Silicon Investor (SI) -- The First Internet Community

STOCKTALK

We've detected that you're using an ad content blocking browser plug-in or feature. Ads provide a critical source of revenue to the continued operation of Silicon Investor. We ask that you disable ad blocking while on Silicon Investor in the best interests of our community. If you are not using an ad blocker but are still receiving this message, make sure your browser's tracking protection is set to the 'standard' level.

Politics : View from the Center and Left -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?

To: thames_sider who wrote (90414)	10/16/2008 7:27:08 PM
From: Mary Cluney	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 541854

<<<<But I'm not sure either of them envisaged the degree to which welfare would be not just an requirement in extremis, but for some a daily expectation - that someone else will pay for your needs and wants, without you needing to work or even try to work for them. Certainly we can't afford this now, unless most state spending is redirected: and in 30 years or so, not even then. There needs IMO to be a major difference between a safety net and a way of life. >>> We are talking about improving access to food stamps for the hungry, universal access to health care for the sick, improving our education system, and providing job training to make our country more competitive in the global economy. No one is talking about taking money from your pocket and transfering it into the pocket of someone that is not willing to work. What you are talking about is scurrilous fear-mongering and ideological confusion.

To: thames_sider who wrote (90414)	10/16/2008 8:58:33 PM
From: cnyndwllr	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 541854

Thames, re:"But I'm not sure either of them envisaged the degree to which welfare would be not just an requirement in extremis, but for some a daily expectation - that someone else will pay for your needs and wants, without you needing to work or even try to work for them. Certainly we can't afford this now, unless most state spending is redirected: and in 30 years or so, not even then. There needs IMO to be a major difference between a safety net and a way of life." With so many people lazing out of the work force I imagine we have wages going through the roof and help wanted postings filling pages? Nope...don't see it. Jobs are hard to find, wages are stagnant, and many who are working are underemployed. Now what good would it do if we traded one of those "happy to be on welfare" people into the jobs of one of those "happy to be working" people? In actuality we CAN afford to support many on welfare but we shouldn't be forced to and we don't want to. The question, however, is a lot more complex than assigning a lack of industry to many of the people surviving on welfare. Ed