View Single Post
Old 05-26-2004, 05:24 PM   #7
Lady Sidhe
That's my story and I'm stickin' to it....
 
Join Date: Nov 2003
Location: Hammond, La.
Posts: 978
*agrees with SM and Beestie*


Nothing wrong with public assistance for those who:

1. need help getting back on their feet while they're looking for a job, or work but don't make enough money to buy necessities after paying bills (that's more common than anyone realizes)

or

2. are disabled to the point that they have trouble finding and/or keeping adequate work with which to support themselves

To Marichiko: I don't know about where you live, but in La., one can get emergency welfare if they're shown to need it (no job, no income), within three days. The only time someone is put on a waiting list for housing is when they apply to HUD, which is specifically for housing and doesn't involve welfare money.


I completely agree with welfare reform. Five-year lifetime limit. Contrary to popular belief, not everyone on welfare are down-and-outers...matter of fact, the down-and-outers usually don't stay on it longer than necessary. Their pride in themselves keeps them from doing that (at least that applies to the people I know who've been on it)

The ones that piss me off are the ones who live on it, and teach their kids to do the same. Welfare has the unfortunate side-effect of blunting the pride of people who live on it (imo), so that they see nothing wrong with being parasites, because they make more than they would make working. They have a sense of entitlement. They don't contribute, yet they act as if society owes them a living.

IMO, if you're an able-bodied individual, there's nothing keeping you from getting a job like the rest of us peons. If you need help while you're looking for work, hey, that's what it's there for. But when you start spitting out kids because you make more money per kid, you can just bite my ass. We don't owe you shit.

I hate the "poor, downtrodden, not-their-fault welfare recipiant" attitude. That's not true for the majority. I'd love to do an experiment to find out how many "lifetime" recipiants are able-bodied enough to get a job. They give those who truly need the assistance a bad name.

I feel that if you've spent the majority of your life working, then suddenly don't have a job, then you ARE entitled to assistance. You've contributed to the fund, so you're entitled to share in it if you need to. But when you just don't feel like working at a minimum-wage job, and apply for benefits....uh-uh. You should have to work for benefits in some way. There should be make-work projects for people who go on assistance. Not only would it possibly confer a skill, but it would give people a little pride in themselves.

I think that's kind of what's missing in society nowadays--pride in oneself. Considering the dumbing-down in schools, the blaming society for what is actually the fault of the individual...it just seems like pride in oneself and one's accomplishments is no longer important. After all, if letter grades are abolished so the dummies won't feel bad, what's the point of getting an A? If "putting one over on the government" by living on welfare is prized over doing a job well, or having a job at all, then what's the point of getting a job?

*shakes head*

People's priorities are just getting all fuckled up, it seems. People are no longer responsible for anything. Everything is someone else's fault. After all, if you don't receive rewards for your accomplishments, then why should you take responsibility for your failures? It just seems to me that that's how people think nowadays.

Oh well....


Sidhe
__________________
My free will...I never leave home without it.
--House



Someday I want to be rich. Some people get so rich they lose all respect for humanity. That's how rich I want to be.
-Rita Rudner

Lady Sidhe is offline   Reply With Quote