Ironically, some people do say just exactly that, in their actions, not with words. Especially when they can do literally nothing, and nit wits like you will send them a check every month for doing nothing.
That’s why education/retraining programs are beneficial. Healthy, happy human beings are motivated to at least provide for themselves a comfortable lifestyle, whatever their definition of “comfortable” may be but doing without life’s basic necessities is no ones idea of comfortable.
Stop obsessing on your stupid little individual examples which seldom apply to the real world.
My examples of people losing their job and their home do not apply to the real world? Obviously you do live on another planet.
Donald Trump lost everything... every penny he had... as he walked from the courtroom following his bankruptcy hearing, he passed a homeless man on the street and commented to his lawyer, "that man is worth more than I am right now." It was true, the homeless guy with a tin cup and sign, had more 'wealth' than Donald Trump... did he give up and join the guy in the street? He could have, but that wasn't the choice he made, he slowly began to rebuild his fortune, and did. Someone asked him later, was it easier to get rich the first time or the second time, and he said... the second time, because he knew he could do it. Again, it comes down to motivation of the individual... some people have it, some people don't.
It comes down to knowing how to do it along with luck and circumstance. I have previously related my own circumstance and luck that was having purchased properties in a “depressed” area and, unknown to me at the time, a few years later developers moved in and the prices soared. Was it my motivation? No. Was it my Real Estate knowledge? No. Was it anything I consciously did? No.
While not wealthy it definitely moved me from lower middle class to upper middle class. It offered me the opportunity to invest in a business and, best of all, Johnny’s dream became reality.
Then there’s the other side of the coin which is the previous owner of one of the properties had purchased it over 10 years prior and sold it to me for 5% less than what they paid. If they had held on for two more years they would have sold it for 50% more and if they held it for another couple of years they would have almost tripled their money.
Were they unmotivated? Lazy? Did they lack initiative? Or were they just not lucky?
Many people don't buy health insurance. A lot of people don't like taking charity, they were raised to believe that was unacceptable. But that doesn't change the facts I presented. And it's much better to have a million charities spread out across America, who know the people in the community, and know who needs help and who is a scam artist, than to have one impersonal centralized charity group in Washington D.C.
Unfortunately, people are prejudice. Do you honestly believe groups of people in small towns are going to treat every needy person equally?
Again, what planet did you say you’re from?
I've always been for empowerment programs. And I have never been for welfare, where we imprison someone to a life of destitution for the promise of a monthly check. Another $20 a month on their check, is not going to change their situation, especially if they lack the motivation mentioned before. But that is exactly the sort of solution you have in mind... keep tossing the poor people a few crumbs, because they are hopelessly stupid and unable to do anything about it. I believe in people, I think they CAN do something about it, they just need motivation. Now.... it may sound harsh, but when you cut off the supply of money, that's a pretty good motivator for most people. It may be tough love, but it works.
No, $20.00 extra will not change much. However, training programs and a physical check-up would be a great start. Changing to a balanced diet rather than noodles and hot dogs, being all they can afford, would go a long way to increasing their motivation.
For every dollar you pay in taxes, about $0.15 actually goes to "help" someone. The majority of the money goes to bureaucrats and expense of running the agencies. The "help" you end up giving, is nothing more than an enabler... something to keep them from becoming motivated. Consequently, people living on welfare can't go out and earn extra income, it disqualifies them from welfare if they do. So they are stuck, imprisoned to a life of poverty and destitution, BECAUSE of welfare. Is that HELP? Wouldn't it be better to raise them up from poverty and encourage their motivation to succeed? To give them something to do again, so they can begin to believe in themselves?
And why does earning a few extra dollars disqualify them? Because just like the example I gave about collecting unemployment and being forbidden to attend courses people are so afraid someone is getting something for nothing. The help is miserly given and the people receiving help are disparaged. That sure aids in motivating people, NOT!
You confuse cause and effect. People on welfare lost motivation long before they started collecting it because help came too late. After losing ones home and, frequently, ones spouse and family due to the financial crisis, as Johnny sings, “My woman done left and took all the reasons I was working for.”
The politicians are right to say entitlement programs need to be overhauled. We’re not living in the 1930s where any able-bodied person could find some form of employment. Our technological advancements have changed how society functions and social programs need to adapt to the new reality.
When a company closes and a thousand people in a community are put out of work it’s ridiculous to think there are a thousand other jobs available and those unemployed are just lazy.
As large corporations merge resulting in one corporation owning multiple businesses the closing or reorganization of one corporation affects many people. That is the new reality and the government has to adapt to that. It’s no longer a farm hand being laid off or a helper at the local hardware store and they being able to find another low skilled job. And as machines have taken over many low skilled jobs it’s obvious there are fewer jobs available.
From the assembly line worker to the data entry clerk to the inventory counter at large stores they are becoming as obsolete as the buggy whip maker.
Lastly, the whole purpose of technology is to reduce man’s need to labor. Just as Ford’s assembly line and mass production resulted in fewer people required to produce sufficient goods that trend has grown. Maybe 10% unemployment is the new normal. Logic dictates if machines/technology can produce sufficient goods there won’t be jobs for everyone because there won’t be any need for everyone to work.
The only way to deal with the change is by government taking a role. Society has to have some form of balance. As we progress there will be less and less of a requirement for everyone to work. That’s the whole point of progress.
We can’t expect people to embrace progress if it means the people replaced by progress (machines, technologies, etc) are looked down upon and considered lazy.
It’s like what Obama frequently referred to as tired, worn out ideas. People are still thinking 20th century thoughts in the 21st century. It’s time to get with the program, the social program!