Faith Focused Dating. Create your Free Profile and meet your Match! Sign Up for Free

info: Please Sign Up or Sign In to continue.

A place to learn, mingle, and share

This room is for the discussion of current events,cultural issues and politics especially in relation to Catholic values.

Saint Thomas More was martyred during the Protestant Reformation for standing firm in the Faith and not recognizing the King of England as the Supreme Head of the Church.
Learn More:Saint Thomas More

04/12/2013 new
People can look at public assistance in one of two ways. Either it is a hand up in times of trouble, or it is a hand out on a regular recurring basis.

It matters to a lesser extent, personally, how a person who is not on welfare looks at this, however, it matters greatly how the person on welfare looks at these two different viewpoints on welfare.

If the person on welfare views the public's assistance as an entitlement, that is, as a hand out, then they are not likely to feel obligated to work any harder to get out from underneath that entitlement, as they feel this is something that society owes them.

If the person on welfare views the public's assistance as a temporary measure while they get themselves back on their feet, then they are likely to work hard at finding a good paying source of income other than from the government, fed by the taxpayers.

The difference to the taxpayer is obvious. The more people that think they are entitled being added to the system creates a larger tax burden that must be carried by the rest of those in society. This creates anger and resentment from both perspectives. The taxpayer is angry that people SOME people on welfare get complacent and believe they are entitled to freeload off their hard work, and the one on welfare gets indignant with the tax payer because he believes that he is owed this compensation as retribution for past wrongs or for his inability to get a good paying job, even though he has stopped looking for a job and is living in complacency. (I am NOT talking about people who are disabled or who are genuinely looking for work). So the two opposing viewpoints end up being more polarized and disliking each other more and more.

The founding fathers did not create this. A government that seeks to destroy itself has created this. Many people who follow the media who are complicit in the evil aims of the government don't hear any other viewpoint other than what the government wants them to hear, and even if they did, they would only believe someone with the same viewpoint or listen to someone on TV, who must be telling the truth since it is on TV.. (tongue in cheek).

Reversing this process at this point is extremely difficult and requires elected representatives to do the right thing. The public keeps electing the same people 90 to 95% of the time, so Congress and other elected officials are corrupted by money and become more entrenched in power and are taking deeper chunks out of our liberty as a result.

.
04/12/2013 new
(Quote) Jim-624621 said: People can look at public assistance in one of two ways. Either it is a hand up in times of trouble, or it is a han...
(Quote) Jim-624621 said: People can look at public assistance in one of two ways. Either it is a hand up in times of trouble, or it is a hand out on a regular recurring basis.



It matters to a lesser extent, personally, how a person who is not on welfare looks at this, however, it matters greatly how the person on welfare looks at these two different viewpoints on welfare.



If the person on welfare views the public's assistance as an entitlement, that is, as a hand out, then they are not likely to feel obligated to work any harder to get out from underneath that entitlement, as they feel this is something that society owes them.



If the person on welfare views the public's assistance as a temporary measure while they get themselves back on their feet, then they are likely to work hard at finding a good paying source of income other than from the government, fed by the taxpayers.



The difference to the taxpayer is obvious. The more people that think they are entitled being added to the system creates a larger tax burden that must be carried by the rest of those in society. This creates anger and resentment from both perspectives. The taxpayer is angry that people SOME people on welfare get complacent and believe they are entitled to freeload off their hard work, and the one on welfare gets indignant with the tax payer because he believes that he is owed this compensation as retribution for past wrongs or for his inability to get a good paying job, even though he has stopped looking for a job and is living in complacency. (I am NOT talking about people who are disabled or who are genuinely looking for work). So the two opposing viewpoints end up being more polarized and disliking each other more and more.



The founding fathers did not create this. A government that seeks to destroy itself has created this. Many people who follow the media who are complicit in the evil aims of the government don't hear any other viewpoint other than what the government wants them to hear, and even if they did, they would only believe someone with the same viewpoint or listen to someone on TV, who must be telling the truth since it is on TV.. (tongue in cheek).



Reversing this process at this point is extremely difficult and requires elected representatives to do the right thing. The public keeps electing the same people 90 to 95% of the time, so Congress and other elected officials are corrupted by money and become more entrenched in power and are taking deeper chunks out of our liberty as a result.



.
--hide--


Freemasonry.
04/12/2013 new

(Quote) Jim-624621 said: People can look at public assistance in one of two ways. Either it is a hand up in times of trouble, or it...
(Quote) Jim-624621 said: People can look at public assistance in one of two ways. Either it is a hand up in times of trouble, or it is a hand out on a regular recurring basis.

It matters to a lesser extent, personally, how a person who is not on welfare looks at this, however, it matters greatly how the person on welfare looks at these two different viewpoints on welfare.

If the person on welfare views the public's assistance as an entitlement, that is, as a hand out, then they are not likely to feel obligated to work any harder to get out from underneath that entitlement, as they feel this is something that society owes them.

If the person on welfare views the public's assistance as a temporary measure while they get themselves back on their feet, then they are likely to work hard at finding a good paying source of income other than from the government, fed by the taxpayers.

The difference to the taxpayer is obvious. The more people that think they are entitled being added to the system creates a larger tax burden that must be carried by the rest of those in society. This creates anger and resentment from both perspectives. The taxpayer is angry that people SOME people on welfare get complacent and believe they are entitled to freeload off their hard work, and the one on welfare gets indignant with the tax payer because he believes that he is owed this compensation as retribution for past wrongs or for his inability to get a good paying job, even though he has stopped looking for a job and is living in complacency. (I am NOT talking about people who are disabled or who are genuinely looking for work). So the two opposing viewpoints end up being more polarized and disliking each other more and more.

The founding fathers did not create this. A government that seeks to destroy itself has created this. Many people who follow the media who are complicit in the evil aims of the government don't hear any other viewpoint other than what the government wants them to hear, and even if they did, they would only believe someone with the same viewpoint or listen to someone on TV, who must be telling the truth since it is on TV.. (tongue in cheek).

Reversing this process at this point is extremely difficult and requires elected representatives to do the right thing. The public keeps electing the same people 90 to 95% of the time, so Congress and other elected officials are corrupted by money and become more entrenched in power and are taking deeper chunks out of our liberty as a result.

.
--hide--


But both types of people are on public assistance, those that need it temporarily and those that want to subsist on
it permanently.

04/12/2013 new

(Quote) Frank-410833 said: I wish I had the last 10 minutes of my life back on this one. LOL
(Quote) Frank-410833 said:

I wish I had the last 10 minutes of my life back on this one. LOL
--hide--


laughing

04/13/2013 new

(Quote) Wendy-387654 said:
(Quote) Wendy-387654 said:

--hide--


Wendy: Where you been? Haven't seen your posts lately?

04/13/2013 new

(Quote) Marianne-100218 said: Where you been? Haven't seen your posts lately?
(Quote) Marianne-100218 said:



Where you been? Haven't seen your posts lately?

--hide--


wave Marianne! Took the rest of fall and winter off. Things get really busy for me during that time period. It's good to be back and able to post, though I won't be able to jump back in more regularly until school winds down for me.

04/13/2013 new

Maybe these people need foodstamps because of their personal choices. Spending money on junk food, strip clibs,etc. they need spiritual help, not financial help.

04/13/2013 new
(Quote) Jim-624621 said: People can look at public assistance in one of two ways. Either it is a hand up in times of trouble, or it is a han...
(Quote) Jim-624621 said: People can look at public assistance in one of two ways. Either it is a hand up in times of trouble, or it is a hand out on a regular recurring basis.



It matters to a lesser extent, personally, how a person who is not on welfare looks at this, however, it matters greatly how the person on welfare looks at these two different viewpoints on welfare.



If the person on welfare views the public's assistance as an entitlement, that is, as a hand out, then they are not likely to feel obligated to work any harder to get out from underneath that entitlement, as they feel this is something that society owes them.



If the person on welfare views the public's assistance as a temporary measure while they get themselves back on their feet, then they are likely to work hard at finding a good paying source of income other than from the government, fed by the taxpayers.



The difference to the taxpayer is obvious. The more people that think they are entitled being added to the system creates a larger tax burden that must be carried by the rest of those in society. This creates anger and resentment from both perspectives. The taxpayer is angry that people SOME people on welfare get complacent and believe they are entitled to freeload off their hard work, and the one on welfare gets indignant with the tax payer because he believes that he is owed this compensation as retribution for past wrongs or for his inability to get a good paying job, even though he has stopped looking for a job and is living in complacency. (I am NOT talking about people who are disabled or who are genuinely looking for work). So the two opposing viewpoints end up being more polarized and disliking each other more and more.



The founding fathers did not create this. A government that seeks to destroy itself has created this. Many people who follow the media who are complicit in the evil aims of the government don't hear any other viewpoint other than what the government wants them to hear, and even if they did, they would only believe someone with the same viewpoint or listen to someone on TV, who must be telling the truth since it is on TV.. (tongue in cheek).



Reversing this process at this point is extremely difficult and requires elected representatives to do the right thing. The public keeps electing the same people 90 to 95% of the time, so Congress and other elected officials are corrupted by money and become more entrenched in power and are taking deeper chunks out of our liberty as a result.



.
--hide--


Very well stated!
04/13/2013 new

Its quite easy to get the dole in NZL, and its not hard to get a food card. Its like a pre-loaded credit card that you swipe in supermarkets to buy groceries. But you can't get smokes or booze.

Frankly, I think people on the dole shouldn't get money in the bank directly. The money should go directly to their landlord, power company, phone company et cetera. That they should only get the food swipe cards and not cash in hand to spend on smokes and booze and the "pokies". And I do think they should be prohibited from buying excessive junk food.

So say they have 200$ on the food voucher card and 190$ is directed towards approved foodstuffs. That way they can still have "treats" if they have kids.

Politicans are accountable for tax payers' dollars, why aren't dole bludgers?

I have the freedom to buy a Lambo, but that doesn't mean I expect teh govt. to fund it. Social supports are meant to be just that, social supports, theyr'e not supposed to be a lifestyle choice. If somoene wants to eat chips and coke and have that freedom, they can get off their arse and get a job.

I can understand limitations in America, but in NZL, you can get a student loan to study at uni and polytechs. There really is absolutely no excuse down here for the vast majority mooching off the govt. dime.

04/13/2013 new

(Quote) Helen-881220 said: Thank you Lauren for responding to this thread in an informative, low key manner. I have seen a l...
(Quote) Helen-881220 said:

Thank you Lauren for responding to this thread in an informative, low key manner. I have seen a lot of negative responses in other threads, and I thought I would see more understanding, and compassion from humans for these unfortunate human beings. If candy is an abuse of the food stamp system, I am sure we all have abused something a time or two in our "holier than thou life".

--hide--

I don't view this sort of commentary as "negative" rather pragmatic.

Does your govt. really have the money to be assisting people who are spending such money on "treats"?

Kids today expect way to much. The older individuals I know, think my grandparents' generation, talk about how chocolate only came in plain and it was so rare and expensive you'd be lucky if you saw it, let alone tasted it! Yet, they all turned out fine and well adjusted.

Telling kids "sorry, we can't afford that", teaches them about fiscal responsibility; ie. don't buy something you really can't afford just because you want it. We're in a big mess finanically because of that mindset, of people wanting and so buying, if they dont' have the cash, they just get it on hire-purchase or a loan, and then end up in a bigger mess with debt collectors and further credit cards.

Its nice to want to give children treats, but really, how realistic is it? You think parents in the slums of impovished African countries are having this discussion?

They don't even get "foodstamps".

No wonder people in the West have developed such an undeserved sense of entitlement.

Posts 101 - 110 of 121