There are several problems with socialism or the nice words of "safety net". Conservatives believe there should be minimum requirements for eligibility to receive social benefits. You say stamps are to help fill the hole between what someone earns and feeding their family yet we have no rules of how much they should work and earn. We also don't put any limits on the number of people in the household or have expectations of the effort people in the household should make for their selves. We also do not require that recipients partake in educational opportunities to better manage what resources they have. Now we just throw money at the problem and think if we throw enough, the problem will fix itself.
We cannot set rules on what they have to earn, when people have no control on what someone else pays them, and those who have the least are gonna need more help BECAUSE they dont have the income to stretch.
As far as number in the household, the stamps are distributed on number in household and the vast majority of Snap households have no more than three people, so it really becomes a trivial concern. I doubt more than the rare embezzler(I call them this because all institutions with money will have them, but they are not the rule, and are breaking laws) is running out making more children just to get a whopping 130 dollars a month in food. If they already had the children, they are also ones who need the help to feed them when something happens that changes their financial situation.
The concerns, though I believe are mostly good intentioned, are greatly over-hyped to the reality.
People dont starve gracefully, so the investment is well worth it. In a capitalist society that has any humanity, we shouldn't make the whole of a human life be valued only on if someone has paid them an income, and we should value the need for human life, especially children, who are the VAST majority of those recipients, to be able to eat.
government has control over the minimum someone can be paid in the form of minimum wage laws. The recipient has control over how many hours they work.
This is where the basic philosophy off what is the responsibility of society and what is the responsibility of the people in any program. I would suspect you believe everyone deserves a basic standard of living even if they are unwilling to contribute; I do not. I can even take this back to the basic tenant of communism: from each according to their ability. to each according to their need. It is a two way street and if you are not willing to contribute according to your ability, you do not deserve your needs met.
Im not sure what you mean. Every job I have held has had the hours set by the employer. I believe everyone deserves a chance to eat in a society that is not created for everyone to be 'paid' what is necessary for them to eat and pay other required bills like utilities, rent, food, et cetera, and where more and more states allow employees to terminate employment so easily.
gone are the days of people working for one employer all their life, or having a skill set that they can market, except science or tech, that will pay a wage commensable with cost of living.
I believe that to accomodate for the realities the 'free market' creates in terms of cost of living verse availability of work at cost of living rates, we do need to help people when they hit needful times and not set an arbitrary time limit of how long is too long for them to be in need.
Who will determine what is a 'contribution'? I have posed that before. In the days before womens liberation, were mothers at home raising their children, taking care of their home and supporting their spouse, running the errands, doing the cooking and cleaning and transporting(all of which people can and do get paid for by strangers), was that not considered a 'contribution'? But now that women and mothers not only can work but in most people's views MUST work in the absence of a man, what happens to those kids? Who covers those cost, not just financially but emotionally? IF moms being moms is not enough of a contribution for them to at least feed their kids, unless it is a man willing to foot that cost, than what list of 'contributions' will we accept or respect and who will create it?
no. I believe the basic need to EAT is important enough for the 'tax money' to be there to assist families with when the economy or their situation does not afford the income.
While the employer does establish working hours, a 40 hr workweek is still the standard. I realize a lot of unskilled work is not 40 hours which requires a person to have more than one job; this is not uncommon.
All adults should have a marketable skill set or we should help them obtain one. Making a reasonable living without that skill set is nearly impossible. Our schools are failing us in educating our youth and society is failing in educating the adults!
A significant driver of the cost of living in any area is the government especially local. Until you are willing to take on your local government, the cost of living will continue to increase at a rate where lower income people will not have a chance. It is not the employers responsibility to keep raising prices and wages to offset the effect of the government.
If most married women work then we should expect the same from a single mother. It is not the taxpayer's responsibility to offset the fact she is a single mother. Maybe we should help her but the fact that she is a single mother is of her own making.
At one time a woman being a homemaker was the norm and the man had no responsibilities beyond his job. The wife took care of everything else. In today's economy that no longer works for lower income people. They must both work and share the responsibilities of the home. That fact relegates most single parent with minimal income households to a poverty existence.
Our current approach to poor, single parent households is not working and throwing more money at it will not fix the problem It is time to scrap what we have and find a whole new approach to the problem but the existing government in incapable of resolving anything. It also will involve forcing people to comply if they want any support. Unfortunately, we will not resolve those problems in these forums.
