. That you would even make a poll about it suggests you think it's an actually debated issue, it's not.
Because there's literally nobody on either side of the aisle who thinks people being on assistance is better than them being self-sufficient. Nobody. That you would even make a poll about it suggests you think it's an actually debated issue, it's not.
If that were true, everyone would be equally at ease answering the question I asked but that is clearly not the case.
Here is a question for you, RabidAlpaca: How is it treated in Germany? What is the impetus for people who are on social safety programs to find ways to get back to work, beyond social pressure? Is there any kind of cutoff date for those rare few who are perceived to be malingering on the public doll but are able-bodied and able-minded?
People on welfare have to meet with a social worker regularly to apply for jobs, get signed up for free training or schooling so that they can get jobs, or coached in other ways to get back employed. Germany has a retardedly low employment rate, so the vast, vast majority of people on German welfare work at least one full time job. It also helps that all medical everything is covered for everybody for life, so it's not even a consideration. Personally I think they've created a very humane way of reducing poverty and getting people back to work while preventing it from becoming a hammock. The lack of desperate, hungry people reflects in our exceptionally low crime rates.
It sounds perfectly good to me as well, RabidAlpaca. But I must follow up and ask: What happens to those who have tried to treat it like a hammock? Again, discounting the infirm and mentally/physically disabled, how does Germany treat those rare public aid beneficiaries who do not apply themselves and look for work but take benefits off the public dole?
It is the case, you just don't like the answer. Most people voted that you made a dumbass poll, and you did. Your obvious insinuation is that "the left" thinks it's better to have people on welfare than being self-sufficient, yet you can't point to a single real human being that believes that. It's hard to watch a thread fail this fast this hard.
I can point to those who can’t bring themselves to choose that option even while being assured that everyone agrees the first option is what, basically, everyone believes.
So in face of your poll and thread flopping and your complete inability to point to a single human being that thinks people being on welfare is better than being self-sufficient, you've just decided everyone must secretly want that but be too afraid to tell you. :lamo This really is the quality we've come to expect from you, X.
What do you think? Attaching poll.
Any public assistance programs should include/provide education, training , and/or networking opportunities to make someone financially self sufficient.
Congrats. Your catching up. You just described the Families First program that replaced traditional welfare about 20 years ago.
:roll:
Yep, real winner that one turned out to be...
What do you think? Attaching poll.
Excellent response. Spot on. Self-sufficiency, IMHO, should be the primary goal and assistance programs should be structured to reach that goal, with the understanding that not everyone will be able to attain full self-sufficiency.False choice. Prosperous societies need both.
So if the goal is financial self sufficiency, that would indicate an understanding that self sufficiency is more beneficial. Why the hesitation is acknowledging that? My question has nothing to do with doing away with government programs or even saying they’re bad or that we shouldn’t have them.
What do you think? Attaching poll.