Quote:
Originally posted by ktsnake
What I am against is redistribution of the wealth and rewarding laziness and irresponsibility.
|
Who decides what is classified as "lazy and irresponsible"?
Someone spoke earlier of a person who was unemployed with no health insurance who got sick. You asked why she was unemployed. Let's look at some possibilities:
What if the person just graduated from college and although they have been applying for positions they have not found one with benefits yet? This person is working a temp job to pay the bills, but most temp jobs do not provide benefits?
What if the person quit a job to take care of an ailing relative, like say a grandmother because the grandmother did not have the funds to pay for a nursing home (and in your world, there would probably be no medicare or medicaid)?
What if the person is out of work because after 15 - 20 years on their job their company decided that it would be cheaper for her job to be done in India, so they moved them offshore?
What if she dropped out of high school, had a baby. What if she previously worked the morning shift at McDonalds (making $6.00--which is more than minimum wage), but because of unreliable, unaffordable day care (she tries to get relatives to keep the baby for free but they have jobs/things to do and she can't afford the $75 a week for day care) and unreliable transportation (she can't afford a car, so she has to take 2 buses and the subway/train to get to her job), she got fired and is now unemployed.
What if she was an "off the books" baby sitter" for working people in her neighborhood, so she did not get benefits?
What if she watched soaps all day, ate bon-bons (what the heck are bon-bons anyway?) and had not intentions of working or looking for a job?
Which one of these ladies would not be deemed lazy and irresponsible? Which one(s) would be deserving of help if she got sick?
Threaded Mode