When I wonder about something like low income housing help it’s not always simple. Here is an intriguing outlook on something that from time to time captures my attention. What I particularly enjoy about it is the amazing situation that it isn’t merely a regular views on the subject. The article writer basically takes the trouble to certainly think about what they’re blogging on and what they feel about it which is essential to me and just why I have used it.
Anyway, not to eat up an excessive amount of the time studying an introduction let me move forward using the specific item just below
Question by mtgcnv67: Are you for or against government help?
I don’t know if “government assistance” is the term I’m searching for I’m referring to food stamps, unemployment advantages…anything like that that men and women can get from the government.
I go back and forth all the time of whether I’m for assistance or not. I’ve observed each sides: individuals who abuse the program and men and women who really need to have it and only use it temporarily. I have a friend who grew up poor, with a mom who abused the program and wouldn’t get a job because she would lose her monthly check from the government, and then my buddy used the government assistance for five years soon after she turned 18 to get by way of college and now she lives on her own 2 feet…no assistance whatsoever from everyone!
What’s your stand? Mention whatever help plan you choose: EBT, WIC, Low-revenue housing, unemployment, and so on. Try and pull me more than to your side.
Very best answer:
Answer by ArizonaAlmostRealAmerica
Nicely largely against it. Unemployment paid by the workers and business’s in a restricted quantity might function. But less government the better.
Add your own answer in the comments!
{ 16 comments… read them below or add one }
Only for the truly needy. There are way way too many folks on government assistance these days who are not truly needy. I understand it may be difficult to define “needy” but honestly, when I see an able bodied person (especially with multiple kids) talking on the latest cell phone and other tech gadgets…yet are on government assistance, there is a problem.
to a certain extent, yes, but unemployment is originally paid for by the employee. so this is really not govt assistance. but in general there should be a dead line for all assistance,
look at the results of “govt. assistance”….every city and town has its own example,and they are NOT PRETTY…they are called the projects…
It’s not a question of whether someone supports such things. It’s a question of whether it’s government’s job. It’s not. The Founders knew that government isn’t good at dealing with problems like starving or unemployment, which is why they specifically stated that any power not SPECIFICALLY granted to the federal government is to be reserved for the states, or even better, the people themselves.
Think of the last time you went to the DMV. Now think of the last time you went to the supermarket. Who does a better job?
I am for it if it is needed .
NY State has the most generous benefits in the nation and Upstate cities have 30% poverty, population loss has become the norm, and high taxes have kept us in recession for 30 years. Keep paying the poor to remain poor and they will.
That being said, I am fine with supporting the elderly and disabled.
i am for assistance for needy Americans but not for illegals.
Against, the economy is set up so that it will always bounce back, without government interference.
For them. As we transition to 3rd world status, and we are there is no denying it and the people are too dumb to stop it. We’ll just continue to give everything to the wealthy until they finally have it all and no longer need us to give them anything. but as we transition, more and more people will need assistance.
You can’t spend 30+ years demanding workers work harder for lower wages, cut taxes on the rich time after time, and tell people they have to pay full free market prices for things, then somehow expect everyone to be self sufficient.
On a federal level, NO, it is begets dependance.
On a State level, Sure, tax and provide as the people see fit.
The definition of welfare according to the 1828 Webster’s dictionary. I like to use it because it tells what the definition of the word welfare was that the time the U.S. Constitution was written.
WELFARE, n: Exemption from any unusual evil or calamity; the enjoyment of peace and prosperity, or the ordinary blessings of society and civil government;
U.S. Constitution
Article 1 – The Legislative Branch
Section 8 – Powers of Congress
The Congress shall have Power To lay and collect Taxes, Duties, Imposts and Excises, to pay the Debts and provide for the common Defense and general Welfare of the United States; but all Duties, Imposts and Excises shall be uniform throughout the United States;
I have no problem with it for those who truly need it ! the problem is that the system is so loaded with abusers ! I have a son who does HVAC they install furnaces for a charity organization that receives government funding, he was telling me about some of the houses that they have done installs in and it is just appalling ! He said it is just a joke how bad the taxpayers are being ripped off buy these groups !
I am not against a hand up for people who need it, but I am against a lifetime of welfare. I have no desire to ‘pull you over to my side’. Think for yourself.
I would say, if they had taken then their child have gone missing! Talk about stupid! But remarks like this, I have come to expect from contradicting fools….
And what is amazing, is that that they seem to get the for children and obviously their is evidently 'inadequate'!
Superb post however I was wanting to know if you could write a litte more on this topic? I’d be very thankful if you could elaborate a little bit more. Kudos!
In a food stamp world , a food stamp world lol
You must log in to post a comment.