Tweet
I really liked this commentary. When In worked as a cashier throughout college I noticed that a lot of the people I served who were using food stamps and WIC were in uniform. I always thought it was pretty unjust that anyone in the military would have low enough wages that they require food stamps to get by.
-
I really liked this commentary. When In worked as a cashier throughout college I noticed that a lot of the people I served who were using food stamps and WIC were in uniform. I always thought it was pretty unjust that anyone in the military would have low enough wages that they require food stamps to get by. -
I think the quote that makes this article is "The fact remains anyone at a certain income level can find it difficult from time to time to pay for everything."
I feel the biggest misunderstanding/difference of opinoin between conservatives and liberals revolves around that statement.
What defines "from time to time"?
6 months, 2 yrs, 5 yrs, what does it take to get back on your feet? Does collecting a check without having to work for it help you get back on your feet? I say no.
If our Democrat run White House and Senate would push for New Deal ideas like FDR putting people back to work for pay I would be thrilled. Doesnt seem to be an idea Democrats support anymore.
Also the article also states that Military pay might be shameful.......it is. -
Ever since welfare reform in the 90's there has been a requirement that if you are collecting cash benefits you have to be either working or actively looking for work (and you must provide proof). Many people are exempt from that requirement due to age or disability, but anyone who is able bodied is expected and required to work. States have the ability to set further requirements above and beyond what is required on a federal level, and many do.
Personally I don't think that pushing people to take any job they are offered (another requirement) is the best way to combat poverty. If someone has to take a low wage job with little to no possibility of advancement, unreliable hours and zero benefits, that is not going to get them off of benefits. It Si only reduce by a little bit the amount of benefits they receive. Not only that but they will still be living paycheck to paycheck, so their odds of needing higher levels of assistance in the future is virtually guaranteed.
I think that encouraging welfare users to gain marketable skills and education, and supporting them in doing so has far better results. A few months and a few thousand dollars of investment can mean the difference between making a living wage with some benefits, and continuing to work your ass off but not get by.
But then you also have to consider that if everyone when is currently on the welfare rolls did that there would be no one left to fill all the minimum wage jobs, and this is where the majority of our nation's job growth is coming from. There would also be a lot more demand for the jobs with higher incomes, and thus wages would suffer because people have to take whatever they can get.
Conservatives seem to really hate the minimum wage too. I say you can't have it both ways. If you want most people to be able to support themselves and their families then they need to have the means to do so. I don't think anyone should be putting in 40+ hours of hard work each week and still not be able to pay for basic necessities. So if you are against raising the minimum wage, fine, but realize that means more people will not be able to get by on the wages they get, and that gap has to be filled somehow. IMO if you want to enjoy the benefits of living in a capitalist nation you have moral duty to those on the bottom row of the pay scale who are making it possible.Comment
-
I can really relate to this one also.Comment
Comment