13 Feb 2018, 8:41 am
Fate
It sends a message that your labor has enough value that you can earn a living and don't need to depend on government hand outs.
Its cheaper and easier to simply make certain that when people work they don't have to rely on assistance from the government (SNAP etc) to make ends meet. By decreasing the need for assistance for those working poor - you lower the need for government programs.
And you raise dignity of the working poor, who no longer require a hand out.
Fate
Did you know that 55% of Americans have at one time received benefits from the government?
In fact, it's 86% if you broaden the definition to households. . After you add veteran benefits and college assistance, 70% of individuals -- and 86% of households -- receive a government benefit of some kind. Put differently, one in seven households doesn't receive assistance from the federal government.
So what do you define as a "greedy" person?
And what benefits do you want to scale back?
When income inequality is so great ..... the percentage of people who require assistance is so high - and American programs all seem to be so complicated, over regulated and some times lacking in dignity in their deliverance... I think the problem is not going to be "How do we balance the budget by cutting "benefits". Its got to be a reexamination of the government compact with the military industrial complex, and more progressive taxation regimen.
Not unless the US wants to be great again by going back to the "gilded age." For most people that wasn't great.
https://www.theatlantic.com/business/ar ... em/266428/
Raising the minimum wage to a living wage sends a message too: don't improve yourself. The government will provide!
It sends a message that your labor has enough value that you can earn a living and don't need to depend on government hand outs.
Its cheaper and easier to simply make certain that when people work they don't have to rely on assistance from the government (SNAP etc) to make ends meet. By decreasing the need for assistance for those working poor - you lower the need for government programs.
And you raise dignity of the working poor, who no longer require a hand out.
Fate
A lot here. I don't think it's "safety net" cuts that scare Republicans so much as entitlement reform. As our population gets older, we need to do something. Both sides just ignore it because it's not popular.
We live in a nation of political cowards and greedy people.
Did you know that 55% of Americans have at one time received benefits from the government?
In fact, it's 86% if you broaden the definition to households. . After you add veteran benefits and college assistance, 70% of individuals -- and 86% of households -- receive a government benefit of some kind. Put differently, one in seven households doesn't receive assistance from the federal government.
So what do you define as a "greedy" person?
And what benefits do you want to scale back?
When income inequality is so great ..... the percentage of people who require assistance is so high - and American programs all seem to be so complicated, over regulated and some times lacking in dignity in their deliverance... I think the problem is not going to be "How do we balance the budget by cutting "benefits". Its got to be a reexamination of the government compact with the military industrial complex, and more progressive taxation regimen.
Not unless the US wants to be great again by going back to the "gilded age." For most people that wasn't great.
https://www.theatlantic.com/business/ar ... em/266428/
