2006-10-22 05:17:41 · 5 answers · asked by Anonymous in Politics & Government ➔ Politics
I find it ironic that the government can give HUGE amount of humanitarian aid, including teaching certain people how to utilize the land and sustainable farming techniques. In some countries there is even Job corps training. In our own land however, all funding for that sort of thing has been cut. No longer can the woman that lost her husband turn toward welfare to help her with food and financial resources, while at the same time training her in a competitive field, allowing her to become completely independant of welfare. Now the system tells you "you've got five years-- go get a job, ANY job--even if it is a minimum wage job you have no hope of sustaining your family on in the long run, and when your five years is up--you are on your own." Now don't get me wrong--I am all for welfare limitations (as far as duration of benefits is concerned), but when you eliminate the vocational training aspect, all you do is increase the likelihood of our homeless and poverty stricken increasing as a class. Which from what I have seen has been exactly the case. As far as aid to the average citizen, I think healthcare should be a top priority. The Pharmiceutical Industry and the Bio-technic field (medical supply etc.) has prices so high that Jim and Jane Smith down the street don't have a prayer of being able to realistically afford medications in the long run with out quality healthcare...but enough ranting.
2006-10-22 05:39:33 · answer #1 · answered by Katie 4 · 2⤊ 0⤋
While I think it's ridiculous to go the Republican route and brand all social programs as "socialism" or "communism," I'm as down on welfare as the most heartless GOP groupie. At least in its current state. It should be a safety net, not a way of life, and we shouldn't be paying the bottom of the genetic barrel to sit around popping kids out for government cheese.
Affirmative Action? I can see why it still needs to be in place, but it needs to be constantly reviewed. This is another program that tends to fail of its purpose and make a travesty of itself when its left to the bureaucracy for too long.
We should definitely increase performance-based government scholarships and grants for higher education.
Emergency relief should be fast and effective but not long-term - again, a safety net. The general idea with all these sorts of programs is that they should be "safety nets." People who simply can't remain on their own two feet without constant assistance should not be allowed to subsist forever on our largesse, but we do need to ensure that people who serve a function in our society can be helped back to their feet after disaster strikes.
2006-10-22 12:30:51 · answer #2 · answered by jonjon418 6 · 1⤊ 0⤋
REPUBLICANS: Why should a governmet of the people, by the people, and for the people not aid its citizens whenever possible?
Stick that in yer ditto pipe and SSSSSSSSSmoke it.
2006-10-22 12:22:37 · answer #3 · answered by Anonymous · 3⤊ 1⤋
I agree with Jerry but also medical and dental too.
2006-10-22 12:21:41 · answer #4 · answered by marilyn b 3 · 1⤊ 1⤋
it should ensure that nobody starves or freezes to death
2006-10-22 12:20:00 · answer #5 · answered by jerrytherobot 2 · 2⤊ 0⤋