It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.

 

Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.

 

Help ATS via PayPal:
learn more

Trump goes left, new childcare subsidies

page: 7
13
<< 4  5  6    8 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Sep, 14 2016 @ 04:37 PM
link   
a reply to: kaylaluv

Reality makes it easier to be responsible. We (the government) make it easier to be irresponsible by providing benefits without requiring anything in return.

As I said earlier, we can't make too drastic moves overnight, but we really do need to start allowing people to stand on their own. We could better care for our elderly, our sick, and our lame if we stopped also caring for our lazy (even if we made them that way).

TheRedneck




posted on Sep, 14 2016 @ 04:51 PM
link   
a reply to: TheRedneck

We need programs to help those who don't know how to move forward and make their lives better. Absolutely. Those programs cost money. Just telling a group of people, "hey, you need to be more responsible", ain't gonna cut it. When they don't know how to move forward, they stay hungry and are more likely to get into a life of crime because that's the way everyone else in their universe deals with it.

I'm talking about generational poverty which makes it very hard for those people to even know how to proceed. So, they just repeat the lifestyle they've seen in their family time and time again. It's very hard to get out of that rut, or to even know you can get out of that rut.

You aren't going to break the cycle of single parents in poor neighborhoods by withholding help. All that will accomplish is a bunch of kids growing up hungry, angry and willing to steal your stuff.



posted on Sep, 14 2016 @ 04:58 PM
link   
a reply to: kaylaluv

You're right. I said it would have to be a gradual change. How about this for an idea?

Paid tuition and full benefits if you attend a trade school for a certification in a skill. Full benefits if you attend classes on interviewing skills, resume skills, and how to successfully apply for a job. Full benefits if you work toward a GED for those who never graduated. Full benefits if you work 25 hours a week cleaning roadsides or other community projects. 80% benefits otherwise (exception for disabled).

Everyone can keep full benefits, but they have to start giving something back or we start decreasing the milk flow.

People who have a job give something to society. All I'm suggesting is we ask those who are getting paid from entitlements to try to give something too.

TheRedneck



posted on Sep, 14 2016 @ 05:02 PM
link   

originally posted by: TheRedneck


People who have a job give something to society. All I'm suggesting is we ask those who are getting paid from entitlements to try to give something too.



I can agree with that.


What I don't agree with is the idea of just cutting them off of everything to let them sink on their own. Because that is what they will do - sink.



posted on Sep, 14 2016 @ 06:42 PM
link   
Trump does not go "left". He goes whichever way the wind blows and this won't help his dismal numbers with women. Educated, informed people will not be duped by this idiot, oops! As Colin Powell said: "calling him an idiot will only embolden him."



posted on Sep, 14 2016 @ 07:04 PM
link   

originally posted by: TheRedneck
This is one of his ideas that concerns me. I am truly torn over it.


Allow me to summarize...


On one hand, I...On another hand, what will this do the availability of jobs, the profitability of businesses, and the cost of living?

On another hand, why is the business expected to pay someone for not working?

On another hand, is it not in everyone's best interest to ensure the health of the worker?

On another hand, as the OP points out, who will wind up paying for this?


Summary: "Am I my brother's keeper?" If so, then who is your "brother"?

For me, anyone in the country is my "brother" (no matter who they vote for or what I think of their ideas) - and it's a quick "yes."

Everyone's mileage may vary.



posted on Sep, 14 2016 @ 07:07 PM
link   
a reply to: Byrd

Is government my brothers keeper?



posted on Sep, 14 2016 @ 07:08 PM
link   

originally posted by: LSU0408
And this is why we should practice the traditional Conservative values. Self responsibility alone would deter much of the pregnancies because the female won't be dependent on help from anyone but her self, her family, and her friends. People act like taking responsibility for yourself and those you care for is evil. It's not.


No responsibility for the father? Or his side of the family?

Really?

(or are we talking forced marriages to rapists, as happen in countries with more conservative religions?)



posted on Sep, 14 2016 @ 07:11 PM
link   

originally posted by: DBCowboy
a reply to: Byrd

Is government my brothers keeper?

Well, I'm paying for it. It gets my money.

So, yeah. If you become unable to work and can't make your house payment/rent I still want agencies helping you and medical care for you and safe housing and so forth and public transportation that's cheap and good roads and bridges and schools and more.

But I'm a tree-hugging hippie liberal.

Your mileage may vary.



posted on Sep, 14 2016 @ 07:12 PM
link   

originally posted by: Darkmadness
a reply to: LSU0408

Are you saying women WANT to live in the projects off of government subsidies?

Sounds like you've never taken a trip to the projects.


Government allows chemicals in those hell-holes to fester, robbing project residents of their desire to be self-sufficient. They talk about it... but only until the next check arrives. Then they're placated for a couple of weeks.



posted on Sep, 14 2016 @ 07:14 PM
link   
a reply to: Byrd

Government is no one's "brothers keeper", imho.

I am constantly astounded by so-called "liberals' who are enthusiastic about authoritarian government. It makes no sense.

Because even a kind dictatorship is still a dictatorship.



posted on Sep, 14 2016 @ 07:26 PM
link   
a reply to: DBCowboy

Well when you equate any sort of gov to authoritarian is pretty easy to be 'astounded'.



posted on Sep, 14 2016 @ 07:32 PM
link   
a reply to: Sremmos80

Government, when placed in the position to "take care of you", is going to be authoritarian.



posted on Sep, 14 2016 @ 07:34 PM
link   

originally posted by: TheRedneck
On another hand, what will this do the availability of jobs, the profitability of businesses, and the cost of living? Business is already overburdened with regulations.


California tried it. If I remember right, they fund it through a payroll tax so it does nothing to business profitability.


On another hand, why is the business expected to pay someone for not working?


It's an insurance system people pay into to cover loss while they're incapacitated or otherwise unavailable. The business isn't paying, their coworkers are.


On another hand, is it not in everyone's best interest to ensure the health of the worker? Maternity leave is indeed a health issue, and a critical one at that. If there is any social contract attached to employment, should this one policy not be at the heart of it?


Most developed nations give family leave now, not just for mothers who are physically recovering but for fathers while often times can't focus on their work and are thinking about their new child anyways. It also gives the man of the house the ability to be home and help his wife while she's recovering.

The lack of time off is actually a new concept that came about in the 20th century. I repeated this statistic elsewhere, but even slaves used to get 6 months off when they had a child. And they were still given food and shelter.


On another hand, as the OP points out, who will wind up paying for this? The taxpayer? That's the way it has always worked before...


It works in other nations to a much greater extent, and it's working in California now.



posted on Sep, 14 2016 @ 07:41 PM
link   
a reply to: jjkenobi

Incorrect. Granted, this was 15 years ago, I had 3 children on welfare and only received $555 a month in cash and $400 in food stamps. My rent was subsidized but I still had to pay 20% which came to $180. It is only a small handful of places that help with gas or electricity, and California is not one of those places. Utilities ran about $120. That left me with about $255 to buy household items i.e. soap, toothpaste, shampoo, household cleaners. It cost me about $25 a month in quarters for laundry for 4 people. So you think I didn't want to work?

Childcare and reliable transportation were my biggest barriers to holding down a job. If child care was subsidised on a sliding scale based on the parent's earnings that was extended to the middle class so that even people making $50k a year could seem some assistance, I think it would solve a lot of issues with the welfare system.



posted on Sep, 14 2016 @ 07:44 PM
link   

originally posted by: Sremmos80
a reply to: DBCowboy

Well when you equate any sort of gov to authoritarian is pretty easy to be 'astounded'.


I know you are familiar with this: The government big enough to give you anything you need is also big enough to take everything you have.

Don't you understand that?

Maybe I should explain it to you. I spent time proofing apartment complex newsletters prior to my current position. I saw a lot of section 8 complexes. Tenants in a section 8 had to provide endless income certification paperwork to verify their status for subsidy. They were almost always in certification with the bureaucrats. Additionally, they could be randomly inspected at any time. Some had mandatory housekeeping inspections on a monthly basis or more frequently.

All intrusions into privacy because the government was providing their housing.

When you provide your own, what happens in your place is mostly all your business and the only verification of income after you get the mortgage is your monthly payment. And if you want to live in a hoarding pig sty, no one is going to stop you unless you really go beyond the pale.

But when we come to place where you depend on the government to provide your housing, your clothing, your food ... you receive all of those under the government's conditions. You don't get to say, "Yeah, I don't really like chicken." If the government gives you chicken, it's what you get.

Same with health care. You get what they provide when and where. There are no second opinions.

And if the government doesn't care to provide or can't or won't, then you just go without because there is none.

And when the government comes to you and tells you that you won't receive what it provides unless you do certain things ... maybe you worship or not a certain way or give up your legally owned firearms or turn in your neighbors if they are disloyal to the government ... then you will or you will go without.



posted on Sep, 14 2016 @ 07:53 PM
link   

originally posted by: TheRedneck
I don't think that's what he meant. If I earn money by sacrificing my time, it is mine. That ownership means I get to decide what to do with it. It doesn't necessarily mean I'm going to hoard it up in some storehouse and laugh at the poor people who need help... it means I get to decide if I want to give it to a cause or not.

If government decides the causes, that removes my ability to give to causes I want to give to... and that means a corrupt government may shut off funding for causes it doesn't believe in because it, not individuals, make those decisions. We have seen many times that it is far easier for a government, with centralized power and force of law, to become corrupt than it is for the population as a whole, with distributed power and no such force of law, to become corrupt.

I think that's what this issue really comes down to. Do you trust the government or the people to do what's best?


If you're making money with societies participation, why do they not have a right to some of that money?

That aside, I would argue that society is corrupt. More corrupt than government atleast and your first paragraph proves it. Government is capable of mandating people help society, but you mention that you should be able to help causes you find worthy. That means you're not going to approve a cause you don't. People mostly find worth in causes that help people like them. Those who need the most help, need that help because they're alone.

I'm going to illustrate this with the broken family example. Above a poster wrote that a single mom should be helped by her friends and family. Single moms don't typically have the strongest family structure though, it's very possible they don't have any family members to lean on and even if they do... why should those family members help? I've never had a very close family so I just don't get it, being related to someone doesn't automatically form a stronger bond. Then when it comes to friends, that's an even weaker bond than family. I've lent friends $30 or $50 and they thought it was a huge deal, I can't imagine something on the scale of taking care of children... that's into the many thousands of dollars.

Most people just don't give that type of value away. Maybe that's because society is corrupt... our culture is one of mindless consumerism and self interest. Those aren't the values that are conducive to enabling people to raise children properly.



posted on Sep, 14 2016 @ 07:55 PM
link   

originally posted by: LSU0408
You're not born into this world bearing the responsibility of everyone else.


No, but if you want society to be a better place, you take on that responsibility.



posted on Sep, 14 2016 @ 07:57 PM
link   

originally posted by: ketsuko
a reply to: DBCowboy

Yeah, I'm not fond of this. I'd rather we find a way to prosper such that families only need one income again.


Kick women out of the work force and make them dependent on a man to provide for them, the supply of labor will be cut in half, which increases demand and raises wages.



posted on Sep, 14 2016 @ 08:06 PM
link   
I hate replying to the same person 3 times in a row, but... such is life. I'm not trying to single you out, you're just writing a lot that I want to comment on.


originally posted by: TheRedneck
Paid tuition and full benefits if you attend a trade school for a certification in a skill. Full benefits if you attend classes on interviewing skills, resume skills, and how to successfully apply for a job. Full benefits if you work toward a GED for those who never graduated. Full benefits if you work 25 hours a week cleaning roadsides or other community projects. 80% benefits otherwise (exception for disabled).


What do you do about the educated people who can't get jobs? What do you do about the people who want something other than trade school? I'm all for incentivizing people to better their situation, but the reality is there's not going to be enough jobs for everyone. There's another issue too which is that some people just aren't going to be able to learn those skills, and out of those who do learn some skills they may not be able to adequately apply them.

I do think this should happen though, I would argue it should be a 100% baseline and then say 125% if you're taking steps to improve your situation, but ultimately it's the exact same thing. My one big worry is that if you're unwilling/unable to obtain an education you're giving the government the responsibility of finding you a job. Any job they find (even cleaning roadsides) is already contracted out to someone who is trying to make a living. Is it right to take a job away from that person?




top topics



 
13
<< 4  5  6    8 >>

log in

join