|
Ktsnake,
I'm not going to say that there aren't people who are lazy and irresponsible on the welfare rolls, because there are. I can understand how you don't want to support them.
What I've never understood about most conservatives I've argued with is that they never want to actually give any help to the people who are working hard, but still can't get by; the people who are working 50-60 hours a week but still live below the poverty line. If you are against redistribution of wealth, or more specifically government handouts that redistribute wealth, why not be in favor of initiatives that get people out below the poverty line, or at least high enough so that they can survive working only 40 hours a week? If you are so opposed to welfare, then look at finding ways to make welfare obsolete. Make getting a job so attractive that people dont' want to remain on welfare because they can do so much better if they get off of it! The fact is that there are millions of people out there who look at the jobs around them and decide that they are better off if they are on welfare. They get some sort of guarenteed income with out having to do anything, they can look after their kids, and they can get to a doctor. If you made it so that every job meant you were getting considerably more money, your kids were cared for and you got some sort of health care coverage - all without having to work hours away, or 70 hours a week - no one but the truly desolate would remain on the welfare rolls. That's what it comes down to in my mind - make getting a job an attractive quality, make sure the basic concerns of people are being met and they will get the hell out of a situation that is worse for them. Make the term "working poor" an oxymoron and the United States will be a better place.
|
Threaded Mode