User Name: Password:
New User Registration
Moderator: Vikings 
 Politics

Forum for discussing local and world politics and issues. All views are welcomed. Let your opinions be heard on current news and politics.


All standard guidelines apply to this board, No Flaming, No Taunting, No Foul Language,No sexual innuendos,etc..

As politics can be a volatile subject, please consider how you would feel if your comment were directed toward yourself.

Any post deemed to be in violation of guidelines will be deleted or edited without warning or notification. Any continued misbehavior will result in a ban or hidden status, so please play nice!!!


*"Moderators are here for a reason. If a moderator (or Global Moderator or Fencer) requests that a discussion on a certain subject to cease - for whatever reason - please respect these wishes. Failure to do so may result in being hidden, or banned."


Messages per page:
List of discussion boards
You are not allowed to post messages to this board. Minimum level of membership required for posting on this board is Brain Pawn.
Mode: Everyone can post
Search in posts:  

22. August 2011, 01:19:33
Papa Zoom 
Subject: OK, now let's see if V stays on point here...
Modified by Papa Zoom (22. August 2011, 01:39:40)
" I did ask you if you thought it was OK for the government to support low wage employees via food stamps and welfare instead of the companies paying what people need to live on."

Is it "OK" for the government to subsidize people who have jobs but don't make enough money at those jobs to live on?

No. Not entirely. First, I object to the word, "support." It's not clear exactly what you mean by that.

I think it's necessary that government has SOME programs that offer "help" (different from support) for people who REALLY NEED it. If a person has a job but can't make ends meet, they need another job. It's not the job of the government to make up the difference. If the person has just fallen on hard times, the government can offer some help in the gap, but it shouldn't be a long term situation.

Where there are children in the equation, then yes, the government ought to help with some support mechanisms (again, different from support-define your terms- I mean temporary help). People need to learn personal responsibility.

In SOME cases this help will be long term. There are always situations that deem long term help necessary. And wherever children are concerned, help should always be available. It's not a kids fault that his/her parents are losers. Still, situations ought to be properly evaluated and it should never be a given that you get food stamps cuz you have hungry kids. Maybe just feed the kids and let the lazy parents go hungry.

That said, it's NOT the governments responsibility to feed starving kids. It is however the responsibility of ALL OF US. Communities ought to have MANY failsafe mechanisms in place to help feed the needy (this includes individuals, businesses, and certainly churches). Community outreach should be the front lines and the government should serve to catch those that fall between the cracks.

Lazy people who refuse to work should go hungry.

I've been on food stamps a couple of times in my life (after married with kids). We've had people buy us groceries (unsolicited) because they knew we were in need). But in the cases where I was on food stamps (due to a lay off) I NEVER collected my full allotted amount. Why? Because I didn't sit on my lazy bum and do nothing. I went out and found a job. Once while my kids were young I had THREE different jobs. I worked full time during the week and two part time jobs at night and weekends. It's MY JOB to care for MY FAMILY and not the job of any government.

The government was there to offer HELP to get me through a difficult period. But I did my part by seeking UNTIL I found a new job. And I took whatever was offered. That's how the government should operate. Offer help but expect the recipient to do their part. Help should have an ending period.

22. August 2011, 02:04:33
rod03801 
Subject: Re: OK, now let's see if V stays on point here...
Artful Dodger: I would say I agree with all of that. EXCEPT, I think there are many times when people could turn to their own families for help. Seems to me thats how it used to be, from what I've heard. Or local communities helping their own too.

Of course I'm mostly Libertarian and feel the federal govt should only be involved where absolutely necessary. And to me, that's limited to Defense, border control, and probably a couple other things I can't think of right now, because TV is distracting me.

22. August 2011, 03:14:51
Papa Zoom 
Subject: Re: OK, now let's see if V stays on point here...
rod03801: I did mention community but of course family should be on the list too. We need to look out for our own. I help my kids out a lot. I pay for special things like dance lessons and preschool costs, clotihng, you know, stuff grandparents are supposed to help with. They can't afford everything that goes into raising a family. If they were down and out, I'd do whatever it took to help them get back on their feet. My daughter and her hubby are hard workers and not lazy about their responsibilities. My son is studying to become an audioologist. When people are willing to do the hard work required in getting ahead, helping them out in the process feels good and right. ;)

22. August 2011, 13:04:00
Mort 
Subject: Re: No. Not entirely. First, I object to the word, "support." It's not clear exactly what you mean by that.
Modified by Mort (22. August 2011, 13:05:29)
Artful Dodger: Support as in making up the wages to a liveable wage because the companies will not pay enough. Which is why low income families need support from the government via food stamps and tax credits. You may object to the word "support" but that is what the government is having to do.

... I've explained this several times, it is not hard to understand. It's why the UK gov introduced a minimum wage to stop companies exploiting workers just to maximise profits and dividends to stock holders. Not just 'blue collar' but as I've experienced, 'white collar' as well. Because of minimum wage law.. the amount of people needing support just so they can afford to live why working has decreased.

"It's not the job of the government to make up the difference."

Then companies need to pay a fair wage that can be lived on then. And not as experienced here do everything they can to not pay a living wage. If not, then you just end up with one of your pet hates... illegal immigrants doing the work.

Now... Dan.. can you stay on these points?

22. August 2011, 18:10:08
Papa Zoom 
Subject: Re: No. Not entirely. First, I object to the word, "support." It's not clear exactly what you mean by that.
(V): " Support as in making up the wages to a livable wage because the companies will not pay enough. Which is why low income families need support from the government via food stamps and tax credits. You may object to the word "support" but that is what the government is having to do."

If a company doesn't pay enough, don't work for them. I have tons of friends working for companies and they all own homes and cars and boats and are doing more than well. Yes there are some companies that don't pay well. But that's life. Get a second job. Many people complain about not having a livable wage but the reality is that they are irresponsible with money. I don't make a ton of money but my house is paid for. I have friends making the same amount of money as I make and they still how the banks (and credit cards) thousands. What's up with that? Live within your means. Most people don't. So what you mean by livable wage some mean earning a wage that supports their chosen lifestyle. A company isn't obligated to support your indulgences.

"... I've explained this several times, it is not hard to understand. It's why the UK gov introduced a minimum wage to stop companies exploiting workers just to maximize profits and dividends to stock holders. Not just 'blue collar' but as I've experienced, 'white collar' as well. Because of minimum wage law.. the amount of people needing support just so they can afford to live why working has decreased."

So what exactly do you do for a living Jules? Who do you work for?

"Then companies need to pay a fair wage that can be lived on then. And not as experienced here do everything they can to not pay a living wage. If not, then you just end up with one of your pet hates... illegal immigrants doing the work."

As I said, there are plenty of companies that pay excellent wages. Don't work for those that don't. And if you can't get a better job because you sat on your lazy butt and didn't better yourself with proper schooling, it's your own fault.


"Now... Dan.. can you stay on these points?"

Everyone knows who has a penchant for rabbit trails and word twisting. News Flash, it's a he and he lives at your address. But I must say, nice job this time. Your post is a perfect example (snipes aside) of how to hold a discussion. You stated your point without twisting mine. There's hope for you yet.

22. August 2011, 19:39:37
Mort 
Subject: Re: No. Not entirely. First, I object to the word, "support." It's not clear exactly what you mean by that.
Artful Dodger: You've not answered the point.. If everyone is paying crap wages then what? Businesses are not going to hike prices re wage increases unless it is all at once. While wages are low everywhere then what. Yes.. change jobs... but then what about the jobs that people do that are essential?

Now.. who I work for is my private life.. I mean.. are you going to advertise who you work for on the board??

"And if you can't get a better job because you sat on your lazy butt and didn't better yourself with proper schooling, it's your own fault. "

That, I find a very limited interpretation of why someone might not have a good ed. I saw a story of lady who was made prisoner by 'daddy' over many years. People who've been undiagnosed with the likes of dyslexia, etc.

Now stop trying to get personal, I can have fun just posting political snips.

22. August 2011, 19:57:15
Papa Zoom 
Subject: Re: No. Not entirely. First, I object to the word, "support." It's not clear exactly what you mean by that.
(V): "You've not answered the point.. If everyone is paying crap wages then what?"

Not everyone is paying "crap" wages. I've already pointed this fact out.

"While wages are low everywhere then what."

They aren't low everywhere.


"Now.. who I work for is my private life.. I mean.. are you going to advertise who you work for on the board??"

Unemployed then? Didn't ask for details. Just what line of work.

"That, I find a very limited interpretation of why someone might not have a good ed. I saw a story of lady who was made prisoner by 'daddy' over many years. People who've been undiagnosed with the likes of dyslexia, etc."

A small number. There are always exceptions. But exceptions are not the rule.

22. August 2011, 21:16:02
Mort 
Subject: Re: Not everyone is paying "crap" wages. I've already pointed this fact out.
Artful Dodger: So... all the people getting $5 an hour are supposed to pay for more ed.. more training, etc.. two (or 3 jobs) and run a home while on a tight budget especially now while it is an employers market job wise?

"A small number. There are always exceptions. But exceptions are not the rule."

A small number... when did Jesus come back and change everything?

22. August 2011, 21:17:56
Papa Zoom 
Subject: Re: Not everyone is paying "crap" wages. I've already pointed this fact out.
(V): Most people make more than 5 dollars an hour.

Date and time
Friends online
Favourite boards
Fellowships
Tip of the day
Copyright © 2002 - 2024 Filip Rachunek, all rights reserved.
Back to the top