USA Politics

My two cents: Any social welfare system depends on one of two for avoiding misuse: More control of those who live off it, or a culture where the common understanding is that social welfare money is for those who need it and noone else. If the government is seen as the opposition rather than representatives of the people, I guess it is easier to justify to oneself that one tries to get as much money out of it as possible.

So, let me ask two questions:

- Do you (and by you I mean everyone who is discussing in this thread) think that more Americans than before are OK with living off money from the government?

- If yes: Do you think the solution is to cut down on the benefits for everyone, or rather to have a more active control and stricter punishments for those who get economic support which they shouldn't be getting?
 
Dr. Eddies Wingman said:
\

- Do you (and by you I mean everyone who is discussing in this thread) think that more Americans than before are OK with living off money from the government?

- If yes: Do you think the solution is to cut down on the benefits for everyone, or rather to have a more active control and stricter punishments for those who get economic support which they shouldn't be getting?
Click to expand...

1) Certainly
2) This is a bit of a loaded question, I will answer it in a few ways. One is to address the criteria of who is on welfare and for how long they can be on it. If someone has a serious illness and for certain cannot work, I would be in favor of increasing their benefits while lowering those (either in monthly payments or length of eligibility) of people who can work to fund it. Secondly those that are on long term welfare, especially unemployment, should be expected to do something at least half a day.
Bring something back like the Civilian Conservation Corps

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Civilian_Conservation_Corps

to pay back society what people are taking from it, it could be different kinds of work from libraries, to crossing guards, etc. I believe that would be motivation to seek and find employment (if it is there, if it is not there, at least people are doing something productive and perhaps learning some new skills that will serve them will in the future). Unemployment rules should also be tweaked to not penalize people who would go out and get a part time job or take a lesser paying job in a new field that could lead to long term employment.
 
I don't know if more people are o.k. with others living on welfare, however I do believe the stigma of living that way has decreased. Rightly or wrongly when I was younger there was the sense that a person should be embarassed if they had to take government handouts where nowdays it seems like it's no big deal. If someone truely needs the help that's one thing. But there's all kinds of examples of people who supposedly have a bad back or something else that prevents them from working an actual job, yet they'll get caught on a hidden camera mowing their yard, painting their house, building a deck, etc. If you're capable of performing those tasks then your capable to work a job and stop feeding off the system.
 
Interesting points, bearfan. I prefer the idea of civilian work programmes to the "force them all to join the army" idea that people keep calling for over here, or the compulsory unpaid work for private companies that recently came in here. I would be slightly worried, though, that this work would actually result in fewer paid jobs being available.
But like you say, there is that real difficulty of bridging the gap between living entirely on benefits and being in full-time work that is enough to support yourself.
I wouldn't want to see people's benefits cut simply because they're unable to find a full time job they can live on, though, and I don't know how it's possible to stop people who take part time and appallingly paid jobs from suffering hardship. For a lot of people, there's no career ladder, there's no promotion, it's badly paid jobs for life - if they're lucky enough to find one in the first place!
 
Should be interesting to follow the developments in this case:

http://www.nytimes.com/2013/03/27/u...?nl=todaysheadlines&emc=edit_th_20130327&_r=0

I don't really understand justice speak so I'm not sure how they can simply refuse to hear a case based on standing or whatever, but I like how this article explains how the justices are forced into a bit of a corner and either have to make an all or none statement and of course don't want to do that. What Justice Kennedy said about the need for comparing the 2000 + year history of straight marriage to the brief experiment that is gay marriage in a few states is nonsense however. It's apples and oranges. You can't compare straight marriage now to straight marriage 500 years ago so how can you even begin to compare the entire history of straight marriage to the last 10 years of gay marriage? Nonsense. He's stalling for time and idea's, probably because if they do take on the case, he holds the deciding vote.
 
This fighter for gay rights rules:
This week I saw an (other recent) interview with him, in relation to the case you're talking about.
 
My guess is the Supreme Court is going to punt on gay marriage, which would make it legal in CA, but that will be the limit of the ruling
 
mckindog said:
Excuse my ignorance, but how common is legally recognized gay marriage worldwide?
Click to expand...
Canada, Holland, Sweden, Argentina, a few other small European countries. France and UK on the verge of legalizing. Mexico City and 9 US states. I agree with bearfan about the upcoming ruling - California will be legal, the rest not. Probably Part IV of DOMA struck down as well.
 
World_marriage-equality_laws.svg

Taken from wikipedia, on which countries have same-sex marriage.

Blue: Yes.
Turquoise: recognized or performed in some circumstances
Green: High court has said yes but nothing done about it yet
Cream-color: Government intends to legalize
Grey: Nope.
 
LooseCannon said:
Canada, Holland, Sweden, Argentina, a few other small European countries. France and UK on the verge of legalizing. Mexico City and 9 US states. I agree with bearfan about the upcoming ruling - California will be legal, the rest not. Probably Part IV of DOMA struck down as well.
Click to expand...


What is part IV, I am not finding that?
 
That one caught my attention too.
Misperceptions on my part and apologies to the Argentines. South America actually appears more advanced on this issue than the rest of the world.

I wonder how many of the gray area governments are openly hostile to homosexual relationships.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top