Then why doesn't he raise the wage to a lawyers wage....say $350/hr.?? Then everyone can be rich! Right???? Isn't that how a Democrat would think?
I gave a derro $50 once. He was flabbergasted. I don't think I could make any meaningful difference by volunteering for community services.
Explain why you think allowing even more millions of unskilled laborers into the USA and importing massive amounts of foreign sweatshop labor goods helps unions or American labor?
Which countries were in the first world and are now third world because they stopped welfare? Quickly professor
I must be mistaken, but I thought Mom and Dad supplied children with healthcare, housing and food. Oh.....you must think we must be a "nanny state".
I think a better question would have been, "should people earning less than $100,000 a year be tax exempt?" Because we wouldn't need any of these social-assistance programs if working individuals could afford the cost of living.
No, because it shouldn't be theirs to give. The US government should provide the means for individuals and corporations to make wealth. It should be up to churches, private groups and individuals to provide welfare and charity. This nonsense began with FDR, accelerated with LBJ, and reached its zenith with Obama. Time for modern government to get out of the welfare business. Those who want freebies can leave the US. It's called immigration.
Since the government does help poor people, this poll is only theoretical and has no actual relevance to reality in the USA.
People need to obtain a skill to help them get away from welfare dependency, so I believe welfare should come with drug testing and mandatory trade school.
The biggest welfare recipient in the US is the Government. We call it taxes, but those taxes are government entitlements (i.e. welfare).
Plenty of people come up with "skills" to get out of welfare dependency. The problem is that unless you're a recognized pharmaceutical company getting regulated by the FDA, it's illegal.
Well I'm glad you didn't criticize Social Security in that since workers paid into that at a much lower earning-rate than the cost of living they are expected to support themselves in their golden years (yet the government still thinks it's "their" free nest-egg). Federal workers range from $25,000 a year to $300,000 a year (though life-time pensions for Congress are extreme). But as far as the cost of Healthcare itself, that's determined by billionaire lobbies in the pharmaceutical industry and out of control tuition-rates. If someone needs a band-aid, then give 'em a band-aid, just don't charge them $5,000 for it.
I voted yes, but the option was a little too absolute and vague. It's a fact of life, that there are some people who can't fend for themselves - mentally challenged, etc. I would ask those who vote NO, how they want to deal with these people? In Japan, they remove them from society (of course, this still requires government funding).
This country has freedom of Religion. Does your statement mean that you voted NO, and that you think the churches should take care of the mentally ill, unemployed, emotionally unstable, etc.?
