"Mstybl95;14875983" wrote:
"SataiDelennn;14875424" wrote:
"DivinylsFan;14874270" wrote:
it's the same in Australia but many of those babies supported by welfare grow up to be successful and contribute it back, and the parents are consumers and so it all goes around in the economy. One baby supported by welfare as an example was Steve Irwin. His father was a single dad and lived in the Western suburbs of Sydney, where all the government housing is. And we all know how much he gave back.
It's not like that in the States. Most people who get sucked into Welfare stay on it, generation after generation. Some want to get off it and can't, but most enjoy it and never want to get off it. They're the ones who try and get as much of the taxpayers' money as they can, all the while, thinking they're just getting it from the government (not understanding that it's taxpayers supporting them financially and medically). So they just take and take and take and take. It causes a lot of resentment on the part of the people paying in with their tax dollars. It's very frustrating.
I know that this is a common theme of resentment, but instead of wanting to remove these security nets from people that truly do need them (children), we need to consider how to get them out of poverty. They need better education and chances in life. Something that certain political parties like to cut. We never invest in the future or put anything into those we deem unworthy. How will they ever get out of poverty without opportunity? Even the middle class is made to struggle through tremendous debts. Our lives are near over when we finally pay off our student loans. It's beyond ridiculous.
And from a personal note...my mom was a welfare kid. Her father left her mom with 8 children one day. He went out and never came back. So they received benefits and they had no chance of ever getting out of it because her mom did not have the money to take care of that many kids. My mom's opportunity came from a neighbor whom her and her sister helped on weekends. They did laundry and grocery shopping for her. They also kept her company. She told my mom and her sister that if they kept good grades and continued helping her, she would send them to college. None of my mother's other brothers or sisters went to college. But my mom and her sister did and both got themselves out of poverty.
And that's why I said, some do want to get off of it and can't, but where I live, unfortunately, most don't care and just sit on Welfare forever. I've said my whole life that Welfare needs a major overhaul for those who do legitimately want to get off of it, and that means not cutting benefits when people do go out and get a job (because as it stands now, the government is in effect punishing those who are trying to better themselves, and that doesn't help at all), but MINORLY reducing benefits perhaps after a six month period (and then continuing to GRADUALLY reduce benefits over time), so that the people who get jobs can learn how to save their money and not live hand to mouth. There should be programs in place teaching people that banks are a good place to store extra money, no matter how small the amount may seem, and teach them how to write checks and balance a checkbook if they've never done so, and teach them how to support themselves, not be supported by others. And then that way, perhaps after a year/two years of the person having a job, and learning vital self-sufficiency skills, and a GRADUAL reduction of benefits, by the time the Government stops Welfare for people who've gotten jobs, these people are now properly trained not only at their job, but in life and don't feel punished for wanting to get off Welfare. And for people who don't go out and get jobs after three years or so, this is where "punishment" should come in, and benefits should be reduced by half, thereby giving incentive for these people to go get a job. Now, notice I'm not saying getting their dream job, paying top dollar, I'm saying, "a job." Whether it's reception work, or working at a fast food joint. And reduction of benefits for people should also be determined by what job they get. So, if they have no skills in office work, their benefits should not be reduced as much as someone who's been able to get a better paying job. And to add to this, programs should be in place to provide job training for those who want it so that they will have the necessary skills to go get that office job as a receptionist or file clerk or whatever (which is where @Mstybl95's idea of education comes in).
What I resent, and what many resent are the people who think that sitting around, doing nothing and making no effort toward anything and that collecting Welfare is normal. This is not what Welfare was supposed to be. But thanks to the government, this is what it has become. But you're right, @Mstybl95, it's very much not EVERYONE on Welfare's fault. But it does feel to be the majority. I have a friend who works for the state and deals with the Welfare cases, and the stories she's told me, just really anger me.
It's really no secret though, that in most things where our government is concerned, I think that We The People could run this country better than our Government has been doing. But like most clueless and oppressive parents, our Government pats us on the head and coos, "No, no, you don't really know anything. We know what's best for you..." and then shoves unwanted things down our throats while taking other things away. The Government continuously tries to tell people that this or that is so much more complicated than we know, but I'm sorry, I don't believe that. It's only as difficult as they (the Government) wants to make it. Overhauling Welfare may be a PITA, but it can (and should) be done and really should have been done a long time ago. But it's not a priority of the Government, so they just don't care and so things never change.
OK, I'm getting off my big soap-box now.
